Gentleman as was reported put this Dilemma in the House of Commons which I never yet heard satisfactiorily Answered Either the Statutes of King H. 8. about Succession were Obligatory or Valid or they were not If not then Acts of Parliament which impeach the Succession are without any more ado Null and Void in Law but if they were by what authority was the House of Suffolk Excluded and King James admitted to the Crown contrary to many Statutes against him notwithstanding all which the (t) Jacob. I. High Court of Parliament declared That the Imperial Crown of this Realm did by Inherent Birthright and lawful and undoubted Succession descend unto his Majesty as being lineally justly and lawfully next and sole Heir of the Royal Blood Here His Succession is owned for Lawful and Vndoubted against the foresaid Acts Lawful not by any Statute but contrary to Statutes by the Common-Law of this Hereditary Kingdom which seems to Reject all Limitations and Exclusions as tending to the Disinberison and Prejudice of the Crown For as the Most Learned and Loyal (u) Third part of The Address to the Freemen c. p. 98. Sir L. J. represented to the House of Commons a Bill of Exclusion if it should pass would change the Essence of the Monarchy and make the Crown Elective or as another (x) Author of the Power of Parliaments p. 39. Ingenious Pen saith It would tend to make a Foot-ball of the Crown and turn an Hereditary Monarchy into Elective For by the same Reason that one Parliament may disinherit one Prince for his Religion other Parliaments may disinherit another upon other Pretences and so consequently by such Exclusions Elect whom they please The next Reason which seems to make an Act of Exclusion unlawful is the Oath of Supremacy which most of the Kings Subjects are called to take upon one Occasion or other and which the Representatives of the Commons of England are bound by Law to take before they can sit in the House By this Oath every one who takes it swears to Assist and Defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preheminences and Authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Highness his Heirs and lawful Successors or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And I appeal to every Honest and Loyal English-man whether it be not one of the most undoubted transcendent and Essential Rights Priviledges and Preheminences belonging to the Kings Heirs and united to the Imperial Crown of England that they succeed unto the Crown as it comes to their turn according to Proximity of Blood Secondly I desire to know Whether by Lawful Successors is not to be understood such Heirs as succeed according to the common Rules of Hereditary Succession settled by the Common-Law of England and if so how any Man who is within the Obligation of this Oath can Honestly consent to a Bill of Exclusion which deprives the next Heir and in him virtually the whole Royal Family of the Chief Priviledge and Preheminence which belongs unto him by the Common-Law of this Realm Or how any Man who hath taken this Oath which is so apparently designed for the Preservation of the Rights and Priviledges of the Royal Family can deny Faith and true Allegiance to the next Heir from the Moment of his Predecessors death according to the Common Right of Hereditary Succession which by Common-Law belongs unto Him and is annexed to the Crown What Oath soever is made for te Behoof and Interest of the Kings Heirs and Lawful Successors in general must needs be made for the Behoof and Interest of every one of them but the Oath of Supremacy so made for the Behoof and Interest of the Kings Heirs is apparently in general to secure the Succession unto them and therefore it is undoubtedly made to secure the Succession to every one of them according to the Common Order of Hereditary Succession when it shall come to their turn to succeed I have used this Plain and Honest Way of arguing with many of the Excluders themselves and I could never yet receive a satisfactory Answer unto it Some indeed have said with our Author that the Oath of Supremacy is a Protestant Oath and so could not be understood in a Sense destructive to the Protestant Religion which is a meer Shift and proves nothing because it proves too much For according to this Answer we might dispense with our sworn Faith and Allegiance to a Popish King if any should hereafter turn such because the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy are Protestant Oaths and are not to be understood according to them in a sense destructive to the Protestant Religion Secondly Though they are Protestant Oaths yet they respect not the King and his Heirs as Protestants but as lawful and rightful King and Heirs according to the Imperial Law of this Hereditary Kingdom and therefore Moderate Papists will take the Oath of Supremacy as well as of Allegiance as indeed it was for substance taken in the Time of (y) 35 H. 8. ch 1. § 11. H. 8. which they could not do were they made to the King and his Heirs as Protestants But Thirdly As they are Protestant