falsehood Detected: IN A DEFENCE OF A LETTER out of the country TO A MEMBER of PARLIAMENT, CONCERNING The BISHOPS then under Suspension.  
Against a Late Printed Sheet, falsely charging the Bishop of S— ry, as the Author of that Letter, and virulently Detracting from his Worth, upon that Occasion.  

licenced, February 20. 1690.   
LONDON: Printed for Awnsham Churchill at the Black Swan in Ave-Mary-Lane. 1690.   

falsehood Detected: In a Defence of a Letter out of the Country to a Member of Parliament, concerning the Bishops then under Suspension.  
SIR,  
THis is to own the Receipt of your last with the enclosed Paper, which truly would have been pleasant enough, if no Body else had had any more concern in it, than the Author of the Pamphlet he pretends to Answer. But that it came out so slily and privately, I do not at all wonder, for I suppose the worthy Author designed the Paper for an Original, and the true Standard of blasting the Credit of his Neighbour, and therefore was under some necessity of playing the Whisperer, as well as the Railer, and false Witness; the latter of which I am able to attest, and I shall leave his Readers to judge how he has performed the former. For altho, I take the Author for a wise Man, yet I hope he will Pardon me, tho I say, That neither he nor his Sagacious Friend, are Witches; for 'twas neither Erasmus, nor the Devil; or if you will have it in our Country Phrase, the Devil or his Dam, that was the Author of that Paper. For it was so far from being the Bishop of S— 's, that I am very sure he does not know the Person that did writ it; and should he attempt to guess, 'tis probable he might be as much out, as our Author himself, with all his skill has been. But for my part, I have very little reason to quarrel with this Reverend Gentleman, for I am sure he has done me the greatest Honour in the World, to think that I writ like my Lord S. and had I not some reason to suspect the Mistake was wilful, I will assure him, I should have been exceeding proud of it. But I doubt there was something of an old Grudge in the Case; and so to complete his revenge, he would make him the Father of the weakest Paper he can find. But how full soever his Stomach was then, methinks he has eased it so well since,( having partend with a fine deal of choler) that I hope he is now much better; and unless he is troubled with the over-flowing of the gull, we may expect fairer Quarter hereafter. But I am really sorry it was his Lordships Fortune to bear the first brunt: But we are used to say, That a scurrilous Tongue is no Slander; and truly that is a comfort, that I think his Lordship may have, as to this Author's Pen.  
But since Justice did in some measure oblige me to do my Lord of S. that right, as to declare to all the World, that he was not the Author of the Paper, against which this Reverend Person is pleased to take such Exception; 'tis possible, it may be expected that I should say something in Answer to the Paper itself, which I think he has not rendered very difficult. For by bare telling him, that I am not the Bishop of S. I do at once confute at least two thirds of his Pamphlet, for so much, I'm sure, is taken up in unhandsome personal Reflections on the Bishop, in which I think I have no concern, and the Bishop truly as little; for the Foundation being false, all that is built upon it, must necessary fall with it. And altho I am very willing to dispatch that Matter as fast as I can, yet for the Readers satisfaction, I will transcribe two Periods of our Authors ingenious Raillery. For thus he begins.  
Sir, 
P. 1.  I am a great admirer of your Writings; and as some curious Observers come to know Pictures; so I come to know the Letter out of the Country to a Member of this present Parliament, to be one of your Pieces. No Child was over more like the Father; and I am also confirmed in my Opinion, by the concurrent judgement of other Readers, and I will venture all the Reputation I have, as a critic in Pamphlets, that it is an Original; for you have a peculiar way of Writing, especially Libels, which no Man hath, nor any good Man can desire to have in such Perfection, as yourself.  
