Great and Weighty CONSIDERATIONS Relating to the D, or Successor of the Crown, Humbly offered to the Kings Most Excellent Majesty, AND Both Houses of Parliament.  By a True Patriot. 
May it please Your Majesty,  
HE is undoubtedly to be reputed the best Friend to his King and Country whom neither the Fear of any Worldly Powers can deter or hinder to speak, nor the love of any Temporal advantages can induce to dissemble the Truth; especially in such serious and weighty matters, as mainly concern the welfare both of Church and State. For, whosoever lays aside all the alluring Considerations of Self-Interest, and chooses rather to expose himself to the displeasure of a prevailing Faction, than see the Truth oppressed by any feigned pretences, though never so specious or plausible, he sufficiently demonstrates by the sincerity of his intentions, how Faithful he is to God, and how Loyal to his Prince.  
This plain and undoubted verity, (most Gracious Sovereign) encourageth me at present to offer unto your most Excellent Majesty this my humble Address, briefly comprising such Reasons, as persuade me so much to mislike many particulars of our present proceed, whereby most preposterously we endeavour to establish the true Reformed Religion in this Kingdom, by overthrowing the chiefest Principle and Maxim thereof; which is fulln epitomised in this excellent Precept, Give every one his due.  
I cannot indeed but highly extol the rare constancy of our Leading Men in the true Protestant Religion, and their fervent zeal to maintain and establish the same for ever; as also their extraordinary care and diligence to suppress Popery, and all Fanatical Leven: But I find their Zeal doth so far transport many of them beyond the limits of Justice and Equity, that unless they steer their course more conformably to the Divine Cynosura of all Humane Actions, the Word and Will of God, I am afraid we shall have ere long as much reason to blame them for the one, as praise them for the other.  
To establish firmly the true Protestant Religion, is undoubtedly a great and glorious action; but to establish it upon the Quicksands of Humane Policy, or upon grounds repugnant to the Laws both of God and Nature, is a thing, whereof neither I, nor (I hope) any faithful Christian will ever approve. Hypocrites indeed, and some factious Spirits of the Fanatical Leven, who make a Cloak of Religion to palliate their black Designs, by their seditious Pamphlets do daily labour to persuade the World, that nothing can be so Sacred, which must not be sacrificed to their pretended Religion. And upon this ground as the Rump-Parliament has Sacrificed the best of Kings so some fiery Zealots now endeavour to Sacrifice the best of Princes, your Majesty's only Brother. But the best and most conscientious Protestants do utterly abhor and detest such Antichristian attempts, as being wholly repugnant to the Ordnance of God, and to the fundamental Laws of this Kingdom. Neither did they ever approve of that Anarchical Bill lately framed by some turbulent Zealots of the House of Commons against his Royal Highness, wherein they peremptorily assume to themselves a Sovereign and Despotical Power of Deposing Princes, and disposing of Kingdoms, as their spirit moves them; and withal most impudently affirm, that this has been the ancient custom of Parliaments: Whereas its evident to all the World, that the Imperial Crown of England has always been Hereditary, and never depending on the Votes or Suffrages of the Subject.  
Nay, it is undeniable that the succession of the Crown was always hitherto held so Sacred and inviolable, that no Crime whatsoever, no attainder of Treason could debar the next Heir of Blood from succeeding in the Government, as Coke upon Littleton, Sect. 8. page 16. testifieth in these words: If the right Heir of the Crown be attainted of Treason, yet the Crown shall descend to him, & eo instant (without any other reversal) the attainder is utterly avoided, as it fell out in the Case of Henry the Seventh.  
But these cunning Politicians now will have a new model of Government; that so all the world may acknowledge our Omnipotent Parliament, (i e. themselves,) to have an Absolute and Independent power, not only over mean Subjects, but also over the Royal Family; nay, over the King himself, and to have power to degrade or depose them, as they please. For they are sure, that by whatsoever Law, Power, or pretence, the Parliament can disinherit or depose the Heir, by the same they may likewise depose the Possessor of the Crown; as the Rump Parliament, de facto, has done.  