Oaths they bind us the more Emphatically to assist and defend the King against the Vsurpation of the Pope who pretends to a Power of Deposing Kings and of Excluding Hereditary Princes from the Succession Witness Henry the 4th and therefore as all good Protestants are bound by these promissory Oaths to maintain the King in the Throne so are they bound to maintain and defend their Heirs and Successors when their Rights shall fall I have joyned the Oath of Allegiance with the other of Supremacy because in it we also swear to bear Faith and true Allegiance to the Kings Heirs and Successors and Him and them to defend to the utmost of our Power And I here protest to all the World That when I took these Oaths I understood the Words Heirs and Successors for such as hereafter were to be Kings by the Ordinary Course of Hereditary Succession And I appeal to the Conscience of every Honest Protestant if he did not understand them so Other Excluders I have heard maintain that the King and Three Estates in Parliament had a Power by an Act of Exclusion to discharge the People of this part of their Oaths Of bearing Faith and true Allegiance to the Kings Heirs and Lawful Successors but this seems contrary to the following Clause of the Oath of Allegiance which is also to be understood in the other of Supremacy I do believe and in my Conscience am resolved that neither the Pope nor any other person whatsoever hath Power to absolve me of this Oath or any part theoreof And I appeal even to Mr. J. Whether a Man can be absolved from a Promissory Oath by any Power upon Earth but by the Person or Persons to whom and for whose behoof it was made To assert that the King by the Consent of the Parliament
next immediate and Lawful Heir either Male or Female upon which the Right and Administration of the Government is immediately devolved And that no Difference in Religion nor no Law or Act of Parliament made or to be made can alter or divert the Right of Succession and Lineal Descent of the Crown to the Nearest and Lawful Heirs according to the Degrees aforesaid nor can stop or hinder them in the Full Free and Actual Administration of the Government according to the Laws of this Kingdom Like as our Soveraign Lord To this Declaration of the Three Estates in Scotland I shall and the Judgment of the Vice-Chancelor Heads of Houses Doctors and other Learned and Loyal Members of the Vniversity of Cambridge in their (e) Gazett n. 1653. Address to His Majesty at New-Market Sept. 18. 1681. wherein they declare That they will still believe and maintain that our Kings derive not their Titles from the People but from God that to Him only they are Accountable that it belongs not to Subjects either to Create or Censure but to Honour and Obey their Soveraign who comes to be so by a Fundamental Hereditary Right of Succession which no Religion no Law no Fault or Forfeiture can Alter or Diminish These Learned Men indeed have not so plainly given their Reasons for their Opinion but by the Hints which they have given of them we may perceive that they are the same which I have insisted upon and I believe they will still own them and never be ashamed thereof But Mr. J. it seems hath learnt another Lesson since he left the Vniversity A Good Wit upon the Fret and the great Advantage of having such a Conducter as Mr. H. have made him do Wonders against the Succession and bless the World with a New Discovery That (f) Preface p. 12. the Fathers would have been for a Bill of Exclusion to the great Reproach of all the Bishops who it may be had not preferred some Great Men in their own Opinion according to their fancied Deserts But alas All these Fathers Sanctus Gregorius Nazianzenus Theologus had but one Beard and what they said was not determining as Casuists but as Orators declaiming against Constantius for choosing or making of Julian Caesar which is nothing to a Bill of Exclusion or the Merits of Lineal Hereditary Succession of which the Father or the Fathers had no more Notion than of Guns and Printing or of a Senate consisting of 2 Houses and 3 Estates But Mr. J. hath shewn how much of the Serpent he hath in him in Writing with so much Guile and Venom especially against the Succession and Passive Obedience and in Winding and Turning the Words of Good Authors from their Genuine Sense to his own Purposes as that Famous Passage of Gregory 2 Invect p. 123. where the Father saith That they were destitute of all Humane Aid and had no other Armour nor Wall nor Defence left them but their Hope in God This Place as I have shewn p. 152. Bishop Montague understood of Free and Voluntary Passive Obedience and so did the learned (g) Scutum Regium l. 3. p. 143. Num ductoribus vobis opus est at habâ—tis Jovianum Valentinianum Valentem qui postea sunt Imperii gubernaculis potiti denique Artemium sub ipso Constantino artis militaris peritiâ celebrem vobis interea idem animus eadem mens quae Gregorio Nazianzeno De his Juliani temporibus loquens Nobis quibus nulla alia arma nec muri nec presidia c. Dr. Hakewell as every