REFLECTIONS UPON A PAMPHLET, Entitled, [Some Discourses upon Dr. Burnet and Dr. Tillotson, Occasioned by the Late Funeral-Sermon of the Former upon the Later.]  
By the Right Reverend Father in God, GILBERT Lord Bishop of SARUM.  
LONDON: Printed for Ri. Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Churchyard, M DC XC VI   

Reflections upon a Pamphlet Entitled, Some Discourses upon Dr. Burnet and Dr. Tillotson, etc.  
IT is so natural for Men that loose their Places to loose their Tempers and their Fortunes at once, that some allowances are to be made to the Peevishness, which often follows ill circumstances: But how gently soever Men under this Paroxysm may be treated, yet we cannot but observe, that of all the sorts of Men who have within the memory of the present Age been of the suffering Side, never any suffered so little, and raged so much as the Jacobites at present do. They have lost their Preferments, and some of them are doubly Taxed; but they are not hunted from place to place, nor vexed with Imprisonments and Prosecutions. They live at quiet, even when they do all they can to let no body else have quiet about them. Some of them were so far gratified, that they named their Successors into their Benefices, of which it is believed they do still receive the greatest part. I leave it to this Author's Ingenuity and Gratitude, to own what share he had in this. But though some Serpents may be charmed, there is a Generation of Vipers that shut their Ears, and after all that has been done either in the way of Argument, or of Gentleness, will not be charmed, but will by't and poison all they can. I hope they are not all of the same temper, I should be hearty sorry if they were; for I had much rather bear all the ill effects of their Malice, than be under the power of that Gall and Spite that does possess too many of them. They think they do well to give it a vent; it is perhaps some ease to themselves to have thrown out so much Venom: But I can assure them, they do us no hurt by it, and give us no disturbance; it is as harmless as a Bee's striking with his Tail when he has lost his Sting. It is indeed a Melancholy thing to see such a Scandal brought on Religion, as must arise from all Books of this kind. Such a way of writing convinces few, and pleases none but those who are as ill-natured as the Writers themselves; and how much soever they may be troubled when they are told of the smallness of their Numbers, yet it is to be hoped, for the good of Mankind, that there are not many such among them as this Author is.  
Mankind is indeed enough disposed to receive Defamation from what hand soever it comes; and no sort of it is so welcome, as when the Clergy defame one another; yet when it is managed with so particular a virulence of Seatest and blackness of Malice, it grows too fulsome and odious, few can bear it; few believe a Man who shows too much heat, to be sincere or candid; it really turns back upon those who use it. The World will think the worse of Men when they seem to be Frantic with Rage: This Spirit has such ugly Characters, that how much soever Men may be pleased at first reading, with the Maledicence of Libels, yet they desire to have them a little better dressed up, and not delivered so crudely as they are here: For though there is a strange Leaven in all the Books that come from that Party, yet there are some which have so peculiar a sourness that the Author is presently known; and as in his other pieces he exceeds the bitterness of the whole Fraternity, so it must be confessed that he has in these Discourses exceeded himself.  
To violate the quiet of the Dead, and pursue the Ashes of Men who have finished their Course, would pass for a Crime against Nature, even amongst Barbarous Nations. The keenness with which this is managed is here so singular, that he must try all his own reading to found a pattern to it; mine affords me none at all. But as he cannot disturb those Blessed Souls who have now entered into their Rest; so neither will his impotent Malice signify much to lessen the Veneration that this Age pays their Memory.  
As for my part in this Book, which is the first, as well as the longest Act of the Fable, if it had not been for two or three particulars which seem to need Explanation, I should with no trouble to myself have born all that he throws at me. I have been long accustomed to bear the Malice of the (more than supposed) Author; for above twenty Years he has been, without ceasing, pursuing me with it; though I thank God for it I never had any Acquaintance with him; I never once spoke with him, for aught I know; nor did I ever hear that he has so much as pretended that I ever provoked him. He has been at me in many of his Pamphlets, and I have still let him rail on; and unless the neglecting his Malice has offended him, I do not know that I have ever said or done any thing that could feed so long and so black a Spite. It must be a peculiar Venom that he has, which can preserve itself without any Food given it, any thing to nourish or quicken it. But I do not love the sight or smell of Poison so well, as to devil too long upon it.  
I will not pursue him through his lesser digressions, which come in as the Ornaments or Interludes of the Fable. I will say what is necessary to discover the falsehood of the main parts of it, upon which the rest is built. I will not quarrel with him for his disparaging my Style, my Learning, and Preaching. In these I have done my best, and I hope God will accept of that: I am not much mortified with his Contempt, nor will I give over my Endeavours to do what small Service I can, though he is pleased to undervalue them: I had much rather with the Roman Emperor say, Utinam nescirem Literas! than have Studied to such purposes as he has done: And I had much rather that my Style were liable to all the Censures with which he threatens me, 
P. 87, 88  than that it should be all over such a Solecism in Christianity as his is. I pray God forgive him all his Malice and Calumny, and give him a better Mind. God pity him, and deliver him from it, for I am very sure he suffers more by it, than any other man can do from it. There is a great Day coming, in which he must Answer to the Just and Righteous Judge, for all that Malice that he has been long breathing, and for all those Slanders which he has been throwing out on many men better than himself. I pray God give him the due fence of this in time, before it is too late. And there I leave him.  
I had in my Sermon at the Archbishop's Funeral said these Words of the Non-Juror Bishops; They left their Authority entirely with their Chancellors, who Acting in their Name, and by their Commission, were the same Persons in Law with themselves; Oaths were tendered to others, and taken by them in their Name, which they thought Unlawful. This touched in the quick, and it is no wonder if they felt it sensibly. But why must they publish this? Surely their wiser way had been either to have let it gone over in silence, or to have Answered it to purpose. The thing they are charged with is either False in Fact, or True; if false, they should have denied it, and put me to the proof. If the matter of fact was true; either the thing was to be justified, or at lest a frailty was to have been acknowledged, or excused the best way they might. But this Author, instead of Answering the Charge, thinks in his Preface to carry it of by a Story, false in all its main parts, with which he Charges me. But if that had been as true, as it is false, it had not justified them: It might have indeed obliged me to have been more reserved, but their fact was still what it was. I will only set down both Facts one against another, and so leave the matter to the Inferences which every Reader will easily make.  
He tells a long Story of a Clergyman with whom I was much displeased; and after I had vented it in many severe words, I used an Imprecation against myself, if ever I granted him Institution; but afterwards to avoid this, I ordered My Chancellor to do it. It seems that Clerk has sent in his Paper to their Office of Intelligence; and therefore if this matter is truly published, he must blame himself for it. The Man is Mr. Lambert, now Rector of Boyton and Sheringhton, Two Live at a Miles distance one from another. He is descended of a very worthy Family; but at the time of the Revolution he broke the course of his Studies, and bore Arms in it. He had an Old Reverend Uncle, Dr. Lambert, possessed of those Two Live, which belong to the Family who was than declining; so in hope of succeeding him, he was persuaded to pursue his Studies: His Uncle informed me of all this. For a whole Summer I directed him in his Studies; and ordered him to come frequently to me, that I might observe what progress he made; which he did; I still found him very ignorant; I warned him often, that neither the Merits of the Family, nor his own Serving under the Present King, would bias me, or make me give him Orders, till I saw him better qualified for it. At the Michaelmas Ordination, he offered himself to Examination, and his Knowledge was found to be so defective, that he whom I desired to Officiate as Archdeacon, since his Uncle who was Archdeacon did not come abroad, said, he could not with a good Conscience present him. I desired him to Study till the next Ember Week. But he took advantage of the Vacancy of the See of Canterbury, and obtained a Faculty (upon what considerations they who granted it, know best) upon a Petition, in which he pretended that he was Nominated to a Curacy in Oxfordshire, in order to which he desired he might have both Orders in one day: The Faculty was directed to the Lord Bishop of Exeter, or any other Bishop: That Noble Prelate very Canonically refused to Ordain one, who he knew belonged to my Diocese, suspecting somewhat that was not fair. Another was more easily imposed on, and so he had both Orders together, upon this false suggestion, which was believed without examining it. A few days after this he brought me his Presentation. I looked upon all this as such a Sacrilegious mocking of God, and a getting into Holy Orders by a Trick and a Lie, that I thought myself bound to lay this matter very severely home upon the Conscience of this Clerk: He seemed very little sensible of it, which made me redouble my severity; I told him positively I would give him no assistance towards the obtaining of his Plurality; but for his first Living I immediately assigned him a day for his Examination before Two of the Dignitaries of this See. I did examine him rigorously, and he answered very defectively: So I refused his Presentation, and left him to the Law. It lay a Month thus. Than some of his Friends desired me to admit him to come again and Confess his Offence, and to Examine him more gently. I did it in the presence of Dr. Geddes Chancellor of my Church. He with Tears Confessed his Fault, and pleaded his Ignorance of the Rules of the Church. I accepted of his Excuse, and proceeded to a second Examination, in which I found his measure of Knowledge the lowest that ever I passed; yet since it would have answered the Letter of the Law, I submitted, and gave my Fiat to his Presentation. But the Parchment-Tax had put me under some difficulties, because I could not be sure of the Value of Benefices, and therefore I had left with my Chancellor a Power to grant Institution upon my Fiat. And thus I sent him to Salisbury for Institution: but when he had obtained a Dispensation for his second Living, in which I gave him no Assistance, as I told him I would not; being than returned to Salisbury, I gave him Institution myself: For I made a difference between the doing of that which was Incumbent on my Function, and that which was a mere Act of Grace and Favour. I would not encourage a man that had entered into Orders in so Unlawful a way, by doing any thing for him, to which I was not obliged. This is a true and full account of that matter; in which it appears, that I have followed the Rules of the Church without any partiality, either in favour of a very Noble Family, or of one who had born Arms in this Revolution. And this I do publish with the more assurance, because I gave this account of that whole matter in September last, at my Triennial Visitation, in the face of the Clergy and Country, the Person concerned being present; who indeed offered to interrupt me, but though I had no reason to suffer that, I gave him his turn to speak when I had done: But he did not pretend to deny any one Circumstance of it.  
Now I come to set against this the other part of the Story, to which these words in my Sermon belonged. I shall first tell that Instance which I had best reason to know. When my Election to this See, in which I serve, was returned and confirmed, the Precept for my Consecration went to the Archbishop in course. Archbishop Sancroft said he would not obey it: Some Bishops tried to persuade him, but in vain. The Earl of Nottingham tried, and succeeded not better. The Party got it among them, that he had promised them not to do it. But as the time came on, and he saw that he must be sued in a Premuni●e, when this was laid before him, he all on the sudden ordered two Commissions to be drawn, both which he Signed and Sealed, and both are yet extant: One directed to the Archbishop of York and all the Bishops of England; The other to the Bishops of London and all the Bishops of the Province, to execute his Metropolitical Authority during pleasure. This last was made use of; and pursuant to it I was Consecrated; so this was as much his own Act, as if he himself had Consecrated me. His Vicar-General produced this Commission, and was present at my Consecration, and all the Fees were paid to his Officers, for care was taken to reserve them. Here is only the half of the Story, a blacker Scene follows. It seems the Party complained of this, and he to give them some Satisfaction, sent by Mr. Wharton a Message (unless he went in his Name without Order) to Mr. Tillet the Register, to sand him that Commission: it was sent, and was withdrawn. This was not only the Violating of Registers, but it was a plain Robing me of that Writing upon which the Canonicalness of my Consecration, and my Legal Right to this Bishopric was founded. By telling this I am far from intending to lay any hard Character on the Memory of that Archbishop: I look on it as an effect of the Injustice and Violence of the Party, by which he might be carried too easily, to some things against his own Mind. Thus it continued till many Months after his Death, when notice was given to me of it by one who had occasion to know it. Upon enquiry I found it was true, and I took advice upon it. It was thought necessary to bring this Matter into Chancery, to examine all Persons concerned in it upon Oath, and to prove the Tenor of the Commission. I gave notice of my design to Mr. Tillet, and let him know, that if he did not recover that Commission between that time and Michaelmas-Term, I would sue him in Chancery, in order to the discovery of the Matter. He best knows how he bestirred himself upon this occasion. The Commission was brought back to him; but by whom, I have not made it my business to inquire.  
Let the Reader judge if the Story that he objects to me meets this, or can in any sort be wrested to turn it upon me. I go next to the other particulars.  
When the Act obliging the Clergy to take the Oaths to their Majesties was in debate in Parliament, I was earnestly spoke to, in order to the diverting of it, and a Scheme was laid how the Church should be taken care of, if the Bishops that refused the Oaths should be connived at; of which the main Branch was this, That Church-Matters might be administered by their Chancellors, who were ready to take the Oaths themselves, and to tender them to others. This I thought they might do without taking new Commissions from their Bishops; and therefore according to those Inclinations which I have, and always had to Moderation, I closed with this, and I have many Honourable Witnesses of the Zeal with which I promoted it. The Act passed as it is; and because six Months were to run before the Suspension of the Non-Jurors, in which they might have been overwhelmed with Actions upon Quare Impedit, they left that Matter to their Chancellors. They are, it is true, as to the Government of the Diocese, in Acts of Delegated Power, the same persons in Law with the Bishops; yet since the Year 1662., Bishops had limited them as to many particulars, and chief in the point of Institutions. But this restraint was taken of, either by new Commissions, or by a connivance of the Bishops. And how liable soever a Chancellor may be to a Forfeiture for giving Institutions, if his Patent limits him, yet if he grants it, it will hold good in Law. I have not examined in every See how this Matter was managed; but so it was, that generally their Chancellors did it without any restraint or stop put to it from them. And this was all I said; and so I think that part of my Sermon is sufficiently made good; what is further to be said on this Head, will come in its proper place.  
