LETTER To a FRIEND, Reflecting upon the Present Condition of this NATION, And Demonstrating, An EXCLUSION OF His Royal Highness FROM THE SUCCESSION, To be Unlawful and Unjust.  
SIR,  
THE imparting of melancholy reflections, though it seldom offords a cure, yet it generally promotes an case to the Patient, especially when 'tis certain; the Confident will not only give his pity, but both his Interest and Friendship will engage him an equal Participant. This considered encouragement does not a little prompt a relation, Sir, to you, what rational grounds I have to fear the very Basis of our Government. the best of Governments is in too great dangerof suffering under the ill wishes, and endeavours of some amongst us, unhappily successful to its mighty disadvantage. 'Tis as strange, as true, that now even whilst our just wounds caused by rebellion are fresh upon us, that now even before the smart of Judgement for disloyalty be over, we should with the fiercest precipicious zeal, and madness, use the direct means to make those wounds bleed afresh, to multiply those smarts, as if our own misery, our own misfortunes were the only Object of our most eager desires. He's now pointed at as ridiculous, derided for singularity, and want of insight into things, denied to be a member of the honest well meaning party, who cannot speak, as well as sit with patience and delight to have erreverent speeches of superiors, evil speeches of Dignities. Our King the best of Princes, his Counsels are anticipated, his designs foreseen, and his managements exposed, his Majesty is represented popishly affected, a favourer of popish Rebels, yet the same persons confess, 'twas his life was sought for, as the only way to extirpate Protestantism, and to propagate Popery. The Duke he must be condemned for a Papist, and must suffer nothing less than disinherison. The Clergy likewise are tainted with the disease, & accused of instilling ill Principles into their Auditors, of being abettors in the bringing in French-government, & Tyranny. That these, and such as these are the continual divulged judgements and reproaches of too many wherever we come, its being so well known supersedes any need of proof.  
Yet those very men are so violent against Romanists, they would have them even condemned unheard; because (and for no other reason if we will or can believe them) Romanists are Traitors, and endeavour the eradicating of the Protestant Religion. But would they have us believe them loyal, because they vent grievous exclamations against Traitors, when at the same time they openly show themselves to be such? Would they havens presume then Champions for the Protestant Religion, because they proclaim a fiery Zeal for the preservation thereof, when at the same time they do what in them lies to overthrow it, by that ready way of aspersing the Clergy, and bringing other Odiums upon the Church? No, certainly this Zeal cannot be the product of Loyalty to the King, or due honour to the Church or Religion, but rather of anger against these presuming Rebels, that will not suffer our fanatical holy ones to have the monopoly of these, and such like wickednesses.  
And let no man's prejudice make him so illogical to infer, that what is or shall be said, tends to extenuate the crimes of any whatsoever Traitor: for I only mark out those that are or would be such, those (whom since the neck of the late damnable Plot is broken) we have more cause to fear than Jesuits.  
For it is not a sad observation to see, what multitudes of ignorant people are seduced by that old and little artifice ' of giving the name of Papist to all that are against Fanatic Jnterest? so that let a man talk as charmingly as he can; let him play the Logician as forcibly, 'tis all in vain. Tell these trapaned wretches that he's an ill, and impolitic contriver, who to quench the flames at one end of his house, will set the other end on fire; tell them there's a better way to preserve Churches from being the place of Image Worship, than to call in the assistance of those, who will demolish Churches for having Paint in their Windows. That there's a better way to preserve our Service from Popish Superstition, than by introducing the Superstition of the contrary kind. Nothing of all this can dissuade them from Deifying those men, who make unreasonable Clamours against the Governors, as being remiss in prosecuting and punishing Popish Offenders.  
And no wonder if all that hath been said prove ineffectual, when Demonstration itself (the most commanding Proof) is rejected; For we cannot be believed that His Majesty hath done, as much as any King can possibly do against Offenders, though we demonstrate it true by an induction of particulars, and show that no King can do more, than lay his strict Commands on, and give Encouragements to all his Subjects to find out, and apprehend all Offenders; when found out and apprehended, to confine them till their Trials; when tried, and proved guilty, to put the Laws in execution. But His Majesty hath done all this.  
