AN ANSWER TO THE FIRST PART OF A CERTAIN CONFERENCE, CONCERNING SUCCESSION, PUBLISHED not long since under the name of R. Dolman.  
AT LONDON Imprinted for Simon Waterson, and Cuthbert Burbie. 1603.   

TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY.  
MOst loved, most dread, most absolute both borne and respected Sovereign, to offer excuse for that which I needed not to have done, were secretly to confess, that having the judgement to discern a fault, I wanted the will not to commit it. Again, to seek out some colors to make it more plausible, were to bring in question the sufficiency thereof. Therefore without further insinuation either for pardon or for acceptance, I here present unto your Majesty this defence, both of the present authority of Princes, and of succession according to proximity of blood: wherein is maintained, that the people have no lawful power, to remove the one, or repel the other: In which two points I have heretofore also declared my opinion, by publishing the tragical events which ensued the deposition of King Richard, and usurpation of King Henry the fourth. Both these labours were undertaken with particular respect, to your majesties just title of succession in this realm: and I make no doubt, but all true hearted Englishmen will always be both ready and forward to defend the same, with expense of the dearest drops of their blood. The Lord vouchsafe to second your honourable entrance to the possession of this crown, with a long & prosperous continuance over us.  
Your majesties most humble and faithful subject. Io: HAYWARD.  
Qui tibi Nestoreum concessit pectus e● ora,  
Nestoreos etiam concedat jupiter annos.   

To R. DOLEMAN.  
YOu will think it strange Master Doleman, that having lain these many years in quiet harbour from the tempest of men's tongues, you should now feel a storm to break upon you; peradventure you were persuaded (as every one suffereth himself to be beguiled with desire) that this silence did grow, either upon acceptance of your opinion, or from insufficiency to oppose against it. I assure you neither; but partly from contempt, and partly from fear. Th● contempt proceeded from the manner of your writing, wherein you regard not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: not how either truly or pertinently, but how largely you do wright: endeavouring nothing else, but either to abuse weak judgements, or to feed the humours of such discontented persons, as want o● disgrace hath kept lower than they had set their swelling thoughts. The fear was occasioned by the nimble ear which lately was borne to the touch of this string: for which cause our English fugitives did stand in some advantage, in that they had free scope to publish whatsoever was agreeable to their pleasure; knowing right well, that their books could not be suppressed, and might not be answered.  
It may be you will question, wherefore I have not answered your second part: it is ready for you, but I have not now thought fit to divulge the same; partly because it hath been dealt in by some others; but principally because I know not how convenient it may seem, to discuss such particulars, as with general both liking and applause are now determined. I forbear to express your true name; I have reserved that to my answer to some cast Pamphlet which I expect you will cast forth against me: and I make little doubt but to drive you in the end to such desperate extremity, as (with Achitophel) to sacrifice yourself to your own shame, because your mischievous counsel hath not been embraced.   

AN ANSWER TO THE FIRST CHAPter; whereof the Title is this. That succession to government by nearness of blood is not by law of Nature or divine, but only by human and positive laws of every particular common wealth: and consequently, that it may upon just causes, be altered by the same.  
HERE you begin, that other conditions are requisite for coming to government by succession, besides propinquity or priority of blood; which conditions must be limited by some higher authority then that of the King, and yet are they prescribed by no law of Nature or divine. For otherwise, one that wanteth his wits or senses, or is a Turk in religion, might succeed in government; which you affirm to be against all reason, law, religion, wisdom, conscience, & against the first end of Institution of common wealths. And that Byllay, who maintaineth the contrary, doth it in favour and flattery of some particular Prince.  
What conditions are requisite in succession besides priority of blood, & by what authority they are to be limited, I w●l them examine when you shall propound: but for your reason of this assertion, you must heave other men than Billay out of credit, for reason, law, conscience, & wisdom, before you carry it for clear good. As for entire contrariety in religion, or difference in some particular points thereof, whether it be a sufficient cause of exclusion, or no, I will refer myself to that place, where you do strain your strength about it. In disabilities to govern, Baldus 
a In c. 1. tit. de success. feud.  doth distinguish, whether it be natural, or accidental; affirming, that in the first case it sufficeth to exclude, because he that is incapable of government from his birth, had never any right of succession settled in him: in the other it doth not suffice; because he that is once invested in right of succession, cannot be deprived thereof without his fault. Many do follow this distinction; Io: Igneus 
b In quaest●an rex Franc ae r●c●gn s●at ●uperiorem.  doth limit it, to such dignities as are not absolute: But I●son 
c In ●●emo. D. d● l●g 1. , Angelus 
d In ●●um praetor. § non autem. D. de judi.  & divers others do indistinctly hold, that the eldest son of a king or other governor, although he be borne either ●urious, or a fool, or otherwise defective, cannot therefore be excluded from his succession. These affirm, that any end of institution of common wealths is, if not fully, yet better satisfied, by appointing a protector of the state (as upon divers occasions it hath been usual) then by acknowledging another prince; as well for other respects, as for that by continuance of succession in one descent, a fair & ordinary occasion is removed, both of mutiny & invasion. For enemies will not readily attempt, & subjects do most willingly obey that prince, whose ancestors have worn out those humours both of hatred & contempt which do commonly accompany new raised estates. I will not confirm this last opinion, by the example of Neptune the son of Saturn; who, although he was lame on both his legs, yet had the government of the sea allotted to him: but I will confirm it by the practice of Athens & Laced●mon, the two eyes of Graecia, as Leptines 
e Apud Aristor. thetor. 3. ca 10.  & justine 
f Lib. 5.  do aptly term them. Herodotu: 
g In cerpsychore  reporteth that when Alexandrides king of Sparta left 2, sons, Cleomenes the eldest, distracted in wits, & Dorieus the youngest, both of ability & inclination to all actions of honour, the Lacedæmonians acknoledged Cleomenes for their king. Agesilaus also the famous king of Lacedaemon was lame, as Plutarch & Probus Aemilius 
h In eius vita.  do report. Paul. Orosius 
i Lib. 3. ca 2.  saith, that the Lacedæmonians did chose to have their K. halt rather than their kingdom. Herodotus 
k Vbi. 5.  also writeth that after the death of Codrus king of Athens, Medon his eldest son, & Neleus the next, did contend for the kingdom, because Neleus would not give place to Medon, who was by reason of his lame legs, if not unable, yet unapt to govern. The matter being almost brought to the sentence of the sword, it was mediated between them, that the controversy should be decided by the Oracle of Apollo-Apollo was consulted; by whose judgement Medon was declared king. josephus 
l Antiqu. 14. ca 1  hath left recorded, that Aristobulus & Hircanus, after a long & cruel contention for the kingdom of jury, made Pompeie the judge of that right which by arms they were unable to decide. Hircanus' alleged that he was eldest brother; Aristobulus excepted, that Hircanus was insufficient to govern a realm. Hereupon Pompey gave sentence, that Aristobulus should give over the kingdom which he did usurp, & Hircanus be restored to his estate. The like judgement doth Livy 
m Lib. 1.2. belli Iu●●ci.  write, that Annibal gave for the kingdom of that country, which is now called Savoy 
Allobroges.  restoring Brancus unto his right, from which he had been by his younger brother expelled. And although Pyrrus did appoint that son to succeed, whose sword had the best edge, yet was the eldest acknowledged, who bore the least reputation for valour. Lisander moved the Lacedæmonians to decree, that the most sufficient, & not always the next in blood of the line of Hercules, should be admitted to the kingdom; yet Plutarch 
n In Lisan●i.  saith, that he found no man to second his advise.  
I will add an example of later times. Ladislaus, a man more famous for the sanctity of his life, then for his kingdom of Hungary, left by his brother Grisa two nephews; Colomannus the elder, who was dwarfye, lame, crooke-backt, crab-faced, blunt and blear-eyed, a stammerer, and (which is more) a Priest: and Almus the younger, a man free from just exception. Yet these respects set aside, a dispensation was obtained from the Pope, and Colomannus, notwithstanding his deformities and defects, was accepted by the people for king 
Mich●el Riccius. . Girarde 
Lib. 1. de l c. st●●e de France.  writeth, that the custom of the French was to honour their kings whatsoever they were, whether foolish or wise, able or weak: esteeming the name of king to be sacred, by whomsoever it should be borne. And therefore they supported in estate, not only Charles the simple, but Charles the 6. also, who reigned many years in open distemperature & disturbance of mind.  
So you see, that the practice of many nations have been contrary to your conceit: and that the interpreters of the civil and canon law (good arbitrators of natural equity) either bear against you, or stand for you only when disability is natural: adding further, that if the excluded successor hath a son, before or after succession doth fall, free from any such defect, the right of the kingdom descendeth unto him. This affirmeth Baldus 
q Cons. 389. lib. 2. , Socinus 
r Cons 4●. lib. 3. , Cardinal Alexander 
In. c. 1. tit. an mu●us vel imperfectus. , and before them, Andreas Iserna. 
t In c. ult. tit. ● pif. vel ab.  Because the inability of parents doth not prejudice the children, especially in regard of their natural rights 
u l. 3. D●le interdic. & rel. l. 2. C●de libert. & co●. lib ●diui fratres. D. de iur. patr l quaeritur D. de bo lib. panor. cons. 85. lib. 1. Io. Annd. in c. significasti de so. comp. : neither is it any impediment wherefore they should not enjoy either privilege or dignity from the person of their grandfather. Magis est (saith Ulpian 
x In l. seven. in fi. de senate. ) ut avi potius dignitas prosit, quam obsit casus patris. It is fitter that the son should receive profit by the dignity of his grandfather, than prejudice by his father's chance.  
And this (we may think) is a reasonable respect, wherefore other interpreters have not allowed their principal opinion, in repelling him who is disabled by birth. For if another be once possessed of his place, it will be hard for any of his children to attain their right: Whereupon difunion, factions, wars may easily arise. It is inconvenient (I grant) to be governed by a king, who is defective in body or in mind: but it is a greater inconvenience, by making a breach in this high point of state, to open an entrance for all disorders, wherein ambition and insolency may range at large. For as mischief is of that nature that it cannot stand, but by supportaunce of another evil, and so multiplieth in itself, till it come to the highest, and then doth ruin with the proper weight: so minds once exceeding the bounds of obedience, cease not to strengthen one boldness by another, until they have involved the whole state in confusion. We find that Gabriel the youngest brother of the house of Saluse kept his eldest brother in close prison, usurped his estate, and gave forth for satisfaction to the people, that he was mad. I could report many like examples: but I shall have occasion to speak more hereof in the further passage betwixt us.  

After this you conclude three points.  
1 That inclination to live in company is of nature.  
2 That government and jurisdiction of magistrates is also of nature.  
3 That no one particular form of government is natural; for than it should be the same in all countries, seeing God and nature is one to all.   
But before I join with you, either in contradiction or consent, it shall not be amiss to declare briefly, what we understand by the law of nature, and by what means it may best be known.  
God in the creation of man, imprinted certain rules within his soul, to direct him in all the actions of his life: which rules, because we took them when we took our being, are commonly called the primary law of Nature: of which sort the canons 
x c●ius naturale. dist. 3  account these precepts following. To worship god: to obey parents and governors, & thereby to conserve common society: lawful conjunction of man & woman: succession of children: education of children: acquisition of things which pertain to no man: equal liberty of all: to communicate commodities: to repel force: to hurt no man: and generally, to do to another as he would be done unto: which is the sum and substance of the second table of the decalogue. And this law Thom. Aquine 
y 1.2. q. 94. d. 2.  affirmeth to be much depraved by the fall of man; and afterwards more, by error, evil custom, pertinacy, and other corrupters of the mind: and yet doth it yield us so large light, that Saint Paul 
z rom. cap. 2. & 3.  did esteem it sufficient to condemn the gentiles, who had no other law written.  
Out of these precepts are form certain customs, generally observed in all parts of the world: which, because they were not from the beginning, but brought in afterward, some as a consequence or collection, others as a practice or execution of the first natural precepts, are called the secondary law of nature, and by many also the law of nations. Gaius, 
' quod naturali● ratio inter omnes homine● constituit, id apud omnes peraeque custoditur vocaturque ius gentium. l. ix. D. de just. & iur.  saith: that which natural reason doth constitute among all men, is observed by all alike, and termed the law of Nations: and the same is called by justinian 
a just. de ter. deni. §. singulorum. ; the law of nature. Cicero 
b in re consensio omnium gentium, lex naturae putanda est. i. Tuscal.  likewise saith: the consent of all nations is to be esteemed the law of nature.  
But this is to be taken, not as though all nations have at any time observed one usage alike: it is not necessary faith Baldus 
c in l 1. C. de testam. , that the word al● should carry so large a sense: neither hath it ever been brought into knowledge what customs all nations have held in use. And it is most certain, that there is not one point or precept of the law of nature, but, by reason, partly of the weakness, partly of the corruption, which the fall of Adam fasten in his posterity, some people have at all times, either neglected or else depraved: some being so dull as they could not perceive, others so malicious as they would deny, that which nature did lay before them. Yea, such is either the weakness or wilfulness of our judgement, that they who are not only admitted but admired for wise men, do many times disagree in determining what is most agreeable to nature: much less may we either expect or imagine, that all nations, so different, so distant, never so much as now, and yet not now fully discovered, should jump in one judgement for uniform observation of any custom: neither is that no natural right, as Zenophon 
d 4. Socrat.  noteth, which many daily do transgress.  
And therefore Donellus 
e In come. in. 6.  did unjustly reject the description which Gaius gave of the law of nations, by taking the word all in the amplest sense. S. Ambrose 
f Ad ephes. 4.  and S. Hierome 
g Tit.  did in this sort declare it; that we are to take that for a decree of nations, which successively and at times hath been observed by all. But as for any one time, as it is to be judged the decree or custom of a whole city, which hath passed by consent of the most part, although all have not allowed, and some perhaps have opposed against it 
h c. ●. de decret. ab ord.. l. 32. de legi. ; so is it to be esteemed the law of nations, the common law of the whole world, which most nations in the world are found to embrace.  
And because government was not from the beginning, but induced as a consequence of the primary precept of nature; to maintain human society: therefore whensoever we speak of natural government, we are intended to mean the secondary law of nature, which is the received custom, successively of all, & always of most nations in the world.  
Out of this we may gather, that three rules do chiefly lead us to the knowledge of this law. The first is that which Cicero 
i ad Q. fratrem. provocandum ad sensus.  in the like case giveth: to appeal unto sense: because there is no man but by the light of nature, hath some sense of that which nature doth allow. S. Augustine 
k interiori nescio qua conscientia i●aec sentimus. de vtti. cred.  saith, I know not by what inward conscience we feel these things: and likewise Tertullian 
l omn● malum aut timore aut pudor natura perfu●it. in apol. : Nature hath tainted all evil either with fear or with shame. Whereto agreeth that which S. Ambrose 
louse possin: negare, non possunt tamen non crubesc. 1 c. 3. de office 14.  saith: although they deny it, they cannot but show some tokens of shame. hereupon the authors of the civil law 
n l. 3. si auro. D. de usur. l. 8. D. quib. more. pi. sold. 15. de cond. l. 14. D. de nup.  do reject that for unjust, which is not demanded without show of shame. For, as Cassiodorus 
o 7. var. 16.  writeth; God hath giuē●l men such a sense of justice, that they who know not the laws, cannot but acknowledge the reason of truth.  
But because this light of nature, in many men is exceeding dim; the next rule is to observe what hath been allowed by those who are of greatest both wisdom and integrity, in whom nature doth show herself most clear. For as Aristotle saith 
;? topic. prin. ; that is probable which proved men do approve. Among these, the first place pertaineth unto them, who by inspiration of god, have compiled the books of holy scripture: to whom as attendants we may adjoin the ancient counsels & fathers of the church. The next place is to be given to the authors of the civil law; whose judgement hath been these many hundred years, admired by many, approved by all, and is at this day accepted for law, almost in all states of the christian common wealth. To these also we may adjoin, as attendants, their interpreters of most approved note. The third place is due to Philosophers, historiographers, orators and the like; who have not unprofitably endeavoured to free nature of two clouds, wherewith she is often overcast: gross ignorance, and subtle error.  
But because natural reason, as Alciate 
p 5. consil. 38.  affirmeth, doth sometimes vary, according to the capacity of particular men; even as the sun, being in itself always the same, giveth neither heat nor light to all alike: the third rule followeth, to observe the common use of all nations, which Cicero 
q ipsius vocem naturae de nature. deot.  calleth; the voice of nature: because as Aristotle 
r 15. prob. 3.  hath written, it is not done by chance which every where is done. Plato 
s 8. de legib.  saith, this shall be the proof hereof, that no man doth otherwise speak: and likewise Baldus 
t 4. consil. 496. , I dare not disallow that which the world alloweth. And in this common law or custom of the world, three circumstances are to be considered: antiquity, continuance, and generality.  
Now than your first position is so clearly true, that you do but gild gold in labouring to prove it: for man is not only sociable by nature, but (as Aristotle 
u 1. polit.  affirmeth) more sociable than any other living creature. These notorious points, the more we prove, the more we obscure.  
Your second is also true, for as Tully saith 
x sine imperio n●c d●mus ulla, nec ciuita●, nec gen, neel ominem vniu●t sum genus state, n●c re●um natura om●● nec ipse den. que m●●dus potest. ●. de legib.  Without empire, neither house, nor city, nor nation, nor mankind can stand, nor the nature of all things, nor in a word, the world itself. Whereto agreeth that of Aristotle 
y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1. polit. ca 3. : government is both necessary and also profitable. But whereas you bring in proof hereof, that there was never people found, either in ancient time, or of late discovery, which had not some magistrate to govern them, neither is it necessary, and yet false. It is not necessary to have so large a consent of nations, as I have declared before: and it is false that in all times and nations there have been magistrates. After the deluge, magistrates were not known until kings did arise, as hereafter it shall appear. The jews were often without either magistrates or government: Whereupon in certain places of the book of judges 
z ca 17. ver. 6. & ca vlt in si.  it is thus written: In those days there was no king in Israel, but what seemed right to every man that did he.  
Sometimes democratical government doth draw to a pure anarchy; and so doth the interregnum of elective principalities. Leo Aser reporteth, that in Guzala, a country of Africa, the people have neither king nor form of government; but upon days of mart, they elect a captain to secure their traffic. The same author delivereth, that the inhabitants of the mountain Magnan, upon the frontiers of Fez, have no form of common wealth, but do stay travailers (unpartial judges) to decide their controversies. Leo himself was arrested to be their judge, and when he had spent many days in determining their debates, he was in the end presented with hens, ducks, geese and other of their country commodities, which served only to discharge his host. And if this your reason should be of force than were not sociabilitie natural, because many men have made choice to live alone.  
But how them, will you say, is nature immutable? It is in abstracto, but it is not in subiecto. Or thus: In itself it is not changed: in us, by reason of our imperfections, it is. Or else more plainly, it is not changed, but it is transgrested. But nature, you say, is alike to al. 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 itself in stead of nature 
z l. si quis post. humos. D. de lib. et posth. .  
Your third conclusion, that no particular form of government is natural, doth not find so easy 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 encountered before: and yet you take pains to puff it up with many waste words; how the Romans changed government; how in Italy there is, a pope, a king and many dukes; how Milan, Burgundy, Lorraine, Bavier, Gascoint, and Britain the less were changed from kingdoms to dukedoms; how Germany was once under one king, and is now divided among dukes, earls, and other supreme princes; How Castille, Aragone, Portugal, Barcelona and other countries in Spain, were first Earldoms, than Dukedoms, then several Kingdoms, and now are united into one; how B●eme 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 Britain's, than a Province under the romans, after that divided into seven Kingdoms, and lastly reduced into one; how the people of Israel were first under patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and jacob, then under Captains, then under judges, them 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 Britaines 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 bundle of words is like a blown bladder, full of wind, but of no weight.  
For first you do but trifle upon terms, in putting a difference between Kings, Dukes, and Earls, which hold their state with sovereign 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 jest to put a difference (in this regard) between a great territory and a small. If a kingdom be enlarged or straightened 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 accrue 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 entitled, 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 can not be performed, where the commandments are, either repugnant or uncertain: neither can these inconveniences 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 mean of amity, which is the only band of this collective body: and the more they are who join in government, the less natural is their union, and the more subject to dissipation. For as Tacitus saith 
', Arduum semper codem loci potcutiam & concordiam esse. iiiii. annal. : 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 
a In pr●ncipt● lib. d● v●tis ●ententi●que Philosophorum.  reporteth that Musaeus of Athens was author, who lived long before Homer: but afterwards it was renewed by Pythagoras, as Plutarch 
b Lib. de dogmatis Philosophorun.  Alexander 
c In successionibus Philosophorum. , and Laertius 
d Lib. 8. de vi●is & sententiis Philosophorum.  do write: who added thereunto, that unity is the original of good, and duality of evil: And of this opinion Saint Hierome 
e Lib. 1. contra jovinian.  was also, whose sentence is repeated in the canonical decrees 
f c. nuptiae. 32. di. 1.  but under the title and name of Saint Ambrose. Hereupon Homer doth oftentimes call good 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and applieth the term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to affliction and trouble. Hereupon Galen 
g Lib. 6. de sanit. tuend.  also writeth, that the best in every kind is one. Plato produceth all things from one 
h In Timaeo. ; measureth all things by one 
i In Philebo. ; and reduceth all things into one 
k In Epinomide. .  
The whole world is nothing but a great state; a state is no other than a great family; and a family no other than a great body. As one GOD ruleth the world, one master the family, as all the members of one body receive both sense 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 
l Anno. 1552. . Who having strangled Sultan Mustapha his son, because at his return out of Perfect, he was received by the soldiers with great demonstrations of joy; he caused the dead body to be cast forth before the army, and appointed one to cry; There is but one God in Heaven, and one Sultan upon earth. The second was used by Agesilaus, to one that moved the Spartans' for a popular government; go first (said he) and establish a popular government within your own doors. To the third Tacitus 
m unum imperii corpus unius animo regendum videtur. 1. annal.  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 
n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  also applieth 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 governor 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 judgement concerning this point, and also the consent of others, in affirming 
o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. in Enagora.  that all men did acknowledge, that the government of a King is the most excellent benefit that God hath given unto men.  
Callimachus saith, 
p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that Kings proceed from god: Homer affirmeth, 
q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that they are cherished by god. Yourself do show 
r In cap. 1.  out of Aristotle, Seneca, Plutarch, S. Hierome, S. Chrysost●me and S. Peter, that monarchy is the most excellent 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 agreeable to yourself.  
But now if we consider the general custom of all people, we shall find that all the ancient nations in whom the laws of nature were least corrupt, had no other government: as the Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Parthians, Indians, Scythians, Syrians, Phoenicians, Arabians, Egyptians, Africans, Numidians, Mauritanians, Britan's, Celtes, Gauls, Latins, tuscans, Sicilians, Athenians, Lacaedemonians, Corinthians, Achaeans, Sicyonians, Candians, & in one word, all. Tully saith 
s certum est omnos antiqua● gentes regibus paruisse. 3. de legib. : it is certain, that all ancient nations were under kings: with which opinion Sallust 
t in Caulin.  consenteth; & justine also, where he saith 
u principio tersum, gentium nationumque imperium p●nes r●ges crat. lib. 1. ; the empire of nations at the first was in the hands of kings. And when the people of Israel desired a king, they alleged that all other nations were governed by kings 
x 1. reg. 8.5. . The Athenians were the first (as Pliny affirmeth) who set up the government of many, whose example certain other towns of Greece did follow, rather blinded by ambition, than led by judgement. 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 
x in ca 2.  that neither they did nor could any long time continue; but after many tumults, seditions, mutinies, outrages, iniusticies, 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 enjoyed x. years together free from sedition, Polybius saith that is was mixed; the consuls representing a monarchy, the senate, an aristocracy, & 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 populare: which seemeth to be confirmed by the famous lawyer & counsellor Ulpian, where he saith 
y utpote cum lege re●●a quae denu●crio cius lara est, populus e● & in eum omne sur●m in: cusuin & pot. statem consera l 1. D. de c●●st pr●ne.  that the people did grant all their power & authority to the prince. Whatsoever it was in show, in very deed it was always governed by some one principal man. Livy wrighteth of Scipio 
z sub umbra cius urbem terratum d●minam latere, ●●us nutus ●ro decretis patrum, pro justis populi ●sse. lib ●0. , that under his shadow the city was protected, & that his looks were in stead of laws: & likewise of Papirius cursor 
,' nemo erat quo magis innixa res romana, qu m●in Papirio cutsore c●tatet. lib. ●. ; that he sustained the Roman affairs. So said Thucydides, that Athens was in appearance populare, but Aristides was the true monarch thereof: & Plutarch 
a in●pelopid.  also affirmeth, that Pelopidas and Epaminondas were no less than lords of the populare 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 
b in pericle, , like a ship in a tempest without a pilot. So did Peter Sodarine Gonsalonier of Florence give forth, that the title of popularity was used as a mask, to shadow the tyranny of Laurence Medici's: but Florence did never so flourish both in honour, 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 Livy calleth 
c trepidi patres ad summum au●ilium decurrunt Dictatorem dici placuit. lib 6.  the highest refuge; whose authority as the Romans did most reverently respect, so was it many times fearful to their enemies. Of the first, Livy saith 
d Dictatoris edictum pro numine semper obseruatum. lib. 6. ; the Dictator's edict was always observed as an oracle: of the second 
e tantus erat dictatoris terror apud hosts, ut co creato statim a manibus discesserint. lib. co. , 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 Lacedæmonians had their high governor whom they called Harmostes; the Thessalonians had their Archos; and the Mytilenians also their great Aezymnetes. Lastly, Tacitus reporteth 
f ve recte prudentes quidam de vita Augusti post mortem eius inter se conferentes, dix●runt, non aliud discordantis patriae remedium suisse, quam si ab uno regeretur. ann. 1.  that certain wise men discoursing of the life 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, 
g in epist. 1. ad Q. Fratreu●.  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 & Cataians: no other government is found to be founded in all the countries of Africa: in America also and all the west parts of the world, no other is yet discovered: in Europe only, upon either declining or change of the empire, a few towns in Germany & 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 ancient, so continual, so general consent of all nations? what can we say, but conclude with Tertullian 
in apolog. . 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 reins endeavoured to keep in this raging desire: by succession & by election. And yet again, because election is most often, if not always, entangled with many inconveniences; as first, for that the outrages during the vacancy, are many & great; every one that is either grieved or in want, assuming free power both for revenge & spoil. Secondly, for that the boldest winneth the garland more often then the best; because the favour of the people doth always taste more of affection then of judgement. Thirdly, for that they who do not leave their state to their posterity, will dissipate the domain and work out of it either profit or friends; for so we see that the empire of Germany is plucked bare of her fairest feathers. Fourthly, for that occasions of war are hereby ministered; & that, either when one taketh his repulse for indignity; upon which ground Francis the first, king of France, could never be driven out of practice against Charles the 5. emperor; or else when by means of factions many are elected, as it happened in Almain when Lewes of Bavier, 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 by the Soldiers, and sometimes by every legion one; whereby such fires were kindled, as could not be quenched without much blood. For these wars are most cruelly executed; because the quarrel leaveth no middle state inter summum & praecipitium; between the highest honour and the deadliest downfall.  
For these and divers other respects, it hath been observed, at most times in all nations, and at all times in most, that the royalty hath passed by succession, according to propinquity of blood. We read that Ptolemy, who after the death of Alexander the great seized upon Egypt, and part also of Arabia and of afric, left that state to his youngest son: but Trogus said, and out of him justine 
i Lib. 16. , that it was against the law of Nations, and that upon this occasion one of them did work the death of the other. And therefore when afterward Ptolemy surnamed Physcon, at the importunity of his wife Cleopatra, would have preferred his youngest son to the succession of his kingdom, justine saith 
k Lib. 39 , that the people opposed themselves against it; but Pausanias 
l Lib. 1.  more probably affirmeth, that they reversed his order after his death.  
The same course was held in Italy by the tuscans, Latins, and those Albans from whom the Romans took their original. Livy 
m Lib. 1.  writeth that Procas king of the Albans appointed Numitor to succeed in his estate, but Amulius his younger brother did usurp it by force: hereupon Dionysius Halicarnasseus 
n Lib. 1.  saith; that Amulius held the kingdom against right, because it appertained to his elder brother.  
Among the Grecians, during the space of six hundred years, wherein they were governed by kings, we find but Timondas and Pittacus who were elected, the one of Corinth, the other of Negropont; the residue held their states by order of succession, as Thucydides affirmeth, encountering therein the opinion of Aristotle. Livy writeth 
o Belli macedonici. lib. 10. , that Perseus' king of Macedon said, that by the order of Nature, the law of Nations, and the ancient custom of Macedony, the eldest son was to succeed in the kingdom. Diodorus Siculus 
p Lib. 16. , and justine 
q Lib. 7.  do report, that by this custom Alexander succeeded his father Amyntas, before his younger brother Phillippe.  
Herodotus 
In Euterpe.  declareth that the same order was observed among the Trojans; affirming, that after the death of Priamus, the kingdom was not to devolve unto Alexander, because Hector was before him in years. The same also doth appear by that which Virgil writeth: 

