TWO LETTERS WRITTEN To the AUTHOR of a PAMPHLET ENTITULED Solomon and Abiathar OR The CASE of the Deprived Bishops and Clergy DISCUSSED PSAL. 50. 18. When thou sawest a Thief then thou consentedst with him and hast been Partaker with Adulterers LONDON Printed in the Year MDCXCII The First LETTER SIR ENcouraged by your Preface I take the freedom to send you these few lines You acknowledge some such defects as to your self that you cannot make a satisfactory reply to your own Conscience and I am sorry you should Print a Case for the Information of others of which you was never throughly satisfied your self That you have sufficiently consulted our Adversaries I make no doubt because I find in your Book those two main things wherein their great strength consists Lyes and Disguises As for the first they have plainly imposed upon you contrary to their own Knowledge and Conscience and as to the other they have instilled into you their very Art But had you taken Astraea's Motto along with you Audi alteram partem and as freely consulted some of my suffering Brethren as you have done their sly but implacable Foes I am confident you had set this Controversie in a much clearer light and not written as you intimate you have now done with a reluctancy of Mind and Conscience But since you call us in to your aid though so very late we are willing as becomes Christians to comply with your honest request and I scruple not in behalf of my Brethren to promise you full information and that the matter shall be handled mildly closely and fairly all personal Quarrels and Reflections laid aside provided that you will procure us the priviledge of the Press in this particular We may reasonably hope that we shall not be denied in this for else why do you in Print call on us for Information and tell us that your design in so doing is not only to quiet your own Conscience but also to provoke the Learned to offer such Discourses thereupon to the publick as may settle others besides it will be disingenuous and base in Carolus Alston to license these Hue and Cries after us to vindicate our Cause and yet not suffer us to print a line in answer to those whom he licenseth thus to call on us But if after all we meet with a sham you must pardon me if I plainly tell you that I shall look on all your pretences as an artificial Contrivance and an extraordinary Strain of of supersine Hypocrisie worthy of this more than Pharisaical Age For what else can be the meaning of it but to keep us in hand and employ us in looking after I know not whom whilst your Book uncontradicted slies abroad and not only misrepresents our Cause but exposeth us as if we neither could nor would write in its behalf being so solemnly called on And there is this more to engage you to assist our Request to the utmost that if there be any errors in your Book as I am sure there are some very gross ones it will highly concern you that Truth may with all speed follow at the heels of it to prevent if possible that mischief which otherwise it may do and for which at the great day of Accounts you must in a great measure answer as uhe primary Cause and Author But if we must be mock'd with Calls whilst it is intended that we shall never be suffered to return any Answer you may justly expect that if ever we can put the blind upon your Watch-men we shall not only defend our Cause but also expose their profound Hypocrisy who like Joab kiss and stab and never pretend to be possessed with a fit of tenderness or kindness for us but with a design to put a Cheat upon Mankind and push on our utter Ruine and Destruction Sir Pray think of these things with due care and let me have your Answer with speed and thereby you will much oblige Sir Your unknown Friend and Servant T. B. June 28. 1692. An ADVERTISEMENT to the Reader The foregoing Letter was sent acording to the Author 's direction and pretended request and therewith plain instructions how to return an Answer but he not vouchsafing one syllable after two months waiting I thought fit to send both this and the following Letter by the Press seeing he would take no notice of the Post The Second LETTER SIR YOur Preface savouring something of a Tender and Christian Spirit made me read your little Tract with the greater care but when I had throughly perused it I not only sound my expectation sadly baffled but stood amazed to see all the Marks and Tokens of a most Wicked and Malicious Design carried on under such plausible melting Pretences If therefore you are not conscious to your self of any Insincerity it will concern you to vindicate your self by publishing an Ingenuous and Fair Answer to the following Objections wherewith to me you seem justly chargeable And in the first place I cannot altogether acquit you Partiality and Unkindness in assigning the Names of the Speakers in your Dialogue for not to concern my self with Mr. Easy and Mr. Troublesome who chime so neatly under the Greek disguise of Dyscheres and Eucheres that which I think I except against not without just cause is that you call one a Conformist the other a Recusant now Conformist is in it self an honest word and of good reputation and heretofore was used to signifie a