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
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
can absolve a Man from the binding Force of an Oath which he hath made for the Interest of a 3 d Person is to give him what his Justice would abhor a Papal Authority over the Consciences of Men which Consideration I suppose as well as the Popish Practise of Exclusion made the great Man above cited say For my part I think there is more of Popery in this Bill than there can possibly be in the Nation without it for none but Papists and Fifth-monarchy-men did ever go about to Disinherit Princes for their Religion But some Men will say Why should not Protestants Disinherit Popish as well as Popish Disinherit Protestant Princes To which the Answer is easie by another Question Why should not Protestants Depose Popish as well as Papists have Deposed Protestant Kings I am not Conscious to my self that I have used the least Sophistry in Arguing as I have done from the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy against and Act of Exclusion yet Mr. J. hath the Confidence to call these Arguments taken from those Oaths (z) Preface p. 19. shameful Sophistry and the Conscientious Regard that Honest Protestants have unto them deceitful Prejudice which he saith is occasioned for want of distinguishing betwixt Actual and Possible Heirs But he is very much and I fear very Wilfully mistaken For the Faith and Allegiance in these Oaths is promised to the Possible Heirs when they shall become Actual according to the common Order of Succession or to speak yet more Otherwise thus Those who take the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy swear to accept and take the Possible Heirs for their Soveraigns when they shall become Actual according to the Hereditary and Lineal Descent of the Crown plainly our Faith and Allegiance is promised to the possible Heirs and is to be made good and performed unto them and every one of them when by the Providence of God they shall come to be actual according to the known Order of Hereditary Succession and thus for Example to use his own Instance The Excise is granted to the Kings Heirs and Successors i. e. To the Kings Future Heirs and Successors upon whom the Crown shall descend according to the Ordinary Rule of Succession and every one of them will have a Right to the Excise by vertue of that Grant when of a Possible he shall by Gods Providence who determines the days of Kings become an Actual Heir or have the Crown fall upon his Head by Lawful and Vndoubted Succession according to the Fundamental Custom of this Hereditary Realm A Third Reason against the Bill of Exclusion is taken from the Author of this Hereditary Succession to the Crown which is (b) Coke Littleton fol. 1.6 The Inheritance of our Lord the King is a direct Dominion of which none is the Author but God alone And from hence as the Learned Bochart observes the Kings of England have always stiled themselves Dei Gratiâ and the Royal Shield carryes this Motto Dieu mon droit Nay Queen Elizabeth who through the Dubiousness of her Title courted the People so much yet in her Declaration for Assisting the Netherlands printed 1585. speaks as it became such a Soveraign Princess in this manner Although Kings and Soveraign Princes owing their Homage and Service only unto Almighty God the King of all Kings and in that Respect not bound to yield Account or render a Reason of their Actions to any other but God their Soveraign and though among the most Ancient and Christian Monarchs the same Lord God hath committed unto Us the Soveraignty of this Kingdom of England and other Dominions which we hold immediately of the same Almighty God and thereby God alone who hath given it to the Royal Family for a Perpetual Inheritance and hath by his Providence ordained that it should come to one of them after the decease of another according to Birthright and Proximity of Blood From this Principle many good Men who are as Wise and as Learned as any of the Excluders infer this Conclusion That it would be Vsurpation without a manifest Revelation from God to Alienate the Crown from this Family to which he only hath given it or to preclude any Person of it much more the next Heir whether Apparent or Presumptive from succeeding thereunto This Argument is not so slight as perhaps Mr. J. will make it for if the Imperial Crown of England be Subject to none but God who hath given it for an Inheritance to the Royal Family then it is very reasonable to conclude That to endeavour to exclude the Whole Royal Line to prevent Popery would be Opposition to the Will of God This I have heard some of the first Form of Excluders readily grant and from thence I think the Opposers of the Bill of Exclusion may well argue That to Exclude any one Person of the Royal Family but most of all the next Heir upon the Line from the absolute Right or Birthright which God alone hath given him would be also to oppose the Will of God All these Arguments against the Bill of Exclusion are owned by the Ingenious and Loyal Authors of the (c) Third Part. p. 63 64 Address to the Freemen and Freeholders of England and were also own'd by no Vulgar Person and Scholar in the (d) Ib. p. 97 98. House of Commons and it is above a Week since and I am confident they will still own them without being ashamed of them and it will be no Disgrace to Mr. J. though he were a better Man than he is to follow as he speaks their New Light Nay all these Reasons against Excluding the next Heir from the Succession are own'd by the Three Estates of Scotland and would I am confident be owned by them were they to meet again I will set them down as I find them in an Act of Parliament Entituled An Act acknowledging and asserting the Right of Succession to the Imperial Crown of Scotland August 13. 