To what purpose then should any true Protestant, or any man of sense, that loves either King or Country, approve of such an extravagant Bill; which Gilded over, like poisoned Pills, with the specious pretence of establishing the true Protestant Religion, is like to destroy the very root and life of our Government? Or, what (in God's name) do we mean by this pretence of Religion? Do we intent to outreach the Divine Providence, or do we despair either of the justness of our cause, or of the goodness of God? Do not we remember how the Apostle tells us, that evil is not to be done, that good may come of it? Or do not we know, that whatsoever God affects in goodness, he doth effect by good means, and doth not want our wickedness to fulfil his holy will? Is there no other way of establishing the true Protestant Religion, but by robbing those we should honour and obey, and depriving them of that, which God and Nature has bestowed upon them; I mean their Birthright? Far be it from the heart of a Christian, especially a Protestant, to think so ill of the allseeing Providence of the Almighty. For, what is this, but exactly to follow the footsteps of that monster of ingratitude, the wicked Jeroboam, who after God of his infinite goodness had raised him from nothing, and established him Monarch of the ten Tribes of Israel, yet was he so mistrustful of God's power in preserving his Kingdom for the future, that he thought nothing could secure it but his own accursed Policy? 1 King. 12.26, 27. Was not the true Protestant Religion settled in this Nation by the same mighty hand of God, that established Jeroboam in the Kingdom of Israel? Shall we then like that wicked King, so far despair of God's Providence in preserving the work of his own hands, as never to think it secure, unless it be established upon the quicksands of our own wicked inventions? Should not we rather be terrified at that dreadful woe pronounced by the Prophet Jeremy, Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, or his Chambers by wrong, Jer. 22.13. O insensati Galatae (as the Apostle speaketh, Gal. 3.1.) O foolish and timorous Countrymen, who hath bewitched you, that you should be of so little Faith, as to believe that a king of England, though the most zealous of Papists, can ever subvert the true Protestant Religion, or the present Government of this Kingdom, while we know him so far engaged by the fundamental Laws of the Land, that he can hardl move or stir, but with a concentric motion to both Houses of Parliament? Especially, while we daily see, how in our very neighbourhood, (to omit Germany, Poland, and other places) the French Kings ever since the Reformation, have been most zealous Papists, and withal the most absolute and arbitrary Sovereigns of all Christian Monarches; and yet all this while could not suppress the Reformed Religion there, nor hinder the overruling Providence of the Almighty, who has even in that Kingdom, notwithstanding all Popish opposers, preserved to himself a Remnant, not of seven (as he speaks of the Kingdom of Israel) but of seventy, or rather seven hundred thousand, that bowed not the knee to Baal, that is, submitted not to the intolerable yoke of Romish Traditions? And if God's overruling Providence has so far prevailed in protecting his people at the very dawning of the Reformation, and in causing Papists themselves become Protestants, notwithstanding all the Cruel Laws then in force against them, and all the opposition of a Popish; nay, of a most Absolute and Arbitrary Sovereign, who might add libitum, make severer Laws against them and their Doctrine: Shall we of little faith, be so mistrustful of his goodness, now in the very Meridian of the Gospel, as to believe that a King of England, (a King so far obliged by the fundamental Laws of his Kingdom, and by all ties imaginable, to be advised in all weighty matters by a free Representative of the whole Nation, that without this Representative he can neither repeal the Penal Statutes enacted against Papists, nor yet enact any, though he would, against the Protestant Religion) shall we, I say, believe that such a King, and in such Circumstances, though never so zealous a Papist, can induce or persuade his Subjects, who once received the full light and liberty of the Gospel, ever to submit to the Yoke of Popish Superstitions?  
Do not we remember, how in Queen Mary's time, the Protestant Religion was in a manner in its Infancy in this Kingdom, and yet how miraculously it was preserved, notwithstanding all the endeavours of that active Queen, and all the Penal Laws then in force against it: And now being in its prime, and so firmly established and fenced by Law, shall we despair of God's power to preserve it, unless we help him out with our wickedness? Certainly we must either believe the whole Nation is inclined to Popery, or the Protestant Religion is grounded on very weak Foundations, otherwise we cannot thus think it impossible, either to secure our Faith and Liberties so well established by Law, or keep off the Tyranny of the See of Rome from stealing upon us, under a Popish Successor, who can neither make any new Statutes in favour of Popery, nor yet alter the present Government, without the consent of a Parliament.  
