affirmeth that they are cherished by God Your self do shew out of Aristotle Seneca Plutarch S. Hierome S. Chrysostome and S. Peter that Monarchy is the most exeellent and perfect Government most resembling the Government of God and most agreeable unto Nature But what do you mean to acknowledge all this and yet to deny that Monarchy is natural do you take it to be above Nature or how else is it most excellent and perfect how is it most agreeable to Nature and yet not natural can any Action be most agreeable to Justice and yet not just I know not by what stratagem or cunning crank of the Schools you can be made agreable to your self But now if we consider the general custom of all people we shall find that all the antient Nations in whom the Laws of Nature were least corrupt had no other Government as the Assyrians Medes Persans Parthians Indians Scythians Sirians Phaenicians Arabians Aegyptians Africans Numidians Mauritanians Britans Celtes Gaules Latines Hetruscanes Sicilians Athenians Lacaedemonians Corinthians Achaeans Sicyonians Candians and in one word all Tullie saith it is certain that all antient Nations were under Kings with whâ—ch opinion Salust consenteth and Iustine also where he saith the Empire of Nations at the first was in the Hands of Kings And when the People of Israel desired a King they alledged that all other Nations were governed by Kings The Athenians were the first as Plinie affirmeth who set up the Government of many whose example certain other Towns of Greece did follow rather blinded by ambition then led by Judgment Among these if the highest Authority were in the least part of the Citizens it was called Aristocracy if in the most or in all it was termed Democracy wherein you confess that neither they did nor could any long time continue but after many Tumults Seditions Mutinies Outrages Injusticies banding of factions and inundations of blood they were in the end either dissolved or vanquished and reduced again under Government of one The state of Rome began under Kings it attained the highest pitch both of Glory and Greatness under Emperors in the middle time wherein it never inâ—oyed x. years together free from sedition Polybius saith that it was mixed the Consuls representing a Monarchy the Senate an Aristrocacy and the common People a Democracy which opinion was likewise embraced by Dionysius Halicarnasseus Cicero Cantarine and others But many do hold that the State of Rome at that time was popular which seemeth to be confirmed by the famous Lawyer and Counseller Vlpian where he saith that the People did grant all their Power and Authority to the Prince Whatsoever it was in show in very deed it was always governed by some one principal Man Livie writeth of Scipio that under his shadow the City was protected and that his looks were in stead of Laws and likewise of Papirius cursor that he sustained the Roman affairs So said Thucidides that Athens was in appearance popular but Aristides was the true Monarch thereof and Plutarch also affirmeth that Pelopidas and Epaminondas were no less then Lords of the popular State of Thebes but after the death of these Men both the States of Athens and Thebes floated in Tumults as the same Author observeth like a ship in a Tempest without a Pilot. So did Peter Sodarine â—onfalonier of Florence give forth that the title of popularity was used as a mask to shadow the Tyranny of Laurence Medices but florence did never so flourish both in honor wealth and quiet as under that Tyranny Also in actions of weight in great dangers and necessities the Romans had recourse to one absolute and supreme Commander which Livie calleth the highest refuge whose Authority as the Romans did most reverently respect so was it many times fearful to their Enemies Of the first Livie saith the Dâ—ctators edict was always observed as an Oracle of the second so soon as a Dictator was created such a Terror came upon the Enemies that they departed presently from the walls Likewise in cases of extremity the Lacedemonians had their high Governor whom they called Harmostes the Thessalonians had their Archos and the Mytileans also their great Aezymnetes Lastly Tacitus reporteth that certain wise men discoursing of the like of Augustus after his death affirmed rightly that there was no other mean to appease the discords of the state but by reducing it under the Government of one Let us now take a view of our present age In all Asia from whence Tully saith civility did first spread into other parts of the World no Government is in use but by a Monarch as appeareth by the Tartarians Turks Persians Indians Chinans and Catajans no other Government is found to be founded in all the Countries of Affrick in America also and all the west parts of the World no other is yet discovered Europe only upon either declining or change of the Empire a few Towns in Germany and Italy did revive again the Government of many some are already returned to a Monarchy and the residue in their time will do the like even as all others have done which have been before them What then shall we say of this so antient so continual so general consent of all Nations what can we say but conclude with Tertullian these testimonies the more true the more simple the more simple the more common the more common the more natural the more natural the more divine But because ambition is a most fiery affection and carrieth men blindfold into headlong hopes whereby many do aspire to bear rule neither they good nor with any good either means or end the Custom or Law of Nations hath by two Reigns endeavored to keep in this raging desire by succession and by election And yet again because election is most often if not always entangled with many inconveniences as first for that the outragies during the vacancy are many and great every one that is either grieved or in want assuming free power both for revenge and spoile Secondly for that the bouldest winneth the garland more often than the best because the favor of the People doth always tast more of affection than of judgment Thirdly for that they who do not leave their state to their posterity will dissipate the demain and work out of it either profit or friends for so we see that the empire of Germany is pluckt bare of her fairest feathers Fourthly for that occasions of war are hereby ministred and that either when one taketh his repulse for indignity upon which ground Francis the first King of France could never be driven out of practise against Charles the 5. emperor or else when by means of factions many are elected as it happenâ—d in Almaine when Lewes of Baviâ—r and Albert of Austria were elected Emperors whereupon eight years war between them did ensue and as it often happened in the Empire of Rome when one Emperor was chosen by the Senate and another