1681. THe Estates of Parliament considering That the Kings of this Realm deriving their Royal Power from God Almighty Alone do succeed lineally thereto according to the known Degrees of Proximity in Blood which cannot be interrupted suspended or diverted by any Act or Statute whatsoever and that none can attempt to alter or divert the said Succession without involving the Subjects of this Kingdom in Perjury and Rebellion and without exposing them to all the fatal and dreadful Consequences of a Civil War Do therefore from an hearty and sincere Sense of their Duty recognise acknowledge and Declare That the Right to the Imperial Crown of this Realm is by Inherent Right and the Nature of the Monarchy as well as by the Fundamental and Unalterable Laws of this Realm transmitted and devolved by a Lineal Succession according to the Proximity of Blood And that upon the death of the King or Queen who actually Reigns the Subjects of this Kingdom are bound by Law Duty and Allegiance to obey the
their Religion His R. H. is much obliged to him for his New Titles His Majesty for the Honour he hath done his only Brother and Viceroy in his other Kingdom and the other half of the Brittish Bishops for being represented as a Company of Fawning Spanels upon and Apostate and the utter Enemy of their Religion This is a Doubty Hero to attack a King and a Prince nay his own natural King and Prince with Fourteen Bishops at a time Every one knows he alludes to the Letter which the Bishops of Scotland sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury to let his Grace and their Brethren in England know how much they were beholden to his R. H. for his Protection of them against the Churches sworn Enemies and I can see no ground for the Justice of his foul Reflection upon them for this Action unless Justice and Gratitude be Crimes If a Visier should do very kind Offices for the Christian Bishops and Religion in any one of his Masters Provinces would it be Fawning upon him for them to write to the Patriarch of Constantinople to acquaint him with it and desire him to give him Thanks Or to make the Parallel more exact Suppose that in the Western Empire there had been of old a Bloody Aerian Faction who held Episcopacy to be an Antichristian Usurpation and who had bound themselves in a Solemn League and Covenant to Extirpate the Apostolical Function and in pursuance of that Design had Rebelled against Constantine and by the help of their Brethren in the Eastern Empire had conquered him and then put him to death That 12 years after it pleased God to Restore his Son Constantius after which the Aerian Faction began again to assemble in Armed Meetings which ended in a formed Rebellion that after this Rebellion Constantius was perswaded to give them an Indulgence by the Benefit of which they grew strong and insolent till at length they presumed to beat and murder the Orthodox Clergy wheresoever they met them and more especially sought opportunity to Murder the Bishops many of which for Fear of them durst not live in their Diocesses that they came to be so bold as to Face and Skirmish the Emperors Souldiers in Parties that they assaulted the Patriarch of Rome in the midst of the City and afterwards murdered him on the Road in a most Barbarous manner and within 6 Weeks after his Murder universally rebelled that after this Rebellion was over Constantius sent Julian a Prince who for his Excellencies had been the Darling of the People before he was suspected of Paganism to govern the Western Empire where he declared he would uphold the Church as it was established both against Paganism and Aerianism that accordingly he cheerfully procured a Law to prevent both the Pagans Aerians from having any share in the Government Civil Military or Ecclesiastical that besides all this he was most Exemplary Respectful to the Bishops and Episcopal Clergy and frequently renewed his Promises to them of upholding the Established Religion Last of all that all his Servants and Attendants were Orthodox Christians that he kept two or three Orthodox and learned Presbyters in his Family to Catechise Preach and and Administer the Holy Eucharist and do all other Spiritual Offices among them as occasion did require All this being supposed let Mr. J. tell me if it would have been Fawning or Justice Gratitude and Prudence in the Western Bishops to send an Account of this most Generous