It is an unwarrantable attempt, and a point without Example or Precedent, to disinherit or depose a Prince for not complying with his People in Religion: Neither can our seditious Pamphleteers most impertinent Examples any thing justify such violent proceed. They allege, that King Asa removed his Mother Maachah from being Queen, because of her Idolatry, 2 Chron. 15. But they might as well justify Cromwel's Tyrannical Usurpation, by alleging the example of Jeroboam rebelling against Rehoboam, and Jehu against Jöràm; for these Rebellions have no less, if not more, approbation of God's Oracles, (1 King. 11.31. and 2 King. 9.6.) than Asa's deposing his Mother. Such things therefore are recorded in holy Scripture to be read, but never to be imitated, (as we are not to kill ourselves in imitation of Samson, though after his death he is highly commended and by the Apostle reckoned among the Faithful, Heb. 11.32.) unless we have as plain a Revelation from God to do them, as King Asa had to depose his Mother by the advice of Azariah the Prophet.  
Likewise they allege, that the people of France rejected the King of Navarr, because of his Religion: But surely, they are either altogether ignorant, or wholly besotted and blinded, that make use of this example: For, (to omit that a vast number of Papists, and those too of the best and greatest Families of all France, then closely adhered to the King of Navarr, and thought themselves indispensably obliged in Conscience by the Law of Nature and the Principles of their Religion, so to do, notwithstanding the Kings being of a different persuasion, and all the Pope's roaring Bulls and thundering Excommunicatios' to the contrary, as the best Historians of them times do sufficiently testify) to omit, I say, this consideration, which should make us emulous at least of these Papists Loyalty: Do not all Protestants generally exclaim against those other rebellious Papists, who then opposed that worthy Prince? With what face then can we produce it as a precedent to justify our own proceed against his Royal Highness? Or shall we judge it Antichristian and unlawful in Papists to depose a Prince, but lawful and Christian in Protestants? O blind zeal! let us not thus foolishly deceive ourselves, but rather seriously consider that dreadful sentence of the Apostle; Thinkest thou, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and dost the same thyself, that thou shalt escape the judgement of God? Rom. 2.3. How do we think to escape the severity of God's anger and his just judgement, if we condemn and detest the Romish usurpation over Kings and Princes, and yet use the same ourselves, without the least remorse of Conscience?  
But the Pamphleteers blindness is yet more remarkable, when they ridiculously heap together, in the very front of their Sophistical and most unreasonable reasons, how such and such Princes have been either disinherited, banished, or put to death, whether by their own rebellious Subjects, or by other encroaching Princes; as Edgar Atheling was banished by William the Conqueror, Arthur Plantagenet put to death by King John, and the like: But the silly Sophisters never endeavoured, nor ever could justify these examples, or prove them either lawful or laudable. To what purpose then are such unjustifyable precedents produced by these factious Spirits, to warrant their own desperate attempts? Surely, they might as well argue that Christ was crucified by the Jews, and thence infer that Subjects might lawfully crucify or put to death their Sovereign, when and how they pleased. But such Antichristian and Fanatical Logic was never heard, much less approved of, until the Spirit of Belial revealed it to Oliver and his Rumpers  
For if we look back to the Primitive Church, whose practice should be a rule to our proceed, though they were zealous to admiration of the true Faith and Worship of God, (having the first fruits of the Spirit, as the Apostle speaketh, Rom. 8.23.) and though their Sovereigns for many hundred years were either downright Idolaters, or blasphemous Heretics, and withal most Cruel Persecutors of Christ's Church, yet in all this time we cannot find one Prince disinherited or deposed by his Christian Subjects, for being of a contrary profession, no, nor yet for his Tyrannical Persecutions: For they well knew how God commanded them, To submit themselves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake, (1 Pet. 2.13. and to obey higher powers, (though Heathens, as than they were) because there is no power but of God, (Rom. 13.1.) By whom Kings do reign and Princes decree justice, Prov. 8.15. True Christians were numerous in the days of Constantius and Valens, the Arian Emperors, and yet they never attempted to disinherit or depose these Princes, notwithstanding their Blasphemous Heresies. Many Christians well knew how Julian the Apostate, notwithstanding his external profession of Christianity, was a Heathen in his heart, long before he came to the Empire; and yet they never endeavoured to deprive him of his Birthright, but left all to the providence of God, whom they assuredly knew always potent, and willing to protect his own inheritance, the Catholic Church.  
