of commons (and to be sure very few they were) who publickly declared their dislike to it, or entered into any resolution; this, I think, he should have explained, and not insinuated so gross a reflection on a majority of the house of commons, who first passed this law, and have ever since opposed all attempts to repeal it; these are the gentlemen whom, in sarcasm and irony, he is pleased to call the worthy, that is, the unworthy patriots themselves.
But, to mention no more, he concludes his notable piece with these remarkable words, page 62, 63.
"Thus it appears, with regard to the protestant succession, which has now happily taken place, how reasonable it is to repeal the sacramental test; and that granting that favour to the dissenters [which by the by cannot be granted but by parliament] can be disagreeable to none, who have a just sense of the many blessings we enjoy by the protestant succession in his majesty's royal family."
I conceive it will be readily allowed, that, in all applications from any body of men, or particular subject, to the legislature, the highest encomiums are to be looked upon as purely complimental; but that the least insinuation of disrespect ought to be considered in the strictest sense the expressions can bear. Now, if we apply this observation to what this bold adventurer has said with respect to the legislators of the sacramental test; does he not directly and plainly charge them with injustice, imprudence, gross absurdity, and jacobitism? Let the most prejudiced reader, that is not predetermined against conviction, say, whether this libeller of the parliament