and perhaps Surprising Goodness of Julian to the Orthodox Church and Clergy notwithstanding the general suspitions that went abroad of his being a Pagan to the Patriarch of Constantinople to desire him when Caesar returned to the Court to give him Humble thanks Nay I would desire Mr. J. to tell me whether upon this Supposition it would not have been great Impudence and Malice in a Private Presbyter so to censure the Western Bishops and miscal the just Civility which they shew'd to Julian Fawning upon an Apostate although his Apostacy was never yet proved and a mortal Enemy to their Religion to which he had been so great a Friend CHAP. V. Of the Behaviour of the Christians towards Julian in their Devotions and first of their Psalms FRom the Behaviour of the Christians in their Actions towards Julian he proceeds to their Devotions and Prayers where from one or two Examples he still draws a General Conclusion endeavouring to make what was done but by one man or once upon some special Occasion so appear as if it had been the General Practise of the Christians of the Roman Empire i. e. of almost the whole Catholic Church These Passages saith he which we have hitherto related were in common Conversation where the Christians might chance not to have their Religion about them but when they go to Church and enter upon Holy Ground or whenever they make their Addresses to God in Prayers and Praises there one may expect to see the Flights of their Self-denying and Suffering Religion There one may justly expect they should lay aside all their Animosity against Julian though he were their Enemy and for that Reason pray the harder for him yes s◠they do the wrong way they cannot sing a Psalm but they make his Confusion the Burden of it One would think after such a General Charge he should have brought at least an Hundred Instances to prove it but in all his Search he hath found but Two and the First of them which he sets off with so much shew is nothing to his Purpose because the Original words in the (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hebrew and (‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greek which ours and all the Provincial Languages render by Confound from the vulgar Latine signifie Confusion as it is put for Shame as we say in our Language Such a man was much confounded that is much Abashed and Ashamed or as the French ordinarily say Vous me donnez de la Confusion you make me Ashamed So Psal 35.4 Let them be (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 confounded and (‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put to shame that seek after my Soul might be rendred let them be put to shame and blushing that seek after my Soul So Psal 40.14 Let them be ashamed and confounded together that seek after my Soul to destroy it might be rendred Let them be (†) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ashamed and (‖) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 blush c. The Words signifie that shame of Mind and confusion of Face with which a man is affected who is become sensible of his Error or Misdoing and so the Christians of Ant. in Praying after Davids Example and in the sense of his Words for the Confusion of the Pagans prayed not for their Destruction but for their Conversion especially upon that Solemn Occasion when the Bones of the Martyrs had silenced Apollo the God of Julian in the Praise of whose Divinity he had written an (‖) Orat.
the worst Prince that hitherto hath been both Rebels are unmeet Ministers and Rebellion an unfit and unwholesome Medicine to reform any small Lacks in a Prince or to cure any little Grief in a Government such lewd Remedies being far worse than any other Maladies and Disorders that can be in the Body of a Commonwealth I appeal to the Late Rebellion which the Rebels called a Defensive War to verifie this Doctrine for there was more Blood shed in it in one Battel than in all the Tyrannies and Persecutions of the Nation since the Conquest and in the two Kingdoms there hath been more Christian Blood shed in Rebellions since the Reformation by pretended Undertakers of Defensive War than throughout the whole Roman Empire in nine of the first ten Famous Persecutions There is scarce any other Kingdom in the World wherein it may not be shewed by woful example how disadvantagious and prejudicial it would be to the Commonwealth that it should be Lawful for the People to take up Arms for Defence of their Liberties and Religion Civil Wars would be the constant Effect of such an Exorbitant Power because there would never want Turbulent and Ambitious Spirits to make the Populace Jealous of their Soveraign and by consequence ready upon the first Alarm to rise up in defence of their Rights Had the People of this and the Neighbouring Nation had such a Power of Resistance granted unto them this Island had been made a Theater of War almost ever since his Majesties Happy Restauration nay in all appearance there had been more Blood shed in the Land these 4 last years of our Fears and Jealousies than can without Resistance be shed in a