A LETTER To the Author of the late Letter out of the Country, occasioned by a former Letter to a Member of the House of Commons, concerning the Bishops lately in the Tower, and now under Suspension.  
SIR.  
IN a Peevish discourse, I always expect to meet with more of Passion than Reason. And you have given me no ground to alter my opinion, I confess at the very beginning, you make an Apology for your Peevishnesses, but I think that does not mend the matter, it only shows that some men know their own infirmity, and yet cannot forbear to publish it to the world. And what allowances soever you may bespeak and expect in a private correspondence and from your friend, yet there is not the same reason to expect it from the world; and to Print and Publish a peevish and fretful Letter, and then to cry out you were betrayed by sickness, is a peevish, i.e. a ridiculous excuse. For if you were distempered and peevish and knew it, why did not you stay till your thoughts were cooler? Wise men have always judged that grave and serious matters require a free and dispassionate mind. And your Letter gives us an instance, that in a peevish fit, how much soever a man may be master of his Notions, he is not much master of his Reason.  
I cannot be persuaded, that you yourself believe, that qualms and indispositions are sufficient Licences for Invectives, and that whenever your Head or Toe aches, you are thereby dispensed with, to fall upon the Honour and Reputation of good and excellent Men? and therefore pardon me, if I think your peevishness hath some other causes besides bodily temper. Envy is apt to raise the Spleen, and men of great Ambition and no great Virtue, are always jealous of other men's merits. There was an honourable character, (and which they very well deserved) given of the Bishops in the first Letter: And it is a Query (which you can satisfy) whether That was the sole, or the concurring Cause, whether it made, or only contributed to your distemper, and meeting with prepared matter, and the humours on the fret, hath raised the ferment to that pitch of wrath and bitterness, which every where discovers itself in your Letter.  
This is too invidious to be open and barefaced, and downright Detraction and Calumny melts away before the Reputations of such Men, like Snow before the Sun. But to pretend mighty respects and esteem, under that Vizor perhaps something may be fastened, however it must be owned to be politicly done; obliquely to attack That Reputation, which can never without palpable infamy be directly attempted. You profess a particular veneration for these excellent Persons, and not content with that you add, as true and great a veneration as any body can pretend to. And I wonder how you would like to be thus reverenced yourself, to have such good words made an inlet to defame you: a crafty artifice to cloud and eclipse the glory of your Actions, and to lessen (with all imaginable peevishness,) your just value and esteem amongst men, I fancy, in such a case you would be put hard to it to distinguish betwixt your Enemies, and your Admirers.  
It is not very long since that these great and Reverend Prelates had signalised themselves by an unparallelled act of Zeal for the Protestant Religion, and for the Liberty and Property of the Subject, which the whole Nation beheld and admired, and gave public demonstrations of their Affection and Gratitude, suitable to so great and venerable an occasion: And now, out come you with your Letter, and (out of pure Veneration no doubt) do all you can to depreciate and undervalue the honour of it. Why. They did but their duty, and other men behaved themselves as well as they. Such an ungenerous and impious scorn was never before put on so glorious an Action, and can proceed from nothing but a malice, or ingratitude, as unparallelled as their Virtues. If these be the effects of Veneration, give me the man that spits in my face; I had rather be openly reproached, than to have the same thing done under fawning compliments and hypocritical Reverences.  
You have got a fine expression for this and call it, placing things in a true light; as if all the kingdom was blind before, in the unsiversal applauses and regards that were every where paid to them. And now forsooth they must recall their Praise and Thanks, and dance after your new light; which discovers that it was their indispensable Duty, and the praise and thanks must be divided.  
It was their indispensable Duty, and they own it, but is it the worse or the less for that? I fancy you would be glad, if you could prove it had not been their duty, for than you might have something to say against them. And is it not very commendable, and praiseworthy, for a man to do his duty? But how poor and thin (not to say base and unworthy) is your representation of this great Action. As if they had performed only an easy and common duty, which notwithstanding deserves a better acknowledgement, and treatment than you can afford to this high act of Religion, you tell us, you desire to consider the Actions in the naked Circumstances. And I must tell you, that you consider this Action very nakedly indeed; for you omit the most material and pertinent Circumstances, which are the generous asserting of the Protestant Religion, and the English Liberties, to the apparent hazard of themselves, and all their secular interests. You know these are Duties of great difficulty, and the performance of them hath been celebrated in all Ages of the Church. And when the Fathers of our Church have demonstrated an invincible Zeal and Courage in asserting Religion, and the Laws: To have this represented with peevish and contemptible abatements, is a reproach to Christianity, and reflects dishonour upon the blood of Martyrs, and the faith and constancy of Confessors.  