Man needs must who understands the History of those Times But Mr. J. with what Ingenuity let others judge hath (h) P. 94. cited the Words to signifie forced Passive Obedience such as that of the Papists hath been of late in England who undoubtedly are Passive for no other Reason but because they want sufficient Numbers and Strength But as all Sophistical Writers are apt to do so Mr. J. hath contradicted himself as to this and other Particulars An in the 26th page of his Preface where he shews out of Sozom. That Julians Army were Christians and in the 8th page of his Book out of Nazianzen That there were more than 7000 of them i. e. an indefinite great Number who did not bow the knee to Baal but repulsed Julian as a brave strong Wall does a sorry Engine that is plaid against it Now if Julians Army were Christians and above 7000 of them repulsed Julian with their Passive Valour as a strong Wall does a sorry Engine was it not a great Contradiction and great Disingenuity in Mr. J. to represent them as Few and Defenceless and their Passive Obedience as performed by them upon mere Necessity and Force It is usual among the Ecclesiastical Writers to set forth the Constancy of the Martyrs and Confessors by the Metaphor of a Pillar or Wall Thus the Christians of Lyons and Vienna in their (i) Euseb l. 5. c. 1. Epistle in which they give an Account of their Sufferings say That the Grace of God did fight in them against the Devil and fortifie the Weak and set up 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Firm Pillars among them who by their Patience and Constancy drew all the Assaults of the Devil upon themselves This I have observed for the sake of the Common Readers of Julian some of which to my knowledge understood that Phrase of Repelling Julian as a brave strong Wall in the Sense wherein Mr. J. perhaps designed they should take it for Active and not for Passive Resistance which puts me in mind of Hugh Peters who preached up Rebellion on those Words Heb. 12.4 Ye have not yet resisted unto Blood But to Instance in another of his Contradictions p. 21. he cites Eusebius for saying That Constantius Chlorus past over the Inheritance of the Empire by the Law of Nature to his Eldest Son Constantine Where by that Phrase past over he would have his Reader or else it is nothing to the purpose understand Entailed And yet p. 1. he cites the same Author again for saying that Constantine at his death gave to his Eldest Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which should be rendred his Grandfathers share and not that part which came by his Ancestors as our Author doth But now if Constantius Chlorus Entailed or Past over the Inheritance of the Empire by the Law of Nature to his Eldest Son Constantine M. how could he give it at his death to his Eldest Son Constantine the second I desire to know of Mr. J. or Mr. H. who is Fitter to Resolve the Question If a Man can succeed to the same Estate both as Heir by Testament and Entail The Admirers of Julian whereof some pretend to be great Masters of Reason might with half an Eye purged of Bad Humours have discerned these and all other Inconsistencies which I have observed in this following Answer but by some of them who took so much Pains to Recommend and Disperse the Book
prove the Roman Empire to have been Hereditary doth sufficiently declare it to be his own Sense that there can be no Parallel between the case of Julian and a Popish Successor but upon that supposition and that otherwise there can be no good arguing from Non-Election or Preterition to Exclusion and from no Right and Title to Birth-right or Inheritance which is the constitutive difference between an Elective and Hereditary Crown The Nature of Birthright and Inheritance which is not founded on the Statutes but upon the Original Custom and Constitution of the English Government which is an Hereditary Monarchy makes it debateable whether an Act of Exclusion would be Valid or Invalid And upon supposition that it would be Valid there are many Arguments which makes it disputable whether it would be safe or unsafe expedient or unexpedient and whether the Mischiefs it would bring upon us would not be as great as those which it would prevent But in the case of Julian there was no such matters for debate and therefore the sense which Nazianzen had of his Succession is nothing to us who are under another sort of Government and in other Circumstances the Consideration of which makes many Sincere and Honest Protestants who dread Popery and a Popish Successor as much as our Author zealous for the Lineal Succession and this distinction between the Succession and a Popish Successor makes it no Contradiction in the Addressers and particularly in his and Shr. Beth's Friends of Rippon to beseech his Majesty not to agree to the Bill of Exclusion and yet to be ready to hazard their Lives and Fortunes and spend that last Drop of their Blood in Defence of his Majesty and the Religion established by Law It is one thing to be for the Succession and another to be for