Of the first Part, His almost daily Proclamations are a sufficient Evidence.  
As to the second Parr, Justice hath been so far from being remiss, that there are some at this time under Confinement, who being accused but by one Witness only, have lain in Prison this full Year, or more, and could not in all that time by any means come to their Trials, and yet no Bail would be taken for them.  
As to the third Part, We all know many of these Plotters have been legally Convicted, not a man of which is living, but every one of them without Favor, or Pardon, hath received his just Reward.  
There is no doubt had not His Majesty (who is indeed naturally inclined to mercy) proved more merciful to the Scotish Rebels, who were not long since actually in Arms, we had had as great a noise to stop, as now, we have to hurry on Justice; for they, and most of our Petitioners are of the same sort. The truth of which who can question, when he observes many of the Leaders of these Petitioners to be old Colonels, Captains, etc. that have received benefit by the Act of Oblivion, men that have tasted the sweetness of Church-Lands, and know, by their own experience, how to act Rebellion, which is evident even from their very managements; first they infuse an ill Opinion into the unwary, and inconsiderate Mobile of the present Government and Governors, and then get their Subscriptions to seditious Petitions; these were the very steps of one, and I wish they prove not of a second open Rebellion.  
But amongst these Colonels, etc. there may be one of a higher rank, a Man fuller of Craft than Honesty, or Religion, who, to gratify a proud, and peevish humour, has offered his Royal Highness some great personal Affronts, which makes him dread his single condition will not be so happy under the Duke's Government; and therefore through a foresight of his own private Grievance, thinks it the best policy to become Nationally afflicted, and so the People must be terrified with the sad consequences of a Popish Successor, because he fears the Duke's just resentments of his own impudence; and perhaps this is no small reason why the point of Succession is so often resolved against the right and lawful Successor.  
Who is not now so well learned in the Statute Law, to tell you, He shall incur the Penalty of Treason, that disallows a Power in the King and Parliament to dispose of the Crown? And truly he may be condemned for a Fool, as well as Traitor, that denies the Supreme Power in any Government whatsoever to be uncontrollable; there must of necessity be one Supreme uncontrollable Power in all places, to prevent the Confusion which else would inevitably follow; no doubt therefore this, and all other Power is in the King and Parliament: But whoever affirms the Power may be unjustly used, and that though for using it unjustly they are unaccountable in this, yet they must give account in another world, he need not be ashamed of his Assertions; The question therefore will be, Not whether there is a Power can defeat the Duke of his Succession, but whether his Circumstances considered they can justly so do?  
In the discussion of this Point, many of his Royal Highness' Friends have appeared more Zealous, than Learned: For some of them have relied upon the bare producting of a great many Examples, leaving still the main Point in question, whether those Examples were just, or not, never minding if such sort of arguing were of force, not only their Antagonists might use the same, but also the greatest Villainies in the world might be easily justified.  
Others have argued Monarchy to be Jure Divino, and gone about to prove by Laws of Nature, and by Scripture, the Succession Sacred, and have argued the Exclusion of the, Duke Perjury, because of the words Heirs and Successors, in the Oath of Allegiance.  
The Answerer of these Weighty Considerations hath no cause to boast of a Victory, and yet would he have us believe our Cause is lost: But this is not a Case at Bar, wherein, though an impertinent Issue be joined, the Cause depends upon the decision of the Issue; from all therefore that hath hitherto been said, it doth not appear our Cause is either bad, or lost, or that the Duke's Adversaries have acquitted themselves from being notorious Immoralists, and with that I charge them. To prove them highly ungrateful, I need no more than remind them,  
First, How often they have complained of others, who ne'er had Power adequate to his Royal Highness for accumulating Riches at the Nations cost, and that they could never so much as suspect him to give the Nation the least Grievance by things of this nature.  
