HAd you told me of the late ſtorm of Thunder and Lightning that kill'd a Shepherd or the wonderful inundation of waters, that endanger'd a little Child, you had not fri hted me half ſo much, as this new and unexpected Alarum againſt the Papists: You tell me His Majeſty (upon the Petition of thoſe who were not like to be denyed▪ has baniſhed all their Prieſts: You tell me a Bill has been read in the Houſe of Commons and is committed, to renew againſt the Layity all the former penal Lawes, and adde more, even to the taking away their Children, &c.

Why, what evil have they done? they fought daily with us in the field, and none laid hands on them but the Kingdoms enemies; they kill'd indeed, in a juſt and honourable War, ſome that call'd themſelves Saints, but none but ſuch as we call Rebels. Whence then ſhould all this anger come? 'tis not from jealouſie, nor intereſt, nor policy, nor all theſe together; but from ſome ſtrange unhappy conjuncture, which I know not how to name; and therefore without inſiſting on an event ſo wholly unlike the cauſes that were laid for it, I ſhall ſeldom look backwards to what the Papiſts have done and ſuffer in theſe late calamiies; a thing ſo evident, it need not be mentioned, nor can be denyed; but chiefly conſider what they now are in reference to hereafter. I ſee the noiſe of their complaints is not heard in the ſtreets, but generally they take their miſchances with ſilence; which as I eſteem for a generous and manly vertue where e're I find it, ſo I cannot but freely expreſſe to you my thoughts in ſo ſingular and preſſing an occaſion.

We fear, ſay you, the growth of Popery, and to that fear you aſcribe the proceeding againſt the Papiſts; but muſt we therefore abſolutely ruine them? Is there no difference betwixt checking a Tree that is ſpread not too far, and utterly extirpating it root and branch? Is it not enough to ſee them in a ſhade of the private life, and deny them the fruitful ſhowers of rich Offices, but we muſt ſuck the ſap out of their hearts, and leave them to wither away by degrees, and dye?

Beſides, when the grounds of ſuch a ſuſpition are thorowly examined, they will certainly be found too week to ſuſtain ſo heavy a ſeverity: For to omit the pious Arguments, That we are ſecure enough by the nature of our Cauſe, and the protection of our God; we have ſenſible and humane Reaſons, (which many ſooner believe) deriv'd from plain and evident experience.

Are not the Papiſts tolerated in divers parts of Germany, where the Reformation is Maſter▪ and yet they grow not? Is not the Reformation it ſelf, which has ſo many advantages over Popery, tolerated in France, and yet it grows not? In Holland, in Switzerland, and generally in all Countries where they live mingled together, they ſtand as it were at a certain mark, and ſeldom overflow; but like the Sea, if they gain on one ſide, they loſe as much on another.

I know what ſoyl your Countrey is made of, but as I think we love our Religion as well as our Neighbours, ſo I'm confident our Reformation is ſo much more rational then Theirs, that we have far leſſe cauſe to apprehend any change or defection than they: They fear it not in their Laws, they find it not in their practices; why ſhould we alone enter into unneceſſary ſuſpitions, to the diſcredit both of our Religion, while we declare by our proceedings that it needs the prop of force to ſupport it; and of our Policy, while by chaſing ſome from home, and diſcouraging others abroad, we diminiſh the wealth and proſperity of our Country. Let us open our eyes, and look on the wiſeſt of our Neighbours, and ſee how moderately they proceed in matters of Conſcience, and how notably they thrive and improve by their moderation.

Poſſibly at firſt, when Liberty is newly given, ſome number▪ who now conceal, may diſcover themſelves▪ but after the firſt Run, the reſt will ſtand firm and be more unchangeable▪ and this, when all's conſidered, may prove the ſafer courſe, to ſeparate ſuch as diſſemble from among the cordial Profeſſors: However, 'tis time enough to prevent the increaſe, when we ſee the increaſe grow really dangerous.