Aeneid. 1.  Praeterea Sceptrum Ilione, quod gesserat olim,  
Maxima natarum Priami.  
The Sceptre which Ilione, when she the state did stay,  
The first daughter of Priamus, with royal hand did sway.   
Out of which place Servius Maurus doth collect, that women also did use to govern. But more plainly this custom of the Trojans doth appear, by that which Messala corvinus 
t Lib ad oc●au. August.  writeth, that Troius had two sons, Ilus and Assaracus; and that Ilus by privilege of his age succeeded in the kingdom.  
The Persians also, who for a long time held the reins of all the nations near unto them, had the same order of succession, as Zenophon 
u In Cytopaed.  witnesseth; which is also confirmed by two famous histories; one between Artaxerxes & Cyrus, whereof Plutarch 
x In Artaxerxe.  maketh mention, the other between Artabazanes & Xerxes, reported by Herodotus 
y In polyhimnia.  & justine 
z Lib. 2. ; wherein Artabazanes alleged, that it was a custom among all men, that the eldest son should first succeed. Agathocles, & out of him Athenaeus do write, that the Persians had a golden water (for so they term it) whereof it was capital for any man to drink, but only the king and his eldest son. Whither this water were drawn out of the river Euleus, which environeth the tower Susis, & the Temple of Diana, whereof Pliny 
a Lib. 6. ca 28.  writeth, that only the kings of Persia did drink; or whether out of Choaspis, whose waters Herodotus doth report to have been boiled, & carried after the king in silver vessels; or whether both these were one river, I will neither determine nor discourse.  
In Syria, which is called Assiria (as Herodotus 
Lib. 7. , writeth) & also Phoenicia, Palestina, & Mesopotamia, as appeareth by Pliny 
b Lib. 5. ca 12.  Eusebius 
c De praeparar. evang. lib. 10.  & divers other, the same custom is proved by that which justine 
d lib. 34. , & L. Florus 
Lib. 46.  do write, that Demetrius, having been delivered by his brother Antiochus, king of Syria, for an hostage to the Romans, & hearing of the death of Antiochus, declared to the senate in open assembly, that as by the law of nations he had given place to his elder brother, so by the same law, the right of succession was then cast upon him. The Parthians, who being thrice attempted by the Romans, in the time of their chiefest both discipline and strength, were able to bear themselves victorious, did always acknowledge for their king, the next of the blood of their first king Arsaces 
e justin. lib. 14. & 41. . Among the Germans also, who were of force to defeat five consulare armies of the Romans, Tacitus 
f De morib. Ger.  affirmeth that the eldest son did entirely succeed, only the horses did fall to the most valiant. And that this was likewise the custom of the jews, it is evident by the whole history of their kings, especially where it is said 
g 2. Chron. ca 21. , that joram succeeded josaphat; & the reason added, because he was the eldest.  
I should but burn day (as the saying is) in running further upon particulars. Herodotus 
h In polyhimnia.  doth advow it to be a general custom among all men, that the first in birth is next in succession. Certain ages after him S. Hierome 
i In epist ad onagrium, & in gen. 49.  said, that a kingdom is due unto the eldest. In late ages ourselves may see, that the Tartars Turks, Persians, & all the Asiaticks have no other form of constituting their kings. No other is followed in all the countries of afric. In the west Indies no other is yet discovered; Insomuch as when Frances Pizaire, in the conquest of Peru, had slain Atibalippa the king thereof, the people broke into show, some of joy, all of contentment; because he had made his way to the kingdom, by murdering of his elder brother. In Europe it is not long since all the Monarchies were successive. When the Empire of Almain was made elective, it became in short time so either troublesome or base, that divers Princes refused to accept it: of late it hath been settled in one family, but hath as yet little increased either in dignity or in power. The people of Denmark, Sweden, Hungary, and B●eme, do challenge to themselves a right of election, but they accept their king by propinquity of blood. So they did in Polonia, until the line of jagello was worn out, and then they elected for king, Henry duke of Anjou in France: since which time, they have always in the change of their kings, exposed their state to fair danger of ruin.  
Upon this both general and continual custom Baldus 
k Cons. 275. vol. 2.  saith, that kingdoms are successive by the law of nations; affirming further, 
l L. Ex hoc iure D. de just & iuro. semper fuit, & semper erit. etc.  that always it hath been, & always it shall be, that the first borne succeed in a kingdom: wherein he is either followed or accompanied with open cry of all the choice interpreters of both laws; as namely the Glossographer, johan. Andreas, Hostiensis, Collect. Pet. Anchoranus, Antonius, Imola, Card. Florentinus, Abb. Panormitanus 
m in c. Licet. de voto. , Oldradus 
n Cons. 94. & 274. , Albericus 
o in prooem. D. §. Discipuli. , Angelus 
p Cons. 287. , Felinus 
q in c. Prudentian de office de leg. , Paul. Castrensis 
r in l maximum. C. de lib. praeter. & cons. 179 li. 1. , Alexander 
s Cons. 25. lib. 5. , Barbatius 
t Cons. 2. , Franc. Curtius 
u Con. 67. , Guido Pape 
x Deci. 476. & con. 60. , Card. Alexander 
y in c. 1. tit de his qui feud. da. poss. & in c. Qualitied. tit. Si de feu. so cont. inter do. , Philip. Francus 
z in ●ub de test. lib. ●. & inc. grandi. de sup. ●cque prael. , jason 
a in l. 1. D. de const. prin. & in l. n●mo. de leg. 1. , Philippus Decius, Carol 
Cons. 225. ●● 289. . Ruinis 
c Cons. 25. lib. 1 , Anto. Corsetta 
d Tract. de pu●. & excel. regia q. 9 , Ripa 
e in ● quart. ad l. Falcid. , Calderine 
f Cons. 9 tit de feud , Alciate 
g in l. Obuenire. D. de verb. fig. , and many other of somewhat more ordinary name. Who all with full voice do agree, that in kingdoms and other dignities, which cannot be either valued or divided but they are dismembered, the eldest son doth entirely succeed. And this many of them do call the law of all Nations, derived from the order of nature, and from the institution of God; and confirmed by the Canon, civil and other positive laws.  
For the succession of children, is one of the primary precepts of nature 
h cius natural. dist. 1. : whereby his mortality is in some sort repaired, & his continuance perpetuated by his posterity. But among all the children, nature seemeth to prefer the first borne, by imprinting in the mind of parents the greatest love and inclination towards them, as divers of the authors before alleged do affirm; & as it may appear by that of the prophet Zacharie 
i Z●ch. 12.10. , And they shall lament over him as men use to lament in the death of their first borne: and likewise by that which is said of David 
2. Reg. 13.21. , that he would not grieve his son Ammon, for that he loved him, because he was his first borne. Hereupon Lyra 
l In Exod. cap. 11 , and before him Saint Augustin 
in term. de septem plagis  and Saint Chrysostome 
n in Gen. hom. 51  do affirm that the last plague of the Egyptians, which was the death of their first borne, was the most sharp and heavy unto them. For nothing (saith Saint Augustin 
o Vbi ●. ) is more dear than the first borne. Aristotle, Pliny 
p De h●sto. anim●●. lib 6. cap. 1●. , Aeltane 
q Lib. 11. cap 40 , and Tzetzes do write, that the same affection is also found in certain beasts. 
s Histor. chilia. 4. cap 126.   
And to this purpose is that which Herodotus 
r De it otu animal lib. 3. & lib. 15. cap. 13.  reporteth, 
t in Arato. , that when the Lacedaemanians had received an oracle, that they should take for kings the two sons of Aristodemus and Aegina, but give most honour unto the eldest, and they were ignorant which was eldest, because the mother and the Nurse refused to declare it; they observed which of the children the mother did wash and feed first, and thereby found out that Eristhenes was the eldest. Lucian 
u 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. in dia logo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  citeth the love of the first borne, as grown into a proverb. Gregory Nazianzen saith 
x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , that all men have a sense thereof. Saint Ambrose 
y Lib. 2 de Cain & Abel. cap. 2.  writeth, that in this respect God called the people of Israel his first borne 
z Exod. 4. , for that they were, not most ancient, but best beloved. Lastly S. Chrysostome 
Homil 5 adversus judaeos.  affirmeth that the first borne were to be esteemed more honourable than the rest.  
And this natural precedence both in honour and in favour, seemeth to be expressly ratified by God; first where he said unto Cain, of his brother Abel 
b Gen 47. , His desires shall be subject unto thee, and thou shalt have dominion over him: according to which institution, when jacob had bought his brother's right of birth, Isaak blessed him in these words 
c Gen. 27.19.  Be Lord over thy brethren, and let the sons of thy mother bow before thee: Secondly, where he forbiddeth the father to disinherit the first son of his double portion; because by right of birth it is his due 
d Deut. 1.17. : Thirdly, where he maketh choice of the first borne to be sanctified to himself 
Exod. 13.2. & 22.19. & 34. 19 Leuit. 27.26. Num 1.13 & 8.16 & 18.15. N●hem. 10.36. ●zech. 44.30.: Luk 2.23. . And whereas God hath often preferred the youngest, as Abel, Isaac, jacob, juda, Phares, Ephraim, Moses, David, Solomon, and others; it was no other than that which Christ 
f Matth. 19.30. & 20.16. Marc. 10.31. Luc. 13.10.  said, that many that were last should be first: and that which Saint Paul hath delivered 
g 1. Cor. 1. circa si. , that God hath chosen the weak, and base, and contemptible things of this world, lest any flesh should glory in his sight. So hath Herodotus written 
h lib. 7.  how Artabanus the Persian, in complaining manner did confess, that God delighted to depress those things that were high.  
But if the first borne die before succession fall; or if being possessed of the kingdom, he die without issue; his right of birth devolveth unto the next in blood: and if he dieth in like manner, then unto the third, and so likewise to the rest in order. This is affirmed by Albericus 
i in preoem D. § Discipuli Et in L. donationes. C. de d●n. inter vir. & ●x. ; and may be confirmed by that which Baldus saith 
k In L 2. C. de iur. Emphyt. , that succession hath reference to the time of death, and respecteth the priority which is then extant 
l Per l. Ex facto. ● Pen. D. ad Treb. . And again 
m Cons. 275. lib. 2. , He is not said the first borne in law, who dieth before the fee openeth, but he who at that time is eldest in life. And this opinion is embraced by Alciate 
in l. Proximus. D. de ●e●b. sig. ; because as Celsus saith 
o L. ●x d●obus. D. de vugg. & pu●. ; Primus is dicitur ante quem nemo sit, He is first who hath none before him. jaco. A retinus, Cinus, Albericus and Baldus do form this case 
p in l. Si quis priorit §. talem. D. de secund. : There is a custom, that the first borne of the first marriage should succeed in a barony; a certain baron had three wives; by the first he had no children, by the other two many; the first son of the second marriage shall succeed: because (as the glossographer there saith) the second marriage in regard of the third is accounted first. Baldus 
p Ibid.  doth extend it further; that if he hath a son by the first marriage; and he refuse the barony, the first son by the second marriage shall succeed in his right: and so he saith it was determined in the kingdom of Apulia, when Lewes the king's eldest son was professed a friar. And this decision is allowed by Alexander 
q in addit. Bar. l. 1. c. Qui habebat D. de bo. poss. ● nt. tab & in dispit. in cip. Sigism ●nd. , Oldradus 
r Cons. 92. , and Antonius Corsetta 
s in t. act de pot. & excel. reg. q. 10. & q. 74. : and is proved by plain text of the canon law, both where the second borne is called first borne, when the first borne hath given place 
t in c. quaeritur. §. item opponitur 22. q. 2. ; and also where he is called the only son 
u Vnigeni●us. , whose brother is dead 
y c name & ego. Dever. fig. . But because it is a notorious custom that the nearest in blood doth succeed, although perhaps removed in degree, I will labour no more to load it with proof: for who will proclaim that the sun doth shine?  
But if we should now grant unto you (which is a greater courtesy, then with modesty you can require) that no particular form of government is natural: what will you conclude thereof? what inference can you hereupon enforce? That there is no doubt but the people have power to choose and to change the fashion of government, and to limit the same with what conditions they please. What Sir? can you find no third? but that either one form of government is natural, or that the people must always retain such liberty of power? have they no power to relinquish their power? is there no possibility that they may lose it? whether are you so ignorant to think as you speak, or so deceitful to speak otherwise then you think. There is no authority which the people hath in matters of state, but it may be either bound or straightened by three means.  
The first is by session or grant: for so the Romans by the law of royalty 
y Lex regia.  yielded all their authority in government to the Prince. Of this law Ulpian 
z L. 1. de const. princ.  maketh mention; and Bodin 
a De rep. lib. 1.  reporteth that it is yet extant in Rome graven in stone. So the people of Cyrene; of Pergame and of Bythinia, did submit themselves to the Empire of the Romans. So the Tartarians commit absolute power both over their lives and their livings to every one of their Emperors: & so have our people many times committed to their king the authority of the parliament either generally, or else for some particular case. For it is held as a rule, that any man may relinquish the authority which he hath to his own benefit & favour 
b L. Si st●its & ib. Bar. & Bald D. de dam. infect. . Neither is he again at pleasure to be admitted to that, which once he did think fit to renounce 
c L. Si q●●s iusiarandum. c. de reb. cr●d. . And as a private man may altogether abandon his free estate, and subject himself to servile condition 
d Inst. de iur. Person. , so may a multitude pass away both their authority and their liberty by public consent.  
The second is by prescription and custom, which is of strength in all parts of the world, least matters should always float in uncertainty, and controversies remain immortal 
e L. 1. de usucap. . And that this authority of the people may be excluded by prescription, it is evident by this one reason, which may be as one in a third place of Arithmetic, in standing for a hundred. Every thing may be prescribed, wherein prescription is not prohibited 
f L. ult. C. de praesc. long. temp. I. sicut c. de praesc. 30. ann. : but there is no law which prohibiteth prescription in this case; and therefore it followeth that it is permitted. And generally, custom doth not only interpret law 
g L. Si de interpretatione. D. de Ll. , but correcteth it, and supplieth where there is no law 
h L. Omnes populi. De just. & sur. l. Sed & ca D. de legib. : in somuch as the common law of England, as well in public as private controversies, is no other (a few maxims excepted) but the common custom of the Realm. Baldus saith 
i e. 1. de Feud. , that custom doth lead succession in principalities, which Martinus 
k c. 1. de all. Feud.  adviseth to fix in memory, because of the often change of Princes: and the particular custom of every nation is at this day, the most usual and assured law between the Prince and the people. And this do th● Emperors Honorius and Arcadius 
l L. Testaments omnia. C. de test. , in these words command punctually to be observed: Mos namque retinendus est fidelissimae vetustatis: the custom of faithful antiquity must be retained: which place is to this sense balanced by Pau. Gastrensis, Frane. Aretinus, and Phil. Corneus; who termeth it a moral text. The like whereto is found also in the Canon law, 
k c Ridiculum 12 di. : and noted by the Glossographer 
l in c Quanto de transl., ral. , Archidiaeonus 
m in c Domino. 50. di. , Romanus 
n in L. rivero D. de sol. Mat. , and Cepola. Neither were the Fathers of the Nicene council of other opinion, who thus decreed: Let ancient customs stand in strength 
p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. : Whereto also agreeth that old verse of Ennius, 
o in tract. de imper  

Moribus antiquis res stat Romana virisque:   

Customs and men of oldest sort;  
The Roman state do best support:   which is cited by Saint Austin 
q De civit. D●. lib. 2. cap. 21. ; and esteemed by Cicero 
r lib. 3. de repub.  both for brevity and truth, as an oracle. To the same sense Periander of Corinth said 
s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. , that old laws and new meats were fittest for use: which saying Phavorinus in Gellius did in this manner a little vary: Live after the passed manner, speak after the present 
t Vive moribus praelentibus, loquere verbis praesentibus. . Hereto also pertaineth that edict of the censors mentioned by Suetonius 
Lib. de clar. thetor. , & Aul. Gellius 
x Lib. 15. c. 11. & lib. 1. cap. 10. : Those things which are beside the custom and fashion of our Elders, are neither pleasing, nor to be adjudged right 
y Quae praeter consuetudinem & morem maiorum fiu●t, neque placen●, neque iecta videntur. . Of this point I shall have occasion more particularly hereafter to write.  
The third means whereby the people may lose their authority, is by way of conquest. For howsoever Saint Augustine 
z 4. de civit. , and after him Alciate 
a 5. Cons. 132. , do disallow ambition of enlarging Empire; and term wars upon this cause great thieveries 
b Grandia latrocinia. : Whereupon Lucan 
lib. 10. , and his uncle Seneca 
d 1. de benesie. , called Alexander the Great, a great robber of the world 
e Orbis terratum praedo. , Yet there is no doubt but the sentence of victory, especially if the war was undertaken upon good cause (as the conqueror being made his own arbitrator will hardly acknowledge the contrary) is a just title of acquisition 
f l. Postliminium D. de captiu. ; reducing the vanquished, their privileges, liberties and whole estate, under the discretion of him that is victorious. Caesar saith; He giveth all that denieth right 
g Arma tenenti omnia dat qui justa negar. : which sentence is approved by Couaruuias 
h Reg. peccatum p. ●. §. 9 ; affirming, that the victor maketh all which his sword toucheth to be his own. So saith Baldus 
i in rub. C. de la. Two. , that he doth his pleasure upon the vanquished: and again Caesar in the speech of Ariouistus 
Vt qui vicissent, iis quos vicissent, quemadmodu● velint imperarent. ; it is the law of arms, that the victorious should command those whom they have subdued, even as they please. Clemens Alexandrinus saith 
●irom. 1. , the goods of enemies are taken away by right of war. Isocrates 
Archid.  hath written, that the Lacedæmonians did by title of victory in this sort maintain their right. We hold this land given by the posterity of Hercules, confirmed by the Oracle of Delphos, the inhabitants thereof being overcome by war. Which was not much unlike that which jephte captain of Israel expostulated with the Ammonites 
judic. 11.23. & 24. . Are not those things thine which Chamos thy God hath possessed? but whatsoever the Lord our God hath conquered, pertaineth unto us. Yea, God doth expressly give to the people of Israel, the cities which they should subdue 
Deut. 20. ; some into full possession, others into servitude & subjection: by which title jacob also had given to joseph his partage among his brethren, even the land which he had taken from the Amorites with his sword and with his bow 
Gen 48, 12. . It was usual to the Romans, and as Appian saith 
q 1. Ciu. , just, to retain principal or direct dominion, in all things which they brought under the sway of their sword. Brissonius 
r 4. de form.  hath collected certain examples of the form of yielding unto the Romans, whereby all profane & sacred, all human and divine matters were submitted unto them.  
Seeing therefore that the people may so many ways lose both their power and their right in affairs of state, is not your ignorance adventurous so generally to affirm, that if no one form of government be natural, there is no doubt but the people have power both to alter and limit the same, as they please? Can no law, no custom, no conquest restrain them? Your pen doth range, and your judgement rage beyond all compass and course of reason. You should have said, that there is no doubt, but if by all or any of these means, the right both of succession and government be settled in one family, according to propinquity and priority of blood, the people may neither take away nor vary the same: and if they do, they commit injustice, they violate the law of nations, whereby they expose themselves, not only to the infamy and hate of all men, but to the revenge of those who will attempt upon them. For it is not only lawful but honourable, for any people, either to right or revenge the breach of this law; against them which contemn it, as monsters; against them who know it not, as beasts. Saint Augustine saith 
s v. de civit. ; If a City upon earth should decree some great mischiefs to be done, by the decree of mankind it is to be destroyed. And as in the state of one country any man may accuse upon a public crime 
Inst. de pob. iud. , so in the state of the world, any people may prosecute a common offence: for as there is a civil band among all the people of one nation; so is there a natural knot among all men in the world.  
You close your conclusion with this conceit, that the word natural Prince, or natural successor, is to be understood of one, who is borne within the same Realm, and that it is ridiculous to take it, as though any prince had natural interest to succeed. But what construction will you then make of that which Herodian delivereth 
s Herod. lib. 1. , in the speech of Commodus the son of Marcus? Now hath fortune given me unto you for prince in his stead, not drawn into the state, such as they were, who were before me; nor as one that glorieth in the purchase of the Empire▪ for I only am borne unto you and brought up in the court, never swathed in private clothes, but so soon as I was borne the imperial purpur did receive me, and the sun beheld me at once, both a man and a prince. Consider these things, 
t Ture principem ●olite, non datum, sed ●atum.  and honour your prince by right, who is not given, but borne unto you. Girard 
Lib. 1 deal ●e●ate de France.  goeth further in writing of Charles the Simple, that he was king before he was born. Say therefore again, that it is ridiculous to take the word natural prince, for one that hath right of succession inherent in him by birth; and I will say that this mirth will better beseeine a natural indeed, than any man that is wise. But let us now consider the further passage of your discourse; both how you are able to fortify this foundation, and what building it is able to bear.   