Secondly, That this Great Man hath as freely exposed his Life in his Country's defence, as the most mean and common Soldier; and what hugely aggrandizes that generous voluntary Act is this, That his aim could not possibly be at Preferments, or Riches, the usual Enticements to such hazard: His motive therefore could be nothing, save a great and mighty ardour for his Country's safety. And shall such. Obligations as these be easily canceled? Shall a mistaken Opinion in matters of Religion not only root out the remembrance of these obliging evidences of his kindness, but be a sufficient Argument also for the prosecution of his ruin? A most unreasonable thing! Yet this is his case, he is supposed to differ from us in matters of Religion, and therefore he may be justly disinherited. This is that gross abusive Elench the Devils subtle Agents hath put upon many well-meaning ignorant men, and for their sakes it shall now be exposed by as plain and familiar reasonings, as the nature of the Subject will bear.  
Give me leave to ask all vehement Sticklers for Liberty and Property, what they mean by those terms? Is it not to be under the protection of reasonable, known and determinate Laws, that we may have other measures of our Duties and Punishments, other measures of what we may call ours, than the will of the Imposers. If it be (which no doubt they must confess) let them show by what known determinate Law, the Duke hath forfeited the Inheritance, which a known determinate Law hath given him. If there be none, but that they would have a Law made for that purpose, this according to what is before laid down, and the true Notion of Liberty and Property destroys both; for at this rate no man can be certain of any thing. Who can call that his, if the Legislators may justly dispose of it when they please, by declaring first some Act, or some Opinion to be erroneous, and then that Error to be a good cause of Forfeiture? Who can promise himself one minutes liberty; for when the Legislators please to declare something a defect either in my body or mind, and then that defect to be a just cause of Banishment, or Imprisonment, there's no Injustice in the case, I suffer as justly as the Murderer, 'tis true this the Supreme Power may do by its unaccountable Prerogative in Government, nay, much more, it may hang all that have grey, or black eyes, and for no other reason, but how equitable all, or any of these things are, a mean capacity may judge from what hath been said.  
However I will yet more fully illustrate this matter by my Lord Strafford his Case; in the management of which, I shall first show, there is no difference between his, and his Royal Highness' Case, in which his Royal Highness has not the harsher dealing. In his Case, the Parliament were something countenanced in their Proceeds, by an Act made 25 Ed. 3. wherein is a power left in them to declare, what other Facts are Treason, besides those already so declared, but in his Royal Highness' Case they have no such plausible pretence; his Offences were Faults in Fact; this only Error in Opinion; his Faults were proved against him, and himself heard in his own Vindication; here (as I shall presently more fully observe) his Royal Highness must be Condemned unheard. Thus far the Cases differ, and no farther; For 'tis in the Case of both, to have a Law made on purpose to condemn them, and ro suffer more for their Offence, than stands with the allowance of known determinate Laws.  
But notwithstanding the more plausible Pretences for Strafford's Punishment, yet His late Majesty shown himself the most sorrowful Penitent, by his repeated Sighs, and passionate Exclamations, for shedding innocent blood. He well knew, if there was no Law broken, there was no Transgression, and without Transgression 'twas unjust to purish. He well knew, if there was a Law broken, that 'twas Injustice to inflict a greater Punishment, than that Law had provided. Nay, the Parliament themselves were ashamed of their own Act, which appeared by their Declaration, That it should be no Precedent. And yet now how many are fiery hot for the acting of a thing of the same nature, that the same, if not a stronger Reason prohibits: So that if their mutinous desires were gratified, His present Majesty should be as guilty of unjustly removing His Brother's Landmark, as His Predecessor thought himself in shedding innocent Blood. Let our fanatics therefore if they can (who now look toppingly, and like the Whore spoken of in Scripture, wipe their mouths, as if they had done, or designed no harm) quit themselves from this dilemma, either 'tis just to inflict greater punishments for offences, than the known Laws have determined, or not; if not, the Duke cannot be justly disinherited; if just, than first Strafford did justly suffer, and His Majesty's tears of Repentance were but the Sacrifice of Fools. The Parliament too are very much to blame, who upon second thoughts presumed that Act unfit for a Precedent.  
