you and I should make an Agreement in writeing that you should call at my House once a Year and afterwards by another Agreement Reciting the former Agreement whereby you were obliged to call once a Year we agree that for the future you shall not omit calling once in three Years Surely you would not think your self after this last Agreement obliged to call every Year Just so it is in the Kings case as to those Statutes of Edw. the 3d. for a Statute is but an Agreement between the King and His two Houses of Parliament and whereas by the Statute of the 4 Edw. 3. cap. 14. It is mentioned that it was Accorded that the Parliament should be holden every Year once and oftner if need be and by the Statute of 36. Ed. 3. cap. 10. to the like effect afterwards his now Majesty and both Houses of Parliament in the Sixteenth Year of His Reign come to a new Agreement touching Parliaments thereby Reciting the said Statutes of Edward the 3d. and do Agree that Parliaments shall not be discontinued above three Years Doubtless this last Statute and Agreement is by Implication of Law a Repeal of the Statutes of Edw. the 3d. as to calling Parliaments once a Year and is as much in effect as if it had been mentioned in the last Statute that notwithstanding the said Statutes of Edw. the 3d. it is sufficient if the King calls a Parliament once in three Years and moreover this last Statute that Parliaments should not be discontinued above three Years had been a vain Statute as to that particular if after this was made the King was still obliged to call a Parliament every year it is almost Sacriledge in some cases to think that the Parliament should offer any thing that 's vain to the King and by your pardon Sir there be other maximes in Law viz. Leges posteriores priores contraries abrogant later Laws differing from the former do make the former void and Lex nil frustra facit the Law or if you please the Legislative Authority doth nothing in vain which maximes I must tell you had been of better use in the Exposition of those Statutes of Edw. the 3d. than your notions of a firmatory Law for it had been in vain to have made a Statute that required Parliaments every three Years if they intended the other should be inforce And I conceive it may with better Reason be affirmed that a wilful publishing that the King hath neglected the Law especially when he hath not is a publishing of words to stir up the People to a dislike of His Majesties Person and Government and in my judgment affirms you an Offender within the Statute of 13 Ca. 2. cap. 1. though you very confidently like the rest of your Gang in the close of your darling Postscript say you were moved to what is there set down by nothing but a hearty Love and Affection to the King but I hope neither His Majesty nor any of His Loyal Subjects will believe you nor them any more To convince you further of your Error that the King hath not neglected those Laws of Edw the 3d. as to calling Parliaments for by the first of the Laws that is the 4. of Edw. the 3d. cap. 14. It is not absolutely required that a Parliament should be held once every Year but it is conditionally if need should require which you deceitfully omit to mention in the charge upon the King for you well knew it was the King was the judge when need required a Parliament and this may the better appear because from the next Year that Statute was made viz. that 5. of Edward the 3d. there was a discontinuance of Parliaments until the 9th and the other Act of the 36 of Edw. the 3d. cap. 10. sayes Parliaments shall be held once a Year as at another time was ordained that is under the same condition as the other Statute was but perhaps after all this you may be that Fool that though bray'd in a Morter would not forsake his folly The next thing I have taken notice of in your Postscript and which I suppose was the main matter and drift thereof and to maintain it you have used the best of your skill is another Conclusion of yours drawn I dare say for your Credit be it known only from your own mere natural parts and notions for I am sure it cannot be either from Divine Precept or Example Humane Experience of past Ages nor the present practice of any considerable part of the World of which I have taken some consideration and it is that which you set down in page the 43. of the Postscript line the 14. that the Succession of the Crown is Hereditary because the People so appointed it would have it so or consented to have it so yet as you say in a particular Case for saving the Nation forsooth when by the by it is in no danger the whole Line and Monarchy it self may be altered by the unlimited power of the Legislative Authority but Suppose the Nation were in such danger as you say which I shall manifest to the World it is not I hope no King of England which you your self admit to have a part in the Legislative Authority will ever make a Law though the Parliament should desire it either to alter the