And to come nearer home, when Queen Elizabeth of glorious memory, came to the Crown of England, the Protestants of this Kingdom were but a handful in respect of the Papists, and though the Queen was already declared Illegitimate even by her own Father, and this confirmed by an Act of Parliament, yet the Papists endeavoured not to depose or debar her from her Right for being of a contrary Religion, but publicly owned her as their true and lawful Sovereign. Shall we then show ourselves worse than the Papists, or more mistrustful of God's mercy? Is it not evident, that our sins are the cause why your Majesty hath no lawful Issue? Should not we than rather remove the cause by our serious repentance, than preposterously endeavour to mend the matter, by adding fuel to the flame, heaping one sin upon another, in robbing others of that which God and Nature has bestowed upon them? Surely 'tis a Motto better beseeming a Christian, Ruat Coelum, & fiat Justitia, than, Faciamus mala ut eveniant bona. And it is the best Religion that gives every one his due, not that which cannot subsist without depriving others of their undoubted Right.  
But what do we intent to do, or shall we shake off all Conscience, and neither regard our Loyalty to our Prince, nor yet our Oaths to God? Do not we remember, how in taking the Oath of Allegiance, we have called God to testify our candour and sincerity in pronouncing the ensuing words, I do swear from my heart, that— I will bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty, his Heirs and Successors, and him and them will defend to the uttermost of my power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever, which shall be made against his or their Persons, their Crown and Dignity, by reason or colour of any such Sentence or Declaration, or otherwise— With what conscience then can we subscribe or consent to that unadvised Bill, framed by some Members of the House of Commons against his Royal Highness, after swearing so positively to bear Faith and true Allegiance, not only to your Majesty, but also to your Heirs and Successors; nay, to defend them to the uttermost of our power against all attempts whatsoever, and swearing this with a Non-obstante to any Sentence or Declaration, whether from the Pope or otherwise. For surely, the word [otherwise] excludes all other Sententences and Declarations, as well as the Popes; and consequently no less excludes this ill-digested Bill of the House of Commons, than the roaring Bulls of the See of Rome: For (as St. Bernard saith) Nihil excipitur, ubi distinguitur nihil.  
Oh! but our great Politicians have sound out a new Comment upon these words; for, in effect, they tell us, that by Heirs here, we are to understand those that are created such, not by God, but by the Parliament: And that although by Birth one might claim a right to succeed in the Government, yet when the Parliament declares to the contrary, and annuls this Claim, he is no longer Heir to the Crown, and consequently the People are discharged from their Oath of Allegiance to him. A Commentum indeed, and a Diabolical Fiction, nay, the worst of all Jesuitical Equivocations: In the same Oath we call God to witness, that we swear in the plain and common sense of the words, without any Equivocation, Mental Reservation, or secret Evasion whatsoever. And after swearing in this manner, how dare we make use of this so palpable an Equivocation, and secret Evasion, which, if practised, should render all Oaths vain and ineffectual, and this purposely to colour our own perfidious and perjurious deal? We cannot deny, but that by Heir, in the plain and vulgar, or common sense of the Word, we understand such as by Blood (for Adoption is not usual amongst us) have greatest right to succeed next in the Inheritance, or to possess the same. How then can we; without grossly equivocating, interpret it of Heirs made by Act of Parliament, at least while the Natural Heir is alive, when we know it is an undoubted Maxim of the Law, Solus Deus Haeredem facere potest, non homo? Do not we see, that the worst of Jesuits could at this rate take the Oath of Allegiance, and glozing it after this new mode, understand by your Majesty's Heirs and Successors, those that should be declared such, not by King and Parliament, but by the Pope and See of Rome? Nay, could not he further allege, in our Grand Machivilians new Dialect, that although a King of England had right till then to Rule and Govern the Kingdom, yet when the Pope declares to the contrary, and annuls this Right, he is no longer lawful King of England, and consequently the People are, eo ipso, absolved from their Oath of Allegiance to him? What can our cunning Politicians allege against this, or can they show where the disparity lies, since 'tis undeniable, that the Words of the Oath can as well bear this Jesuitical Comment, as their own newfound Glosses? How then dare they deny the one, and use the other?  