TO THE SECOND CHAPTER, which is entitled, Of the particular form of Monarchies and kingdoms, and the different laws whereby they are to be obtained, holden and governed in divers countries, according as each common wealth hath chosen and established.  
IN this chapter you spend much speech in praising a monarchy, and preferring it before the government of many; which you do to no other end, but to insinuate yourself either into credit, or advantage to draw it down▪ even as joab presented Amasa with a kind kiss, to win thereby opportunity to stab him 
a 2 Sam. 10. . For in the end 
b Fol. 21.  you fetch about, that because a Prince is subject, as other men, not only to errors in judgement, but also to passionate affections, in his will; it was necessary, that as the common wealth hath given that great power unto him, so it should assign him helps for managing the same. And that a Prince receiveth his authority from the people, you prove a little before 
c Pag. 17. , for that Saint Peter termeth kings human creatures 
1. Pet. 2. , which you interpret to be, a thing created by man; because by man's free choice, both this form of government is erected, and the same also laid upon some particular person.  
I know not in what sort to deal with you, concerning this interpretation. Shall I labour to impugn it by arguments? Why, there is no man that wanteth not either judgement or sincerity, but upon both the natural and usual sense of the words, he will presently acknowledge it to be false. Shall I go about either to laugh, or to rail you from your error, as Cicero in the like case persuaded to do? But this would be agreeable neither to the staidness of our years, nor the gravity of our professions. I am now advised what to do; I will appeal, as Machetes did before Philip of Macedon 
Plutarch. in probls. , from yourself asleep, to yourself awake; from yourself distempered by affection, to yourself returned to sobriety of sense. Do you think then in true earnest, that a human creature is a thing created by man, or rather that every man is a human creature? Is a brutish creature to be taken for a thing created by a beast? Spiritual, Angelical, or any other adjunct unto creature, what reference hath it to the Author of creation? And if it were so, then should all creatures be called divine, because they were created by God, to whom only it is proper to create; and in this very point, Saint Paul saith 
Rom. 13. , that all authority is the ordinance and institution of God. Neither needeth it to trouble us that Saint Peter should so generally enjoin us to be obedient to all men, no more than it troubled the Apostles, when Christ commanded them to preach to all creatures 
d Marc. 16. ; according to which commission, Saint Paul did testify 
Col. 1.23. , that the Gospel had been preached to every creature under heaven: but Saint Peter doth specify his general speech, and restrain his meaning to kings and governors; in which sense Saint Ambrose 
Ad Auxentib.  citeth this place, as it followeth: Be subject to your Lords, whether it be to the king, as to the most excellent, etc.  
This interpretation not only not relieving you, but discovering very plainly either the weakness or corruption of your judgement, it resteth upon your bare word, that kings have received their first authority from the people; which although I could deny, with as great both countenance & facility, as you affirm, yet will I further charge upon you with strength of proof.  
Presently after the inundation of the world, we find no mention of politic government, but only of economical, according as men were sorted in families: for so Moses hath written 
g Gen. 10.5 , that of the progeny of japheth, the Isles of the Gentiles were divided after their families. The first, who established government over many families, was Nimrod the son of Cush, accounted by Saint Chrysostome 
h Hom. in Gen.  the first King: which authority he did not obtain by favour and election of any people, but by plain purchase of his power. Hereupon Moses calleth him a mighty Hunter 
i Gen. 10.9. , which is a form of speech among the Hebrues, whereby they signify a spoiler or oppresser. And this doth also appear by the etymology of his name; for Nimrod signifieth a rebel, a transgressor, and as some interpret it, a terrible Lord: and names were not imposed in ancient times by chance or at adventure, as Plato 
k in Cratylo. , one of natures chief secretaries, and among the Latin writers Aul. Gellius 
l ●oct. Attic. 9 cap. 4.  do affirm.  
Many hold opinion, that this Nimrod was the same, whom the Grecians call Ninus: which seemeth to be confirmed by that which Moses saith 
m Gen. 10. , that he did build the City of Ninive. Of this Ninus, justine writeth 
n Ninus primus dicrut bello parta retinuisse, cum priores contenti victoria▪ imperio abstinuissent. just. 1.  that he was the first who held that which he did subdue; others, satisfied with victory, aspired not to bear rule. Nimrod founded the empire of the Assyrians, which continued by succession in his posterity, until it was violently drawn from Sardanapalus to the Medes. From them also Cyrus by subversion of Astyages did transport it to the Persians; and from them again the Grecians did wrest it by conquest. After the death of Alexander, his captains without any consent of the people, made partition of the empire among them; whose successors were afterwards subdued by the armies and arms of Rome. And this empire, being the greatest that ever the earth did bear, was in the end also violently distracted, by divers several either conquests or revolts. Leo After writeth, that it is not a hundred years, since the people of Gaoga in afric had neither king nor Lord, until one having observed the greatness and majesty of the king of Tombute, did enterprise to attain sovereignty above them; which by violence he effected, and left the same to his posterity. And because I will not be tedious in running through particulars, give you an instance of any one people, which hath not divers times received, both Prince and government by absolute constraint, Et Phillidasolus habeto; and I will yield to all that you affirm. But failing herein, you shall be enforced to confess, that in many, yea in most, if not in all countries, the people have received liberty, either from the grant or permission of the victorious Prince, and not the prince authority from the vanquished people.  
What helps now do you imagine, that the people have assigned to their Prince?  
The first, you affirm to be the direction of laws. But it is evident, that in the first heroical ages, the people were not governed by any positive law, but their kings did both judge and command, by their word, by their will, by their absolute power; and, as Pomponius saith 
* l. 2. de orig. iur. , Omnia manu a reg●bus gubernabantur: Kings governed all things: without either restraint or direction, but only of the law of nature.  
The first law was promulged by Moses; but this was so long before the laws of other nations, that josephus writeth 
* Contra Appianum. , It was more ancient than their gods: affirming also, that the word Law is not found in Homer, or in Orpheus, or in any Writer of like antiquity. Of this law of nature Homer maketh mention in these words: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉:  
And they who keep the laws which God hath prescribed.  And again, 

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   

Uncivil and unjust is he, and wanting private state,  
Who holdeth not all civil war in horror and in hate.   And of the justice of kings he writeth in this manner. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   
In which verses Chrysostome affirmeth 
q lib. 2. de regno.  by the judgement of Alexander, that Homer hath delineated the perfect image of a King: but that he maketh mention of any positive laws, I do rather doubt then assuredly deny. For Kings in ancient times did give judgement in person, not out of any formality in law, but only according to natural equity. Virgil saith 
r Aeneid, ●. : 

Hoc Priami gestamen erat cumiura vocatis  
More daret populis.   

This was the rob which Priamus did always use to wear,  
When he the people to him called, their causes for to hear.    
Which he doth also affirm of Aeneas 
s Aeneid. 3. , Dido 
t Aeneid. 1.  and of Alcestes 
u Aeneid. 5. . The like doth Herodotus report 
* lib. ●.  of Midas king of Phrygia, who consecrated his tribunal to Apollo: and the like also doth Plutarch 
x in Apopht,  of divers kings of Macedonia: Philarchus affirmeth in Athenaeus, that the kings of Persia had palm trees and vines of gold, under which they did sit to hear causes.  
But because it grew both troublesome & tedious, for all the people to receive their right from one man 
y At cum ius aequabile ab ●no viro homines non consequerentur, inventae sunt leges. Offic. 2. ; laws were invented, as Cicero saith, and officers also appointed to execute the same.  
Another original of laws was thus occasioned: When any people were subdued by arms, laws were laid like logs upon their necks, to keep them in more sure subjection: which both because it is not doubtful, and to avoid prolixity, I will manifest only by our own example.  
When the Romans had reduced the best part of this Island into the form of a province; as they permitted liberty of law to no other country under their obedience, so here also they planted the practice of their laws: and for this purpose they sent over many professors, and among others Papinian, the most famous both for knowledge and integrity, of all the authors of the civil law. Again, when the Saxons had forced this Realm, and parted it into seven kingdoms, they erected so many sets of law; of which only two were of continuance, the Mercian law; and the West Saxon law. After these the Danes became victorious; and by these new Lords new laws were also imposed, which bore the name of Dane-lawe. Out of these three laws, partly moderated, partly supplied, King Edward the confessor composed that body of law, which afterwards was called Saint Edward's laws. Lastly, the Normans brought the land under their power; by whom Saint Edward's laws were abrogated, and not only new laws, but new language brought into use; in somuch as all pleas were form in French; and in the same tongue children were taught the principles of Grammar. These causes we find of the beginning of laws; but that they were assigned by the people for assistance and direction to their kings, you bring neither argument, nor authority for proof; it is a part of the dross of your own devise.  
The second help, which you affirm that common wealths have assigned to their kings, is by parliaments and privy councils. But Parliaments in all places have been erected by kings; as the parliament of Paris and of Montpellier in France, by Philip the Fair; the parliament in England by Henry the first; who in the sixteenth year of his reign 
a Ann. 1116. , called a council of all the states of his realm at Salisbury, which our Historiographers do take for the first Parliament in England; affirming that the kings, before that time, did never call the common people to counsel. After this the privy council at the instance of the Archbishop of Canterbury, was also established; and since that time, the counsellors of state have always been placed by election of the Prince. And that it was so likewise in ancient times, it appeareth by tha● which Homer writeth: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First he established a council of honourable old men: And likewise by Virgil.  
— gaudet regno Troianus Acestes.  
Indicitque foru, et patribus dat iura vocatis:  
Acestes of the Trojan blood in kingdom doth delight,  
He sets a Court, and council calls, & gives each man his right.  
I will pass over your course, foggio, drowsy conceit, that there are few or none simple monarchies in the world, (for it would tyre: any ●to toil after your impertinent errors) and will now rip up your packet of examples, whereby you endeavour to show, that the power of kings hath been bridled by their subjects. But what do you infer hereby? What can you enforce? will you rake over all histories for examples of rebellion, and then argue, a facto ad ius; that every thing is lawful which you find to have been done? justinian saith: Non exemplis, sed legibus judicandum 
* l. 13. C. de sen. & interloc. om. iud. : We must judge facts by law, and not law by facts, or by examples: which Alciate 
5. Cons. 33. & 6 50.  and Deciane 
3.100.  do term a golden law; because there is no action either so impious or absurd, which may not be paralleled by examples. Will you prove it lawful to use fleshly familiarity with the sister, with the mother in law, with the natural mother? You have the example of Cambyses for the first, Caracalla for the second, Dionysius and Nero for the third. The jews upon whom God had settled his choice, did at times (beside many other enormities) erect male stews 
3. Reg. 14. & 15 . Of the two nations, whose examples you use, the Romans and the Lacedæmonians, the first did the like under divers emperors, as Lampridius writeth; and in more ancient times allowed also parricide of children 
d Gell. lib. 5. ca 19 : 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 yourself no less cunning in concealing truths, then bold in avouching things which are, not only uncertain, but plainly false.  
It is true which you write, that the kings of Sparta, by the institution of Lycurgus, were obedient 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; & yet the naked name of kings was retained. By this shuffling of rule the Lacedæmonians were continually tossed with tempests of sedition, ceasing not to wade in their own blood (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 Romans. I will not say now what reason have we? but what a shame is it for us, to open our cares to these utopical state-writers? who being mellowed in idleness, & having neither knowledge nor interest in matters of government, make new models upon disproportioned joints, borrowed from nations most different in rule.  
You affirm by the testimony of Livy, that for offence taken against Romulus, because he reigned 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 
e jura dedit. , 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: only Livy addeth, that there was a rumour, but very obscure, without any certain either author or ground; I will add 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 allege 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 mere fantasy, a dream, a devise. Livy faith 
f Tanto consensu quanto haud qui●quam alius ante rex est declaratus. , that he was declared king with such a consent, as no man had been before him.  
That Tarqvinius neglected the laws of government prescribed to him by the common wealth, it is an ugly untruth. Livy saith, that he broke the ancient manner of kings before him: but for laws Pomponius affirmeth 
g i●●. 2. D. de orig●●r. , 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 
h i●s ci●●le ●apirianum. , and that when the people expelled their kings, they abrogated their laws also, and remained twenty years without any law.  
Lastly you add, that the Romans did expel their kings, and erect Consuls in their steed: 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, 
i Nullum esse discordantis patrie remedium, quam ut ab uno rege●etur. annal●  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, then 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 blood: 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 grossly, 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 only is sufficient, always principally doth concur.  
Upon this diversity of customs you conclude, that it sufficeth not to allege bare propinquity of blood. 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 blood? 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 Salic 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: in so much as Beda 
k in Act. cap. 8.  and before him Eusebius 
l lib. 2. cap. I. , and Pliny 
m lib. 6. cap. 29. & 30.  do● write, that certain people were governed only by Princes of that sex. But because this is a matter both of long discourse, and not proper to our purpose, I will contain myself 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 blood, and of the spoil, waist, 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 blood 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: we are gone rather back then away: I will not presage, but any man may conjecture, that our minds and our means will not always want the favour of time.  
After all this you proceed a degree further: that it is lawful upon just considerations, not only to put back the next inheritor of the crown, but also to remove him who is in full possession thereof. And that is plain (you say) not only by the grounds before by you alleged, but also by example of the Romans & Grecians: & because God hath commonly concurred in such judicial actions of the state; not only in prospering them, but in giving them also some notable successor. And yet you protest you are far from their opinion, who upon every mislike are ready to band against their Prince; and that you esteem the tenure of a crown, if once it be settled, the most irregular, whereto every man is bound to settle his conscience, without examination of title or interest; but only by the supreme law of God's disposition, who can dispense in what he listeth: and that notwithstanding you are as far, from the abject flattery of Billaie and others; who affirm, that Princes are subject to no law or limitation at all, and that they succeed by nature and birth only, and not by admission of the people; and that there is no authority under God to chasten them. These you call absurd paradoxes; and herewith you settle yourself to show in the next Chapter, what good success hath ensued the deposition of Princes.  
Concerning your protestation, we may say unto you as Isaac said to his son jacob 
n Gen. 27.22 . The voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau: You speak fair, and therewith also well; but the main drift of your discourse, is nothing else but a tempestuous doctrine of rebellion and disorder: you being therein like the boatman, who looketh one way and pulleth another; or rather like the image of janus, which looked two contrary ways at once. It is a rule in law; That a protestation contrary to a man's act, will not serve to relieve him 
o Protestatio aetui contraria non relevat. : only this shall serve to convince you, either of false or of forgetful dealing, when we come to that place where in flat words you maintain the contrary.  
Concerning the querele which you lay against Billaie; as I have not seen what he hath written, so will I not interpose between him and you. I never heard of christian prince who challenged infinite authority without limitation of any law, either natural or divine. But where you term it an absurd paradox, that the people should not have power to chasten their Prince, and upon just considerations to remove him; I am content to join with you upon the issue.  
And first I note the manner of your dealing, in that you have omitted to express what these just considerations may be. For seeing there hath been no king, who is not noted of some defects; and again, no Tyrant, who hath not many commendable parts (as Plutarch writeth 
p In Dionys.  that Dionysius excelled most princess in divers points of justice and virtue) it is a matter of dangerous consequence, to leave these considerations undetermined and at large. But who seeth not, that you do it out of policy, that you may upon every particular occasion, declare such causes to be sufficient as you please?  
How then do you prove, that upon any cause, the people have power to dispossess their prince? This is plain (you say) not only by the grounds before by you alleged, but also by example of the Romans & Grecians. The grounds by you alleged, are two. One in your first Chapter, that because no one form of government is natural, the people have power both to choose, and to change, and to limit it as they please. The other ground is in this Chapter; that because there are divers laws and customs in matters of principality, it sufficeth not to allege bare propinquity of blood.  
Why; but had you no text of scripture, no Father of the Church to allege? No law? No reason? No better example? No surer ground? It is more than this which you bring against yourself, in citing out of Saint Peter 
q 2. ca 2.10. ; The Lord knoweth to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgement; and especially them that despise government, and speak evil of those that are in dignity. And out of Saint Jude 
r ver. 8. : Likewise these dreamers despise government, and speak evil of them that are in authority. Besides also, you have alleged out of Saint 
s Rom. ● 3.  Paul: Let every soul be subject unto the higher power; for there is no power but of God: Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves judgement. And likewise out of S. Peter: 
t 1. ca 2 ver. 13  Submit yourselves to every human creature, whether it be to the king, or unto governors; for so is the will of God. To which places we may likewise add that, which S. Paul did write unto Titus 
u Tit. 3.1. : Put them in remembrance that they be obedient to the principalities & powers. And writing to Timothy 
* 1. Tim. 2.2.  he exhorteth us also to pray for them, that we may lead under them a peaceable life.  
But perhaps you will say, that the Apostles did not mean this of wicked princes. Trifler: the Apostles spoke generally of all: Saint. Peter 
x 1. Pet. 2.18.  maketh express mention of evil Lords. And what princes have ever been more either irreligious or tyrannical, then Caligula, Tiberius, Nero, the infamy of their ages, under whose empire the Apostles did both live and write.  
Bellarmine the great master of controversies perceiving this to be unanswerably true, did in another sort rather cut then untie the knot: affirming 
y In tract. de. exemp. clericorum.  that at that time it was necessary to admonish the Christians to perform obedience to their kings, lest the preaching of the Gospel might otherwise be hindered: which is as if in direct terms he should have said. Sir Kings: whilst our heads were under your girdle, we were content to curry favour, by preaching obedience unto the people: but now we have got the wind of you; we must plainly tell you, that you hold your crowns at their courtesy and favour; and have no power in effect, but as lieutenant's general. I know you will make a sour face at this; it will go very much against your stomachs; but there is no remedy, you must take it down; they are your good lords; they may dispossess you.  
Profane Bellarmine: is Christian Religion a mere policy? doth it apply itself only to the present? Doth it turn always with the time? May the principal professors thereof say, as an infidel Moor did, when he violated the faith which he had given unto christians? We have no bone in our tongues that we cannot turn them which way we please. We see plainly that you say so: and it is as plain, that it was far from the true meaning of the Apostles. S. Jude 
z ver. 16.  writeth sharply against those, who had men's per●ons in admiration because of advuntage. S. Paul also saith 
* Galat. 1.10. : Go I about to please men? If I should please men, I were not then the servant of Christ.  
I will give you an example of another time. Nabuchadnezzar king of Assyria, wasted all Palestina; took Jerusalem; slew the king; burned the Temple; took away the holy vessels and treasure: the residue he permitted to the cruelty and spoil of his unmerciful soldiers; who defiled all places with rape, ruin and blood. After the glut of this butchery, the people which remained, he led captive into Chaldaea, and there commanded, that whosoever refused to worship his golden image, should be cast into a fiery furnace.  
What cruelty, what impiety is comparable to this? and yet the Prophets jeremiah 
a ca 29.7.  and Baruch 
b ca 1.11.  did write to those captive jews, to pray for the prosperity and life of him, and of Balthasar his son, that their days might be upon earth as the days of heaven: and Ezechiel 
c ca 17.  both blameth and threateneth Zedechia, for his disloyalty in revolting from Nabuchadnezzar, whose homager and tributary he was. What answer will you make to this example? I am wisely busied to cast forth this question; what answer can you make, which your own knowledge will not convince?  
Many other places there are in holy Scripture, whereby not only our actions are tied to obedience; He that doth presumptuously against the ruler of the people shall die 
d Deut. 17.12. : but also our words, Thou shalt not speak evil against the ruler of the people 
e Exod. 22.28. Act. 23.5. ; yea, our secret thoughts: Detract not from the king, no not in thy thought; for the fowls of the air shall carry thy voice 
f Eccles. 10.20. . The reason hereof is not obscure: Because princes are the immediate ministers of God 
g Rom. 13. ; & therefore he called Nabuchadnezzar, his servant 
h jerem. 25.9. ; & promised him also hire & wages for the service which he did 
i Ezech. 29.18. . And the Prophet Esay 
k cap. 25.  calleth Cyrus, a profane & heathen king, the Lords anointed. For, as Solomon saith 
l Prou. 21.1. , The hearts of kings are in the hands of the Lord: & he stirreth up the spirit, even of wicked Princes to do his will 
m 2. Chron. 36.22. : & (as jehoshaphat said to his rulers 
n 2. Chron. 19.8. ) they execute not the will of man, but of the Lord.  
In regard hereof David calleth them gods 
o Psal. 82. ; whereof Plato also had some sense, when he said 
p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in polit. , A king is in steed of god. And if they do abuse their power, they are not to be judged by their subjects, as being both inferior and naked of authority, because all jurisdiction within their realm is derived from them, which their presence only doth silence & suspend: but God reserveth them to the ●orest trial: Horribly and suddenly (saith the wise man 
q Sap. 6. ) will the Lord appear unto them, and a hard judgement shall they have.  
You jesuits do yield a blindfold obedience to your superiors, not once examining either what he is, or what he doth command: & although the Pope should serve from justice, yet by the canons 
r Extravag. unam sanctam. de maio, & obed, , men are bound to perform obedience unto him, and God only may judge his doings: and may a king, the Lords Lieutenant, the Lords anointed in the view of his subjects, nay, by the hands of his subjects, be cast out of state? May he, as was Actaeon, be chased and worried by his own hounds? Will you make him of worse condition, than the Lord of a Manor? then a parish priest? then a poor schoolmaster, who cannot be removed by those that are under their authority and charge?  
The law of God commandeth that the child should die, for any contumely done unto the Parents. But what if the father be a robber? if a murderer? if for all excess of villainies odious & execrable both to God and man? Surely he deserveth the highest degree of punishment; & yet must not the son lift up his hand against him: for, as Quintilian saith 
s in declam. , No offence is so great, as to be punished by parricide. But our country is dearer to us then ourselves 
Cic. office lib. 1 : & the Prince is the father of our country 
u Pater patriae. : whose authority, as Baldus noteth 
* in l. senium. C. qui test. fa. poss. , is greater than of parents: and therefore he must not be violated, how impious, how imperious soever he be.  
If he commandeth those things that are lawful, we must manifest our obedience by ready performing. If he enjoin us those actions that are evil; we must show our subjection by patient enduring. It is God only who seateth kings in their state; it is he only who may remove them. The Lord will set a wise king over the people which he loveth, as himself doth testify 
x 2. Chron. 1. . And again, For the sins of the land the kings are changed 
y Prou 28.2. 2. Chron. 28.6. . As therefore we endure with patience unseasonable weather, unfruitful years, & other like punishments of God; so must we tolerate the imperfections of Princes, and quietly expect either reformation, or else a change.  
This was the doctrine of the ancient Christians, even against their most mortal persecutors. Tertullian saith 
z Apolog. 37. , For what war are we not both serviceable and ready, although unequal in number, who do so willingly endure to be slain? neither want we strength of number: but God forbid, that religion should be maintained with human fire. From him also Saint Cyprian, a most studious reader of Tertullian, as Saint Hierome 
* de sacr. ec. Tert.  noteth, in like manner writeth 
a Ad Demet. : Although our people be exceeding copious, yet it doth not revenge itself against violence: it suffereth. Saint Augustin saith 
b ●actum societatis humanae generale regibus obedire. Confes. lib. 2. : It is a general paction of human society to obey kings. Which sentence is assumed into the body of the canon law 
c Dist. 8. c. qu● contra. . In a word, the current of the ancient fathers is in this point concurrent; insomuch as among them all there is not one found, not any one; one is a small number; and yet I say confidently again, there is not any one, who hath let fall so loose a speech, as may be strained to a contrary sense: How then are you of late become, both so active & resolute to cut in sunder the reins of obedience, the very sinews of government & order? Whence had Benedetto Palmto, a jesuit, his warrant, to incite William Parrie to undertake the parricide of our Queen? whence did Annibal Codretto, another jesuit, assure him, that the true Church made no question, but that the fact was lawful? Whence did Guignard, a jesuit, term the butchery of Henry late king of France, an heroical act, and a gift of the holy Ghost? Whence did he write of the king, who now there reigneth: If without arms he cannot be deposed, let men take arms against him; if by war it cannot be accomplished, let him be murdered? Whence did Ambrose Verade, rector of the college of the jesuits in Paris, animate Barriers (as he confessed) to sheathe his knife in the king's breast; assuring him by the living God, that he could not execute any act more meritorious? Whence did the commenter upon the epitome of Confessions, otherwise the seventh book of decretals, commend all the jesuits in these terms 
d Tyrannos aggred untur, lolium ab agro dominico ●u●llunt. , They set upon tyrants, they pull the cockle out of the Lords field?  
It is a rule in nature, that one contrary is manifested by 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 heard of swine headlong into the sea 
Matt. 8. ; the other like the still & soft spirit which talked with Elias 
f 1. Reg. 19 .  
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, ruins & desolations. For tell me, what if the prince, whom you persuade the people they have power to depose, be able to make & maintain his party, as K. john 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 precedents against themselves, do adjoin 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 error to raise these dangers, and to leave the defence to possibilities doubtful.  
Go too, Sirs, go too, there is no christian country, which hath not by your devices been wrapped in wars. You have set the empire on swim with blood: your fires in France are not ye: extinguished: in Polonia & all those large countries, extending from the north to the east, you have caused of late more battles to be fought, then had been in 500 years before. Your practices have heretofore prevailed against us: of late years you have busied yourselves 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 grasshoppers of Egypt, 
g Exod. 10.  might fill our houses, and cover our whole land, and make more doubt of room then of resistance. Our own people also you have provoked to unnatural attempts: you have exposed our country as a pray, 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, 
h Math. 10.34.  think not that I came to send peace, I came not to send peace but a sword. But when by the power & providence of God, all these attempts have rather shown what good hearts you bear towards us, then done us any great harm; when in all these practices you have miss the mark, now you do take another ●ime: now having no hope by extremity of arms, you endeavour to execute your malice by giving dangerous advise: Now you go about to entangle us with titles, which is the greatest misery that can ●all upon a state.  
You pretend fair shows of liberty & of power, Sed timeo Danaos & don● 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, Artab●nus 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 jesuits account it a bondage to be obedient unto kings; but we christian's account it the greatest means for our continuance both free and safe.   