the other Let us compare then your boisterous Doctrine with that of the Apostles and ancient Fathers of the Church and we shall find that the one is like the rough Spirit which hurled the herd of Swine headlong into the Sea the other like the still and soft Spirit which talked with Elias Neither was the Devil ever able until in late declining times to possess the hearts of Christians with these cursed Opinions which do evermore beget a world of Murders Rapes Ruines and Desolations For tell me what if the Prince whom you perswade the People they have power to depose be able to make and maintain his Party as King Iohn and King Henry the Third did against their Barons What if other Princes whom it doth concern as well in honour to see the Law of Nations observed as also in policy to break those proceedings which may form Presidents against themselves do adjoyn to the side What if whilst the Prince and the People are as was the Frog and the Mouse in the heat of their Encounter some other Potentate play the Kite with them both as the Turk did with the Hungarians Is it not then a fine piece of policy which you do plot or is it not a gross errour to raise these dangers and to leave the defence to possibilities doubtful Go to Sirs go to there is no Christian Country which hath not by your devices been wrapped in Wars You have set the Empire on float with Bloud your Fires in France are not yet extinguished in Polonia and all those large Countries extending from the North to the East you have caused of late more Battels to be fought than had been in five hundred years before Your practices have heretofore prevailed against us of late years you have busied your selves in no one thing more than how to set other Christian Princes on our necks stirring up such store of Enemies against us as like the Grashoppers of Egypt might fill our houses and cover our whole land and make more doubt of room than of resistance Our own people also you have provoked to unnatural attempts you have exposed our Country as a Prey to them that will either invade or betray it supposing belike that you play Christ's part well when you may say as Christ did Think not that I came to send peace I came not to send peace but a sword But when by the power and providence of God all these attempts have rather shewn what good hearts you bear towards us than done us any great harm when in all these practices you have missed the mark now you do take another aim Now having no hope by extremity of Arms you endeavour to execute your malice by giving dangerous advice Now you go about to entangle us with Titles which is the greatest misery that can fall upon a State You pretend fair shews of Liberty and of Power Sed timeo Danaos dona ferentes We cannot but suspect the Courtesies of our Enemies The Power which you give us will pull us down the Liberty whereof you speak will fetter us in Bondage When Themistocles came to the Persian Court Artabanus Captain of the Guard knowing that he would use no Ceremony to their King kept him out of presence and said unto him You Grecians esteem us barbarous for honouring our Kings but we Persians esteem it the greatest honour to us that can be The like Answer will we frame unto you You Iesuits account it a bondage to be obedient unto Kings but we Christians account it the greatest means for our continuance both free and safe An Answer to the third Chapter which is intituled Of the great Reverence and respect due to Kings and yet how divers of them have been lawfully chastised by their Common-wealths for their misgovernment and of the good and prosperous success that God commonly hath given to the same and much more to the putting back of an unworthy Pretender THat Princes may be chastised by their Subjects your proofs are two One is drawn from certain Examples the other from the good success and Successors which usually have followed Surely it cannot be but that you stand in a strong conceit either of the authority of your Word or simplicity of our Judgment otherwise you could not be perswaded by these slender Threads to draw any man to your Opinion Of the force of Examples I have spoken before there is no Villany so vile which wanteth example and yet most of the Examples which you do bring are either false or else impertinent For there have been divers States wherein one hath born the name and title of King without power of Majesty As the Romans in the time of their Consular Estate had always a Priest whom they entitled King whose office consisted in certain Ceremonies and Sacrifices which in former times could not be performed but by their Kings Likewise the Lacedemonians after Lycurgus had formed their Government retained two Kings who had no greater stroke in matters of State than a single Voice as other Senators Such were in Caesars time many petty Kings of Gaul who as Ambiorix King of Leige confessed were subject to their Nobility and questionable by them Such are now the Emperours of Almain because the Puissance and Majesty of the Empire pertaineth to the States who are sworn to the Empire it self and not to the person of the Emperour Such are also the Dukes of Venice the Soveraignty of which State is setled in the Gentlemen In these and such-like Governments the Prince is not Soverain but subject to that part of the Commonwealth which retaineth the Royalty and Majesty of State whether it be the Nobility or Common People and therefore your Examples drawn from them is nothing to our purpose Concerning success it cannot be strange unto you that by the secret yet just Judgement of God divers evil actions are carried with appearance of good success The Prophet David said that his treadings had almost slip't by seeing the wicked to flourish in prosperity The Prophet Ieremiah seemed also to stagger upon this point and it hath always been a dangerous stone in the way of the Godly whereat many have stumbled and some fallen Besides it ordinarily happeneth that good Princes succeed Tyrants partly because they are so indeed as being instructed to a better manage of Government both by the miserable life of their Predecessors and by the ugly infamy which remaineth after their death partly because by means of the Comparison they both seem and are reported to be far better than they are Hereupon Lampridius saith of Alexander Severus I may also say that Alexander was a good Prince by fear for that Heliogabalus his Predecessor was both an evil Prince and also massacred and slain Seeing therefore the reason is so manifest wherefore good Princes should succeed Tyrants is it not rashness is it not impudence is it not impiety for us to wade with unclean feet into God's
