A PLEA TO THE DUKE's Answers.  
Fiat justitia, ruat Coelum. Anglice, The Bill in the Honourable the late House of Commons against the D. was their Duty.  
WHoop, Weighty Considerations, & c.! what noise is this? the Devil's, it's doubt besides' Adhererents, Heirs and Successors disturbed what's the matter?  
Obj. Such a Bill as this in the House of Commons against the D!  
Ans. Wellow day; but what then?  
Obj. Against God's express Word.  
Ans. Is that it? pity, but why, how, or where?  
Obj. We must trust and rely only on God to save us.  
Ans. Oh, oh; but must not we endeavour, use the means, etc. as God has enabled us? the Husbandman sows, the Mariner sets sail; must we tempt God, be stupid, supine, expose ourselves, seek giving you an occasion of, & c?  
Obj. Indeed Asa deposed Mahacah, because of'r Idolatry; Jehu dethroned Joram, and Jeroboam Rehoboam; but these are Examples only to read, not imitate.  
Ans. Thus you tell us not yourselves. And see 1 King. c. 11. the Prophet A●hijah told Jeroboam, Jehovah says it, He will rend this Kingdom, and give thee ten Tribes; and in 1 King. 12. God himself owns what Jeroboam did as his own Act, in dispossessing King Rehoboam, and making himself King. The Prophets in God's Name anointed Jehu King over Israel, with special direction to destroy the King and's wholeLine, 2 King. 9 And when Jehu had done so, God approves of it, c. 10. v. 30. And in 2 Chron. 15. when v. 16. says Asa did so, next v. says, Asa was an upright man [and that too] all's life.  
Obj. Many Papists in France assisted the Protestant King of Navarre, to be theirs.  
Ans. More, an hundred to one opposed him, as appears by the History.  
Obj. We swearing Faith and true Allegiance to the King, his Heirs and Successors, do therefore to the D. as being Heir and any thing we attempt against him, is against our Oath. For he's Heir in common sense that's next person likely to inherit. Cook says▪ he's Heir apparent, and its nonsense to say Heir apparent is not an Heir. And so doth the Scripture too call him Heir, Gen. 15.13. 2 Sam. 14.7. Mat. 21.38. Mark 12.17 Luk. 20 14. Gal. 4.1.  
Ans. Fine! here's a whim, here's wit with a witness: but poor Devil. its pity, any one, though as blind as with thy Zeal, but reading the Stat. [3 Jac. 4.] may plainly see the words nor sense in any wise warrant thy Case, if yet he were Heir, as thou'dst have him. And besides, he's no Heir. Gen. says only— shall be my Heir [which proves he is not] In Sam and Gall. the Father's dead when Son's called so.  
Obj. Oh but what say Matth. Mark and Luke?  
Ans. They all telling the same story, say, the Rabble in the Vineyard called the Son Heir, his Father yet alive; but now was he Heir, those illiterate fellows only chancing to call him so? Great, wise, and learned Abraham said, Lot was his Brother as he was Son of his Brother, and's Wife Sarah was his Sister, as being's Brother's Daughters; what now, is it commonly taken with us that our Brother's Son is our Brother, & c? In Civil Law, no body's said Heir but when succeeds his friend in's estate: in our Law he's said Heir which succeeds by right of blood; thus, till he succeeds, he's no Heir and he can't succeed till his friend's death. It's a maxim, solus Deus haeredem sacere potest; that is, only death makes Heirs. But for example, By agreement I am to pay your Heirs money, or they me: does any body expect any payment during your life? is it Jesuitical to say no? sure the sense is plain. Heir apparent is only and peculiarly a Law-term, little used, barbarous, improper and absurd enough. Heir apparent is at best an Heir but as the Logician's posse is esse. Now they'll say, suppose thee never so honest a man in esse, yet thou art worst of Knaves, etc. in posse; while, methinks, it's hard to call thee worst of Knaves, etc. because thou art so in posse. Besides, the Law makes distinctions and degrees of Heirs, as proximi, the Sons, remotiores, Nephews. etc. and last Brothers. Who ever heard a Brother (which is of so remote a degree) called Heir apparent? Lastly, how wild is this? If we were bound as aforesaid to the D. because he may be Heir; so there being thousands may be Heirs, we are bound to them too, though so much as know'm not. Thus, are we bound to serve God and Mammon too? then poor we! Ecquis possit servire ducbus? Thus Faith, Allegiance, and Defence of and to a Subject, yea Subjects, God knows how many which was never heard of, and yet without any salvo to the King too; which is so much against Law, See Co. L. 65. monstr. horrend. & c! the D. may as well pretend to have a present share of all the Taxes granted by Parliament to the King, his Heirs and Successors.  
