THe CASE of his R. H. being such as will be made an Eternal Obstruction to His Majesties Affairs, and such as never will by Declamation and Harangue, but by cool Debate and sober Rea­son be determined; I do in all humility propose that there are some things in the Case, that must be granted, others that may be debated.

The Things to be Granted are these two,

I. That the D. of Y. hath by proximity of Blood an undoubted Natural Right to inherit and succeed, if the King (whom God long preserve) should dy without Issue; this being an He­reditary, not an Elective Kingdom.

[Page 10] A Quaery arising from hence is;
How far Positive Laws, made or to be made, do or may, re­gulate, limit and modify, or null and make void a Natural Right, such as Succession in an Hereditary Kingdom is a Main one?

II. That true Christian Religion, at least the Protestant Reli­gion, as it hath here been profest in England, doth not pretend to preclude, debar or hinder the Right of Government, or so much as allow Subjects upon the account of Religion to intermeddle; but presseth Obedience to all lawful Governors, whatever the Per­sons be.

The Quaery from hence will be,
How far Religion in any Nation, at least how far the Pro­testant Religion in This, being so interwoven with the Govern­ment as it is, may, in case of a Persecution to arise from a Successor, be concern'd in providing aforehand for its own security?

The Things, which may fall under Debate, are such as these.

I. Whether an Heir of the Crown may not, whil'st a Subject, by some Misdemeanor forfeit that Right, which Nature hath placed in him, to the Laws of the Country? and whether the D. of Y. hath not so done, particularly by having (as it is strongly pre­sum'd he hath) reconciled himself to the Church of Rome?

[Page 11] To this I ask; Whether the Heir of the Crown his being a Papist (if really such) at any Rate, do in Law cause a For­feiture of his Right? and then, Whether a Presumtive Crime (be it what it will) can by Law take away the Right of any Subjects Estate? and Whether it be not hard measure for a Prince to be denyed the common right of every Subject, when im­pleaded as a Criminal? which is, that Sentence do not pass upon him, much less be put in Execution against him, till he be Cited and summon'd to appear and answer for himself, or be otherwise Convicted by due course of Law?

II. Whether the very Constitution of the English Laws, as they now stand, do not in the Intent and Purport of them, exclude a Popish Successor, as One, who 'tis presumed neither Will nor Can execute them? seeing they do not allow a Papist to be so much as a Justice of Peace, a Church-warden, or a Constable?

To this I make these Demands,

Whether there be not a vast difference betwixt an Inferior Magistrate, whose Place is a meer Trust, and a Soveraign invested into his Office by Right of Birth? Whether a Di­strust of Him, being still but matter of Presumption, ought to extinguish such a Right? and Whosher that very Distrust too may not be satisfied by Limitations and Concessions a­greed upon with the Person concerned in the Succession? and Whether the Word, Honor and Oath of such a Person, ought not among Christians to be locked upon as sufficient grounds of Belief and Assurance? as it is usual in other Countries; where different Religions are professed; it being a thing hardly practicable to; lay any other Tyes upon a Soveraign, or to find out any Expedient of another nature, that may be con­sistent with Majesty.

[Page 12] III. Whether (without any consideration of Law) the bare Fore­sight of great Inconveniencies or publick Mischiefs, which may possibly or probably, nay must necessarily, and certainly will be­fal a People upon the succession of the Right Heir into the Go­vernment, be not a warrantable reason for his Exclusion, to lay Him aside as if he were not, and to set up Another in His stead?

Let another like Question be put;

If a Christian Prince coming rightfully to the Throne, and having for some time quietly sate therein, should after­ward Apostatize from his Religion, and persecute the Pro­fessors of it: Whether such an one may by Scripture or Law be expelled and turned out of his Possession? and, Whether the Case of Exclusion and Expulsion be not much-what the same? and, Whether the Humor of some amongst Us may not be too like that of the Israelites, when for fear of Oppression they Revolted from the Successor to an Usurper?

IV. Whether the Examples of our Fore-fathers, who have upon slighter occasions made several Breaches and Interruptions in the Succession, are not a good Warrant for Us at this time, who ly under such dismal and dreadful apprehensions, to do the like? and Whether this will not be a legal Exclusion, which is fortified and confirmed by so many Precedents, since the Laws themselves are over-ruled and determined by Custom and Practice?