Moreover, this at least must be granted: Whosoever is by Blood next Heir to the Crown, we are by our Oath obliged before God to bear him Faith and true Allegiance, nay, to defend him against all attempts, until he is disinherited by Act of Parliament. Whatsoever therefore we do against him before this Act be fully established, is a violation of our Oath. And since it is manifest, that this unnatural and abortive Embryo, unluckily hatched by some overactive members of the House of Commons, is directly against him, who by Blood is at present the next Heir to the Imperial Crown of England; it necessarily ensueth, that the very attempt of Voting and passing this unparallelled Bill, makes the Actors and Abberters thereof perjurers before God and the World.  
To this perhaps our grand Politicians will answer, that the Duke is not Heir, but only Heir Apparent, to the Crown, because (as Coke observed) none is Heir before the death of his Ancestor, but only Heir Apparent, upon Littleton, p. 8. And hence in their new Machiavilian Logic will enforce, that to disinherit his Royal Highness, is not against the Oath of Allegiance, which speaketh only of Heirs, not of Heirs Apparent.  
A ridiculous shift, and a most silly evasion; first, because we profess to take the Oath, not in any by-sense of the Law, but in the plain and common sense of the words, as all men do usually understand them: Wherefore although the Law, by Heirs, had understood such as succeed to their deceased Ancestors, yet since this is not the plain and common sense of the word, and men do not generally understand it so, it can never excuse us from a perjurious violation of our Oath. 2dly. Because, by Coke leave, this his observation is most fallacious and impertinent: For it is a manifest contradiction for one to be Heir Apparent, and not be Heir, as it is, to be a Learned man, and to be no man; it being an undoubted maxim, Prius est esse, quam esse talc. And the fallacy consists herein, that the word Heir, in its full and proper notion signifies either an Heir Apparent, who is such during the life of his Ancestor, of a● Heir by right actually inheriting, which always presupposeth his Ancestors death, or at least his resignation: But Coke most improperly restrains it to the latter, contrary to the common and usual manner of speaking, not only of most men in general, but of God himself in his holy Scriptures, where Heirs Apparent are absolutely and most commonly called Heirs; as appeareth Gen. 15.3. and 2 Sam. 14.7 Mat. 21.38. Mark. 12.7. Luk 20.14. and Gal. 4.1.  
Since therefore it appeareth by so many passages of holy Scripture, that the word, Heir, in its plain and common sense signifieth an Heir Apparent, and that we profess before God and the World, to take the Oath of Allegiance in the plain and common sense of the words, upon what grounds can we understand here an Heir actually inheriting, more than an Heir Apparent? Nay, since the words of the Oath do signify as well an Heir Apparent, as an Heir actually inheriting, what a Sophistical Equivocation it is, to understand it of the one, exclusively of the ot●er? Surely, it is no better, than if a Jesuit had Sworn before a Magistrate to be true and Loyal to the Government of this Kingdom, he in the interim meaning the Government, not of the King or Parliament, but of his own Jesuitical Assemblies.  