One of your Acquaintance, who knows your hand very well, had not red two of the fourteen Pages, before he cried out, this is Erasmus, or the Devil: and therefore, Sir, when you writ the next Libel, neither conceal your own, nor change your Booksellers Name; for your Venomous style will discover you in every Period; and it is by that, we now come to know who you are; but since you appear without your Fiocco, I shall take the Liberty to pull off your upper Robes, and show the Wolf under the Sheeps clothing; for so I shall make it appear, you are to the six Bishops throughout your whole Letter, under the Cover of Friendship and Tenderness: But Sir, tho to Kiss and Betray with the same Breath, may as times now go, pass for a Venial Sin in a Politician, yet the World abhors it in a Divine.  
But now I would gladly know, what the World thinks of one, that upon a bare Surmise, shall( like the Pope in Cathedra) thus positively, and publicly too pronounce a thing, of the truth of which he had a great deal of reason to doubt, because he could have no assurance of it; and you yourself, Sir, I am sure, can witness, that what he so majesterially affirms, is as great a falsehood as ever yet was put in Print; being a perfect stranger both to the Bishop, and to his Bookseller, and to my own, none of which I ever saw in all my life. But then upon this groundless Supposition, to proceed to such a height of violence, and reproachful Language, is, I think, that which this Gentleman, as fierce as he is, will not justify, when he is in a cool and less confident mood.  
For, had the other merited all those severe ill things the Author says of him, yet certainly the Character he now bears in the Church might very justly challenge a little more respect. But his Civility and Charity may well go hand in hand, and so I shall leave them, wishing him much joy of the Reputation that his skill as a critic in Pamphlets, has at this time gained him; for I suppose by this( as by the foot of Hercules) my Peader will be apt to guess at the rest, therefore shall not trouble him hereafter with any long repetition of our Author's charming rhetoric; for he is so particularly happy in a mildred obliging style, that 'tis by That I come to know some other Pieces of his. But having no farther concern in them than to admire them, I shall say no more of them; for I must be as cautious of intruding on another's Province, as of stumbling on their Arguments, of which I shall give an Account hereafter.  
But now, to come to that which was both the Occasion and Subject of the last Letter: It being now decided by the Bishops choosing the Penalty, rather than comply with the Law, altho' I could wish they had made another Election, yet I shall not be so rude as to disturb them in that quiet they have made their Choice; for I must always have an unseigned Respect and Veneration for them, perhaps as great, but I'm sure as sincere as the Author himself, as I could evince by some Services that I attempted, and should have done them, had my power been equal to my affection. But whether the Author will believe this or no, I am pretty indifferent, for it will not be the less true if he do not. But( altho' I am not the butting Divine, 
P. 1. c. 1.  I must crave leave to bring in a But or two here by way of Apology for this Proceeding against those Worthy Bishops, for) the Parliament had little reason to suspect that those Excellent Persons, who had been so zealous to maintain, and so forward to suffer for the Protestant Religion, should now be the great Opposers of its Establishment, and therefore did as little foresee as design making them obnoxious to such Penalties. But in the second place, I must say, That I believe there has been Expedients offered, and they might possibly have been dispensed with for taking the Oaths, if that had been their only scruple; and of the truth of this, I dare appeal to the Bishops themselves; nor can I suppose the Author ignorant of it( but if he knows their Reasons for refusing to offer any Security instead of the Oath, I must confess he knows more than I do.) And this was done without their Petitioning either the Parliament, or you know who, so that there was no need of this Reverend Gentleman's Counsel, if he had been worthy to advice their Lordships, which is, perhaps, 
P. 2. c. 1.  the only truth in those two Paragraphs: For as he is pleased to apply them to the Author of that Letter, nothing in the World can be either more impertinent, or more false; as, I believe, he would own, were he a little better acquainted with that Person; Who, I can assure him, never projected for the Cap and Cringe of that great Metropolitan, to whom I shall always show all that respect and reverence that he can upon any account challenge, let him be as stiff to me as Mordecai, 
P. 2. c. 1.  or whom he pleases.  
As to the business of the Declaration, I shall very willingly own them as the Generals of that great Cause, and allow them all the honour that belongs to that Station; for I think their panegyrics cannot be too great on that account; and since you will allow their Under-officers to come in for their due share of Praise in that great and glorious Action, I have nothing more to say on that Point.  
