him so far engaged by the fundamental Laws of the Land that he can hardl move or stir but with a concentrick motion to both Houses of Parliament Especially while we daily see how in our very neighbourhood to omit Germany Poland and other places the French Kings ever since the Reformation have been most zealous Papists and withall the most absolute and arbitrary Soveraigns of all Christian Monarchs and yet all this while could not suppress the Reformed Religion there nor hinder the over-ruling Providence of the Almighty who has even in that Kingdom notwithstanding all Popish opposers preserved to himself a Remnant not of seven as he speaks of the Kingdom of Israel but of seventy or rather seven hundred thousand that bow'd not the knee to Baal that is submitted not to the intolerable yoke of Romish Traditions And if Gods over-ruling Providence has so far prevailed in protecting his people at the very dawning of the Reformation and in causing Papists themselves become Protestants notwithstanding all the Cruel Laws then in force against them and all the opposition of a Popish nay of a most Absolute and Arbitrary Soveraign who might ad libitum make severer Laws against them and their Doctrine Shall we of little faith be so mistrustful of his goodness now in the very Meridian of the Gospel as to believe that a King of England a King so far obliged by the fundamental Laws of his Kingdom and by all tyes imaginable to be advised in all weighty matters by a free Representative of the whole Nation that without this Representative he can neither repeal the Penal Statutes enacted against Papists nor yet enact any though he would against the Protestant Religion shall we I say believe that such a King and in such Circumstances though never so zealous a Papist can induce or perswade his Subjects who once received the full light and liberty of the Gospel ever to submit to the Yoke of Popish Superstitions Do not we remember how in Queen Mary's time the Protestant Religion was in a manner in its Infancy in this Kingdom and yet how miraculously it was preserved notwithstanding all the endeavours of that active Queen and all the Penal Laws then in force against it And now being in its prime and so firmly established and fenced by Law shall we despair of Gods power to preserve it unless we help him out with our wickedness Certainly we must either believe the whole Nation is inclined to Popery or the Protestant Religion is grounded on very weak Foundations otherwise we cannot thus think it impossible either to secure our Faith and Liberties so well established by Law or keep off the Tyranny of the See of Rome from stealing upon us under a Popish Successor who can neither make any new Statutes in favour of Popery nor yet alter the present Government without the consent of a Parliament It is an unwarrantable attempt and a point without Example or President to disinherit or depose a Prince for not complying with his People in Religion Neither can our seditious Pamphleters most impertinent Examples any thing justifie such violent proceedings They alledge that King Asa remov'd his Mother Maachah from being Queen because of her Idolatry 2 Chron. 15. But they might as well justifie Cromwel's Tyrannical Usurpation by alledging the example of Jeroboam rebelling against Rehoboam and Jehu against Jörà m for these Rebellions have no less if not more approbation of God's Oracles 1 King 11.31 and 2 King 9.6 than Asa's deposing his Mother Such things therefore are recorded in holy Scripture to be read but never to be imitated as we are not to kill our selves in imitation of Sampson though after his death he is highly commended and by the Apostle reckon'd among the Faithful Heb. 11.32 unless we have as plain a Revelation from God to do them as King Asa had to depose his Mother by the advice of Azariah the Prophet Likewise they alledge that the people of France rejected the King of Navarr because of his Religion But surely they are either altogether ignorant or wholly besotted and blinded that make use of this example For to omit that a vast number of Papists and those too of the best and greatest Families of all France then closly adhered to the King of Navarr and thought themselves indispensably obliged in Conscience by the Law of Nature and the Principles of their Religion so to do notwithstanding the Kings being of a different perswasion and all the Popes roaring Bulls and thundring Excommunicatios to the contrary as the best Historians of them times do sufficiently testify to omit I say this consideration which should make us emulous at least of these Papists Loyalty Do not all Protestants generally exclaim against those other rebellious Papists who then opposed that worthy Prince With what face then can we produce it as a president to justify our own proceedings against his Royal Highness Or shall we judge it Antichristian and unlawful in Papists to depose a Prince but lawful and Christian in Protestants O blind zeal let us not thus foolishly deceive our selves but rather seriously consider that dreadful sentence of the Apostle Thinkest thou O man that judgest them which do such things and doest the same thy self that thou shalt escape the judgment of God Rom. 2.3 How do we think to escape the severity of Gods anger and his just judgment if we condemn and detest the Romish usurpation over Kings and Princes and yet use the same ourselves without the least remorse of Conscience