ensign of the never-dying Majesty of the Crown In regard of this certain and incontinent succession the Glossographer upon the Decrees noteth That the Son of a King may be called King during the life of his Father as wanting nothing but administration wherein he is followed with great applause by Baldus Paenormitane Iason Carol. Ruinus Andreas Iserna Martinus Card. Alexander Albericus Fed. Barbatius Philip Decius and Ant. Corsetta Fra. Luca Matthe Afflict And the same also doth Servius note out of Virgil where he saith of Ascanius Regemque requirunt his Father Aeneas being yet alive But so soon as the King departeth out of life the Royalty is presently transferred to the next Successour according to the Laws and Customs of our Realm All Writs go forth in his Name all course of Justice is exercised all Offices are held by his Authority all States all Persons are bound to bear to him Allegeance not under supposal of approbation when he shall be Crowned according to your dull and drousie conjecture but as being the true Soveraign King of the Realm He that knoweth not this may in regard of the affairs of our State joyn himself to St. Anthony in glorying in his ignorance and professing that he knoweth nothing Queen Mary Reigned three months before she was Crowned in which space the Duke of Northumberland and others were condemned and executed for Treason for Treason I say which they had committed before she was proclaimed Queen King Edward the first was in Palestina when his Father died in which his absence the Nobility and Prelates of the Realm assembled at London and did acknowledge him for their King In his return homeward he did homage to the French King for the lands which he held of him in France He also repressed certain Rebels of Gascoine amongst whom Gasco of Bierne appealed to the Court of the King of France where King Edward had Judgment that Gasco had committed Treason and thereupon he was delivered to the pleasure of King Edward And this hapned before his Coronation which was a year and nine months after he began to reign King Henry the sixth was crowned in the eighth year of his Reign and in the mean space not only his Subjects did both profess and bear Allegeance but the King of Scots also did swear Homage unto him What need I give any more either instance or argument in that which is the clear Law the uncontrouled custom of the Realm Against which notwithstanding your weather-beaten forehead doth not blush to oppose a blind Opinion that Heirs apparent are not true Kings although their Titles be just and their predecessors dead This you labour to prove by a few dry conjectures but especially and above all others you say because the Realm is asked three times at every Coronation whether they will have such a man to be their King or no. First we have good reason to require better proof of this question than your bare word Secondly although we admit it to be true yet seeing the answer is not made by the Estates of the Realm assembled in Parliament but by a confused concourse necessary Officers excepted of all sorts both of Age and Sex it is for Ceremony only and not of force either to give or to increase any right Another of your Arguments is for that the Prince doth first swear to Govern well and justly before the Subjects take their Oath of Allegeance which argueth that before they were not bound And further you affirm that it hapned onely to King Henry the fifth among his predecessors to have fealty done unto him before he was crowned and had taken his Oath I confess indeed that Polydore and Stow have written so but you might easily have found that they write not true the one of them being a meer stranger in our State the other a man more to be commended for endeavour than for art King Iohn being in Normandy when his Brother died sent into England Hubert Arch-bishop of Canterbury William Marshal Earl of Strigvile and Geoffry Fitzpeter Lord Chief Justice who assembled the States of the Realm at Northampton and took of them an Oath of obedience to the new King Also King Henry the Third caused the Citizens of London the Guardians of the Cinque-ports and divers others to swear fealty to Prince Edward his son who being in Palestina when his Father died the Nobility and Prelates of the Realm assembled in the new Temple at London and did acknowledge him for their King And in like manner King Edward the Third took an Oath of all the Nobility of the Realm of faith after his death to Richard Prince of Wales and so did King Henry the first for his Daughter Mawde and her young son Henry After the death of King Henry the Fifth that Subjects did often swear allegeance before the Coronation and Oath of the King you had neither Countenance nor Conscience to deny but it was neither of these two which did restrain you it proceeded onely from the force of truth which will manifest it self whatsoever art we use to disguise it For otherwise what Countenance what Conscience had you to affirm that it is expresly noted by our English Historiographers That no Allegeance is