And as to that Letter about the Declaration, which he intimates was writ by one of the Dissenting Divines, I believe it did a great deal of good in the Countreys, for I know it did confirm several that were wavering. But I cannot see what influence it could have on any of the London-Clergy, because they had past the Pikes before That came out, as is pretty evident from the Postscript, wherein he takes notice of the false Account H. Care had given of the reading of the Declaration in London; for that Worthy Author did wisely foresee that the Example of the London-Clergy was like to be more powerful than His Arguments; and therefore did very well to remove that stumbling block out of the way; telling them, That of above 100 Parishes that were in the City, it was red only in four or five Churches, all the rest and best of the Clergy refusing it every where. So that truly our Reverend Author might very well have spared that unjust suggestion, That if it had not been for that Letter, it had likely been red in some of the most considerable Churches in London, 
P. 3. c. 1.  by men whose obsequious Examples would have had a great Influence over the whole Nation. But whether this were true or false, some of our eminent Clergy men may see what Obligation they have to this Author for his good Opinion of them.  
But now, to come to the other Declaration of Dec. 11. he asks me, Was the signing of the Declaration in that time of Confusion a deviation from their Duty, or not? 
P. 4, 5.  If it were not, then they committed no fault in doing it. And I should be glad to know where I said they did, for I'll assure you I would beg their pardon for it with all my heart; for it was not their signing it, but their not adhering to it, that I blame; and so I think I have answered his first Quaere: and not at all questioning but that they had very good Motives for what they then did, I shall neither examine nor dispute the Author's Reasons for it; for I am of his Opinion, That the Action needed no Apology. 
P. 5.   
Among many extraordinary things in our Author, he has a peculiar Art of Preterition, which he manages so dexterously, that he will never take notice of any thing that is not for his turn; but altho' he cannot conceive by what Rules of logic it can be inferred, that because they declared to assist the Prince of Orange in obtaining a Free Parliament, wherein the then Laws might be secured, the then established Government supported, they therefore judged that K. James had Deserted and Abdicated his Kingdom. But if that do not follow, there is another thing that I am sure will; which, as he remembers, was, That Subjects may prescribe to, nay force their Kings to do their Duty. And if he likes this end of the Staff better, with all my heart let him take it; for altho' he gives his Readers Hobson's Choice, I will allow him two to choose one: but till I know which he pitches on, I should but shoot at Rovers, therefore shall not enlarge on that Point.  
And now, in answer to his next Paragraph, I think I may return his civil Question, and ask him, What right he has to steal other Peoples Arguments, and not city them for it? For I know where he borrowed, 
P. 6, 7.  if he did not steal, That every Withdrawing of a King amounts not to a Desertion; which the Desertion discussed has at large, 
P. 4.  with some of his Instances: and that having been answered by so much a better Pen, I shall refer him to that; for, in Justice to that Author, he ought to have cleared his Argument from the Objections against it, before he made use of it again: but 'tis a sign that his stock is low, when he is forced to produce baffled Arguments.  
But now as to the Phrase of Boe-peep, 
P. 4. c. 2.  which he is so extremely scandalised at, I must own I do not see where the scurrility of it lies; but our Author being the very pink of courtesy, if he will please to furnish me with a controller and properer word, I'll promise him to alter it in the next Edition.  
But now I am come to the two cutting Questions, 
P. 4. c. 2.  which he returns to my Manna, and the Man in the Parable; and the first is, Are you sure that this Free Parliament in which the Nation is so happy, is that Lawful Free Parliament which they intended in the Declaration? And truly wanting the Author's extraordinary faculty of discerning mens thoughts, I must not pretend to know their secret intentions; but if I may judge of them by what they did and said in public, I may say it was a Parliament so called and constituted that they must mean, if they meant any thing: For in the present circumstances of things at that time,( K. James being then actually gone, and having called in and burnt the Writs he had sent out) I know not how they could have any other sort of Parliament but that: For which they then seemed to be in great hast. For the very words are, And we do hereby declare, That we will with our outmost endeavours assist his Highness in the obtaining such a Parliament with all speed; So that 'tis evident it was such a Parliament as the then P. of O. was to help them too, and that with all speed, without taking the least notice of K. James. And this I think may serve for an Answer to the first Query; 
P. 4. c. 2.  nor do I apprehended any very great difficulty in the second. Are you sure they invited any Man before? or courted any Man to Reign over them since the departure of King James? For if the Author, who knows peoples minds a great deal better than I do, would please to tell us what they intended when they unanimously resolved to apply themselves to his Highness the P. of Orange, and what they meant by rescuing them from the imminent danger of Popery and Slavery, I suppose that Question would need no further Answer.  
