HEere you cloase with Billaye vpon two points; first, vvhether a king is subiect to any law; Secondly, whether all temporalities are in proprietie the Kings: but because these questions doe little perteine to our principall controuersie, I vvill not make any stay vpon them; it suffiseth that vve may say vvith Seneca De benefic. lib. 7. c • .5. Omnia rex imperio possidet, singuli domino: The king hath empire, euery man his particular proprietie in all things.

After this, you proceede further to make good, that the Princes before mencioned vvere lawfully deposed; and that by all law; both diuine and humane, naturall, nationall and positiue. Your cause is so badd, that you haue need to set a bould countenance vpon it. But what deuine lawes doe you alleage? You haue largely beefore declared (you saye) that GOD doth approoue the forme of gouernmēt vvhich euery common wealth doth choose, as also the conditions and statutes which it doth appoint vnto her prince. I must now take you for a naturall lyer, when you wil not forbeare to bely your selfe: you neuer proued any such matter; & the contrary is euident, that sometimes entire gouernments; often, customes & statutes of state; & very commonly accidentall actiōs, are so vnnaturall & vniust, that (otherwise then for a punishment and curse) wee cannot say that God doth approue thē. We haue often heard that the Church cannot erre in matters of Faith; but that in matter of gouerment a cōmon wealth cannot erre, it was neuer (I assure my selfe) published before.

But let vs suppose (supposall is free) that God alloweth that forme of gouernment which euery common wealth doth choose: doth it therfore follow that by all deuine lawes princes may be deposed by their subiects? these broken peeces will neuer bee squared to forme strong argument. But wherefore doe not you produce the deuine canons of scripture? surely, they abhorre to speake one word in your behalfe: yea, they doe giue expresse sentence against you, as I haue shewed before.

Well let this passe among your least escapes, in making God either the author or aider of rebelliō: you alledge no other humane law, but that princes are subiect vnto law and order. I vvill not denie but ther is a duty for princes to performe: but how proue you that their subiects haue power to depose them if they faile? In this manner. As the common vvealth gaue them their authoritie for the common good, so it may also take the same away, if they abbuse it. But I haue manifested before Cap. 1., both that the people may so graunt away their authoritie that they cannot resume • t; & also that few princes in y• world hold their state by graunt of the people. I will neuer heereafter esteeme a mans valure by his voice: Your braue boast of all lawes, diuine, humane, naturall, nationall and positiue, is disolued into smoake: you busie your selfe as the Poets wright of Morpheus, in presenting shadowes to men a sleepe.

But the chiefest reason (you say) the very ground and foundation of all. Soft: what reason? what ground? if you haue alreadie made proofe by all lawes, humane and deuine, naturall, nationall and positiue, 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 common wealth is superiour to the prince; and that the authoritie 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 haue hetherto approached by stealing steps, you are now come cloase to the wall, do but mount into credit and the fort is your owne. You affirmed at the first, that princes might be deposed for disabilitie; then, for misgouernmen • ; now, vpon pleasure and at will. For they who haue giuen authoritie by cōmission, doe alwaies retaine more then they graunt; c. dudum. de praeb. lib 6. & are not excluded either frō commanding or iudging, by way of preuention, concurrence, or evocation; euen in those cases which they haue giuen in charge l. iudicium soluitur. D. de iudic.: The reason is declared by Vlpian l. solet. de iurisd.. because hee to whom iurisdiction is committed representeth his person who gaue commission, and not his owne. Herevpon Alexander in l. vlt. de iurisd., Panormitane in c. pastoral • s de off. ord., Innocentius, and Felinus in c. cum ecclesiarum. co. doe affirme, that they may cast their commissioners out of power when they please, because as Paulus saith in d. l. iudicium.; a man can iudge no longer, when he forbiddeth who gaue authoritie.

Further, all states take denomination from that part wherin the supreme power is setled; as if it bee in one prince, it is called a monarchie; if in many of highest ranck, then it is an aristocracie; if in the people, then a democracie. Whervpon 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 populare: for we are not so much to respect who doth execute this high power of state, as from whō immediately it is deriued. Hereto let vs ad that which you haue said in another place cap • 2.; that in populare gouernments there is nothing but sedition, trouble, tumults, outragies & iniustices vpon euery light occasiō; & thē we shall perceiue; first, that you want the art of a wise deceiuer, not to be entangled in your tale; secondly, that this is meere poison, which the diuell hath dropt out of your pen, to infect christian coūtries with disobedience & disorder. In a word, to the contrary of this your impudent vntruth, our laws do acknowledge supreme authority in the prince within the realme & dominions of england 1. El. 1., neither can subiects beare thē selues either superior or equall to their soueraigne; or attempt violence either against his persō or estate, but as well the ciuill law l. j. d. ad. l. Iul. maiest., as the particulare lawes & customes of all countries do adiudge it high & hainous treasō. I will speake now without passion; what reason haue we, to accept your idle talk for a kind of authority, against the iudgement & lawes of most nations in the world?

You proceede that the power of a prince is giuen to him by the common wealth, with such conditions & exceptions, as if the same be not kept, the people stand free. That the prince receiueth his power vnder plain conditiōs, you go about to proue afterward: now you hold on, that in all mutual contracts, if one side recede from promise, the other remaineth not obliged▪ & this you proue by two rules of the law. The first is Frustra sidem sibi quis postulat seruari ab eo, cui sidē a se praestitam seruare recusat.; he doth in vaine require promise to be kept of another man, to whom he refuseth to performe that which he promised: the other is non obstringitur quis ad implendum quod iurauit si ab alia parte non inpletur, cuius respectu praebuit iuramentum. a man is not bound to performe his oath, if on the other part, that be not performed, in respect whereof he did sweare.

Poore fellow, had you ben as conuersant in the light of law, and cleere course of iustice, as you are in the smoake & dust of some corner of a colledge, you wold neuer haue concluded so generally so confidētly vpō any of the rules of law, which are subiect, for the most part, vnto many exceptions. Alexander in l. cum proponas. c. de pact. & Felinus in c. peruenit 2 de iureiur. doe assigne fiue fallencies vnto these rules: Socinus in tract fallen reg 199. giueth the cootrarie rule: to him that breaketh his faith or oath, faith ought to bee kept; & thē restraineth it with seauē limitations. But all affirme, that in those offices which are mutuall between any persōs, by the law of nature or of God; as between the father & the child, the husband & the wife, the master & the seruant, the prince and the subiect; although the same be further assured by promise or by oath, the breach of duty in the one, is no discharge vnto the other.

And therfore if the father performeth not his duty towards his children, they are not thereby acquitted 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 both of the obedience & care, which God & nature exacteth of them; howsoeuer Solon in his lawes discharged children from nourishing their parents, if they did not traine them in some trade, wherby they might acquire their liuing. Much lesse are subiects exempted from obedience, if the prince either erre or be defectiue in gouernment: because the like respect is not due vnto parents as vnto Princes (as I haue somewhat touched before) insomuch as a sonne that beareth authoritie, hath right both to commaūd and compell the father. l. ille a quo & • . seq. ad Treb.

This was declared among the Romanes, by that which Plutarch in apopht., Liuie lib. 24., Valerius lib. 2. ca. 1., and Gellius lib. 2 ca. 2., doe report of Q. Fabius: to whome, being consull, when Fabius Maximus his father, who had bene consull the yeare before, did approch sitting vpon his horse, the sonne commanded him by a sergeant to allight: the father not onely obeyed, but highly commended both the courage and iudgement of his sonne, in maintaining the maiestie which he did beare, and in preferring a publicke both dutie and authoritie beefore priuate. Vpon those examples Paulus the lawier did wright, l. postliminium. filius D. da capit, et postlim. that publick discipline was in higher estimation among the Romane parents, then the loue of children.

After an impertinēt discourse, that vpon diuers cō siderations an oath ought not to be performed; you annex another cause wherefore subiects may withdraw their alleageāce; & that is, when it should turne to the notable dammage of the common wealth and both these you affirme to be touched, in the depriuation of Childeric king of France. But I regard not what was touched in the depriuation of Childeric; I haue answered to that in the chapter next before; I require either arguments or authoritie of more tough temper. Well then let vs turne back the leafe, and there we shall finde a rule of the law (because by rules onely you will beat down rule) c. In mali • . d • reg. iur. in 6. In euill promises it is not expedient to keepe faith: Which is also confirmed by a sentence of Isidorus: 22. q. 4.4. c. 5 In euill promises, break your word; in a dishonest oath change your purpose.