Men commonly choose out though best of what they have to say, and put it in the Preface, which many will read who will hardly give themselves the trouble to go much further. A Preface that gins with so much falsehood, is not very inviting. The Book and Preface are of a piece, and both are well suited to one another. I will go through all those parts of it, which may be apt to make an Impression. But because the greatest part of his Charge, not only against me, but against the late Most Reverend Archbishop, is founded on this, that we once in Books and Sermons declared ourselves fully and positively against all Resistance; chief on the account of Religion, from whence he infers, that we are Apostates, by our approving the late Revolution, and acting in it, or under the present Authority; I will enlarge a little on this: though I will not follow him in his scurrilous Expressions (such as the calling me a shameless Writer, 
Pag. 6.  whom an impenitent Conscience hath hardened against the Confusion of Remorse and Blushing, and made one of the greatest Examples of Impudence that ever Dishonoured the Lawn-sleeves.) He writes in this Style all through; but I will not hereafter so much as take notice of his foul Langague, I will content myself to answer every thing that seems to have the Face of an Argument.  
He citys some passages out of a Book that I wrote Four and twenty Years ago when I was in Scotland, in which I asserted, The Unlawfulness of Subjects resisting their Kings upon the pretence of Religion. To this he adds several other passages collected out of some of my Sermons and Letters; and upon all this he concludes, that I have Apostatised from a Doctrine that I had long professed; and in setting this out he is not wanting in the Figures of that Eloquence, in which he allows himself so free a scope. This is urged not only against myself, but against all those who have taken the Oaths, and are faithful to the present Government. For those, who have taken the Oaths but are unfaithful to it, are much courted by him: So let a Man prevaricate even to Perjury, and to the mocking of God in a constant course of Worship against his Conscience, yet if he be but of their side, he may hope for fair usage from them. I leave them to consider how they can answer this to God. And now to answer his Objection.  
When I was engaged to writ in Defence of the Government of Scotland, against some Seditious Books that were than published; I, even in that Work, avowed a Principle that I had been bred to, and from which I had never departed. That in the case of a total Subversion of a Constitution the Prince might be resisted. I form my Studies in this point chief upon Barclay and Grotius, who both allow of it. It was not necessary to own this when I was writing against Men who asserted, That Subjects in the Cause of Religion might resist their Princes, even when they were acting according to Law; yet so open was I than in owning my own Opinion, that I said in express words, That in case the Magistrate be furious, 
Confer. p. 16, 17.  or desert his Right, or expose his Kingdom to the fury of others, the Laws and Sense of all Nations agreed, That the States of the Land are the Administrators of the Power till he recover himself. And a little after, these words follow, The case varies much when the abuse is such, that it tends to a total Subversion; which may be justly called a Frenzy, since no Man is capable of it till he be under some lesion of his Mind; in which case the Power is to be administered by others for the Prince and his People's Safety. But this will never prove, that a Magistrate governing by Law, though there be great Errors in his Government, may be resisted by his Subjects. And this is the Argument which I pursue quite through that Book; and upon it I examine what the Laws and Constitutions of particular Governments were, upon which I fixed the Principles of Obedience. I will not say that all the Arguments that I used are good; I have answered some of them since; but my Opinion was the same than, that it is now; and I had the Courage to own it, even when I was Writing against Resistance. To all this I adhered so firmly of late, that when many in England sent over Messages to Holland, first upon the occasion of the High Commission, and than upon the business of Magdalen College, moving His Present Majesty, than Prince of Orange, to think of preserving this Church and State; and when it was affirmed, that many Divines thought it lawful; I did still oppose it zealously. I have one Witness in Heaven, and another upon Earth, who is beyond exception; besides several others, to whom I always delivered myself, thus: These were Illegal and Tyrannical Acts I did not deny: But what tendency soever they might have, by their natural Consequences, to a total subversion of our Constitution, yet they were not a total subversion of it: And therefore, if upon those grounds a Breach had followed, I declared to them, whom I afterwards served, That I could not have gone into it, nor have served in it. For I ever thought, and do still think, that Acts of Tyranny, and the remote Consequences of them, did not justify the resisting of Princes. I said, When a total subversion of our Constitution should be plainly apparent, than, and not till than, I thought the Late King's Authority would come under such a Suspension, that he might be resisted: And that if he would not return to a Just Government, but would forsake his People, than his Authority was determined by an Act of his own. I was still so firm in my Loyalty, that till I was Naturalised a Subject of the States, I did not so much as know of any Designs to use Force: And when I thought it was lawful for me to know and conceal them, I still adhered to the Principle to which my Father had bred me, whom I may, without vanity, name upon this occasion; since it is well known in Scotland, that he was the most eminently distinguished of any man in that Kingdom for his constant adhering to the Interest and Service of the Crown: He was thought no ordinary Man in his Profession, which was the Law. This Principle he infused into me early. And in this I had, without one single deviation, continued all along; That till a total Subversion was set about, we were still Subjects, and bound to submit.  
But when Ambassies went between England and Rome, when Popish Bishops were publicly authorised to act as the Pope's Delegates in England, and when a Dispensing Power was not only claimed by several Public Acts of State, but that all the Clergy were required to publish this, under severe Penalties; I than thought, as I do still, that this struck at the Root of our whole Constitution: The Fundamental Article of it is this, That we are a Nation governed by Laws, agreed to by our Selves, and not by the mere Will of our Kings; and that we are an entire Body within ourselves, not subject to any Foreign Jurisdiction. Than my first Principle led me to think, That the Late King might be restrained: But his going away afterwards, when so fair a Proposition was made to him, of leaving all the Concerns of the Nation to its only proper Cure, A Free Parliament, which was signified to him before he left Whitehall; I judged, That this Withdrawing was a plain Desertion. Upon these Grounds I thought his Authority, which was before only suspended, was now quite sunk: So that the Nation had a right to secure and settle itself.  
I will not go further at present to justify all this. I have done it upon other Occasions; my Design at present is only to show, That here was no change of Principles, nor departing from former Opinions.  
But as this may serve to justify myself, who had expressly and publicly owned a reserve for Resistance in case of a total Subversion; so I must add, that to my knowledge, other Divines still understood that Doctrine of Nonresistance with this Reserve; though they did not think it necessary to mention it. If a man were to exhort married Persons to their duty, he might use that general Expression of St. Paul, That the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church; and that as the Church is subject unto Christ, so wives aught to be subject to their own husbands in every thing: He might say all this, without an Exception; and yet in the Case of Intolerable Cruelty, the Wife may see to her own Preservation; but Desertion or Adultery sets her more at liberty. In the same manner, when we exhort Children to obey their parents in all things; we do not suppose the Case of their Parents going about to kill them, nor argue what they may do in such a Case. Extraordinary Cases aught not to be supposed, when we give the Directions that belong to the ordinary course of Life; and therefore Divines might preach Submission in very large and full Expressions, who yet might believe, That a total Subversion was a Case of another nature, which might warrant more violent Remedies. This I am sure was our late Primate's Opinion. This was that which we laid before that Great, but Innocent Victim, that was sacrificed to the rage of a Party, I mean the Lord Russell, who was condemned for Treasonable Words, though there was not one Witness that swore one Word against him: it being only deposed, That Treasonable Words were said in his hearing; to which, as was sworn, he was consenting, though no Words of His were expressed, that imported any such consent. The true Case of that whole matter was stated thus; A visible Design was carried on to bring in Popery and Arbitrary Government. In order to that, Quo Warrantoes were brought against several Cities and Boroughs, which would have changed the Constitution of the House of Commons; and Sheriffs unduly Elected, were put on the City of London, on design, as was believed, to pack Juries. These things were thought just grounds of Resistance; the late Primate and myself were of another Opinion; We knew, or at lest had reason to believe we knew, the Secret of the King's Religion who than reigned; and did not doubt of the bad Designs that were than on foot, and of the illegal Actings of that time; yet we still thought, that remote Fears and Consequences, together with illegal Practices, did not justify Resistance; but that the Laws both of the Gospel and of the Land, did bind us in that case to submission. That Lord upon this said, He did not see a difference between a Legal and a Turkish Constitution, upon this Hypothesis: And when we told him, That a total Subversion changed the Case; He answered, Than it would be too late to resist. In all that Affair, the late Primate had the same Opinion, and no other than that he had to the last. Some particular Considerations restrained him from Writing about it; but he did not decline to explain this, as often as there was occasion given for it.  
Upon the whole matter, there are two Questions in the Point of Resistance: The one is, Whether Subjects may Resist merely upon the account of Religion, or not, either to force a General Reformation, or to secure themselves from Persecution? The other is concerning the Constitution of States and Kingdoms; and of this in particular, How far they have retained or lost their Liberties? The one is a Point of Divinity, the other is a Point of Law and History. As to the first, I do not know one of all the Divines that have sworn to the present Government, who are not still of the same Opinion that they were formerly of, and that do not still judge Resistance on the account of Religion to be unlawful. Nor does it any way reflect on them, if they should have changed their Opinion in the other Point, which falls not so properly within their Studies. They might have been misled by Chimerical Notions of Imperial and Political Laws; they might have thought, that the Zeal with which some had promised to stand it out against a Popish King, threatening that they would tell him to his Face (at lest owning that it was their Duty to do it) That he was an Idolater, a Bread-worshipper, a Goddess-worshipper, with a great many other fine Names, 
Jovian, p. 96.  that they said they would give him. They might, I say, have thought, that we were safe under the Conduct of Men, who were so bold when there was no danger; but were much tamer and more cautious as the danger came nearer them. Thus many might go into wrong Notions of our Government, and think we had no Liberties left us, but what were at the discretion of our Princes. It is no Derogation from the Learning and Studies of Divines to own, that though they are still of their former Opinion in that which is Theological, and that was only incumbent on them to know; yet in matters of Law and Policy, they might have been led into mistakes. This answers all that pompous Objection, with which so much noise is made, and upon which so many ill Words have been fastened. A great many have not at all changed their Opinion, even in this second Point; and others do see that they were mistaken in their Opinion concerning our Constitution, and the nature of Laws and Legal Security; and the Right that arises out of these, in the case of a Total Subversion. It will not be easy to see the advantage that Atheistical or Immoral Men can draw from any part of this, how earnest soever our Author is to furnish them with it, as a just prejudice against us, and against all that we can say or do.  
But if there are any who can Swear against their Consciences, and can continued in Acts of Worship, Prayers, and Thanksgivings, Ordinary or Extraordinary, while their Persuasions are full to the contrary; if there are any who Pray for the King, while they Talk and Act against him; these are the Men who bring a scandal on our Holy Religion; they cell their Consciences, and sacrifice that which they fancy to be Loyalty, for the Conveniences of this Life, that they may hold their Live and Preferments.  
And yet these are the Men that our Author courts; he has kind thoughts of them; and he takes pains to assure us, that we have many of them among us. If we have any number of such, I am sorry for it. I will hope rather, that he is an unjust accuser of the brethrens, than believe that we have many of this kind; who are certainly the worst sort of Men in the Nation.  
There is a Respect due to such as are willing to Suffer for their Consciences: And if they who left their Benefices, had not likewise left their Tempers and their other Principles, we should still pay them all due Respect, which we shown universally to them all at first. But for such Perjured Men as can Swear and Pray against their Consciences, they are the Shame of the Church. We are not concerned to excuse them, but leave them to such Apologies as our Author may make for them.  
I thought this matter required to be Treated more largely than the other Particulars, which will be sooner dispatched. I will just name them with such Remarks on them, as the nature of them may seem to require. As for that which is mere Fiction and Calumny, I will pass over a great deal of it: For if that which seems to be supported with some colour of Proof, shall be found to be groundless, than every Reader will be so equitable as to acknowledge, that no sort of Credit is due to stories reported, as many of his are, merely upon hearsay.  
Some of these are so ridiculous that Shame, if not Honesty, should have restrained him. Such is this, 
Pref. near the end.  That the late Primate went about after this Revolution, to set on foot again the Opinion of the late Duke of Monmouth's being Legitimate; and Argued, That therefore we could not be bound by our Oaths to King James, since another had the Right of the Crown in him. He fancies that I was the first Author of those Stories: And yet at the time when he says this was done, we were taking pains to persuade the World to Submit to the Present Government. I was than the Prince of Orange's Servant; the late Primate was one of those that gave him a hearty welcome, and took great pains to settle the Waver of some People's Minds in this matter. And what methods took we for it? Why, to insinuate that the Right of the Crown was still in another; that the Righteous Heir who had left Issue behind him, was Wronged and put to Death Unjustly: Risum teneatis. This Author may be accustomed to such ways of Reasoning. The late Primate used not to Argue at that rate. But here is too much time lost on such an extravagant piece of Falsehood and Impertinence.  