hold it more worthy to be considered that these disorders spent England a sea of bloud In the end you conclude that all these deprivations of Princes were lawful Nay by your favour if you sweat out your brains you shall never evince that a fact is lawful because it is done Yes you say for otherwise two great inconveniences would follow One that the acts of those that were put in their place should be void and unjust The other that none who now pretend to these Crowns could have any Title for that they descended from them who succeeded those that were deprived You deserve now to be basted with words well steeped in Vinegar and Salt but I will be more charitable unto you and leave bad speeches to black mouths For the first the possession of the Crown purgeth all defects and maketh good the acts of him that is in Authority although he wanteth both capacity and right And this doth Vlpian expresly determine upon respect as he saith to the common good For the other point the Successors of an Usurper by course and compass of time may prescribe a right if they who have received wrong discontinue both pursuit and claim Panormitaneâ— saith Successor in Dignitate potest praescribere non abstante vitio sui Praedecessoris A Successor in Dignity may prescribe notwithstanding the fault of his Predecessor Otherwise causes of War should be immortal and Titles perpetually remain uncertain Now then for summary collection of all that you have said your Protestations are good your Proofs light and loose your Conclusions both dangerous and false The first doth savour of God the second of Man the third of the Devil An Answer to the fourth Chapter which beareth title Wherein consisteth principally the lawfulness of proceeding against Princes which in the former Chapter is mentioned What interest Princes have in their Subjects goods or lives How Oaths do bind or may be broken of Subjects towards their Princes and finally the difference between a good King and a Tyrant HEre you close with Bellaie upon two points First whether a King is subject to any Law Secondly whether all Temporalities are in propriety the King's But because these questions do little pertain to our principal Controversie I will not make any stay upon them it sufficeth that we may say with Seneca Omnia Rex imperio possidel singuli domino The King hath Empire every man his particular propriety in all things After this you proceed further to make ood that the Princes before-mentioned were lawfully deposed and that by all Law both Divine and Humane Natural National and Positive Your cause is so bad that you have need to set a bold countenance upon it But what Divine Laws do you alleadge You have largely before declared you say that God doth approve the form of Government which every Commonwealth doth choose as also the Conditions and Statutes which it doth appoint unto her Prince I must now take you for a natural lyar when you will not forbear to belye your self you never proved any such matter and the contrary is evident that sometimes entire Governments often Customs and Statutes of State and very commonly accidental actions are so unnatural and unjust that otherwise than for a punishment and curse we cannot say that God doth approve them We have often heard that the Church cannot erre in matters of Faith but that in matter of Government a Common-wealth cannot erre it was never I assure my self published before But let us suppose supposal is free that God alloweth that form of Government which every Commonwealth doth choose Doth it therefore follow that by all Divine Laws Princes may be deposed by their Subjects These broken pieces will never be squared to form strong argument But wherefore do not you produce the Divine Canons of Scripture Surely they abhor to speak one word in your behalf yea they do give express sentence against you as I have shewed before Well let this pass among your least escapes in making God either the Author or Aider of Rebellion you alleadge no other Humane Law but that Princes are subject to Law and Order I will not deny but there is a duty for Princes to perform But how prove you that their Subjects have power to depose them if they fail In this manner As the Common-wealth gave them their Authority for the common good so it may also take the same away if they abuse it But I have manifested before both that the people may so grant away their Authority that they cannot resume it and also that few Princes in the world hold their State by grant of the people I will never hereafter esteem a mans valour by his voice Your brave boast of all Laws Divine Humane Natural National and Positive is dissolved into smoak You busie your self as the Poets write of Morpheus in presenting shadows to men asleep But the chiefest reason you say the very ground foundation of all Soft What reason what ground if you have already made proof by all Laws Humane and Divine Natural National and Positive what better reason what surer ground will you bring Tush these interruptions The chiefest reason you say the very ground and foundation of all is that the Commonwealth is superiour to the Prince and that the Authority which the Prince hath is not absolute but by the way of mandate and commission from the Common-wealth This is that which I expected all this time you have hitherto approached by stealing steps you are now come close to the wall do but mount into credit and the fort is your own You affirmed at the first that Princs might be deposed for disability then for misgovernment now upon pleasure and at will For they who have given authority by commission do always retain more than they grant and are not excluded either from Commanding or Judging by way of prevention concurrence or evocation even in those cases which they have given in charge The reason is declared by Vlpian Because he to whom Iurisdiction is committed representeth his person who gave commission and not his own Hereupon Alexander Panormitane Innocentius and Felinus do affirm that they may cast their Commissioners out of power when they please because as Paulus saith a man can judge no longer when he forbiddeth who gave authority Further all States take denomination from that part wherein the supreme power is setled as if it be in one Prince it is called a Monarchy if in many of highest rank then it is an Aristocracy if in the people then a Democracy Whereupon it followeth if the people are superiour to the Prince if the Prince hath no power but by commission from them that then all Estates are popular for we are not so much to respect who doth execute this high Power of State as from whom immediately it is derived Hereto let us add that which you have said in another place that