Well fare your vvits, good soule; doe you accompt the promise of obedience euill? not so (I suppose you will say) but it turneth to be euill vvhen it turneth to the notable detrimēt of the commō wealth. It is one of your peculiar guifts, the further you goe, the more impious you declare your selfe. For if you take the word euill in noe higher sence then for detriment and damage, it would follow vpon your rule, that a man vvere no further tyed to his promise, then the performance thereof were aduantageable vnto him. You vvould inforce also, that if the father doth dissipate his patrimoniall estate, and runne a course to ruine his familie, the children and the wife may thervpon disauow their duties.

But if vvee take a true touch of this point, we shall finde, that the vices of any Prince are not sufficient of themselues to ouerthrow a state, except therevpon rebellions be raised, vvhich vvill draw all things into confusion. For there is no Prince, vvhich either hath liued, or can almost be imagined to liue, in so little sence of humanitie, but generally he both fauoureth and maintaineth some order of iustice; onely against particuler persons, some of them haue violently bene carried by the tempest of their passion, vvhereby notwithstanding the inordinate desires of one man, can not possibly reach to the ruine of all.

So saith Suetonius, In domit. that vnder Domitian the prouinces vvere vvell gouerned, onely certaine priuate men at Rome, felt the euill of his crueltie and other vices. But vvhen the people doe breake into tumult, then all course of iustice is stopped; then is either assistance made, or resistance vveakned for forren inuasion; then is euery one raysed into hope vvho cannot flye but vvith other mennes feathers; then, as vvhen a fierce horse hath cast his rider, the reines are loosed to those insolencies, vvhich a dissolute people, nothing restrained either by honestie or feare doe vsually commit. For as it is the nature of men, vvhen they come out of one extremitie vvherin they haue bene houlden by force, to runne vvith a swift course into another, vvithout staying in the middest; so the people breaking out of tyrannie, if they bee not helde back, vvill runne headlong into vnbrideled libertie; and the harder they vvere kept vnder beefore, the more insolently vvill they then insult.

I obserue that Saint Paul alleageth two reasons vvherefore vve should be obedient euen to vvicked and cruell Princes: one is for conscience sake, Beecause they are the ministers of God Rom. 13., and in their royaltie doe beare his Image: Another, for the safetie, and tranquillitie of our selues; that wee may lead vnder them a quiet and peaceable lyfe 1. Tim. 2.2.. Wherevpon the prophet Ieremiah Ierem. 29.7 also exhorted the Iewes, to • eeke the peace of the cittie vvhether they should be transported, because in the peace therof their quiet should consist: For by obedience, a few particulars remaine in daunger; by rebellion, all; by obedience, vve can be vnder the tyrannie but of one; by rebellion, vve are exposed to the rapine and crueltie of many; by the one nothing, by the other all things are permitted. Vpon this ground Saint Augustine saide;Generale quippe pactum est humanae succietatis, regibus obedi • e. confess. lib. 2. It is a generall couenant of humane societie to obey Kings; And likewise Saint Ambrose Magnum est et speciale documentū &c. ad Auxentium It is a great and speciall point of doctrine whereby Christians are taught to be subiect vnto higher powers.

Three vvaies a cruell Prince may vvork violence against his subiects; vpon their goods; vpon their persons; and vpon their consciences, by commaunding them to commit that which is euil. Of the first, Saint Ambrose saith: Ad Auxentiū If the Emperour demaundeth tribute, wee doe not deny him; If he desireth fieldes, let him take them if he please: I doe not giue them to the Emperour; but therewith also I doe not deny them. Of the second, Tertullian vvrighteth Apol. as I haue alleaged him before: For vvhat vvar are vvee vnseruiceable or vnfit, although vnequall in number, vvho doe so vvillingly suffer death: yea, he vvas so farre from iudgeing it lawfull to resist, that he thought it scarce allowable to flye. In the third case, not your rule of law, but the rule of the Apostles taketh place, It is better to obey GOD then man: Act. 4. vvhereby the subiect is not bound to yeeld obedience.

But how? hee is not bound to obey by doeing, but by suffering hee is: he is not bound to obey in doing that onely vvhich is euill; but he is not thereby freed from doing any other thing which is lawfully commanded. S. Augustine saithin Psalm.: Iulian was an infidell Emperour, an Apostata; an Idolater; christian soldiers did serue this infidell Emperour; when hee would haue them worship Idols, and offer Frankencense vnto them, th • y preferred God before him: but when hee saide; bring foorth the armie, march against such a nation; they did presently obey. All this seemeth to bee confirmed by God himselfe, who after hee had forevvarned the people of Israell by the mouth of Samuell, 1. Sam. S.what heauie, what open iniustice they should endure vnder some of their kings, hee concludeth in these words: and yee shall cry out in that day because of your king, and the Lord will not heare you. As if hee had said: you shall grudge at this burthen, you shall grone vnder it; but you shall not haue power, either to shrinke from it, or to shake it off.

Surely, if you had been aduised, you would priuily haue blowen your blasphemies into the eares of those ideots, who adore you for the great penitentiaries of the sea of Rome, & esteeme your idle imaginations as the articles of their faith: & not so publikely haue poured forth your self into these paradoxes, both impious & absurd; not so boisterously haue stepped, like Hercules Furens, vpon the opē stage of the world, to denoūce depriuation against all princes. You would not thus confidently haue opposed your hot headed assertiō against al the ancient fathers of the church. You would not thus ignorantly haue troubled the waters of true humane wisdom, by corrupting the sence of the ciuell laws: you would not thus profanely haue abused the scriptures in maintaining rebellion, as coniurers doe in inuocating the diuell. For first, you are thereby discouered to be, neither religious, modest, nor wise: secondly, you haue runne your selfe into the compasse of a Canon, in the councell of Chalcedon. C. coniurationū xj q j. Wherein it is thus decreed against you: If Clerkes shall be found to be contriuers of conspiracies, or raisers of factions, let them be degraded.

After this you declare, who is a tyrant; and that is a king, (you say) if once he doth decline from his dutie: which is a large description, and fit to set all christian countries on floate with bloud. Comines saith, that he is to be esteemed a good king, whose vertues are not ouerballanced by vice.

I omit your thicke error in putting no difference betweene a magistrate and a king, with many other of like qualitie, and do come now to a principall point of your strength: that Christian princes at this day are admitted vpon conditions, and likewise with protestations, that if they do not performe the same, their subiects are free from all alleageance. This you will prooue by the particular oathes of all Princes, if the ouerrunning of your tongue may haue the ful course without encounter.

FIrst I will preface; that no Prince is soueraigne, who acknowledgeth himselfe either subiect or accomptable to any but to God; euen as Marcus Aurelius said: That Magistrates were iudges of priuate men, and the Prince of Magistrates, and God of the Prince. In regard of this immediate subiection, Princes are most especially obliged to the lawes of God and of Nature: for In l. 2. D. de seruit. & aqua Baldus, cons. 216. Alexander, De legib. Speculator, In l. vlt. c. si contra ins. all interpreters, c. sunt quidam. 25. q. 1. the lawe it selfe, do affirme, that Princes are more strictly bound to these lawes,nunc. then any of their subiectes. WhereofPlutarch. in Problem. Graec. Dionysius the Tyrant had some sence, when he sayd vnto his mother: That he was able to dispence with the lawes of Syracusa, but against the lawes of Nature he had no power. If therefore a Prince doth professe, that he will beare himselfe regardfull o • the accomplishment of these lawes, he doth not condition or restraine himselfe, but maketh an honorable promise of indeuour, to discharge his dutie; being tyed thereby to no s • anter scope then he was before. The reason hereof is: L. iij. D. de leg. j. Dec. in reg. 77. n. 10. Quia expressio eius quod tacitè inest, nihil operatur: The expressing of that which is secretly vnderstood, worketh nothing.

Againe, when the promise is not annexed to the authoritie, but voluntarily and freely made by the Prince, his estate is not thereby made conditionall. For the interpreters of the Ciuill lawe do consent in this rule: In l. iurisgentium. Pacta conuenta quae contractibus non insunt, non formant actionem: Couenants which are not inherent in contracts, do not forme an action. quinimo. And therefore although by all lawes, both of conscience and state, a Prince is bound to performe his promise; because (as the Maister of sentences saith) God himself will stand obliged to his word: yet is not the authoritie, but the person of the Prince hereby affected; the person is both tyed and touched in honour, the authoritie ceasseth not, if performances do faile.