Pag. 8.  He reflects on my urging the case of the Maccabees in a late Book, which I had fully Answered before in my Book against Resistance. I have already said, that though I retain the same Principle that I had advanced when I writ that Book, yet I may have changed my opinion of several of the Arguments that I had made use of in it. This was one of them; for I had relied upon the common Answer made to the Objection from the Maccabees, that they were Zealots; so that what they did was no Precedent. 
Pref. to Four Dis.  This I do answer fully in my late Book; and show that the Case of the Maccabees proves, that though Acts of Tyranny will not justify the Resistance of Subjects, yet a Total Subversion of their Constitution william. A man studies to little purpose, if after an Interval of Twenty Years he does not examine the Matters that are before him more critically than he did when he was so much younger. It had been a fairer thing in our Author to have showed wherein the Argument, as I put it in my last Book, was weak or ill-grounded; but none of them have yet attempted that. It is a much easier way to fly of from a hard piece of labour, than to go through with it. So they would excuse the not answering of Dr. Hody. 
Pag. 87.  He has fully ended the Argument that he had begun, from the Practice of the Church; and that in so convincing a manner, that Matters of Fact seemed not capable of a clearer Proof. But the not answering his Book, is now excused upon this pretence, Because he had promised another Treatise, Of the Power of the Magistrate in such cases; which he has not thought necessary to enter upon, till he sees what is said to his Book, in which he has fully concluded the Argument upon which the Dispute first began: And the not publishing this, is made an excuse for their not answering the other. We know the true reason why it is not answered is, because it cannot be answered. Men may wrangle on eternally in Points of Speculation; but Matters of Fact are severe things, and do not admit of all that Sophistry.  
He runs out into a long Digression, 
Page 9  upon my having believed the Story of the Thebean Legion, when I writ in Scotland; which yet I rejected as Fabulous, in my Preface to Lactantius: Here he had an itch to argue, and he runs out a great way. That in a Matter of Fact a man should change his Opinion, upon the discovery of a new Book of History, writ by one who lived in the time, is a thing that would be objected by no man who were not blinded by Spite. Lactantius was Tutor to Constantine's Son Crispus, so he had opportunities to know the Concerns of that Family, and of their Share of the Empire. He wrote his Book of the Death of the Persecutors, when the Facts were fresh in all men's memory; and he not only says nothing of that matter, but says in express words, That Constantius did not execute the Edicts; so that the Persecutions did not reach Gaul, nor his Share of the Empire. One would think that this was enough to destroy the Credit of a Legend, that was before that looked on as very doubtful: But no doubt can remain after so positive an Authority against it. I will not pursue this matter further, but leave him to flourish upon it, and to argue as long as he will upon the Authorities of Grotius and Ʋsher, who never saw this Book of Lactantius. For aught I know there is not one Learned Man now in the world, that supports that Story, since this Book de Mortibus Persecutorum has been published.  
He charges me as if I had owned in Company, 
Page 12.  that I was pitched upon to break the design of deposing the late King, to our late Blessed Queen, two Years before the Revolution. He vouches Witnesses for this the Bishop of Worcester (whom he very modestly and gratefully calls Dr. Stillingfleet) and Bishop White. I will not forestall what either of those Reverend Persons may say; but I will assure our Author that it is all a downright Forgery of the blackest sort. This and all the Circumstances that either here or in any other part of these Discourses are brought to adorn it, are all false. I had not the Honour to see or speak with our late Blessed Queen, for Two Years together before the Revolution. Mr. d' Albeville had it in Commission to gain that point of Her not seeing me, before he entered upon other Business, and it was granted. And She was a Princess so strict to Truth, that having once said that She would not see me, She adhered exactly to it. So till a few days before we left the Hague, I saw Her not more. And than there was no occasion for persuasion; the Matter was all settled. Nor did I ever enter upon that Argument with Her, till Two Years after She was Queen of England. Than I did it upon an occasion that led to the Discourse. I saw that She had considered it on all its Sides, and in all its Branches. In any other Person I should have been amazed at it, but I had been accustomed to see so great an Exactness in every Particular through Her whole Conduct, that nothing of that kind from Her could surprise me. I did once in September, 1686. speak to Her of Matters relating to this, but it was upon another Key. Upon the setting up the High-Commission, and the Prosecution of my Lord Bishop of London, some began to think that all was gone, and that violent Remedies were necessary. Upon that I delivered my sense very fully to Her, according to what I set down in the former part of this Discourse; That I made a great difference between Illegal Acts, and a Subversion. I was afraid things would grow to a Subversion; but till that appeared, I could not think it lawful to go into violent Methods. And I can assure the World, that in the List of the Divines who were represented as wishing that the (than) Prince would engage in our Defence, the late Dean of Worcester was named for one; how truly, he best knows. When I heard that upon the business of Magdalen-College, many thought that than it was high time to interpose. I than Writ (for I saw not the late Queen all that while) that even upon that Incident, I did not judge Resistance Lawful. Than I drew up a Paper, in substance the same with the general part of that, which was afterwards Published under the Title of The Measures of Submission: And that was all the share I had in that matter. Our late Blessed Queen was not a Person of so pliant an Understanding, as to be wrought upon by any. If ever the Sacred Remains of Her Pen are suffered to come abroad, than the World will see with what a searching Understanding She penetrated into things; and how little it was in the power of any Mortal to impose upon Herald. This was a Subject that She had so well Studied, that though She touched seldom upon it, yet She was as much the Master of the whole Argument, as any Person I ever knew.  
Of a piece with this Falsehood, is that which he says concerning my Reading Prayers in the Princesses (our Late Queen's) Chapel at the Hague, 
Pag. 14.  when the Prince of Wales was Prayed for. It is notoriously known, that I never once Read Prayers in the Chapel at the Hague: For I had not the Honour to be the Prince (His Present Majesty's) Chaplain, till the Night before we left the Hague. These lies have been often told, and as often neglected: For it were an endless labour to go and confute every Fiction that Angry Men think fit to publish. But since an Answer was judged necessary on this occasion, it was reasonable to go thorough with it, and to show the Falsehood of this sort of Men, that do now study with so restless and clamorous a Malice, to disturb our Quiet.  
He goes next to accuse me of a Spirit of Persecution against the Non-Jurors: 
Pag. 15, 16.  But when he brings stories to confirm things of this kind, he aught to have a little more decency, than to lay the scene of his Fictions in the Honourablest Body in the World, I mean, the House of Lords. They would never suffer any of their Body to Argue in a Cause only from the good or ill Affections of the Party to the Government. None ever argued so all the while that I had the honour to sit there. So this is a fiction so entirely without a foundation that I cannot so much as guests either the Person, or the Cause that he aims at. I have as often argued with Zeal in the Causes of those whom I knew to be ill-affected to the Government, as in any other whatsoever; and never took the liberty to trouble that Great Body more frequently and more earnestly, than in the Debate for excusing the Clergy from having the Oaths imposed upon them: Moore in pursuance of a Principle of Moderation, from which I have never once departed; than from any very good Opinion that I had of most of those in whose favour I argued. As for his fine words, of the death of a Dog, and the burial of an Ass, they become the Author that forged them. The whole House of Lords knows that no such words were ever spoke by me within their walls.  
As for my persecuting the Non-jurors, I have been so far from it, that I should rather have needed a Pardon from the Government for my behaviour towards them, but that I knew that in so doing I conformed myself to the Spirit of the Government, as well as I acted conform to my own Principles. I had but five Nonjurors in my Diocese. One of these, Mr. Martin, was continued by me in his Living to his Death, which happened two years ago, and I still paid him the Annual Income of his Prebend out of my own Purse. He would not indeed take the Oaths, but he would never join in the Schism with the rest of the Non-jurors, whose Principles and Practices, he said to me, he detested. Another of them, Mr. Spinks, enjoys a Donative to this day, which I suffer him to serve by a Curate, whereas I could require his serving the Cure in person; and he enjoyed his Prebend a year beyond the time prefixed by Law. Another of them, Mr. Jones, had the Nomination of his own Successor, whom I collated to his Living; a 4th, Mr. Dickson, died immediately after the Deprivation by the Act of Parliament, but I shown all possible regard to him as long as he lived. I reserve Dr. Beach to the last place. He has taken Liberties that few, if any, of them have taken. He kept himself violently in his Living for two years after he was by Law deprived. I was once so ill-advised, that I suffered him to talk with me alone. It was concerning a Caveat that he had entered against my instituting a Clerk presented to his Living. His long Discourse, which our Author has published, is neither worth remembering nor repeating. I told him I must Institute the Clerk that was Presented, except he could satisfy me that he had taken the Oaths: He would neither affirm nor deny that he had taken them, but thought that I was bound to prove the Negative, That he had not taken them: And among other things he said, he desired no Mercy, but only Justice. I told him that in this particular I could do neither. The Law was made; I was neither the Lawgiver, nor had I a Dispencing Power: He went away, and set it all about, that I had said, That I would show him neither Favour nor Justice. Soon after that, he was Indicted for Seditious Words; and was brought in Guilty: Than after all the Abuse with which he had endeavoured to load me, he came and begged that I would interceded for him: I was more cautious than to trust myself again to his Honesty, or to speak alone with him. I first cleared myself of that false Imputation: But upon his begging my Favour, and promising to live Quietly, which he did in a Letter under his hand, that I still have, I writ so effectually to the Earl of Nottingham in his favour, that his Lordship returned me answer, That the Queen had Graciously granted my desire, but thought that he aught to make some public acknowledgement, for the Scandalous Words that were proved against him: I by a Second Letter gained this point likewise, that no Confession should be insisted on. In return of which, Dr. Beach has held a Conventicle ever since at Salisbury; and pours out all the malicious stuff he can vent against me, and has now sent in this false Dialogue that our Author has published: But though I have had Informations brought me that are very Criminal against him, I have chosen rather to be too remiss, than to do any thing which might make those, who know what his behaviour towards me has been, fancy that it flowed from Resentment.  