due unto Kings before they be crowned Who are these Historiographers Where do they so write You that search every dusty corner of your Brains for a few ragged reasons to uphold your Heresie should not either have mentioned or omitted such pregnant proofs For in that you affirm and do not express them you condemn your self by your own silence If you mean that which you alleadge out of Polydore and Stowe That an Oath of fealty was never made before Coronation until the time of King Henry the Fifth it is neither true nor to any such sence If you mean that of Polydore in terming Henry the Fifth Prince and not King before he was crowned in writing also that the States did consult in Parliament Of creating a new King after the custom of their Ancestors It is a sleepie jeast to strain every word in such an Author to propriety of speech You might better have cited what certain Cities in France not long since alleadged for themselves That because they had not reputed Henry the Fourth for their King because they had not professed Alleageance unto him they were not to be adjudged Rebels Whereupon notwithstanding the chiefest Lawyers of our age did resolve that forasmuch as they were original Subjects even Subjects by birth they were Rebels in bearing Arms against their King although they had never professed alleageance And this is so evidently the Law of the Realm that it is presumption in us both in you to assay by your shallow Sophistry to obscure or impugn in me to endeavour by authorities and arguments to manifest or defend the same But the admission of the people you say hath often prevailed against
were both declared and pursued by Decree of the State for publick Enemies of whom not any one either died a natural death or lived three years after it was further decreed that the Court where he was slain should be stopped up that the Ides of March should be called parricidium and that the Senate should never be assembled upon that day You say that Augustus was preferred in his place that is four and all within the compass of six Lines Augustus was never chosen Dictator Suetonius writeth that he entreated the people upon his knee not to charge him with that Office But Augustus Antonius and Lepidus did first knit in Arms by the name of Triumviri to revenge the death of Iulius Caesar whereupon a long cruel and doubtful War was set up which continued the space of twenty years first between these three and the Murtherers of Caesar then between Lepidus and the other two lastly between Augustus and Antonius and this was the sweet success of the murther of Caesar. Augustus after his Victory was made perpetual Tribune as Suetonius hath written Dio saith that he was freed from the power of the Laws as Pompey also had been before him Tacitus addeth that the people having their hearts broken with broils permitted him to rise into rule and to draw by degrees the whole Authority of the State into his hands And so it seemeth that the Royal Law was not yet established by which the people gave over their power in Government Whereupon some make good the Sentence which the Senate gave against Nero because the Soveraignty was not then by any express Act setled in the Emperour But where you bring the Succession of Vespasian as a good success of this Sentence against Nero it is a wild and witless untruth Galba succeeded next after Nero who was slain in a sedition raised by Otho Otho again was overcome in field by Vitellius whereupon he slew himself Lastly Vitellius was overthrown and slain by the Captains of Vespasian who was the fourth Emperour after Nero These Intestine Wars these open Battles fought to the full this slaughter of Emperours which you term Interludes were the immediate success after the death of Nero. You Fiends of Hell whose Voices are Lightning and Thunder whose breathing is nothing but Sword Fire Rages and Rebellions the encountring of Armies the butchery of millions of men the Massacre of Princes you account Interludes These are your pleasures these your recreations I hope all Christian-Commonwealths will bear an eye over your inclination and keep out both your persons and perswasions from turning their State into an open Stage for the acting of these Interludes You continue your base boldness in affiring that the Senate procured the death of Domitian that they requested the Souldiers to kill Heliogabalus that they invited Constantine to come and do justice upon Maxentius this broken kind of disguising is familiar unto you to make such violences as have often prevailed against excellent Princes to seem to be the act of the whole State And whereas you bring the succession of Alexander Severus for a good success of the murther of Heliogabalus being the rarest Prince you say that ever the Romans had you might have alleadged any Author in proof thereof better than Herodian who writeth of him in this manner Alexander did beaâ— the name and Ensigns of the Empire but the administration of Affairs and government of the State did rest upon women And further he writeth that by