Of this sort was that which you report of Traian, who in deliuering the sword to his gouernors, would say: If I raigne iustly, then vse it for me; if otherwise, then vse it against me: but where you adde, that these are the very same words in effect, which Princes do vse at their coronations, (pardon me, for it is fit I should be mooued) you will find it to bee a very base 〈◊〉 lye. Of this nature was that also which the same Traian did, (to encourage his subiects to do the like) in taking an oath to obserue the lawes: which Pliny the younger did account so strange, as the like before had not bene seene. But afterward, Theodoric did follow that fact; whereupon Cassiodorus saith: Ecce, Traiani nostri clarum seculis reparamus exemplum; iurat vobis per quem iuratis: We repaire the famous example of Traian; he sweareth to you by whome you sweare. So when king Henry the fifth was accepted for successour to the crowne of Fraunce, he made promise, to maintaine the Parliament in the liberties thereof. And likewise diuers Princes do giue their faith, to mainetaine the priuiledges of the Church, and not to change the lawes of the Realme: which oath is interpreted by In l. claris l. de fideis. Baldus, In c. pro • llor • i de praebend. Panormitane, and Cons. 220. lib. 6. & cons. 122. & 125. lib. 4. Alexander, to extend no further then when the lawes shall be both profitable and iust: because Iustice and the common benefit of subiects, is the principal point, both of the oath and dutie of a Prince, whereto all other clauses must be referred. And now to your examples.

First, because in all the ranke of the Hebrew kings, you cannot find either condition or oath; not: in the auncient Empires and kingdomes of the world; not vsually in the • lourishing time of the Romaine state, both vnder heathen and christian Emperors; because these times are too pure for your purpose, you fumble foorth a dull coniecture: That forsomuch as the first kings were elected by the people, it is like that they did it vpon conditions and assurances for themselues. That the first kings receiued not their authoritie from the people, I haue manifested beforeIn cap. 1.: and yet your inference hereupon is no other, then if you should sue in some Court for a legacie, alleadging nothing for your intent, but that it is like the Testator shold leaue you something; in which case it is like (I suppose) that your plea wold be answered with a silent scorne.

After a few loose speeches, which no man would stoupe 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 confessiō of the faith in writing, wherin he should promise to innouate nothing. And further, he promised to take away certaine oppressions, and to giue offices without mony. Let vs take things as they are, and not speake vpon idle imagination, but agreeable to sence: what either condition or restraint do you find in these words? Condition they do not forme, because in case of failance they do not make the authoritie void: neither do they make restraint, because they containe no point, whereunto the lawe of God did not restraine him. All this he was bound to performe without an oath; and if he were a thousand times sworne, he was no more but bound to perform it: euē as if a father should giue his word to cloath and feede his child; or the husband to loue his wife; or any man to discharge that dutie, which God and Nature doth require. It is true, that Anastasius was both a wicked man, and iustly punished by God for the breach of his faith; but his subiects did neuer challenge to be free therefore from their alleageance.

The same aunswere may be giuen to the promise, which Michael the first gaue 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 necessarie to be beleeued: but if you take it in a larger sence, then haue I also declared in the beginning of this chapter, how farre the promise doth extend.

Your next example is of the Empire of Almaine; from whence all that you obiect, doth fall within this circle. After the death of Charles the Great, the empire was held by right of succession, vntill his line was determined in Conrade the first. After whose death it became came electiue: 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 dutie, which they were enformed, or rather threatned, that God wold seuerely exact at their hands. But (as in all electiue States it vsually hapneth) at euery new change and choise, the Emperor was deplumed of some of his feathers, vntill in the end he was made naked of authoritie, the Princes hauing drawne all power to themselues.

So by degrees the Empire was changed from a Monarchie to a pure aristocracie; the Emperour bearing the title thereof, but the maiestie and puissance remaining in the States. During which weaknesse of the Emperour, some points were added to his oath, which seemed to derogate from the soueraigntie of his estate. But what is this to those Princes, who haue retained their dignitie, without any diminution, either of authoritie, or of honour.

The like may be said of Polonia, which not many hundred yeares since was erected into a kingdome: and although the States did challenge therein a right of election, yet did it alwaies passe according to propinquitie of bloud, and was esteemed a soueraigne Monarchie; vntill after the death of Casimire the Great, when Lodonicus his Nephew King of Hungarie, rather greedie then desirous to be king also of Polonia, did much abase the Maiestie thereof. Yet falling a • terward into the line of Iagello, who maried one of the daughters of Lodowicke, it recouered the auncient both dignitie and strength. But when that line also failed in Sigismond Augustus, the last male of that Familie, the States elected Henry Duke of Anjowe for their King, with this clause irritant; That if hee did violate any point of his oath, the people should owe him no alleageance. But whereas you report this as the vsuall oath of the Kinges of Polonia, you deserue to heare the plainest tearme of vntruth.

In the kingdome of Spaine you distinguish two times: one, before the conquest thereof by the Moores; the other, after it was recouered againe by the Christians. I acknowledge a difference in these two times; for that in the one, the right of the kingdome was electiue; in the other, it hath alwaies remained successiue: insomuch as In spec. tit. 14. Peter Belluga, a diligent writer of the rights of Arragon, doth affirme, that the people haue no power in election of the king,Veniamus n. 10. except in case the line should faile.

Concerning the matter in controuersie, you affirme, that the kings did sweare the same points in effect, which before haue bene mentioned. This wee must take vpon your forfeited faith, for you alleadge no forme of oath; onely you write, that the fourth nationall Councell of An. 633. cap. 74. Toledo, with all humilitie conuenient did require, that the present king, and all other that should follow, would be meeke and moderate towardes their subiects, and gouerne them with iustice, and not giue sentence in causes capitall without assistance: declaring further, that if any of them should exercise cruell and proude authoritie, 〈◊〉 they were condemned by Christ, with the sentence of Excommunication, and separated to euerlasting iudgement.

But what pang hath possessed your dreaming braines, to tearme this by a marginall note, Conditions of raigning in Spaine? being no other then a reuerent and graue admonition of the dutie of a king, with a feareful declaration of the iudgment of God against wicked Princes. And that which was afterward decreed in the sixt Councell of Toledo: That the king should sweare, not to suffer any man to breake the Catholike faith, because it is a principall point of his dutie, his estate was not thereby made conditionall.

The rest of this passage you fill vppe with froath of the antiquated lawe of Don Pelayo, prescribing a forme of inaugurating the Kinges of Spaine; whereof there is not one point, either now in vse, or pertaining to the purpose. So miserable is your case, that you can write nothing therein, but that which is either impertinent or vntrue.

For Fraunce, your first example is taken from the coronation of Philip the first: wherein you note, that king Henrie his father requested the people to sweare obedience to his sonne; inferring thereby, that a coronation requireth a new consent, which includeth a certaine election of the subiects. But this is so light, that the least breath is sufficient to disperse it. Philip was crowned king during the life of his father: which action, as it was not ordinarie, so was it of such both difficultie and weight, that it could not be effected without assemblie and consent of the States. The oath which he made, is in this forme extant in the Librarie of Rheimes: I do promise before God and his Saints, that I will conserue to euery one committed vnto me canonicall priuiledge, & due Law & Iustice, and wil defend thē, by the helpe of God, so much as shall lye in my power, as a king by right ought to do within his Realme, to euery Bishop, and to the Church cōmitted to him: and further, to the people cōmitted to my charge, I wil grant by my authority the dispensatiō of laws according to right. Ad to this a more anciēt form of the oth of those kings, which it seemeth you haue not seene: I sweare in the name of God Almighty, & promise, to gouerne well & duly the subiects cōmitted to my charge, & to do with all my power, iudgement, iustice and mercy. Ad also the oath which you alleage of Philip the 2. surnamed Augustus: To maintaine all canonicall priuileges, law & Iustice due to euery mā, to the vttermost of his power; to defēd his subiects as a good king is bound to do; to procure that they be kept in the vniō of the Church; to defend thē frō al excesse, rapine, extortion & iniquity; to take order that Iustice be kept with equity & mercy; & to endeuor to expell heretiks. What doth all this rise vnto, but a princely promise to discharge honorably and truly those points of duty, which the laws of God did lay vpō thē? What other cōditions or restraints are imposed? what other cōtract is hereby made? where are the protestations which in the end of the last chap. you promised to shew, that if the Prince do faile in his promise, the subiects are free frō their allegeāce? what clause do you find sounding to that sense? But you litle regard any thing that you say; you easily remēber to forget your word. Wel thē, we must put these your vaine speeches into the reckning of mony accōpted, but not receiued: and seeing you cannot shew vs, that the kings of France and of Spaine are tied to any condition, whereto the law of God doth not bind thē, I will not vary frō the iudgemēt of Ordradus Cons. 69.in affirming thē to be absolute kings.

I haue pressed this point the rather in this place, because you write, that most neighbour nations haue takē the forme of annointing & crowning their kings, from the anciēt custome of France; although the substāce be deduced from the first kings of the Hebrews, as appeareth by the annointing of king Saule: whereof Dauid (you say) made great accompt, notwithstanding that Saule had bene reiected by God, and that himselfe had lawfully borne armes against him.

