Fiat Justitia, & Ruat Coelum. Or, Somewhat offered in defence of the Imperial Crown of England. And its SUCCESSOR. In Answer to a SPEECH, pretended to be spoken in the Honourable House of Commons, upon Reading the BILL against the D. By a true Englishman.  
IT is not long ago, since a mighty Orator, Lawyer, Logician, and what not, most strenuously undertaken, for weighty Considerations, to overthrow all Law and Logic, and by tacking of inconsequent words (as he used to do Bills) together, to show the World how zealously and boldly he could speak No sense. This same Sir Formal Trifle, who in his Exordium very gravely tells his Auditory, there is a necessity of speaking their minds in a Grand Affair, that concerns the King and Kingdom, would fain make them believe, that he is a going to say somewhat for the King, (as he expresses it) and so to prove himself an extraordinary Loyalist, makes a Speech for the King, in opposition to the Royal Will. He knows very well, the King has often declared, That he would never do any thing that might hinder the Succession to the Crown in the right Line; yet still he must try his faculty in Rhetoric, and say somewhat for the King. Now either this kind Gentleman imagines, he can be a greater Friend to the King, than the King to himself, or else his Wit and Eloquence have spoiled his Memory in the Law; for there he may find, the King is no Minor, but that he has always years enough to speak for himself. But 'tis no matter what he means; let it be what it will, he must needs be a good Statesman, that utters himself, like a Spout, for the King and Kingdom; especially in a business of such importance, as the securing of Religion. And indeed this Theologico-Political Orator of ours, takes the true way to secure Religion; for he will not let any body enjoy so much as his Birthright, if it be possible, that such a thing may be dangerous to Religion. Now truly here we may take occasion to consider in this weighty Matter, what manner of Religion this good Gentleman would secure: Is it the Creed of Knipperdolling? truly I am not certain, he does not mean so. Is it the truly modern Institutions of Genevesian John? it may be so either, for aught I know; but that it is not the Protestant Religion of the Church of England, I dare boldly, and with the highest zeal affirm. I cannot tell what he supposes, or what the Spirit within him dictates; but, if his Policy have not o'ercome his Religion, he must confess, that neither the avowed Doctrine of this Church, nor any just and rational Interpretation of Scripture, can induce him to think, that Religion is to be secured by perverting the universal principle of all Nations, and acting contrary to the express Word of God. But indeed so zealous is this passionate Advocate for his Religion, i. e. his Estate, (for so he afterwards explains himself) that to secure his own Right, he will not be discouraged by the seeming opposition of any, that another has; no, though his own King's Successor, whose Orator he has lately made himself.  
My Lord Chancellor, he tells us, lately told them, that This was the Time; and he very wisely thinks, that he may make use of this Saying upon all occurrences, like Teage in the Committee, so he has but a Letter, he cares not who it's written to. And then besides that, he presumes to be as good a Politician as my Lord, (how arrogantly, the World may judge) and to apply those words (which his Lordship maturely brought forth) to the crude Notions of his own raw Brains; he goes on and comments upon what my Lord said, and makes his Lordship's Time (long enough for deliberation, and profound Thoughts) to shrink and dwindle into an inconsiderable, inconsiderate Moment. But truly a Moment is of a duration sufficient to speak all his Reason in, and if divisible, would lie at least one half upon our hands, ready to be employed in any other kind of Jargon. And now he has found the Critical Minute of action, he as judiciously advises not to let it slip, but with a dispatch as quick as Thought, immediately resolve upon his Counsel: For if you do not, you are under a great hazard, that your Children may curse you, nay, be bound to curse you, that's more. A strange obligation this upon Children, that they should be bound to curse their Forefathers for doing Justice even to an Heathen: For surely this Gentleman's Children (especially if they are not truly his) may easily come to know, that Right and Wrong were never restrained to this or that sort of men but common and diffused to all Mankind. No, they'll certainly consider, that there's no reason they should curse their Fathers, for not making a Law to disinherit an Heir; for it will be naturally suggested to them, that it might have been their own case. Oh! but the great good that follows upon this however unnatural Injury, is no less, than the securing of Religion. So then, we may do ill, that good may come on't. I protest, but that this Gentleman is a Member of the Honourable House, I should have taken him for a Jesuit, that had only disguised himself under a pretence for Protestant Religion. For I appeal to the whole House, if this be not a Jesuitical practice, to cut off a King, or (which is worse) dethrone him, and yet more barbarously let him live, merely because he is an Heretic to their Principles. He that relies upon such Maxims, makes it utterly impossible ever to establish any, much less the Protestant Religion. I admire what wonders this worthy Patriot thinks the D. can do when