Government of Monarchy in this Kingdom nor the Succession thereof till they see the Nation cannot be saved without it or find greater Cause and better Reasons for it than the World ever yet produced though your Fools Bolt Sir is already shot but hath missed the mark you aimedat And I hope will ever do so In order to maintain your Assertions you inveigh extreamly against those that affirm Kingly Government to be of Divine Right and Institution for which I must say the World affords more Arguments and far more convincing than any you have Coyn'd against it However I will add my mite to the Mint and more than that I dare enter the Lists to maintain it against you that Kingly Government yea Hereditary Kingly Government is the only Government of Divine Institution in the World My Reasons for it shall follow but in the first place I will propose you are no Atheist and that you will not deny but that God is the Supream King and Governour of all things and that he takes some care of the World and knows best by what ways and methods to Govern it and that what he ordains is of Divine Institution for it is a maxim in Logick quod contra negantem Principium non est disputandum There 's no Reasoning with such as will not admit fundamental Truths no more than any buildings unless Castles in the Air can be raised without laying a foundation These premises being admitted which I know you will not gainsay whatever you think I would represent to your observation that when God had that great Work to do both to govern and deliver out of
's no Proviso that the people should alter the Succession that was to be done by none but God himself or by his special Command a clear instance whereof soon happened for when David was Bed-ridden as it were and every day expected Death Adonijah one of Davids Sons by the Mother of Absolom Exalted himself saying I will be King 1st of the 1st of Kings and prepared him Chariots and Horses and Fifty men to run before him and made great Feasts at which the people and Captains of the Hosts cryed God save King Adonijah yet God and old David said Solomon should be King and was so wherein is observable this thing further that God who foreknew without doubt that Solomon in his latter days would set up Idolatry yet he did not punish him beforehand he did not pronounce the sentence against him that the Kingdom should be rended from him nor was there any Bill of Exclusion against him until he had actually committed the Offence which Offence was not only that himself privately had Committed Idolatry but that he had also publickly encouraged the people thereunto by setting up high places to sacrifice to Kemosh and Moloch as appeareth in the Eleventh of the First of Kings and pray note further when this sentence came to be Executed and ten Tribes were given to Jereboam there was not a blow struck on either side from whence you may take notice by the by that God did not require the assistance of Rebellion or Seditious scriblers to effect those works and it cannot be said that Gods Arm is shortned now more than at other times I conceive Gods Example is as obliging as his Precepts and that if we imitate him we shall never do amiss it is therefore Argument sufficient that Monarchy yea Hereditary Monarchy is most agreeable to his will of any Government whatsoever because he Established it himself amongst his own peculiar people and since he did so and so frequently commanded Obedience to it I wonder how any man can say that Hereditary Monarchy is not of Divine Institution or having said so can suppose he should be believed and methinks you your self seem diffident that there would not be much credit given to your Hypothesis and therefore you make Provision as well as you can against the universal approbation and embracing of that sort of Government and would endeavour to make the World believe it was a Government peculiar to the Jews only for you say page the 36. That the Jews form of Government ought with less Reason to be the rule of all Kingly Governours because it was a Government chosen by themselves than the Laws of the Jews ought to be the Laws of all Nations which they are not These are the words of the Postscript I have already shewed that you were mistaken in affirming that the Monarchical Government of the Jews was of their own choosing for it was of Gods choosing and as to your intimating that the Laws of the Jews ought not to be the Laws of all Nations there you ought to have distinguished for though the Law of not eating Swines flesh was only peculiar to those people in respect of the Climate they lived in for that it inclined the Inhabitants of that Countrey to Leprosie and therefore was never intended to be an universal Law and the Ceremonial Law of the Jews is now out of doors because it consisted of Types of Christ coming who is now come and therefore the Types of his coming are useless yet the Moral Law of God the Ten Commandements which were Laws to