Pag. 18, 19  He Reproaches me for some high Compliments I gave to the Duke of Lauderdale in the Dedication of the Book that I writ in Scotland, and that yet afterwards I told a very different story concerning that Duke. And he tells a long tale of a Discourse between Mr. Pit and Me; of which I can say nothing, because I do not remember one word of it; but that I believe it is all over a Fiction. I writ that Book when the Duke of Lauderdale was the King's Commissioner in Scotland; he both desired the Dedication, and asked to see the Epistle Dedicatory. It is no wonder if one, than but Twenty eight years Old went too high in the Compliment: But if what happened a year and a half after that, gave me other thoughts of that Minister of State, that does not prove that I writ disingenuously at that time.  
He says that I put many things in my Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton, 
Ibid.  to the Honour of the Duke of Lauderdale, which I left out in the Printed Edition. I see accidents may do people service. The very Copy that the Duke of Lauderdale Read, and that was Licenced by Mr. Secretary Coventrey, has been carelessly left by me, these many years, in the Bishop of Worcester's hands: By it the falsehood of this will appear to any, who will be at the pains to compare it with the Print: I left out nothing, for which the Duke of Lauderdale had furnished me with Vouchers. He indeed had furnished me with Papers relating to a long story of an Incident in the year 1641. which Secretary Coventry, upon very good reasons, not necessary to be mentioned here, ordered me to leave out; and it is the main difference between that Copy and the Printed Book. But whosoever looks into Page 307, near the end, and sees no Name given to the Author of a Letter reported there, will conclude that I did not corrupt the Truth of History, by mixing my own Resentments with it: I was rather faulty the other way, in avoiding to name the greatest Enemy that I had than in the World, upon so odious an occasion, when the proof was so Authentical.  
He reproaches me for adding a Marginal Note to a part of Bishop Bedell's Book, 
Pag. 20.  in which he treats of Subjects resisting their Princes. There seems to be a fate on our Author, in publishing things of such a Nature, as must oblige me to discover Matters that will be little to the service of that Cause which he has espoused. When I writ Bishop Bedell's Life, his Book against Wadsworth was found to be so well written, and was so much out of print, that it was thought fit to reprint it, and bind it up with his Life. I could not but take notice of the Case of Subjects resisting their Prince, fully stated and justified by him; and that in a Book dedicated to King Charles the First, than Prince of Wales; and that this was never once objected to him, nor he obliged to retract it; but instead of that, he was afterwards made Provost of Trinity College in Dublin, and than Bishop of Kilmore and Ardagh, in that Kingdom. This was one of the first Indications that I observed, which led me to see how late it was before this now so much contended for Opinion, was received as the Doctrine of this Church: I have another that is later, as well as more public. In the Year 1628. during the Siege of Rochel, there was a public Fast appointed upon that account over England: And the Besieged were prayed for as our Brethrens; and Success to them was by that Form prayed for. I have the Form of Prayer: But it is at present lent out, otherwise I should here set down some of the Expressions in that Office; which shows how far this Church was at that time from condemning Resistance in all Cases, as Rebellion.  
But to return to Bishop Bedell's Book. I thought myself bound to warn Mr. Chiswell of that Passage. He was much threatened at that time for having printed Julian, and he was afraid of raising a new Storm against himself. I told him, I would not suffer the Book to be printed, unless that Passage were printed in it. He shown it to Sir Roger L'Estrange, who would not let it pass, till several words were scattered quite through it, to give it an Air, as if Bedell had been only repeating the Arguments of other men: And yet even that did not serve turn. A marginal Note was to be added to the end of that Paragraph (in p. 446. of Bedell's Letters in the 8vo Edition) which was framed by Sir Roger himself. Such was the Severity of our Expurgators at that time. I was very ill pleased with all this, but could not help it: All I could do, was to get those words put between Crotchets, so that the Reader by passing them over, might have seen the thread of Bedell's Discourse. And now what shall be said to our Author, who charges all this upon me? But to make the Importance of this matter appear the more sensibly, I will set down Bishop Bedell's own words as they were published by himself, without those later Vamping; and by them the Reader will see, whether the Opinion of Resistance in the Case of a total Subversion, was so much condemned in this Church at that time, as the Men of that Cabal would now make the World believe. I need not put my Reader in mind of the state of Affairs here when the Spanish Match was in treaty. Wadsworth had Apostatised, and writ some Letters, to which an Answer was to be made. Bishop Hall's Letter is not equal to the other Productions of that Holy Prelate. But Bedell's Book was so well received, that we may well look on it as the sense of the Church of England at that time. His words upon the Head of Resistance are as follows.  
Do you think Subjects are bound to give their Throats to be cut by their Fellow-Subjects? or to 
(1) Offer them without either humble Remonstrance or Flight  their Princes at their mere Wills, against their own Laws and Edicts? You would know quo jure the Protestants Wars in France and Holland are justified. 
(2) I interpose not my own Judgement, not being throughly acquainted with the Laws and Customs of those Countries; but I tell you what both they and the Papists also, both in France and Italy, have in such Cases alleged.  First, The Law of Nature; which 
(3) they say  not only alloweth, but inclineth and enforceth every living thing to defend itself from Violence. Secondly, That of Nations, which permitteth those that are in the Protection of others, to whom they own no more but an Honourable Acknowledgement, in case they go about to make themselves Absolute Sovereigns, and usurp their Liberty, to resist, and stand for the same. And if a Lawful Prince (which is not yet Lord of his Subjects Lives and Goods) shall attempt to despoil them of the same, under colour of reducing them to his own Religion, after all humble Remonstrances they may 
(4) they say  stand upon their own guard; and being assailed, repel Force with Force: As did the Maccabees under Antiochus. In which case notwithstanding, the Person of the Prince himself aught always to be Sacred and Inviolable, as was Saul's to David. Lastly, if the enraged Minister of a Lawful Prince will abuse his Authority, against the Fundamental Laws of the Country, 
(5) they say  it is no Rebellion to defend themselves against Force; reserving still their Obedience to their Sovereign inviolate. These are the Rules of which the Protestants that have born Arms in France and Flanders, and the Papists also both there and elsewhere, as in Naples, who have stood for the defence of their Liberties, have served themselves. How truly, I esteem it hard for you and me to determine; unless we were more throughly acquainted with the Laws and Customs of those Countries, than I for my part am.  
I have in References over-against these Words that were thus printed in 1623., set down the Cautionary Words of our Expurgators in 1685; yet all that was not sufficient, without the Addition of this Marginal Note at the Conclusion of them; This Passage above is to be considered as a Relation, not as the Author's Opinion; jest it should misled the Reader into a dangerous mistake. This our Author with his usual Candour lays to my charge. I have been long uneasy under this Fraud, which was imposed on the world in a Book that was bound up with another of my writing; and so it might seem to lie at my door. I was only waiting for a just occasion to detect it; which this Author has now given me; for which I hearty thank him.  
He next charges me with a Paper, stating the Lawfulness of Divorce in case of Barrenness, 
P. 20.  with relation to King Charles the Second Marriage; which he says was a Project of the Earl of Shaftsbury's, and his Party, to put by the Duke of York. I cannot reflect on this Author's way of writing, without remembering an Italian Proverb, that has indeed more of Sense than of Religion in it; God preserve me from my Friends, I will preserve myself from my Enemies. The Reader will have occasion to reflect on this oftener than once, as he goes through these Remarks. What the Earl of Shaftsbury's Designs in that matter were, I do not know; for he never once spoke of them to me. But I remember well that the Duke (than Earl of) Lauderdale moved it to me. He was the first that ever discovered to me the Secret of King James' Religion; and when he saw me struck with great apprehensions upon it, he fell upon the Head of Divorce, and told me many Particulars that I think fit to suppress. I afterwards knew that the Matter of Fact was falsely stated to me. I was than but Seven and twenty, and was pretty full of the Civil Law; which had been my first Study. So I told him several things out of the Digests, Code, and Novels, upon that Head; and in a great variety of Discourse we went through many parts of it: He seemed surprised at many things that I told him; and he desired me to state the matter in Paper. I very frankly did it, yet I told him I spoke of the sudden; but when I went home among my Books, I would consider it more severely. The following Winter I writ to him, and retracted that whole Paper; I answered the most material Things in it; and I put a Confutation of my first and loser Thoughts, in a Book that I writ that Winter, which I can show to any that desires it. The Duke of Lauderdale was too wise to publish any thing of this kind, though in his passion he might have showed it to this Author. He knew that he had pressed me to talk upon this Subject to the King himself; which I had refused to do. A great deal more belongs to this Matter, which I think fit to suppress: None but such a Person as this Author is, would have published so much.  
He reproaches me for publishing King John's Great Charter in a most prevaricating manner, 
P. 21.  contrary to my own sight and knowledge; but he does not mention any particular. I have the Original still in my hands; and have showed it to a great many Persons, who do all know that I have not said one word of it, but what is according to the Original itself. This is a Calumny at large, and falls back on the Author.  
He reproaches me for having in the History of the Reformation published a Letter of Luther's Imperfectly and Falsely; 
Ibid.  upon which he charges me with many Prevarications used to set up this Pattern of Comprehension. I am now come to that which determined me to writ these Remarks. I could otherwise have despised the Malice of this Man, with the same Patience and Easiness that I had formerly expressed when provoked by him. But, I confess, I have a true Zeal for maintaining the Honour of that Work, and to justify it from all Blemishes. I will not open so Black a Scene, as to tell what pains Some who are called Protestants, have taken to undermine the Credit of that Book. The three Persons who were most concerned in it have answered it elsewhere. Two of them were the underworkmen to one of a higher Form. But hitherto all the Attempts that have been made that way, have succeeded contrary to their expectation, to the raising and establishing theCredit of that Work. I was in Summer, 1679. desired by the present Most Reverend ABp▪ of Canterbury to go and examine the MSS. in Corpus Christi College. He met me there, and that Learned Society afforded me all Conveniences for Reading or Copying their MSS. I do also own the great Kindness shown me at that time by Bishop Turner, who not only lodged me with himself, but furnished me with two amanuensis, Mr. Smith and Mr. Tomkinson. They are now in the same Opinions and Circumstances with our Author; but they are Men of Truth and Probity; and I appeal to them how faithfully every thing was Copied out, and how exactly all was Compared. The Hands of the Reformers, Luther's in particular, were very hard to be read; and though I had than been much practised in reading the Hands of that Age, yet we were often put to guests, rather than read. In some Letters that could not be read, Archbishop Parker had writ their Reading on the Margin. That Letter of Luther's grew so hard to be read, that we could not go far in it; so I only Copied out the beginning and end of it. Nothing could be built on it; for I knew if this was a lucid Interval of his, it was a very short one. It was faithfully copied, just as we thought we had read it. It seemed to agreed so entirely with the Method that most of the Divines of this Church took for a great while, of explaining Christ's Presence in the Sacrament by the Term Real Presence, without using the Word Figure, that though I never liked that Method too well, (for I never cared to use the Phrase of Real Presence, nor avoided to call the Sacrament a Figure) yet I was willing to show, that here a way was proposed, and as I thought once agreed to, of keeping the matter in those General Words: And thus in compliance with a Method that I had never used myself, I honestly published this, as I thought we had read it. No Comprehension could be designed by this; but that which has been promoted by many of the most Zealous Divines of this Church. The Learned and Noble Seckendorf addressed some Persons to me, to be satisfied concerning that Letter. I directed them the best I could. They had free Access given them; and they reported no difference to me, but Nihilominus for Nihil minus. If either this was too hastily examined, or if the Writing seemed to favour those Mistakes with which he charges me, of which I can say nothing at such a distance of time, I am sure whatever might occasion the Mistake, there was no Fraud intended; there could be none: Nor was there any Consequence to be drawn from it. It only shown what Bucer's Proposition was, to which I fancied that Luther had once agreed. But so exactly will I follow Truth, that whensoever an Attested Copy of that Letter is sent me from that Learned Body, which two Worthy Members of it have promised to procure for me, I will certainly publish it in the next Edition of my History. And now our Author, who has out of his small Stock cast in this Mite to the Treasure of that Church to which his Natural Temper does best entitle him, may see what great Inferences can be drawn from it. In a matter of no great consequence there was too little Care had in Copying or Examining a Letter writ in a very Bad Hand.  