Out Atheist; you would be dawbed with dung, & haue the most vile filth of your stewes cast in your face. Did Dauid beare armes against his annointed king? did he euer lift vp his eye-lids against him? did he euer so much as defend himselfe otherwise then by flight? It is certaine that Shemei did not halfe so cruelly either curse or reuile this holy man, who did so much both by speech and action detest this fact, that he would rather haue endured ten thousand deaths, then to haue defiled his soule with so damnable a thought. What then shall we say vnto you, who to set vp sedition and tumult, abuse all diuine & humane wrightings, in whatsoeuer you beleeue will aduance your purpose? who spend some speech of respect vnto kings for allurement onely, to draw vs more deepe into your deceit? Shall we giue any further eare to your doctrine, both blasphemous and bloudy? We will heare you to the end; and I deceiue my selfe, but your owne tale shall, in any moderate iudgement, condemne the authoritie of your opinions for euer.

Let vs come then to your last example (which is neither the last nor the least whereat you leuell.) And that is of England, which of all other kingdomes (you say) hath most particularly taken this ceremony of Sacring and annointing from France. Well, let the ceremonie be taken from whence you please: if the oath be no other then you do specifie, To obserue peace, honour and reuerence, vnto Almighty God, to his Church and to the Ministers of the same, to administer Law and Iustice equally to all; to abrogate euill lawes and customes, and maintaine good (which was the oath of king Richard the first; the like whereto was that of king Iohn, altered only in the first branch: To loue and defend the Catholicke Church:) If the oath be no other I say, I do not see what other answer you need to expect, but that it is onely a free royall promise, to discharge that duty which God doth impose. And this is plainely declared by the speech which you alleage, of Thomas Arundell Archbishop of Canterbury, to king Henry the fourth; Remember (saith he) the oath which voluntarily you made: voluntarily he sayd, and not necessarily: it was voluntary in oath, but necessary in duty. That which you report also that Thomas Becket did write vnto king Henry the second, importeth nothing else but an acknowledgement of duty: Remember (said he) the confession which you made.

I cannot omit your description of the manner of the Coronation in England. First (you say) the king i • sworne; then the Archbishop declareth to the people what he hath sworne, and demaundeth if they be content to submit themselues vnto him vnder those conditions: whereunto they consenting, he putteth on the royall ornaments; and then addeth the words of commission: Stand and hold thy place, and keepe thy oath. And thus you haue hammered out a formall election, supposing that you draw together the peeces of falshood so close, that no man can perceiue the seame. The truth is, that king Henry the fourth being not the nearest in bloud to the inheritance of the crowne, did countenance his violence with the election of the people; not at his Coronation, but in a Parliament that was holden before. And therefore you do impudently abuse vs; First, in ioyning them together as one act; Secondly, by falsifying diuerse points in both; Lastly, by insinuating that the same order was obserued by other kings.

The points which you falsifie are these: The interrogation of the Archbishop to the people: the absurd straining of these words, Stand, hold thy place, to be a Commission: the alleaging also out of Stow, 1. That the Archbishop did reade vnto the people, what the King was bound vnto by oath; 2. That the Earle of Northumberland did shew a ring vnto the people, that they might thereby see the band whereby the king was bound vnto them; 3. That the king did pray, that he might obserue his promise. In which composition of conceits, you shew how actiue you are in counterfaiting any thing, that may make to your purpose; perswading your selfe, that it is no fraud vnto God, to deceiue the world in a lye for aduantage.

King Edward the fourth also (because his right was litigious, & another was in possession of the crowne) strengthened, or rather countenanced his title with the approbation of the people. But where you write, that at the Coronation of King Edward the sixth, Queene Mary, and Queene Elizabeth, the consent and acceptation of the people was demanded: First, we haue no cause to credite any thing that you say; then, although it be true, yet not being done in Parliament, it addeth no right vnto the Prince; but is only a formality, a circumstance only of ceremony and order.

Hereupon you conclude, that a king hath his authority, by agreement and contract betweene him & the people: insinuating thereby that he looseth the same, if he either violate or neglect his word. The contrary opinion, that only succession of bloud maketh a king, & that the cōsent of the people is nothing necessary, you affirme to be absurd, base and impious, an vnlearned, fond and wicked assertion; in flattery of Princes, to the manifest ruine of common-wealths, and peruerting of all law, order and reason.

I did alwayes foresee that your impostumed stomacke would belch forth some loathsome matter. But whosoeuer shall compare this confident conclusion with the proofes that you haue made, he will rather iudge you mad then vnwise. This bold blast, vpon grounds that are both foolish and false, bewrayeth rather want then weaknesse of wits. I am ashamed I should offer any further speech in so euident a truth: but since I haue vndertaken to combate an herisie, since the matter is of so great consequence & import, I purpose once againe to giue you a gorge.

Learne then, heauy-headed Cloisterer, vnable to mannage these mysteries of State: Learne of me, I say; for I owe this duty to all Christians: the Prophets, the Apostles, Christ himselfe hath taught vs, to be obedient to Princes, though both tyrants and infidels. This ought to stand with vs for a thousand reasons to 〈1 page missing〉 submit our selues to such kings, as it pleaseth God to send vnto vs; without either iudging or examining their qualities.Their hearts are in Gods hand; they do his seruice, sometimes in preseruing, sometimes in punishing vs: they execute his iudgement both wayes, in the same measure which he doth prescribe. If they abuse any part of their power, we do not excuse, we do not extenuate it; we do not exempt them from their punishment: let them looke vnto it, let them assuredly expect, that God will dart his vengeance against thē with a most stiffe and dreadfull arme. In the meane season, we must not oppose our selues, otherwise then by humble sutes and prayers: acknowledging, that those euils are alwayes iust for vs to suffer, which are many times vniust for them to do. If we do otherwise; if we breake into tumult and disorder, we resemble those Giants of whom the Poets write; who making offer to scale the skies, and to pul Iupiter out of his throne, were ouerwhelmed in a moment with the mountaines which they had heaped together. Beleeue it, Cloisterer; or aske any man who is both honest and wise, and he will tell you: It is a rule in reason, a triall in experience, an authority confirmed by the best, that rebellion produceth more horrible effects, then either the tyranny or insufficiency of any Prince.

YOV begin (after your manner) with a carreir against Billay; but because both I haue not seene what he hath written, and dare not credite what you report, I will not set in foote betweene you.

In breaking from this, you preferre succession of Princes before free election, as well for other respects, as for the preeminence of auncetrie in birth, which is so much priuiledged in the Scripture: and yet not made so inuiolable (you say) but vpon iust causes it might be inuerted; as it appeareth by the examples of Iacob, Iuda and Salomon. And this libertie you hold to be the principall remedie for such inconueniences as do ensue of the course of succession; as if the next in birth be vnable or pernicious to gouerne: in which cases, if he be not capable of directions and counsels, you affirme that the remedie is to remoue him. And so you make succession and election, the one to be a preseruatiue to the other; supposing, that the difficulculties of both are taken away: First, if ordinarily 〈1 page missing〉 succession taketh place; then, if vpon occasion we giue allowance to election.

For the prerogatiue of birth, as also for the speciall choice which God hath often made of the yongest, I will remit my selfe to that which I haue written before Cap. 1.. At once: in those particular actions which God hath either done, or by expresse Oracle commaunded, contrarie to the generall lawes which he hath giuen vs; as in the robberie of the Aegyptians, the extirpation of the Amalekites, the insurrection of Iehu, and such like; we are bound to the law, and not to the example. God hath giuen vs a naturall law, to preferre the first borne; he hath often made choice of the yongest, because he commonly worketh greatest effects, by meanes not onely weake, but extraordinary; as it appeareth by the birth of Isaak. But that these speciall elections of God are not proposed for imitation to vs, hereby it is euident; because they haue bene for the most part, without defect in the one, or demerite in the other. And especially in this example of Iacob and Esau; Saint Paule sayth Rom. 9.13. that it was not grounded vpon their workes, but vppon the will and pleasure of God; for before they had done good or euill, before they were borne, God sayd: Gen 25.23. The eldest shall serue the youngest. Which if we might imitate, the priuiledge of birth were giuen in vaine.

For your deuice in ioyning election to succession, whereby one of them should remedie the difficulties of the other, it is a meere vtopicall conceipt: what else shall I tearme it? an imposture of state, a dreame, an illusion, fit only to surprise the iudgement of the weake and ignorant multitude. These toyes are alwaies hatched by the discoursiue sort of men, rather then the actiue; being matters more in imagination then in vse: and herein two respects do principally oppose against you.

The first is, for that in most nations of the world, the people haue lost all power of election; and succession is firmely setled in one discent, as before I haue declared Cap. j.

