what I have said to Mr. Hunt but I thank them by the way for their instance of the fellow whom the King of Navarre had pardon'd and done good to yet he wou'd not love him for that Story reaches home somewhere I must make haste to get out of hearing from this Billingsgate Oratory and indeed to make an end with these Authors except I could call Rogue and Rascal as fast as they Let us examine the little reason they produce concerning the Exclusion Did the Pope the Clergy the Nobility and Commonalty of France think it reasonable to exclude a Prince for professing a different Religion and will the Papists be angry if the Protestants be of the same Opinion No sure they cannot have the impudence First here 's the different Religion taken for granted which was never prov'd on one side though in the King of Navarre it was openly profess'd Then the Pope and the three Estates of France had no power to alter the Succession neither did the King in being consent to it or afterwards did the greater part of the Nobility Clergy and Gentry adhere to the Exclusion but maintain'd the lawful King succesfully against it as we are bound to do in England by the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy made for the benefit of our Kings and their Successors The Objections concerning which Oath are fully answer'd by Doctor Hicks in his Preface to Jovian and thither I refer the Reader They tell us that what it concerns Protestants to do in that case enough has been heard by us in Parliament Debates I answer that Debates coming not by an Act to any Issue conclude that there is nothing to be done against a Law establish'd and fundamental of the Monarchy They dare not infer a Right of taking up Arms by vertue of a Debate or Vote and yet they tacitly insinuate this I ask them what it does concern Protestants to do in this case and whether they mean any thing by that expression They have hamper'd themselves before they were aware for they proceed in the very next lines to tell us they believe the Crown of England being Hereditary the next in Blood have an undoubted right to succeed unless God make them or they make themselves uncapable of Reigning So that according to them if either of those two Impediments shall happen then it concerns the Protestants of England to do that something which if they had spoken out had been direct Treason Here 's fine Legerdemain amongst them they have acknowledg'd a Vote to be no more than the Opinion of an House and yet from a Debate which was abortive before it quicken'd into a Vote they argue after the old Song that there 's something more to be done which you cannot chuse but guess In the next place there 's no such thing as Incapacity to be suppos'd in the immediate Successor of the Crown That is the rightful Heir cannot be made uncapable on any account whatsoever to succeed It may please God that he may be inhabilis or inidoneus ad gerendam Rempublicam unfit or unable to govern the Kingdom but this is no impediment to his right of reigning he cannot either be excluded or depos'd for such imperfection For the Laws which have provided for private men in this case have also made provision for the Soveraign and for the Publick and the Council of State or the next of Blood is to administer the Kingdom for him Charles the sixth of France for I think we have no English Examples which will reach it forfeited not his Kingdom by his Lunacy though a victorious King of England was then knocking at his Gates but all things under his Name and by his Authority were manag'd The case is the same betwixt a King non compos mentis and one who is nondum compos mentis a distracted or an Infant King Then the People cannot incapacitate the King because he derives not his Right from them but from God only neither can any Action much less Opinion of a Soveraign render him uncapable for the same reason excepting only a voluntary Resignation to his immediate Heir as in the case of Charles the fifth for that of our Richard the second was invalid because forc'd and not made to the next Successor Neither does it follow as our Authors urge that an unalterable Succession supposes England to be the Kings Estate and the People his Goods and Chattels on it For the preservâ—tion of his Right destroys not our Propriety but maintains us in it He has ty'd himself by Law not to invade our Possessions and we have oblig'd our selves as Subjects to him and all his lawful Successors By which irrevocable Act of ours both for our selves and our Posterity we can no more exclude the Successor than we can depose the present King The Estate of England is indeed the Kings and I may safely grant their supposition as to the Government of England but it follows not that the People are his Goods and Chattels on it for then he might sell alienate or destroy them as he pleas'd from all which he has ty'd himself by the Liberties and Priviledges which he has granted us by Laws There 's little else material in this Pamphlet for to say I wou'd insinuate into the King a hatred to his capital City is to