he comes to the Crown; can he make Laws, or alter the Constitution of the Government, without the consent of a Parliament? He does not think so, I am sure. Why then certainly, he must believe the whole Nation is inclined to Popery, or otherwise he could never imagine a Popish Successor to be so formidable a Giant as he makes him. But let him live where he will, in the City or Country, I don't doubt but he hears arguments enough, to persuade any reasonable Creature, that 'tis a difficulty to bring Popery into England, next to that of translating Rome to London. Can he think, that the King's being a Papist will be a just reason why the People must be so too? when so many and the same Laws continue in force against that kind of men? If we for fear of the Tyranny of the See of Rome stealing upon us, would take way the King's Succession, what kind of Elective Monarchy would this be, that for so many Ages has run down in a continued stream of Inheritable Blood, without any interruption? At that rate, when ever the Speech-makers in the House of Commons could make the rest fear any remote possibility of danger from the King's Successors persuasion (be it what it would be) the Crown must be straightway settled upon some other (Christian or not Christian, all's one, so no Papist) and so the right Heir be disinherited, for not serving the People with more reverence than his Maker. There's no man but would willingly enjoy the freedom of his Religion, and would hardly think it just to have his Estate taken from him for it; how then can any one say, 'Tis fit that the Descent of a Crown should be impeded for an opinion which was precedently taken up. If it were such a crime to be of this or that Opinion, so high, as to make a man liable to be disinherited, how could any one be sure of what he has? For be it once granted, that the D may be cut off from his Inheritance for his present Persuasion, than the reason will be equally urgent against any other as him. For whosoever comes to the Crown with a new or an old Religion, is as obnoxious to this Exception as a Romanist. The only objection against the D. that can possibly be made, is, that he would endeavour to propagate his Persuasion; who would not? who does not? This very Orator would, and does most vehemently press the House to believe what he says, and dares do't, nay, thinks he's bound in Conscience to do it, i.e. to settle his Religion by such means as none would do, but such a Person as is acted by Zeal and Interest, mixed with some Vanity and Popularity. The Argument would return too smartly upon him, if we should say, Therefore a Presbyterian may lose his Right, because of his being so. But besides the want of Reason, I find a great scarcity of common sense in what this Politician says, It will be utterly impossible to secure the Protestant Religion under a Popish Successor, unless you totally disable him to inherit, etc. How is he Popish Successor, under whom, etc. if he be totally disabled to inherit? And then the connection of what follows is so natural,— unless you disable him to inherit,— and the Tyranny of the See of Rome will infallibly steal upon us. I confess I cannot tell when, no more than he can: For I must tell him boldly, that if he means under a Popish Successor, it is nonsense: upon nonsense: For first he says, A Successor under whom, etc. should be utterly disabled to inherit, etc. and then after that, The Tyranny will steal upon us infallibly, because the Man from whom we ought to fear is totally disabled to inherit. But whether it hang together or no, 'tis all one, it sounds well enough, and looks like an happy Thought for our security: And who can blame a man for an incoherence, as long as he loves his Country: It may be he was in a Rapture, or a fit of the highest Zeal; and than one may be allowed to forget himself, having so great a respect to the Protestant Religion.  
The next consideration in this weighty matter is, that a King is not restrainable by Penal Laws, but, like Samson, can break through them; and therefore we must clip his Locks, that is, take his Crown or his Head from him, if we can possibly surmise that he would pull down the Temple. Truly this Gentleman would have made a better Philistin than a Protestant. Oh! but how can one blame him for his zealous fear, when he has lately seen Coleman's Ghost, dreadfully reciting a terrible Maxim, That the Papists would get the upper hand, if they stood upon an equal foot; and if so, (and so it must needs be, if Mr. Coleman's infallible Spirit said it) why then, to secure our own Lives and Estates, make sure of the Duke's, let him not have his Right, if ours may be endangered by suffering him to have his. This is a Maxim of ours (Mr. Coleman) and so there's a Rowland for your Oliver. I say, this is true Religion, besides the Policy of it. For look you, Religion teaches to secure Religion, and I myself have found out a way to effect it. The invention indeed is very new, but 'tis the better for that, and the more 〈◊〉 and though it seem a little odd at first, yet if a man do but consider, that Religion is concerned, why then he may easily imagine, that Religion can be against nothing that is done in favour of Religion. There 'tis then. We to prevent Massacres may do worse; that is, calmly and advisedly, by the Sanction of Law, take away a Prince's Inheritance, lest in his Reign there should happen a Riot, or an Hurly-burly among the People. Is it reasonable, that any King should Rule us, that