In the preſent ſtate of our affairs, the Roman Catholicks ſeem ſo far from dangerous, that they rather are particularly uſeful. The Nation we ſee is divided into four Parties, Proteſtant, Roman Catholick, Presbyterian and Fanatick. And were there now a War to begin, we might eaſily gueſs which of theſe four would likelyeſt agree, by remembring which of them agreed in the War that's ended. If we think the Roman Catholicks would again aſſiſt the right way, why do we ſo terrible diſcourage them? If we beleive them loyal (as we have found them by the beſt Argument, Experience) why ſhould we ſo diminiſh them, that we make them inconſiderable▪ Were it not more ſuitable to our true intereſt, ſo far to ſuffer them as they are neceſſary to counterballance one ſort of our diſcontented Neighbours, and then we ſhould eaſilier ſecure our ſelves againſt the other? Can we forget a Trick ſo lately paſſed upon us? Firſt, they cried out againſt the Papiſts, as if they were Traytors, till they had diſabled them: Then, againſt the Proteſtants, as if they were Papiſts, till they had maſtered them: Then, againſt every one that would not rebel, till they had ruin'd all.

'Twas a ſhrewd word, and very true, in our Country, of him that ſaid, I have obſerv'd few of the fighting Cavaliers ſpeak againſt the Papists. I'm ſure we (of my Noble Lord of Newcastles Army) know well enough their conſtant Fidelity; we fought and fell together, we freely ventured our lives for one another, and in all occaſions, that might any way conduce to our Princes ſervice, we perfectly agreed, and little thought, if it had pleaſed God to have given us ſucceſs, to exclude them wholly from ſharing in the benefit.

Were we all one in Religion, 'twere certainly beſt for peace, but if ſuch Union be once become impoſſible, then let the Maſter-Religion be eſtabliſht; and for the Reſt, the more ſorts of them there are, the more ſafely they are govern'd: Should now the Papiſt and Fanatick be ſuppreſt; the Civil Intereſt would be more endanger'd, unleſſe we overcom the Presbyterian too, which will be a harder task, when by the disbanding of others, they are grown more numerous. Two Factions in a Common-wealth are deſperately dangerous, but twenty not at all; unleſſe they conſpire into Two, which is not ſo eaſily done, as they who originally are no more. However, that evidently is the dangerous number, ſince none elſe is dangerous till they come to that.

If the preſent Papiſts be too few to be fear'd, what need we puniſh thoſe who now are Papiſts, leſt they ſhould grow hereafter ſo many as to be fear'd? Is it not enough to lay penalties on ſuch as ſhall turn to them for the future? If to preſerve the peace be our intention, and that cannot be moleſted by thoſe of the Roman communion, as now it ſtands, let us but ſhut the door that no more enter in, and we are ſafe, without pulling down the Houſe on the heads of thoſe that are there already.

I cannot deny but I'm thus far Popiſhly affected, that I willingly converſe with a Papiſt, if he be a Cavalier, and heartily love a Cavalier, though he be a Papiſt: this is my character, and I'm not a jot aſham'd to own it. Shew me a Papist that took the Covenant; or fought againſt the King, and I'le hate him worſe then a Presbyterian, ſo much care I for their Religion: but when I find many of them civil and ingenious, and well-bread perſons, why ſhould I decline their Company? When I find all of them true, and earneſt, and conſtant Cavaliers, why ſhould I hate their Perſons? All this I ſee may eaſily be done, without either approving their Religion, or diminiſhing my own: Eſpecially ſince the moſt eminent Divines of England allow the Church of Rome to be a true Church, from whence they acknowledge to derive their Orders; wherein they agree that both ſalvation may be had, and all fundamentals are profeſt; which I believe they will not ſay of any other Diſſenters in this Nation; I'me ſure, if they ſay it, they cannot maintain it, till they have anſwered this Argument.

No true Church without true Paſtors: No true Paſtors without true Ordination: No true Ordination without true Biſhops: Therefore, where there are no Biſhops, there's neither Ordination, nor Paſtors, nor Church.

Thus clearly to my eye, Proteſtants differ from Presbyterians and the reſt, not in circumſtantials onely, but in eſſentials; they differ as Church and no Church; which is a far grater diſtance then between Proteſtant and Papiſt. This ſingle conſideration has often made me wonder why we ſhould ſo violently perſecute the Papiſt with the uncouth names of Idolatrous and Antichriſtian; and, which is worſe, with the churliſh actions of Sequeſtration and Death, hanging and quartering them only for taking Orders from the ſame Church from whence we derive our own: And all this while we kindly call our other Neighbours Brethren and pray for our Siſter-Churches beyond the Seas; who yet are ſo far from having One Mother with us, that our ſelves ſay they have None at all?

