Charles II to the throne, and which run loyally mad, ſeverely reproved one of their own members for condemning the proceedings of that parliament which firſt took up arms againſt the former king. And upon the ſame principles that the proceedings of this parliament may be cenſured as wicked and rebellious, the proceedings of thoſe who, ſince, oppoſed King James II, and brought the prince of Orange to the throne, may be cenſured as wicked and rebellious alſo. The caſes are parallel.—But whatever ſome men may think, it is to be hoped that, for their own ſakes, they will not dare to ſpeak againſt the REVOLUTION, upon the juſtice and legality of which depends (in part) his preſent MAJESTY'S right to the throne.
If it be ſaid, that although the parliament which firſt oppoſed king Charles's meaſures, and at length took up arms againſt him, were not guilty of rebellion; yet certainly thoſe perſons were, who condemned, and put him to death: even this perhaps is not true. For he had, in fact, unkinged himſelf long before, and had forfeited his title to the allegiance of the people. So that thoſe who put him to death, were, at moſt only guilty of murder; which, indeed, is bad enough, if they were really guilty of that; (which is at leaſt diſputable.) Cromwell, and thoſe who were principally concerned in the (nominal) king's death, might poſſibly have been very wicked and deſigning men. Nor ſhall I ſay any thing in vindication of the reigning hypocriſy of thoſe times; or of Cromwell's male-adminiſtration during the interregnum: (for it is truth, and not a party, that I am ſpeak-ing