To which may be rejoined;

Whether it were in the power of our Fore-fathers, or be now in Ours by any Law (for Id possumus, quod Jure possu­mus) [Page 13] to alter that form or frame of Government, to which we are Born and Sworn Subjects, and of which the Succession is a main essential Point? and by consequence, Whether it was not in them Illegal to lay aside at any time the rightful Successor? and Whether our following their Example in doing things Unlawful, can justifie the Illegality of our actings? Further, though the Body of the Nation might be excused in their submission to such as were only de facto Kings, and were not de jure so; yet Whether Those, who abetted and as­sisted such Persons to get into the Throne, and deserted and opposed the Lawful Heirs, were not highly Guilty; as in the case of King Stephen and Maud the Empress? And lastly, However Practice may regulate the Law in things In­different, and in matters of smaller Alloy; yet Whether an unlawful Practice be not in it self a plain down-right viola­tion of Law?

V. Whether, upon the whole, the Exclusion of the D. together with the Ʋnion of the Protestants, be not the most effectual, if not the only Means of securing our Religion, and keeping out Po­pery? and consequently in our Case, there being (as We say) no other Expedient, Whether absolute invincible Necessity, which knows no Law, do's not inforce us by any means to preserve our selves?

To this may be returned;

If the King, beside his Brotherly Affection, could be sa­tisfied in Law and Conscience (seeing that an Hereditary Kingdom is Feodum non alienabile, as the Civilians term it) to comply with, and to give his consent to the Excluding Bill; yet, Whether the Exclusion of the D. will not probably draw as ill Consequents after it, and involve the Nation in as great Hazards, as the Admission of him would possibly do? and, Whether the Uniting of Protestants (if it be only into Immu­nities, and not into methods of Worship) be not in effect to [Page 14] establish and legalize Schism in all its divisions; and by pro­viding a secure shelter for Romish Priests and Emissaries among our Sects (where no Test shall reach them) it will not prove a very likely Means, in time, of betraying us to Popery? most of those Sects in these late licentious Times, having been Influ­enced and Principled by that Party, who have made the greatest Advantages to their own Hopes from our Divisions: which by such a Comprehension, will be so far from being Uni­ted to Us, or among Themselves, that they will be Established apart and severally by Law, and pass in short time for the most considerable part of the National Religion? And as to Necessity, the last Refuge; Whether, let our Circumstances be what they will, there can be any necessity laid upon any man to Sin, to do Evil? and though Self-preservation be the great principle of Nature, whether it ought to be indeavored by unlawful indirect means; since our Savior tells us, that He that will save his life, in that manner, shall loose it? and Whether the Apostles Rule in all dubious and hazardous Cases, be not best and safest for Christians to follow, Not to do evil, that good may come thereof?

The Sum of All is this;

That this Case of Succession, though it seem directly to cast an evil Aspect upon Religion and the Protestant Cause a­mongst us, yet really and ultimately it resolves it self into a Civil Grieuance, as that which may touch Life, Liberty, Property, &c. by bringing in Arbitrary Power along with it, which Superstition is too apt to do. Wherefore in were to be Wished, That some of the most Learned in both Facul­ties of Law and Divinity might be consulted with, and re­quired to give their Judgment. For if Henry the Eighth, who was not over-curious to govern himself by other mens Opinion and Advice, did think fit to propose the Divorce of the Queen, who had been his Brothers Wife, to several Uni­versities, &c. and not to determin the matter without such a [Page 15] Consultation: How much more will it becom the Wisdom of a Nation to use the like leasurely and tender Care in so Weigh­ty a matter as the disabling the Inheritance of the Crown may prove?

May a merciful God, whose immediate In­terposal alone can heal our Distempers, and rescue us from those Dangers, we are too for­ward to bring upon our selves, direct and prosper the Publick Counsels, and may he ever preserve our Gracious Soveraign, whose Life will be our best Security: and may We, as becomes Loyal and dutiful Subjects, en­deavor to make his Life Comfortable (that it may be Long) by supplying proportionable Aids to our Necessities at Home, and by giving suitable Incouragements to our Alli­ances abroad: which as it will be for His Majesties Honor, so will it be no less for Our own present Security.