the Prince hereby affected the person is both tyed and touched in honour the authority ceaseth not if performances do fail Of this sort was that which you report of Trajan who in delivering the Sword to his Governors would say If I reign justly then use it for me if otherwise then use it against me But where you adde that these are the very same words in effect which Princes do use at their Coronations pardon me for it is fit I should be moved you will find it to be a very base lye Of this nature was that also which the same Trajan did to encourage his Subjects to do the like in taking an Oath to observe the Laws which Pliny the younger did account so strange as the like before had not been seen But afterward Theodoric did follow that fact whereupon Cassiodorus saith Ecce Trajani nostri clarum seculis reparamus exemplum jurat vobis per quem juratis We repair the famous example of Trajan he sweareth to you by whom you swear So when King Henry the Fifth was accepted for Successor to the Crown of France he made promise to maintain the Parliament in the liberties thereof And likewise divers Princes do give their faith to maintain the priviledges of the Church and not to change the Laws of the Realm which Oath is interpreted by Baldus Panormitane and Alexander to extend no further than when the Laws shall be both profitable and just because Justice and the common benefit of Subjects is the principal point both of the Oath and Duty of a Prince whereto all other clauses must be referred And now to your Examples First because in all the rank of the Hebrew Kings you cannot find either Condition or Oath not in the ancient Empires and Kingdoms of the world not usually in the flourishing time of the Roman State both under Heathen and Christian Emperours because these times are too pure for your purpose you fumble forth a dull Conjecture That forsomuch as the first Kings were elected by the People it is like that they did it upon conditions and assurances for themselves That the first Kings received not their Authority from the people I have manifested before and yet your inference hereupon is no other than if you should sue in some Court for a Legacy alleadging nothing for your intent but that it is like the Testator should leave you something in which case it is like I suppose that your Plea would be answered with a silent scorn After a few loose Speeches which no man would stoop to gather together you bring in the example of Anastasius the first Emperour of Constantinople of whom the Patriarch Euphemius required before his Coronation a Confession of the Faith in writing wherein he should promise to innovate nothing And further he promised to take away certain Oppressions and to give Offices without money Let us take things as they are and not speak upon idle imagination but agreeable to sence What either Condition or Restraint do you find in these words Condition they do not form because in case of failance they do not make the Authority void neither do they make Restraint because they contain no point whereunto the Law of God did not restrain him All this he was bound to perform without an Oath and if he were a thousand times sworn he was no more but bound to perform it even as if a Father should give his word to cloath and feed his Child or the Husband to love his Wife or any man to discharge that duty which God and Nature doth require It is true that Anastasius was both a wicked man and justly punished by God for the breach of his Faith but his Subjects did never challenge to be free therefore from their Allegiance The same Answer may be given to the Promise which Michael the first gave to Nicephorus the Patriarch That he would not violate the Ordinances of the Church nor embrue his hands with innocent bloud especially if you take the word Ordinances for matters necessary to be believed but if you take it in a larger sence then have I also declared in the beginning of this Chapter how far the Promise doth extend Your next Example is of the Empire of Almain from whence all that you object doth fall within this circle After the death of Charles the Great the Empire was held by Right of Succession until his Line was determined in Conrade the First After whose death it became Elective first in Henry Duke of Saxony then in Otho his son and afterwards in the rest from whom notwithstanding no other promise was wrested but the discharge of that duty which they were informed or rather threatned that God would severely exact at their hands But as in all Elective States it usually happeneth at every new change and choice the Emperour was deplumed of some of his Feathers until in the end he was made naked of Authority the Princes having drawn all power to themselves So by degrees the Empire was changed from a Monarchy to a pure Aristocracy the Emperour bearing the Title thereof but the Majesty and Puissance remaining in the States During which weakness of the Emperour some points were added to his Oath which seemed to derogate from the soveraignty of his estate But what is this to those Princes who have retained their dignity without any diminution either of Authority or of Honour The like may be said of Polonia which not many hundred years since was erected into a Kingdom and although the States did challenge therein a right of Election yet did it always pass according to propinquity of bloud and was esteemed a soveraign Monarchy until after the death of Casimire the Great when Lodovicus his Nephew King of Hungary rather greedy than desirous to be King also of Polonia did much abase the Majesty thereof Yet falling afterward into the Line of Iagello who married one of the daughters of Lodowiek it recovered the ancient both dignity and strength But when that Line also failed in Sigismond Augustus the last Male of that Family the States elected Henry Duke of Anjou for their King with this clause irritant That if he did violate any point of his Oath the people should owe him no Allegiance But whereas you report this as the usual Oath of the Kings of Polonia you deserve to hear the plainest term of untruth In the Kingdom of Spain you distinguish two times one before the Conquest thereof by the Moors the other after it was recovered again by the Christians I acknowledge a difference in these two times for that in the one the Right of the Kingdom was Elective in the other it hath always remained Successive insomuch as Peter Belluga a diligent Writer of the Rights of Arragon doth affirm that the people have no power in electâ—on of the King except in case the Line should fail Concerning the matter in controversie you affirm that the Kings did swear