the Jews ought to be Laws all the World over and are so taken and they are Everlasting and Immutable as well as universal Laws but there is no Rational consequence in your Argument if I should admit that all the Laws of the Jews had been peculiar to themselves only for though their Laws might not be Laws for all the World to follow yet Gods method in enforcing the Jews to obedience to these Laws might upon good reason be thought a good precedent to be followed to enforce obedience to other Laws There is a great difference between Laws and Government though you seem to make the same Rule for both for Laws are Rules for men to walk by and Government is the exercise of the means and methods to enforce men to walk by those Rules and though some Laws of one Countrey may not be convenient for another yet the means and method to enforce obedience to those Laws which are best are the best the Ore in all Countreys is not alike good but that which is the Universal best way of refining it is so whether the refining be in England or Scotland so that if the Jews were best Governed according to their Laws by an Hereditary Monarchy I can see no reason why the English should not be best Govern'd according to their Laws by an Hereditary Monarchy also It is not only God's example in governing the particular people the Jews but they are his general Precepts that intimate his good liking of Monarchy all the World over for fear God and honour the King are general and universal Commands not limited nor restrained to any particular Place or People and they have so close a Connexion and are plac'd so near together that it seems to imply as much as that if you fear God you will honour the King and that God requires the one from us as well as the other many places of Holy Writ requires our obedience to Kings as Supream and to Governours under them but I find not a tittle that requires obedience to any other sort of Government where there is not a King I find no approbation of such as the Kingless Keepers of the Liberty of England or other place Hogen-Mogen States of the United Provinces Burgo-Masters of Venice or Geneva or such like such Governments seem to be quite out of Gods care or regard and therefore not to be regarded by good men nor to be look'd upon to be of Divine Institution having neither Divine Precept nor Example to Countenance them But though I take Monarchy to be Hereditary by Divine Appointment yet I cannot believe that any man of common sense unless it be such an enemy as sowed Tares in the Wheat or some false friend that will affirm that by Divine Right and Institution a King may Tyrannize over his Subjects or impose unreasonable and unjust things upon them for Law but I humbly conceive Kings are obliged to observe the Laws of God and Nature and are bound truly and it is their duty to govern according to those Laws and the Laws Rightfully made by themselves and Predecessors which are not contrary to the Laws of God as you may see in the forementioned 17. of Deut. and very plentifully in Scripture elsewhere but if a King breaks any of those Laws he is not punishable by his Subjects but God assumes that to himself and it is sufficient punishment for it is a
taught no Popery in Pulpits unless among the Lawless Conventicles whose Teachers if the Law be put in Execution against their Disciples will have but few Hearers and if all this be not enough his Majesty was Graciously pleased to assure us that he would make any new Law to secure us from Popery Yea even to the restraining of a Popish Successor so that the Succession of the Crown were not put out of its Lineal Course of Descent and I dare say the great Gown-man whoever he was whose Opinion as some say so far sway'd the Commons that they thought no Law could sufficiently secure us against a supposed Popish Successor but Exclusion from the Succession could not really be of that mind for a King can do no great harm he is but one man and if he should in his own Person attempt to offer any unjust violence to any man it is an easie matter to fly from him and that without imputation of Cowardise it being upon no account justifiable to resist the Kings Person with force but if any man Officer or other should by the Kings Command kill wound or beat any man that doth not obstinately refuse to answer his charge by course of Law before he is Convicted of the Fact by Verdict of his Peers or Equals or by his own Confession and before he is sentenc'd by a Judg for that purpose lawfully Authorised he that should so do is punishable notwithstanding such Command and moreover though the King by his Prerogative Royal may lawfully cause any man to be Imprisoned in order to come to Tryal yet if in the Commitment it appear not to be for Treason or Felony specially nam'd he must be bayl'd by the Judg and though Imprison'd for any of those offences yet he is to continue in Prison but until he may be Try'd by due Course of Law but unto the Kings