You say, You cannot see why they should boast; and do they boast? of That all the world, and even yourself acquit them: but you would fain insinuate it by proving from Scripture, they ought not to boast. 'Tis a Reflection upon humane Nature to answer such insinuations, and I appeal to the candour of a Jew, for the iniquity of them. What tho' men cannot merit from God, must they not therefore have due praises from men? Envy and Detraction are no less Vices, and far more odious than Boasting. S. Paul, That he might not be exalted was buffeted, 
2 Cor. 12.7.  but it is to be remembered, that it was by a messenger of Satan.  
At this rate, there will be no such thing as Honour, Praise, and Reputation amongst men, and the most renowned and illustrious Actions will shrink into a narrow compass; you may try it in any Action that from the beginning of the World, hath had the reputation of Great and Glorious; and it is liable to the very same that you object to the Bishops. Let us examine it in an instance of your own allowance. This very Action (provided the Bishops may have as little the honour of it as may be) you are content to own that it was ravishing and transporting, and that a whole Nation was never more obliged. Now, Sir, let there be as many sharers in this as you please, and let all the shares be put together; let the Lords, the Lawyers and inferior Clergy, assert, defend and assist, as much as you shall think fit, the upshot (in your way) will be no more honour, than you will allow to the Bishops, a small question of yours will rifle it of all the glory you pretend to give it: For (as you say of the Bishops) I would only ask this Question, whether it was their duty or no? if it was, then without admitting the Popish doctrine of supererogation and merit, I cannot see why they should boast, or we magnify them so extremely for doing that which was their indispensable duty. And so for any thing I can see, the Lords, the Lawyers, and the inferior Clergy, (for all your ecstasy and transport) must even go look for their honour, as well as the Bishops, for as you have handled the matter, that glorious action is come to a fair issue, and upon the foot of the account we have it, they did but their duty, and so need not have been so extremely magnified.  
Your pretending therefore to divide the thanks and praise, was not to give it to any body else, but to take it from the Bishops. This is one of the crooked and serpentine ways of detraction, when the merit of an action cannot with any face be denied, than it deserves not so much, or others deserve it too, you should (you say) be unjust to others, if you should suffer them to engross all the praise. But what injustice is it to others to suffer the Bishops to enjoy what is their due. It can never be denied but they had a share in that action, and the greatest share too; There were others concerned in it, but that (tho' unawares to you) is so far from lessening, that it is a considerable advance to the honour of these excellent Bishops; for if the particular acting in it deserved praise and thanks, certainly some part even of that praise and thanks is due to them who were the cause and occasion of it; so that besides the merit of their immediate and particular actings, (which was far the greatest) there is an additional honour due to them, from that which was effected by their Authority and example, by their wisdom and conduct. For tho' (as you say) some of their inferior Clergy, were as forward as themselves, yet I must tell you (if you do not know it already) they were but some, and those (for the most part) the very same who still in judgement and practice agree with the Bishops. To instance in one, the learned and famed Author of these admirable Reasons, for not reading the Declaration, in a Letter from a Minister in the City, to one in the Country: But there were others, and those not inconsiderable, who at first, were not so very forward, some thought the reading the Declaration to be only a MINISTERIAL ACT, and others but MATTER OF PRUDENCE, what Readiness therefore they showed after, was not Original, but derivative, and is owing to the Influence and reasons of the Bishops, their seconding is to be ascribed to the Principals, and they followed, but it was because they had such excellent Leaders. And for the truth of all this, I appeal to the transactions and debates at the several Consultations which were held about this matter. Besides, it ought not to be forgotten, that these Bishops never transmitted the Declarations to their respective Clergy, and each of them by that single act secured a whole Diocese. So that what share soever others had in the action, no body can pretend to an equal share in the Reputation. Had They complied, I doubt the Number of the Non-Readers would have been much inferior to the Non-swearers.  