person who approved and complied with the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England but by it you plainly mean the Good Old Cause Men newly come again in fashion who have set aside God's Commandments and live in the open breach of them without the least remorse of Conscience who have not only departed from but with all their might wickedly set themselves against those Doctrines which the Church of England always valued as her Characteristical Mark and for which she was esteemed all the World over who have enervated her Discipline made wicked additions to her Prayers and attempted to make such alterations as would not leave her the same Church if it could deserve the Name of any and though they failed to obtain this last by English Interest yet they comfort themselves with no small hopes that e're long they shall compass it by a Sherlockian Authority Now some few years since we were accustomed to call such Men as these Conformists but if by Conformists you mean persons that will comply with or do any thing for base ends then I shall not envy them the Title and I think you may have bestowed it on them not unfitly Then as to the Name Recusant you know it is most commonly applied to Papists in which sense it is as falsly as maliciously cast upon us and indeed if we either were Papists or your Party did but so much as think us such they would use us better for though the hideous Names of Popery and Papists be made use of to
Liberty which Authority shall allow him but I am strangely mistaken if it be so much as possible to imbody those several sorts of Men into the Church What there may be in Toleration or how far it may be granted I dispute not but leave it to my Superiors but however Men may delude themselves with vain fancies I boldly affirm that the project of Comprehension is impracticable Sir Pardon this small Digression and I will now return to you again and if what you say were as true as it is false would you make that use of it to encourage Men in their sins If God bring Light out of Darkness will that justifie us in our iniquities Or does God stand in need of our sins as if without them he could not produce some great good for us Or are we therefore to rejoice in them because God hath done great things for us nothwithstanding such Provocations The Apostle sure was of another mind who tells us That the goodness and long sufferance of God calls us to repentance and if God at any time continue his Mercies notwithstanding the crying sins of a People it is then high time for them to repent in Sackcloath and Ashes lest they sin away his Mercies and convert his Patience into Fury And if you please to consider the matter better it is not unlikely that you may judge this to be too much our Case I confess you suffer Dyscheres to speak some truth when he saith That the present State is worse than a deluge of Popery for then the Church would have saved her Integrity though not her Ease now the Daughter of Sion is become an Harlot the generality of her Children apostate and unchurched and the Faith and Communion with the few c. p. 22. But when you your self had made him speak thus and nothing but truth you presently sham it off stiling it a wild-fire Zeal and fit of Fury And thus you may easily answer any thing by giving it ill names but then your Submission to the present Constitution you think to be so far from effecting this that you now question whether it can be proved a sin And truly if the breaking a lawfull Oath and taking an unlawfull one if the witholding the Right from one and the giving of that which is none of their own to another if the overthrowing the Constitution of the Kingdom and violating the Laws of God be no sin you have made an excellent discovery and done a leud Age a great kindness who need nothing more than that there could be no sin at all and at this rate it will be a hard matter to find any But then you farther say that if you should admit it to be a sin yea a crying sin yet it doth not unchurch you But Sir If it be a sin and a crying sin I think it calls for your repentance and you ought not to persevere in it as you plainly do But however you say That it is not every such sin that doth unchurch single persons or publick Societies nor did I ever know any body that said so But here the word unchurch is unusually and capriciously put for the word Church is an equivocal term and variously used for we often speak of Schismatical Churches and you may have heard of the Synagogue of Satan of which if any Man have a mind to be a Member I do not desire to be one of his Society And after all though every sin do not unchurch yet there are such sins as exclude Men out of the true Church and put them into such a state that sincere Christians ought not to join in Communion with them and if you please to take the pains you will find it to be the unanimous Judgment of the Fathers and Primitive Christians that the setting up Antibishops the erecting Altar against Altar and the adhering to the Usurpers and Intruders against those who had the true Canonical Authority did put Men into a state of Schism and make it unlawfull for other Christians to join in Communion with them St. Cyprian