In the next place, I should proceed to the Doctrine of Non-resistance; but that is such a beaten path, that it will be very hard for me to say any thing that is new upon it: And you know I must not make use of other peoples Arguments, 
P. 5. c. 1.  and so shall have very little to say, But that I do not think the New Oaths inconsistent with the Doctrine of Passive Obedience, if we take it, both as the Primitive Christians practised, and taught it; tho' 'tis possible may not agree so well with it, if taken in that Key to which some of our late Divines have screwed it up: For I conceive there is a great deal of difference betwixt not resisting a Tyrant when he actually Reigns over us, and Fighting for him, when by chance of War, or any other accident( without our fault) he comes to be dethroned: For although the Romans to whom St. Paul writ, did not resist Nero, yet I believe it would puzzle our Author with all his History, to show that the Primitive Christians in those days did either descend his Right and Title against the Senate when they prosecuted him, or Revenge his Death; and if he can prove either of those things of the Roman Christians of that time( who should have understood St. Paul's Rules at least as well as we do) I dare promise to become his proselyte. But the truth is, they never troubled themselves with the making or unmaking of Kings, nor disputed about their Titles; but obeyed those that were in Authority. So that if their Example is to be our Standard, 'tis not impossible but the Dissenting Divines may prove the greatest offenders against their own Rule. For I do not believe that the Christians of those days were such platonic Lovers of Persecution, but that they would have submitted as patiently, if a Christian Prince( if there had been any such thing in those days) had deposed Nero, as they did to the Senate's proceeding against him. And if our Reverend Author will please to apply this, I think I need say no more on this Head.  
But now I am to defend my Comparison of the Two Commandments; for he says, it is certainly much for the Interest, and the Peace of their Conscience( if it be not yet seared) that the Parallel between these two Gases and Commandments should be exactly true. But although I should say, I think they are, yet he knows my mind so much better, that he tells me plainly he can scarce believe I think so myself, and that for the following Reasons.  
1st, Because, as to the power of dispensing, 
P. 5. c. 2.  there is a great deal of difference between a Positive and a Natural Law, which, he says, I confounded together in my Discourse. But if we may be allowed to take God Almighty's own reason for his sanctifying the 7th Day, I may call it a Natural, nay, almost an Eternal Law; for the reason of it begun with Time itself. For in six days the Lord made Heaven and Earth, the Sea, and all that in them is, and restend the Seventh Day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Seventh Day, and hallowed it. And if a Commandment where the Duty results from the Relation, cannot be dispensed with, I should think the Fourth Commandment of all in the Decalogue, could not: For the Relation that we have to God as our Creator, I'm sure is that which can never cease, or be superseded by any new superinduced Relation, as it often happens in the Fifth Commandment. For although he is pleased very peremptorily to tell us, That in the Fifth Commandment, where the Duty results from the Relation, 
P. 6. c. 1.  it cannot be separate from it, but must hold as long as that doth; Yet I can assure him this is so far from being universally true, that it fails in half of Mankind: for the whole Race of Women are dispensed with when they are married, and are no farther obliged to obey either Father or Mother, than their Husbands will give them leave; although the Relation still remain, and they are as really and as much their Daughters and Children as ever they were. And this holds not only when they are married with the Parents consent,( who then may be supposed to give up their Right), but when they dispose of themselves without it. And I believe it is not only the Females that claim exemption from that Rule when they are married, but the Sons also in great measure, when they come to be Masters of Families. And methinks 'tis pretty strange, that the literal and primary Duty of that Command should be so frequently, nay, so constantly dispensed with, and those Duties which can be only drawn from it by way of Inference and Deduction, should be of such an eternal and indispensible Obligation.  