The second is, for that more fierie factions are hereby kindled, then where succession or election are meere without mixture. For where one claimeth the Crowne by succession, and another possesseth it by title of election; there, not a disunion onely of the people, not a diuision in armes, but a cruel throat-cutting, a most immortall and mercilesse butcherie doth vsually ensue. It is somwhat inconuenient (I grant) to be gouerned by a Prince either impotent or euill; but it is a greater inconuenience, by making a breach into this high point of state, to open a way to all manner of ambitions, periuries, cruelties and spoile: whereto the nature of the common-people would giue a great furtherance, who being weake in wisedome, violent in will; soone wearie of quiet, alwaies desirous of chaunge, and most especially in matters of state, are easily made seruiceable to any mans aspiring desires. This I haue manifested before Cap. 3., by the examples of king Edward and king Richard, both surnamed the Second: who were not insupportable either in nature or in rule; & yet the people more vpon wantonnes then for any want, did take an vnbridled course against them. And thus is your high pollicie nothing else but a deepe deceipt; thus whilest you striue with the wings of your wit to mount aboue the cloudes of other mens conceipt, you sinke into a sea of absurdities and errors.

After this, you determine two questions; the first is, What respect is to be attributed to propinquitie of bloud onely. Whereto you answer, that it is the principall circumstance which leadeth vs to the next succession of the Crowne, if other circumstances and conditions doe concurre, which were appointed at the same time, when the lawe of succession was established. Assuredly you can neuer shewe either when, or by whome, this lawe of succession was first instituted, except perhappes by some Nimrod, when hee had brought the necke of a people vnder his sword: at which time, what conditions hee would set downe to bee required from his successour, any ordinarie iudgement may coniecture at ease. Well, since you set vs to seeke for proofe of this, to that which you haue written before, I will also send you backe to the same place Cap j. for your answer.

The second question is, What interest a Prince hath to his kingdome, before he be crowned. This you resolue by certaine comparisons; and first you write, that it is the same which the Germaine Emperour hath before his coronation. But that is so large, that some Emperours haue neuer bene crowned; others haue deferred it for many yeares; among which Metrop. l. 3. cap. 20. Crantzius writeth, that Otho the first receiued the Crowne of the Empire, in the eight and twentieth yeare of his raigne. And yet is not this comparison full to the question propounded; because in electiue states there is not held one perpetuall continuance of royaltie, as is in those that are successiue. And In Prooem. decret. Panormitane saith, That an argument a similibus is not good, if any difference can bee assigned. Much more vnfitly doe you affirme, that it is no greater then a Maior of London hath in his office, before hee hath taken his oath: for it is odiously absurd, to compare the authoritie of an absolute Prince by succession, to the authoritie of an Officer, both electiue and also subiect.

But it is the example of mariage (you say) whereby this matter is made more plaine: for as in this contract there is an espousall, by promise of a future act, and a perfect mariage by yeelding present consent; the first is, when both parties doe mutually promise that they will; the second, that they do take one the other for husband and wife: so an heire apparant, by propinquitie of bloud is espoused onely to the Commonwealth, and maried afterward at his coronation, by oathes of either partie, and by putting on the ring, and other wedding garments. But how were Kings maried in former ages? how are they now maried in those countries, where they haue neither ring, nor wedding garment, nor also any oath? What? is euery office and degree which is taken with ceremonie, to be esteemed likewise a mariage? Or if you will haue coronation onely to bee a mariage, what else can it resemble, but the publike celebration of matrimonie betweene man and woman? which addeth nothing to the substance of contract, but onely manifesteth it to the world.

These pitifull proofes, naked of authoritie, emptie of sence, deserue rather to be excused then answered: I will helpe therefore in some sort to excuse them. They are the best that your starued both cause and conceipt can possibly affoord: and you haue also some fellowes in your folly. Heliogabalus did solemnely ioyne the statues of the Sunne and of the Moone in mariage together. Nero was maried to a man, and tooke also a man to his wife. The Venetians doe yearely vpon Ascention day, by a ring and other ceremonies, contract mariage with the sea.

But now in earnest; men do dye whensoeuer it pleaseth God to call them: but it is a Maxime in the common law of England: Rex nunquam moritur; The king is alwaies actually in life. In Fraunce also the same custome hath bene obserued; and for more assurance it was expresly enacted vnder About the yeare, • 375. Charles the fifth: That after the death of any king, his eldest sonne should incontinently succeede. For which cause the Parliamēt court of Paris doth accompanie the funeral obsequies of those that haue bene their kings, not in mourning attire, but in scarlet; the true ensigne of the neuer-dying Maiestie of the Crowne.

In regard of this certaine and incontinent succession, the In c. v • t. 24 q. 1. Glossographer vpon the Decrees noteth: That the sonne 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 In l quesitā. D. de leg. j. Baldus, In c • tanta qui fil suat legit. Panormitane, Con • . 1 • 2. l. 2 Iason, Cons • 2. li. 1 Carol. Ruinus, In c. 1 tit. quis dicat. dux. Andreas Iserna, Martinus, Card. Alexander, Ind. pa ••• . c. de re •• cad. Albericus, In rep • ab. de ca. po & prop. Fed. Barbatius, Cons. 262. Philip Decius, In tra • t de po. & excel. reg. • 25 Ant. Corsetta, In tra • t de privil 〈◊〉 . par. 1. ca. 109. Fra. Luca, In tract. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Matthe, Afflict. And the same also doth Sernius note out of Amend. 9. Virgil, where he saith of Ascanius: Regem que requirunt, his father Aeneas being yet aliue.

But so soone as the king departeth out of life, the royaltie is presently transferred to the next successor, according to the lawes and customes of our Realme. All Writs go foorth in his name; all course of iustice is exercised, all Offices are held by his authoritie; all states, all persons, are bound to beare to him alleageance: not vnder supposall of approbation when hee shall be crowned, according to your dull and drowsie coniecture, but as being the true Soueraigne king of the Realme.

He that knoweth not this, may (in regard of the affaires of our state) ioyne himself to S. Anthony, in glorying in his ignorance, & professing that he knoweth nothing. Queene Mary raigned three mon • ths 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 Queene.

King Edward the first was in Palestina, when his father dyed; in which his absence, the Nobilitie and Prelates of the Realme assembled at London, and did acknowledge him for their king. In his returne homeward, he did homage to the French king, for the lands which he held of him in France. He also repressed certaine rebels of Gascoine; amongst whom, Gasco of Bierne, appealed to the court of the king of Fraunce: where king Edward had iudgement, that Gasco had committed treason Walsingh. in E. 1.; and therupon he was deliuered to the pleasure of king Edward. And this hapned before his coronation, which was a yeare and nine mon • ths after he began to raigne.

King Henry the sixth was crowned in the eighth yeare of his raigne; and in the meane space, not onely his subiectes did both professe and beare alleageance, but the King of Scottes also did sweare homage vnto him.

What neede I giue any more either instance or argument, in that which is the cleare lawe, the vncontroulled custome of the Realme? Against which notwithstanding your weather-beatē forehead doth not blush to oppose a blind opinion, that heires apparant are not true kings, although their titles be iust, and their predecessors dead. This you labour to prooue by a few drye coniectures, but especially and aboue all others (you say) because the Realme is asked three times at euery coronation, whether they will haue such a man to be their king or no. First, wee haue good reason to require better proofe of this question then your bare word: secondly, although we admit it to be true, yet seeing the aunswer is not made by the estates of the Realme assembled in parliament, but by a confused concurse (necessarie Officers excepted) of all sorts both of age and sexe, it is for ceremonie only, & not of force, either to giue or to increase any right.

Another of your arguments is, for that the Prince doth first sweare to gouerne well and iustly, before the subiects take their oath of alleageance; which argueth, that before they were not bound. And further you affirme, that it happened onely to king Henry the fifth, among his predecessors, to haue fealtie done vnto him, before hee was crowned, and had taken his oath. I confesse indeed, that Polydore and St • w haue written so; but you might easily haue found that they write not true; the one of them being a meere straunger in our state; the other a man more to be commended for indeuour then for art. King Iohn being in Normandie when his brother dyed, sent into England Hubert Archbishop of Canterburie, VVilliam Marshall Earle of Strigvile, and Geoffrie Fitzpeter Lord chiefe • ustice, who assembled the States of the Realme at Northhampton, and tooke of them an oath of obedience to the new king. Also king Anno reg. 23. Henry the third caused the Citizens of London, the Guardians of the Cinque-ports, and diuers others, to sweare fealtie to Prince Edward his sonne; who being in Palestina when his father died, the Nobilitie and Prelates of the Realme assembled in the new temple at London, and did acknowledge him for their king. And in like manner, king Edward the third tooke an oath of all the Nobilitie of the Realme, of faith after his death to Richard Prince of Wales: and so did king Henry the first, for his daughter Mawde, and her yong sonne Henry.