2. Down goes Liberty and Property, there's at once a complete Surrender of both them. And what prodigious Monsters are these that can in one and the same breath, cry for and against one and the same thing. But what makes their noise (if it be possible) more harsh, what makes them seem men that yet less consider Justice and Equity, is this, They would have a Law to disinherit the Duke for Popery: But ask whether they would have a Law, that all men should be thus severely punished barely for dissent in opinion in matters of Religion? No, that they deem a Law grossly unjust, else what mean their perpetual Clamours for Liberty of Conscience? else what mean those continual Exprobrations of Goyerors, for disturbing unlawful Conventicles? 'Tis plain therefore in their own Opinion, such a general Law is not allowable. But however a Law of this nature to reach some, particular individuals (provided always they be none of their Fraternity) is, with them, agreeable to reason: For my part, I cannot apprehend by what Logic 'tis maintainable. that that may be just to one, or few, that will not be so to many, and all; for surely Justice is the constant, regular, and equal distribution of Rewards and Punishments; so that in all well regulated States, all Subjects must have equal Punishments for equal Faults.  
Let one of them suppose himself so unhappy to have killed a man in his own defence, the Law in that case hath declared only a Forfeiture of Goods and Chattels; but the Lawmakers say, though 'tis so declared, and though all other men guilty of this Fault shall he under no greater Penalty, yet you shall hang, and your whole Estate shall be forfeitured; say, let any one of them fancy himself in this condition, and then tell me, Whether he should not believe this hard measure in the superlative degree? Yet either this Case is just, or the Duke's unjust; for what can be said here, that may not be urged for the Duke? We can say, the Laws have not declared so great a Penalty for this Offence. We can say, that no man ever did, or is ever likely suffer so much for such Offence.  
Truly if of such Principles as these will hold, we are like to be brought to a sine confusion; one shall be imprisoned but for two days, a second stigmatised a third only lose his Estate a fourth shall be deprived of both Estate and Life, and all these several Punishments for one and the same Fault. This is not to be allowed for the very confusion it brings much less when it undermines the very Foundation, the very Being of Justice, which is rendering to every man according to his works. And whether most unequal proportion for equal things be a fulfilling of that Law, I leave to any undesigning men to judge.  
To stop the force of this Argument, perhaps 'twill be objected, I ought to have distinguished between Popish, and other Dissenters and then they would have allowest that all Papists as well as the Duke may for no other reason than being Papists, justly suffer Disinherison, by which Concession, the Arguments drawn from the inequality of Punishments, etc. would fall I am sure, I know no distinction will make for Planaticks; indeed Papists are for pulling down Heretical Kings, the others are for pulling down all King's Heretical; or else, Papists are for contriving the ruin of Heretical Kingdoms, the others are actuated by them, are their in ruments to put their contrivances in execution. If therefore we may be supposed to fear them less than Papists, it can be for no other reason, but because they have less management, not at all less wicked intentions.  
However let us see the consequences of this, That all Popish Dissenters, barely for their Dissent, may justly suffer Disinherison; if so, 'tis time to throw away our Book of Martyrs; for we can upbraid them no longer with that, they can now recriminate, and argue ad hominem. 'Tis true, they thought it just to take away our Being, but we think it just to take away their Wellbeing, and perhaps to most men the first condition is more eligible. Besides all this, what a Rod does this make for Protestants in Foreign Parts; for if the severest usage of Papists, even to their utter ruin, be justifiable, barely for dissenting in Opinion, than a persecuting return upon Protestants in Popish Dominions is justifiable; for 'twill be no very passable Plea for us to urge, we punish them for Error, they punish us for Truth; Who shall be Judge of that? They will retort what we say, and which side soever pleadeth thus, begs the main Point in question between us. They are as confident they are in the right, and we in Error, as we can possibly be of the contrary. There is no rule therefore for our Behaviour one towards another, but to do as we would be done by.  