To the third Chapter, which is intitledOf 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, & of the good & 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 judgement; otherwise you could not be persuaded, by these slender threads to draw any man to your opinion. Of the force of examples I have spoken before; there is no villainy 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 borne the name & title of king, without power of Majesty. As the Romans in the time of their consulate estate, had always a priest, whom they entitled king, whose office consisted in certain ceremonies & sacrifices, which in former times could not be performed but by their kings. Likewise the Lacedæmonians, after Lycurgus had form their government retained two kings, who had no greater stroke in matters of state, than a single voice as other Senators. Such were in Caesar's time many petty kings of Gaul, who (as Ambiorix king of Liege confessed) were subject to their Nobility, & iusticeable by them. Such are now the Emperors of Almain; because the puissance & Majesty of the empire pertaineth to the states, who are sworn to the empire itself, and not to the person of the Emperor. Such are also the Dukes of Venice, the sovereignty of which state is settled in the gentlemen. In these and such like governments, the Prince is not sovereign, but subject to that part of the common wealth, 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, 
a Psal. 73.  that his tread had almost slipped, by seeing the wicked to flourish in prosperity: the prophet jeremiah 
b Ca 12 1.  seemed also to stagger upon this point & 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 owgly 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: 
c in Alexand.  I may also say, that Alexander was a good Prince by fear▪ for that Heltogab●lus 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 impudency? is it not impiety for us to wade with unclean feet into Gods secret counsels, unknown to the Angels, and to justify upon this event the parricide of any prince? For my part, I know not whether you show yourself 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 ●inde of vermin, 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 course 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 politic 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 itself? 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 benumbed with a palsy, 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 only remedy of present dangers. I omit to press many points of this comparison against you, because comparisons do serve rather to illustrate then enforce: and I know not what assertion you might not easily make good, if such senseless 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 Philistimes: good; but who deprived him; it was God (you say) who did deprive him? You must pardon us if upon the sudden 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 what soever God hath put in ure in his common wealth, may be practised by others. Why, but then also good princes may be deposed by their subjects; because God delivered josiah 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, 
d Apoc. 6.4.  how impudently do you abuse the scriptures? how do you defile them with your filchie fingers? It is most certain that David knew, both because Samuel told him, and because he had the spirit of prophesy, 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 
psa. 105.1. reg 24. , whereto his actions were also answerable. For when Saul did most violently persecute him, he defended himself no otherwise then by flight. During this pursuit, Saul fell twice in to his power; once he did not only spare but protect him, and rebuke the praetorian 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 only is superior 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 wright) 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. 
f 4 reg. 21.  Amon was xxii. years old when he began to reign etc. and he did evil in the sight of the Lord etc. and his servants conspired against him, & 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 alleging the scripture, used more honesty & sincerity (if I may so term it) than you: for he cited the very words, wresting them only to a crooked sense: but you change the words of the Scripture; you sergeant God's coin, you corrupt the records which he hath left us. I will now shake of 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 lie.  
Of your example of Romulus I have spoken before. I have declared also how the Romans, presently after the expelling of their kings, & 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 bridge was broken behind him, the town had been entered and their state ruined. And whereas you attribute the enlargement of the empire, which happened many ages after, to this expelling of their kings, you might as well have said, that the rebellion against king john 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 show, then in deed: this show 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 Traian●; at which time all authors agree that it was most large; and yet far short of your wandering 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 human 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 & pursued by decree of the state for public 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; & 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 
g In Augusto, genu nixus dictaturam deprecatus est,  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 Triumuiri, to revenge the death of julius Caesar; whereupon a long cruel and doubtful war was set up, which continued the space of xx. years; first, between these three, and the murderers of Caesar; then, between Lepidus, and the other two; lastly between Augustus & Antonius: and this was the sweet success of the murder of Caesar.  
Augustus, after his victory was made perpetual tribune, as Suetonius hath written 
h In August.  Dio. saith, 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. lib. 53.  that he was freed from the power of the laws; as Pompeie also had been before him. Tacitus addeth, 
k in proam.  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, 
l Lex regia.  by which the people gave over their power in government: whereupon some make good the sentence which the Senate gave against near; because the sovereignty was not then by any express act settled in the Emperor.  
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 Emperor after Nero. These intestine wars, these open battles fought to the full, this slaughter of Emperors, which you term interludes, were the immediate success after the death of Nero. You furies of hell, whose voices are lightning and thunder, whose breathing is nothing but sword, fire, rages and rebellions: the encountering 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 persuasions, from turning their state into an open stage for the acting of these interludes.  
You continue your base boldness in affirming, that the senate procured the death of Domitian; that they requested the soldiers to kill Heliogabalus; that they invited Constantine to come & 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 murder of Heliogabalus, being the rarest prince (you say) that ever the Romans had; you might have alleged any author in proof thereof better than Herodian, who writeth of him in this manner. 
m lib. 6.  Alexander did bear the name and ensigns of the empire; but the administration of affairs & government of the state did rest upon women. And further he writeth that by his slackness and cowardice, the Roman Army was defeated by the Persians; & finally, that for his want of courage, he was slain by his own soldiers. By this we may see that you go blindfold; being so far from caring, that many times you scarce know what you wright. Your markable example (as you term it) of the change o● the empire, from the west to the east; from Constantin the sixth, to Charles king of France, doth mark out nothing more unto us, than your foundered judgement. The question is not what one foreign prince may do against another, but what subjects may do against their sovereign: this is the point of controversy, heat 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 
n lib. 1. de l'sta●e de France.  affirmeth to be, both an ambitious & fraudulent usurpation, wherein Pepin used the reverence of religion as a mantle to cover his impiety & rebellion. The matters which he objected against Childeric were two; first, his insufficiency, the ordinary pretence of most rebellions; but Girard, 
o Ibidem.  saith, that the ancient custom of the French was, to love & honour their kings, whether sufficient or unable, worthy or weak; & that the name of king was esteemed sacred, by whomsoever it was borne. Secondly he objected, that his subjects were conditionally sworn unto him; & this also Girard writeth to be a forced and cautelous interpretation, violently straining the words of their oath to his advantage: and in deed, 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 pope's 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 mere violence & intrusion, & so was it acknowledged by Eudes earl of Paris, the first of that family who did usurp 
Girard. foe 52. : & for that cause he was constrained after two years reign, to quit the crown, & to give place unto Charles the lawful heir. And when Robert, brother unto Eudes, did enter into arms 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 & success, but no better right, did accomplish the enterprise. For Girard 
q Fo● 58. de l'state.  calleth him an usurper, & Charles duke of Lorrane the true heir to the crown. Between these two (as in all usurpations it is usual) war was raised; but by the unsearchable judgement of God the duke of Lorraine was cast to the ground. And there is little doubt, but, if he had prevailed, Lorraine had been at this day a member of the crown of France.  
The like answer may be given to your example of Suintilla: & this beside; that the kingdom of the Goths in Spain, was not then settled in succession, & 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 called Ferdinand, who died during the life of his father, & left two young sons behind him. After the death of Ferdinand, his younger brother Sancho practised with D. Lope Diaz de Haro Lord of Biscay, to procure him to be advanced to the succession of the kingdom, before his nephews. D. Lope undertook the devise; & drawing some other of the nobility to the party, they so wrought with the king, that in an assembly of the states at Segovia, Sancho was declared successor, & the children of Ferdinand appointed to be kept in prison. But Sancho, either impatient to linger in expectation, or suspicious that his father grew inclinable towards his nephews, made league with Mahomed Mirabel, king of Granado, a Moor; by whose aid, & by the nobility of his faction, he caused himself to be declared king. Hereupon, Alphonso was enforced to crave assistance of jacob Aben joseph king of Maroco, who before had been an enemy to Alphonso: but upon detestation of this unnatural rebellion, he sent forces to him, protesting notwithstanding that so soon as the war should be ended, he would become his enemy again. So Alphonso by help, partly of the Morocco Moors, & partly of his subjects which remained loyal, maintained against his son both his title & state during his life, but not without extremity of bloodshed; & opportunity for the Moors, being assistant to both parties, to make themselves more strong within the countries of Spain. For this cause Alphonso disinherited his son by his testament, and cast a cruel curse upon him & his posterity: & afterward it was ordained in an assembly of the states holden at Tero, that the children of the elder brother deceased, should be preferred before their uncle.  
How then will you verify your two points by this history? First, that Alphonso was deprived by a public act of parliament: secondly, that it turned to the great commodity of the state. It is not a million of Masses that are sufficient to satisfy for all your deceitful & malicious untruths. I marvel how the rebellion of Absalon, against king David his father escaped you: Oh; it wanted success; & you could not so easily disguise the report.  
You write that the common wealth of Spain, resolving to depose D. Pedro the cruel, sent for his brother Henry out of france, & required him to bring a strength of frenchmen with him: but hereby you make it plain, that the common wealth was not fully agreed. The truth is, that this was a dangerous division of the state, between two concurrents; some holding for Henry, & some for Pedro. Henry obtained foreign assistance by the french, Pedro by the english. In the mean time, whilst Peter was thrown out of state by the forces of france, & after that Henry by the arms of england; & again Peter dejected both from dignity and life by his brother Henry; the poor country became a spectacle for one of your interludes.  
Your example of Don Sancho Capello king of Portugal, containeth many intolerable untruths. For neither was he deprived of his dignity, neither did the Pope & counsel of Lions give either authority or consent that he should be deprived; neither was he driven out of his realm into Castilia; neither died he in banishment; neither was Alphonso his brother king during his life. These five untruths you huddle into one heap. The counsel of Lions wholly opposed against the deposing of Don Sancho, notwithstanding many disabilities were objected against him: in regard whereof they gave direction, that Alphonso his brother should be regent of the realm; as in that case it is both usual & fit. But Sancho taking this to dislike, did seek aid of the king of Castille; & in that pursuit ended his life without issue: whereby the right of succession devolved to Alphonso.  
To your examples of greek Emperors, I will answer by your words; which are; 
r cap. 5 pa. 8●  that for the most part they came not orderly to the crown, but many times the means thereof were tribulent and seditious.  
The deposing of Henry king of Polonia, I acknowledge to be both true & just; I have nothing to except against it. When the crown of France did descend unto him, he forsook Polonia, & refused to return again to that swaggering government, whereupon they did depose him. Give us the like case, & you shall be allowed the like proceeding; but you esteem your examples by tale & not by touch: being not much unlike a certain mad fellow in Athens, who imagined every ship which was brought into the haven to be his: for whatsoever you find of a king deposed, you lay claim unto it, as both lawfully done, and pertaining to your purpose, whereas one of these doth always fail.  
Concerning your two examples, one of Sueden, and the other of Denmark, I shall have occasion to speak hereafter. The nobility of those countries pretend, that their kings are not sovereign, but that the power in highest matters of state pertaineth unto them. If it be thus, the examples are not appliable to the question, if it be otherwise, than the princes had wrong.  
We are come now to our domestical examples; the first whereof is that of king john, who was deposed by the Pope, you say, at the suit of his own people. All this people was the Archbishop of Cant. the bish. of London, and the bish. of Ely; at whose complaint, the Pope did write to Philip king of France, that he should expel king john out of his realm. If not conscience, if not ordinary honesty, pure shame should have drawn you to another form of writing. He was also deprived (you say) afterwards by his Barons. Heavy beast; call you this a deprivation? The commons were never called to consent; the Clergy were so opposite to those that stood in arms against king john, that they procured excommunication against them: first generally; then by name; lastly, Lewes the French kings son was also included: of the Nobility, which is only the third state of the realm, I make no doubt but some reserved themselves to be guided by success; others, and namely the Earls of Warren, Arundel, Chester, Pembroke, Ferrer, Salisbury, and divers Barons did openly adhere unto king john; you may as well call any other rebellion a deprivation, as affirm that the rest either did or might deprive him. And whereas you bring in king Henry the third, as a most worthy successor after this deprivation; I will derogate nothing from his worthiness: but there was never king in England, who without concurrent in the title of the crown, did draw more blood out of the sides of his subjects.  
Your second example is of king Edward the second, whom many of our histories report to be of a good and courteous nature and not unlearned; imputing his defects rather to Fortune, then either to counsel or carriage of his affairs. His deposition was a violent fury, led by a wife, both cruel & unchaste; & can with no better countenance of right be justified, then may his lamentable both indignities and death, which thereupon did ensue. And although the nobility, by submitting themselves to the government of his son, did break those occasions of wars which do usually rise upon such disorders, yet did not the hand of God forget to pursue revenge. For albeit king Edward his son enjoyed both a long & prosperous reign, yet his next successor king Richard the second, was in the like violent manner imprisoned deprived & put to death. I will prosecute the successive revenge which hereof also ensued, being a strange matter, & worthy to be rung into the ears of all ages. King Henry the fourth, by whom king Richard was deposed, did exercise the chiefest acts of his reign, in executing those who conspired with him against king Richard. His son had his virtue well seconded by felicity; during whose reign by means of the wars in France, the humour against him was otherwise employed & spent: but his next successor king Henry the sixth was in the very like manner deprived, & together with his young son Edward imprisoned and put to death by king Edward the fourth. This Edward died not without suspicion of poison; & after his death, his two sons were in like manner disinherited, imprisoned & murdered by their cruel uncle, the duke of Gloucester: who being both a tyrant and usurper, was justly encountered and slain, by king Henry the seventh, in the field. So infallible is the law of justice in revenging cruelties and wrongs, not always observing the presence of times wherein they are done, but often calling them into reckoning; when the offenders retain least memory of them.  
Likewise the deposition of king Richard the second was a tempestuous rage, neither led nor restrained by any rules of reason or of state; not suddenly raised and at once, but by very cunning and artificial degrees. But examine his actions without distempered judgement, & you will not condemn him to be exceeding either insufficient or evil weigh the imputations that were objected against him, and you shall find nothing either of any truth or of great moment.  
Holinshed writeth 
in Richard, 2. , that he was most unthankfully used by his subjects; for although, through the frailty of his youth, he demeaned himself more dissolutely, than was agreeable to the royalty of his estate, yet in no kings days, the commons were in greater wealth, the Nobility more honoured, and the Clergy less wronged: who notwithstanding in the evil guided strength of their will took head against him, to their own headlong destruction afterward: partly during the reign of king Henry, his next successor, whose greatest achievements were against his own people; but more especially in succeeding times, when upon occasion of this disorder, more english blood was spent, than was in all the foreign wars which had been since the conquest. Three causes are commonly insinuated by you, for which a king may be deposed; tyranny, insufficiency, & impiety: but what prince could hold his state, what people their quiet assured, if this your doctrine should take place? how many good princes doth envy brand with one of these marks? what action of state can be so ordered, that either blind ignorance or set malice will not easily strain to one of these heads? every execution of justice, every demand of tribute or supply shall be claimed tyranny: every infortunate event shall be exclaimed insufficiency: every kind of religion shall by them of another sect, be proclaimed impiety. So dangerous it is to permit this high power to a heedless and headless multitude, who measure things, not by reason and justice, but either by opinion, which commonly is partial; or else by report, which usually is full of uncertainties and errors: the most part doing because others do; all easy to become slavish to any man's ambitious attempt. So dangerous it is to open our ears to every foolish Phaeton, who undertaking to guide the chariot of the Sun will soon cast the whole earth into combustion.  
You proceed that king Henry the sixth was also deposed for defects in government. Let us yield a little to you, that you may be deceived; a little that you may be carried by your affections; how can you excuse these open untruths, wherein it cannot be but the devil hath a finger? you cannot be ignorant, that the only cause which drawn the family of York into arms against king Henry, was the title which they had unto the crown: by virtue whereof, it was first enacted, that Richard duke of York should succeed king Henry, after his death: but for that he made unseasonable attempts, he was declared by parliament incapable of succession, and afterwards slain at the battle of wakefield.  
Then Edward his son, prosecuting the enterprise, & having vanquished king Henry at the battle of S. Albon, obtained possession of the state, caused king Henrye to be deposed, and himself to be proclaimed & crowned king. Afterward he was chased out of the realm, and by act of parliament both deprived and disabled from the crown. Lastly he returned again, and deprived king Henrye both from government & from life. It is true, that some defects were objected against king Henry; but this was to estrange the hearts of the people from him. The main cause of the war did proceed, from the right of the one party, & possession of the other: The contrariety of the acts of parliament was caused, by the alternative victories of them both.  
Your last example is of king Richard the third, of whom you wright; First, that although he sinned in murdering his Nephews, yet after their death he was lawful king: Secondly, that he was deposed by the common wealth, who called out of France Henry earl of Richmond, to put him down, Philosophers say that dreams do commonly arise, by a reflection of the fantasy upon some subject, whereof we have meditated the day before. It may be that your drowsy conceit was here cast into a dream, of that whereon it had dozed in all this chapter: Or at the best, that you are like unto those, who have so often told a lie, that they persuade themselves it is true. King Edward the fourth left other children besides those that were murdered; the duke of Clarence also, who was elder brother to king Richard, lest issue in life; all which had precedence of right before him. And as for the second point, tell me I pray you, by what parliament was king Richard deposed? where did the states assemble? when did they send for the earl of Richmond to put him down? by what decree? by what messengers? There is no answer to be made, but one; and that is, to confess ingenuously, that you say untrue; & that it is your usual manner of deceiving, to impute the act of a few unto all; & to make every event of arms, to be a judicial proceeding of the common wealth. For it is manifest, that the earl of Richmond had his first strength from the king of France; & that after his descent into England, more by half, both of the nobility & common people did stand for king Richard, then stir against him. You adjoin for a special consideration, that most excellent princes succeeded these whom you affirm to be deposed. I will nor extenuate the excellency of any Prince; but I hold it more worthy to be considered, that these disorders spent England a sea of blood.  
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, ●or that they descend from them, who succeeded those that were deprived.  
You deserve now to be basted with words well stiped 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 Ulpian expressly determine 
t In ● Barbarius. D. de office praesid.  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. P●normitane saith: 
u In ●. cu●a pastoralis de ●u●epation.  Successor in dignitate potest praescribere, non abstante vitio sui praedecessor is: 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 & false. The first doth savour of God; the second of man; the third of the devil.   