Legal Commands in a Judicial way the whole Strength and Power of the Nation is bound to assist in compelling Obedience thereunto be his Commands signified by Himself or by his Magistrates and Judges in his Name who are sworn to do therein as the Law requires and not otherwise so that the King hath all Power to do lawful things lawfully yet to do any thing illegally he hath so little Power that it is truly said the King can do no wrong and besides all this every King at his Coronation takes an Oath to confirm the Laws to his People to maintain the Gospel established in the Kingdom to keep Peace execute Justice and grant the Commons their rightful Customs be his own Religion what it will So that here 's all the Bars and Bolts imaginable to keep out Popery from being imposed on the People of England whatever the Kings Religion be which those do not well consider that compare these days with those of Queen Mary which were long before any of these Laws before-mentioned were made and when Reformation was but scarce begun by her Father towards the later end of his Reign and countenanced but not much improv'd by her Brother who died an Infant King and when that Queen came to the Crown it cannot be supposed that the tenth part of the Nation were Converts from Popery as appears by what then hapned for she soon got a Popish Parliament who as soon submitted themselves to the Pope and asked Pardon for their offences against him and declared themselves ready to abrogate all Laws prejudicial to the See of Rome but the Case is alter'd now Here 's no Popish Members can be elected the whole Nation being almost Protestants and consequently will elect no Papist nor one suspected to be so or if any such should chance to be so elected yet no such Popish Member is to be admitted into Parliament So here 's no Popish Parliament can be that should consent to make Laws in savour of Popery nor can there be any Popish Magistrates admitted that should favour the Papists by omitting to execute the Laws against them Nor is there any Priests that should perswade them to Popery to be heard among us unless in Conventicles so that here 's no room by Law for Popery sure in England nor ever can be if we keep to the course we are in and gape not after changes in the Government or suffer our selves to be frighted with shadows so far as to depend more upon dishonest Policy than Gods Providence and honest Prudence But suppose that Originally the Succession of the Crown were in the people yet in the same breath you contradict your self by saying it is so now for you say also that they have appointed and consented that it should be Hereditary Is not a Bargain a Bargain Do you think they can Revoke this Agreement at pleasure I think there is no Law for that That the people of England both in this and former Ages as far as an Oath Established by Act of Parliament can oblige which I think no man will say but it is the greatest obligation in the World have or ought to have â—ound themselves that the Succession of the Crown shall â—e Hereditary The Oath of Allegiance Established by the Legislative â—uthority in your own Notion and by the Statute 3. â—â—c and 4. and elsewhere so frequently obliged to be â—â—ken is in these words viz. That we will bear faith and true â—llegiance to his Majesty His Heirs and Successors and him â—â—d them will defend to the utmost of our power against all â—â—nspiracies and Attempts whatsoever which shall be made â—â—ainst his or their persons c. Now for a little Exposition upon the Text for nothing can be so plain but some may invert the sense of it since some wrest even the Scriptures to their own Damnation and yet go according to their Consciences still such as their nature is such is their Logick the Spider draws Poyson from the same Flower that the Bee gathers Honey First I shall observe only That the Statute which appoints this Oath of Allegiance was made since the Statute of the 13. of Queen Elizabeth which made it an Offence to say the Queen by Authority of Parliament could not limit the Descent of the Crown and if the said Statute that appoints the said Oath by such appointment hath so limited and setled the Descent and Succession of the Crown that I cannot perceive how now it can be justly altered for demonstration whereof it is requisite the signification of the word Heirs be rightfully understood this word Heirs is in our English Dialect the same the Latins called Heredes Sanguinis Heirs of the Blood not adopted Heirs still the next of kin to the Deceased Successively one after the other for ever for though a Father should give away his Estate from his Eldest Son yet he is Heir though a disinherited one and though men dispose of their Lands as they think fit Yet Deus facit Haeredes God makes Heirs and I take the meaning of the word Heirs in that Oath to
