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_.