will not promise to make Westminster-Hall of no use, or swear at his Coronation, that no Popish Priest or Laic shall ever molest, trouble, or annoy any of the King's Liege People with any Disputes or Controversies in or about Religion; or that any Jesuit, in any disguise whatsoever, shall ever set foot upon his Majesty's Land of Great Britain? For, Sir, I must tell you, unless it were so, I know no cause why we may not choose another man that can and will do so. Poor man! how pale he looks at the apparition of Coleman's Maxim? Truly though he pretends zeal for the Protestant Religion yet methinks this argues him to have but a very mean opinion of it; and I suspect him for a Jesuit now more than before, because he believes so steadfastly in Coleman's Maxim. Surely he could not give any great credit to Coleman, if he had those honourable thoughts which he pretends of the Protestant Religion, nor ever think the ruin of it so feasible, if he were so zealous for the securing of it. And now he a second time brings my Lord Chancellor before us, and by pretty allusions would make his Lordship's Speech as insignificant as that of himself. Now 'tis a Figleaf, and in the same breath, Leaf-gold, and to both these he allows some use and flattering Ornament, (more than my Lord can do for his Speech.) But he has a third Metaphor, which does my Lord a great deal of honour before he's ware on t; 'Tis like a Mother that has a froward Child, he says. And truly I am much of his mind; for 'tis indeed as froward and humoursome a Brat as e'er poor Mother had; it would have so many Toys and Jim-cracks, that she cannot possibly please it. Indeed the peevish Chit scarce knows what to ask, or at least is used to make his demands after such a manner that 'tis impossible the good Gentlewoman should answer his desire, but with some disparagement to Maternal Dignity. Yet still there is a necessity that his Requests must be satisfied, let them be what they will, just or unjust, against Nature or otherwise, all's one, Child must be pleased: And so the necessity of the Bill is Mathematically demonstrated. But that is not all, unless you can demonstrate the good that may accrue by it, (for there is a difference between the Bill and its Goodness) and so consequently make the World your Proselytes. Now to perform this mighty task, thus I begin.  
First, I grant, that there is a great evil that will ensue upon it, but not half so great as the good that may come by it: and therefore as long as 'tis no otherwise, it will be allowed by the whole Nation, and they'll easily forget a trifling ill (of taking the Sight of a private Prince from him or so) when they see it is a so far greater good that is consequent thereupon. And that it is so, is very plain; for we shall secure our Estates, and that by only taking away the Duke's, i.e. killing him; for to take away his Estate (according to this Gentleman) is to kill him, and worse, admitting that he is an Englishman. But it may be this Demonstrator fancies him no Englishman, since he went into Flanders, but that he has altered his Nature with his Religion. Truly that would be an excellent Demonstration, if he could make it. But I find he is a very young Demonstrator; for, if you observe, his Demonstration goes off in a bare opinion, and does not at all compel our assent. But if he cannot demonstrate so well, yet he can put Cases, like Littleton. Thus, if the King be a Lunatic in an Elective Monarchy) and cannot do the Kingdom any good, the Subjects may choose another as in the case of Portugal) therefore by parity of reason, if a King's Heir be so mad as o be of any Persuasion different from the People, (in an Hereditary Government, as in England) the People may choose another Heir to serve the Kingdom; for that is the main reason why he must be turned out, to wit, because he cannot serve the Nation. A Very fine expression for one that speaks for the King, and like a Lawyer too. Now as to the point of Law, it seems very strange, that it should be Rebellion to rise up against the King, and yet no offence to disinherit him. It was indeed Enacted in the 13th. of the Queen, That whosoever should affirm, that the Laws and Statutes did not bind the Right of the Crown, and the Descent, Limitation, Inheritance, or Governance thereof, should be guilty of High Treason; and not only of a Praemunire, as this Rhetorical Lawyer, in his merciful Ignorance, lessens the guilt. But the Act is expired, and no other since made that I hear of; if there were, I know of no man that would be so sottishly mad as to offend against it; for it is not the question now, whether the King and Parliament can politically, but whether they can Morally do what this Gentleman proposes, without any violence to Justice and Religion. The 35th. of H. 8. limits the Crown to Edward, Mary, Elizabeth, and their Lawful Heirs, because they were of Inheritable Blood; and for lack of such Issue, that then the King H. 8. might dispose of it by Will, or Letters Patents, for the avoiding (I humbly conceive) of strife that might arise, among those that should afterwards pretend any Right; but it was never designed by him or any other, that a Lawful Heir should be excluded from succeeding, nor is there any reason in it, let who will go about to demonstrate, opine, or say it. That Heathen, I am sure, would have made a better Christian, as he was a better Lawyer than our Orator, who more agreeably to the intent of all Laws, said, Fiat justitia, & ruat Coelum.   