be no other than the next of Kin to the deceased King and the joyning of Successors to Heirs is capable of or at leastwise in the common sense and understanding thereof which is the sense it ought to be taken there can have no other construction but that the Kings Heirs shall be his Successors for ever and that we shall pay the same Allegiance to the Kings Heirs in their turns as we do to them but you say the unlimited power of the Legislative Authority can do any thing alter Succession yea Monarchy it self even at the very day that you wrote the Postscript without Controversie the power of the Legislative Authority is very great but I must distinguish between what may be done and what may be justly done If Monarchy or the Succession thereof should be altered by the Legislative power as it was by a Part of the Legislative Authority in dismal 48. and as is apparent some wish it should again It doth not therefore follow that it should be just to do so any more for whatsoever is contrary to the Eternal Law of God though commanded by the Legislative Authority is unjust and though the Legislative Authority may be of that power and force as to compel Obedience to their Laws yet they can never make Vice a Vertue or give Sanctity to a thing that is malum in se evil in it's very nature and essence By the Oath of Allegiance we declare that we do plainly and sincerely swear according to the express words there set down and according to the plain and common sense and understanding of these words If so by Heirs there must be meant the same that is meant thereby according to the common sense in common discourse and according to that sense then by Heirs is meant the next of Kin for when we enquire who is such a mans Heir we mean who is next of Kin to him But oh say you and the new-true Protestants the Succession of the Crown was not intended to be so absolutely limited to the Heirs but that if the Parliament thought fit to appoint another that is not the real Heir he must be the man This is a very vain idle and empty Hypothesis and a meer groundless supposition for the Oath it self restrains the meaning of the words to their common sense and understanding and renounces all manner of mental evasion or reservation whatsoever so here 's no reservation for an objection against the Heir neither as to his Religion or Person Here I have shewed you Gods Example of Establishing an Hereditary Monarchy and his precepts to obey it in no place in Divinity do I find a power given from God to the people to alter it at pleasure or when they think fit upon any pretence whatsoever here 's also an Oath of Obedience required by Act of Parliament from all people to stand to and defend the Hereditary Succession of the Crown here 's also in that Oath a Renuntiation of all Pardons and Absolutions from that Oath and an Explanation that it is to be understood according to the common sense and meaning of the words and this Oath is on ought to be taken by all people in the Kingdom How justifiable then would it be in the Legislative power to Act Counter to all these and having once required us to swear fidelity to an Hereditary Successor and to renounce all Absolutions from that Oath yet after wards to compel us to swear fidelity to one that is not the Hereditary Successor Dic quibus in terris eris mihi magnus Apollo from such Legislative power as despise Gods Example Reject his Providence and will engage a whole Nation to forswear themselves rather than use other means to Restrain even a Popish Successor Good Lord deliver me As to this point of Succession I shall add what I find Recommended by Mr. Prin in his Preface to Cottons Records fol. 10. Observe 14 Kings says he Created and set up merely by Parliaments and their own power in them without any true Hereditary Title have seldom answered the Lords and Commons Expectations in the preservation of their just Laws Liberties and Answers to Petitions yea themselves branded at last for Tyrants Traytors Murderers such another Doom as the ambitious Tower-Builders had confusion of Tongues yea and Senses to And as to the Scrupulous Brotherhood Recommend me to them and let them know that I dare affirm their Teachers are most of them Jesuits the true Papists in Masquerade who instead of Preaching Peace incite the people by a side-wind to Rebellion and let them know also That I desire to know of those seeming tender Conscienced Dissenters what Answer they will make at the great Tribunal when it shall be askt them why they occasioned the Murthering of their King put three Nations together by the Ears made them suck each others Hearts blood out Rob Ravish and Burn for that hath once been the consequence of their Scrupulosity and may be so again if they be not prevented Do you and they think it will be a sufficient excuse to say we could not hear a man Preach in white sleeves we had more kindness for one in a little round Cloak we could not look upon the Minister making the sign of the Cross in Baptism or we were loth lest we should spoil our silk Stockings to kneel at the Sacrament