and defence; even that neither will look but a squint upon Religion; for a man of any Religion, and a man of no Religion, are equally bound to preserve their lives.  But I answer positively to what he would be at; that the Law of self-preservation impowers not a Subject to rise in Arms against his Soveraign, of another Religion, upon supposition of what he may do in his prejudice hereafter:  for, since it is impossible that a moral certainty should be made out of a future contingency, and consequently, that the Soveraign may not extend his Power to the prejudice of any mans Liberty or Religion:  The probability (which is the worst that they can put it) is not enough to absolve a Subject who rises in Arms, from Rebellion, in foro Conscientiae.  We read of a divine Command to obey Superior Powers:  and the Duke will lawfully be such, no Bill of Exclusion having past against him in his Brother’s life:  Besides this, we have the Examples of Primitive Christians, even under Heathen Emperors, always suffering, yet never taking up Arms, during ten Persecutions.  But we have no Text, no Primitive Example encouraging us to rebel against a Christian Prince, tho of a different Perswasion.  And to say there were then no Christian Princes when the New Testament was written, will avail our Author little; for the Argument is a Fortiori:  if it be unlawful to rebel against a Heathen Emperor, then much more against a Christian King.  The Corollary is this, and every unbiassed sober man will subscribe to it, that since we cannot pry into the secret Decrees of God, for the knowledge of future Events, we ought to rely upon his Providence, for the Succession; without either plunging our present King into necessities, for what may never happen; or refusing our obedience to one hereafter, who in the course of nature may succeed him.  One, who if he had the will, could never have the power to settle Popery in England, or to bring in Arbitrary Government.

But the Monarchy will not be destroyed, and the Protestant Religion will be preserved, if we may have a Protestant Successor.

If his party had thought, that this had been a true Expedient, I am confident it had been mentioned in the last Parliament at Westminster.  But there, altum silentium not one word of it.  Was it because the Machine was not then in readiness to move! and that the Exclusion must first pass? or more truly was it ever intended to be urged?  I am not ashamed to say, that I particularly honour the Duke of Monmouth:  but whether his nomination to succeed, would, at the bottom be pleasing to the Heads of his Cabal, I somewhat doubt.  To keep him fast to them by some remote hopes of it, may be no ill Policy.  To have him in a readiness to head an Army, in case it should please God the King should die before the Duke, is the design; and then perhaps he has reason to expect more from a Chance Game, than from the real desires of his party to exalt