I know my Lords the Bishops envy not man his share and honour in that action, and would have been glad if there had been yet more concerned in it. And there were some (you do not mention) who notwithstanding as well deserve it, and had as considerable a part as those you do mention; Those are the Gentlemen of the Jury, who (to their immortal honour) brought in that just verdict, and tho' you have left them out (and perhaps because they did so) their virtue and uprightness is celebrated by the present, and will be celebrated by succeeding ages. To give therefore the Bishops their just honour, does not deprive that excellent Jury, nor any others concerned of what is due to them, nor does the commending the Lords and Lawyers reflect upon the Bishops. They very well agree together, and what is given to one, is not taken from another, Partnership in virtue is not subject to the rules of Arithmetic, to adjust the quotas and proportions of praise and thanks, they best subsist in the common stock; 'Tis only your peevishness that talks of dividing. The action was united, and why not the honour? and those that concurred in the action, will not be Rivals in the Glory.  
I am ashamed to have said thus much in so clear a matter, and I do hearty and humbly beg pardon of my Lords the Bishops: To plead in such a case is a kind of detraction, and to offer to wipe out stains, supposes a possibility of their sticking. But I have this Apology, it is not so much the case of their Lordships, (for that I know to be above Calumny) but the whole kingdom is concerned, which hath already given its judgement in universal approbation and applause, so that to reflect upon, or to diminish the Bishops, is to disparage the public verdict, and is a Libel upon the whole Nation.  
Before I leave this, there is one thing more I shall acquaint you with, and that is, that how much fidelity, zeal, and courage soever these excellent Bishops have shown in this particular it is not the only instance they have done it in, Their virtues have been tried before, there was a time when A solemn League and Covenant, and another, when an Engagement was to be taken, and then they gave admirable proofs of their Constancy, and even in their younger years showed themselves to be men of Episcopal virtues, that neither the Power nor peril of the times, nor the baits of interest, nor any secular matter could prevail upon their Consciences, nor could they be any more persuaded to swallow the Covenant and Engagement, than they were to read the Declaration. Sir, you are very pert about filling their places with as good and able men as they, I will not question your stock, but if you will count again, I doubt (tho' it be but a small number) you will be put to it, to find even four or five of such tried and experienced virtue, and who can come up to the pitch and measure of their Courage and Constancy.  
I come now to that you call a less pleasing Subject, their Refusing the Oaths. I will not dispute with you whether they have done well, or ill, or whether they ought, or ought not to take the Oaths. But whether you have offered any thing considerable to convince them.  
You say you will be so kind to them, as to make them Judges in their own causes. Well that is a kindness, and in consequence of it, I pray let their Lordships be asked, and the matter, I suppose, will soon be at an end. But you do not mean so, only a Paper they set their hands to almost a Twelvemonth since. If all the Declarations that men have subscribed must be their Judges, (however the Bishops may escape,) I am afraid, those that are so hot upon this, would not be able to stand the Trial themselves of their own Declarations and Subscriptions. And yet there is a very great difference between those Subscriptions, and this of the Bishops, and the other Lords. When that Declaration at Guildhall was made and subscribed, The times were in the utmost confusion, the King was withdrawn, the Rabble up in all parts of the Kingdom, the Necessity's pressing and urgent: put all these together, and if there had been any need, there is reason and ground enough for allowances; and however it is very unseasonably urged by those, who themselves are so little tied to their own solemn and deliberate Declarations and Subscriptions.  
But I pray what is there in This DECLARATION that so warmly affects the Bishops, as that they should refuse to be judged by it. The short of it is, That they resolved to apply themselves to the P. of O, who had undertaken (and promised by HIS DECLARATION) to rescue us, by endeavouring to procure A FREE PARLIAMENT: That they would assist him in the obtaining such a Parliament, wherein our Laws and Liberties may be secured, the Protestant interest supported, to the glory of God, the happiness of the Established Government of these Kingdoms. And now Sir, I pray tell me, what contradiction is there in all this, to their present or to their former practices. Was it that they declared to endeavour for a Free Parliament? That very thing, THEY had done in their Advices and Petition not long before. Or was it that they applied to the P. of O. and promised to assist him? Why they promised to assist him but in the obtaining a Free Parliament, and such a Free Parliament as might secure the Laws, etc. to the glory of God, and the happiness of the Established Government. And what is all this to Swearing? how comes there to be such an inseparable connexion between the Oath and the Declaration? that the refusing the one is a palpable violation of the other. Cannot a man endeavour for a Free Parliament, and promise to assist the P. of O. in procuring one, but that in his own judgement he must think himself obliged to take the Oath, and if he does not, he recals his consent, and flies from his subscriptions? How you will prove this, I cannot tell; and I am confident from these Premises all the skill you have, can never draw such a Conclusion.  