Are then the Calviniſts no Church? are all the Reformers in France, Germany, Holland, and even Geneva it ſelf, no Church? I refer you to the Argument; the Concluſion perhaps may be unwelcom; but the Premiſes, I doubt are unavoidable. If no Governors, there can be no Governed, and if neither of Thoſe, there can be no Community; whether we ſpeak of ſpiritual or civil Communities. Only ſomtimes when we would reckon up our numbers to croſs-bite the Papiſts, (who for the ſame purpoſe will count the Greeks their Brethren) we let all ſorts of Reformers paſſe the Muſter for Proteſtants; a kind of pia fraus to ſuſtain reputation, and bear up the hearts of the People, and have ſomwhat to ſay to an Adverſary.

Whether upon this Reaſon, or ſome other, I know not, but I obſerve our graveſt Preachers, and our learnedſt Writers generally affirm, that We puniſh the Papiſts not for Religion, but for Treaſon. Sure we muſt not mean their Religion is Treaſon, for then we plainly contradict our-ſelves, while we ſay we puniſh them for Treaſon, not Religion; if at the ſame time we make them but two Names for one Thing.

What is then their Treaſon? Either their Actions; and let all that are guilty dye without mercy, without ſo much as the leaſt ſyllable of benefit by the Act of Oblivion; let them all be hang'd, and drawn, and quarter'd, and none be found to pity them; onely let our Juſtice not be blind, and puniſh the Innocent with the Criminal; but the Soul that ſins, let that dye. Or elſe their Opinions are Treaſonable: And then let the Opinions be firſt ſingled out, and either publickly renounc't, or the Maintainers proceeded againſt with what penalty you pleaſe. But, if their Religion (that is, their Faith, not their Opinions,) be clear from the charge of Treaſon, let us honeſtly ſtand to our Principles, and no longer, upon that account, puniſh them as Traitors.

Well, though they now have approved themſelves good Subjects, yet time has been when they were not ſo. But ſhall we not ceaſe to puniſh, when they ceaſe to deſerve it? Shall we not take off their Fetters when they do well, as willingly as we laid them on when they did ill? Nay, ſhall we charge them with new and heavier chains now they have given us ſuch evidence of their conſtant Loyalty? even Bedlams themſelves are ſet at liberty, when we ſee they are returned to their wits. We know all have ſuffered long for the crimes of a few; Why may they not hope as well to be indulged now for the Loyalty of many. Time too has been, when others were no good Subjects, and that within the memory even of young men; but the gracious clemency of His Majeſty has buried all in Oblivion; and may all treaſonous Rebellions, of what Sect or Faction ſoever, be eternally buried, and never riſe again to moleſt us, either in our duty to our King, or charity to one another.

But let the Lovers of Peace do what they can, ſome will be ſtill delighting to rub over old ſores: and immediately they fall upon the Gunpowder-Treaſon, and the Spaniſh Invaſion: As for the laſt, if we look into our own Hiſtories, we ſhall ſee, our Nation had diſoblig'd the Spaniard by a long courſe of ſharp unkindneſſes, of which he deſ ••• ng to be avenged, and finding no handſomer pretence then that of relieving the oppreſſed for Religion, he took it 〈◊〉 , and brought it along with him. But in all 〈…〉 the crime of the Engliſh Papiſts? Do not our own Hiſtorians ſay, they were ready with their ſervice like true Engliſhmen, and deſired to take their fortune with the common Soldiers? Do not our Authors expreſly note that the Spaniards indeed perſwaded themſelves they ſhould be ſeconded by the Engliſh Roman Catholicks, but were utterly deceived? The truth is, a few Engliſh Fugitives beyond Sea were guilty, and all at home were puniſh • . And for the other, it was indeed the moſt deviliſh and moſt fooliſh Plot that ever was devis'd. But how many were ge •• ry Read the Proclamations immediately upon the Diſcovery, and you'l find the number of their chief Contrivers to be about a dozen, and all the forces they could levy, ſay our Hiſtories, were not full fourſcore. Now if we reflect on the multitude of Roman Catholicks who faithfully ſerv'd our Gracious King, and his Royal Father, we ſhall eaſily ſee how far more apt they are to adhere to their Prince, then rebel againſt him. Read then the death even of thoſe few deſperate men, and you'l find they heartily repented, at leaſt, moſt of them: Read all their Hiſtory, the fouleſt that ever that Party was concern'd in, and I am confident, though you'l continue your juſt indignation againſt thoſe who were Traytors, yet your anger will be allay'd towards the reſt that were Innocent; at leaſt, all Revenge will be ſatisfied, when you have conſidered how long, and how univerſally that one crime of a few deſperate men has been puniſht. Miſtake me not, I would not have ſo great a Crime forgotten, but I think it belongs to Chriſtian charity, that the greateſt ſhould at laſt be forgiven. Can there be imagined a more deteſtable Treaſon then that againſt our late gracious Sovereign, in which, though Juſtice take care to conſerve the memory, yet mercy already has pardoned the Offenders.