Pag. 23.  He reproaches me for joining myself with one of the Greatest and Best Men that this Age has produced, in that which he calls Latitudinarism. This was the seconding Dr. Leighton in his Great Design for reforming and uniting the Church of Scotland: And it is that which I will never be ashamed of: I have rather 'cause to glory in it; and to reckon my knowledge of that Apostolical Man, one of the greatest Blessings of my whole Life. The Ignorance of our Scribbler shows itself too grossly here. He reproaches Bishop Leighton for being willing to take in the Ejected Presbyterian Ministers without Episcopal Ordination: Upon which he tells a long Tale, which is all one continued Impertinence. The Bishops of Scotland never required the Presbyterian Ministers there to take Episcopal Ordination; they required them only to come and act with them in Church Judicatories; even Archbishop Sharp himself, when he was to be consecrated Archbishop of St. Andrews, stood out for some time here in England, before he would submit to take Priests Orders. No Bishop in Scotland during my stay in that Kingdom, ever did so much as desire any of the Presbyterians to be re-ordained. So falsely is this Charge laid against the Memory of that Holy Man. All that long Tale that he hangs to it, is of a piece with its foundation.  
He reproaches Bishop Leighton for accepting the See of Glasgow, 
Ibid.  when Archbishop Burnet was turned out. But Dr. Burnet had resigned it, and had accepted of a Pension. Yet our Author aught not to have mentioned this, for the sake of a Friend of his own, who in the late Reign procured the Archbishop of that See to be turned out, only for his Zeal and Actings against Popery; and obtained it to himself.  

Page 24.  He charges me for loving an Ascetical Life, and Mystical Divinity; and represents me as an Enthusiast. Calumny is run low with him, when he flies to such stuff. A man had rather be any thing, than be delivered over to a Spirit of Malice and Calumny. The Enthusiastical Words he says I vented to a Lady, are certainly a Falsehood; for I never once saw that Lady, but in Public Rooms, and before much Company, when things of that nature are seldom talked of; and he has hit on Words that cannot be reconciled with the Opinion that I have always held concerning Predestination.  

Page 25.  He reproaches me for mistaking the Subject of a Letter of Q. Elizabeth's, and fancies it is a Letter to Q. Katherine Parr, when she was with Child by the Lord Admiral, after the Death of K. Henry the Eighth. I am not concerned whether his Conjecture or mine be the truer; nor do I think it worth the while to argue it. It is but conjecture on both sides; I stand upon my Sincerity in all that I affirm; and when that is not shaken, I leave my Conjectures to take their fate.  
The last Head of the Reproaches that he lays upon me, 
Pag. 26.  is from my Life of Bishop Bedell. Mr. Fulman sent me Remarks on some parts of it, and I made no Answer; and these have fallen into the Author's hands, and he has printed them with great Triumph. I published that Life just when I went out of England. Mr. Fulman sent a Packet after me to Paris, for which I paid very dear. I had neither the Conveniences nor the inclination to Answer it at that distance. Since I came into England, a Copy of it was sent to me, by him into whose hands Mr. Fulman's Papers came, for he was than dead. I sent him a full Answer to them, to be Printed or not, as he thought fit. He judged it better to let the matter sleep, and so returned all back to me again. I will not weary out my Reader, who may justly nauseate at such stuff. I will only say this for my part in that work; The whole Materials were prepared for me many years before I meddled with them, by an Ancient and Reverend Clergyman, Mr. Cloggy. I was apprehensive that some might take exceptions to my writing on that Argument; and so declined to do it for some Years; but repeated Importunities overcame me at last; so I undertook it: I had than separated myself from my Books, which I had bestowed in a place where I knew they would be preserved safe for me: I upon that took no sort of care to examine the matter of those Papers, I only put them in Form: I am not answerable for any mistakes that may be in the First part of them, which my Author may have misremembered: So if any of these are wrong▪ they are another man's Errors, they are not mine. When I have said this, I have said enough to justify myself; but I could say a great deal more upon the particulars themselves, if I thought that were necessary.  
Thus far I have followed this Author in one very black part of his Defamations; but his next is much blacker; both as it is laid on a far better Man, and on one who might be let lie in his Grave in quiet, though while he lived he was still Persecuted by the Malice and Slander of Absurd and Wicked Men. He might the rather be Treated with Humanity, if not with Respect; since he was the greatest Example I have ever known of a Gentleness that could not be surprised nor overcome; and was free from using any of those liberties in speaking of others, which were to so unmeasured a degree made use of against himself. He is now above Envy, and beyond Slander; and his Name is and will be long Remembered with Honour, when it will not be so much as known that this Man was ever Born.  

Pag. 35.  He gins with Reproaching him for Apostasy; but all that matter has been already so fully cleared, that I cannot think there is any need of saying more upon that Argument; how much or how long soever this Writer may enlarge upon it.  
He thinks he was not only an Apostate, but an Atheist. 
Page 40.  In short, he goes round all the Topics of his scurrilous Eloquence, to carry this matter as far as is possible: Thomas the whole amounts to no more, but that he thought it a Sin to Resist only upon Jealousies and Consequences, upon some Illegal Acts, and remote Fears, but did not think it a Sin to Resist when a Total Subversion was openly declared, and was actually begun. If Evil-speaking and Reviling are Sins, our Author has, I am sure, a large measure of them on his Conscience, I had much rather bear his Malice than his Burden.  
He makes him to be a Venture of Lies and false Stories. 
Pag. 42.  He may as well say he was a Low, Lean, Black Man, that he had a sour Frowardness in his Look, and an Air of Malice spread over his whole Countenance, and looked like Envy itself; as we know some do. We who lived familiarly with that Great Man, know well how false all this Man's Accusation of him is, and how unlike it is to his True Character. He kept up his Credit with all Wise and Good Men, and always used it with great Discretion, and a constant Zeal in doing Good.  
He runs out long upon some passages of Two of his Sermons; 
Pag. 44.  to which he adds a great deal of Tattle, and aggravates every thing far beyond its true sense. I am, perhaps, not of the same Opinion with him in every thing in those Sermons; but they are far from being liable to those Uncharitable Charges that he lays on them. Divines may differ in their apprehensions of things, but Good Men can bear with one another, even when they believe they are mistaken. All this is Venom, and deserves no other Answer.  