say he shou'd hate his best friends the last and the present Lord Mayor our two Honourable Sheriffs the Court of Aldermen the worthy and Loyal Mr. Common Serjeant with the rest of the Officers who are generally well affected and who have kept out their factious Memfrom its Government To say I wou'd insinuate a scorn of Authority in the City is in effect to grant the Parallel in the Play For the authority of Tumults and Seditions is only scorn'd in it an Authority which they deriv'd not from the Crown but exercis'd against it And for them to confess I expos'd this is to confess that London was like Paris They conclude with a Prayer to Almighty God in which I therefore believe the Poet did not club to libel the King through all the Pamphlet and to pray for him in the conclusion is an action of more prudence in them than of piety perhaps they might hope to be forgiven as one of their Predecessors was by King James who after he had rail'd at him abundantly ended his Lampoon with these two Verses Now God preserve our King Queen Prince and Peers And grant the Author long may wear his Ears To take a short review of the whole 'T is manifest that there is no such Parallel in the Play as the Faction have pretended that the Story wou'd not bear one where they have plac'd it and that I cou'd not reasonably intend one so contrary to the nature of the Play and so repugnant to the Principles of the Loyal Party On the other side 't is clear that the Principles and Practices of the Publick Enemies have both formerly resembled those of the
For the fatal Consequences as well as the Illegality of that Design are seen through already by the People So that instead of offering a justification of an Act of Exclusion I have expos'd a rebellious impious and fruitless contrivance tending to it If we look on the Parliament of Paris when they were in their right wits before they were intoxicated by the League at least wholly we shall find them addressing to King Henry the third in another Key concerning the King of Navarr's Succession though he was at that time as they call'd it a relaps'd Heretique And to this purpose I will quote a passage out of the Journals of Henry the Third so much magnify'd by my Adversaries Towards the end of September 1585. there was published at Paris a Bull of Excommunication against the King of Navarre and the Prince of Conde The Parliament of Paris made their Remonstrance to the King upon it which was both grave and worthy of the Place they held and of the Authority they have in this Kingdom Saying for conclusion that their Court had found the Style of this Bull so full of Innovation and so distant from the Modesty of antient Popes that they cou'd not understand in it the voice of an Apostles Successor forasmuch as they found not in their Records nor in the search of all Antiquity that the Princes of France had ever been subject to the Justice or Jurisdiction of the Pope and they cou'd not take it into consideration till first he made appear the Right which he pretended in the Translation of Kingdoms establish'd and ordain'd by Almighty God before the Name of Pope was heard of in the World 'T is plain by this that the Parliament of Paris acknowledg'd an inherent Right of Succession in the King of Navarre though of a contrary Religion to their own And though after the Duke of Guises Murther at Blois the City of Paris revolted from their Obedience to their King pretending that he was fallen from the Crown by reason of that and other Actions with which they charg'd him yet the sum of all their Power to renounce him and create the Duke of Mayenne Lieutenant General depended ultimately on the Popes authority which as you see but three years before they had peremptorily denied The Colledg of Sorbonne began the Dance by their Determination that the Kingly Right was forfeited and stripping him of all his Dignities they call'd him plain Henry de Valois after this says my Author sixteen Rascals by which he means the Council of that Number having administred the Oath of Government to the Duke of Mayenne to take in quality of Lievtenant General of the Estate and Crown of France the same ridiculous Dignity was confirm'd to him by an imaginary Parliament the true Parliament being detain'd Prisoners in divers of the City-Gaols and two new Seals were order'd to be immediately made with this Inscription The Seal of the Kingdom of France I need not inlarge on this Relation 't is evident from hence that the Sorbonists were the Original and our Schismatiques in England were the Copiers of Rebellion that Paris began and London follow'd The next Lines of my Author are that a Gentleman of Paris made the Duke of Mayenne 's Picture to be drawn with a Crown Imperial on his Head and I have heard of an English Nobleman who has at this day the Picture of Old Oliver with this Motto underneath it Vtinam vixeris All this while this cannot be reckon'd an Act of State for the Deposing King Henry the Third because it was an Act of Ouvert Rebellion in the Parisians neither could the holding of