his slackness and cowardise the Roman Army was defeated by the Persians and finally that for his want of courage he was slain by his own Souldiers By this we may see that you go blindfold being so far from caring that many times you scarce know what you write Your markable Example as you term it of the change of the Empire from the West to the East from Constantine the sixth to Charles King of France doth mark out nothing more unto us than your soundred judgment The question is not what one forrain Prince may do against another but what Subjects may do against their Soveraign This is the point of controversie here you must close and not traverse about in discourses impertinent The change of the Kingdom of France from Childeric to Pepin your own Author Girard affirmeth to be both an ambitious and fraudulent usurpation wherein Pepin used the reverence of Religion as a Mantle to cover his Impiety and Rebellion The matters which he objected against Childerick were two First his insufficiency the ordinary pretence of most Rebellions but Girard saith that the ancient custom of the French was to love and honour their Kings whether sufficient or unable worthy or weak and that the name of King was esteemed sacred by whomsoever it was born Secondly he objected that his Subjects were conditionally sworn unto him and this also Girard writeth to be a forced and cautelous interpretation violently streining the words of their Oath to his advantage and indeed if the Oath of the people had been conditional what needed they to procure a Dispensation for the same This was the first act saith he whereby the Popes took occasion to set in their foot of Authority for transporting of Kingdoms from one Race to another which growing to strength hath filled all Christian Countries with confusion and tumult Likewise the change of that Kingdom from the Line of Pepin to the Line of Capet was a meer violence and intrusion and so it was acknowledged by Endes Earl of Paris the first of that Family who did usurp and for that cause he was constrained after two years reign to quit the Crown and to give place unto Charles the lawful Heir And when Robert brother unto Endes did enter into armâ— to recover that which his Brother once held he was beaten down and slain by the faithful Subjects of King Charles Hugh the son of Robert nourished this ambition but Hugh Capet his son with better both opportunity and success but no better right did accomplish the Enterprise For Girard calleth him an Usurper and Charles Duke of Lâ—â—rain the true Heir to the Crown Betweeâ— these two as in all usurpations it is usual War was raised but by the unsearchable Judgment of God the Duke of Orleans was cast to the ground And there is little doubt but if he had prevailed Orleans had beeâ— at this day a Member of the Crown of France The like answer may be given to your Example of Suintilla and this beside that the Kingdom of the Goths in Spain was not theâ— setled in succession and chiefly during the Reign of Victeric Gundemir Sisebuth Suintilla Sicenand Cinthilla and Tulca The History of Alphonso another of your Examples standeth thus Alphonso had a son call'd Ferdinand who died during the life of his father and left two young sons behind him After the death of Ferdinand his younger Brother Sancho practised with D. Lope Diaz de
Haro Lord of Biscay to procure him to be advanced to the succession of the Kingdom before his Nephews D. Lope undertook the devise and drawing some other of the Nobility to the party they so wrought with the King that in an Assembly of the States at Segovia Sancho was declared Successor and the Children of Ferdinand appointed to be kept in Prison But Sancho either impatient to linger in expectation or suspitious that his Father grew inclinable towards his Nephews made a League with Mahomed Mir King of Granado a Moor by whose aid and by the Nobility of his Faction he caused himself to be declared King Hereupon Alphonso was enforced to crave assistance of Iacob Aben Ioseph King of Morocco who before had been an Enemy to Alphonso but upon detestation of his unnatural Rebellion he sent Forces to him protesting notwithstanding that so soon as the War should be ended he would become his Enemy again So Alphonso by help partly of the Morocco Moors and partly of his Subjects which remained loyal maintained against his son both his Title and State during his life but not without extremity of bloodshed and opportunity for the Moors being assistant to both parties to make themselves more strong within the Countries of Spain For this cause Alphonso disinherited his son by his Testament and cast a cruel curse upon him and his Posterity and afterward it was ordained in an Assembly of the States holden at Tero that the Children of the elder Brother deceased should be preferred before their Uncle How then will you verifie your two points by this History First that Alphonso was deprived by a publick Act of Parliament Secondly that it turned to the great Commodity of the State It is not a million of Masses that