After the death of king Henry the fifth, that subiects did often sweare alleageance, 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 restraine you; it proceeded onely from the force of truth, which will manifest it selfe whatsoeuer art we vse to disguise it. For otherwise, what countenance, what conscience had you to affirme, that it is expresly noted by our English Historiographers: That no alleageance is due vnto kings, before they bee crowned? Who are these Historiographers? where doe they so write? you that search euery dustie corner of your braines, for a fewe ragged reasons to vphold your heresie, should not either haue mentioned, or omitted such pregnant proofes: for in that you affirme, and do not expresse them, you condemne your selfe by your owne silence.

If you meane that which you alleadge out of Polydore and Stowe: That an oath of fealtie was neuer made before coronation, vntill the time of king Henry the fifth; it is neither true, nor to any such sence. If you meane that of Polydore in tearming Henry the fift, Prince and not King, before he was crowned; in writing also, that the States did consult in Parliament, De nouo rege creando more maiorum. of creating a new king after the custome of their auncestors: it is a sleepie ieast, to straine euery word in such an author to proprietie of speech. You might better haue cited, what certaine cities in Fraunce not long since alledged for themselues: That because they had not reputed Henry the fourth for their king, because they had not professed alleageance vnto him, they were not to be adiudged rebels: whereupon notwithstanding the chiefest Lawyers of our age did resolue, that forasmuch as they were originall subiects, euen subiects by birth; they were rebels in bearing armes against their king, although they had neuer professed alleageance. And this is so euidently the lawe of the Realme, that it is presumption in vs both; in you, to assay by your shallow Sophistrie to obscure or impugne; in me, to indeuour by authorities and arguments to manifest or defend the same.

But the admission of the people (you say) hath often preuailed against right of succession. So haue pyrates against merchants; so haue murtherers and theeues against true meaning trauellers. And this disloyalty of the people hath moued diuerse kings to cause their sonnes to be crowned during their owne liues; because the vnsetled state of succeeding kings doth giue oportunitie to bouldest attempts; and not as you dreame, because admission is of more importance then succession.

I will examine your examples in the Chapters following. In the meane time where you write, that king Henry and king Edward, both called the Fourth, had no better way to appease their minds at the time of their death, but by founding their title vpon consent of the people; the Authors Sir Tho. Moore, and Stow. which you cite do plainely charge you with vnexcuseable vntruth. King Edward neuer made question of his right: king Henry did, as some other Authors report Holingshead.; but applied no such deceiptfull comfort: this false skinne would not then serue to couer his wound.

IN this passage you handle what cause is sufficient, either to keepe in, or to cast the next in blood out of state. In which question you determine, that God doth allowe for a iust and sufficient cause, the will & iudgement of the people. Your reason is, for that they are the iudge of the thing it selfe, and therefore they are the iudge also of the cause. Your antecedent you proue; First, for that it is in their owne affaire; secondly, for that it is in a matter that hath his whole beginning, continuance and substance from them alone. Your cōsequence you proue by a whole lump of lawe, in alleaging the entire bodie of the ciuil and Canon lawe, assisted also with great reason.

Diogenes said of a certain Tumbler, that he neuer sawe man take more paines to breake his necke. In like sort we may say of you; It is hard to finde a man that hath more busied his wittes, to ouerthrow the opiniō of his wisedome. For the first proofe of your antecedēt, is not only of no force for you, but strong against you; because no man is a competent iudge in his owne cause; no man can bee both partie and iudge: whereto I wil adde, that no inferiour hath iurisdiction ouer the superiour, much lesse the subiect against the Soueraigne.

Your second proofe, that all the power of a King hath dependency vpon the people, I haue sufficiently encountred before Ca. 1.. And if your consequence were true, that whosoeuer is iudge of a thing, is iudg also without controwlment of the cause; if this were as agreeable to all lawes as you make countenance, then were all iudgements arbitrarie; then could no appeale be enterposed, for giuing sentence without iust cause; then were it false which Panormitane writeth In e per tuas. Qui fil. sunt legit., that a false cause expressed in a sentence maketh it voide.

What shall I say? what doe you thinke? doe you think that these fat drops of a greasie brain, can bring the tenure of a crown to the wil of the people? what are you who endeuour thus boldly to abuse both our iudgement & conscience? Are you religious? are you of ciuil either nature or education, who vnder the name of Ciuilian do open the way to all maner of deceits, periuries, tumults & treasons? What are you? For you shewe your selfe more prophane then Infidels; more barbarous then Caniballs, Tartarians, Moores & Mammelucks; who though they beare themselues in nothing more then hatred and cōtempt, yet do they both loue & honor their kings. I see what you are, the very true follower of the Anabaptists in Garmanie, who openly professed, that they must ruinate the state of kings. And who can assure vs (for your corrupt dealing make all suspitions credible) that you doe not also follow them both in desire and hope, to imbrace the Monarchy of the whole world. The difference betweene you is this: they pretended reuelation for their warrant: you worke by deceitfull shewe of reason, by falsly either alleaging, or wresting, or corrupting both humane and diuine authoritie.

In what miserable condition should Princes liue, if their slate depended vpon the pleasure of the people, in whom company taketh away shame, and euery man may laie the fault on his fellow? How could they commaund? who would obey? what could they safely either doe or omit? Who knowes a people, that knoweth not, that suddain opinion maketh them hope, which if it be not presently answered, they fall into hate? choosing and refusing, erecting and ouerthrowing, as euery winde of passion doth puffe. What staiednesse in their will or desire? which hauing so many circles of imagination, can neuer be enclosed in one point.

And whereas you write, that God alwaies approueth the will and iudgement of the people, as being properly the iudge of the whole businesse; and that euery particular man must simply submit himselfe therevnto, without further inquisition, although at diuers times they determine contraries, (as they did betweene the houses of Lancaster and Yorke) because we must presume that they were ledde by different respects. You seeme not obscurely to erect thereby another priuiledged power vppon earth; which cannot erre, which doth not deceiue.

But it may be some honest minded man will say, that howsoeuer you write, your meaning was otherwise; you write also afterward, that in two cases euery priuate man is bounde to resist the iudgement of the whole people, to the vttermost extent of his abilitie. Well then, let vs take you for a man, whose sayings disagree, both from your meaning, and betweene themselues: let vs consider what are your two exceptions.

The first is when the matter is carried, not by way of orderly iudgement, but by particular faction of priuate men, who will make offer to determine the cause, without authoritie of the Realme committed vnto them. But this exception is so large, that it deuoureth the whole rule: for in actions of this qualitie, the originall is alwaies by faction▪ the accomplishment by force, or at least by feare, howsoeuer they are sometimes countenanced with authoritie of the state. So Sylla, hauing brought his legions within the walles of Rome, obteined the lawe Valeria to be published, whereby he was created Dictator for 24. yeares: by meanes of which force, Cicero affirmeth Lib. de legibus. that it was no lawe. Likewise Lawrence Medices, hauing an armie within Florence, caused, or rather constrained the Citizens to elect him Duke. When Henry the fourth was chosen king, ho held fortie thousand men in Armes. And this is most euident by your owne example, of foure contrary actes of Parliament which at diuers times were made, during the contention betweene the families of Lancastar and Yorke, not vpon different reasons, as with little reason you affirme, but vpon different successe of either side.

In matters of this moment, the orderly course of proceeding is onely by Parliament. The Parliament must bee summoned by the Kings vvrit, and no act thereof hath life, But by expresse consent of the King. If this forme had alvvayes beene obserued, neyther our Kinges should haue beene deposed, nor the next successours excluded, nor the title of the crowne entangled, to the inestimable both weakning & waste of all the Realme.

Your second exceptiō is, when such a man is preferred to the crowne, by whō God is manifestly offended, & the realme preiudiced or endangered: in which case (you say) euery man, with a free and vntrowled conscience, may resist what he can.

It was euen here I looked for you. Your broyling spirits do nothing else but fling firebrands, & heape on wood, to set kingdomes in combustiō. What rebellion, what reuolt hath euer bin made, but vnder some of these pretenses? what Princes actions, either by malicious or ignorant interpretation, may not easily be drawen to one of these heades? you are a nursery of war in the common-wealth: a Seminary of schisme & diuisiō in the church: In sum, all your actions, all your thoughts are barbarous & bloody.