for our Consciences told us he was the finer man that Pray'd and Preach'd without Book by the help of the Spirit whither good or bad than he that well weighed and considered what he should say before he spoke though we are commanded not to be hasty to utter any thing before God Sure these reasons will never excuse them the rather for that they themselves acknowledge that they are but indifferent things in their own nature wherein they dissent from the Government and being so they are the more to blame that dissent and there is greater reason that they should comply with the Government than that the Government should truckle to every Humorist You say well in that you say there is nothing more exposeth the Authority of Government to contempt than a publick and open neglect of its Injunctions therefore I do heartliy wish our Magistrates would use civil force and power as far as by Law they may to enforce Obedience to the Laws both in Church and State and like good wise Parents give their stubborn Children the Rod of Correction in due time before they grow too head-strong I had almost omitted to say any thing touching Usurpers which I conceive may be very material for it is not enough to know who hath right to the Crown at the Decease of a King but it behoves us also to know how to prevent or remove Usurpers in case any such should happen and for that purpose I cannot but inform you that in my reading I find mention made of two sorts of Tyrannical Monarchs one sort of Tyrant is he who of his own
AN ANSWER To sundry Matters contain'd in Mr. HVNT'S Postscript To His Argument For the Bishops Right in judging Capital Causes in PARLIAMENT VIZ. 1. As to his publishing a scandalous LETTER of the Clergy 2. As to his wrongfully charging His Majesty with neglect of the LAW if he call'd not a Parliament once a year 3. As to his false Affirmations that the Succession of the CROWN is the Peoples Right and that not only the Line of Succession but Monarchy it self may be alter'd Whereunto is added A Query to be put to the Scrupulous and Dissenting Brotherhood WITH An Advertisement how Usurpers of the Crown ought to be dealt with By Wa. Williams of the Middle Temple a Barrister at LAW Si Deus nobiscum quis contra nos LONDON Printed for Charles Harper and are to be sold by Walter Davis at Amen-Corner 1683. A POSTSCRIPT Anteposited SIR I Had a long time since framed this ensuing Answer to yâ—â—â— most celebrated Postscript but having done it the câ—â—sideration of the wise Kings Advice Answer not a Foâ—â—â— and Answer a Fool wrought such a Conflict within 〈◊〉 as hindred my sending it until of late I found by your wâ—â—â— Defence of the Charter that you were become wise in yâ—â—â— own Conceit Therefore to indeavour to move that â—â—stemper in your self and to undeceive such as may be inâ—â—cted with the State-Heresie I at length Resolved to 〈◊〉 it in hopes it may effect your and their Reformation wâ—â—â—â— is desired by W.W. TO THOMAS HVNT Esq SIR HAving occasion lately to pass through several parts of the Kingdom and in my Journies discoursing with several Gentlemen that had been Members of the Honourable House of Commons in some of our late Parliaments concerning the late Bill of Exclusion of His Royal Highness from the Succession of the Crown I found some of them who once had no great opinion neither of the necessity nor honesty of that Bill begin to entertain some favourable thoughts of it and that which induc'd them to it as I was inform'd was the powerful Arguments they met with in a very ingenious Piece as they term'd it call'd Mr. Hunt's Postscript which was in great plenty very industriously dispersed about by some Newtrue-Protestants and magnified by them equally with if not above the Scriptures This great Character and the mighty Effects it had wrought set my Curiosity upon enquiry after this sublime Fabrick of Politicks but having found it I must tell you without Complement it proved a mere heap of confused scandalous Rubbish situate like the Firebrands in the Tails of Sampson's Foxes tacked to the hinder end of a plausible thing viz. Your Argument for the Bishops Right c. Your self suspecting as I guess by the matter of it that it had never found the way into our standing Corn without the help of some such Fox-like trick it being stuffed with nothing but Railings false Recitals of Scripture History Fallacies and Chicaneries which in plain English are nothing but subtle impertinent quirks and quillets First you act the slanderer by Proxie and as I apprehend it you feign a Letter from a Friend containing very scandalous things of the Clergie amongst the rest page the 2d belying them that they are all for a Popish Successor and no Parliament and that they do as much as in them lies give up our ancient Government the Protestant Religion the true Christian Faith to the absolute will of a Popish Successor wherein you have done extreamly ill notwithstanding you have declared