are sufficient to satisfie for all your deceitful and malicious untruths I marvel how the Rebellion of Absolon against King David his Father escaped you Oh it wanted success and you could not easily disguise the Report You write that the Commonwealth of Spain resolving to depose Don Pedro the cruel sent for his Brother Henry out of France and required him to bring a strength of Frenchmen with him But hereby you make it plain that the Commonwealth was not fully agreed The truth is that this was a dangerous division of the State between two Concurrents some holding for Henry and some for Pedro Henry obtained forraign Assistance by the French Pedro by the English In the mean time whilst Peter was thrown out of State by the Forces of France and after that Henry by the Arms of England and again Peter dejected both from dignity and life the poor Country became a Spectacle for one of your Enterludes Your Example of Don Sancho Capello King of Portugal containeth many intollerable untruths for neither was he deprived of his dignity neither did the Pope and Council of Lions give either authority or consent that he should be deprived neither was he driven out of his Realm into Castilla neither died he in banishment neither was Alphonso his Brother King during his liâ—e These five untruths you huddle into one heap The Council of Lions wholly opposed against the deposing of Don Sancho notwithstanding many disabilities were objected against him in regard whereof they gave direction that Alphonso his Brother should be Regent of the Realm as in that case it is both usual and fit But Sancho taking this to dislike did seek Aid of the King of Castile and in that pursuit ended his life without Issue whereby the right of Succession devolved to Alphonso To your Examples of Greek Emperours I will answer by your words which are That for the most part they came not orderly to the Crown but many times the means thereof were tribulent and seditious The deposing of Henry King of Polonia I acknowledge to be both true and just I have nothing to except against it When the Crown of France did descend unto him he forsook Polonia and refused to return again to that swaggering Government whereupon they did depose him Give us the like case and you shall be allowed the like proceeding but you esteem your Examples by tale and not by touch being not much unlike a certain mad Fellow in Athens who imagined every Ship which was brought into the Haven to be his For whatsoever you find of a King deposed you lay claim unto it as both lawfully done and pertaining to your purpose whereas one of these doth always fail Concerning your two Examples one of Sweden and the other of Denmark I shall have occasion to speak hereafter The Nobility of those Countries pretend that their Kings are not Soveraign but that the power in highest matters of State pertaineth unto them If it be thus the Examples are not appliable to the Question if it be otherwise then the Princes had wrong We are now come to our domestical Examples the first whereof is that of King Iohn who was deposed by the Pope you say at the suit of his own people All this people was the Archbishop of Canterbury the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Ely at whose complaint the Pope did write to Philip King of France that he should expel King Iohn out of his Realm If not Conscience if not ordinary Honesty pure Shame should have drawn you to another form of writing He was also deprived you say afterwards by his Barons Hâ—avy Beast call you this a Deprivation The Commons were never called to consent the Clergy were so opposite to those that stood in Arms against King Iohn that they procured Excommunication against them first â—â—â—â—câ—ally then by name lastly Lewes the French Kings son was also included Of the Nâ—bâ—lity which is onely the third State of the Realm I make no doubt but some reserved themselves to be guided by success others and namely the Earls of Warren Arundel Chester Pembrooke Ferrers Salisbury and divers Barons did openly adhere unto King Iohn You may as well call any other Rebellion a Deprivation as affirm that the rest either did or might deprive him And whereas you bring in King Henry the Third as a most worthy Successor after this Deprivation I will derogate nothing from his worthiness but there was never King in England who without concurrent in the Title of the Crown did draw more bloud out of the sides of his Subjects Your second Example is of King Edward the Second whom many of our Histories report to be of a good and courteous nature and not unlearned imputing his defects rather to Fortune than either to counsel or carriage of his Affairs His Deposition was a violent fury led by a Wife both cruel and unchast and can with no better countenance of right be justified than may his lamentable both indignities and death which thereupon did ensue And although the Nobility by submitting themselves to the government of his Son did break those occasions of Wars which do usually rise upon such Disorders yet did not the hand