says of every such Bishop that he is not secundus but nullus nay they accounted not only these persons but all that joined with them as Schismaticks and cut off from the Church as is plain from the Case of Marcian of Arles who joined with Novatian And this is the very Case and your very sin wash your hands of it if you can though if it were necessary I could farther prove what you seem to require That the Principles of Doctrine and Opinion whence these sins receive encouragement are such as destory the Church's Fundamentals and Structure if such Principles which destroy all Morals and all Faith and Truth amongst Men can be said to do it You would do well to explain what you mean when you say That an Authentick Act must pass in order to a state of actual Expulsion For Men may exclude themselves as well as be excluded by others and may depart and run away from a Church as well as be thrown out of it and their act shall be too Authentick if by it you mean valid Your instance of the Roman Church is insignificant for you know we do not communicate with it But that of the Eastern Churches is still less to the purpose for I am not satisfied that either they have condemned us or we them as Schismaticks I am sure Dr. Baster tells us That some of the Greek Clergy desired him not only to communicate but to exercise his Ministry among them nor did he refuse it nor have I heard any others make any great complaint of their unkindness in this matter In the next place when you should introduce Dyscheres to defend us you make him state the matter so weakly as to betray our Cause For why should he admit that you are not unchurched it is the word you will use for want of an Ecclesiastical Judge p. 2 I do not know that we want an Ecclesiastical Judge our Metropolitane with his Suffragans are a sufficient and proper Judge and if they have not lata Sententia which there may be great reason to forbear yet in praxi their Judgments are sufficiently declared and not to mention other of your Bishops even that graceful Hypocrite who is mounted into his place by his Canonical Oath owes obedience to him whom he hath so unworthily betray'd But suppose we should want a Judge to your mind yet you may be actually excluded and in case of erecting Altar against Altar the Canons ipso facto exclude you and they make not only the Clergy but every Christian in this case to be so far a Judge as to avoid all Communion with such and that this is your Case you have been told again and again but you are much like some Men who are or pretend to be thick of hearing who can understand any thing that makes for them before the words are well out of a Man's Mouth but if any thing unprofitable
about if they be not sensible already I doubt not but they will in a little time And now Sir if you will give me the same liberty to put together which you take I cannot learn from all this how our old Laws and Oaths binds us to your new Allegiance but that rather our Constitutions and Oaths binds us to King JAMES and not to William though the contrary hereto is your shameless conclusion from your wild Premises All along you make Dyscheres by whom you represent us to give up the cause as far as you go which disingenuous dealing we have too much cause to complain of but the better to detect it I must follow your steps and now comes such a tremendous Objection that I wonder your Joynts did not tremble and your Hand shake when you set Pen to Paper it is to this effect That when the violence is essentially unjust unnatural and contrary to the moral and eternal Laws of God and Righteousness no Human compacts can ratifie such wrong or justifie and confirm what is essentially injurious nor ought the Priests of the most High God to consecrate and confirm such Rapes by Oaths and Religious Sponsions If there be any such thing as this and such I fear we shall find there is if there be any such thing as God's Commandments we had need have a care what we do That Man's wit is ill bestowed on him who argues himself out of his own Soul But here you think to slip your Neck out of the Collar by telling us That the internal Immorality of all actions must be carefully distinguished from the civil Consequences of them Well be it so we will do this for you too as fairly and carefully as we can and what then Why then suppose say you p. 6. A Son by fraudulent Arts gets Judgment in Law and seizes his Father's Estate and Body by Execution and starves his Father in Prison this Man's Immorality is damnable Is it so I think this is a bone for some body to pick which may hold him tug tho' his Teeth were as long as his NOSE But Sir what if a Daughter should do thus Will not this Womans Immorality be damnable If not pray next time you write give us a reason of the difference But it seems if they should be both damned Yet the Judges Sheriffs and other Officers are innocent It may be so whilst they act as Officers of Law and according to the directions of Law but if your Judges Sheriffs or other Officers make themselves Parties and join with and assist such a wicked Son or Daughter to effect such an evil act or do applaud and approve it when they know it be done by such wicked and unlawfull