In the next place, pray observe how hypocritically the considerer puts this question, viz.:

Whether Protestant religion was not settled in this nation by the same mighty hand of God that established Jeroboam in the kingdom of Israel?' And then adds, 'Whether we, like that wicked king, should so far despair of God's providence in preserving the work of his own hands, as never to think it safe, unless it be established on the quicksands of our own wicked inventions? viz. the Bill against the Duke.

And, throughout his whole discourse, he frequently calls all care of preserving our religion, a mistrust of God's Providence; and on that score calls out to the nation, 'O ye of little faith,' &c. Now I will allow him, That the least evil is not to be done, that the greatest and most important good may ensue; but that the bill for disabling the duke is highly justifiable both by the laws of God, and constitu tion of our government, I think by my former discourse I have left no room to doubt; and, the considerer having scarce attempted to prove the contrary, it is preposterously done of him, to give us his use of reproof, before he has cleared his doctrine.

However, I owe him many thanks for putting me in mind how Protestant religion was first established here in England; it was, indeed, by the mighty hand of God influencing the publick councils of the nation, so that all imaginable care was taken both by prince and people, to rescue themselves from under the Romish yoke; and, accordingly, most excellent laws were made against the usurpation and tyranny of that man of sin*. Our noble ancestors, in those days, did not palliate a want of zeal for their religion, with a lazy pretence of trusting in God's providence; but, together with their prayers to, and affiance in heaven, they joined the acts of their own duty, without which, they very well knew, they had no reason to expect a blessing from it.

But now be pleased to take notice of the candor of this worthy considerer: nothing less will serve his turn, than the proving all the voters for the bill guilty of the highest perjury: For,' says he,' they have all sworn in the oath of allegiance, to bear faith and true allegiance to his majesty, his heirs and successors: but the duke is heir, ergo, &c.' A very hopeful argument, indeed! But what if it should happen (as it is neither impossible, nor very improbable to imagine it) that the next heir to the crown should commit treason, and conspire the death of the present possessort, and for this treason should not only be attainted by parliament, but executed too! pray, Mr. Considerer, would the parliament, in this case, be guilty of murder and perjury? I am confident you will not say it. If, therefore, the next heir become obnoxious to the government in a lower degree, why may not the same authority proportion the punishment, and leave him his life, but debar him of the succession? This I say, only to shew the absurdity of his argument.

My answer is this: No man can bear allegiance to two persons at the same time, nor can allegiance be ever due to a subject; and,

therefore, my obligation by the word heir, in the oath, does not commence till such heir has a present right to, or actual possession of the crown; which, if he never attains, either by reason of death, or any other act that incapacitates and bars him, then can my obligation to him by the word heir in the oath never have a beginning.

But, besides all this, it cannot be denied but that Mr. Considerer's doctrine does bring great inconveniences on succession; for the next heir, by his way of arguing, is let loose from all the restrictions and penalties of human laws, and has no other ties upon him not to snatch the crown out of the hands of the possessor, than purely those of his own conscience; which is worthy Mr. Considerer's highest consideration.

I shall only take notice of one objection more, and then conclude, fearing I have too much trespassed on your patience already.

'It is very hard, says he, that a man should lose his inheritance, because he is of this or that persuasion in matters of religion.'

And, truly, gentlemen, were the case only so, I should be intirely of his mind. But, alas! Popery, whatever Mr. Considerer is pleased to insinuate, is not an harmless innocent persuasion of a number of men differing in matters relating to Christian religion; but is really and truly a different religion from Christianity itself. Nor is the inheritance, he there mentions, an inheritance only of Black Acre and White Acre, without any office. annexed, which requires him to be par officio: But the government and protection of several nations; the making of war and peace for them; the preservation of their religion; the disposal of publick places and revenues; the execution of all laws; together with many other things of the greatest importance, are, in this case, claimed by the word inheritance; which, if you consider, and at the same time reflect upon the enslaving and bloody tenets of the Church of Rome, more particularly the hellish and damnable conspiracy those of that communion are now carrying on against our lives, our religion, and our government; I am confident you will think it as proper for a wolf to be a shepherd, as it is for a papist to be the defender of our faith, &c.

The old gentleman had no sooner ended his discourse, but I returned him my hearty thanks for the trouble he had been pleased to give himself on this occasion; and I could not but acknowledge, he had given me great satisfaction in that affair; what it will give thee, Charles, I know not. I am sure I parted with him very melancholy, for having been a fool so long. Adieu.

I am thy affectionate,

J. D.

Alluding to the possibility that King Charles the Second might have a legitimate child befo

he died.

ROBIN CONSCIENCE;

OR,

CONSCIONABLE ROBIN:

HIS PROGRESS THROUGH COURT, CITY, AND COUNTRY,

With his bad Entertainment at each several Place, &c.

Conscience, quoth one, be gone with speed,
The court few of thy name doth breed,
We of thy presence have no need,
be walking.

Thou tell'st us of our pride and lust,
Which, spight of thee, we follow must,
So out of court was Conseience thrust;
no talking.

Thus banish'd, from the court I went
To Westminster incontinent,

Where I, alas! was sorely shent
for coming.

The lawyers did against me plead:
'Twas no great matter, some there said,
If Conscience quite were knock'd in th' head.
Then running

From them I fled with winged haste,
They did so threaten me to baste,
Thought, it was vain my breath to waste
in counsel.

For lawyers cannot me abide,

Because for falshood I them chide, And he, that holds not on their side, must down still.

Unto the city hied I then,

To try what welcome there trades-men
Would give poor Robin Conscience, when
I came there.

The shop-keepers, that use deceit,
Did come about me and did threat,
Unless I would be gone, to beat

me lame there.

And every one, both high and low,
Held Conscience as a mortal foe,
Because he doth ill vices show
each minute.

Therefore the city in uproar
Against me rose, and me so tore,
That I'm resolved, I'll never more
come in it.

On Friday I to Smithfield went,
Where being come incontinent,
The horse-coursers, with one consent,
did chide me.

They said, that I was not myself,

And said, I was a pinching elf,

And they could get more store of pelf beside me.

I told them of a cheating trick,
Which makes the horses run and kik,
By putting in an eel that's quick,
i'th belly.

Another which they use full oft,
To bear their lame jades heads aloft,
And beat their buttocks till they're soft,
as jelly.

I told them that their wealth would rot,
That they by cheating men thus got,
But they for this same tale would not
abide me.

And charg'd me quickly to be gone:
Quoth they of Conscience we use none.
Those, whom I follow with my mone.
out-ride me.

From thence I stepp'd into Long-lane,
Where many brokers did remain,
To try how they would entertain
poor Conscience.

But my name when I to them told,
The women did begin to scold,

The men said, they that word did hold