The next thing you proceed upon is, That Salus populi est suprema lex: and upon this Maxim, you say, you will dispute the matter in cool blood. I am glad of that, for hitherto your blood or your choler has been very hot: And (to do you right) what follows is the coolest thing you have said in all your Letter. You say, The saying is derived from the old Romans, among whom the People with the Senate, had the face of the supreme Magistracy. So that in our Constitution, the King is concerned in that Maxim, and is not to be shut out from his share in it. Very well, Sir, hitherto 'tis very cool. But (say you) in admitting a head, I would not exclude the Body. And so say I too, and (if you please) add, that in admitting a Body, you would not exclude the Head: and then it is as broad as long. You proceed with your Argument, Although 'tis possible Kingdoms may have suffered by the People's encroachments, yet to say, that a Government can suffer in no other instance, would be full as absurd, as to say, That a man can be mortally wounded no where but in his head; but we are sure there are parts in our body as fatal to be touched as the Brain, and therefore aught to be guarded with equal care. That is, if the Mouth bites the finger the Teeth are to be pulled out, if the Head sends defluxions upon the Lungs, the Head must be cut off; because the Lungs are a Vital part, and aught to be guarded with equal care. Sir, It is to be hoped after such clear Demonstrations, that now my Lords the Bishops will be convinced and take the Oath.  
You say, In those cases we are not tied up to the rigour and words of a Law: for if the moral Equity and the design of the Commandment is better observed by breaking the Letter, 'tis lawful, nay our duty to do it; and to make good this, you instance in the Sabbath, and the Maccabees breaking the letter of the fourth Commandment: in which instances, the Rule holds good; as also in all Ceremonial and positive Institutions. But how comes this Rule to be extended to Moral Laws? The moral Equity of the fourth Commandment, we know; but I pray, which is the moral Equity of the fifth Commandment? or of any other Moral Precept, upon the account of which a man may break the Letter and act contrary to it, and yet keep the Commandment? when you speak plain to this, you will find your Account will reach all the Commandments as well as the Fifth; and in virtue of it, a man may be permitted to take God's name in vain, to commit Murder, Theft, or bear false witness as well as not honour his Father and Mother.  
You are a little pleasant, when you talk of being wise Martyrs to the Fifth Commandment. But by this you do not only ridicule Passive Obedience, but also all the Martyrs and Sufferers for Religion in the Primitive Persecutions; for they were just such wise Martyrs and no other. For the Rule of breaking the Letter of a Law by the Moral Equity of it, is sure full as early, and would serve them as well as any body else? And these instances of Equity you mention, That Kings were made for the people, not the people for Kings; that the Rights of the Subject aught to be as Sacred as those of the Sovereign. That Government was not erected for the aggrandising one single person or family. All these were the very same in those days, as they are now. And I challenge you to name one single instance of Moral Equity which did not equally affect them, as any Persons since, and might not have been as serviceable to them. And therefore (till you can show the difference) They will be even just such wise Martyrs, ignorant of Moral Equity, and the advantages they might have had by that, to release themselves from the rigour and words of a Law. Of all the men I ever met with, you have a peculiar Talon in vilifying the greatest and most honourable Actions. And my Lords the Bishops have reason to take it kindly, for you allow that they did their duty, and that is more than you will allow the Martyrs. For (says your Rule) if the Moral Equity (and which was the same to the Martyrs as to any since) is better observed by breaking the Letter, 'tis lawful, nay our Duty to do it: and then the suffering Martyrs, either did not understand, or else neglected their Duty when they possessed their Souls in Patience, and chose rather to suffer than (by Virtue of a Moral Equity) to break the Letter of God's or man's Law. Your friend, Mr. Johnson, (who loves Passive Obedience as little as you do) can tell you, 
Answ. to Jovian. p. 160.  that the Primitive Christians suffered patiently because the Laws were against them, i.e. the Letter of the Laws. For Moral Equity was as much on their side before, as after the Laws were made in their behalf. That indeed gave them a Title to the Letter, but they had before the Equity.  
I have now done with your Arguments: A Province I had much rather be employed in, than in considering Reproaches and Scandals, but that cannot be avoided in your Letter. For after you have said all you can to convince them; the next thing is to say all you can to defame them. And I defy any man to say more, or with Truth and Honesty half so much.  
You have the strange confidence to charge these Reverend and Excellent Bishops with having been the occasion of the expense of so much Treasure and Blood. And you instance in Ireland. This is a very heavy charge, but it is as ridiculous as it is scandalous. I wonder (when your hand was in) that you did not charge them for having been the occasion of all that mortality in the Navy the last Summer, or that the Pendennis was cast away, or (to come a little nearer the matter, and because you talk of Ireland) that they were the occasion of an unfortunate Gentleman's drowning himself. All this you might have charged upon them, and a great deal more, and with the same truth and justice.  