the three Estates at Paris afterwards by the same Duke of Mayenne devolve any Right on him in prejudice of King Henry the Fourth though those pretended States declar'd his Title void on the account of his Religion because those Estates could neither be call'd nor holden but by and under the Authority of the Lawful King It wou'd take more time than I have allow'd for this Vindication or I cou'd easily trace from the French History what Misfortunes attended France and how near it was to Ruine by the Endeavors to alter the Succession For first it was actually Dismembred the Duke of Merceur setting up a Principality in the Dutchy of Bretagne Independant of the Crown the Duke of Mayenne had an evident design to be elected King by the favour of the People and the Pope the young Dukes of Guise and of Nemours aspir'd with the interest of the Spaniards to be chosen by their Marriage with the Infanta Izabella The Duke of Lorrain was for cantling out some part of France which lay next his Territories and the Duke of Savoy had before the Death of Henry the Third actually possess'd himself of the Marquisate of Saluces But above all the Spaniards fomented these Civil Wars in hopes to reduce that flourishing Kingdom under their own Monarchy To as many and as great Mischiefs should we be evidently subject if we should madly ingage our selves in the like Practises of altering the Succession which our Gracious King in his Royal Wisdom well forsaw and has cut up that accursed Project by the Roots which will render the memory of his Justice and Prudence Immortal and Sacred to future Ages for having not only preserv'd our present quiet but secur'd the Peace of our Posterity 'T is clearly manifest that no Act of State pass'd to the Exclusion of either the King of Navarre or of Henry the Fourth consider him in either of the two circumstances but Oracle Hunt taking this for granted wou'd prove à fortiori that if a Protestant Prince were actually excluded from a Popish Kingdom then a Popish Successor is more reasonably to be excluded from a Protestant Kingdom because says he a Protestant Prince is under no Obligation to destroy his Popish Subjects but a Popish Prince is to destroy his Protestant Subjects upon which bare supposition without farther Proof he calls him insufferable Tyrant and the worst of Monsters Now I take the matter quite otherwise and bind my self to maintain that there is not nor can be any Obligation for a King to destroy his Subjects of a contrary Perswasion to the establish'd Religion of his Country for quatenus Subjects of what Religion soever he is infallibly bound to preserve and cherish and not to destroy them and this is the first duty of a Lawful Soveraign as such antecedent to any tye or consideration of his Religion Indeed in those Countries where the Inquisition is introduc'd it goes harder with Protestants and the reason is manifest because the Protestant Religion has not gotten footing there and severity is the means to keep it out But to make this instance reach England our Religion must not only be chang'd which in it self is almost impossible to imagine but the Council of Trent receiv'd and the Inquisition admitted which many Popish Countries have rejected I forget not the Cruelties which were exercis'd
in Queen Maries time against the Protestants neither do I any way excuse them But it follows not that every Popish Successor shou'd take example by them for every ones Conscience of the same Religion is not guided by the same Dictates in his Government Neither does it follow that if one be cruel another must especially when there is a stronger Obligation and greater Interest to the contrary For if a Popish King in England shou'd be bound to destroy his Protestant People I wou'd ask the Question over whom he meant to Reign afterwards and how many Subjects would be left In Queen Maries time the Protestant Religion had scarcely taken root And it is reasonable to be suppos'd that she found the number of Papists equalling that of the Protestants at her entrance to the Kingdom especially if we reckon into the account those who were the Trimmers of the times I mean such who privately were Papists though under her Protestant Predecessour they appear'd otherwise Therefore her difficulties in persecuting her reform'd Subjects were far from being so insuperable as ours now are when the strength and number of the Papists is so very inconsiderable They who cast in the Church of England as ready to embrace Popery are either Knaves enough to know they lye or Fools enough not to have consider'd the Tenents of that Church which are diametrically opposite to Popery and more so than any of the Sects Not to insist on the quiet and security which Protestant Subjects at this day enjoy in some parts of Germany under Popish Princes where I have been assur'd that Mass is said and a Lutheran Sermon preach'd in different parts of the fame Church on the same day without disturbance on either side nor on the Priviledges granted by Henry the Fourth of France to his Party after