You write much of right & iustice, but you measure the right & iustice of a cause, by the aduantage of your owne affaires. You speak as hauing a tender touch of the glorie of God; but you stretch out your throate with high wordes of contradiction against him. You make shew of care to pre • erue the state, but you are like the Iuy, which • eemeth outwardly both to imbrace and adorne the wall, whereinto inwardly it doth both eate & vndermine. For what meanes either more readie or forceable to ouerthrow a state, then faction and intestine quarels? and what other milke doe you yeelde? what are your opinions? what your exhortations? but either to set, or to holde vp sedition and bloodshead? Saint Paule teacheth vs not to resist higher powers Rom. 13., although both cruel and prophane; you teach vs to resist them what we can: the Apostle is followed of al the auntient Fathers of the church; you are followed of those only who follow the Anabaptists. For my part, I had rather erre with the Apostle in this opposition, then holde truth with you. But I will speake more moderately in a subiect of such nature; I wil not say thē that I had rather erre, but that I shall lesse feare to erre in not resisting with ye Apostle, thē in resisting with you. New councels are alwaies more plausible then safe.

After you haue plaide the Suffenus with your selfe, in setting the garland vpon your owne head, and making your imaginarie audience to applaude your opinion, as worshipfully wise, you proceede to declare what ought chiefly • o be regarded, in furthering or hindering any Prince towards the Crowne. Three points (you say) are to bee required in euerie Prince, religion, chiualrie and iustice; and putting aside the two last, as both handled by others, and of least importance, you assume onely to treate of religion; wherein, eyther errour or want doth bring inestimable damage to any state.

You drawe along discourse, that the highest end of euery Common-wealth, is the seruice & worship of God; and consequently, that the care of religion is the principall charge which pertaineth to a King. And therfore you conclude, that whatsoeuer prince doth not assist his subiects to attaine this ende, omitteth the chief part of his charge, & committeth high treason against his Lord, and is not fit to holde that dignitie, though he performe the other two partes neuer so well. And that no cause can to iustly cleare the conscience, whether of the people, or of particular men, in resisting the entrance of any Prince, as if they iudge him faultie in religion.

This is neither nothing, nor all which you say. In electiue states, the people ought not to admit any man for King, who is eyther colde or corrupt in religion; but if they haue admitted such a one with soueraigne authoritie, they haue no power at pleasure to remoue him. In successiue kingdomes wherein the people haue no right of election, it is not lawfull for priuate men vpon this cause to offer to impeach, either the entrāce or cōtinuance of that king, which the lawes of the State do present vnto them: not only because it is forbidden of God (for that is the least part of your regard) but because disorderly disturbance of a setled forme in gouernment, traineth after it more both impieties and dangers, then hath euer ensued the imperfections of a king.

I will come more close to the point in controuersie, and dispell these foggie reasons which stand betweene your eye and the truth. There are two principall parts of the lawe of God; the one morall or natural, which containeth three points; sobrietie in our selues, iustice towards others, and generally also reuerence and pietie towards God: the other is supernaturall; which containeth the true faith of the mysteries of our saluation, and the speciall kind of worship that God doth require. The first, God hath deliuered by the ministrie of nature to all men; the second he doth partly reueale, & partly enspire to whō he please: and therefore although most nations haue in some sort obserued the one, yet haue they not only erred, but failed in the other.

During the time of the lawe, this peculiar worship of God was appropriate only to the people of Israel, in a corner kingdome of the world: the flourishing Empires of the Assirians, Medes, Persians, Aegyptiās, Graecians, Syrians and Romans, eyther knew it not, or held it in contempt. The Israelites were almost alwaies in subiection vnder these both Heathen & tyrannicall gouernments; & yet God by his Prophets enioyned them obedience; affirming, that the hearts of kings were in his hands; & that they were, the officers of his iustice, the executioners of his decrees.

In the time of grace, the true mysteries both of worship and beliefe, were imparted also to other nations; but the ordinarie meanes to propagate the same, was neither by policie, nor by power. When S. Peter offered prouident counsell (as hee thought) vnto Christ, aduising him to haue care of himselfe, and not to go to Hierusalem, where the Iewes sought to put him to death, Christ did sharply reproue him for it Math. 16.25.: when he did drawe his sword, and therwith also drew bloud in defence of Christ, hee heard this sentence; Math. 26.52. They that take the sworde shall perish with the sworde. Christ armed his Apostles onely with firie tongues Act. 2.3.; by force whereof they maintained the fielde, against all the stratagems and strength in the world. And when Princes did, not onely reiect but persecute their doctrine; they taught their subiects obedience vnto them Rom. 13. 1. Pet. 2., they did both encounter and ouercome them, not by resisting, but by persisting and enduring.

This course seemeth straunge to the discourse of of reason, to plant religion vnder the obedience of kings, not only carelesse therof, but cruell against it: but when we consider that the Iewes did commonly forsake God in prosperitie, and seeke him in distresse; that the Church of Christ was more pure, more zealous, more entire, I might also say more populous, when shee trauelled with the storme in her face, then when the winde was eyther prosperous or calme; that as S. Augustine saith Contra Petihanum., Want or weakenesse of faith is vsually chastised with the scourges of tribulatiōs; We may learne thereby no further to examine, but to admire and embrace the vnsearchable wisedome and will of God.

Seeing therefore that this is appointed the ordinarie meanes, both to establish and encrease religiō, may we aduenture to exchange it with humane deuices? Is it the seruants dutie eyther to contradict or dispute the maisters commaundement? is there any more readie way to proue an heretike, then in being a curious questionist with God? is hee bounde to yeelde to any man a reason of his will? It is more then presumption, it is plaine rebelliō to oppose our reason against his order, against his decree.

It standeth also vpon common rules: That which is contrary to the nature of a thing doth not helpe to strengthen, but to destroy it: It is foolish to adde externall stay, to that which is sufficient to support it selfe: It is sencelesse to attempt that by force, which no force is able to effect: That which hath a proper rule, must not be directed by any other. And this was both the profession and practise of the auntient Fathers of the Church, as I haue declared before Ca. • .; wherto I wil here adde that which S. Ambrose saith Epist. 54.: Let euery man beare it patiently, if it be not extorted frō the Emperor, which he would be loath the Emperor should extort frō him. And least they might be interpreted not to mean obedience, as wel to succession as to present power, they alledge that which the captiue Iewes of Babilon did wright, to the tributarie Iewes which were at Ierusalem Hierem. 29. Baruch. 1; to pray for the life not onely of Nabuchodonosor, the King of Babilon, but also of Baltasar his sonne, the next successor to his estate.

But in latter times, Innocentius hath taught, and is also seconded by Castrensis in rep. l. 5 de iust., that loue is a iust cause to moue armes for matters of religion; vnder which pretence, diuers men haue pursued their owne priuate purposes & end • s. Guicciardine wrighteth lib. 12., that Firdinand who was called the catholicke, did couer al his couetous and ambitious desires, with the honest and holy veile of religion: the like dooth Iouius reporte lib. 30. of Charles the fifth Emperour. Paulus Aemilius Paul. Aem. 6.7.8 wrighteth thus of all: euery man professeth his war to be holy; euery man termeth his enemies impious, sanctity & piety is in euery mans mouth, but in aduise and in action nothing lesse. The cōtention is for worldly right, take away that, and you shall finde no cause of war. Now they pretend piety to euery mischiefe: the name of holy warrefare, (most miserable) is applied vnto armes.

Hereupon such cru • ll calamities haue ensued in most partes of Europe, & • specially in Germanie and France, with so little furtherance to that cause, for whose supportance force was offred, that all the chiefe wrighters of our age are now reduced to the former opinion; affirming with Arnobius Adu. ge. 3.4. that religion is of power sufficient for it selfe: with Tertulian also Apolo. Hactantius Inst. 20.21., Cassiodorus 2. Var. 27. et. lib. 10 epi. 26. Iosephus de Vi. su., S. Barnard cant. ser., and others, that it must be perswaded and not enforced. They of your society, as they tooke their originall from a souldier, so they are the onely Atheologians whose heades entertaine no other obiect but the tumult of realmes; whose doctrine is nothing but confusion and bloodshed; whose perswasions were neuer followed, but they haue made way for all miseries and mischiefes to range in, to come forward, to thriue, to preuaile. You haue alwayes bin like a winter sunne, strong enough to raise vapours, but vnable to dispell them. For most cowardly companions may set vp striefe; but it is maintained with the hazard, and ended with the ruine, alwayes of the worthiest, and sometimes of all.

The summe is this. So long as we expresse pure pietie, both in our doctrine and in our doings; all will goe well; but when we make a mixture of deuine and humane both wisedome and power; when we preach policie: when we make a common trade of treason; when we put no difference betweene conscience and conceite; we must needes ouerthrow, either religion or our selues.