Arts then their being Officers of Law will rather encrease than deminish their guilt And so for your Robbers and Pirates a Man may lawfully suffer by them tho' it were better if he could escape it but if you will plead that their Robberies and Piracies are lawfull if you say they require a just right to what they get by such wicked means or if you actually join with them and rob and share in their Booties you will be as very a Rogue as they and which is most like the Case I leave others to judge Much such another instance is your Lord of a Mannor let him look how he came to be so I may treat with him as Lord of the Mannor whom the Law declares to be so But if the Lord's Tenants conspire against their lawfull Landlord and dispossess him of his Mannor and invite a Stranger and say and swear he shall be Lord of the Mannor and accordingly pay Homage and Fealty to him you Sir may determine for their swearing and lying too if you please but I shall have nothing the better opinion of your Honesty for it But now let the Fifth Commandment look to it self for it was never so hardly beset There are a sort of Protestants who I think are resolved by making away the Fifth Commandment to be even with the Papists for suppressing the Second and indeed according as some Men act and write unless it be to furnish pretence and to shew our fine Cloaths and eat roast Meat on Sundays I see not what occasion they have for any Commandments and so they might make Religion a Law of Liberty or a Liberty from all Law and I do not perceive Sir that you much mend the matter you say That from the Fifth Commandment we cannot charge K. W. with Subjection to King JAMES c. p. 7. If by this you mean that we cannot thence prove him to have been his Subject I do not know that ever any Man attempted such a thing but does a Nephew and a Son-in-Law owe no Duty if he owe not that which is properly called Subjection Or may a Man because he is not his Subject spoil another of all he has And must all persons applaud and approve the Act and swear he is in the right The Case of an own Daughter is still more severe but for that you say That she is in Duty bound to follow her Husband's Fortune Order and Authority even against the Will of her Father and this with a more plenary consent if she judged her Husbands Cause to be just I do not think either her or your judgment worth a farthing unless the Cause be just in it self Sorry Arguments will serve to persuade Ambitious persons that they have right to a Crown though unconcerned persons at the same time plainly see the fallaciousness of them But Sir I am not satisfied with your bare word that a Woman is bound thus to follow her Husband through thick and thin I grant that she ought to be the Partner both of his Joys and Sorrows but let her have a care how she becomes Partner in his Sins nor doth the relation of a Wife take away the relation of a Child as you seem to intimate tho' you are ashamed plainly to say it they may indeed limit each other so that the Father may not command the Daughter any thing inconsistent with the Duty of a Wife nor the Husband the Wife any thing inconsistent with the Duty of a Child to a Parent but yet the great end of these relations is to strengthen and support not to destroy each other as you closely insinuate Besides your reason is a mistake in it self as to this Case for could you with all your tricks of Legerdemain remove both King James and the Prince of Wales out of the way then there would rise another relation and then he in these Dominions must follow her Fortunes not she his for according to our Constitutions she would be his Queen and here he must be her Subject It is true the Name of King would be allowed but the Power by our Constitutions would be lodged in her and he would be liable to offend against her Laws to Treason against her Person and to be tried by her Authority
the Savoy if he dare speak Truth and by the way I must tell you that he is a bold Man who dare speak such a Truth at this time and he can tell you how they were sent and who sent them and that those whom you call Recusant Bishops were purposely kept ignorant that they might not be able to give any obstructions to the business And now Sir do not you think that you have acted a very mannerly part to our Reverend Fathers in exclaiming against them and comparing them to winking Watchmen and dumb Dogs because they do not get up o' th' top o' th' Monument and baul out against a thing which they knew nothing of It could not be done before and since it hath been cried out against sufficiently have they not suffered enough already unless you may persecute them with calumnies But you are not alone in this case for they are seldom mentioned in any Papers referring to this Revolution but they are fouly abused and charged with things which they were never guilty of by which means they are falsly represented even to good Men and suffer in their good Names as well as their Persons and Estates this in a great measure I my self could prove But Sir I will no farther concern my self with you than as you wrongfully charge them and that only in the proper places you seem to be offended that there has not been