And here I cannot but remember ſome paſſages among us, that keep alive our animoſities, and certainly have more of humour in them, then ingenuity. We call the Papists Ignorant, and yet fear their Subtilty: We cry out of the Foggy Myſts, and Egyptian darkneſs of Popery, and at the ſame time, rail againſt their Prieſts and Jeſuits, as Crafty Foxes, that deſtroy the Vineyard of the Goſpel. If they write openly, we ſay, they grow inſolent: If privately, they ſeek to ſurpriſe us: If they ſay nothing at all, we ſuſpect they are plotting to do the more. Even ſince the late Proclamation for baniſhing Prieſts, a Friend of mine told me he heard this captious Dilemma made uſe of. If many go away, then there were many here, and it was time to look to them: If few, then the more are left behind, and ſtill we muſt have a care of them: If they complain they are afflicted, we ſay, they are Male-contents; if they take all with patience, we ſay they are well enough now, if they can be contented. Nay, ſo croſly we interpret one another, that, to my amazement, I have heard ſome zealous Diſcourſers affirm, the Papiſts were guilty of all our Diviſions in Religion; becauſe they were ſtriving ſtill to ſhew that our Principles lead to Divſion. Which if it be true, is no Crime in them at all; If falſe, let us labour to diſprove it; they who diſcover the conſequences of inconvenient Maximes, are not too blame: but they who ſet up thoſe Maximes. Therefore methinks our better play in this point is, firſt to prove the Papiſts in an errour, and then the union and unchangeableneſſe they ſo much boaſt of, will be the greateſt Objection againſt them; ſince ſuch union makes an errour apt to deceive; and ſuch fixedneſs makes it impoſſible to be mended: Whereas our variety has this advantage, that ſome may be in the right, while others are in the wrong; and if to day we miſtake, to morrow we may correct it.

Other accuſations we too haſtily impoſe on them, which none but Fools and Bedlams would be guilty of: As, that whoever is in power and prevails and rules, they ſtill oppoſe him; And therefore, at firſt they were againſt the all-commanding-long-half-lower-Houſe; then againſt Oliver: then againſt the Rump: Now, againſt the King: Thus ſome among us ſtill ſeek to make it be believed, the Papiſts are alwayes againſt the governing Powers, onely that the governing Powers may be alwayes againſt them. Sure, if all be true we ſay of them, our Engliſh Papiſts are a ſtrange race of people, every kinde of Reformer ſuſpects them to make Plots and Conſpiracies with his particular Adverſary againſt him. In the beginning of the late times, they were charged to conſpire with the Proteſtants againſt the Presbyterians: In the midſt of theſe miſeries, they were accuſed to conſpire with the Presbyterian againſt the Fanaticks: Now, in the end, ſome are found to murmur up and down, that they conſpire with the Presbyterians and Fanaticks too, againſt the Church of England. All, I can ſay to this caſe is, either we miſtake them, or they are mad men, and have no more wit then a weather-cock, that where e're the wind is, ſtill turns his face directly againſt it.

Though in all theſe Inſtances, I think, they are extreamly miſunderſtood: yet is there one wherein I am not ſatisfied my ſelf; and that is, their acknowledging a Foreign Authority in prejudice of our Kings Supremacy. And at firſt ſight I eaſily diſcern, the Controverſie has, for a long time, been ſomwhat miſtaken, at leaſt miſexpreſt. The Queſtion, I conceive, is not whether the Supremacy in matters purely Spiritual be in the King, or the Pope: but, whether in the Arch-Biſhop of Canterbury, or the Pope: I ſhall onely looſen the knot a little, and then 'twill unty it ſelf. We know our graver and more learned Divines, diſtinguiſh between the inward power of the Keyes, and the outward juriſdiction by temporal penalties: This they aſsign to the King, in all Cauſes, and over all Perſons: That they reſerve to the Clergy, as neither deriv'd from the Civil Magiſtrate, nor dependant on Him. And thus much the Papists, unleſſe I'm miſinform'd, are ready to profeſs, onely they faſten the toplink of the pure-Spiritual chain to the Chair of Rome, and not to that of Canterbury. Which of theſe waies is the more convenient, I cannot judge, but plainly ſee, if one be inconſiſtent with Monarchy, the other is: And if a Subject may be, in any conſideration, Supream, without derogating from his Prince, a Stranger may be ſo too. Think on it well, and inſtruct me, if I erre.