Let us not therefore flatter ourselves, or foolishly think that after so solemn an Oath, either, or both Houses of Parliament can authorise us before God to deprive our Prince of his undoubted right. And truly, I admire, if they, who so much insist upon the liberties of freeborn English Subjects, will ever acknowledge the Parliament, or any person whatsoever, to have this arbitrary and despotical power, whereby the Axe is laid to the very root of their greatest privileges. For if it be lawful for a prevailing faction in Parliament to deprive their Prince of his undoubted Birthright, how can mean Subjects have any security either of property or liberty?  
And besides, since it is an undoubted maxim in Moral Affairs, Illud tantum possumus, quod de jure possumus; and (as St. Austin saith) Quod non potest just, non potest justus: Upon what grounds should the House of Commons, nay the whole Parliament, Claim this absolute power, I cannot find. For its evident, that both Houses can challenge no other authority, but what they derive from their Sovereign, and the diffusive body of the Subjects, whom they represent: And no less manifest it is, that no King of England hitherto did (nor, in my Opinion, could) give his Parliament any power to depose or disinherit himself, or his Heir Apparent. And if your Majesty intends to grant them any such thing at present, (which, I hope, your Princely wisdom will never do) I remember your Royal Father gave the long Parliament greater power than he was ware of, which they soon after used, or rather abused, against himself, his Crown and Dignity. And therefore I say, Foelix quem faciunt paterna pericula cautum. As for the diffusive Body of the Subjects, 'tis clear, they neither would nor could grant the Parliament this extravagant Jurisdiction: First, they would not do it; for who can be so credulous as to believe, that any man so desirous of his liberty as English Subjects ever have been, would grant the Parliament this Despotical power, uncontrollably to dispose of his own, much less of his Prince's Life or Estate. Secondly, How could the Subjects grant the Parliament any power to deprive their Prince of his Birthright, against all the Laws of God and Nature, since of God alone, and not of the Subjects, the Prince deriveth his whole Right and Authority? For there is no power but of God, Rom. 13.1. By wh●m Kings do Reign, and Princes decree justice, Prov. 8.15. How then can the People deprive their Prince of that, which they have no power to give? As for my own particular, I must confess, I could never understand, that the Imperial Crown of England was disposable by Act of Parliament; I always thought the Liberties of English Subjects to be grounded on surer Principles, and that no power in this Kingdom could lawfully deprive us of our Privileges, or enthrall us to any servitude; whereas it's evident, that if an Act of Parliament can thus transfer the Crown upon whom they please, we can have no security, and may, according to such Maxims, first or last be brought under the Tyranny of the French King, or any other Foreign Prince, if ever the corruption or mercinariness of a Parliament should induce them to comply with a King, that should have a mind to sell the Succession of the Crown to a Foreigner, upon the security of an Act of Parliament; which, according to the Tenets of these Politicians, can give a just Title.  
But if we consult God's Divine Oracles, the Holy Scriptures, which undoubtedly should be the chief Rule of all Humane actions, we shall never find any Example or Precedent to warrant these unparallelled proceed against his Royal Highness, but may find several passages clearly against it? There we find how King Ahab, though absolute Monarch of Israel, and consequently needed no Parliament, but had himself alone as much power and authority over the Ten Tribes of Israel, as your Majesty and Parliament together can claim, de jure, over the Natives of England, and though this Monarch passionately coveted his Subject Naboth's Vineyard, and was of himself little inclined to Justice, yet he knew, that by the Laws of God and Nature it was altogether unlawful for him to deprive Naboth of his Vineyard; but if he could not deprive him of a small Vineyard, surely he could not rob him of his Birthright and whole Estate: And if such an absolute Monarch could not do this to a mean Subject, by what colour of Justice can the House of Commons, nay, the whole Parliament, do it to their undoubted Prince?  
Certainly, if God was so much incensed against Esau for selling his Birth right to his Brother Jacob, as the Apostle tells us, Heb. 12.17. how much (think we) shall his fury be kindled against our proceed, where not an ordinary man, as Esau, looseth his Birthright, but a most illustrious Prince, by Birth and Lineal Descent of so many Glorious Kings; and looseth not a Birthright to a small Inheritance, but to several Kingdoms; and that not made away by himself, but contrary to his will and all justice is robbed thereof by a prevailing Faction of his Inferiors?  