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 Billaye upon two points; first, whether a king is subject to any law; Secondly, whether all temporalities are in propriety the Kings: but because these questions do little pertain to our principal controversy, I will not make any stay upon them; it sufficeth that we may say with Seneca 
a De benefic. lib. 7. c ●. 5.  Omnia rex imperio possidet, singuli domino: The king hath empire, every man his particular propriety in all things.  
After this, you proceed further to make good, that the Princes before mentioned were lawfully deposed; and that by all law; both divine and human, 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 allege? You have largely before declared (you say) that GOD doth approve the form of government which every common wealth doth choose, as also the conditions and statutes which it doth appoint unto her prince. I must now take you for a natural liar, when you will not forbear to belly yourself: you never proved any such matter; & the contrary is evident, that sometimes entire governments; often, customs & statutes of state; & very commonly accidental actions, are so unnatural & unjust, that (otherwise then for a punishment and curse) we cannot say that God doth approve them. We have often heard that the Church cannot err in matters of Faith; but that in matter of government a common wealth cannot err, it was never (I assure myself) published before.  
But let us suppose (supposal is free) that God alloweth that form of government which every common wealth 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 showed before.  
Well let this pass among your least escapes, in making God either the author or aider of rebellion: you allege no other human law, but that princes are subject unto 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 abbuse it. But I have manifested before 
c Cap. 1. , both that the people may so grant away their authority that they cannot resume●t; & also that few princes in the world hold their state by grant of the people. I will never hereafter esteem a man's valour by his voice: Your brave boast of all laws, divine, human, natural, national and positive, is dissolved into smoke: you busy yourself as the Poet's wright of Morpheus, in presenting shadows to men a sleep.  
But the chiefest reason (you say) the very ground and foundation of all. Soft: what reason? what ground? if you have already made proof by all laws, human 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 common wealth is superior 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 princes 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; 
d c. dudum. de praeb. lib 6.  & 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 
e l. judicium soluitur. D. de iudic. : The reason is declared by Ulpian 
f l. solet. de iurisd. . because he to whom jurisdiction is committed representeth his person who gave commission, and not his own. Hereupon Alexander 
g in l. ult. de iurisd. , Panormitane 
h in c. pastorals de off. ord. , Innocentius, and Felinus 
i in c. cum ecclesiarum. co.  do affirm, that they may cast their commissioners out of power when they please, because as Paulus saith 
k in d. l. judicium. ; 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 settled; as if it be in one prince, it is called a monarchy; if in many of highest rank, than it is an aristocracy; if in the people, than a democracy. Whereupon it followeth; if the people are superior 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 whom immediately it is derived. Hereto let us add that which you have said in another place 
l cap ●2. ; that in populare governments there is nothing but sedition, trouble, tumults, outrages & injustices upon every light occasion; & then we shall perceive; first, that you want the art of a wise deceiver, not to be entangled in your tale; secondly, that this is mere poison, which the devil hath dropped out of your pen, to infect christian countries with disobedience & disorder. In a word, to the contrary of this your impudent untruth, our laws do acknowledge supreme authority in the prince within the realm & dominions of england 
m 1. El. 1. , neither can subjects bear themselves either superior or equal to their sovereign; or attempt violence either against his person or estate, but as well the civil law 
n l. i. d. ad. l. jul. mayest. , as the particular laws & customs of all countries do adjudge it high & heinous treason. I will speak now without passion; what reason have we, to accept your idle talk for a kind of authority, against the judgement & laws of most nations in the world?  
You proceed that the power of a prince is given to him by the common wealth, with such conditions & exceptions, as if the same be not kept, the people stand free. That the prince receiveth his power under plain conditions, you go about to prove afterward: now you hold on, that in all mutual contracts, if one side recede from promise, the other remaineth not obliged▪ & this you prove by two rules of the law. The first is 
o Frustra sidem sibi quis postulat servari ab eo, cui siden a se praestitam servare recusat. ; he doth in vain require promise to be kept of another man, to whom he refuseth to perform that which he promised: the other is 
p non obstringitur quis ad implendum quod iuravit si ab alia part non inpletur, cuius respectu praebuit juramentum.  a man is not bound to perform his oath, if on the other part, that be not performed, in respect whereof he did swear.  
Poor fellow, had you been as conversant in the light of law, and clear course of justice, as you are in the smoke & dust of some corner of a college, you would never have concluded so generally so confidently upon any of the rules of law, which are subject, for the most part, unto many exceptions. Alexander 
q in l. cum proponas. c. de pact.  & Felinus 
r in c. pervenit 2 de iureiur.  do assign five fallencies unto these rules: Socinus 
s in tract fallen reg 199.  giveth the cootrarie rule: to him that breaketh his faith or oath, faith ought to be kept; & then restraineth it with seven limitations. But all affirm, that in those offices which are mutual between any people, by the law of nature or of God; as between the father & the child, the husband & the wife, the master & the servant, the prince and the subject; although the same be further assured by promise or by oath, the breach of duty in the one, is no discharge unto the other.  
And therefore if the father performeth not his duty towards his children, they are not thereby acquitted both of the obedience & care, which God & nature exacteth of them; howsoever Solon in his laws discharged children from nourishing their parents, if they did not train them in some trade, whereby they might acquire their living. Much less are subjects exempted from obedience, if the prince either err or be defective in government: because the like respect is not due unto parents as unto Princes (as I have somewhat touched before) insomuch as a son that beareth authority, hath right both to command and compel the father. 
t l. ille a quo & ●. seq. ad Treb.   
This was declared among the Romans, by that which Plutarch 
u in apopht. , Livy 
x lib. 24. , Valerius 
y lib. 2. ca 1. , and Gellius 
a lib. 2 ca 2. , do report of Q. Fabius: to whom, being consul, when Fabius Maximus his father, who had been consul the year before, did approach sitting upon his horse, the son commanded him by a sergeant to alight: the father not only obeyed, but highly commended both the courage and judgement of his son, in maintaining the majesty which he did bear, and in preferring a public both duty and authority before private. Upon those examples Paulus the lawyer did wright, 
z l. postliminium. filius D. da capit, et postlim.  that public discipline was in higher estimation among the Roman parents, than the love of children.  
After an impertinent discourse, that upon divers considerations an oath ought not to be performed; you annex another cause wherefore subjects may withdraw their allegiance; & that is, when it should turn to the notable damage of the common wealth and both these you affirm to be touched, in the deprivation of Childeric king of France. But I regard not what was touched in the deprivation of Childeric; I have answered to that in the chapter next before; I require either arguments or authority of more tough temper. Well then let us turn back the leaf, and there we shall find a rule of the law (because by rules only you will beat down rule) 
a c. In mali●. d● reg. iur. in 6.  In evil promises it is not expedient to keep faith: Which is also confirmed by a sentence of Isidorus: 
b 22. q. 4.4. c. 5  In evil promises, break your word; in a dishonest oath change your purpose.  
Well fare your wits, good soul; do you account the promise of obedience evil? not so (I suppose you will say) but it turneth to be evil when it turneth to the notable detriment of the common wealth. It is one of your peculiar gifts, the further you go, the more impious you declare yourself. For if you take the word evil in no higher sense then for detriment and damage, it would follow upon your rule, that a man were no further tied to his promise, than the performance thereof were advantageable unto him. You would enforce also, that if the father doth dissipate his patrimonial estate, and run a course to ruin his family, the children and the wife may thereupon disavow their duties.  
But if we take a true touch of this point, we shall find, that the vices of any Prince are not sufficient of themselves to overthrow a state, except thereupon rebellions be raised, which will draw all things into confusion. For there is no Prince, which either hath lived, or can almost be imagined to live, in so little sense of humanity, but generally he both favoureth and maintaineth some order of justice; only against particular persons, some of them have violently been carried by the tempest of their passion, whereby notwithstanding the inordinate desires of one man, can not possibly reach to the ruin of all.  
So saith Suetonius, 
c In domit.  that under Domitian the provinces were well governed, only certain private men at Rome, felt the evil of his cruelty and other vices. But when the people do break into tumult, than all course of justice is stopped; then is either assistance made, or resistance weakened for foreign invasion; then is every one raised into hope who cannot fly but with other men's feathers; then, as when a fierce horse hath cast his rider, the reins are loosed to those insolencies, which a dissolute people, nothing restrained either by honesty or fear do usually commit. For as it is the nature of men, when they come out of one extremity wherein they have been holden by force, to run with a swift course into another, without staying in the midst; so the people breaking out of tyranny, if they be not held back, will run headlong into unbridled liberty; and the harder they were kept under before, the more insolently will they then insult.  
I observe that Saint Paul allegeth two reasons wherefore we should be obedient even to wicked and cruel Princes: one is for conscience sake, Because they are the ministers of God 
d Rom. 13. , and in their royalty do bear his Image: Another, for the safety, and tranquillity of ourselves; that we may lead under them a quiet and peaceable life 
e 1. Tim. 2.2. . Whereupon the prophet jeremiah 
jerem. 29.7  also exhorted the jews, to seek the peace of the city whether they should be transported, because in the peace thereof their quiet should consist: For by obedience, a few particulars remain in danger; by rebellion, all; by obedience, we can be under the tyranny but of one; by rebellion, we are exposed to the rapine and cruelty of many; by the one nothing, by the other all things are permitted. Upon this ground Saint Augustine said; 
g Generale quip pactum est humanae succietatis, regibus obedi●e. confess. lib. 2.  It is a general covenant of human society to obey Kings; And likewise Saint Ambrose 
h Magnum est et speciale documentum etc. ad Auxentium  It is a great and special point of doctrine whereby Christians are taught to be subject unto higher powers.  
Three ways a cruel Prince may work violence against his subjects; upon their goods; upon their persons; and upon their consciences, by commanding them to commit that which is evil. Of the first, Saint Ambrose saith: 
i Ad Auxentium  If the Emperor demandeth tribute, we do not deny him; If he desireth fields, let him take them if he please: I do not give them to the Emperor; but therewith also I do not deny them. Of the second, Tertullian wrighteth 
k Apol.  as I have alleged him before: For what war are we unserviceable or unfit, although unequal in number, who do so willingly suffer death: yea, he was so far from judging it lawful to resist, that he thought it scarce allowable to fly. 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: 
l Act. 4.  whereby the subject is not bound to yield obedience.  
But how? he is not bound to obey by doing, but by suffering he is: he is not bound to obey in doing that only which is evil; but he is not thereby freed from doing any other thing which is lawfully commanded. S. Augustine saith 
m in Psalm. : julian was an infidel Emperor, an Apostata; an Idolater; christian soldiers did serve this infidel Emperor; when he would have them worship Idols, and offer Frankincense unto them, th●y preferred God before him: but when he said; bring forth the army, march against such a nation; they did presently obey. All this seemeth to be confirmed by God himself, who after he had forewarned the people of Israel by the mouth of Samuel, 
1. Sam. S.  what heavy, what open injustice they should endure under some of their kings, he concludeth in these words: and ye shall cry out in that day because of your king, and the Lord will not hear you. As if he had said: you shall grudge at this burden, you shall groan under it; but you shall not have power, either to shrink from it, or to shake it off.  
Surely, if you had been advised, you would privily have blown your blasphemies into the ears of those idiots, who adore you for the great penitentiaries of the sea of Rome, & esteem your idle imaginations as the articles of their faith: & not so publicly have poured forth yourself into these paradoxes, both impious & absurd; not so boisterously have stepped, like Hercules Furens, upon the open stage of the world, to denounce deprivation against all princes. You would not thus confidently have opposed your hot headed assertion against all the ancient fathers of the church. You would not thus ignorantly have troubled the waters of true human wisdom, by corrupting the sense of the civil laws: you would not thus profanely have abused the scriptures in maintaining rebellion, as conjurers do in invocating the devil. For first, you are thereby discovered to be, neither religious, modest, nor wise: secondly, you have run yourself into the compass of a Canon, in the council of Chalcedon. 
q C. coniurationum xj q i.  Wherein it is thus decreed against you: If Clerks shall be found to be contrivers 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 duty: which is a large description, and fit to set all christian countries on float with blood. Comines saith, that he is to be esteemed a good king, whose virtues are not overballanced by vice.  
I omit your thick error in putting no difference between a magistrate and a king, with many other of like quality, and do come now to a principal point of your strength: that Christian princes at this day are admitted upon conditions, and likewise with protestations, that if they do not perform the same, their subjects are free from all allegiance. This you will prove by the particular oaths of all Princes, if the overrunning of your tongue may have the full course without encounter.   

To the fifth Chapter, which is entitled: Of the coronation of Princes, and manner of admitting to their authority, and the oaths which they do make in the same unto the common wealth, for their good government.  
FIrst I will preface; that no Prince is sovereign, who acknowledgeth himself either subject or accountable to any but to God; even as Marcus Aurelius said: That Magistrates were judges of private men, and the Prince of Magistrates, and God of the Prince. In regard of this immediate subjection, Princes are most especially obliged to the laws of God and of Nature: for 
r In l. 2. D. de seruit. & aqua  Baldus, 
s cons. 216.  Alexander, 
t De legib.  Speculator, 
u In l. ult. c. si contra in's.  all interpreters, 
w c. sunt quidam. 25. q. 1.  the law itself, do affirm, that Princes are more strictly bound to these laws, 
* nunc.  than any of their subjects. Whereof 
x Plutarch. in Problem. Graec.  Dionysius the Tyrant had some sense, when he said unto his mother: That he was able to dispense with the laws of Syracuse, but against the laws of Nature he had no power. If therefore a Prince doth profess, that he will bear himself regardful o● the accomplishment of these laws, he doth not condition or restrain himself, but maketh an honourable promise of endeavour, to discharge his duty; being tied thereby to no s●anter scope than he was before. The reason hereof is: 
y L. iij. D. de leg. i. Dec. in reg. 77. n. 10.  Quia expressio eius quod tacitè inest, nihil operatur: The expressing of that which is secretly understood, worketh nothing.  
Again, when the promise is not annexed to the authority, but voluntarily and freely made by the Prince, his estate is not thereby made conditional. For the interpreters of the Civil law do consent in this rule: 
z In l. iurisgentium.  Pacta conventa quae contractibus non insunt, non formant actionem: Covenants which are not inherent in contracts, do not form an action. 
* quinimo.  And therefore although by all laws, both of conscience and state, a Prince is bound to perform his promise; because (as the Master of sentences saith) God himself will stand obliged to his word: yet is not the authority, but the person of the Prince hereby affected; the person is both tied 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 add, 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 〈◊〉 lie. 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, Traiani nostri clarum seculis reparamus exemplum; jurat vobis per quem iuratis: 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 privileges of the Church, and not to change the laws of the Realm: which oath is interpreted by 
* In l. claris l. de fideis.  Baldus, 
a In c. pro●llor●i de praebend.  Panormitane, and 
b Cons. 220. lib. 6. & cons. 122. & 125. lib. 4.  Alexander, to extend no further then 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 Emperors; 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 
c In cap. 1. : and yet your inference hereupon is no other, then if you should sue in some Court for a legacy, alleging 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 Emperor 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 sense: 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 clothe 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 imbrue his hands with innocent blood; especially if you take the word Ordinances for matters necessary to be believed: but if you take it in a larger sense, 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 came 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 threatened, that God would severely exact at their hands. But (as in all elective States it usually happeneth) at every new change and choice, the Emperor 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 Emperor bearing the title thereof, but the majesty and puissance remaining in the States. During which weakness of the Emperor, some points were added to his oath, which seemed to derogate from the sovereignty 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 blood, and was esteemed a sovereign Monarchy; until after the death of Casimire the Great, when Lodonicus his Nephew King of Hungary, rather greedy then desirous to be king also of Polonia, did much abase the Majesty thereof. Yet falling afterwards into the line of jagello, who married one of the daughters of Lodowick, it recovered the ancient both dignity and strength. But when that line also failed in Sigismond Augustus, the last male of that Family, the State's elected Henry Duke of Anjowe 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 
d In spec. tit. 14.  Peter Belluga, a diligent writer of the rights of Arragon, doth affirm, that the people have no power in election of the king, 
* Veniamus n. 10.  except in case the line should fail.  
Concerning the matter in controversy, you affirm, that the kings did swear the same points in effect, which before have been mentioned. This we must take upon your forfeited faith, for you allege no form of oath; only you write, that the fourth national Council of 
c An. 633. cap. 74.  Toledo, with all humility convenient did require, that the present king, and all other that should follow, would be meek and moderate towards their subjects, and govern them with justice, and not give sentence in causes capital without assistance: declaring further, that if any of them should exercise cruel and proud authority, 〈◊〉 they were condemned by Christ, with the sentence of Excommunication, and separated to everlasting judgement.  
But what pang hath possessed your dreaming brains, to term this by a marginal note, Conditions of reigning in Spain? being no other than a reverent and grave admonition of the duty of a king, with a fearful declaration of the judgement of God against wicked Princes. And that which was afterward decreed in the sixth Council of Toledo: That the king should swear, not to suffer any man to break the Catholic faith, because it is a principal point of his duty, his estate was not thereby made conditional.  
The rest of this passage you fill up with froth of the antiquated law of Don Pelayo, prescribing a form of inaugurating the Kings of Spain; whereof there is not one point, either now in use, or pertaining to the purpose. So miserable is your case, that you can write nothing therein, but that which is either impertinent or untrue.  
For France, your first example is taken from the coronation of Philip the first: wherein you note, that king Henry his father requested the people to swear obedience to his son; inferring thereby, that a coronation requireth a new consent, which includeth a certain election of the subjects. 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 ordinary, so was it of such both difficulty and weight, that it could not be effected without assembly and consent of the States. The oath which he made, is in this form extant in the Library of Rheimes: I do promise before God and his Saints, that I will conserve to every one committed unto me canonical privilege, & due Law & justice, and will defend them, by the help of God, so much as shall lie in my power, as a king by right aught to do within his Realm, to every Bishop, and to the Church committed to him: and further, to the people committed to my charge, I will grant by my authority the dispensation of laws according to right. Ad to this a more ancient form of the oath of those kings, which it seemeth you have not seen: I swear in the name of God Almighty, & promise, to govern well & duly the subjects committed to my charge, & to do with all my power, judgement, justice and mercy. Ad also the oath which you allege of Philip the 2. surnamed Augustus: To maintain all canonical privileges, law & justice due to every man, to the uttermost of his power; to defend his subjects as a good king is bound to do; to procure that they be kept in the union of the Church; to defend then from all excess, rapine, extortion & iniquity; to take order that justice be kept with equity & mercy; & to endeavour to expel heretics. What doth all this rise unto, but a princely promise to discharge honourably and truly those points of duty, which the laws of God did lay upon them? What other conditions or restraints are imposed? what other contract is hereby made? where are the protestations which in the end of the last chap. you promised to show, that if the Prince do fail in his promise, the subjects are free from their allegiance? what clause do you find sounding to that sense? But you little regard any thing that you say; you easily remember to forget your word. Well then, we must put these your vain speeches into the reckoning of money accounted, but not received: and seeing you cannot show us, that the kings of France and of Spain are tied to any condition, whereto the law of God doth not bind them, I will not vary from the judgement of Ordradus 
f Cons. 69.  in affirming them to be absolute kings.  
I have pressed this point the rather in this place, because you write, that most neighbour nations have taken the form of anointing & crowning their kings, from the ancient custom of France; although the substance be deduced from the first kings of the Hebrews, as appeareth by the anointing of king Saul: whereof David (you say) made great account, notwithstanding that Saul had been rejected by God, and that himself had lawfully borne arms against him.  
Out Atheist; you would be daubed with dung, & have the most vile filth of your stews cast in your face. Did David bear arms against his anointed king? did he ever lift up his eyelids against him? did he ever so much as defend himself otherwise then by flight? It is certain that Shemei did not half so cruelly either curse or revile this holy man, who did so much both by speech and action detest this fact, that he would rather have endured ten thousand deaths, then to have defiled his soul with so damnable a thought. What then shall we say unto you, who to set up sedition and tumult, abuse all divine & human writings, in whatsoever you believe will advance your purpose? who spend some speech of respect unto kings for allurement only, to draw us more deep into your deceit? Shall we give any further ear to your doctrine, both blasphemous and bloody? We will hear you to the end; and I deceive myself, but your own tale shall, in any moderate judgement, condemn the authority of your opinions for ever.  
Let us come then to your last example (which is neither the last nor the least whereat you level.) And that is of England, which of all other kingdoms (you say) hath most particularly taken this ceremony of Sacring and anointing from France. Well, let the ceremony be taken from whence you please: if the oath be no other than you do specify, To observe peace, honour and reverence, unto Almighty God, to his Church and to the Ministers of the same, to administer Law and justice equally to all; to abrogate evil laws and customs, and maintain good (which was the oath of king Richard the first; the like whereto was that of king john, altered only in the first branch: To love and defend the Catholic Church:) If the oath be no other I say, I do not see what other answer you need to expect, but that it is only a free royal promise, to discharge that duty which God doth impose. And this is plainly declared by the speech which you allege, of Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury, to king Henry the fourth; Remember (saith he) the oath which voluntarily you made: voluntarily he said, and not necessarily: it was voluntary in oath, but necessary in duty. That which you report also that Thomas Becket did write unto 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● sworn; then the Archbishop declareth to the people what he hath sworn, and demandeth if they be content to submit themselves unto him under those conditions: whereunto they consenting, he putteth on the royal ornaments; and then addeth the words of commission: Stand and hold thy place, and keep thy oath. And thus you have hammered out a formal election, supposing that you draw together the pieces of falsehood so close, that no man can perceive the seam. The truth is, that king Henry the fourth being not the nearest in blood to the inheritance of the crown, 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 us; First, in joining them together as one act; Secondly, by falsifying diverse points in both; Lastly, by insinuating that the same order was observed by other kings.  
The points which you falsify 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 alleging also out of Stow, 1. That the Archbishop did read unto the people, what the King was bound unto by oath; 2. That the Earl of Northumberland did show a ring unto the people, that they might thereby see the band whereby the king was bound unto them; 3. That the king did pray, that he might observe his promise. In which composition of conceits, you show how active you are in counterfeiting any thing, that may make to your purpose; persuading yourself, that it is no fraud unto God, to deceive the world in a lie for advantage.  
King Edward the fourth also (because his right was litigious, & another was in possession of the crown) 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, Queen Mary, and Queen Elizabeth, the consent and acceptation of the people was demanded: First, we have no cause to credit any thing that you say; then, although it be true, yet not being done in Parliament, it addeth no right unto 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 between 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 blood maketh a king, & that the consent of the people is nothing necessary, you affirm to be absurd, base and impious, an unlearned, fond and wicked assertion; in flattery of Princes, to the manifest ruin of commonwealths, and perverting of all law, order and reason.  
I did always foresee that your impostumed stomach would belch forth some loathsome matter. But whosoever shall compare this confident conclusion with the proofs that you have made, he will rather judge you mad then unwise. This bold blast, upon grounds that are both foolish and false, bewrayeth rather want than weakness of wits. I am ashamed I should offer any further speech in so evident a truth: but since I have undertaken to combat an heresy, since the matter is of so great consequence & import, I purpose once again to give you a gorge.  
Learn then, heavy-headed Cloisterer, unable to manage these mysteries of State: Learn of me, I say; for I owe this duty to all Christians: the Prophets, the Apostles, Christ himself hath taught us, to be obedient to Princes, though both tyrants and infidels. This aught to stand with us for a thousand reasons to submit ourselves to such kings, as it pleaseth God to send unto us; without either judging or examining their qualities. Their hearts are in God's hand; they do his service, sometimes in preserving, sometimes in punishing us: they execute his judgement both ways, 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 look unto it, let them assuredly expect, that God will dart his vengeance against them with a most stiff and dreadful arm. In the mean season, we must not oppose ourselves, otherwise then by humble suits and prayers: acknowledging, that those evils are always just for us to suffer, which are many times unjust for them to do. If we do otherwise; if we break into tumult and disorder, we resemble those Giants of whom the Poets write; who making offer to scale the skies, and to pull jupiter out of his throne, were overwhelmed in a moment with the mountains which they had heaped together. Believe it, Cloisterer; or ask any man who is both honest and wise, and he will tell you: It is a rule in reason, a trial in experience, an authority confirmed by the best, that rebellion produceth more horrible effects, then either the tyranny or insufficiency of any Prince.   