Obj. Yet thus, however contrary to's will, and all justice, he's rob by a Faction of's inferiors.  
Ans. The D.'s a Man, and a Subject as well, and no more than the meanest person in the Kingdom; he's thus debarred only by an Act of King, Lords and Commons [for otherwise he can't be] what Parliament does, he's by all Laws in all places presumed as he is a Subject, consenting to, what is he rob, when by's consent? by's inferiors, when by King, & c?  
Obj. As D. may be served thus, the King may be dethroned too, neither is any body safe of any thing.  
Ans. It's absolutely necessary and essential in all Government, that a Power be lodged somewhere, or somehow [as the Israelites gave the Power to Moses] over all Parties, their Lives, Estates, and every thing; else Justice must fail, Faults go unpunished, and Deserts be unrewarded, nor could any thing otherwise be improved or maintained for the common Good, or private either, but all must necessarily fall, and run to Confusion, etc. This Power with us is in the Parliament, and sure placed, the best it can be. Thus it's either in ourselves, or since we can't be all at Parliament, we choosing others to do there▪ what we could if were there ourselves, as we do choosing Parliament-Men, it's in our Representatives these Men we thus entrust, together with the King and Lords. Now suppose the Skies may fall, and such Act as the Objection speaks of should come, yet since before any such Act can be against the King. He must give His own Consent Himself to it; and before against any other, it must be with this other person's consent immediately, or by consent of whom he has chose to represent him, and give's consent. Can we say any Act does us wrong, any of us? No more than that a Man's injured and displeased with his own goodwill and liking, absurd, and against the most undeniable Maxim, Volenti non sit injuria. Furthermore. How contrary to Religion, Justice, or Law, any wise? It's well enough known, every King at first was created and elected under Laws and Conditions, by and with the free general Votes of the people, subjecting themselves to Him, as some Notable Man amongst them for Equity and Justice, to govern them, and defend their Laws, Liberties, Persons and Estates, Con●●rru. in c. 1. pract qq. n. 4. Ludovic. Velazquez de Avendam. l. 40. Taur. gloss. 1. n. 9 Chrys. Hom. 7. ad pop. Antioch. Fortese. de laud. etc. c. 13, 14. so Bodinus in several places. And Hom. l. 7. Odyss. calls a Kingdom a Reward of Virtue and Merit, of the people's giving. Thus a King is not for's own, but's Subjects sake only: and we have in truth rather title, etc. to Him, than He to us: see 1 Sam. 9.16. 1. Kings 10.9. Thus when Kings themselves be ill ones, God not only approves of their removal, but even himself does it, etc. 2 Kings 24.2. etc. 2 Cr. c. 10. & 11. 1 Kings 11. etc. c. 16.14, 15. c. 21. c. 16.4, 5, 6. 2 Kings 9.25. Job 34.30. Sed praestat cu il ela, quam medela; Care beforehand's, better than Cure after. God commands choose a King; but not according to that which Man respects, [viz. the outward circumstances] but the heart, 1 Sam. 16.7. see the like in several places. Kingdoms are what but politic things; then, under the Government of the Laws: Hence some be Hereditary, others Elective, according to the Politic Customs thereof, and with as much difference in the methods, etc. of Succession, and the like of Elections▪ as there is between Succession and Election; which could never be, if Title to Crowns were beyond, or not under the power of the Laws of the people. Elective are the Empire of Germany, Kingdom of Poland, Hungary, Bohemia, [when Kingdoms] Æthiopia, of the Goths, of the Tartars▪ of Arrogoza, Lacaedemonia, Tratia, Traprobana; Fez, and some say Spain, de Jure; so France will have no Queen, etc. and keep us out. Why may not then, all considered, our King, Lords and Commons, the whole Nation (Huic ego nec metas rerum nec tempora pono. Virgil) make another Successor, and not the D. especially not taking the Crown out of the Line, as David did? He, a Man after God's own Heart, in like case, made not his next Heir, but Solomon, so far distant, his Successor, 1 Kings 1.30. etc. 1 Cr. 28. and likewise did the people make Hazariah King, 2 Kings 14.21. were to have made Roboam King, 1 Kings 12.1. and did make Jeroboam. v. 20. and all this without God's contradiction, yea, with his approbation; besides so many other like Examples everywhere, though here, King and people did it either of them, and we do it altogether.  