But if neither the unlawfulness of this desperate attempt, nor the heinous guilt of perjury thereupon necessarily ensuing, can move or deter us from it, yet let both our private and public dangers, and the sad effects inevitably consequential thereunto, withdraw us from such violent proceed. If it be God's pleasure, that his Royal Highness shall survive your Sacred Majesty, without having any Lawful Issue, we need not doubt, but he will endeavour to recover his Right by force, if by fair means he cannot. And in this case we may consider, how these three Kingdoms are most strangely divided into a numberless number both of Religions and Interests; and it is a true saying, Omne Regnum in se divisum desolabitur. And the strength of Protestants abroad is not very great, and their will to help us, if need require, I am afraid is less. But the Papists are very strong, and we may be sure the Pope will prevail with most of them to help a Catholic Prince, deprived of his Right for his Religion; and, no doubt, will not be backward himself in the Expedition. The French King likewise (who is now in a manner at peace with all the World, and yet must of necessity be somewhere in action, to give vent to the fiery Spirits of his busy Subjects) will undoubtedly be glad of the opportunity, and will hold it a glorious pretence to assist (though, I am afraid, most for his own ends) a Catholic Prince, excluded from his Kingdom for the Catholic Faith. And without all peradventure, his Royal Highness shall find enough even in these three Kingdoms, not only of Papists, and other Malcontents, but also of the best and most conscientious Protestants, as in duty bound, ready to take his part in so just a quarrel.  
How then shall we defend ourselves, neither united at home, nor assisted from abroad? or shall we expect to be miraculously delivered by God, of whose protection and providence we show ourselves now so mistrustful? Truly, I am afraid, we shall rather be miraculously punished (like Sodom or Gomorrah) for our heinous sins and daily multiplied transgressions, than any ways delivered from the just judgements of God, unless we refrain in time from our desperate proceed, and no more endeavour with such manifest injustice to hinder the order of God's Providence, or debar our Prince, because of a different persuasion, from his undoubted Birthright. For nothing doth so much exasperate the divine patience and longanimity, as to establish injustice by public authority, and to make that seem lawful, which the Law of God declares abominable. By what means then can we expect to escape his vengeance, if the great Representative of the whole Nation, which should reform and redress all transgressions of God's Law, do attempt, contrary to the express word of God and all justice, to rob their Prince of his undoubted right, and to make the Imperial Crown of England, which since the beginning of Monarchy in this Island, was never got but by Conquest or Inheritance, now to go by Election, and the greatest Vote in the House of Commons; thereby making the King himself for all ensuing Ages to be Tenant at will to every prevailing Faction in Parliament? I say, Tenant at will; for nothing is more certain, than that by whatsoever power or pretence the Parliament can depose the presumptive Heir, by the same they may depose the actual possessor of the Crown; as the Rump Parliament well understood. For the fundamental Reason, why a presumptive Heir to the Crown may be disinherited or deposed either by King, Parliament, or both together, is, because whatsoever is suspected to tend to the Subversion of the Government, or of the true Religion here established by Law, is necessarily to be removed, to secure the good and welfare of the people, according to the Ancient saying: Salus populi suprema lex esto. But that this reason has no less force against the Actual Possessor, than against the Presumptive Heir, of the Crown, is a thing in itself so evident, that I think no man in his wits, especially acquainted with the late intestine troubles and present temper of our blind Zealots, can call it into question. For, what, if the King himself be at any time thus suspected to endeavour the Subversion of the Government, is there no remedy to be expected? Undoubtly their is, say our great Politicians, and a good one too: For, our Omnipotent Parliament, (i. e. themselves only and their Emissaries, whose Religion is the bellows of Rebellion) the grand Jury of the whole Nation, and the public Inquest of all Grievances, is authorized by God (when the King fails) to use their absolute Power against all manner of persons, of what degree, or condition soever they be, to secure the good and welfare of the people, because (as before said) Salus populi suprema lex esto. And thus our grand Principle, as it is the fundamental Reason of deposing a presumptive Heir to the Crown, so it is the ground work of all Anarchy and Rebellion: It is the spring and source of all our last intestine troubles, which overflowed the three Kingdoms with a deluge of crimson streams; nay, it was the chief foundation, whereon the bloody Rumpers chief insisted in Sacrificing our Royal Martyr, as a Tyrant Subverting the Government and true Protestant Religion. But if a Prince so mild, so just, and so Religious, be thus Cruelly Butchered upon these grounds by a prevailing Faction of his Subjects, it is inconceivable to me, how can any King of England judge himself otherwise than Tenant at will to every prevailing Faction in Parliament, or at least think himself secure, while such principles are maintained by his Subjects; especially if they be established by Law, as in effect they would have been, had that abortive Embryo of the House of Commons received life (which I hope will never happen) through the influence of Your Majesty's Royal Assent.  
