their Advantages upon his Distresses; and while they
pretended a care of his Person on the one hand, were plucking at his
Scepter with the other?

After this, the Pamphleteer gives us a long Bead-roll of _Dangerfield's_
Plot, Captain _Ely_, young _Tongue_, _Fitz-Gerard_ and Mr. _Ray_, rails
at some, and commends others as far as his skill in Hyperbole will carry
him. Which all put together, amounts to no more than only this, that he
whom they called Rogue before, when he comes into their party, pays his
Garnish, and is adopted into the name of an honest man. Thus _Ray_ was
no Villain, when he accus'd Colonel _Sackvile_, before the House of
Commons; but when he failed of the reward of godliness at their hands,
and from a Wig became a tearing Tory in new Cloaths, our Author puts him
upon the File of Rogues, with this brand, _Than whom a more notorious
and known Villian lives not_.

The next thing be falls upon, is the Succession: which the King
declares, _He will have preserved in its due descent_. Now our Author
despairing, it seems, that an Exclusion should pass by Bill, urges,
_That the Right of Nature and Nations will impower Subjects to deliver a
Protestant Kingdom from a Popish King_. The Law of Nations, is so
undoubtedly, against him, that I am sure he dares not stick to that
Plea: but will be forc'd to reply, that the Civil Law was made in favour
of Monarchy: why then did he appeal to it? And for the Law of Nature, I
know not what it has to do with Protestants or Papists, except he can
prove that the English Nation is naturally Protestant; and then I would
enquire of him what Countrymen our Fore-fathers were? But if he means by
the Law of Nature, self-preservation 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