But the Pamphleters blindness is yet more remarkable when they ridiculously heap together in the very front of their Sophistical and most unreasonable reasons how such and such Princes have been either disinherited banished or put to death whether by their own rebellious Subjects or by other encroaching Princes as Edgar Atheling was banished by William the Conqueror Arthur Plantagenet put to death by King John and the like But the silly Sophisters never endeavoured nor ever could justify these examples or prove them either lawful or laudable To what purpose then are such unjustifyable presidents produced by these factious Spirits to warrant their own desperate attempts Surely they might as well argue that Christ was crucified by the Jews and thence infer that Subjects might lawfully crucifie or put to death their Soveraign when and how they pleased But such Antichristian and Fanatical Logick was never heard much less approved of until the Spirit of Belial reveal'd it to Oliver and his Rumpers For if we look back to the Primitive Church whose practice should be a rule to our proceedings though they were zealous to admiration of the true Faith and Worship of God having the first fruits of the Spirit as the Apostle speaketh Rom. 8.23 and though their Soveraigns for many hundred years were either downright Idolaters or blasphemous Hereticks and withall most Cruel Persecutors of Christs Church yet in all this time we cannot find one Prince disinherited or deposed by
Great and Weighty CONSIDERATIONS Relating to the D or Successor of the Crown Humbly offer'd to the Kings Most Excellent Majesty AND Both Houses of Parliament By a True Patriot May it please Your Majesty HE is undoubtedly to be reputed the best Friend to his King and Countrey whom neither the Fear of any Worldly Powers can deter or hinder to speak nor the love of any Temporal advantages can induce to dissemble the Truth especially in such serious and weighty matters as mainly concern the welfare both of Church and State For whosoever lays aside all the alluring Considerations of Self-Interest and chooses rather to expose himself to the displeasure of a prevailing Faction than see the Truth oppress'd by any feign'd pretences though never so specious or plausible he sufficiently demonstrates by the sincerity of his intentions how Faithful he is to God and how Loyal to his Prince This plain and undoubted verity most Gracious Sovereign encourageth me at present to offer unto your most Excellent Majesty this my humble Address briefly comprising such Reasons as perswade me so much to mislike many particulars of our present proceedings whereby most preposterously we endeavour to establish the true Reformed Religion in this Kingdom by overthrowing the chiefest Principle and Maxim thereof which is fulln epitomiz'd in this excellent Precept Give every one his due I cannot indeed but highly extol the rare constancy of our Leading Men in the true Protestant Religion and their fervent zeal to maintain and establish the same for ever as also their extraordinary care and diligence to suppress Popery and all Fanatical Leven But I find their Zeal doth so far transport many of them beyond the limits of Justice and Equity that unless they steer their course more conformably to the Divine Cynosura of all Humane Actions the Word and Will of God I am afraid we shall have ere long as much reason to blame them for the one as praise them for the other To establish firmly the true Protestant Religion is undoubtedly a great and glorious action but to establish it upon the Quicksands of Humane Policy or upon grounds repugnant to the Laws both of God and Nature is a thing whereof neither I nor I hope any faithful Christian will ever approve Hypocrites indeed and some factious Spirits of the Phanatical Leven who make a Cloak of Religion to palliate their black Designs by their seditious Pamphlets do daily labour to perswade the World that nothing can be so Sacred which must not be sacrific'd to their pretended Religion And upon this ground as the Rump-Parliament has Sacrific'd the best of Kings so some fiery Zealots now endeavour to Sacrifice the best of Princes your Majesties onely Brother But the best and most conscientious Protestants do utterly abhor and detest such Antichristian attempts as being wholly repugnant to the Ordnance of God and to the fundamental Laws of this Kingdom Neither did they ever approve of that Anarchical Bill lately fram'd by some turbulent Zealots of the House of Commons against his Royal Highness wherein they peremptorily assume to themselves a Sovereign and Despotical Power of Deposing Princes and disposing of Kingdoms as their spirit moves them and withal most impudently affirm that this has been the ancient custom of Parliaments Whereas it's evident to all the World that the Imperial Crown of England has always been Hereditary and never depending on the Votes or Suffrages of the Subject Nay it is undeniable that the succession of the Crown was always hitherto held so Sacred and inviolable that no Crime whatsoever no attainder of Treason could debar the next Heir of Blood from succeeding in the Government as Coke upon Littleton Sect. 8. page 16. testifieth in these words If the right Heir of the Crown be attainted of Treason yet the Crown shall descend to him eo instante without any other reversal the attainder is utterly avoided as it fell out in the Case of Henry the Seventh But