cry enough against Perjury others if we mention it say we are Uncharitable Censorious Proud Peevish Rash and all the ill-natured Titles their Schismatical Candor can afford us Thus it is impossible to please you whether we speak or hold our Tongues but for your own part since you are for such loud crying out against the fin I hope you will not be offended if hereafter you hear of Perjury more often Your Plea that you do not sine ratione insanire had been better let alone it being generally a rul'd case that those are incurable who do cum ratione insanire Another reason though you shusfle both together why we may lawfully join in those Prayers is because as you would persuade us King James and your King William are very good Friends truly this is the first time I have heard of it and I could wish it were true on good terms But let us see how you prove it why 't is certain the Prayers express him not very true and it is very rare because odious that Enemies are particularly named but if general Prayers do not mean something for or against particular persons though not particularly named the greatest part not only of the Liturgy but of all Prayers whatsoever are to no purpose but though they were not arrived to that unheard of impudence as to name him as an Enemy in their Prayers yet he is revil'd bely'd defam'd and bitterly cursed in Coffee-houses and even in the open streets that is not only suffered but encouraged or if any Man should chance to drink the Health of this good Friend of yours and your King it perhaps might cost him a Fine of 200 Marks beside other ill usage Sir if you use your Friends thus I desire to be none of them but you are resolved they must and shall be Friends for you flatly say That you do not rank him among the number of your K. William 's Enemies for an Enemy is one that desireth to injure a Man and we are not sure that King JAMES doth so design against King William And do you think King James to be that Good and rigorously Just Person who would do no wrong even to that Man who by Treachery defrauded him of two Kingdoms and then by sorce drove him from the third and with the utmost malice still prosecutes him and all that adhere to him and can you at the same time justifie the Wrongs and Barbarities he hath received Must a Man be abused for his Goodness Methinks this makes but a scurvy Plea for the late proceedings But if you do not believe this of King James I do but still it will do you no service for supposing he will do no wrong yet sure he may demand and endeavour to recover his Right and I am apt to think that your little ambitious Dutch Saviour would think no Man in the World so much his Enemy as he that demands three Kingdoms from him Nor do we call only those Enemies who design Injuries but even all who actually oppose each other or between whom there is any contest let their designs be what they will or their Cause right or wrong and after all your daubing he certainly is accounted the greatest Enemy for whose sake all others are judged Enemies Now though the King of France be such an abominable Enemy he should soon be esteemed the best Friend in the World if he would but renounce the Interest of King James and support the Usurpation of the Prince of Orange I did expect something concerning the Ammunition Prayers but you leave them to shift for themselves and yet you think there is a Prayer on the 29th of May so dangerous that you graciously give us leave to forbear to be present at it But Sir who gave you authority to dispense with terms of Communion Or did you ever know any sober Society that gave their Members liberty at pleasure to take and refuse of their terms of Communion You have done more I fear than you will receive any thanks for none you are like to have from us who have no need of your License and you ought not to expect it from those who will think their Authority hereby invaded But yet you think we need not be so very coy as to the Prayer for you say That you have been assured by a Good Father that the Recusant Bishops did not at first stick at that but that some gave directions and consent to the use of it and also before their Suspension deputed Persons to administer the Oath in the execution of the Authorities and Offices Episcopal thus deputed Sir if I should say your Good Father was an arrant lying Knave and prove him so I hope you would not only pardon my bluntness but also be more careful for the future how you gave any credit to such Persons As for any of their consenting or sending it is only the former falshood repeated which I have answered already and as for this pretended deputation I will set before you the true story and then you and all Men may judge how candidly our suffering Fathers are dealt with On the 28th of Jan. the Bishop of London and St. Asaph and some others presented themselves before your mighty King William with a mournful Address in behalf of our Reverend Fathers then drawing near to a Civil Suspension and since more than uncivilly deprived This was the pretence but it is reasonable to think that it was a complotted thing and that the real design was to get their Authorities deputed in such sure Hands as might effectually