About the year 1680, when the debates ran high concerning the exclusion of the Duke of York from the succession, on account of his religious principles, our author wrote a piece called the Character of a Popish Successor, and what may be expected from such an one, humbly offered to the consideration of both the Houses of Parliament appointed to meet at Oxon, on March 21, 1681.  This essay it seems was thought of consequence enough to merit an answer, as at that time the Exclusion Bill employed the general conversation.  The answer to it was entitled The Character of a Rebellion, and what England may expect from One; printed 1682.  The author of this last piece, is very severe on the character of Settle; he represents him as an errant knave, a despicable coward, and a prophane Atheist, and seems amazed that any party should make choice of a champion, whose morals were so tainted; but as this is only the language of party violence, no great credit is to be given to it.

The author of this pamphlet carries his zeal, and ill manners still farther, and informs the world of the meanness of our author’s birth, and education, ’most of his relations (says he) are Barbers, and of the baseness, falseness, and mutability of his nature, too many evidences may be brought.  He closed with the Whigs, contrary to the principles he formerly professed, at a time when they took occasion to push their cause, upon the breaking out of Oates’s plot, and was ready to fall off from, and return to them, for his own advantage.’

To the abovementioned pamphlet, written by Settle, various other answers were published, some by writers of distinction, of which Sir Roger L’Estrange was one; and to this performance of Sir Roger’s, which was entitled The Character of a Papist in Masquerade, supported by Authority and Experience, Mr. Settle made a Reply, entitled The Character of a Popish Successor Compleat; this, in the opinion of the critics, is the smartest piece ever written upon the subject of the Exclusion Bill, and yet Sir Roger, his antagonist, ’calls it a pompous, wordy thing, made up of shifts, and suppositions, without so much as an argument, either offered, or answered in stress of the question, &c.’  Mr. Settle’s cause was so much better than that of his antagonist’s, that if he had not possessed half the powers he really did, he must have come off the conqueror, for, who does not see the immediate danger, the fatal chances, to which a Protestant people are exposed, who have the misfortune to be governed by a Popish Prince.  As the King is naturally powerful, he can easily dispose of the places of importance, and trust, so as to have them filled with creatures of his own, who will engage in any enterprise, or pervert any law, to serve the purposes of the reigning Monarch.  Had not the nation an instance of this, during the short reign of the very Popish Prince, against whom Settle contended?  Did not judge Jeffries, a name justly devoted to everlasting