To the sixth Chapter, whereof the title is: What is due to only succession by birth; and what interest or right an Heir apparent hath to the Crown, before he is crowned or admitted by the commonwealth; and how justly he may be put back, if he hath not the parts requisite.  
YOU begin (after your manner) with a carreir against Billay; but because both I have not seen what he hath written, and dare not credit what you report, I will not set in foot between you.  
In breaking from this, you prefer succession of Princes before free election, as well for other respects, as for the pre-eminence of ancestry in birth, which is so much privileged in the Scripture: and yet not made so inviolable (you say) but upon just causes it might be inverted; as it appeareth by the examples of jacob, juda and Solomon. And this liberty you hold to be the principal remedy for such inconveniences as do ensue of the course of succession; as if the next in birth be unable or pernicious to govern: in which cases, if he be not capable of directions and counsels, you affirm that the remedy is to remove him. And so you make succession and election, the one to be a preservative to the other; supposing, that the difficulculties of both are taken away: First, if ordinarily succession taketh place; then, if upon occasion we give allowance to election.  
For the prerogative of birth, as also for the special choice which God hath often made of the youngest, I will remit myself to that which I have written before 
g Cap. 1. . At once: in those particular actions which God hath either done, or by express Oracle commanded, contrary to the general laws which he hath given us; as in the robbery of the Egyptians, the extirpation of the Amalekites, the insurrection of jehu, and such like; we are bound to the law, and not to the example. God hath given us a natural law, to prefer the first borne; he hath often made choice of the youngest, because he commonly worketh greatest effects, by means not only weak, but extraordinary; as it appeareth by the birth of Isaak. But that these special elections of God are not proposed for imitation to us, hereby it is evident; because they have been for the most part, without defect in the one, or demerit in the other. And especially in this example of jacob and Esau; Saint Paul saith 
h Rom. 9.13.  that it was not grounded upon their works, but upon the will and pleasure of God; for before they had done good or evil, before they were borne, God said: 
i Gen 25.23.  The eldest shall serve the youngest. Which if we might imitate, the privilege of birth were given in vain.  
For your device in joining election to succession, whereby one of them should remedy the difficulties of the other, it is a mere utopical conceit: what else shall I term it? an imposture of state, a dream, an illusion, fit only to surprise the judgement of the weak and ignorant multitude. These toys are always hatched by the discursive sort of men, rather than the active; being matters more in imagination then in use: and herein two respects do principally oppose against you.  
The first is, for that in most nations of the world, the people have lost all power of election; and succession is firmly settled in one descent, as before I have declared 
k Cap. i.   
The second is, for that more fiery factions are hereby kindled, then where succession or election are mere without mixture. For where one claimeth the Crown by succession, and another possesseth it by title of election; there, not a disunion only of the people, not a division in arms, but a cruel throat-cutting, a most immortal and merciless butchery doth usually ensue. It is somewhat inconvenient (I grant) to be governed by a Prince either impotent or evil; but it is a greater inconvenience, by making a breach into this high point of state, to open a way to all manner of ambitions, perjuries, cruelties and spoil: whereto the nature of the common-people would give a great furtherance, who being weak in wisdom, violent in will; soon weary of quiet, always desirous of change, and most especially in matters of state, are easily made serviceable to any man's aspiring desires. This I have manifested before 
l 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 upon wantonness then for any want, did take an unbridled course against them. And thus is your high policy nothing else but a deep deceit; thus whilst you strive with the wings of your wit to mount above the clouds of other men's conceit, you sink into a sea of absurdities and errors.  
After this, you determine two questions; the first is, What respect is to be attributed to propinquity of blood only. Whereto you answer, that it is the principal circumstance which leadeth us to the next succession of the Crown, if other circumstances and conditions do concur, which were appointed at the same time, when the law of succession was established. Assuredly you can never show either when, or by whom, this law of succession was first instituted, except perhaps by some Nimrod, when he had brought the neck of a people under his sword: at which time, what conditions he would set down to be required from his successor, any ordinary judgement may conjecture at ease. Well, since you set us to seek for proof of this, to that which you have written before, I will also send you back to the same place 
m Cap i.  for your answer.  
The second question is, What interest a Prince hath to his kingdom, before he be crowned. This you resolve by certain comparisons; and first you write, that it is the same which the German Emperor hath before his coronation. But that is so large, that some Emperors have never been crowned; others have deferred it for many years; among which 
n Metrop. l. 3. cap. 20.  Crantzius writeth, that Otho the first received the Crown of the Empire, in the eight and twentieth year of his reign. And yet is not this comparison full to the question propounded; because in elective states there is not held one perpetual continuance of royalty, as is in those that are successive. And 
o In Prooem. decret.  Panormitane saith, That an argument a similibus is not good, if any difference can be assigned. Much more unfitly do you affirm, that it is no greater than a Mayor of London hath in his office, before he hath taken his oath: for it is odiously absurd, to compare the authority of an absolute Prince by succession, to the authority of an Officer, both elective and also subject.  
But it is the example of marriage (you say) whereby this matter is made more plain: for as in this contract there is an espousal, by promise of a future act, and a perfect marriage by yielding present consent; the first is, when both parties do mutually promise that they will; the second, that they do take one the other for husband and wife: so an heir apparent, by propinquity of blood is espoused only to the Commonwealth, and married afterward at his coronation, by oaths of either party, and by putting on the ring, and other wedding garments. But how were Kings married in former ages? how are they now married in those countries, where they have neither ring, nor wedding garment, nor also any oath? What? is every office and degree which is taken with ceremony, to be esteemed likewise a marriage? Or if you will have coronation only to be a marriage, what else can it resemble, but the public celebration of matrimony between man and woman? which addeth nothing to the substance of contract, but only manifesteth it to the world.  
These pitiful proofs, naked of authority, empty of sense, deserve rather to be excused then answered: I will help therefore in some sort to excuse them. They are the best that your starved both cause and conceit can possibly afford: and you have also some fellows in your folly. Heliogabalus did solemnly join the statues of the Sun and of the Moon in marriage together. Nero was married to a man, and took also a man to his wife. The Venetians do yearly upon Ascension day, by a ring and other ceremonies, contract marriage with the sea.  
But now in earnest; men do die whensoever it pleaseth God to call them: but it is a Maxim in the common law of England: Rex nunquam moritur; The king is always actually in life. In France also the same custom hath been observed; and for more assurance it was expressly enacted under 
p About the year, ●375.  Charles the fifth: That after the death of any king, his eldest son should incontinently succeed. For which cause the Parliament court of Paris doth accompany the funeral obsequies of those that have been their kings, not in mourning attire, but in scarlet; the true ensign of the never-dying Majesty of the Crown.  
In regard of this certain and incontinent succession, the 
q In c. v●t. 24 q. 1.  Glossographer upon the Decrees noteth: That the son of a king, may be called King during the life of his father, as wanting nothing but administration: wherein he is followed with great applause by 
r In l quesitan. D. de leg. i.  Baldus, 
s In c● tanta qui fil suat legit.  Panormitane, 
t Con●. 1●2. l. 2  jason, 
u Cons ● 2. li. 1  Carol. Ruinus, 
w In c. 1 tit. quis dicat. dux.  Andreas Iserna, Martinus, Card. Alexander, 
x Ind. pa●●●. c. de re●●cad.  Albericus, 
y In rep ●ab. de ca po & prop.  Fed. Barbatius, 
z Cons. 262.  Philip Decius, 
& In tra●t de po. & excel. reg. ● 25  Ant. Corsetta, 
a In tra●t de privil 〈◊〉. par. 1. ca 109.  Fra. Luca, 
b In tract. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Matthe, Afflict. And the same also doth Sernius note out of 
c Amend. 9  Virgil, where he saith of Ascanius: Regemque requirunt, his father Aeneas being yet alive.  
But so soon as the king departeth out of life, the royalty is presently transferred to the next successor, according to the laws and customs of our Realm. All Writs go forth in his name; all course of justice is exercised, all Offices are held by his authority; all states, all persons, are bound to bear to him allegiance: not under supposal of approbation when he shall be crowned, according to your dull and drowsy conjecture, but as being the true Sovereign king of the Realm.  
He that knoweth not this, may (in regard of the affairs of our state) join himself to S. Anthony, in glorying in his ignorance, & professing that he knoweth nothing. Queen Mary reigned 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 Queen.  
King Edward the first was in Palestina, when his father died; in which his absence, the Nobility and Prelates of the Realm assembled at London, and did acknowledge him for their king. In his return homeward, he did homage to the French king, for the lands which he held of him in France. He also repressed certain rebels of Gascoine; amongst whom, Gasco of Bierne, appealed to the court of the king of France: where king Edward had judgement, that Gasco had committed treason 
d Walsingh. in E. 1. ; and thereupon he was delivered to the pleasure of king Edward. And this happened before his coronation, which was a year and nine mon●ths after he began to reign.  
King Henry the sixth was crowned in the eighth year of his reign; and in the mean space, not only his subjects did both profess and bear allegiance, but the King of Scots also did swear homage unto him.  
What need I give any more either instance or argument, in that which is the clear law, the uncontroulled custom of the Realm? Against which notwithstanding your weatherbeaten forehead doth not blush to oppose a blind opinion, that heirs apparent are not true kings, although their titles be just, and their predecessors dead. This you labour to prove by a few dry conjectures, but especially and above all others (you say) because the Realm is asked three times at every coronation, whether they will have such a man to be their king or no. First, we have good reason to require better proof of this question then your bare word: secondly, although we admit it to be true, yet seeing the answer is not made by the estates of the Realm assembled in parliament, but by a confused concourse (necessary Officers excepted) of all sorts both of age and sex, it is for ceremony only, & not of force, either to give or to increase any right.  
Another of your arguments is, for that the Prince doth first swear to govern well and justly, before the subjects take their oath of allegiance; which argueth, that before they were not bound. And further you affirm, that it happened only to king Henry the fifth, among his predecessors, to have fealty done unto him, before he was crowned, and had taken his oath. I confess indeed, that Polydore and St●w have written so; but you might easily have found that they write not true; the one of them being a mere stranger in our state; the other a man more to be commended for endeavour then for art. King john being in Normandy when his brother died, sent into England Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury, William Martial Earl of Strigvile, and Geoffrie Fitzpeter Lord chief ●ustice, who assembled the States of the Realm at Northhampton, and took of them an oath of obedience to the new king. Also king 
c Anno reg. 23.  Henry the third caused the Citizens of London, the Guardians of the Cinque-ports, and divers others, to swear fealty to Prince Edward his son; who being in Palestina when his father died, the Nobility and Prelates of the Realm assembled in the new temple at London, and did acknowledge him for their king. And in like manner, king Edward the third took an oath of all the Nobility of the Realm, of faith after his death to Richard Prince of Wales: and so did king Henry the first, for his daughter Mawde, and her young son Henry.  
After the death of king Henry the fifth, that subjects did often swear allegiance, before the coronation and oath of the king, you had neither countenance nor conscience to deny: but it was neither of these two which did restrain you; it proceeded only from the force of truth, which will manifest itself whatsoever art we use to disguise it. For otherwise, what countenance, what conscience had you to affirm, that it is expressly noted by our English Historiographers: That no allegiance is due unto kings, before they be crowned? Who are these Historiographers? where do they so write? you that search every dusty corner of your brains, for a few ragged reasons to uphold your heresy, should not either have mentioned, or omitted such pregnant proofs: for in that you affirm, and do not express them, you condemn yourself by your own silence.  
If you mean that which you allege out of Polydore and Stowe: That an oath of fealty was never made before coronation, until the time of king Henry the fifth; it is neither true, nor to any such sense. If you mean that of Polydore in terming Henry the fifth, Prince and not King, before he was crowned; in writing also, that the States did consult in Parliament, 
f De novo rege creando more maiorum.  of creating a new king after the custom of their ancestors: it is a sleepy jest, to strain every word in such an author to propriety of speech. You might better have cited, what certain cities in France not long since alleged for themselves: That because they had not reputed Henry the fourth for their king, because they had not professed allegiance unto him, they were not to be adjudged rebels: whereupon notwithstanding the chiefest Lawyers of our age did resolve, that forasmuch as they were original subjects, even subjects by birth; they were rebels in bearing arms against their king, although they had never professed allegiance. And this is so evidently the law of the Realm, that it is presumption in us both; in you, to assay by your shallow Sophistry to obscure or impugn; in me, to endeavour by authorities and arguments to manifest or defend the same.  
But the admission of the people (you say) hath often prevailed against right of succession. So have pirates against merchants; so have murderers and thieves against true meaning travelers. And this disloyalty of the people hath moved diverse kings to cause their sons to be crowned during their own lives; because the unsettled state of succeeding kings doth give opportunity to boldest attempts; and not as you dream, because admission is of more importance than succession.  
I will examine your examples in the Chapters following. In the mean 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 upon consent of the people; the Authors 
g Sir Tho. Moor, and Stow.  which you cite do plainly charge you with unexcusable untruth. King Edward never made question of his right: king Henry did, as some other Author's report 
h Holingshead. ; but applied no such deceitful comfort: this false skin would not then serve to cover his wound.   

To the seventh Chapter, which beareth title: How the next in succession by propinquity of blood, have oftentimes been put back by the commonwealth, & others further off admitted in their places, even in those kingdoms where succession prevaileth; with many examples of the kingdom of Israel and Spain.  
HERE you present yourself very pensive to your audience, as though you had so over-strained your wits with store of examples of the next in succession not admitted to the state, that you had cracked the credit of them for ever. But you are worthy of blame, either for endangering or troubling yourself in matters of so small advantage. I have showed before, that examples suffice not to make any proof; and yet herein doth consist the greatest show of your strength. It is dangerous for men to be governed by examples though good, except they can assure themselves of the same concurrence of reasons, not only in general, but in particularities; of the same direction also and carriage in counsel; and lastly, of the same favourable fortune: but in actions which are evil, the imitation is commonly worse than the example. Your puffie discourse then is a heap of words without any weight; you make mountains, not of Molehills, but of moats; long harvest for a small deal, not of corn, but of cockle; and (as one said at the shearing of hogs) great cry for a little, and that not very fine wool.  
Yea, but of necessity something you must say: yea, but this something is no more than nothing. You suppose, that either your opinion will be accepted, more for authority of your person, than weight of your proofs; or else that any words will slide easily into the minds of those, who are lulled in the humour of the same inclination; because partiality will not suffer men to discern truth, being easily beguiled in things they desire. Besides, whatsoever countenance you carry, that all your examples are free from exception, yet if you had cast out those which are impertinent, or unjust, or else untrue, you could not have been overcharged with the rest.  
Your first example, that none of the children of Saul did succeed him in the crown, is altogether impertinent: because by particular and express appointment of God 
i 2. Reg 15. & 16. 2 Reg. 2. & 5. , the kingdom was broken from his posterity. We acknowledge that God is the only superior judge of supreme Kings, having absolute both right and power, to dispose and transpose their estates as he please. Neither must we examine his actions by any course of law, because his will is above all law. He hath enjoined the people to be obedient to their Kings; he hath not made them equal in authority to himself. And whereas out of this example you deduce, that the fault of the father may prejudicate the sons right, although he had no part in the fault; to speak moderately of you, your judgement is either deceitful or weak. God in his high justice, doth punish indeed the sins of parents upon their posterity 
k Exod. 20.5. : but for the ordinary course of human justice, he hath given a law, that the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father 
l Ezech. 18.20. jerem. 31.29. Deut. 24.16. 2. Chron. 25.2. : the equity whereof is regularly followed, both by the Civil 
m l. siquis sno. § legi● C●de In o●f. test● generali. D●●e rit. nup. l. silian. D. de senator. l. adoptiwm. D. de In ius voc.  and Canon 
n Dist. 56. per tot.  law; and by the interpreters of them both 
o gl. et Dd●b. et in c. vel non est de temp. ord.   
Your second example is of King Solomon, who succeeded in the state of David his father, notwithstanding he was his youngest son. But this example in many respects falleth not within the compass of your case. First, because he was not appointed successor by the people: we speak not what the king and the people may do to direct succession, but what the people may do alone. Secondly, for that the kingdom was not then established in succession. Lastly, for that the action was led by two Prophets, David and Nathan, according to the express choice and direction of God 
p 1 Chron. 22.8.9. : whereby it is no rule for ordinary right.  
Here many points do challenge you of indiscretion at the least. You write that David made a promise to Bathsheba in his youth, that Solomon should succeed in his estate: but if you had considered at what years Solomon began to reign, you should have found, that David could not make any such promise, but he must be a youth about threescore years of age. You write also, that David adored his son Solomon from his bed: but the words wherewith David worshipped were these 
q 3. Reg. 2.48. : Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, who hath made one to sit on my throne this day, even in my sight: whereby it is evident, that David adored God and not his son. This I note rather for observation of the looseness of your judgement, then for any thing it maketh to the purpose. You are so accustomed to untruths, that you fall into them, without either advantage or end.  
The like answer may be given to your example of Rehoboam; because God declared his sentence therein by two Prophets, Ahijah 
r 3. Reg. 11.31.  and Shemaiah 
s 3. Reg. 12.24. . But for that the ten tribes revolted from Rehoboam, upon discontentment at his rough answer, and with despite against David and his house, and not in obedience to God's decree, we cannot excuse them from offence, for which it turned to their destruction. For hereupon, first they were separated both from the place & manner of the true worship of God; them, there arose unappeasable war, between them & the tribe of judah; then, insolencies following disorders, they were never long time free from conspiracies, divisions and tumults: by which means being drained both of wealth and inhabitants, and reduced to a naked weakness, they were lastly carried captive into diverse far countries, and strangers were sent to inhabit their cities.  
I must here also observe a few of your interpretations, wherein your boldness is not limited with any bounds. It is to be noted (you say) that before Rehoboam went to Shechem to be admitted by the people, he was not accounted true King. I desire therefore that you would satisfy us in these places following. Before Rehoboam went to Shechem, the Scripture saith, that Solomon died, and was buried, and Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead 
t 3. Reg. 11.43. . Again, after the defection of the ten tribes it is said, that in the cities of judah Rehoboam did reign still, 
u 3. Reg. 12.17.  implying thereby, that in the other cities he reigned before. Again, they are said to have rebelled against the house of David 
w 3. Reg. 12.19. . And lastly, Rehoboam raised all the strength of judah and Benjamin, to bring the kingdom again unto him 
x 3. Reg. 12.21. .  
Further you write, that ten tribes refused to admit Rehoboam; but the Scripture saith that they rebelled 
y 3. Reg. 12.19. . What? did God only allow hereof after it was done? did he only permit the people to do it? the Scripture testifieth that it was his decree, that it was his deed, and that he declared his will by Ahijah the Prophet 
z 3. Reg. 11.31. , during the life of Solomon, and for his sins. But these special warrants do not constitute a law; they serve only to make good the particular actions for which they are directed, and not to justify another the like. Lastly, S. Paul saith, that all things happened to the jews in figure; upon which place diverse expositors have noted, that the state of the jews was a figure of the Church of Christ: but that it was an example and pattern of all other states that should ensue, it shall be ranged among your cast conceits.  
I refer me now to the judgement of any man, who taketh not pleasure to beguile himself, whether you do not by art & trumpery manifestly abuse us; partly by incapacity, & partly by deceit, either corrupting or confounding whatsoever you take in hand. Your humour both discontented and unquiet, hath armed your mind with bloody desires, which have edged you on to put fuel to those flames, which you should endeavour to quench, though it were with your blood.  
I will not stand upon the particular examples of Spain, as well for that the matter is both tedious and to little purpose; as also for that we have small conformity with the customs of that nation. Only thus much in general: We acknowledge that in ancient times the kingdom of Spain was elective, and therefore your examples drawn from thence are nothing pertinent. The examples of later times, are both few and unjust, carried only by faction and by force; as Garabay 
& Pa. 414.  testifieth of your example of Aurelio, and as by the example of D. Sancho el Bravo I have declared before 
a Cap. 3. . But you account faction to be the Commonwealth, and violence justice, when it may make to the furtherance of your affairs.  
The History of D. Berenguela I will briefly report, rather for the respect which guided the Castilians, then that I allow it for right which they did. Henry had two sisters, Donna Blanch the eldest, married to Lewes the eight King of France; and Berenguela the youngest, married to Alphonso king of Leon. Henry dying without issue, the Castilians feared, if they should submit themselves unto Blanch, that their state, being less than the state of France, would be made a member thereof, and governed as a Province, and not as a kingdom. And therefore they did rather choose to profess allegiance to the Lady Berenguela; by which means, the kingdom of Leon was afterwards annexed unto Castille, to the great increase, both of dignity and assurance to them both. I have followed herein your own Authors, not being ignorant that others of better name do write, that Berenguela was the eldest sister, as I shall have occasion hereafter to declare: but for the present let it be as you please; and let us weigh our own wisdoms, not only in straining, but in forging titles, to incur those mischiefs, which the Castilians rejected, a lawful title to avoid.  
And this was also one of the motives of the revolt of Portugal, which is your last example; although it had also (as Garabay 
b Lib. 34. pa 833.  writeth) a concurrence of right. For Ferdinand king of Portugal, by his procurators, the Bishop of Ebora and others, did both contract and solemnize espousals with Elinor, daughter of Peter king of Arragon. But being entered into war with Henry king of Castille, & finding himself at some disadvantage, he forsook the king of Arragon's daughter, & contracted himself to Elinor, daughter to the king of Castille, upon very beneficial conditions for his state. Afterward, falling into fancy with one of his subjects, named Elinor Tells de Meneses, wife to a noble man called Lorenzo Vasques de Acun̄a, he took her as his wife, and enforced her husband to avoid the Realm; & had by her one only daughter, named Beatrix, who was joined in marriage to john king of Castille. After the death of the king of Portugal her father, the king of Castille in the right of his wife, laid claim to that realm, & was accordingly acknowledged by the chief of the nobility and Prelates; and in particular, by D. john master of avis, her father's base brother, who was then the most forward man in her favour. But afterwards falling into quarrel, and having slain the Count de Oren, he stirred the people against the Queen, & compelled her to quit the city. And after diverse outrages and murders, committed upon the Bishop of Lisbon, an Abbess, and many others, he was first made governor of Portugal; and then proceeding further, in an assembly of his party gathered at Coimbra, he was made King. Garrabay writeth, 
c pa. 841.  that the chiefest objection against Beatrix was, because her mother was not King Ferdinand's lawful wife. And I believe you also, that they had a reflex, not to lose the dignity of their kingdom (as now they have done) and be made subject to the cruel both avarice and ambition of a more potent state.   