these cunning Politicians now will have a new model of Government that so all the world may acknowledge our Omnipotent Parliament i e. themselves to have an Absolute and Independent power not only over mean Subjects but also over the Royal Family nay over the King himself and to have power to degrade or depose them as they please For they are sure that by whatsoever Law Power or pretence the Parliament can dis-inherit or depose the Heir by the same they may likewise depose the Possessor of the Crown as the Rump Parliament de facto has done To what purpose then should any true Protestant or any man of sense that loves either King or Country approve of such an extravagant Bill which Gilded over like poisoned Pills with the specious pretence of establishing the true Protestant Religion is like to destroy the very root and life of our Government Or what in Gods name do we mean by this pretence of Religion Do we intend to out-reach the Divine Providence or do we despair either of the justness of our cause or of the goodness of God Do not we remember how the Apostle tells us that evil is not to be done that good may come of it Or do not we know that whatsoever God affects in goodness he doth effect by good means and doth not want our wickedness to fulfil his holy will Is there no other way of establishing the true Protestant Religion but by robbing those we should honour and obey and depriving them of that which God and Nature has bestowed upon them I mean their Birthright Far be it from the heart of a Christian especially a Protestant to think so ill of the all-seeing Providence of the Almighty For what is this but exactly to follow the footsteps of that monster of ingratitude the wicked Jeroboam who after God of his infinite goodness had raised him from nothing and established him Monarch of the ten Tribes of Israel yet was he so mistrustful of Gods power in preserving his Kingdom for the future that he thought nothing could secure it but his own accursed Policy 1 King 12.26 27. Was not the true Protestant Religion settled in this Nation by the same mighty hand of God that established Jeroboam in the Kingdom of Israel Shall we then like that wicked King so far despair of Gods Providence in preserving the work of his own hands as never to think it secure unless it be establish'd upon the quick-sands of our own wicked inventions Should not we rather be terrified at that dreadful woe pronounced by the Prophet Jeremy Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness or his Chambers by wrong Jer. 22.13 O insensati Galatae as the Apostle speaketh Gal. 3.1 O foolish and timerous Country-men who hath bewitched you that you should be of so little Faith as to believe that a king of England though the most zealous of Papists can ever subvert the true Protestant Religion or the present Government of this Kingdom while we know
his Christian Subjects for being of a contrary profession no nor yet for his Tyrannical Persecutions For they well knew how God commanded them To submit themselves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake 1 Pet. 2.13 and to obey higher powers though Heathens as then they were beause there is no power but of God Rom. 13.1 By whom Kings do reign and Princes decree justice Prov. 8.15 True Christians were numerous in the days of Constantius and Valens the Arian Emperors and yet they never attempted to dis-inherit or depose these Princes notwithstanding their Blasphemous Heresies Many Christians well knew how Julian the Apostate notwithstanding his external profession of Christianity was a Heathen in his heart long before he came to the Empire and yet they never endeavoured to deprive him of his Birth-right but left all to the providence of God whom they assuredly knew alwayes potent and willing to protect his own inheritance the Catholick Church And to come nearer home when Queen Elizabeth of glorious memory came to the Crown of England the Protestants of this Kingdom were but a handful in respect of the Papists and though the Queen was already declared Illegitimate even by her own Father and this confirmed by an Act of Parliament yet the Papists endeavoured not to depose or debar her from her Right for being of a contrary Religion but publickly own'd her as their true and lawful Sovereign Shall we then shew our selves worse than the Papists or more mistrustful of God's mercy Is it not evident that our sins are the cause why your Majesty hath no lawful Issue Should not we then rather remove the cause by our serious repentance than preposterously endeavour to mend the matter by adding fuel to the flame heaping one sin upon another in robbing others of that which God and Nature has bestowed upon them Surely 't is a Motto better beseeming a Christian Ruat Coelum fiat Justitia than Faciamus mala ut eveniant bona And it is the best Religion that gives every one his due not that which cannot subsist without depriving others of their undoubted Right But what do we intend to do or shall we shake off all Conscience and neither regard our Loyalty to our Prince nor yet our Oathes to God Do not we remember how in taking the Oath of Allegiance we have called God to testifie our candour and sincerity in pronouncing the ensuing words I do swear from my heart that I will bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty his Heirs and Successors and him and them will defend to the uttermost of my power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatso-ever