P. 46.  He may say any thing after he represents him as Stealing his Rule of Faith from Dr. Cradock, in some Discourses with him. It is certain no body could Converse with Dr. Cradock on any Subject, but they might learn much from him; but I do not believe he ever intended to answer Sergeant, or any other Book whatsoever. I am sure it is not very like him. Our Primate had a Stock of his own, and needed to borrow from no body. I passed over what he had said of my stealing many Hints from Bishop Gunning, and than printing them. It is no great matter whether it be true or false, but as it happens, it is absolutely false. Bishop Gunning had much Learning and true Piety; but his Ideas were so confused, and so oversubtile, that I never could learn any thing from him in all the time that ever I conversed with him, and so I did not wait often on him.  
He enters upon some Particulars of the late Primate's Life, 
P. 51.  with which I am not so well acquainted, as to be able to give any account of them. They do all relate to his having enjoyed first the Fellowship of one turned out by the Parliament, during the Rebellion; than the Living of one turned out by the Bartholomew Act; and last of all, his possessing the See of Canterbury: And that, though he had commended Dr. Whitchcot for his Generosity to the Learned Dr. Collins; yet he practised no part of that himself. Here a Question arises, What right a man has to any Temporal Estate, after the Powers that are, have taken it from another, and given it to him. I will not enter upon it. It is certainly wrong to endeavour to get a man turned out, that one may be possessed of his Benefice, which he knows was the Case of a Friend of his own. But when a man had no share in turning another out, and only possesses a small Encouragement to Learning, that he had, I know of no Rule that obliges to Restitution in that Case. If the Powers are lawful, and they created a Vacancy upon a just Occasion, than since the Church must be served, how much soever a man may pity the Condition of such as are turned out, and how reasonable soever it may be for him to relieve their Necessities; yet their Title to what was Temporal, subsisting only upon Law, certainly that Law can altar the Property, and transfer it to another; so no Title remains: And though in case of want, a Generosity, like that which Dr. Whitchcot practised, deserved to be highly commended; yet since that was not the Case of Archbishop Sancroft, there was no reason for it. The one carried with him a good Estate out of Lambeth, and the other spent a considerable one in it, in a most Charitable and Generous manner. Archbishop Sancroft is at rest, and is, I am confident, in Heaven. I will not enter upon any part of his Life to lessen him in any respect, not, not so far as to pretend that I have any materials to go upon it, but that I choose upon other Considerations to suppress them, which is one of the common Artifices of Malice.  
I will only remark a little upon that part of his Deportment which related to the Public, to show that there was something very singular, either in his Opinion, or in his Temper: Either his Opinion of the Present Establishment differed from his brethren's, or he had a Fearfulness of Temper that neither became his Post, nor those Times. He was one of those Lords that met at Guildhall, and signed the Invitation to the (than) Prince of Orange, to come and look to the Preservation of Religion, and of the Nation. When his (present) Majesty came to St. James', he neither came to wait on him, nor did he sand any Message, importing that the State of Affairs was changed, and that he had thereupon changed his mind. When the Convention was summoned, he would not appear all the while, though his Brethrens did, and both spoke and Voted according to their Principles. The matter stuck so many days in the House of Lords, and was at last carried upon so small an inequality, that the weight of an Archbishop of Canterbury might have held, if not turned, the balance. No man did run any risk either at that time, or since, for the freedom with which he debated or voted. Here was a very unaccountable behaviour, if he thought it was Rebellion, or Treason, that was than in debate. If he had but once come and declared against all that was than in agitation, and than withdrawn; this would have become him and his Station. His Chaplains took the Oaths, and were not discountenanced by him: Those who knew him best, gave it out, upon that strange deportment of his, that he wished well to the Change, only that he himself would not be active in it; and this they imputed to some Promise that, they believed, he had made to the Late King. I am sure I was at that time so possessed with this, that it was one of the chief Considerations that determined me to argue against the Act concerning the Oaths so long as I did.  
When King James went to Ireland, and during all the time of that War, when the Party in England grew bold, and was full of hopes, he continued in his former silence, and reservedness; and still kept up his former friendship with those who had taken the Oaths. At that time several Clergy men who had Scruples concerning the Oaths, as they have told myself, went to him, and desired to discourse the matter with him, but he declined it. Of some of these I am sure he had no sort of distrust. When Bp. Turner's Letters were intercepted, he said to a great many from whom I had it, that he had no Authority from him to writ as he did in his Name. After he was deprived, he never took on him to act with his Archiepiscopal Authority. He never stood upon his Right, nor complained of wrong, in any public Act or Protestation. He never required the Bishops or Clergy of his Province to adhere to him, or to disown his Successor; and neither living nor dying, did he publish any thing to the Nation, charging these Sins upon them, or requiring them to return to their former state. And yet if all that we have been doing of late, is Rebellion, Treason, Murder, or Perjury, these can be no light matters. He who was at the Head of the Church, if he thought so of them, aught to have lift up his voice like a trumpet, to have cried aloud, and not have spared. It was visible to all who saw the state of our Affairs, that he would have been in no danger, if he had done it. But suppose he had been in danger, aught not such a man as he was, to have even sacrificed his Life, rather than have abandoned such a Post, and have been silent at such a time? Since therefore such a way of proceeding is not reconcileable with an Apostolical or Primitive Spirit, and looks like not only a deserting, but a betraying the Obligations that he lay under: It is the most favourable judgement that can be made of him, to think, that he was more indifferent in this matter, than some would make us believe he was: That though he would not Act, nor keep his Post under the present Government, yet that flowed from particular Considerations, which though they might work on himself, yet he acted for the Cause itself with no Zeal nor Courage; which in respect to his Memory, we aught to think he would have done, if he had judged of the matter as these Schismatics do: For let them talk of the Church of England as much as they will, we are sure they neither adhere to the Principles of Church-Communion, professed in it, nor are they acted with that Spirit of Moderation, which has been all along Her Character and Glory, till of late some Sons of Thunder began to breathe out Cruelty.  
To return from this Digression; if Archbishop Sancroft was not turned out, but for not doing those things which were Incumbent on his Function; and if he was far from being in Want, than it had been a Profuseness, and neither Charity nor Generosity in our late Primate, who exhausted all he had in the noblest manner, to have offered to supply one that needed it lesle than himself.  
But since I am now engaged in this Subject, and intent never to Writ more upon it in this way, I will give an account of another Transaction in this matter, in which a Person of great Honour will be my Voucher, who is beyond all exception; and whom, though I do not name in this way, yet I will use more plainness to any that shall ask me the question.  
In Summer 1690. after the Battle of the Boyne, the late Queen (a Name that will ever strike and melt all that knew Her) sent by me a Message to one, who She had reason to believe, would execute all her Commands with joy, and who had great Credit with the than Deprived Bishops; I am sure he had reason to have it, for he had served them with much Zeal: The Message was to try if the Bishops, in case the Parliament could have been brought to have Dispensed with their taking the Oaths, would go on and do their Functions, Ordain, Confirm, assist at Prayers and Sacraments, give Institutions, and Visit their Dioceses. These are the great Duties of the Episcopal Function; and it seemed an extravagant thing to have Bishops in a Church, who should do none of them, but should only live in their Sees and enjoy their Revenues. If they were resolved to do these things, a Scheme was prepared for offering that matter to a second Consideration in Parliament. That great Person undertook the Business, which I likewise communicated by the same Authority to an Eminent Person in the House of Commons, distinguished both by his Post, and by his Credit with them, at lest with their Friends. About Two Months after, that Person did me the Honour to come to me, and tell me, he had obeyed the Queen's Commands with Zeal and with all the Skill he had; but he said the Deprived Bishops would Answer nothing, and Promise' nothing, only he believed they would be Quiet. So all thoughts of bringing that matter again into Parliament, were laid aside; yet Their Majesties proceeded in it slowly, and seemed unwilling to fill their Sees; till those Letters were discovered that shown what Correspondencies and Engagements there were among them. That determined the matter; which, perhaps, without that accident, might have been hung up for another Year. Now let the world judge what a sort of an Episcopacy this would have been; Bishops would have Eat and Drunk well at the Church's Charge, and done nothing; neither have served the Government that Protected them, nor have Declared for that, to which they in their thoughts adhered; but would have lived Easy, pretending they were Quiet, and doing nothing against the State, till they had found a favourable Opportunity, like the Invasion designed from la Hogue, to have Declared themselves to some purpose.  
When the Party had given credit to a most Impudent Calumny that was raised by the Papists against the late Primate, of his being a Socinian, 
Pag. 53.  his Book against those Errors had for some time made even the Party itself ashamed to support that any longer: At last an Ignorant and Malicious Writer was found out to maintain that Charge still, which had made too great a Noise to be easily parted with. Our Author it seems saw that this was too shameless a Calumny to be owned by himself, who loves to digress so well, and practices it so much, that probably he would have made great excursions here, if it could have been defended; he only refers his Reader to the long Title of another, who has done it. But let the Reader try his Patience on that Book if he can. The Writer of it may depend on it, he will never be answered: Every one that looks into it, will soon see the reason. Some men have an Art of Writing, to disparage the Side that they writ for. We do not envy them such Underworkmen. If their Labours can procure them a Maintenance from the Party, it is the better for them; to be sure no body else will trouble them. Men must understand a Controversy before they writ of it: Bold railing, without any sprinklings of Salt to give it a Relish, may perhaps be agreeable to a Taste like this Writer's, but generally it is so little regarded, that it is probable this Journey man, after some Attempts to make himself be considered among them, will be desired by themselves to give over writing, and to reserve himself for fight, in which he has been more practised.  

Pag. 54.  He brings out a long Passage of a Sermon of our late Primates, against Perjury, and makes an Application suitable to the rest of his Candour; as if we had openly declared for Perjury; and than falls into an Invective against him, for having so little regard to those who durst not venture on that sin. But what tenderness soever our Author may express for those, (if there are any such among us) who have taken the Oaths to this Government, while they think themselves tied to the former, we have no regard at all to them, we look on them as the worst of men. We hold this to be Perjury indeed, and a sin of that heinousness, that no Characters are black enough to set it out. But if the Obligation of the former Oath ceases, than all the Charge of Perjury falls. This brings us back again to the Main Question, of which I have said so much already, that I will repeat no part of it.  
As for our late Primate's Severity against the Non-Jurors, if they had behaved themselves modestly and quietly with their Scruples, every man among us would have had all just regard to them; we would not only have pitied, but have protected and assisted them. The Virulence of their Libels, and of their whole Behaviour, is such a Strain, that this Age, how fruitful soever in bad things, has not yet produced any thing like it. When they attack the Government, and defame it and all that are concerned in it, with so foul and so keen a Malice, we must sometimes show our Zeal for the Public, against their Unchristian Temper. After all, most of his small Stories with which Tattlers have furnished him, (if they are not his own Fictions) have so little of the way of the late Primate, that they will be believed by few, except those of his own Temper.  
He thinks he has great advantage from my owning, 
Pag. 57  that the Reproaches of the Party might have had an ill effect on our late Primate's Health; and fancies that is a low and abject Character. It may be so with those that affect to pass for Stoics or Heroes. But Let vexed his righteous soul with what he saw and heard. David owns that reproach had broken his heart; and Jeremy is full of those afflicting strains. St. Paul was burnt up with the Concerns of the Church, and with the Scandals that were than given or unjustly taken. And even our Blessed Saviour looked about with anger, and was grieved with the hardness of their hearts, with the spiteful and hypocritical temper of the Pharisees. A truly good man will be little concerned upon his own account, at all that can be said of him, or against him; but when a Venomous Temper spreads itself fatally, and defeats the good that is designed to be done; when men's minds are soured by it; when Ill-nature, which too generally prevails in the world, is so much fed by it; and when even Atheism itself is fortified, by persuading the world that those to whom so much Respect has been paid for their Labours in Religion, and against Atheism, are called Atheists themselves, and are allowed no other distinction from other Atheists, but that they are of the graver sort; 
Pag. 40.  it is no wonder if a man who is forced to reflect often on these things, feels a deep concern at heart about them. To all serious men this will raise a Character, rather than depress it.  

Pag. 58.  I will not answer the Venom that is here, nor do I wish him the Answer that such Periods deserve. A Pillory were a gentle Censure for it.  

Pag. 59  He cannot bear it that our late Primate should be thought to have turned so great a part of the City to love the Church: He thinks he did it not; that he only persuaded men to bear with the Church, but not to love it, or become zealous for it; as the Converts of others have showed themselves to be. As for this, I appeal to all who knew what the City was in 1662., and what it was brought to in 1682, when those Virulent Men begun to let lose their Malice against this Great Man. There are too many Witnesses to this, therefore he cannot quite deny it. But these men, says he, did not become Zealots; that is, they did not rail at, nor inform against their old Friends; this is, in our Author's sense, to be hearty to the Church: but as for those who do still sincerely adhere to the Communion of our Church, and love it, all who know the City will be forced to own, that whosoever gained their Thousands, our late Primate gained his Ten thousands. After all, our Author's Friends in France might have taught him, that it is no small Merit to bring Numbers over, though it were done by such Expositions and Mollifying as the Bishop of Meaux has tried his Skill at. Our Author himself is willing to mollify matters towards such as have taken the Oaths against their Consciences; but to persuade a man to the Communion of the Church by such Softning, is a Crime with him.  
I pass over a great deal of his Stuff, as things that can make no Impression, 
Pag. 60.  and deserve no Answer. If any man had argued only from Providence, he might have run out upon it as long as he had pleased: But when a Foundation is once laid, and a Cause is proved to be just in itself, than the Steps of Providence that watch over it will be observed by all men that are not Atheistical and Irreligious. I will not follow him again into his Tattle: I believe not a word of it, or of any thing else, for his saying it, even when he adds, 
Pag. 62.  to his certain knowledge. But I do not know Particulars so well as to be able to confute them; nor were it worth the while to inquire after them.  
He thinks the Foreign Churches were more ruined by their not being able to answer their want of Mission, 
Page 64.  than by all the late Persecution. But after all, I believe our Author trusts to the method of Persecution more than to that of Argument. If the Dragoons had made no greater execution than this Argument did, the French Churches had been entire to this day: For how valuable a thing soever a Regular Mission and a Continued Succession may be, yet the greater part of mankind will always think, that Truth has a sufficient Authority to oblige men both to receive and publish it, how doubtful soever the Mission of him that brings it may seem to be.  