But I am very glad to find, 
P. 6. c. 1.  that in some Governments the foundation of the Relation is Temporary and Conditional, and then the the Relation upon the expiring of that time, or the breach of those Conditions, is separated from the Person. Now if this be true, we are well enough; for our Author's mistaking the Nature of our Government( which, he says, he takes to be a perpetual unconditional one) cannot alter the Constitution of it. So that all that he builds upon this false supposition, signifies nothing to us; for we are not under the same Circumstances with the Primitive Christians: and had they been in ours at this time, I do not think they would have made any scruple of submitting to K. William, when placed on the Throne without their fault, or meddling in it.  
But we are not to have done with this yet; for, as luck will have it, he is so zealous in his own Case, 
P. 6. c. 2.  that he quiter forgets the other; for he asks, Whether they would have dispensed with the fourth Commandment, if there had been an additional Law to make it High-Treason? But if God's Word and Command be but of as great Authority at an Act of Parliament, I can bring as many additional Laws( that is, Texts of Scripture) for the Confirmation of the fourth Commandment, as he can Statutes out of our Law for the fifth: And I know not what he calls present excision; but I think the poor fellow that was stoned for gathering of Sticks, paid as dear for the breach of the Sabbath, as ever any of our Traytors did for High-Treason. And I do not at all question but that the Maccabees did know all this, and yet you see, Sir, they did presume to dispense with the fourth Commandment.  
The next buffonery is, 
P 6. c. 2.  If they would have dispensed with it, upon supposition, that receding from the literal sense would have been more pernicious to Them and their country, than keeping strictly to the letter of it? Let us suppose, that by doing so, they had entailed a long intestine War upon the Nation, which would cost it 20 such Armies, and miserable wasted their country, and thereby made it the pity and scorn of other Nations. In return to this, I must tell him, The Maccabees did know it would beget a War, as I'm sure our Author knows it did; but they preferred That before Slavery, and choose not only to dispense with the fourth, but the fifth Commandment also; for certainly they were under the same Obligations of obeying Antiochus, as their Successors were to the Romans, neither having any Right but by Conquest. But altho so many thousands fell in those Wars, yet the Nation gained Honour, and not Contempt by it; so that their Example should rather encourage than fright us, for which I know the Question was designed. But truly that which we were delivered from, was so much worse than any thing we have yet reason to fear, that we have a great deal of cause to thank God that we are so well as we are For altho the Parliament might not be such as the Bishops intended, yet certainly the King that God has blessed us with, is such an one as all honest true-hearted English-men would have wished for, if they might have had their choice. A Prince of that admirable Temper, that I may say his Patience is as invincible as his Courage, since he is willing to expose himself to the greatest hazards for the ease of an ungrateful murmuring People, as I am sure too many of us have shew'd ourselves to him. But prey God Convert Them, and Protect Him.  