hath dependency upon the People I have sufficiently encountred before And if your Consequence were true That whosoever is Judge of a thing is Judge also without controllment of the Cause if this were as agreeable to all Laws as you seem to believe then were all Judgments arbitrary then could no Appeal be interposed for giving Sentence without just Cause then were it false which Panormitan writeth that a false Cause expressed in a Sentence maketh it void What shall I say What do you think Do you think that these fat Drops of a greasie Brain can bring the Tenure of a Crown to the Will of the People What are you who endeavour thus boldly to abuse both our Judgment and Conscience Are you Religious Are you of Civil either Nature or Education who under the name of Civilian do open the way to all manner of Deceits Perjuries Tumults and Treasons What are you For you shew your self more prophane than Infidels more barbarous than Canibals Tartarians Moors and Mammelucks who though they please themselves in nothing more than Hatred and Contempt yet do they both love and honour their Kings I see what you are the very true Follower of the Anabaptists in Germany who openly professed That they must ruinate the State of Kings And who can assure us for your corrupt Dealings make all Suspicions credible that you do not also follow them both in Desire and Hope to embrace the Monarchy of the whole World The difference between you is this They pretended Revelation for then Warrant you work by deceitful shew of Reason by falsly either alledging or wresting or corrupting both Humane and Divine Authority In what miserable condition should Princes live if their State depended upon the Pleasure of the People in whom Company taketh away Shame and every Man may lay the Fault on his Fellow How could they command Who would obey What could they safely either do or omit Who knows a People that knoweth not that sudden Opinion maketh them hope which if it be not presently answered they fall into Hate chusing and refusing erecting and overthrowing as every Wind of Passion doth puff What steddiness in their Will or Desire which having so many Circles of Imagination can never be enclosed in one Point And whereas you write That God always approveth the Will and Judgment of the People as being properly the Judge of the whole Business and that every particular Man must simply submit himself thereunto without further inquisition although at divers times they determine Contraries as they did between the Houses of Lancaster and York because we must presume they were led by different Respects You seem not obscurely to erect thereby another privileged Power upon Earth which cannot err which doth not deceive But it may be some honest-minded Man will say That howsoever you write your meaning was otherwise You write also afterward That in two Cases every Private Man is bound to resist the Judgment of the whole People to the uttermost extent of his Ability Well then let us take you for a Man whose Sayings disagree both from your Meaning and between themselves let us consider what are your two Exceptions The first is when the Matter is carried not by way of orderly Judgment but by particular Faction of Private Men who will make offer to determine the Cause without Authority of the Realm committed unto them But this Exception is so large that it devoureth the whole Rule for in Actions of this quality the Original is always by Faction the Accomplishment by Force or at least by Fear howsoever they are sometimes countenanced with Authority of the State So Sylla having brought his Legions within the Walls of Rome obtained the Law Valeria to be published whereby he was created Dictator for twenty four Years by means of which Force Cicero affirmeth that it was no Law Likewise Lawrence Medices having an Army within Florence caused or rather constrained the Citizens to elect him Duke When Henry the Fourth was chosen King he held Forty thousand Men in Arms. And this is most evident by your own Example of four contrary Acts of Parliament which at divers times were made during the Contention between the Families of Lancaster and York not upon different Reasons as with little reason you affirm but upon different Success of either Side In Matters of this moment the orderly Course of Proceeding is onely by Parliament The Parliament must be summoned by the King 's Writ and no Act thereof hath Life but by express Consent of the King If this Form had always been observed neither our Kings should have been deposed nor the next Successors excluded nor the Title of the Crown entangled to the inestimable both weakning and waste of all the Realm Your second Exception is When such a Man is preferred to the Crown by whom God is manifestly offended and the Realm prejudiced or endangered In which Case you say every Man with a free and uncontrolled Conscience may resist what he can It was even here I looked for you Your broyling Spirits do nothing else but fling Firebrands and heap on Wood to set Kingdoms in Combustion What Rebellion what Revolt hath ever been made but under some of these Pretences What Princes Actions either by malicious or ignorant Interpretation may not easily be drawn to one of these Heads You are a Nursery of War in the Commonwealth a Seminary of Schism and Division in the Church In sum All your Actions all your Thoughts are barbarous and bloody You write much of Right and Justice but you measure the Right and Justice of a Cause by the Advantage of your own Affairs You speak as having a tender sense of the Glory of God but you stretch out your Throat with high Words of Contradiction against him You make shew of Care to preserve the State but you are like the Ivy which seemeth outwardly both to embrace and adorn the Wall whereinto inwardly it doth both eat and undermine For what Means either more ready or forcible to overthrow a State than Faction and intestine Quarrels And what other Milk do you yield What are your Opinions what your Exhortations but either to set or to hold up Sedition and Bloodshed St. Paul teacheth us not to resist higher Powers although both cruel and prophane you teach us to resist them what we can The Apostle is followed of all the Ancient Fathers of the Church you are followed of those onely who follow the Anabaptists For my part I had rather err with the Apostle in this Opposition than hold Truth with you But I will speak more moderately in a Subject of such a nature I will not say then That I had rather err but That I shall less fear to err in not resisting with the Apostle than in resisting with you New Counsels are always more plausible than safe After you have plaid the Suffenus with your self in setting the Garland upon your own Head and making