To the eighth Chapter, which is entitled, Of divers other examples out of the states of France and England, for proof, that the next in blood are sometimes put back from succession, and how God hath approved the same with good success.  
YOur examples of France (to which Nation we are more near both in situation and laws) I will run over with a swift course. Of the change which twice hath happened in the whole race of the kings of France, I have spoken before: 
d Cap. ●.  you seem also either to threaten or presage the third change, from the king who now reigneth, and other Princes of the house of Bourbon. It was your desire, you applied your endeavour, with all the power and persuasions you could make. You knit divers of the Nobility in a treacherous league against him; you incensed the people; you drew in foreign forces to their assistance: by which means, the Realm fell daily into change of distress, the men of arms making all things lawful to their lust. The good did fear, the evil expect; no place was free, either from the rage or suspicion of tumult; few to be trusted, none assured, all things in commixtion; the wisest too weak, the strongest too simple, to avoid the storm which broke upon them: the people joining to their miserable condition many complaints, that they had been abused by you, in whose directions they found nothing but obstinacy and rashness, two dangerous humours to lead a great enterprise. At the last, when lamentable experience had made that known unto them, which they had no capacity by reason to foresee, they expelled as well your company as counsel out of the Realm; and so the firebrands which you had kindled, were broken upon your own heads; having opportunity by your just banishment to enter into conscience, both of the weakness and wrong of your advice.  
The partition of the Realm of France between Charles the great, and Carlomon his younger brother, and also the uniting thereof again in Charles, after the death of Carloman, depended upon the disposition of Pepin their father, and not upon the election of the people. Girard saith, that 
e Lib. 1. de l'estate. fol 43.  Pepin having disposed all things in his new Realm which he thought necessary for the surety thereof, he disposed his estate; leaving the Realm of Noion to his son Charles; and to Carloman his other son, that of Soissons, & that by the death of Carloman, both his place and his power did accrue unto Charles. In this manner, the first of a family, who hath attained a kingdom, hath ordinarily directed the succession thereof.  
The contention between Lewis le debonair and his sons, according to your own Author Girard, 
f De l'estate.  proceeded and succeeded after this manner. Certain Lords of France taking discontentment at the immoderate favours, which the king showed toward Berard his great Chamberlain, conspired against him; and for their greater both countenance and strength, drew his own sons to be of their faction. But Lewis broke this broil, more by foresight then by force; and doing execution upon the principal offenders, pardoned his sons. Yet they, interpreting this lenity to slackness of courage, rebelled again, gathered a greater strength, & drew Pope Gregory the fourth to be a complice of their unnatural impiety: whereby it appeareth (saith Girard) that they are either foolish or mischievous, who will affirm, that every thing is good which the Popes have done. Afterward they took their father, under colour of good faith, and sent him prisoner to Tortone, & then at Compeigne assembled a Parliament, composed of their own confederates, wherein they made him a Monk, & brought his estate into division & share. It is easy to conjecture (saith the same Girard) what miserable conditions the Realm then endured; all laws were subverted, all things exposed to the rage of the sword, the whole realm in combustion, and the people extremely discontented at this barbarous impiety. In the end Lewes, by the aid of his faithful servants was taken out of prison, and restored to his kingdom; and his sons acknowledging their fault, were received by him both to pardon and favour. His son Pepin being dead, he divided his Realm among his other three sons, Charles, Lewes, and Lothaire; but Lewes rebelled again, and was again received to mercy: lastly, he stirred a great part of Germany to revolt, with grief whereof the good old man his Father died. After his death, Lewes and Lothaire, upon disdain at the great portion which their Father had assigned to their brother Charles, raised war against him. The battle was given, wherein Charles remained victorious, reducing them both under such conditions, as he thought convenient to impose. Lo here one of your plain and evident examples, which is so free from all exception. But minds corruptly inclined, hold nothing unlawful, nothing unreasonable, which agreeth with their passion.  
Joys le Begue, succeeded after Charles, not as you affirm, by authority of the states, but (as in France at that time it was not unusual) by appointment of his father. And whereas you write, that Joys at his first entrance had like to have been deprived by the states, but that calling a Parliament, he made them many fair promises to have their good will; it is a very idle untruth, as appeareth by the Author whom you avouch. At his death, he left his wife great with child, who afterward was called Charles the simple. But before he had accomplished the age of 12. years, there stepped up in his place, first Joys and Carloman his bastard brothers; then Charles surnamed le Gros; and after him Odo Earl of Paris. Then Charles the right heir attained the Crown; and then again were raised against him, first Robert, Earl of Angiers; and afterward Ralph king of Burgundy. But where you attribute these mutations to the authority of the states, Girard saith, that they were by faction & usurpation of such, who from the weakness of their Prince, did make advantage to their own ambition; affirming plainly, that between the death of Joys le Begue, & Charles the simple, not one of them who held the crown of the Realm was lawful king 
g Di l'estate. lib. 1. pa. 5●. , noting further, that the first two races of Kings, were full of cruel parricides & murders; & that in those times the Realm was often traveled with tempests of sedition.  
Of the usurpation of Hugh Capet I have spoken before: Girard writeth, 
h li. ●. fol. 60. b.  that although he sought many shadows of right, yet his best title was by force, which is the common right of first usurpers. And whereas you write, that Henry the first was preferred to the crown of France before Robert his elder brother: First, it was not by appointment of the states, but of their father; Secondly, Girard maketh the matter doubtful, affirming, 
Fol. 63. a  that some said he was the younger brother; Lastly, it set up a dangerous and doubtful war between them.  
Further, where you write, that William being a bastard, succeeded Robert his Father in the Duchy of Normandy, notwithstanding the said Robert left two brothers in life, it was at that time a custom in France, that bastards did succeed, even as lawful children. Thierry bastard of Clovis, had for his partage the kingdom of Austrasie, now called Lorraine. Sigisbert bastard of king Dagobert the first, parted with Clovis the twelfth, his lawful brother. Joys and Carloman bastards of king Joys le Begue, reigned after their Father. But in the third race of the kings of France, a law was made, that bastards should not succeed in the Crown; and yet other bastards of great houses were still avowed, the French being then of the same opinion with Peleus in Euripides. 
k In Andromache.   
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Oftentimes many bastards excel those that are lawfully borne: which is verified by Hercules, Alexander the great, Romulus, Timotheus, Themistocles, Homer, Demosthenes, Brutus, Bion, Bartolus, Gratian, Peter Lombard, Peter Comesior, Io. Andreas, and divers other of most flourishing name.  
Your examples of Lewes the 6. and Lewes the 11. are not worth a word in answer. In the beginning of their reign, you affirm that they had like to have been disinherited by the state, for the offences of their Father. You bear a mind charged with thoughts vain, busy and bold, without any restraint either of honesty or of discretion. For how else could you here also affirm, that King Henry the third of England, was condemned by his Barons to be disinherited, for the fault of his Father? It is usual with you in all your reports, either plainly to break beyond the bounds of all truth, or grossly, (for I cannot now say artificially) to disguise it, with many false and deceivable terms. But to conclude for the state of France, which is also to exclude whatsoever you have said; under the reign of Charles the fifth, 
l 1375.  for the better establishment of this right, and for cutting of those calamities which accompany usurpation, there was a law made, that after the death of any King, the eldest son should incontinently succeed.  
We are now come to our English examples, of which you might have omitted those of the Saxon kings; as well for that there could be no settled form of government in those tumultuous times, as also for that our Histories of that age are very imperfect, not leading us in the circumstances, either of the manner or occasion of particular actions: they declare in gross what things were done, without further opening, either how or wherefore. But both these do make for your advantage: for who seeth not, that your examples are chiefly bred in tempestuous times; and the obscurity of Histories will serve for a shadow to darken your deceit.  
Well, let us take both the times and Histories as they are. How will you maintain that Egbert was not next successor to Briticus by propinquity of blood? Briticus left no children, and Egbert was descended of the blood royal, as Polydore affirmeth, 
m Lib 4. circa sin.  William Malmesbury 
n De gest. Ang. lib. 1. ca 2.  saith, that he was the only man alive of the royal blood, being descended of Inegild, the brother of King Ina. How then is it true which you say, that Britricus was the last of the royal descent? and if it had been so indeed, the right of election should then have been in the state. And thus you stumble at every step, you entangle yourself without truth or end. You snatch at the words of Polydore, where he saith; He is created king by consent of all: which do imply no other sense, but that which a little after he saith; That he was saluted king by all. So we find also, that the like improper speech was used at the coronation of Philip the second, king of France, whereby the Archbishop of Rheims did challenge power in the right of his Sea, to make election of the king.  
That Adelstane was illegitimate, you follow Polydore, a man of no great either industry or judgement. William Malmesbury 
o Lib. 2. ca 5.  accounted Egwina the mother of Adelstane, to be the first wife of king Edward his father: he termeth her also a noble woman, contrary to that which Polydore fableth. Henry Huntingdon, Roger Hoveden and others, write no otherwise of him, but as of one that was lawfully borne. And in that you english these words of Polydore, Rex dicitur; Rex a populo salutatur; He was made king by the people: In that you affirm also, that for the opinion of his valour he was preferred before his brethren which were lawfully borne, whom you acknowledge to be men of most excellent both expectation and proof; you do plainly show, that use hath made you too open in straining of truth.  
Eldred did first take upon him but as Protector, because of the minority of the sons of Edmund his elder brother; and afterward entered into full possession of the Crown. But that his nephews were put back by the Realm, it is your own idle invention; it was no more the act of the realm, than was the usurpation of King Richard the third.  
That Edwin was deposed from his estate, it is inexcusably untrue. Polydore 
p Lib. 6.  writeth, that the Northumbrians and Mercians not fully settled in subjection, made a revolt. Malmesburie 
q Lib. 2 ca 8.  saith, that he was maimed of a great part of his kingdom, by the stroke of which injury he ended his life. And whereas you write in commendation of King Edgar his next successor, that he kept a Navy of 6600. ships for defence of the Realm, you discover your defective judgement in embracing such reports for true.  
In that you say, that many good men of the Realm were of opinion, not to admit the succession of Etheldred after the death of his brother, I dare confidently affirm, that you do not only tell, but make an untruth; having no author either to excuse or countenance the same. In that you write also, that between the death of Edmund Ironside, and the reign of William Conqueror, it did plainly appear what interest the Commonwealth hath to alter titles of succession; it doth plainly appear, that both your reason and your conscience is become slavish to your violent desire. For what either liberty or power had the Commonwealth under the barbarous rage and oppression of the Danes? when Canutus had spread the wings of his fortune over the whole Realm, none having either heart or power to oppose against him, what choice was then left unto the people? what room for right? what man not banished from sobriety of sense would ever have said, that he was admitted king by the whole Parliament and consent of the Realm? It is true, that after he had both violently and unjustly obtained full possession of the Realm, slain the brother of Edmund Ironside, and conveyed his children into Sueden, he assembled the Nobility, and caused himself to be crowned king: but neither the form nor name of a Parliament was then known in England; and if coronation were sufficient to make a title, no king should be accounted to usurp.  
Of Harold the first, the natural son of Canutus, our Histories do very differently report. Saxon Grammaticus writeth, that he was never king, but that he died before his Father. Henry of Huntingdon reporteth, that he was appointed but as Regent for his brother Hardicanutus. Others write, that apprehending the opportunity of his brother's absence, he invaded Northumberland and Mercia, by force of the Danes who were in England, whereupon the Realm was divided, one part holding for Harolde, and another for Hardicanutus, who was in Denmark. But because he delayed to come into England, they all fell, rather not to deny then to acknowledge Harold for their king. Take now which of these reports you please, for all do serve to your purpose alike.  
Hardicanutus after the death of Harold, came out of Denmark into England: and the people having their courages broken with bondage, were easy to entertain the strongest pretender. But after his death, divers of the Nobility, especially Godwine Earl of Kent, rising into hope to shake off their shoulders the importable yoke of the Danes, advanced Edward the son of Etheldred to the Crown, as being the next of the race of the Saxon Kings, though not in blood, yet at hand; for Edward the outlaw his elder brother, was then in Hungary: and fear being the only knot that had fastened the people to the Danish Kings, that once untied, they all scattered from them, like so many birds whose cage had been broken. Edward being dead, Harold the son of Godwine usurped the kingdom: for as Malmesburie saith; 
r Extoria a principibus fide arripuit diadema.  By extorted faith from the nobility he fastened upon the Crown a forcible gripe: Henry Huntingdon also, and out of him Polydore do write, that upon confidence of his power he invaded the Crown 
s Viribus & genere fretus regni Diadema invasit. : which usurpation gave both encouragement and success to the enterprise of the normans. This short passage of History you do defile with so many untruths, that it seemeth you have as natural a gift to falsify, as to eat, drink, or sleep.  
But where you write that William the Conqueror form any title by consent of the realm, you grow into the degree of ridiculous. We find that he pretended the institution of king Edward, which had neither probability norforce; and that he was nearer to him in blood, than Harold the usurper: but that he ever pretended the election of the people, it is your own clouted conceit. For when he had routed the English army in the field, when he had sacked their Towns, harried their Villages, slain much people, and bend his sword against the breasts of the rest, what free election could they then make? Yourself acknowledge also in another place, 
t In part. 2. ca 2. pa 12.  that he came to the Crown by dint of sword; and at his death his own conscience constrained him to confess, that he took it without right 
u Lib. vit Will. conq. . And in that the Pope and the French King favoured his enterprise, it is not material, this was not the first injustice which they have assisted. Neither was it the Pope's hallowed banner (as you affirm) but the bow and the arrow, the only weapon of advantage long time after to this Nation, whereby he did obtain the victory. One help he had also within the Realm, for that King Edward had advanced divers Normans, to high place both of dignity and charge; who gave unto him much secret both encouragement and assistance in his attempt.  
And thus in all these turbulent times, you are so far from finding five or six, that you are short of any one, who was made King by free authority of the people.  
King William Rufus made no other title to the Crown, but the testament of his Father: For often use hath confirmed it for law, that a Victor may freely dispose of the succession of that state, which he hath obtained by the purchase of his sword. 
* Cin. & Bartol. in l. imperialis. C. de nupt.  The conqueror disinherited his eldest son Robert, for that, knitting with Philip King of France, he invaded, wasted and spoiled Normandy, and joined in open battle against his father, wherein the father was unhorsed and wounded, and brought to a desperate distress of his life. Hereupon he cast forth a cruel curse against his son, which he could never be entreated to revoke: in so much as upon his deathbed he said of him 
w Lib. Vitj. Will. conq. , that it was a miserable country which should be subject to his dominion, for that he was a proud and foolish knave, & to be long scourged with cruel fortune. And whereas you write that at the time of his father's death he was absent in the war of Jerusalem, it is a very negligent untruth.  
But it is an idle untruth that you write, that Henry the first had no other title to the crown, but the election of the people. He never was elected by the people; he never pretended any such title. Nubrigensis 
x Lib. 1. cap 3.  & after him Polydore 
y In Henr. 1. sol. 181.  do report, that he laid his title, because he was borne after his father was king. Malmesburie 
z In Henr. 1. lib. 5.  saith; Henry, the youngest son of William the great, being an Infant, according to the desires and wishes of all men was excellently brought up, 
& Quod solus omnium filiorum Willielminatus est regie, & ei regnum videretur competere.  because he alone of all the sons of William, was princely borne, and the kingdom seemed to appertain unto him. He was borne in England in the third year after his father entered into it. And this was the like controversy to that which Herodotus 
a In polyhim●n  reporteth, to have happened between the sons of Darius, the son of Hystaspis, king of Persia, when he prepared an expedition against the Grecians and Egyptians: because by the laws of Persia, the king might not enter into enterprise of arms, before he had declared his successor. Darius had three children before he was king, by his first wife, the daughter of Gobris: and after he attained the kingdom he had other four, by Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus. Artabazanes was eldest of the first sort; Xerxes of the second. Artabazanes alleged, that he was eldest of all the King's children; and that it was the custom amongst all men, that the eldest should enjoy the principality. Xerxes' alleged, that he was begotten of Atossa, the daughter of that king, by whose puissance the Persians had gained, not only liberty, but also power. Before Darius had given sentence, Demaratus the son of Aristo, cast out of his kingdom of Sparta, came unto Xerxes, and advised him to allege further, that he was the eldest son of Darius after he was king: and that it was the custom of Sparta, that if any man had children in private estate, and afterward an other son when he was king, this last son should be his successor: upon which ground Darius pronounced in the behalf of Xerxes. The same history is reported by justine 
b Lib. 2. , and touched also by Plutarch 
c Lib. de fraacrna benevolentia. , although they differ, both from Herodotus, and one from the other in some points of circumstance. Hereto also agreeth that which josephus writeth 
d Antiq. lib. 16 cap 3. , in reprehending king Herod, for excluding Alexander and Aristobulus his sons, and appointing Antipater, borne to him in private estate, to succeed in his kingdom.  
Many great Lawyers have subscribed their opinions to this kind of title; and namely Pet. Cynus, Baldus, Albericus, Raph. Fulgosius 
e In l. imperialis. § illud. C de nupt. , Rebuffus 
f In l. si lenatus C. de dignit. lib. 12. ; and Anto. Corsetta 
g In tract. de pot. & excel. reg §. 16.  delivereth it for a common opinion. But with this exception, if the kingdom be acquired by any other title then by succession, according to proximity in blood: for in this case, because the dignity is inherent in the stock, the eldest son shall succeed, although he were borne before his father was King 
h Pet. jac. in arb. success. reg Franc. 10. Rai. in cap. praeterea. tit. de prohis feud. all & in tract. noble quest. 10. jac. a S. Georg. in tract. feud. D. Benedic. in rep. c. Rainuitius. n. 200. de testam. . And therefore Plutarch writeth 
i In Arraxerxe.  that after the kingdom of Persia was settled in succession, when Darius the King had four sons, Artaxerxes the eldest, Cyrus the next, and two other; Parysatis his wife having a desire that Cyrus should succeed in the kingdom, pressed in his behalf the same reason wherewith Xerxes had prevailed before: affirming, that she had brought forth Artaxerxes to Darius, when he was a private man; but Cyrus, when he was a king. Yet Plutarch writeth, that the reason which she used was nothing probable; and that the eldest was designed to be King.  
Howsoever the right stood between Robert Duke of Normandy, and his younger brothers, the fact did not stand either with the quiet or safety of the Realm. For, during the reign of William Rufus, it was often infested upon this quarrel, both with foreign arms and civil seditions; which possessed all places with disorder, and many also with fire, rapine and blood, the principal effects of a licentious war.  
These mischiefs not only continued but increased in the reign of King Henry, until Robert the eldest brother was taken prisoner in the field, which put a period to all his attempts. So dangerous it is upon any pretence to put buy the next in succession to the crown.  
This Henry the first left but one daughter, and by her a young son named Henry, to whom he appointed the succession of the Realm: and took an oath of all the Bishops, and likewise of the Nobility, to remain faithful unto them after his decease. Yet you write, that because Stephen, son of Adela, sister to King Henry, was thought by the states more fit to govern, he was by them admitted to the Crown. In which assertion, you cannot be deceived, you do not err; but your passion doth pull you from your own knowledge and judgement. Polydore writeth, 
k Lib. 12. in prin.  that he possessed the kingdom contrary to his oath, for which cause the minds of all men were exceedingly moved: some did abhor and detest the impiety; others, and those very few, unmindful of perjury, did more boldly then honestly allow it, and followed his part. Further he saith, 
l Ibidem.  that he was crowned at Westminster, in an assembly of those noble men who were his friends. Nubrigensis affirmeth, that 
m Sacramenti praeuaricator regnum in vasit.  violating his oath he invaded the kingdom.  
William Malmesburie, who lived in King Stephen's time, saith 
n In hist. ●●uel lib. 1. sol. 101. a. ; that he was the first of all lay men, next the King of Scots, who had made oath to the Empress Mawde; and that he was crowned, 
o Tribus episcopis praesentibus, nullis abbatibus, paucissimis optimatibus.  three Bishops being present (of whom one was his brother) no Abbot, and a very few of the Nobility. Henry Huntingdon, who lived also in the same time, saith 
p lib. 8 pa 221. Vigore & impudentia ●retus. ; that by force and impudency tempting God, he invaded the Crown. Afterward he reporteth 
q Pa. 221. , that being desirous to have his son Eustace crowned king with him, the Bishops withstood it, upon commandment from the Pope: because he took upon him the kingdom against his oath 
r Quia regnum contra iusiu. randum p●aeripuisse videbatur. , Roger Hoveden writeth 
s Pa. 275. quasi tempestas invasit. , that he invaded the Crown in manner of a tempest.  
This is the report of those writers who came nearest, both to the time and truth of this action: whom other Authors do likewise follow. Polydore 
t In prine li. 12 , and after him Holinshed do write, that he took upon him the Crown, 
u In Steph.  partly upon confidence in the power of Theobald his brother, Earl of Blois; and partly by the aid of Hen. his other brother Bishop of Winchester. Walsinghame addeth 
w Hypodig. pa., 8. , that Hugh Bigot, who had been King Henry's Steward, took an oath before the Archbishop of Canterbury, that King Henry at his death appointed Stephen to be his successor. Whereupon the Archbishop and a few others were overlightly led, like men blinded with security, and of little foresight: never considering of dangers, until the means of remedy were passed.  
You write that they thought they might have d●ne this with a good conscience, for the good of the Realm. But what good conscience could they have in defiling their faith? such consciences you endeavour to frame in all men, to break an oath with as great facility, as a Squirrel can crack a Nut. What good also did ensue unto the Realm? The Nobility were set into factions; the common people into division and disorder: and as in wars where discipline is at large, there insolencies are infinite; so in this confusion of the state, there was no action which tended not to the ruin thereof; the lives and goods of men remaining in continual pillage. Polydore saith 
x Lib. 12. pa. 107. : Matrons were violated, virgins ravished, Churches spoiled, Towns and Villages razed, much cattle destroyed, innumerable men slain. Into this miserable face of extremities the Realm did fall; & into the same again you strive to reduce it.  
But you say, that for the ending of these mischiefs, the States in a Parliament at Wallingford made an agreement, that Stephen should be King during his life, and that Henry and his offspring should succeed after his death. A man would think you had a mint of fables; there is no history which you handle, but you defile it with apish untruths. All our histories agree, that king Stephen, unable to range things into better form, did adopt Henry to be his successor. The second Huntingdon faith 
y Pa 228. , that this agreement was mediated, by the Archb. of Cant. and the Bishop of Winchester, who repented him of the furtherance he gave to the advancement of king Stephen, when he saw what miseries did thereupon ensue. The like doth Hoveden report 
z Fol. 281.2. : and Holingshead 
& Pa. 62.  setteth down the form of the charter o● agreement between them; whereby it is evident, that it was a transaction between them two, and no compulsory act or authority of the State. I deny not but some Authors affirm, that the King assembled the Nobility, but neither were they the States of the Realm, neither were they assembled to any other end, but to swear fealty unto Henry, saving the king's honour so long as he should live.  
After the death of King Richard the first, you affirm that the succession was again broken; for that john, brother to King Richard, was admitted by the States, and Arthur Duke of Britain, son to Geoffrye, elder brother unto john, was against the ordinary course of succession excluded. Well sir, I arrest your word; remember this I pray you, for I will put you in mind thereof in an other place. That which here you affirm to be against the ordinary course of succession, you bring in an other place for proof, that the Uncle hath right before the Nephew. You do wildly waver in variety of opinion, speaking flat contraries, according as the ague of your passion is either in fit or intermission.  
The History of King john standeth thus. King Richard the first dying without issue, left behind him a brother named john, and a Nephew called Arthur, son of Geoffrye, who was elder brother unto john. This Arthur was appointed by King Richard to succeed in his estate, as Polydore writeth 
a Lib. 15. in prin. . Nubrigensis saith, that he should have been established by consent of the Nobility, if the Britaines had not been so foolishly, either suspicious or fond, that when King Richard sent for him, they refused to commit him into his uncles hands.  
But after the death of king Richard, his brother john seized upon his treasure in Normandy, came over into England, and in an assembly only of the Nobility, was crowned king. Of these, many he won with such liberal protestations and promises, as men careless of their word are wont to bestow: others were abused by the persuasions of Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury, and a few others (saith Polydore 
b Lib. 15 pa. 262. ) not well advised.  
Nic. Trivet saith 
c In prologo. , that john pretended for his title, not the election of the people, but propinquity of blood 
d jure propinquitatis. , and the testament of king Richard. The same also is affirmed by Walsingham 
e Hypodig. po. 50. . And this is the question between the Uncle and the Nephew, of which I shall have occasion to speak hereafter. But Polydore saith 
f Lib. 15. pa. 263. , that divers noble men did account this to be a fraudulent injustice, and thereupon did ominate those evils which afterward did ensue. And when the Archbishop was charged, that under colour of reason, partly suborned, and partly weak, he had been the occasion of all those mischiefs. Polydore 
g Pa, 269.  saith, that he was both grieved and ashamed at nothing more; Rog. Wenden affirmeth, that he excused himself, that he did it upon oracles, and by the gift of prophesy.  
King john having locked himself into the saddle of state, made one wrong which he had done, to be the cause of a greater wrong; by murdering his Nephew, Arthur, Duke of Britain, whose inheritance he did unjustly usurp. For this fact the French king deprived him of all the lands which he held in fee of the crown of France, & prosecuted the sentence to effect. After this, as men are easily emboldened against an usurper, when once he declineth either in reputation or in state, divers of the Nobility, especially they of the North, confederated against him: but being neither able to endure his war, nor willing to repose trust in his peace, they contracted with Lewis the French kings son, to take upon him to be their king. And so it often happeneth in civil contentions, that they who are weakest, do run with a natural rashness to call in a third.  
Lewes being arrived upon the coast of Kent, the Nobility of that faction 
h Walsing. hypodigm●. pa. 56. , came and swore allegiance unto him. The Londoners also, many upon an ordinary desire to have new kings, others for fear, and ●ome for company, joined to the revolt. Hereof a lamentable presence of all miseries did arise, whereby as well the liberty as the dignity of the Realm, were brought to a near and narrow jump. The poor people, naked both of help and hope, stood at the courtesy and pleasure of the men of arms; the liberty of war making all things lawful to the fury of the strongest. The Nobility, feeling much, and fearing more the insolency of the French Nation, who (as Viscount Melin a noble man of France confessed at his death) had sworn the extirpation of all the noble blood in the Realm, began to devise, how they might return into the allegiance of king john: in so much as a little before his death, Letters were b●ought unto him from certain of his Barons, to the number of forty, who desired to be received again into his peace. But after his death, which happily did happen within five months after the arrival of the French, both their hatred and their fear being at an end, they were all as ready to cast out Lewes, as they had been rash to call him in.  
This History you corrupt with very many odious untruths, which are more harsh to a well tuned ear, than the crashing of teeth, or the grating of copper. As namely in affirming, that Arthur was excluded, and john crowned King by the states of the Realm; that God did more defend this act of the Commonwealth, than the just title of Arthur; that by the same states, king john was rejected, Prince Henry his son deprived, and Lewes of France chosen to be king; that the same states recalled their sentence against Prince Henry, disannulling their oath and allegiance made unto Lewes. A shameless tongue, governed by a deceitful mind, can easily call, faction, the Common wealth; rebellion, a just and judicial proceeding; open an often perjury, an orderly revoking of a sentence; Gods secret judgement in permitting injustice to prevail, a plain defence and allowance thereof.  
Of the division of the houses of Lancastar and York, it is but little that you write, whereto I have fully answered before: you do wisely to give a light touch to this example, it is so hot that it will scaled your throat. King Henry the fourth, more carried by cursed ambition, then either by necessity or right, laid an unjust gripe upon the Realm, which afterward he did beautify with the counterfeit titles of conquest and election. So violent are the desires of Princes to embrace strained titles, by which they may disturb the states of other; not remembering, that right may be trodden down, but not trodden out; having her secret both means to support, and seasons to revive her. For although the lawful successor did warily strike sail to the tempest, because neither the time running, nor the opportunity present (which are the guiders of actions) did consent as then to enter into enterprise. Yet so soon as one hear of occasion was offered, his progeny did set up a most doubtful war, wherein thirteen battles were executed by Englishmen only, and above fourscore Princes of the royal blood slain.  
Lo now the smiling success of these usurpations; lo what a dear purchase of repentance they did cause! Were it not that passion doth blind men, not only in desire but in hope, they might suffice to make us advised, to keep rather the known & beaten way with safety, then upon every giddy and brainless warrant to engulphe ourselves in those passages, wherein so many have perished before us. It belongeth to wise men to avoid mischies; and it is the reward of fools to lament them.  
Go too then, conclude if you please that the people are not bound to admit him to the Crown, who is the next successor by propinquity of blood; but rather to weigh, whether it is like that he will perform his charge, or no. Conclude this (I say) to be your opinion; and that it seemeth to you to be conform to all reason, law, religion, piety, wisdom and policy, and to the custom of all Common wealths in the world: and I will assuredly conclude against you, that you prate without either warrant or weight.   