which shall be made against his or their Persons their Crown and Dignity by reason or colour of any such Sentence or Declaration or otherwise With what conscience then can we subscribe or consent to that unadvised Bill fram'd by some Members of the House of Commons against his Royal Highness after swearing so positively to bear Faith and true Allegiance not only to your Majesty but also to your Heirs and Successors nay to defend them to the uttermost of our power against all attempts whatsoever and swearing this with a Non-obstante to any Sentence or Declaration whether from the Pope or otherwise For surely the word otherwise excludes all other Sententences and Declarations as well as the Popes and consequently no less excludes this ill-digested Bill of the House of Commons than the roaring Bulls of the See of Rome For as St. Bernard saith Nihil excipitur ubi distinguitur nihil Oh! but our great Politicians have sound out a new Comment upon these words for in effect they tell us that by Heirs here we are to understand those that are created such not by God but by the Parliament And that although by Birth one might claim a right to succeed in the Government yet when the Parliament declares to the contrary and annulls this Claim he is no longer Heir to the Crown and consequently the People are discharged from their Oath of Allegiance to him A Commentum indeed and a Diabolical Fiction nay the worst of all Jesuitical Equivocations In the same Oath we call God to witness that we swear in the plain and common sense of the words without any Equivocation Mental Reservation or secret Evasion whatsoever And after swearing in this manner how dare we make use of this so palpable an Equivocation and secret Evasion which if practised should render all Oathes vain and ineffectual and this purposely to colour our own perfidious and perjurious dealings We cannot deny but that by Heir in the plain and vulgar or common sense of the Word we understand such as by Blood for Adoption is not usual amongst us have greatest right to succeed next in the Inheritance or to possess the same How then can we without grosly equivocating interpret it of Heirs made by Act of Parliament at least while the Natural Heir is alive when we know it is an undoubted Maxim of the Law Solus Deus Haeredem facere potest non homo Do not we see that the worst of Jesuits could at this rate take the Oath of Allegiance and glossing it after this new mode understand by your Majesties Heirs and Successors those that should be declared such not by King and Parliament but by the Pope and See of Rome Nay could not he further alledge in our Grand Machivilians new Dialect that although a King of England had right till then to Rule and Govern the Kingdom yet when the Pope declares to the contrary and annuls this Right he is no longer lawful King of England and consequently the People are eo ipso absolved from their Oath of Allegiance to him What can our cunning Politicians alledge against this or can they shew where the disparity lies since 't is undeniable that the Words of the Oath can as well bear this Jesuitical Comment as their own new-found Glosses How then dare they deny the one and use the other Moreover this at least must be granted Whosoever is by Blood next Heir to the Crown we are by our Oath obliged before God to bear him Faith and true Allegiance nay to defend him against all attempts until he is dis-inherited by Act of Parliament Whatsoever therefore we do against him before this Act be fully established is a violation of our Oath And since it is manifest that this unnatural and abortive Embrio unluckily hatchâ—d by some over-active members of the House of Commons is directly against him who by Blood is at present the next Heir to the Imperial Crown of England it necessarily ensueth that the very attempt of Voting and passing this unparallelled Bill makes the Actors and Abberters thereof perjurers before God and the World To this perhaps our grand Politicians will answer that the Duke is not Heir but onely Heir Apparent to the Crown because as Coke observed none is Heir before the death of his Ancestor but only Heir Apparent upon
Littleton p. 8. And hence in their new Machiavilian Logick will inforce that to dis-inherit his Royal Highness is not against the Oath of Allegiance which speaketh only of Heirs not of Heirs Apparent A ridiculous shift and a most silly evasion first because we profess to take the Oath not in any by-sense of the Law but in the plain and common sense of the words as all men do usually understand them Wherefore although the Law by Heirs had understood such as succeed to their deceased Ancestors yet fince this is not the plain and common sense of the word and men do not generally understand it so it can never excuse us from a perjurious violation of our Oath 2dly Because by Cokes leave this his observation is most fallacious and impertinent For it is a manifest contradiction for one to be Heir Apparent and not be Heir as it is to be a Learned man and to be no man it being an undoubted maxime Prius est esse quam esse â—alc And the fallacy consists herein that the word Heir in its full and proper notion signifies either an Heir Apparent who is such during the life of his Ancestor of aâ— Heir by right actually inheriting which always presupposeth his Ancestors death or at least his resignation But Coke most improperly restrains it to the