will you say is nature immutable It is in abstracto but it is not in subjecto Or thus In it self it is not changed in us by reason of our imperfections it is Or else more plainly it is not changed but it is transgressed But nature you say is alike to all Not so good sir because all are not apt alike to receive her even as the sun beams do not reflect alike upon a clean and clear glass and upon a glass that is either filthy or course And in many not only men but nations evil custom hath driven nature out of place and setteth up it self in stead of nature Your third conclusion that no particular form of Government is natural doth not find so easie acceptance Your only proof is that if it were otherwise there should be one form of Government in all Nations because God and nature is one to all But this reason I have encountred before and yet you take pains to puff it up with many wast words how the Romans changed Government how in Italy there is a Pope a King and many Dukes how Millaine Burgundie Loraine Bavier Gascoine and Britain the less were changed from Kingdoms to Dukedoms how Germany was once under one King and is now divided among Dukes Earles and other supreme Princes How Castile Aragone Portugall Barcelona and other countries in Spain were first Earldoms then Dukedoms then several Kingdoms and now are united into one how Boeme and Polonia were once Dukedoms and now are Kingdoms how France was first one Kingdom then divided into four and lastly reduced into one How England was first a Monarchy under the Britains then a Province under the Romans after that divided into seven Kingdoms and lastly reduced into one how the People of Israel were first under Patriarcks Abraham Isaac and Iacob then under Captains then under Judges then under high Priests then under Kings and then under Captains and high Priests again I will not follow you in every by way whereinto your errors do lead for who would have adventured to affirm that the Children of Israel were under Abraham and Isaac and that the Britains at the first were under one King whereas Caesar reporteth that he found four Kings in that Country which is now called Kent but I will only insist upon the principal point in regard whereof all this bundel of words is like a blown bladder full of wind but of no weight For first you do but trifle upon tearms in putting a difference between Kings Dukes and Earls which hold their state with Soveraign power We speak not of the names but of the Government of Princes Supreme Rulers may differ in name they may change name also either by long use or upon occasion and yet in Government neither differ nor change Secondly it is a more vain jeast to put a difference in this regard between a great territory and a small If a Kingdom be enlarged or streightned in limits the Government is not thereby changed if many Kingdoms be united into one if one be divided into many the nature of Government is no more altered then is the tenure of land either when partition is made or when many parts accrewe into one The knot of doubt is whether it be not natural that one state be it great or small should rather be commanded by one person howsoever intitled then by many And if we descend into true discourse we shall find that the very sinews of Government do consist in commanding and in obeying But obedience cannot be performed where the commandments are either repugnant or uncertain neither can these inconveniencies be any ways avoided but by union of the Authority which doth command This union is of two sorts first when one commandeth secondly when many do knit in one power and will The first union is natural the second is by means of amity which is the only band of this collective body and the more they are who joyn in Government the less natural is their union and the more subject to dissipation For as Taciâ—us saith equality and amity are scarce compatible Natural reason teacheth us that all multitude beginneth from one and the ancient Philosophers have held that from unity all things do proceed and are again resolved into the same Of which opinion Laertius reporteth that Museus of Athens was Author who lived long before Homer but afterwards it was renewed by Pythagoras as Plutarch Alexander and Laertius do write who added thereunto that Unity is the original of good and duality of evil And of this opinion Saint Hierome was alâ—o whose sentence is repeated in the canonical decrees but under the title name of Saint Ambrose Hereupon Homer doth oftentimes call good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 applyeth the terme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to affliction trouble Hereupon Galen also writeth that the best in every kind is one Plato produceth all things from one measureth all things by one and reduceth all things into one The whole world is nothing but a great state a state is no other then a great family and a family no other then a great body As one GOD ruleth the World one master the family as all the members of one body receive both sence and motion from one head which is the seat and tower both of the understanding and of the will so it seemeth no less natural that one state should be governed by one commander The first of these arguments was used by Soliman Lord of the Turks Who having strangled Sultane Mustapha his son because at his return out of Persia he was received by the soldiers with great demonstrations of joy he caused the dead body to be cast forth before the armie and appointed one to cry There is but one God in Heaven and one Sultane upon Earth The second was used by Agesilaus to one that moved the Spartans for a popular government go first said he and stablish a popular Government within your own doors To the third Tacitus did allude when he said The body of one Empire seemeth best to be governed by the soul of one man In the Heavens there is but one Sun which Serinus also applyeth unto Government in affirming that if we set up two Suns we are like to set all in combustion Many sociable creatures have for one company one principal either Governour or guide which all Authors take for a natural Demonstration of the Government of one And if you require herein the testimony of men you shall not find almost any that writeth upon this subject but he doth if not allege yet allow that of Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Lord one King Plutarch declareth both his own Judgment concerning this point and also the consent of others in affirming that all men did acknowledge that the Government of a King is the most excellent benefit that God hath given unto Men. Callimachus saith that Kings proceed from God Homer