To the ninth Chapter, which beareth title, What are the principal points which a Commonwealth ought to respect in admitting or excluding any Prince, wherein is handled largely also, of the diversity of religions, and other such causes.  
IN this passage you handle what cause is sufficient, either to keep in, or to cast the next in blood out of state. In which question you determine, that God doth allow for a just and sufficient cause, the will & judgement of the people. Your reason is, for that they are the judge of the thing itself, and therefore they are the judge also of the cause. Your antecedent you prove; First, for that it is in their own affair; secondly, for that it is in a matter that hath his whole beginning, continuance and substance from them alone. Your consequence you prove by a whole lump of law, in alleging the entire body of the civil and Canon law, assisted also with great reason.  
Diogenes said of a certain Tumbler, that he never saw man take more pains to break his neck. In like sort we may say of you; It is hard to find a man that hath more busied his wits, to overthrow the opinion of his wisdom. For the first proof of your antecedent, is not only of no force for you, but strong against you; because no man is a competent judge in his own cause; no man can be both party and judge: whereto I will add, that no inferior hath jurisdiction over the superior, much less the subject against the Sovereign.  
Your second proof, that all the power of a King hath dependency upon the people, I have sufficiently encountered before 
h Ca 1. . And if your consequence were true, that whosoever is judge of a thing, is iudg also without controwlment of the cause; if this were as agreeable to all laws as you make countenance, than were all judgements arbitrary; then could no appeal be enterposed, for giving sentence without just cause; then were it false which Panormitane writeth 
l In e per tuas. Qui fill. sunt legit. , 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 greasy 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 judgement & 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 & treasons? What are you? For you show yourself more profane than Infidels; more barbarous than Cannibals, Tartarians, Moors & Mammelucks; who though they bear themselves in nothing more than hatred and contempt, yet do they both love & honour 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 us (for your corrupt dealing 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 their warrant: you work by deceitful show of reason, by falsely either alleging, or wresting, or corrupting both human and divine authority.  
In what miserable condition should Princes live, if their slate 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? choosing and refusing, erecting and overthrowing, as every wind of passion doth puff. What staidness 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 judgement 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 that 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 judgement 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 judgement, 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 24. years: by means of which force, Cicero affirmeth 
m Lib. de legibus.  that it was no law. Likewise Lawrence Medici's, having an army within Florence, caused, or rather constrained the Citizens to elect him Duke. When Henry the fourth was chosen king, ho 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 Lancastar 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 only by Parliament. The Parliament must be summoned by the Kings 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 weakening & waste of all the Realm.  
Your second exception is, when such a man is preferred to the crown, by whom God is manifestly offended, & the realm prejudiced or endangered: in which case (you say) every man, with a free and untrowled conscience, may resist what he can.  
It was even here I looked for you. Your broiling spirits do nothing else but fling firebrands, & heap on wood, to set kingdoms in combustion. What rebellion, what revolt hath ever been made, but under some of these pretences? what Prince's 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 & division in the church: In sum, all your actions, all your thoughts are barbarous & bloody.  
You write much of right & justice, but you measure the right & justice of a cause, by the advantage of your own affairs. You speak as having a tender touch of the glory of God; but you stretch out your throat with high words of contradiction against him. You make show of care to preserve the state, but you are like the ivy, which seems outwardly both to embrace and adorn the wall, whereinto inwardly it doth both eat & 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 bloodshead? Saint Paul teacheth us not to resist higher powers 
n Rom. 13. , although both cruel and profane; 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 only who follow the Anabaptists. For my part, I had rather err with the Apostle in this opposition, then hold truth with you. But I will speak more moderately in a subject of such 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, them in resisting with you. New counsels are always more plausible than safe.  
After you have played the Suffenus with yourself, in setting the garland upon your own head, and making your imaginary audience to applaud your opinion, as worshipfully wise, you proceed to declare what ought chiefly ●o be regarded, in furthering or hindering any Prince towards the Crown. Three points (you say) are to be required in every Prince, religion, chivalry and justice; and putting aside the two last, as both handled by others, and of least importance, you assume only to treat of religion; wherein, either error or want doth bring inestimable damage to any state.  
You draw along discourse, that the highest end of every Commonwealth, is the service & worship of God; and consequently, that the care of religion is the principal charge which pertaineth to a King. And therefore you conclude, that whatsoever prince doth not assist his subjects to attain this end, omitteth the chief part of his charge, & committeth high treason against his Lord, and is not fit to hold that dignity, though he perform the other two parts never so well. And that no cause can to justly clear the conscience, whether of the people, or of particular men, in resisting the entrance of any Prince, as if they judge him faulty in religion.  
This is neither nothing, nor all which you say. In elective states, the people ought not to admit any man for King, who is either cold or corrupt in religion; but if they have admitted such a one with sovereign authority, they have no power at pleasure to remove him. In successive kingdoms wherein the people have no right of election, it is not lawful for private men upon this cause to offer to impeach, either the entrance or continuance of that king, which the laws of the State do present unto them: not only because it is forbidden of God (for that is the least part of your regard) but because disorderly disturbance of a settled form in government, traineth after it more both impieties and dangers, then hath ever ensued the imperfections of a king.  
I will come more close to the point in controversy, and dispel these foggy reasons which stand between your eye and the truth. There are two principal parts of the law of God; the one moral or natural, which containeth three points; sobriety in ourselves, justice towards others, and generally also reverence and piety towards God: the other is supernatural; which containeth the true faith of the mysteries of our salvation, and the special kind of worship that God doth require. The first, God hath delivered by the ministry of nature to all men; the second he doth partly reveal, & partly inspire to whom he please: and therefore although most nations have in some sort observed the one, yet have they not only erred, but failed in the other.  
During the time of the law, this peculiar worship of God was appropriate only to the people of Israel, in a corner kingdom of the world: the flourishing Empires of the Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Egyptians, Grecians, Syrians and Romans, either knew it not, or held it in contempt. The Israelites were almost always in subjection under these both Heathen & tyrannical governments; & yet God by his Prophets enjoined them obedience; affirming, that the hearts of kings were in his hands; & that they were, the officers of his justice, the executioners of his decrees.  
In the time of grace, the true mysteries both of worship and belief, were imparted also to other nations; but the ordinary means to propagate the same, was neither by policy, nor by power. When S. Peter offered provident counsel (as he thought) unto Christ, advising him to have care of himself, and not to go to Jerusalem, where the jews sought to put him to death, Christ did sharply reprove him for it 
o Math. 16.25. : when he did draw his sword, and therewith also drew blood in defence of Christ, he heard this sentence; 
p Math. 26.52.  They that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Christ armed his Apostles only with fiery tongues 
q Act. 2.3. ; by force whereof they maintained the field, against all the stratagems and strength in the world. And when Princes did, not only reject but persecute their doctrine; they taught their subjects obedience unto them 
r Rom. 13. 1. Pet. 2. , they did both encounter and overcome them, not by resisting, but by persisting and enduring.  
This course seemeth strange to the discourse of of reason, to plant religion under the obedience of kings, not only careless thereof, but cruel against it: but when we consider that the jews did commonly forsake God in prosperity, and seek him in distress; that the Church of Christ was more pure, more zealous, more entire, I might also say more populous, when she traveled with the storm in her face, then when the wind was either prosperous or calm; that as S. Augustine saith 
Contra Petihanum. , Want or weakness of faith is usually chastised with the scourges of tribulations; We may learn thereby no further to examine, but to admire and embrace the unsearchable wisdom and will of God.  
Seeing therefore that this is appointed the ordinary means, both to establish and increase religion, may we adventure to exchange it with human devices? Is it the servants duty either to contradict or dispute the masters commandment? is there any more ready way to prove an heretic, then in being a curious questionist with God? is he bound to yield to any man a reason of his will? It is more than presumption, it is plain rebellion to oppose our reason against his order, against his decree.  
It standeth also upon common rules: That which is contrary to the nature of a thing doth not help to strengthen, but to destroy it: It is foolish to add external stay, to that which is sufficient to support itself: It is senseless 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 practice of the ancient Fathers of the Church, as I have declared before 
t Ca ●. ; whereto I will here add that which S. Ambrose saith 
u Epist. 54. : Let every man bear it patiently, if it be not extorted from the Emperor, which he would be loath the Emperor should extort from him. And lest they might be interpreted not to mean obedience, as well to succession as to present power, they allege that which the captive jews of Babylon did wright, to the tributary jews which were at jerusalem 
w Hierem. 29. Baruch. 1 ; to pray for the life not only of Nabuchodonosor, the King of Babylon, but also of Balthasar his son, the next successor to his estate.  
But in latter times, Innocentius hath taught, and is also seconded by Castrensis 
x in rep. l. 5 de just. , that love is a just cause to move arms for matters of religion; under which pretence, divers men have pursued their own private purposes & ends. Guicciardine wrighteth 
y lib. 12. , that Firdinand who was called the catholic, did cover all his covetous and ambitious desires, with the honest and holy veil of religion: the like doth iovius report 
z lib. 30.  of Charles the fifth Emperor. Paulus Aemilius 
& Paul. Aem. 6.7.8  wrighteth thus of all: every man professeth his war to be holy; every man termeth his enemies impious, sanctity & piety is in every man's mouth, but in advise and in action nothing less. The contention is for worldly right, take away that, and you shall find no cause of war. Now they pretend piety to every mischief: the name of holy warfare, (most miserable) is applied unto arms.  
Hereupon such cruel calamities have ensued in most parts of Europe, & especially in Germany and France, with so little furtherance to that cause, for whose supportance force was offered, that all the chief writers of our age are now reduced to the former opinion; affirming with Arnobius 
a Adu. ge. 3.4.  that religion is of power sufficient for itself: with Tertulian also 
b Apolo.  Hactantius 
c Inst. 20.21. , Cassiodorus 
d 2. Var. 27. et. lib. 10 epi. 26.  josephus 
e de Vi. su. , S. Barnard 
f cant. ser. , and others, that it must be persuaded and not enforced. They of your society, as they took their original from a soldier, so they are the only Atheologians whose heads entertain no other object but the tumult of realms; whose doctrine is nothing but confusion and bloodshed; whose persuasions were never followed, but they have made way for all miseries and mischiefs to range in, to come forward, to thrive, to prevail. You have always been like a winter sun, strong enough to raise vapours, but unable to dispel them. For most cowardly companions may set up strife; but it is maintained with the hazard, and ended with the ruin, always of the worthiest, and sometimes of all.  
The sum is this. So long as we express pure piety, both in our doctrine and in our doings; all will go well; but when we make a mixture of divine and human both wisdom and power; when we preach policy: when we make a common trade of treason; when we put no difference between conscience and conceit; we must needs overthrow, either religion or ourselves.  
Now I will answer the reasons of your assertion. First you say, that if Princes do not assist their subjects in the honour and service of God in this life, God should draw no other fruit or commodity from human societies, then of an assembly of brutish creatures. But this reason is not only weak, as it may appear by that which hath been said, but also brutish, and (which is worse) profane. For what fruit, what commodity doth God draw from societies of men? is not his glory perfect in itself? can we add any thing to the excellency thereof? hath he any need of our broken worship? God is an absolute being, both comprehending, and exceeding all perfections: an infinite being, and therefore his sufficiencies neither can be increased, neither do depend upon any, but only of himself. He was from eternity without any world, ●nd a thousand worlds more cannot any deal increase his felicity and glory: he did create the world, not to participate any thing thereof, but to communicate from himself unto it. Hereupon job saith 
g 22.5. . What profit is it to God if thou be just? What advantage is it to him if thy ways be clean? Surely we must be better informed of the soundness of your judgement, before we dare depend upon the authority of your word.  
You put us in mind that you compared an heir apparent to a spouse, betrothed only and not married to the common wealth. I remember it well; but I did not take you for such a widower of wit, that you could think it worthy to be repeated. And yet that which hereupon you deduce out of S. Paul maketh altogether against you. S. Paul saith 
h 1. Cor. 7. , that if a brother hath an infidel to wife, if the consent to abide with him, he may not put her away: and likewise if a woman hath an infidel husband: but if the infidel doth depart, than the Christian is free. Now if you will needs make a marriage between a King and his subjects, you might hereupon conclude, that if an infidel King will hold his state, the people may not dispossess him.  
And whereas you affirm, that all they who differ in any point of religion, and stand wilfully in the same, are infidels the one to the other, you show both a violence and weakness of mind. For obstinate error in certain articles of ●aith, and not in the whole state and substance thereof, doth make an heretic, but not an Infidel. And although the Canon law doth in some case dissolve marriage between a Christian and an Infidel 
i c. judaei. 28. q. 1. c. quanto. de divor. ; yet doth it not permit the like between a true Christian and an heretic 
k d. c. quanto c. gaudemus de divort. . And Panormitane 
l Inc. ex part. 2. de conver. coniug.  in his doubting manner denieth, that the Church hath power to authorize divorce in case of heresy. So that allowing your comparison for good, yet in case of infidelity, S. Paul; in case of heresy, the Cannon law is altogether against you.  
You add, that albeit the religion which a man professeth be never so true, yet whosoever hath a contrary persuasion thereof, he shall sin damnably in the sight of God, to prefer that man to a charge, wherein he may draw others to his opinion. But I will omit this strain, and yet rather as impertinent then true. For there are few nations in the world, wherein the people have right to prefer any man to be king: & that which you allege out of S. Paul 
m Rom. 14. 1. Cor. 8.  for your proof, is very different from the case which you do form. The Apostle speaketh when an action is of itself indifferent, but a weak conscience judgeth it evil; being also evil by circumstance, in offending others: you speak where an action is good in itself, but an erroneous conscience judgeth it evil. I allow, that a good action contrary to conscience is unprofitable; but that it is always a damnable sin I dare not affirm. I dare not affirm that the Roman army did damnably sin, in deferring the Empire to jovinian; who excusing himself, (as Zona●as wrighteth) because being a Christian he could not command a pagan army, they did notwithstanding confirm him Emperor, by which means they did afterward embrace the Christian faith. The like doth Orosius report, that Valentinian, being discharged by julian from being Tribune, because he was a Christian, by consent of the Soldiers was created Augustus. I rather take it to be a damnable sin, which Zonaras 
o to. 3.  wrighteth of the Bulgarians, in taking arms against their King, because he was converted to Christian religion; albeit they did according to their conscience. It were a deflowering of time to dive into the depth of this question; because it appertaineth to elective states, and not unto us. But where you wright, without either authority or proof, that to assist, or not to resist the advancement or government of any king, whom we judge faulty in religion, is a most damnable sin, of what side soever the truth be; you breathe out most filthy and unsavoury smoke; you lift up your voice into high blasts of blasphemy, against the most high.  
God hath taught by the Apostle S. Paul 
p Rom. 15. , that whosoever resist the higher powers (which at that time were Infidels) receive unto themselves damnation; you teach, that whosoever doth not in the like case resist, doth damnably offend. Were not the spirit of division, otherwise called the devil seated in your soul, you would not thus openly oppose the settlings of your rotten brain, against the express and direct sentence of God. What? is it a damnable sin to do every man right? is it damnable to give Caesar that which is his due 
q Math. 22 17. Mar. 12.17. Luc. 20.25. ? to give tribute, honour, fear, to whom they appertain 
r Rom. 13 7 ? The Apostle saith, that Christians by resisting the power of Infidel rulers, do acquire unto themselves damnation 
s Rom. 13.2 : and shall we yield credit unto you, that Turks, Moors, Infidels, should damnably sin, either in admitting or enduring the authority of a Christian Prince? How vilely do you value the judgements of men? at how low rate do you prise both your conscience and credit? I could rise into riot of words upon you, were it not that I respect what is seemly, rather for me to speak then for you to hear.  
Certainly, if we had received no such commandment from God, the regard of the quiet of human societies is sufficient to overwhelm your heretical assertion: for seeing there are many different professions of religion, not only in the world, but almost in every nation of the world: seeing also (as Philo saith 
t De legate. ) every man, either by use or instruction judgeth his own religion best: what surety could any Prince, what safety could any people enjoy, if your fiery opinion should take place? what assurance can there be of life or of state, where the sword beareth sway upon 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 obstinately bend against the government of any, who in their judgement is faulty in religion; what likelihood can we either conceive or conjecture, but that many errors would soon prevail against the only truth. And therefore it is far more moderate and safe, to use the ordinary means both of maintaining and propagating the truth, and to commit the success thereof unto God; and (as josephus adviseth) not to offer either contumely or violence against any religion, lest we provoke thereby the professors thereof to do the like against our.  
Your last reason is drawn from policy and consideration of state; because a King will neither trust nor favour, much less advance him, that is not of the same religion with himself: but to the contrary, he shall be subject to all molestations, injuries and other aversions, which are incident to those who are not currant with the present course of affairs.  
Oh sir; this is the Helen for which you contend; you concur in opinion with those Athenians of whom Alexander demanded divine honours; not so obstinately to defend heaven, as to lose the benefit of the earth. This is the mark whereat you aim, this is the Compass whereby you sail; as divers flowers do open and close, according to the motion of the same; so according to the variation hereof, you extend or restrain your pliant conscience as you please.  
But the Apostle teacheth us to be obedient to higher powers, for conscience sake 
u Rom. 13.5 , and not for any private respect.  
Besides, all Princes are not of that disposition whereof you speak. Suida wrighteth of one, who changing religion to please his King, was therefore adjudged to lose his head; one being appointed to cry at the time of his execution; He that keepeth not faith with God, what sound conscience can he bear towards men? The Protestants in France are not altogether cast either out of favour or out of charge: and many Roman Catholics in England, do enjoy their full part, of all the plenty and pleasures that the realm can afford.  
Lastly, what have you to do with reasons of state? This is the Eagles feather which consumeth your devotion. Your office is to meditate, to pray, to instruct men in pure devotion, to settle their souls in piety & in peace. But do you contain yourselves within these limits? nothing less. You take upon you the policy of state; yoù ●end & deface the reputation of Kings; you make yourselves both judges & moderators of all their actions, allowing them to fly no further than you give them wings. You dispose not only their affairs, but their crowns at your pleasure; you hunt them, not to covert, but to death. You contrive wa●s to compass your designs; you train up your followers in the high mystery of treason; you cast into every realm the apple of strife: your doctrine is to no other use but as drums, mischiefs, and trumpets to incense fury.  
To these ends, you wrest scriptures, you corrupt histories, you counterfeit reasons, you corrupt all truth (pardon my plainness I pray you, I have not attained to your dexterity in disguising matters with smooth terms) 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 frauds do change their nature, and become both lawful and laudable actions when they bear for the advantage of your affairs.  
But this is directed to devotion, (you will say) and as you term it, ordine ad deum, for a holy and religious end. Away then with your devotion, and so we shall be rid of your dangerous deceit. Away I say with your devotion; or else we will conclude of you as Livy did of Hannibal: nihil veri, nihil sancti, nullus deûm metus nullum iusiuradum, nulla religio.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.