latter contrary to the common and usual manner of speaking not only of most men in general but of God himself in his holy Scriptures where Heirs Apparent are absolutely and most commonly called Heirs as appeareth Gen. 15.3 and 2 Sam. 14.7 Mat. 21.38 Mark 12.7 Luk 20.14 and Gal. 4.1 Since therefore it appeareth by so many passages of holy Scripture that the word Heir in its plain and common sense signifieth an Heir Apparent and that we profess before God and the World to take the Oath of Allegiance in the plain and common sense of the words upon what grounds can we understand here an Heir actually inheriting more than an Heir Apparent Nay since the words of the Oath do signify as well an Heir Apparent as an Heir actually inheriting what a Sophistical Equivocation it is to understand it of the one exclusively of the otâ—er Surely it is no better than if a Jesuit had Sworn before a Magistrate to be true and Loyal to the Government of this Kingdom he in the interim meaning the Government not of the King or Parliament but of his own Jesuitical Assemblies Let us not therefore flatter our selves or foolishly think that after so solemn an Oath either or both Houses of Parâ—iament can authorize us before God to deprive our Prince of his undoubted right And truely I admire if they who so much insist upon the liberties of free-born English Subjects will ever acknowledge the Parliament or any person whatsoever to have this arbitrary and despotical power whereby the Axe is laid to the very root of their greatest priviledges For if it be lawful for a prevailing faction in Parliament to deprive their Prince of his undoubted Birthright how can mean Subjects have any security either of property or liberty And besides since it is an undoubted maxime in Moral Affairs Illud tantum possumus quod de jure possumus and as St. Austine saith Quod non potest juste non potest justus Upon what grounds should the House of Commons nay the whole Parliament Claim this absolute power I cannot find For its evident that both Houses can challenge no other authority but what they derive from their Soveraign and the diffusive body of the Subjects whom they represent And no less manifest it is that no King of England hitherto did nor in my Opinion could give his Parliament any power to depose or dis-inherit himself or his Heir Apparent And if your Majesty intends to grant them any such thing at present which I hope your Princely wisdom will never do I remember your Royal Father gave the long Parliament greater power than he was aware of which they soon after used or rather abused against himself his Crown and Dignity And therefore I say Foelix quem faciunt paterna pericula cautum As for the diffusive Body of the Subjects 't is clear they neither would nor could grant the Parliament this extravagant Jurisdiction First they would not do it for who can be so credulous as to believe that any man so desirous of his liberty as English Subjects ever have been would grant the Parliament this Despotical power uncontroulably to dispose of his own much less of his Princes Life or Estate Secondly How could the Subjects grant the Parliament any power to deprive their Prince of his Birth-right against all the Laws of God and Nature since of God alone and not of the Subjects the Prince deriveth his whole Right and Authority For there is no power but of God Rom. 13.1 By whâ—m Kings do Reign and Princes decree justice Prov. 8.15 How then can the People deprive their Prince of that which they have no power to give As for my own particular I must confess I could never understand that the Imperial Crown of England was disposable by Act of Parliament I always thought the Liberties of English Subjects to be grounded on surer Principles and that no power in this Kingdom could lawfully deprive us of our Priviledges or enthrall us to any servitude whereas it 's evident that if an Act of Parliament can thus transfer the Crown upon whom they please we can have no security and may according to such Maxims first or last be brought under the Tyranny of the French King or any other Forreign Prince if ever the corruption or mercinariness of a Parliament should induce them to comply with a King that should have a mind to sell the Succession of the Crown to a Foreigner upon the security of an Act of Parliament which according to the Tenets of these Politicians can give a just Title But if we consult God's Divine Oracles the Holy Scriptures which undoubtedly should be the chief Rule of all Humane actions we shall never find any Example or President to warrant these unparallel'd proceedings against his Royal Highness but may find several passages clearly against it There we find how King Ahab though absolute Monarch of Israel and consequently needed no Parliament but had himself alone as much power and authority over the Ten Tribes of Israel as your Majesty and Parliament together can claim de jure over the Natives of England and though this Monarch passionately coveted his Subject Naboth's Vineyard and was of himself little inclined to Justice yet he knew that by the Laws of God and Nature it was altogether unlawful for him to deprive Naboth of his Vineyard but if he could not deprive him of a small Vineyard surely he could not rob him of his Birth-right and whole Estate And if such an absolute Monarch could not do this to a mean Subject by what colour of Justice can the House of Commons nay the whole Parliament do