CHAP. 6. Of King James his not taking Armes to vindicate the honour of his Son proscribed.
HAving thus curiously examined the grounds and causes of the Proscription of the Count Palatine, and how they stand in Law and conscience, without any partiality, neither taking affection to the one part (whom I know not) nor to the other (whom I pittie) but as the truth of the cause leadeth me, I aske this question: Why is King James accused for not taking armes to vindicate the honour of his Son so proscribed? And why should the King of England give over all treaties, and enter into war with Spaine, if the Palatine be not restored; being the King of Spaine nei∣ther did, nor could proscribe him▪ but the Emperour? For Spaine (as your Majestie knoweth) hath no command in the Empire, nor title, nor Authoritie.
The Archduke Albert sent aide to King Ferdinand his nephew, with the consent of Spaine, to aide their Familie, and to revenge so intollerable injuries to the Em∣perour in a just cause: First the Count Bucquoy, and after Marquesse Spinola (great Commanders) marched thither, whereof the one with the Emperours forces dis∣possessed and ejected the Palatine out of Bohemia, the other invaded the Palatinate and took possession of it, An. 1620. and Verdugo and others his successors did hold it, aswell to weaken the Emperours competitor, to discomfort their partie, to force the Palatine to relinquish his title (for arma tenenti omnia ••at qui ••ustanegat) as also to ingage the same for a pawne, to satisfie the charges of four just a wa••, and to pay the penaltie of an offence so odious.
And there is no reason why the King of Spaine might not succour the Familie whereof he is the Root, seeing these lands were the proper possession of Charles the Fifth, And by him freely given to the family.
Neither did Spaine breake the treatie with England, an. 1604. in any article, by that support, and therfore they shall do well to set the saddle on the right horse, and accuse the Emperour for proscribing the Pal••tine, and the imperiall diet for ratifi∣ing the same, which no wise man will do. For it cannot bee honourable to justifie an unjust and condemned action, or seeke to take vengeance on the executi∣on of justice on offenders, decreed by the generall consent of the whole Empire. And it was wisely said of King Iames in his oration to the Parliament Quis me constituit judicem inter vos?
He were very well ill advised that would perswade the King to fight for the Church of Bohemia, and undertake to preserve Gods children in France, (as they call them) by the sword. For, as that worthy Iohannis Roffensis said lib de po∣testat. Papaec. 20. Quis tribunal, illud erexerit in terris, in quo Rex de Rege, pa•• de pari judicet? Iudex alterius Regis nemo Rex••conditus est, et rempublin rempublicam con∣citant. I know King Iames was defensor fidei; but in his owne circle and imm••••; intra quat nor maria: for Kings like plannets have their proper spheares and bounds