You have forgot what you said a little before, That they had no Partners, no body pretends to share with them, and they must stand or fall by themselves: and how does this account, and the present charge agree? Can men that are so few and inconsiderable do such mighty things, as to stop Armies, and prevent the relief of Ireland. A man would be tempted to call these contradictions, but perhaps you that can join veneration and reviling, may reconcile it: in the mean time, I pray Sir, Did they hinder the City from lending Moneys on that occasion, or did they hinder the raising of Men, or was they any impediment to the Parliament to promise assistance for the Reduction of Ireland, or finally, did they hinder the Wind and Tides. Sir, the House of Commons is now enquiring into the miscarriages concerning Ireland, and if you have any thing to say against the Bishops, it is very proper to apply yourself to the Committee, and they have voted you shall have liberty of access, and be heard. But if you can say no more than you do in your Letter, give me leave to tell you. It is a high act of villainy to charge any Man, and especially Men of their station, honour, and worth, with having been the occasion of spilling Protestant blood, and yet have not one wise word to say in proof of it.  
And what is this to their refusing the Oath which was not till after the Protestants of Ireland were come over, and Derry was besieged, and relieved? I do not know what placing things in a true light may do, but in the old way of reasoning, the occasion cannot be after the fact: And I desire you would please to show how the Bishops refusing the Oath in July, was the occasion that Succours were not sent to Ireland the February or March before.  
In the last place, I shall address myself to you, upon the end and design of the first Letter, which is to recommend to the Parliament the mitigating or releasing the rigour of the Oath Act, in favour of these excellent Bishops. This you say you must approve of, and for the truth of it, appeal to your Correspondent. But you do not approve of the method proposed. Well Sir, Methods are not much to me. And if your method is better, you shall have my vote, if you please, we will compare them. The first Letter (in pursuit of this end) recommends them as Men who are the chief for merits, as well as Authority in our Church. That their unparalleted zeal for the Protestant Religion, and for the privileges and liberty of the subject, deserved another kind of acknowledgement and return from the Nation. That the zeal and courage they made appear, cannot be so soon forgot. That it would be a wonder and astonishment that these Prelates who had escaped the fury of Papists, and made so glorious a confession for Protestant Religion and English Liberties, should in so short a time be disgraced and deposed by Protestants, and when others that attempted to enslave the Nation, and even the Prosecutors of the Bishops are received into favour; The chief Champions of the Protestant Religion and Liberty, are the only men that are ruined, etc. Sir, in my judgement, this is a pretty good method; and now if you please, let us see what yours is. Instead of this, you tell us they did but their duty, and need not be so extremely magnified, that they are men of such a temper, that neither God nor man can do any thing for them; you charge them with faction and schism, with the blood of Ireland, with preferring their humour before serving God; and to carry the matter home, you tell us, that the People would not be concerned for their Deprivation, and there are many others as good as they to fill their places. Now Sir, what your end is in this you best know, but if it be to procure favour to the Bishops, you have taken the strangest Method that ever was heard on. Suppose a friend of yours should undertake to recommend you to the favour of a third Person, and in order to it, should mention your usefulness, and virtues, and former services, (which in your own case, I suppose you would think might be done without tempting you to boast) Suppose another pretending the same, should say, I approve the design; and of any thing that sounds in his favour, but I do not like the Method; For, Sir, This man did but his duty, he need not be so magnified, nor was he singular in those services, and not content thus to diminish you, should vilify, asperse, and belly you besides, I pray, when there is another true light to be put out, give me your opinion, what you would think of such an advocate, or of his method.  
There is one thing more you and the Author differ upon in point of Method. The Author recommends it to the Parliament, and thus far you seem to like it well enough, but you would have the Bishop's first petition. Now Sir, I am not Critic enough in these matters, to know which is best: But this I know, that favours, the more free and unconstrained they are, are always the greater and more generous, and (if I mistake not) the favours to the Dissenters, and to the Quakers, were enacted and made into a Law, without any previous Petition from either of them. And why favours should come harder to those of the Church of England, (and to such eminent Lights of that Church) as I do not undertake to determine, so I leave it to them whose immediate concern it is to consider. I am,  
SIR, Your humble Servant.  
FINIS.