Choise did at times beside many other Enormities erect Malestews Of the two Nations whose Examples you use the Romans and the Lacedemonians the first did the like under divers Empâ—rours as Lampridius writeth and in more ancient times allowed also Parricide of Children the other would sort themselves by fifteen and twenty Families together and hold both Wives and Goods in common I omit the unnatural customs of divers other Nations and will now declare how in straining a few Examples to countenance your Conceit you are constrained to bear your self no less cunning in concealing truths than bold in avouching things which are not onely uncertain but plainly false It is true which you write that the Kings of Sparta by the institution of Lyâ—urgus were obâ—dient to the Officers called Ephori but these were Titular Kings having no other power but a single voice among the Senators and because all Affairs were carried by consent of the People the Estate was then esteemed popular Afterwards Theopompus by pretence of an Oracle drew this Authority from the People to a Senate of thirty whereby the Government did change into an Aristocracy and yet the naked name of Kings was retained By this shuffling-off Rule the Lacedemonians were continually tossed with Tempests of Sedition ceasing not to wade in their own Bloud as before you have acknowledged until in the end they were brought into subjection first by the Macedonians afterward by the Achaeans and lastly by the Romanâ— I will not say now what reason have we but what a shame is it for us to open our ears to these Utopical State-writers who being mellowed in Idleness and having neither Knowledge nor Interest in matters of Government make new Models upon disproportioned joynts borrowed from Nations most different in Rule You affirm by the testimony of Livy that for offence taken against Romulus because he raigned at Pleasure and not by Law the Senators did cut him in pieces in which short Assertion many base untruths are included beneath the degree of any vile word Livy writeth that he sorted the People into order and governed them by Laws and that he was also both advised and valiant in the Field even such a one as Homer describeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Both a good King and courageous Commander Concerning his end Livy writeth that in taking muster of his Army a thick Tempest did arise after which he was never seen wherein he is seconded by Solinus Eutropius and the rest onely Livy addeth that there was a rumor but very obscure without any certain either Author or ground I will adde also without probability that he was torn in pieces for how probable is it that such a Fact in the open view of his Army could be very obscure How probable is it also that the People would first tear him in pieces for his Injustice and then worship him for a God Further with what either confidence or conceit do you alledge this Report of Livy for his opinion I find your fetch you apprehend every thing which may if not confirm yet countenance that Doctrine which lately you have drawn out of Cerberus Den That it is lawful to contrive the death of Kings That the People were grieved against Servius Tullius for reigning without Election it is a meer Fantasie a Dream a Device Livy saith that he was declared King with such a Consent as no man had been before him That Tarquinius neglected the Laws of Government prescribed to him by the Common-wealth it is an ugly untruth Livy saith that he brake the ancient manner of Kings before him But for Laws Pomponius affirmeth that at that time the Romans had no Laws but from their Kings and that Sextus Papirius reduced them into one Volume which was called the Civil Law of Papirius and that when the People expelled their Kings they abrogated their Laws also and remained twenty years without any Law Lastly you adde that the Romans did expel their Kings and erect Consuls in their stead but you suppress that which followed which I hold for a common consequence of the like disorder First that for this cause they were presently almost overwhelmed with Wars Secondly that in this state they never enjoyed long time free from Sedition Lastly that as Tacitus saith there was no means to appease these Tumults but by returning to a Monarchy again All this I write rather to manifest the manner of your dealing than that I hold it much regardable what Romans did Your Examples of our present Age I will wrap up in these few words All Nations very few excepted do consent in this form of Government first to be under one Prince secondly to accept him by succession according to propinquity of Bloud In other circumstances either for inaugurating their Prince or for the manner of managing and executing his Government not two Nations in the world in all points do agree And yet is not this diversity raised by any Laws which the People do prescribe unto their Prince as you do most grosly yea peevishly yea maliciously affirm but by the particular Laws and Customs of every Nation in which the consent of the Prince either secret or express sometimes onely is sufficient always principally doth concur Upon this diversity of Customs you conclude that it sufficeth not to alleadge bare propinquity of Bloud What not where that Custom is established as I have declared it to be in most Nations of the World Doth difference of Customs make all Custom void Doth diversity of Custom in some circumstances take away the principal Custom of Succession by Bloud This cleaveth together no surer than Sand you lose both labour and credit in obtruding unto us these weak and loose Arguments without either force of Reason or form of Art Your instance of the Law Salick in France doth offer occasion to enter into a large Field wherein I could plainly prove that there was never any such Law made to bind the descent of the Crown of France and that it hath been the custom in most parts of the world not to exclude Women from succession in State insomuch as Beda and before him Eusebius and Pliny do write that certain People were governed onely by Princes of that Sex But because this is a matter both of long discourse and not proper to our purpose I will contain my self within this Observation That the Exclusion of King Edward the Third from the Crown of France upon this pretence was the cause of the effusion of their bravest Bloud and of the spoil waste and conquest of all that Realm I acknowledge that the English have lost the possession of that Conquest and that was by means of domestical Wars for excluding the nearest in Bloud from the Crown into which unquiet Quarrel you do now endeavour again to embark us Yet no man can assure that the miseries of France for this cause are at an end Rams recoil to strike harder
