A Word within-doors: OR, A REPLY TO A WORD without-doors: In which The divers OPINIONS of Succession to the CROWN of England, are compared.  
In a LETTER to a Person of Worth.  
SIR.  
AFter my Thanks to you for your double Favour, first in laying your commands on me, and then thinking me able to resolve that so much-every-where-controverted Question, and  so differently decided, of which indeed I may say, that the different Interest and Affections of particular men, are more than any other thing, the occasion. But, Sir, the people of your parts mistake the Question, in making it, Whether the Duke by being a Papist, is ipso facto disabled to succeed? The many Statutes they allege for preserving the Protestant Religion, make nothing for your conclusion that therefore the Prince must be a Protestant. To these men we need return no other Answer than the sense of the late House of Commons, in which his R.H. had perhaps as few friends as ever any Prince had in that House: For what other inference shall we deduce from their preparing a Bill, and earnest endeavour to set him aside by Act of Parliament; but that as yet there is no Law that disinherits a Papist.  
No better is that other Argument of theirs, from the Coronation-Oath to maintain the established Church; and which his good Father, say they, was so religious an observer of, that he long for that very reason resisted the two Houses for taking away the Bishop's Votes in Parliament. This Oath is part of a ceremony, nothing adding to the King's right, who is absolutely, to all intents and purposes, King before his Coronation; nor need he ever proceed to it. Some of our Kings have reigned years without it; some have received it more than once. King Edward the Fifth was never Crowned, yet he is reckoned amongst our Kings: And our present Sovereign, not to speak of his twelve years abroad, ruled near a year before he was crowned; and yet I think no man will question his Actions then as King.  
But, Sir, we have in Town another Question, viz. Whether (admitting the D. unquestionable Right) it may be lawful for the preserving Religion, and the Peace of three Nations, to divest him of that Right because he is a Roman Catholic? for to this indeed, however the words may disguise it, is the Question brought; Whether we may not rob a Prince of his Right, because that Right suits not with our Interest? The doing of evil, though good come of it, I read is forbidden; and I do not find that there is any one Exception to so absolute and general a Rule.  
But leaving the decision of the Question as to Jus Divinum, naturale, & politicum, to the professors of those Sciences, I shall answer this Question with an Example, as well for that this better convinces, and is the shorter way, long a per praecepta via, per exempla brevis: Whoever will reflect on the fortune of Mary Queen of Scots, whatever the civil pretensions were against her, will find that the cause of Religion was that which destroyed her; and sure there were all and greater Motives for that, than here are: yet is that death reproached, and for ever will be, to a Queen in whose whole life, though long, and filled with as great, strange, sudden, and important Actions and Revolutions, as that of any one Prince whatsoever; there is nothing to accuse her of besides. Whatever she might endure in her person and conscience, sure her Reputation has greatly suffered, though it be uncertain how far she were privy to that Action, whether by direct order and appointment, or by bare consent and connivance only; though, if we believe Mr. Cambden, it was neither: Yet than if ever there was a necessity of doing wrong, and then if ever might that necessity have been justified, and that for these following Reasons:  

1. The Kingdom was on a double account in despair of Issue, from the Queen's absolute aversion to, and often repeated declaration in Parliament against Marriage, and from her years, she being then some Fifty four.  
2. The next Heir the Queen of Scots had been born and brought up a Papist, and having never had other Faith, it was unlikely she should at her age embrace new Principles for which she had sucked Hatred with her Milk; which Hatred received no small increase from the actions of Murray and other Rebels, who pretending to profess the Reformed Religion, acted, under those pretences, such Villainy and Injustice, as could not but continue the Queen more averse to a Religion which as she believed gave colour and countenance to such Practices.  
3. The state of the Kingdom at that time; The Reformation as established by Queen Elizabeth was not yet thirty Years old, and more than half the Kingdom was yet living, who remembered it, and had known Queen Mary; and therefore might easily under another Queen Mary be brought to return to their first Opinion.   
The contrary of these three in our present case, there is no man but can inform them, and therefore I shall omit it, to show that even the Case expressed was an unlawful and unjust act. Turn we to the Story, and there see, what ways and means were studied for, what endeavours were used, to secure the Protestant Religion, without destroying that Princess and her Right, and that by all the Ministers of State: we shall have cause to believe, they, as Ministers of State, were obliged to actions that themselves in their Conscience believed unlawful; and yet these were wise and able Ministers, if ever Prince had any.  
But if we consider the Queen herself, and what was her sense of, and her behaviour after her Cousin's Death, we shall have all the reason in the world (knowing her great Judgement and Knowledge) to conclude, that herself was well assured, that what had been done was wicked and unlawful. But some will say, We desire not nor design the Death of the Duke, but to exclude him. Such men argue ill; a private man may outlive his fortunes, but 'tis not so with Princes: he that would deny a Prince his Throne, would as little allow him Life, if he could.  
But not to tyre you, I shall conclude with this: Q. Marry died sitting the Parliament: Heath Archbishop of York and Lord Chancellor, by Order of both Houses declared the Lady Elizabeth Queen, though well known to be a Protestant; they article not with the Queen, but rely on God's Providence for their Religion. Let us not then, Sir, declaim against their Principles, and ourselves practise them; leave that to the Puritans, who with all their pretended Reformation agree with them in this: the Pope pretends a Power superior to Kings, and so do they, though they place it elsewhere; what else means that Maxim of theirs, A King is accountable to his People collectively Assembled in Parliament; Again, the Pope and his Followers maintain, That a King if an Heretic may be Deposed. The Puritan will not have the Duke to succeed, because he believes Popery, that is, Heresy.  
I shall take my leave with my Prayers for your Health, and that you may continue firm to your Mother-Church of England, of which to write any other Encomium, or make any other Character than that which is left us by our late King in his Eikoon Basilikee, to do wrong to his most incomparable Pen, take it then, Sir, in his words; I have tried it, says that Wife and Learned Prince, and after much search and many Disputes, have concluded it to be the best in the world, not only in the community as Christian, but also in the special Notion as Reform; keeping the middle way between the Pomp of Superstitious Tyranny, and the Meanness of Fantastic Anarchy. These are his words, and in them is great truth. But I shall tyre you. Farewell, Sir: God keep you long in Health, and send you better Neighbours. Do Justice, and fear nothing, 'tis both the Advice and Resolution of  
Your very etc.  
FINIS.