Persecution of 20 years long Nay let us imagine a Popish Prince as bigotted in Religion and as sanguinary in his Temper as may be now Reigning over us yet he could not likely cause so much Ruin Bloodshed and Desolation in his whole Reign as a War between him and his Resisting Subjects would cause in one Year Wherefore it is plain that it is the Interest even of the People themselves that so great a Power should be in the Soveraign that none should withstand him or rise up against him and that nothing can be more pernicious to the Commonwealth in any Government than that the Subjects should have a Power of taking up Arms to defend their Liberties and Religion Chap. XII Wherein is shewed That notwithstanding this Doctrine of Non-resistance or Passive Obedience we are Secure enough of our Lives Properties and Religion ALL that I have hitherto said of Passive Obedience hath been to satisfie the Reasons of the Thinking and Sober Part of Men and now I proceed to propose some Considerations which may serve as a sufficient Answer to that Hasty Question which timourous and suspicious men are apt to make against this Doctrine saying Where then is our Security How can we be Safe from the utmost Tyranny and Oppression of our Soveraign if we may not be allowed to Resist To which I answer That I have already shewn that the Remedy of Resistance is as bad or worse than the Disease of Tyranny and Persecution and I furthermore add that upon supposition there were some Cases allowed wherein we might take up Defensive Arms against the Soveraign what Security could the Soveraign have upon desisting from Tyranny and Persecution that this Defensive Army would lay down their Arms Might they not say that he was not to be trusted having once broke his Coronation-Oath and that it was necessary for them to keep up in Arms to prevent a second Persecution Nay might they not serve him as the Army served our Late Blessed Soveraign and if they went about to do so who durst question them for what they did Perhaps you will reply that another Army is to be raised to reduce this to their former Obedience But how difficult would it be for an Oppressed Prince and People to raise an Army against another Conquering Army or if they did what dismal Consequences far worse than any Tyranny would follow thereupon Besides the Ruines and Devastations during the War Slavery and Arbitrary Government would naturally be the Event of it For if the first Army prevailed then the Injured Prince as well as the People whom they pretended to defend must be Subject to their Discretion but if the King and his new Army raised to reduce them prevailed what then will become of our Liberties and Religion which the first Army rose up to defend But perhaps you will object That you would have this Defensive Army under the Conduct of sworn Trustees for the People That they should be Disbanded as soon as they have reduced the Tyrannizing Prince But who shall see that these Trustees shall perform their Trust How can you be Secure they will not break their Oaths Or if they be Faithful to their Trust how can you be secure the Defensive Army will be disbanded by them Remember what hapned between Cromwels Army and the House But still you will object that to prevent these Inconveniences you would have the Government in more Hands than one you would not have one man only entrusted with it Well let it be so Let us suppose that the Three Estates in Parliament were our Governours yet I can object as strongly against this Either they will agree together or disagree If they agree how can you be secure they will not divide the Land among them 〈◊〉 in a short time govern us as Arbitrarily as the Sâ—â—â—ate of Venice under which the People really are what we call Slaves But if they disagree as is most probable having the Passions of Men Ambition Covetousness and Emulations then their Government will become uncertain and odious and the most popular amongst them will take an Opportunity to set up himself and when he hath mastered his Companions he must secure his Usurpation by Force and then his Pleasure must be our Law All these Inconveniences would apparently attend the new Model for the Association to back the Exclusion of the next Heir For either the Heads of it would agree or disagree If they continued to agree then the preposterous Heir after he was made King and his People also must be subject to their Discretion But if they should disagree as most probably they would then as fast as they fell out among themselves or grew discontented their Security would oblige them to revolt unto the Secluded Heir and help him to get possession of the Crown And in what a Miserable Condition would this Nation be during such a Civil War no Tyranny in all probability could be so Destructive and whether the Popish Prince or the Opposing Army at last prevailed we must be subject to their Sword In a word there neither is nor can be any absolute Security either for the Soveraign against the Subjects or for the Subjects against the Soveraign in any Government And therefore in the second place it may be a sufficient