secret Counsels unknown to the Angels and to justifie upon this event the Parricide of any Prince For my part I know not whether you shew your self more presumptuous in entering into this observation or in pursuing it more idle and impure I will pass over your protestation of Respect and Obedience due unto Princes Protest what you please we will take you for no other than a vile kind of vermine which if it be permitted to creep into the bowels of any State will gnaw the Heart-strings thereof in sunder This you manifest by the coarse comparison which presently you annex that as a natural Body hath authority to cure the Head if it be out of tune and reason to cut it off oftentimes if it were able to take another so a body Politick hath power to cure or cut off the Head if it be unsound But what either Will or Power hath any part of the Body in it self What either Sense for the one or Motion for the other which proceedeth not altogether from the Head Where is the Reason seated which you attribute to the Body both in judging and curing the infirmities of the Head Certain it is that in your cutting-cure you deal like a foolish Physician who finding a Body half taken and benumb'd with a Palsie cutteth off that part to cure the other and so make sure to destroy both You suppose belike that to enter into greater perils is the onely remedy of present Dangers I omit to press many points of this Comparison against you because Comparisons do serve rather to illustrate than enforce and I know not what assertion you might not easily make good if such senceless prating might go for proof I come now to your particular Examples whereof the first is of King Saul whom you affirm to be deprived and put to death for his disobedience Saul deprived and put to death I never heard that any of his Subjects did ever lift up one thought against him Dreamer you will say he was slain by the Philistines Good but who deprived him It was God you say who did deprive him You must pardon us if upon the suddain we do not conceive the mystery of your meaning Your words of deprivation and putting to death do rather import a judicial proceeding against him than that God delivered him to be vanquished by his Enemies in the Field But what is this to dispossessing by Subjects Yes you say because whatsoever God hath put in ure in his Commonwealth may be practised by others Why but then also good Princes may be deposed by their Subjects because God delivered Iosiah to be slain by the Egyptians You Firebrands of Strife you Trumpets of Sedition you Red Horses whose sitters have taken peace from the Earth how impudently do you abuse the Scriptures how do you defile them with your filthy Fingers It is most certain that David knew both because Samuel told him and because he had the Spirit of Prophesie that God had rejected Saul and designed him to be King in his place yet his Doctrine was always not to touch the Lords Anointed whereto his Actions were also answerable For when Saul did most violently persecute him he defended himself no otherwise than by Flight During this pursuit Saul fell twice into his power once he did not onely spare but protect him and rebuke the Pretorian Soldiers for their negligent watch The other time his Heart did smite him for that he had cut away the lap of his garment Lastly he caused the Messenger to be slain who upon request and for pity had furthered as he said the death of that sacred King We have a Precept of Obedience which is the mould wherein we ought to fashion our actions God onely is superiour to Princes who useth many instruments in the execution of his justice but his authority he hath committed unto none Your second Example is of King Amon who was slain as you write by his own people because he walked not in the ways of the Lord. This is somewhat indeed if it be true let us turn to the Text Amon was twenty two years old when be began to reign c. and he did evil in the sight of the Lord c. and his servants conspired against him and slew him in his house and the people smote all those who conspired against King Amon and made Josiah his son King in his stead But this is very different from that which you report Amon was slain by his Servants and not by the people who were so far from working that they severely revenged his death And although Amon was evil yet the Scripture layeth not his evil for the motive whereupon his Servants slew him The Devil himself in alleadging the Scripture used more honesty and sincerity if I may so term it than you For he cited the very words wresting them onely to a crooked sence but you change the words of the Scripture you counterfeit God's coyn you corrupt the Records which he hath left us I will now shake off all respect of civility towards you and tell you in flat and open terms that as one part of your Assertion is true that good Kings succeeded Saul and Amon so the other part that either they were or in right could have been deprived and put to death by their Subjects it is a sacrilegious a loggerheaded lye Of your Example of Romulus I have spoken before I have declared also how the Romans presently after the expelling of their Kings and for that cause were almost overwhelmed with the weight of War being beaten home to the very Gates of their City And had not Chocles by a miracle of Manhood sustained the shock of the Enemies whilst a Bridg was broken behind him the Town had been entred and their State ruined And whereas you attribute the inlargement of the Empire which hapned many Ages after to this expelling of their Kings you might as well have said that the rebellion against King Iohn was the cause of the Victories which we have since had in France I have before declared that the state of the Romans under their Consuls was popular rather in shew than in deed This shew began also to end when by the Law Valeria L. Sylla was established Dictator for four and twenty years After this the Empire did mightily increase until the reign of Trajane at which time all Authors agree that it was most large and yet far short of your wandring Survey not half Fifteen thousand miles in compass In your Example of Caesar I never saw more untruths crowded together in fewer words you say he broke all Laws both Humane and Divine that is one his greatest Enemies did give of him a most honourable testimony You say he took all Government into his hands alone that is two the people by the Law Servia elected him perpetual Dictator You make his death to be an act of the State that is three for they who slew him
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