Truly, our greatest comfort in this desperate juncture of Affairs, after the unlimited mercy of our gracious Saviour, is, the assured confidence we always repose in Your Majesty's Princely Wisdom and Courage, and in the Grave and Mature Deliberations of the House of Lords, and of Your most Honourable Privy-Council; whose tried Loyalty both to Your Sacred Majesty, and to Your Royal Father, assures us, that neither the pretence of establishing the true Protestat Religion, (which of itself is sufficiently upheld by the mighty hand of God) nor any consideration of Temporal gain or Worldly interest, can induce them to decline in the least from their Sworn Allegiance and Fidelity to the Royal Blood of your Glorious Father, who so magnanimously deposed his life in defence of his Subjects Lives and Liberties, against the Anarchial encroachments of the Factious Members of the House of Commons in the Rump Parliament; whose footsteps some (I am afraid) no less Factious Members of this present House of Commons seem exactly to follow; pretending, as the former did, to secure and establish the true Protestant Religion, according to that Machiavilian maxim, Quoties vis fallere plebem, finge Deum: Whereas it is apparent, they do no more regard the establishing thereof, than the Rump Parliament did in Oliver's days.  
Yet this I say not (no, nor any thing else I have hitherto misliked or reprehended) of the whole House of Commons, much less of the whole Parliament: God forbidden, I should think so ill of that Grave and Reverend Senate. I know there are many true and well-meaning Loyalists in that Honourable House, who bear the Faith and Allegiance, as well as the name and power of the Commons of England. And I am of Opinion, that as the Faithful and Orthodox Bishops at the Council of Arimine, through their over zealous desire of procuring the peace and unity of Christ's Church, were by the specious Arguments of the Arians inclined unawares to make a decree against the true Faith and Doctrine of Christ; which unadvised decree, themselves upon second thoughts and more mature deliberations, seeing the unexpected advantages their Adversaries took by their well intended condescension, immediately recalled, and publicly protested against it: So these Loyal and well meaning Members of the House of Commons, through their excessive zeal of establishing the true Protestant Religion, were by the plausible pretences of some overactive Spirits, induced unwittingly to Vote against that Allegiance and Fidelity they Swore not only to your Majesty, but also to your Heirs and Successors; which over zealous Votes, I am fully persuaded, these same members, after due reflection perceiving the fatal consequences inevitably consequential to such proceed, would have recalled, had they sat longer, or will at their next Sessions recall them, as being wholly repugnant not only to their Sworn Allegiance and Fidelity, but also to Gods revealed will.  
But as to this, time will best discover the reality of all their intentions; and therefore I leave it to your Majesty's further consideration, humbly submitting what I have said hitherto to your most Excellent Majesty, and to your most Honourable Privy Council; by whom, I hope, these my Reasons and Arguments shall be interpreted with that candour and sincerity, wherewith I here present them unto your most Excellent Majesty. And so begging of the Almighty to direct your Sacred Majesty in what is most advantageous to the Glory of God, and to the Spirritual and temporal welfare of your Loyal Subjects, I conclude this last of June, with my everlasting Prayer, Vivat & Regnet in aeternum & ultra Carolus Secundus, nemini Secundus.