And now I am at last come to that which perhaps might betray our Author to believe the Bp. S. put out the former Letter, but altho' I know not how I chanced to urge the same Argument, yet I think you can witness for me, that I neither borrowed nor stolen it from the Pastoral Letter; for I can with a great deal of truth aver, that I never saw that Letter till after my own was Printed, when you sent them down both together: For although I had desired it sooner, hearing a great deal of talk of King John's Charter( the only thing I ever heard it cited for) but your occasions calling you out of Town, you know it was forgot, and never sen● till the time I mention. But however I do not like my Argument the worse for agreeing with so eminent a person's thoughts; nor should I have been ashamed to have borrowed, or in our Author's Phrase, stolen from him, if I applied it well. But the Argument is this, Either 'tis Lawful to obey K. William, or 'tis not; If it is Lawful, then why may not any Man Swear he will do so? To which he Answers, Now, Sir, to this Argument, 
P. 6. c. 2.  the understanding of any ordinary Curate will return this Answer; and a very pretty prologue it is to it, by which the poor Curates may see how much they are valued, and what an extraordinary opinion the Reverend Author has of their understanding: But since I am neither the Butting, nor the seraphic, or angelic Doctor, I will own the poor Curate good enough to treat with me. But because I would not be betrayed by this Reverend person's example, to despise a good honest Curate, I would fain know why a Curate may not have as good an understanding as a person, or a Doctor. I do believe indeed, That the meanest of them could have  told me as much, or more than he does; for they would not only have  told me, that in some things it is lawful to obey K. William, and in some things 'tis not; but also, that it was not lawful to obey K. James in every thing: Therefore if this worthy Author did take any Oath to K. James in that latitude, he was certainly guilty of the Perjury in the Act that he speaks of; for I have too good an opinion of him to believe he designed to obey K. James without reserve. But besides this, the incomparable Author of the Whole Duty of Man, tells us, there is another way whereby a Promissary Oath may become a Perjury in the Act, and that is when I take it in a differing sense from that in which the imposers of the Oath designed it. As for example, the Parliaments of England to exclude the Popes Power at first, and to prevent the growth of Popery in this Kingdom, since have, in order to that, made, and imposed several Oaths, Tests, and Subscriptions on the Subjects: and although any ordinary Curate has understanding enough to know that this was the true original and occasion of all the public Oaths that have been made since the Reformation; yet if any Man shall be so unreasonably scrupulous, as to think himself obliged by the ill wording of the Oath, to do what was clean contrary to the design of it, and instead of keeping out, shall endeavour to bring in Popery( as I am sure every one does, that should now attempt to bring back K. J.) Was not such an one, think you, guilty of Perjury in the Act? For 'tis evident he did not take the Oath in the Sense the Law designed it, but in so contrary an one, that it perverts the end for which it was made: and this truly I take to be a Point that deserves some Consideration, lest some may continue in a wilful Perjury who seem so scrupulously to avoid it. But there has already been so much said about taking the Oaths, that I need not here repeat it, or say any thing more on that Subject; for as I do not approve what our Author cites out of a Pamphlet, which( I have never seen, but) he calls, A Vindication of those who have taken the new Oath of Allegiance; So I think I have no reason to justify it; every body may think as they please.  
As to what I said of Ireland, I should be very willing to recant it, if the dismal Effects that our Dissenters at home do daily produce, would give me leave: but whatever other Miscarriages may have happened in the managery of that War, I am very sure, that our Divisions, and setting up of a Party here, was the first, and has been the greatest Obstacle to the happy Progress of our Affairs there. And if those excellent Persons can clear themselves from countenancing that Faction, I shall be extremely glad of it for their sakes. But they cannot be ignorant that their name is often made use of for a cloak to cover things that I believe they would not encourage, if they knew; but that is not my fault. Nor do I think that I am obliged to take notice of every petty Cavil, nor is there any that is unanswerable, but I was unwilling to make this longer than I needs must. Yet what I have balked, has been where the Bp. of S. was more personally concerned than the Author of that Letter, so that I think there remains but one thing more for me to speak to. And I can assure him, I had no occasion to count myself to make up a number of good Men in the Church; 
P. 3. c. 2.  altho I am none of them that have cast Lots for the Bishops Garments. But as I do not design to succeed them myself in any one place, so 'tis as little my business to judge them that do. And if he had pleased to have spared the Comparison of our present dispute, with that in St. Athanasius's time; 
P. 8.  perhaps it might have been as well; for I hope there is so much difference in the weight of the Question, that I think there is no proportion between them. For I will assure him, I will disclaim not only K. J. but K. W. also, and all the Kings of Christendom, before I will deny the Divinity of the Son of God; and 'twill be very hard if we must not be thought Christians, if we are not Jacobites; but I hope for all this, we may prove our Right to the first Title, as well as those that own the second, which I think I cannot better do, than by praying for him, that is so spiteful to  
Sir, Your &c.  
FINIS.