It may be Objected, There being a general Law or Custom for Kingdoms going by Succession, people can't choose a King Conarru, Archid, Gregor. Lup. and others; But what, say they, is the Reason? only 'cause the continuance of such custom, etc. implies the people's consent to it.  
Truly the Reasons of our Adversaries, methinks, implicitly acknowledge the power of altering the Succession; (Huic ego nec tempora pono) the like has oft been practised in England; see the Statures, 25 H. 8.22. 26 H. 8.2. 28 H. 8.7▪ 16 35 H. 8.1. 1 Ed. 6.12. 1 Mar. 1. 1 El. 3. 13 El. 1. nothing more plain! What impudence would cast dirt in the face of so many of our Reverend Ancestors, and say they did they knew not what, or they could not do what they said they could, after the Succession? The very words of the Statute of 13 El. cap. 1. are:  It shall be High Treason, to affirm the Laws and Statutes do not bind the Right of the Crown, and the Descent, Limitation, Inheritance, or Governance thereof, 
Note, this part of the Act is in force yet, against our Pamphleteer, which says it is not, and the rest is only expired as relating but to the Queen. Nay, is it not a Maxim amongst Papists, Not only that the Pope may at his pleasure depose Kings, and dispose of Crowns; but further, That the People may ever choose a King, when He should else be an Heretic, & c? so Frater Alfonsus de Castro. so Didac Septiman. in Cathol. Inst. T. 46. n. 75. Then if the D. be a Papist, as none deny him, now; he's a Heretic as to or from us, and what shall we do, not do by the Papists, as they would by us? Nec Lex est justior ulla quam necis artifices arte perire suâ. Withal consider his Principles, All be Heretics resist the Authority of the Church of Rome [which is as large as the Infallible Pope pleases] or that differ with it in any point of Faith; Fides Haereticis non adhibenda, He's to keep neither Word or Oath with us; nor is it any matter hence, what he says or swears to us; it's not only lawful and conscientious to kill us, etc. but a duty. Like this, the late Papist French King, raising and encouraging that dreadful Massacre of Protestants at Paris, etc. and thousands of such like Examples. Then consider's humour so fierce, revengeful, and resolute; but I'll say no more: Who knows not how improper it is, to make a Wolf, a Shepherd? Who's so thoughtless, as not see under a Papist King, how our Religion is hazarded all the World over? first lost here, consequently with ease elsewhere. How all our Lives, Estates, and Souls be hazarded, sure nothing can be more; some for fear, some by force, and others to fa●ter, will or must comply with him, or do worse, if possible. An ill King, saith Solomon, over the poor People, is like a roaring Lion, and a Bear seeking's prey, Prov. 28.15. In fine, Is it not better one James live, but like the greatest Prince of the world, in stead of actually being King, than Three whole Kingdoms, together with several other Nations, should utterly perish? Nay, Is it not better to pull down one House to save, than let a City perish? Nay, Had you not rather cut off any of your own Members, than hazard your whole Body? Res ipsa loquitur; The thing speaks itself.  
See other Papers wrote before to this effect; what in any is for the D. is answered all here; all the rest, is here omitted as needless to repeat.  
FINIS.