P. 66.  He had picked up a new Story concerning me, after he had finished the Chapter that is designed for me; and with this he entertains his clamorous Malice for Two Pages. Duke Hamilton told a Person of Honour, That I advised him, as he regarded his own standing and the King's Favour, to be sure to promote the Presbyterian Interest: And upon this he runs out of breath with his Exclamations. It is a practice too gross, and too much decried, to lay a Story so, that it must end in a dead man. Slanders should be contrived more dextrously; especially when the Tale that is told is not in itself very credible. This is one of those ill-designed and ill-executed Lies, that can do no hurt but to those that forge them. If it were worth answering, I could give very copious Proofs to the contrary. Such Impudent Stories are too much honoured when they are confuted.  
After this angry man had spent 68 Pages in Two Chapters of Defamation, for which, let him think of it as he will, he must one day answer to God, he comes in Conclusion to the Funeral Sermon itself; where he finds so little Matter of Remark, that the Bias of a Sour Temper makes him again return to the beaten subject of his Thoughts, Falsehood and Calumny. He quarrels with my saying, 
P. 68  that the Apostle had large thoughts concerning the Idol Feasts, and meats offered to Idols. I will not run out into Controversy here; but I am sure these Words of St. Paul, repeated on different occasions, 
1 Cor. 10.23. Chap. 6.12.  All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient, and edify not. I will not be brought under the power of any. 
Chap. 9.22.  I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And the mention St. Paul makes of the ill use of knowledge in him who sat at meat in an idols temple, 
Chap. 8.10, 11.  by which the conscience of him that was weak was emboldened, so that through the knowledge of the one, the other perished. These words, I say, do so fully justify what I said, that it seems he himself was apprehensive of it; for whereas on other occasions he fills Pages with Quotations, here he only refers by a Marginal Note to those Passages of St. Paul's Epistle. It seems he knew, that if he had set down the Words themselves, they would have too evidently proved all that I had said: But some matter of Divinity was to be touched on, and wheresoever the Harpies touch, they defile every thing.  
His next Exception is against my using these words, The just Freedoms of Human Nature: 
Pag. 70.  And here comes a new Declamation of Three Pages. There is a sort of men, that because they hope to be the Instruments of Tyranny and Cruelty, cannot with any patience bear the mention of Freedom or Liberty. They are too much Slaves themselves to be capable of Generous Thoughts. Our Author seems to fall into Fits when they are but named. Let others love Unjust Slavery as much as they will, Just Freedoms will still be loved by all those that have not degenerated from Human Nature, and with that have lost their relish of its Just Freedoms. I shall not wish so ill a thing to them, as that they may feel the effects of this Principle in its full extent. I am sure I cannot wish them a worse thing with relation to this world. But I have not Ill nature enough to furnish out such a Wish, which requires a Spite as black as our Author's.  
Upon my mentioning the Concern that our late Primate had at 
Pag. 73.  the Progress of Atheism and Impiety, he goes over his former stuff, to lay the Blame of it in a great measure at his door and mine, as if our asserting the present Constitution, did fortify men in their Atheism. But all this has been already considered; therefore how much soever our Author delights in such Repetitions, that he may give vent to his Gall in new Flourishes of Virulent Language, I will refer my Reader to what was formerly said, and leave him to the pleasure of throwing out his Ill nature as often as he has a mind to it.  

Pag. 75.  He comes at last to the Provocation that I gave them in my Sermon, after he had exhausted his whole Common-Place of Defamation. He gins his Charge with the baseness of insulting over men in affliction. If men's Tempers were in any sort suited to their Circumstances, than it were barbarous indeed to lay a load upon those that are sunk with misfortunes. But when men are Pert and Insolent, when they are filling the Nation with Lies and Slanders; when they are at work in every Coffee-house, defaming the Government, and all that adhere to it; when they do so visibly take part with the Enemy of our Nation, and of our Religion, and seem to hate both; when they show so keen an edge in all their Discourses and Libels; when their Malice is as Restless, as (God be thanked for it) it is Feeble and Harmless; and particularly when Justice was to be done to the Memory of One whom they had pursued so Implacably for so many years, it was fit and in some sort necessary, to say somewhat to humble them. Let them put on modest and humble Tempers; let the Party be quiet and silent, and let them disown such Writers as this Person shows himself to be, and than let us bear what blame indifferent Men can lay on us, if we are not tender of them, and kind to them. Great regard is due to every Person that is in bad Circumstances; but much greater is due to those who are willing to suffer, rather than to act against their Consciences; such sufferings have so beautiful an appearance, that even some peevishness, and a great many mistakes are to be forgiven, where so good a Temper appears; and when Men are willing to Sacrifice the concerns of this present Life, rather than endanger their eternal Interests. If such Men were to be persecuted (or according to a finer term, used to disguise so black a thing, if they were to be prosecuted) for all this, I should think it both Inhuman and Unchristian to inflame the Nation against them, by saying, It is not Conscience, it is Humour, Pride, or ill Nature that governs them; must the State be ruined, and the Church rend, to gratify such an unreasonable and contemptible Party? Our Author knows where we could found a great many Topics to stuff out black Declamations on this Argument. May all the shame that belongs to other People, fall on us, if ever we are corrupted with such a Temper, or become guilty of such excesses. We can bear with their Errors, and love their Persons, and not only pity, but respect and assist them in all their concerns. But if the Party will not govern their Passions, nor bridle their Tongues; if they will not give over practices to undermine the State, and distracted the Church, how gentle soever the Government may be to them, and how tender soever we may be of them, the patience of the former may at last be exhausted, and our Zeal may be justly inflamed against Men, who have been hitherto the greatest instances of Insolence against Government, that perhaps this Age has produced.  

Pag. 76.  For four Pages together he runs out to show how many Men had been once engaged in Rebellious Courses, and had afterwards started back: He might have gone much farther, if he had pleased, and as little to the purpose. He must first prove, that we are in a state of Rebellion, which we are sure he will never be able to do; and till he does that, all his scraps of History are impertinent.  

Pag. 79.  He comes at last to excuse the silence of the Deprived Bishops in so critical a time. He says, The Mob would have fallen upon them, and have torn them in pieces if they had spoke their Minds. This every one knows to be false in fact. Upon the late King's deserting the Government, the Mob was indeed the Master for some days; but immediately after the (than) Prince came to London, all that was quieted; and there was not the lest Disturbance during the rest of the Winter. In all those Weeks in which the Debate lasted in the Convention, there was not so much as Colour given, to pretend that Violence was offered, or that any Threaten were used. Some wished that they might have had that pretence, to say they were overawed in their Proceed, and so hoped to have had the Plea of a Nullity, which arises from a Consent extorted by such a Fear, as may overcome even a Man of Courage. But there was not a shadow given to such Pretences; therefore an Obligation lay upon these Bishops to have declared themselves more openly than they did, for they were under no danger. But suppose they were, aught not Men in their Station to have hazarded even their Lives to have given the Nation warning, that they were running into the Sins of Murder, Rebellion, Perjury, with all the crying Epithets with which our Author charges our present Constitution? They were not to choose their own time to do this; the time of Sin and Temptation is the time in which the Clergy aught to give warning. Indeed if they had given this warning, I shall not deny, but that in imitation of the Precedent of Athanasius, and other great Saints, they might have taken care of themselves, and of their own Preservation, But the Obligation that lay on them, to give public warning, was strict and indispensible; and therefore, I think, we show both more Respect and more Charity to them, when we believe that at that time they had not these apprehensions of this Matter that they have now; that they were than willing to be passive, without struggling hard or venturing much, than they do who represent them as so careful of themselves, and so fearful of Danger, that they would not speak out or deal roundly, in a time in which they aught either to have spoken, or for ever thereafter to have held their Peace.  
He fills a Page with a Quotation from Athanasius, 
Pag. 82.  to justify his flying and hiding himself. But that is not the Question at present, it is their Silence that we are now upon. Athanasius was far from being silent, he gave many loud warnings, and when he had done that, he reserved himself to better times. It is trifling, when we object against their silence, which is notoriously known, to tell us that it was lawful for them to fly, which they did not, nor did we charge them with it.  

Pag. 82.  He says next, That if through Fear they had been wanting to their Duty, it was a pardonable piece of Frailty: St. Peter denied his Master; and many Confessors and Martyrs were at some times overcome with it. A surprise, and a deliberate course of acting, that lasted many Months, are things very different. Their silence has continued ever since. Their Archbishop lived and died in this silence, having never by any public and express Act declared himself, nor given warning to the Nation. He neither required the Bishops of his Province, nor the Clergy of his Diocese to adhere to himself, or to the late King, to refuse the Oaths, and to reject his Successor. He did not require it of those of his own Family. He did neither fly nor abscond, but was all the while at home both safe and silent; all the rest have followed his Example, and continued to this day silent: That is, whatsoever any of them may talk in corners, or may writ or print without name, they have not by any Public Instrument, or Episcopal Act declared themselves.  
He says, 
Pag. 83.  That to have thundered against Foreigners, would have been to no purpose, because they were of other Communions; and to have thundered against our own People would have been to excommunicate the Multitude, which is against the Rules and Directions of the Canon-Law. If we had a mind to have that Body of Men appear ridiculous, we need only wish them to employ such a Writer to make Apologies for them. The Rules of the Canon-Law are a noble defence, when Men have been wanting to the Rules of the Gospel. Bishop's would not openly declare themselves when the thing was entire, and the Nation was not yet involved in all that Gild which they now charge on us, because, forsooth, the Canon Law forbids the excommunicating the Multitude. He is sparing of his Quotations here, though he is liberal of them when they are not to the purpose. But the citing of the Canon Law at large was great, and not easily to be confuted.  

P. 80.  In the middle of all this Apology, he brings in a hearsay-Story of a Dialogue that passed between Mr. Napleton and myself: For though he had in another part of this Book represented me as shedding Tears when I heard how the late King was treated at Feversham, 
P. 25.  he now reports a Discourse between Mr. Napleton and me, the Importance of which is, That I wished they would have left the late King to be torn in pieces by the Mob. This Story has been in one or two of their Books that have appeared of late. It has been kept up as a Secret Five or Six Years, and now it is made an Ornament in several of their Libels. I never saw that Gentleman before nor since that time; so I do not know whether he owns or disowns it: Nor can I pretend to give an account of a Discourse almost Seven Years old. Another Worthy Gentleman, Mr. Chadwick, was Witness to all that passed between us. I am sure I was deeply concerned at the Misfortunes of that Prince. I immediately went about the procuring an Order to be speedily given, to take care of his Preservation. All that I can remember of any Discourse with that Gentleman, is, That when he told me that upon the Gentlemen of the country's coming to Feversham they had brought the People to show more Respect; and that the late King was very desirous to prosecute his Voyage beyond Sea, I thought they aught to have helped him in it. I do not deny, but that I thought that since He by Deserting had abandoned the Government, it was a great Misfortune that any Stop was put to that; and I wished he had been left to his own freedom; and I thought that the Gentlemen of the Country might have so managed the Multitude, as to have set him at liberty. This is all that I meant in that matter; but I cannot charge myself with further Particulars of that Discourse.  

Page 83.  He quarrels with my saying that the Deprived Bishops left their Authority entirely with their Chancellors; who acted in their Name, and by their Commission: And he asks, Whether they granted them New Commissions for tendering the Oaths, or if their Chancellors did it by virtue of their former Patents. I have said somewhat on this Head already, which needs not be repeated here. But there is no need of enquiring how their Chancellors came by that Authority, which in respect to some of them I forbear to do. It is certain that they were all silent at the lest, and left that matter with their Chancellors; whereas they aught to have declared openly against it. For since their Chancellors by their Patents were their Vicars-General, they aught to have let their Clergy know, that in this particular their Chancellors acted not only without directions from them, but against their minds. They were the Pastors of their Dioceses, and aught to have fed their Flock, and particularly to have kept the door shut against those who entered in by Taking Oaths which they judged unlawful. And as Silence in the whole extent of their Pastoral Care can not be reconciled with the Obligations that they lay under, so lest of all can it be excused when their Chancellors were in their Name acting quite contrary to their Judgements, and yet were neither disowned nor declared against by them, and that for a whole Year together.  