he had forsaken their Opinions which they quietly possess'd for a long time after his death The French Histories are full of Examples manifestly proving that the fiercest of their Popish Princes have not thought themselves bound to destroy their Protestant Subjects and the several Edicts granted under them in favor of the Reform'd Religion are pregnant instances of this truth I am not much given to Quotations but Davila lies open for every man to read Tolerations and free exercise of Religion granted more amply in some more restraindly in others are no sign that those Princes held themselves oblig'd in Conscience to destroy men of a different Perswasion It will be said those Tolerations were gain'd by force of Arms In the first place 't is no great credit to the Protestant Religion that the Protestants in France were actually Rebels But the truth is they were only Geneva Protestants and their opinions were far distant from those of the Church of England which teaches passive obedience to all her Sons and not to propagate Religion by Rebellion But 't is further to be consider'd that those French Kings though Papists thought the preservation of their Subjects and the publick Peace were to be consider'd before the gratification of the Court of Rome and though the number of the Papists exceeded that of the Protestants in the proportion of three to one though the Protestants were always beaten when they fought and though the Popes press'd continually with Exhortations and Threatnings to extirpate Calvinism yet Kings thought it enough to continue in their own Religion themselves without forcing it upon their Subjects much less destroying them who profess'd another But it will be objected those Edicts of Toleration were not kept on the Papists side They wou'd answer because the Protestants stretch'd their Privileges further than was granted and that they often relaps'd into Rebellion But whether or no the Protestants were in fault I leave History to determine 't is matter of fact that they were barbarously massacred under the protection of the Publick Faith Therefore to argue fairly either an Oath from Protestants is not to be taken by a Popish Prince or if taken ought inviolably to be preserv'd For when we oblige our selves to any one 't is not his person we so much consider as that of the most high God who is call'd to witness this our action and 't is to him we are to discharge our Conscience Neither is there or can be any tye on humane Society when that of an Oath is no more regarded which being an appeal to God he is immediate Judge of it and Chronicles are not silent how often he has punish'd perjur'd Kings The instance of Vladislaus King of Hungary breaking his faith with Amurath the Turk at the instigation of Julian the Popes Legate and his miserable death ensuing it shows that even to Infidels much more to Christians that obligation ought to be accounted sacred And I the rather urge this because it is an Argument taken almost verbatim from a Papist who accuses Catharine de Medicis for violating her word given to the Protestants during her Regency of France What securities in particular we have that our own Religion and Liberties wou'd be preserv'd though under a Popish Successour any one may inform himself at large in a Book lately written by the Reverend and learned Doctor Hicks call'd Jovian in answer to Julian the Apostate in which that truly Christian Author has satisfy'd all scruples which reasonable men can make and prov'd that we are in no danger of losing either and wherein also if those assurances shou'd all fail which is almost morally impossible the Doctrine of Passive Obedience is unanswerably demonstrated a Doctrine deliver'd with so much sincerity and resignation of spirit that it seems evident the Assertor of it is ready if there were occasion to seal it with his blood I have done with mannerly Mr. Hunt who is only magni nominis umbra the most malicious and withal the most incohaerent ignorant Scribler of the whole Party I insult not over his misfortunes though he has himself occasion'd them and though I will not take his own excuse that he is in passion I will make a better for him for I conclude him crack'd and if he should return to England am charitable enough to wish his only Prison might be Bedlam This Apology is truer than that he makes for me for writing a Play as I conceive is not entring into the Observators Province neither is it the Observators manner to confound truth with falsehood to put out the eyes of People and leave them without understanding The quarrel of the Party to him is that he has undeceiv'd the ignorant and laid open the shameful contrivances of the new vampt Association that though he is on the wrong side of life as he calls it yet he pleads not his Age to be Emeritus that in short he has left the Faction as bare of Arguments as Esops Bird of feathers and plum'd them of all those fallacies and evasions which they borrowed from Jesuits and Presbyterians Now for my Templar and Poet in association for a Libel like the