well inclined. Neither are they at all likely to join, in any considerable numbers, with an invader, having found so ill success when they were much more numerous and powerful; when they had a prince of their own religion to head them, had been trained for some years under a popish deputy, and received such mighty aids from the French king[1].
As to that argument used for repealing the test, that it will unite all protestants against the common enemy; I wonder by what figure those gentlemen speak, who are pleased to advance it: suppose, in order to increase the friendship between you and me, a law should pass, that I must have half your estate; do you think that would much advance the union between us? or suppose I share my fortune equally between my own children and a stranger, whom I take into my protection; will that be a method to unite them? it is an odd way of uniting parties, to deprive a majority of part of their ancient right, by conferring it on a faction, who had never any right at all, and therefore cannot be said to suffer any loss or injury, if it be refused them. Neither is it very clear, how far some people may stretch the term of common enemy. How many are there of those that call themselves protestants, who look upon our worship to be idolatrous, as well as that of the papists, and with great charity, put prelacy and popery together, as terms convertible?
And therefore there is one small doubt[2] I would
- ↑ In the reign of king James II, and till after the battle of the Boyne in 1690.
- ↑ The arrangement of these words, I would be willingly satisfied in, occasions such a hobbling as is disagreeable to the ear; a small change will make the words run smoothly, as thus 'I would willingly be satisfied in.'