your own opinion that you believe that there are but few of them guilty of that charge for your supposed Letter hath deeply wounded their Reputation with the credulous People and given them too great an occasion to hunt after Conventicles in search for supposed more Godly Teachers and I dare affirm it that your declaring your own opinion of them is but a very ineffectual Plaister for their broken Heads Whether you could have Argued better for them or not I cannot say but if you could not your inability will no more excuse you than it did the young Conjurer that raised the Devil but could not lay him and though you would father the Lye upon another I conceive however that you have committed an Offence against the Statutes of Westminster the first and the 2d of R. 2. Touching Reporters of false News whereby slander may arise to the Bishops of this Realm for by Clergy is understood the Bishops as well as the inferiour Ministers your Friends tale being the most scandalous thing that could have been invented and most likely to make the People hate all the Orthodox and Conformable Clergie in the Nation for which I wish you your condign Punishment Another matter you have taken great pains in page 29. of the Postscript and thereabouts is to represent to the World a Statute as in force which is Repealed and by Colour thereof you take the freedom to asperse even His Majesty himself for you say that by the Statutes of Edward the 3d. Parliaments are to be holden every Year and thar the Statute of this King requires a Parliament every three Years which as you say being an affirmatory Law doth not derogate from those of Edward the 3d. And you say farther that if the King doth not call a Parliament once a Year He neglects those Laws and if he delays calling a Parliament in three Years He neglects the other Law of His own time This renders you an audacious man that dares thus openly and bare-faced Libel your Prince but it will never give you the Reputation of a great Lawyer a good Logician nor a dutiful Subject for this Argument of yours is as gross a Solecism and non-consequence as any Sophister to render it more intelligible any Deceiver ever yet attempted to cheat the World with And to Demonstrate it so consider with your self If I should make you a Lease of a House at the Rent of Twenty pound payable Yearly and afterwards should make you another Lease of the same House at Twenty pounds payable once in Three Years would not you say that this last Lease did disanul and make void the first Lease the making and accepting of a new Lease being a surrender in Law of the old one and whereas by the first Lease you were to pay Twenty pound every Year would you not then think your self obliged to pay your Twenty pound but once in three Years I dare say you would however you may pay Twenty pound every Year if you will notwithstanding the new Lease and so may the King call a Parliament once every Year or oftner if He please but is not nowbound to do so by the old Statute any more than you are bound by the old Lease after a new one made of the same thing To make this matter more plain I will give you another instance to this purpose according to what a Reverend Father in the Law sayes Examples do not perplex but clear the point Suppose
woful case to fall into the hand of the Lord when angry Descend we now to Natural Reason and consider what that dictates to us in this matter it being sufficiently demonstrated that Monarchy is of Divine Institution by what is before-mentioned but put case there were nothing touching it in Divinity one way or other hath not the experience and practice of the World for some thousand of years inform'd us that an Hereditary Monarchy is the best sort of Government for the People in reference to the support of Human Society Have not all Philosophers and Politicians of any note left their Opinions to posterity that it is so Hath not Monarchy been the setled Government of this Kingdom for so many Centuries of years And are not our Chronicles so plain in the point that no considerable mischief ever befell us but by interrupting Hereditary Succession of the Crown and that that mischief hath been of no less consequence than the ruin of the then Inhabitants and shall such Mushrooms as you pretend to say that not only the Line of Succession but Monarchy it self may be alter'd because such Ignoramus's in Politicks know no other way of saving a Nation from drowning but by casting it into the fire We have had warning sufficient I hope not to be gul'd with any such whim whams any more But because nothing less at present than the alteration of the Succession or of Monarchy it self would serve your turn to keep out Popery I will for your satisfaction if it be possible and if your understanding and honesty will bear it make it plain in a few words that we are as safe and secure against Popery as the Art of man can make us and that we want nothing but what is Gods own work to