But you will Reply, if the Moderate on both ſides ſo nearly agree in ſenſe concerning the Kings Eccleſiaſtical Authority, why do the Papiſts refuſe the Oath of Supremacy, and the Proteſtants admit it? ſhall I tell you freely my thought? I believe, if the Proteſtants underſtood that Oath as it ſounds, they would never take it, for it gives the King more then they mean; and if the Papiſt could underſtand it to ſound no more then the Proteſtants mean, they would never refuſe it. How then ſhall this difference be reconciled? Either let both ſides be underſtood to mean as they ſpeak, and then neither of them will take it; or to ſpeak as they mean, and then neither of them will refuſe it. The remedy, if heartily deſired, is eaſie: There needs no more but fairly to frame the Words according to the ſenſe: I mean all this while, as far as concerns the Royal Supremacy in Eccleſiaſtical affairs, not intermedling with the pure Spiritual part, which I leave to the diſcuſſion of pure Spiritual Perſons.

And indeed, the Oath it ſelf aims at no more then to aſſert theſe two Points; that the Supream power in Spirituals belongs to the King; and that none of That Power belongs to any Forreigner, as is clear by the Words of the Oath, nor to any other, as may clearly be infer'd from the Form of Submiſſion made 35. Eliz. 1. where the Submitter is requir'd to teſtifie in his Conſcience, that, No other Perſon hath, or ought to have any Power or Authority over his Majeſty: Which I underſtand in matters belonging to the Church, for thoſe were the Caſes provided for by that Act.

I had almoſt forgot a principal conſideration. The Papiſts, 'tis ſaid ſolicited his Sacred Majeſty to publiſh the late Declaration for tender Conſciences; and did none ſolicit but they? Or muſt it be counted ſo unpardonable a Crime for Subjects to beg of their King the Performance of his Royal Word? At leaſt thus much we muſt confeſſe in excuſe of the Papiſts, they needed moſt their Princes Indulgence, becauſe the Lawes were ſevereſt againſt them: They deſerv'd it beſt, becauſe, of all that needed it, they were moſt faithful to him. They moved in the fitteſt time, after the Common Ʋniformity was Enacted, and before the Services they had done were forgotten? Yet for all this the general mercy was far more ſparingly expreſt to them, then to any of the reſt. Sullen Presbyterian, that rather will ſtarve himſelf, then endure a Papist to have a morſel of bread!

'Tis true, ſome withdrew themſelves from the publick Service upon that Declaration: But, was there one Papiſt among them? Why muſt the Papiſt and none but he be whipt; when the Puritan, and none but he playes Truant? for the Papiſt went to another School before, and therefore though he ſtill be abſent from ours, yet cannot he properly be ſaid to play Truant. Nor can the endeavour of procuring this Declaration be ſuſpected (as our faſhion is) for a Popiſh-plot, and that all the Papiſts conſpired in it together; when I have Reaſons to be extreamly confident few knew of it till 'twas cry'd in the ſtreets. I know 'tis eaſie to be jealous but every one knows 'tis uncharitable too; unleſſe we have a cauſe; we, that is, ſome peeviſh ſpirits among us, ſay, that all along the late times, their Prieſts and Jeſuites were in the enemies army, and (under the diſguiſes of Taylors and Weavers,) preach'd them into rebellion: But if never any one of theſe were diſcover'd, on what ground do we ſay they were there? and if they were diſcover'd, by what favour were they protected againſt the Law? ſure nothing can be aid why they were not found guilty, but that they could not be found.

But 'tis time to conclude; for my part, let others do as they pleaſe, I'le ſtrive to love my own▪ Religion, without hating another mans; much leſſe will I hate another man for his Religion. I conceive him in an errour, and he thinks ſo of me; I have ſome marks of being in the right, and he believes he has as many as I: I reade the Bible, and ſo does he: And after all, our differences continue: What ſhall we do, but live peaceably together, till it pleaſe God to clear the truth among us; Onely this advantage I cannot deny to the Papiſts, that in temporal reſpects they are incomparably more tolerable, then either Presbyterian or Fanatick; In ſpiritual, though we charge them all with Errours, yet thoſe of the Papiſts conſiſts with the Being of our Church, the other deſtroy it. Excuſe this long Letter, and believe me ever,