a Popish Successor as it is one thing to be for the Monarchy and another thing to be for a Popish Monarch and there are many for the Former who as heartily pray to God to prevent the Latter as for their daily Bread But our Author who is an excellent Artist in Fallacies so words it in the beginning of his Preface as to induce his Reader to think that those who address to his Majesty to preserve the Lineal Succession do make it their humble Request to him that they may be sure of a Popish Successor as if they had consulted Gadbury or the Fates and were sure that his R.H. whom he means by the Popish Successor without an Act of Exclusion should certainly come to the Crown Nay so far are all those who are so tender of the Succession from having any tenderness for a Popish Successor that they dread him like the Plague and therefore would have had Provisional Laws made to bind up such an one and put him under very close legal Confinement in case he should be King But nothing would serve the other Protestants but an Act of Exclusion backed with another for an Association to which I am confident that Nazianzen himself had he then sat on the Spiritual Bench would never have said Content And truly to make the case of Julian and his R. H. exactly parallel we must not only suppose that the Succession to the Empire was Hereditary but that Constantine the Great had been murdered after a long Rebellion by the Aerians his Son Constantius miraculously preserved and restored and the ruined Church restored with him that from the time of his Restauration the Aerians resumed their old practises against the Church and the Monarchy and underhand helped Julian after he had left the Communion of the Church to get an Indulgence for themselves and the Pagans that the Church was almost ruined and the Empire much weakned by this Indulgence and other Contingences and that however the Aerians and Pagans were opposite in other things yet they agreed in conspiring against the Established Christian Religion even in the Senate where they always voted alike We must also suppose that the Aerians were generally Commonwealths-men that they were a very busie and dangerous interest of men against the Government that they took all Advantages against it especially when the Peoples minds were distracted by the discovery of a Pagan Plot upon Julians Apostacy that then they represented the Orthodox Christians especially the Bishops and the Clergy for Pagans and Half-Pagans that the Emperor had promised the discontented Senate which now I must suppose like our Parliament to pass any Acts for the Security of the Christian Religion which were consistent with the Succession that the Western Empire was satisfied with the Emperors Declaration and had made it Treason to call the Succession into Question that the Monarchy was weakly supported 〈◊〉 that Julian was but two years younger than the Emperor and not of so healthful a Constitution that the Empress might dye and the Emperor marry again that Julians own Children the next Heirs after him were firm Christians that in case he should come to the Crown he would find an Empty Exchequer and a poor Revenue that the Senate would never Supply him but upon their own Terms that he could not persecute without almost insuperable Difficulties that an Act for Dis-inheriting of him would be a very dangerous Precedent and of dangerous Consequence especially since the Western Empire had declared for the Succession that it would signifie nothing without an Act for Association and that an Act for Association would legalize a standing Army and entail War upon the two Empires and end in Arbitrary Government These and many more things besides the Hereditary Succession to the Roman Empire must be supposed to make the Parallel exact between Julian and his R. H. and to make a good Consequence from Nazianzens sense about Julians Succession in that Scheme of Affairs to the sense he probably would have had of it in such a Scheme as ours I am sure there is no Consequence from one to the other although his Expostulations with the Soul of Constantius should not pass for mere Rhetorick and if they must not I desire Mr. J. to say if they will not prove the Invocation of Saints If they must be understood as Rhetorick then they are as indeed they are poor Sham Arguments to prove either the Invocation of Saints or That the Fathers would have set aside an 100 such Titles as that of the Heir of England to secure their Religion but if they must not be so understood then do they not equally prove both Indeed were an Act of Exclusion the only way of securing our Religion were it certain that the Popish Successor so presumed must if he were not excluded succeed or were the exclusion of him not the most disputable way of securing our Religion and very hurtful to the Monarchy or were it not as the Excluders would back it with an Act for Association attended with as pernicious inconveniences as it would prevent then indeed our Author might have better presumed to determine what the Fathers would