secure us from Popery so long as we stick close to and maintain the Hereditary Succession of the Crown though we should happen to see a Popish Successor and the way to perfect the work and to prevail with God to do what doth belong to him is by Prayers and Penitence not by Sedition and Rebellion If ever Popery should be establisht in England I speal in reference to what lies in the power of men it must be either by Military force or by Law the Military force must be either home force or foreign force by home force it can never be though the King were a Papist because the whole Nation is averse to it and very violent against it except a very inconsiderable number who if they should offer the least look that way they would be devoured as a hungry Lyon would devour a new fallen Lamb and as to foreign force the only way to subject us to it is to divide us into two considerable Parties and then to engage us in the Slaughter of each other which would most assuredly be the consequence of setting a side of any of the Royal Family from their turn of Succession And of this the Kingdom can give many sad instances I shall mention only that of Deposing Richard II. and setling the Crown upon Henry the Fourth though by Act of Parliament and with Richard the Second's seeming but forc'd consent which produced such miserable Wars between the Heirs and Favourers of both Kings as rendred the Kingdom a meer Slaughter-house for the most part of fourscore years in which time the number of the slain is uncertain but if we may guess at Hercules's body by the length of his foot their number must be very vast for I find there was slain upon that occasion in one Battle thirty six thousand seven hundred threescore and sixteen Persons and all the Arts and Acts of Parliament afterwards which were many and which played handy-dandy with the Crown acting it one while upon one then upon another could never settle affairs till it had pleas'd God to do it by ordering the matter so that the Heirs of both Families were one of them a Man and the other a Woman and that these did marry one another whose Nuptial Feasts lull'd the Nation into a pacifick slumber and put an end to those unhappy Troules and England once again enjoy'd a blessed peace until another unparallel'd Usurpation upon the Crown by the seeming sanctified Parliament in King Charles the First his time which can never be forgot though you are angry it is not These Instances should be caution enough to any reasonable men not to invade Gods Prerogative and interrupt the Hereditary Succession of the Crown but leave it to its due and establish'd course of Descent I am confident scarce any man of sense believes but that if ever hereafter in our days especially it should happen that the next in Suceession to the Crown by course of descent should be put by though by Act of Parliament it would produce as sad effects as ever it did and it is not improbable but our Popish Neighbours who are more Potent now than ever would lay hold on such an opportunity the French King as I am credibly inform'd having now a standing and established Army of two hundred thousand men or more how easie then would it be for him when we had mangled torn and destroyed the greatest part of our selves to make himself Master of the wearied surviving Party and then Impose upon them his own Popish Religion So that to me nothing seems so ready a way to introduce Popery as altering the Succession of the Crown out of its Lineal Course of Descent unless it be by suffering Conventicles where men teach and the scrupulous Brotherhood learn with greediness any manner of Doctrine specially the lawfulness of King-killing and Rebellion to propagate their Heresies Sects and Schisms Hence I may say it is very evident that by force of Arms Popery can never be setled here so long as the Succession of the Crown is kept in the due course of Descent and it may be made as manifestly appear that it can never be introduc'd by Law though there were a Popish Successor for though the King be the Law-maker yet his power is so limited and restrained by the Law of Usage and Custom that he can make no new Law without the consent of his Parliament and the Law as it is is Provisional enough to prevent the Papists acting to any prejudice For as the Law now is no man is to be a Member in either House of Parliament unless he upon Oath renounce Popery and take the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy nor can any man practise the Law Physick Chyrurgery the Art of an Apothecary or any Liberal Science for gain unless he renounce Popery and take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy No man can be Ordained a Minister of the Gospel or permitted to Preach in a Church unless he Renounce Popery but at a Conventicle be he Papist or be he Turk or Jew or what he will he may Preach there any manner of Doctrine and the People are angry if they be interrupted So that we are in danger of being