Thus much in answer to these violent Objectors, and we will now address ourselves to the more moderate, who will condemn such a general Law against: Romanists, and yet argue the Duke may be justly disinherited because 'tis for the good and safety of, the Kingdom, for the preservation of the Protestant Religion. To this I answer,  
First, That this is all but bare surmise; for suppose such a Law made, how can we be assured the Duke will in his Conscience believe this a good and blinding Law? And if he does not, can we believe a Man of his Courage will tamely acquiesce, and lay down those which he thinks just Pretensions to a Crown? Such a Law therefore in all probability would cause so much Bloodshed, as to leave the Victors no reason to triumph. But if his Royal Highness (being as they pretend a Papist) should be successful, how can the Protestants expect the least favour from his hands, who have dealt with him so roughly? 'Tis therefore altogether as likely, That that which is vainly fancied would be the Safety, might prove the ruin of the Kingdom; that that which is vainly sancied would be the Preservation, might prove the Extirpation of the Protestant Religion.  
Secondly, That the safety of the Kingdom, and the Preservation of the Protestant Religion, depends upon the making of such a Law is but bare surmise, because the Duke is not yet convict of Popery; and if he were, it cannot possibly appear but he may see the Errors thereof, and repent. He therefore that positively objects this, must swallow those two uncharitable Suppositions; first, that his Highness is a Romanist; and secondly, that will never repent. But however unreasonable, and unchristian like this is, we will suppose it all, and admit too the Law will have those effects they pretend; yet if it be granted, that such a Law is not just for a bare dissent in matters of Religion, abstracted from these consequences, than I do affirm, the addition of these consequences can never make such a Law justifiable; for nothing can be more perspicuously plain, than that this is doing evil, that good may come of it; and is no more, than the preservation of a good Religion by a bad Law.  
How blame worthy therefore were those, that marked out to the Rabble all Dissenters from the late Bill against the Duke, as Conspirators, Betrayers of their Country, and what not? perhaps considering too, they brought His Majesty into this number, who in His Gracious Speech declared, He would not alter the Succession.  
And truly this Bill, their Darling, were it well examined, would be found to be a condemning a man without legal, Conviction, without ever being heard, whether he could clear himself in what is laid to his charge, a justice always done, always allowed the worst of Criminals.  
Perhaps many may think this a gross reflection upon the late House of Commons, till they recollect many things have passed twice, that have been with scorn thrown out the third time of reading; nor do I in the least scruple, but that this Bill had underwent no other Fate.  
And now upon the whole matter, how can we look superficially upon these Comminations, what Loyal Subject, what Lover of his Country can be free from amazing terrors? when every Coblet is deciding, who shall Reign; when the Press is crowded with disloyal, treasonable Pamphlets, and the freedom of People's tongues, equals that of their thoughts in treasonable matters; when designing Fellows are venting multitudes of Contradictions ad faciendum populum, that by any means they may work their ends, sometimes encouraging them to preserve Liberty and Property, at, other times (which destroys both) telling them 'tis just for a man to suffer more for an offence, than the known determinate Laws allot, and suffer too unhead, sometimes representing what a grand Grievance 'tis to want Liberty of Conscience, at other times maintaining it just for a man to suffer Disinherison, for an Heterodox Opinion in matters of Religion; when I, say, the serious considerations of these Premises present themselves, what sad but natural Illations may we draw? How can we less expect (without the most watchful prudence in the Magistrate, joined with a merciful Providence) than a relapse into all imaginable confusion, than that we may a second time use for England, King Agesilaus lamentation for Greece, O infelicem Graeciam quae tantum hominum ipsa sibi interemit, quantum satis est ad universos vincendum barbaros!  
Here I should conclude, did I not fear his Highness might think me at least rude, if not wholly without Apology, were not something offered to, excuse this weak defence of his Right. When I saw our right and lawful Successor, our next Father of our Country assaulted, my loyal affection forced my unexperienced Pen, as it did the unused tongue of the, King of Lidya's Son, when his Father was in danger, to cry out, O save my Father!  
Now, Sir, I have nothing more, but to ask your Pardon for detaining you thus long upon so sad and nice a Subject, and to assure you that I am  
Dear Sir, Your faithful Servant, P.