A SPEECH in the House of COMMONS, Upon Reading the Bill against the D.  
WE have now the weightiest matter under our Consideration, that ever came before us, therefore we ought with the highest Zeal to speak our minds boldly for the King and Kingdom: for as the matter is of no less importance, than to secure our Religion to Posterity, so much the rather should we apply ourselves to manifest that we will not be discouraged by any seeming opposition whatsoever.  
But as the Lord Chancellor lately told us, This is the Time, so I must repeat it, That it is indeed the Time; that is to say, the Moment: which if we should suffer to slip from us, it may never be in our power to regain, and then our Children may be bound to Curse us: for I must tell you, That it will be utterly impossible ever to secure the Protestant Religion under a Popish Successor, unless you do totally disable him to inherit these Protestant Countries; and the Tyranny of the See of Rome will infallibly steal upon us.  
For to think to restrain a King under the power of a Penal Law, thereby to secure Religion, is no more than to bind Samson with Cords, who as soon as 'tis said, The Philistines are upon thee, will break them all in pieces, and carry the Gates away with him, and leave you open to the invasion of the Enemy; nothing therefore can be able to secure us, but to clip his Locks: For if the Papists do at this time design to subbert our Religion under a Protestant Prince, how much more will they design against us under a Popish Successor? What will not the Priests and jesuits undertake, to procure our Destruction, when they shall have the favour of the Prince, and are secured that the Laws and Statutes made against them, shall not be put in Execution? for 'tis Coleman's Maxim, That if the Popish Religion stood upon an equal foot with the Protestant, the Popish Religion would get the better, as they would manage it; and then our Estates could never be secure, no, nor our very Lives; and Protestants would be discouraged, and hardly dare to speak their minds; and Massacres may be as frequent and as great here, as they were formerly at Paris: So that 'tis clear we can never restrain him.  
The Lord Chancellor in his Speech tells you, That when His Majesty shall happen to die, we shall have a convenient time to settle Religion and the Nation. Let me ask you, Must we act with the Successor, or without him? if we act with him, he will never consent to any thing we shall do against him; if without him, we act as a Commonwealth, and that he will never suffer, but perhaps, will send his Guards, and turn us out of Doors, and what will become of us then?  
One Reason laid down to us likewise is, That it is impossible for a Successor to raise Money, but by Consent of Parliament: that point may be easily answered by us, There are many small Burroughs and Towns who choose us, where there are but few Voices; how easy is it to purchase those Votes by Money? if he should lay out Ten or Twenty thousand pound for the purchase, they would soon give it him again; and then the whole Nation will be ruined without Redemption. The Speech of the Lord Chancellor is only a Fig-leaf to cover our Nakedness, or rather Leaf-Gold to flatter us; or like a Mother who having a froward Child, and upon necessity must do something to pacify it, she gives it any thing she hath, but lets it keep it no longer than she pleases.  
Now I have shown you the necessity of this Bill, let us next consider, that the good which will come by it, is far greater than the evil that can ensue upon it; which I will thus demonstrate: If we give way to a Popish Successor, we give away Religion, and have Popish Tyranny for a recompense; And then consequently, our Estates will be taken away, and for an English man to lose his Estate, is worse than to lose his Life, since he must continue in perpetual Bondage, and be worse than a Captive slave, and shall be Priestridden every day; therefore in my opinion, it is far better for us to resolve to maintain our Religion, and to secure ourselves by opposing any violence that shall be offered to us from abroad, than to be in danger of having our Throats cut every moment, by those that shall be amongst us.  
Now let us consider, whether this may be effected by Law, or out of necessity. I will put the Case, That if a Prince be born to a Kingdom who is either Lunatic, or otherwise disabled to do the Kingdom any good, shall not the Subjects in this Case proceed to choose another who may preserve the Kingdom, when otherwise i● must of necessity perish? as lately in the Case of Portugal, they chose another to succeed, because of the disability of the former; And shall not we then disable the Duke, who cannot possibly do the Nation any service, his Principles being so contrary and destructive to the Laws, Statutes and Constitutions of this Government, as nothing but ruin can ensue thereby?  
Now as to the Point of Law, I must say, that as for a private person to rise against his Prince, is Rebellion; so on the contrary, when there is an Act of Parliament to disable him, and that upon such good grounds and reasons as we have heard read against him this day, we shall be justified by all the World in opposing his Claim; and we have had Precedents of this kind heretofore. And it was enacted in Queen Elizabeth's time, That those who durst any way dispute that the King and Parliament could not appoint a Successor, should be guilty of a Praemunire.  
FINIS.