Now I will answere the reasons of your assertion. First you say, that if Princes doe not assist their subiects in the honour and seruice of God in this life, God should drawe no other fruite or commodity from humane societies, then of an assembly of brutish creatures. But this reason is not onely weake, as it may appeare by that which hath beene saide, but also brutish, and (which is worse) prophane. For what fruite, what commoditie doeth God drawe from societies of men? is not his glory perfect in it selfe? can we adde any thing to the excellencie thereof? hath he any neede of our broken worship? God is an absolute beeing, both comprehending, and exceeding all perfections: an infinite being, and therefore his sufficiencies neither can be encreased, neither doe depend vpon any, but onely of himselfe. He was from eternity without any world, • nd a thousand worldes more cannot any deale encrease his felicity and glory: he did create the world, not to perticipate any thing thereof, but to communicate from himselfe vnto it. Heereupon Iob saith 22.5.. What profit is it to God if thou be iust? What aduantage is it to him if thy wayes bee cleane? Surelie we must be better enformed of the soundnesse of your iudgement, before we dare depend vppon the authority of your worde.

You put vs in minde that you compared an heire apparant to a spouse, betroathed onely and not maried to the common wealth. I remember it well; but I did not take you for such a widower of wit, that you could thinke it worthy to be repeated. And yet that which herevpon you deduce out of S. Paul maketh altogether against you. S. Paul saith 1. Cor. 7., that if a brother hath an infidell to wife, if the consent to abide with him, he may not put her away: and likewise if a woman hath an infidell husband: but if the infidell doeth depart, then the Christian is free. Now if you will needes make a marriage betweene a King and his subiects, you might heereupon conclude, that if an infidell King will houlde his state, the people may not dispossesse him.

And whereas you affirme, that all they who differ in any point of religion, and stand wilfully in the same, are infidelles the one to the other, you shew both a violence and weakenesse of minde. For obstinate error in certaine articles of • aith, and not in the whole state and substance thereof, doth make an hereticke, but not an Infidell. And although the Canon lawe dooth in some case dissolue mariage betweene a Christian and an Infidell c. iudaei. 28. q. 1. c. quanto. de diuor.; yet doth it not permit the like betweene a true Christian and an heretick d. c. quāto c. gaudemus de diuort.. And Panormitane Inc. ex parte. 2. de conuer. coniug. in his doubting manner denyeth, that the Church hath power to authorize diuorce in case of heresie. So that allowing your compa • ison for good, yet in case of infidelitie, S. Paule; in case of heresie, the Cannon lawe is altogether against you.

You adde, that albeit the religion which a man professeth be neuer so true, yet whosoeuer hath a contrary perswasion thereof, he shall sinne damnably in the sight of God, to preferre that man to a charge, wherein he may drawe others to his opinion. But I will omit this streine, and yet rather as impertinent then true. For there are few nations in the world, wherein the people haue right to prefer any man to be king: & that which you alleage out of S. Paule Rom. 14. 1. Cor. 8. for your proofe, is very different from the case which you do forme. The Apostle speaketh when an action is of it selfe indifferent, but a weake conscience iudgeth it euill; being also euill by circumstance, in offending others: you speake where an action is good in it selfe, but an erronious conscience iudgeth it euill. I allowe, that a good action contrarie to conscience is vnprofitable; but that it is alwayes a damnable sinne I dare not affirme. I dare not affirme that the Romane armie did damnably sinne, in defering the Empire to Iouinian; who excusing himselfe, (as Zona • as wrighteth) because being a Christian he could not command a Pagane armie, they did notwithstanding confirme him Emperour, by which means they did afterward embrace the Christian faith. The like doth Orosius report, that Valentinian, being discharged by Iulian from being Tribune, because he was a Christian, by consent of the Souldiers was created Augustus. I rather take it to be a damnable sinne, which Zonaras to. 3. wrighteth of the Bulgarians, in taking armes against their King, because he was conuerted to Christian religion; albeit they did according to their conscience. It were a deflowring of time to diue into the depth of this question; because it appe • teineth to electiue states, and not vnto vs. But where you wright, without eyther authoritie or proofe, that to assist, or not to resist the aduancement or gouernment of any king, whom we iudge faultie in religion, is a most damnable sinne, of what side soeuer the truth be; you breath out most filthy and vnsauorie smoake; you lift vp your voice into high blasts of blasphemie, against the most high.

God hath taught by the Apostle S. Paule Rom. 15., that whosoeuer resist the higher powers (which at that time were Infidels) receiue vnto themselues damnation; you teach, that whosoeuer doth not in the like case resist, doth damnably offend. Were not the spirit of diuision, otherwise called the deuill seated in your soule, you would not thus openly oppose the setlings of your rotten braine, against the expresse and direct sentence of God. What? is it a damnable sinne to doe euery man right? is it damnable to giue Caesar that which is his due Math. 22 17. Mar. 12.17. Luc. 20.25.? to giue tribute, honor, feare, to whom they appertaine Rom. 13 7? The Apostle saith, that Christians by resisting the power of Infidell rulers, do acquire vnto themselues damnation Rom. 13.2: and shall wee yeelde credit vnto you, that Turkes, Moores, Infidels, should damnablye sinne, eyther in admitting or enduring the authoritie of a Christian Prince? How vilie doe you value the iudgements of men? at how lowe rate doe you prize both your conscience and credit? I could rise into riot of wordes vpon you, were it not that I respect what is seemlye, rather for mee to speake then for you to heare.

Certainely, if we had receiued no such commaundement from God, the regarde of the quiet of humane societies is sufficient to ouer-whelme your hereticall assertion: for seeing there are many different professions of religion, not onely in the world, but almost in euery nation of the world: seeing also (as Philo saith De legat.) euery man, eyther by vse or instruction iudgeth his owne religion best: what suretie could any Prince, what safetie could any people enioy, if your firie opinion should take place? what assurance can there be of life or of state, where the sworde beareth swaye vpon such occasions, & that guided by hands both tumultuous and fierce. And seeing among many religions there can be but one truth, if all men should be obstinatelie bent against the gouernment of any, who in their iudgement is faultie in religion; what likelyhood can we eyther conceiue or coniecture, but that many errours would soone preuaile against the onely trueth. And therefore it is farre more moderate and safe, to vse the ordinarie meanes both of maintaining and propagating the trueth, and to commit the successe thereof vnto God; and (as Iosephus aduiseth) not to offer eyther contumelie or violence against any religion, least we prouoake thereby the professors thereof to doe the like against our.

Your last reason is drawne from policie and consideration of state; because a King will neyther trust nor fauour, much lesse aduance him, that is not of the same religion with himselfe: but to the contrarie, hee shall bee subiect to all molestations, iniuries and other auersions, which are incident to those who are not currant with the present course of affaires.

Oh sirre; this is the Helene for which you contend; you concurre in opinion with those Athenians of whome Alexander demanded deuine honours; not so obstinately to defend heauen, as to loose the benefit of the earth. This is the marke whereat you aime, this is the Compasse whereby you sayle; as diuers flowers doe open and cloase, according to the motion of the same; so according to the variation hereof, you extend or restraine your plyant conscience as you please.

But the Apostle teacheth vs to be obedient to higher powers, for conscience sake Rom. 13.5, and not for anye priuate respect.

Besides, all Princes are not of that disposition whereof you speake. Suida wrighteth of one, who changing religion to please his King, was therefore adiudged to loose his head; one being appointed to crye at the time of his execution; Hee that keepeth not faith with God, what sound conscience can hee beare towards men? The Protestants in France are not altogether cast eyther out of fauoure or out of charge: and manie Romane Catholickes in England, doe enioye their full part, of all the plentie and pleasures that the realme can affoord.

Lastly, what haue you to doe with reasons of state? This is the Eagles feather which consumeth your deuotiō. Your office is to meditate, to pray, to instruct mē in pure deuotion, to settle their soules in piety & in peace. But do you containe yourselues within these limmits? nothing lesse. You take vpon you the pollicie of state; 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 yoù • end & deface the reputation of Kings; you make your selues both iudges & moderators of all their actions, allowing them to flie no further then you giue them wings. You dispose not onely their affaires, but their crownes at your pleasure; you hunt them, not to couert, but to death. You contriue wa • s to compasse your designes; you traine vp your followers in the high mistery of treason; you cast into euery realme the apple of striefe: your doctrine is to no other vse but as drummes, Fifes, and trumpets to incense fury.

To these endes, you wrest scriptures, you corrupt histories, you counterfeit reasōs, you corrupt all truth (pardon my plainenes I pray you, I haue not atteined to your dexterity in disguising matters with smooth termes) you are obstinate to hazard rather all dangers, then to be cut of from one point of your purpose. You acknowledge no religion but your will, no law but your power: all lies, treacheries and fraudes do change their nature, and become both lawfull and laudable actions when they beare for the aduantage of your affaires.

But this is directed to deuotion, (you will say) and as you terme it, ordine ad deum, for a holy and religious end. Away then with your deuotion, and so we shall be rid of your dangerous deceit. Away I say with your deuotion; or else we will conclude of you as Liuie did of Anniball: nihil veri, nihil sancti, nullus deûm metus nullum iusiuradum, nulla religio.