they
submit. As for obliging them, (which our author would fain hook in for
an ingredient) let them be satisfied, that no more enemies are to be
bought off with places and preferments; the trial which has been made
in two kings reigns, will warn the family from so fruitless and
dangerous an expedient. The rest is already answered, in what I have
said to Mr Hunt; but I thank them, by the way, for their instance of
the fellow whom the king of Navarre had pardoned and done good to,
"yet he would not love him;" for that story reaches home somewhere.

I must make haste to get out of hearing from this Billingsgate
oratory; and, indeed, to make an end with these authors, except I
could call rogue and rascal as fast as they. Let us examine the little
reason they produce concerning the Exclusion.

"Did the pope, the clergy, the nobility and commonalty of France think
it reasonable to exclude a prince for professing a different religion;
and will the papists be angry if the protestants be of the same
opinion? No, sure, they cannot have the impudence."

First, here is the difference of religion taken for granted, which was
never proved on one side, though in the king of Navarre it was openly
professed. Then the pope, and the three estates of France had no power
to alter the succession, neither did the king in being consent to it:
or afterwards, did the greater part of the nobility, clergy, and
gentry adhere to the Exclusion, but maintained the lawful king
successfully against it; as we are bound to do in England, by the
oaths of allegiance and supremacy, made for the benefit of our kings,
and their successors? the objections concerning which oath are fully
answered by Dr Hicks, in his preface to Jovian; and thither I refer
the reader.

They tell us, that what it concerns protestants to do in that case,
enough has been heard by us in parliament debates.

I answer, that debates coming not by an act to any issue, conclude,
that there is nothing to be done against a law established, and
fundamental of the monarchy. They dare not infer a right of taking up
arms, by virtue of a debate or vote, and yet they tacitly insinuate
this. I ask them, what it does concern protestants to do in this case,
and whether they mean anything by that expression? They have hampered
themselves before they were aware; for they proceed in the very next
lines to tell us, they believe "the crown of England being hereditary,
the next in blood have an undo