Page. 84.  He charges me with juggling at an odd rate, for saying, That though they thought the Oaths unlawful, yet they would scarce say so much in confidence to any of the Clergy who asked their Opinions about it. Than, says he, they did say it; because I say they would scarcely say it. But this was only a soft way of expressing a harsh thing. They were bound in Conscience to speak freely to their Clergy, and to call upon them to consider their Duty, though they had not come to ask them; but when they came to them they were bound to speak out, and that freely. But he still excuses them, From the fear they had, that those who came to them, came to entrap them, as the Pharisees did our Saviour: An Impious Expression, and not corrected in the Errata, though there is a Correction on what is two Lines before this. The Pharisees intended to entrap our Saviour, but did not entrap him, according to the Blasphemy of this Period. It did never appear that any of the Clergy delated any of them: If they had done it, I do not know how far our Law could have made such Discourses Penal; I am sure our Government would not have either enquired after it, or punished them for such things. In those days in which these men were so much exalted, a Book writ by a Man of Quality, and never shown, but found in his Cabinet many Years after, was an Evidence than to convict him of High Treason. But how much soever they may magnify those days as a Golden Age, we live in happier times. So that these their Fears were the effects of the weakness of their own minds, or else they had at that time other thoughts of this matter than they have at present.  
He quarrels with my saying, 
Page 85.  That they abandoned the Government of the Church: And says, They did it as the (late) King abandoned, and as Man abandons his House, who is driven out of it by the force of Arms. And so he concludes me to be abandoned by Modesty and the love of Truth. I think it is fully made out that the late King did abandon his People; but they did it much worse; for from August 1689. till May 1691. for near two years together, they lived in their Sees, without taking any Care of the Church, or doing any of their Functions. They thought that they were all that while lawful Bishops, and for a good part of the time they were certainly so, and yet they did nothing as Bishops all that while; they neither fed their Clergy nor their People with Instructions, Admonitions, Reproofs, or Censures; and if in so critical a Time, a Body of Men who are entrusted with the Care of feeding the Flock of Christ, will leave them to themselves, to the Wolves that devour them, or to the Poison that must destroy them, it is hard to tell what is abandoning, and what is not. As for his Compliment to myself, I am so accustomed to such Civilities from him, that I am pretty well hardened against them.  

Ibid.  He quarrels me for saying, That neither our Laws nor our Princes could bear it long. He shows, That since nothing lapses from the King, no Inconvenience could have happened, if the filling the Sees had been longer delayed; by which this Schism, this horrible and unnatural Schism had been prevented. If to have a shadow and name of a Government, and no real Government, if to deliver up Sees to the Conduct of Lay-Chancellors, without the Bishops taking any care of them, be no Inconveniences; if to have the Bishop's Bench so empty in Parliament, and to have many known Enemies in public Posts; if to have given the Enemies of the Church advantage, by seeing that Dioceses could be managed without Bishops, are such harmless things in our Author's Opinion; others are not of his mind; but see how certainly these things must have ended in the ruin of the Church, if not of the State. It is certain no body apprehended his wise Inconvenience of the lapsing from the Crown. I do not deny, but this is a horrible and unnatural Schism, managed in a most horrid and unnatural way; but both the Schism, and the Management lie at their Door, and they must answer for it. God be thanked that how horrible and unnatural soever it may be, it is very inconsiderable; and their way of management has made it both odious and contemptible.  

Page 86.  I had said, That they were Deprived by the same Authority that displaced the Nonconformists in 62. and deprived the Popish Bishops in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth 's Reign. To this he answers, First, That the Authority is not the same, because we are not under a Hereditary King; and so he strikes at the Authority of all that is now done. But he knows that the Controversy has been hitherto managed upon this Point, whether a Deprivation by a Lay-Authority be valid or not? It is upon this that both Mr. Dodwell and Dr. Hody, have Writ so much. Since therefore this was the Question, I was in the right to say, The Authority was the same, for it was a Lay-Authority in both Cases. As for his Excursion upon the Authority of Hereditary Kings, and of others who were not so. This is a Point of Law, in which all our Lawyers (without one single Exception, as far as I have ever heard) agreeing, I think their Authority may well balance one ill-natured Writer where he is single, and is no Lawyer, and but a very mean Divine. The Statute of Henry the 7 th' is very express and full here, and is a Law of Two hundred Years standing, never once struck at; but our Lawyers do universally say, That though that Act had never passed, the thing was clear before. Here is a good Foundation laid down by our Author to question all Queen Elizabeth's Laws; for not to stand on the Plea of the Papists, against the Lawfulness of her Father's Marriage to her Mother, that Marriage was afterwards declared null from the beginning, and so she was illegitimated: This was never taken out of the way by any subsequent Judgement. Our Author, perhaps, intends to do this service to that Church and Interest, and so will try to shake the Authority of those Laws; but they will still retain their Credit and Force, after all his poor Endeavours to the contrary. The confusion that would arise from the voiding of Laws, that flowed from a settled Government, might delight Men of Spite and Malice; but our Nation, in no Age, has had the ill Nature that was necessary to maintain so wicked and destructive a Maxim. But all this is a returning to, or rather a supposing that which is the Subject of our main Debate: We affirm, and believe that we have proved it, that we are not only under a Legal, but under a Just and a Lawful Power, built upon, and suited to the Fundamentals of our Constitution.  
His second Answer is, That whatever a Lay-Authority may do, yet since it may sometimes act unjustly, and make wicked Laws, I aught to have justified the grounds upon which the Bishops were deprived: and he protests that the Apologies and Defences written for them are such, that if he were their most implacable Enemy (as he fears I am) he could not tell how to answer them. But suppose they were turned out unjustly, that will indeed make them very guilty who have enacted such an unrighteous Law, yet the constant Practice of the Church is evidently made out to have been this, That since the Church cannot be kept in order without Governors, when Princes turn out Bishops, though upon groundless and untrue Suggestions, but without any design to corrupt or altar the Faith, in such a case the Church is rather to bear a particular Injustice than to break with the Prince, to forfeit his Protection, or to venture on his Displeasure; even in protecting an innocent and injured Bishop. Sacred Orders are indeed derived according to the Rules of the Gospel: But the allotment of this or that Bishop, to this or that See, are things of a mixed Nature, in which the Civil as well as the Ecclesiastical Authority have their share. Both are under the Rules of Discretion and Prudence: and the Protection of the Magistrate, is of that consequence to the whole, and to the advancement of Religion itself, as well as to the quiet and safety of all the Members of that Body, that it is certainly better to bear, even with a particular Injustice, than by opposing it to venture on a general Concussion of the whole frame.  
What was formerly mentioned, with relation to the deprived Bishops, will serve not only to justify the Proceed against them, but to show the Necessity of them. The method of all Governments, for several Ages, has been to demand the security of an Oath, from Subjects in general; more particularly from those in public Employments, who being in a high Trust, and having great Influence, it has been thought necessary to engage them to the Government in the Sacred'st manner possible. Nor do I know of any Constitution in which the Oaths to the Public are conceived in such general words, as ours are; which was agreed, to that so all just Occasions of Scruples might be removed. But as the Bishops, who refused these Oaths, obliged the Government to see to its own Preservation; so they by their wilful abstaining from all their Functions, doing no part of their Duty, made it become Sacrilege in them to hold their Sees, and enjoy their Revenues: who did lay aside all the concerns of their Dioceses, and would discharge no part of their Ministry. We hold our Temporalities, as Encouragements and Endowments for the performance of those Functions and Offices that belong to our Spiritualties; and it is plainly Sacrilege to hold the one, when the other is wholly neglected. Thus a full Apology is given for those Proceed: Our Author's Opinion and Protestations to the contrary, will not, I think, weigh much; he is too much concerned to judge Equitably, and too much soured to judge Calmly. He thinks that I am their most implacable Enemy; I thank God I am neither an Enemy nor Implacable towards any person. One that feels how powerful such a Temper is in himself, may be too apt to judge others by what he knows of himself. When I was Commission'd to act in the Dioceses of Bath and Wells, and of Gloucester, I was wanting in no Expressions of Respect to the two Reverend Persons that held those Sees. I can esteem Men for what is truly valuable in them, even when I differ in Opinion with them. But personal Reflections signify little; so I leave them all to him to whose eyes all things are naked and opened.  
Upon this whole Matter there are two particulars, in which we can boldly appeal to the Practice of the Catholic Church in all Ages. The first, We challenge them to show us any one instance, where after a Revolution in the State happened, that was generally received and settled, the Bishops and Pastors of the Church refused to acknowledge the present Civil Government, and to act in their Stations under it; and more particularly, where any Revolution happened, which rescued and settled the true Religion, that was not received with a general Joy and Gratitude, even though the Methods of it, and Steps to it, were liable to great and just Exceptions. We are sure they cannot show us any instance that looks like a Precedent to their Proceed; but that the whole course of History is one continued Precedent in our favour.  
The second is, We challenge them to show us where ever a Schism was form upon the Lay-Deprivation of a Bishop, even when the grounds that it proceeded on were visibly unjust, if the Faith of the Church was not pretended to be concerned in the matter; more particularly, we challenge them to show us an instance where the Bishops or Clergy of a Church adhered to a Metropolitan or a Bishop, so turned out, or made a Schism upon his account, when he did not by any public Act or Instrument assert his own Right, and challenge the Obedience of those who were Subordinate to him.  
These are points of Fact, in which it were easy for them to bring Precedents, if they had any; and these are capable of being exactly considered.  
We have often produced our Precedents, That of the Maccabees, of Constantine the Great, and Licinius; that of Maximus are noted ones. The intruders into the High priesthood under the Jewish Dispensation, and the many instances in Church History, that Dr. Hody has cleared beyond a possibility of denying the Matter of Fact, are so express and full on our side, that their avoiding to answer them, is plainly a giving up the Cause. Their leaving the general Argument from the constant and uninterrupted Practice of the Church, and betaking themselves to the Methods of Slander and Defamation, is such an evident indication of a bad Cause and of a worse Management, that it is not possible but that the generality of indifferent Men will soon discern how weak their Reasons, and how strong their Passions are. They have in all their other Writings built too much on the Authority and Practice of the Church, to be able with any Shame to reject this Argument, and to say that they aught to be governed by Rules, and not by Examples. The World has been always a Scene of Confusion: Many Revolutions have happened since the Christian Religion prevailed; some of these were in the best Ages; they were often brought about by treacherous and cruel Methods, and were both introduced and maintained by Violence. Bishops were often put from their Sees, sometimes without the Forms of Ecclesiastical Proceed; and the Passion and Injustice with which they were pushed, is often too visible to be capable of an Apology: Therefore we think that when the general Arguments, which we bring for maintaining the Peace and Order of the World in all such Cases, besides the more special ones, by which we justify the present Constitution, and our late Proceed, receive a confirmation from the constant and uniform Practice of the Church in all Ages in such Cases, though much worse as to their particular Circumstances, and in all Respects such as cannot be justified, yea and scarce excused, we think: I say, that this will fully satisfy all Men of clear and unbiased Minds.  
With this I leave the Matter, and our Author both. I have in this whole Debate stood merely upon the defensive against him; and have detected the Injustice and Falsehood of his Calumnies, without endeavouring to retaliate or to examine either his Books or his Life. The Pattern that he has set, and pursued in so many of his Writings, has so little of common Humanity and Decency, not to say of true Christianity in it, that I am no way disposed to writ after so vicious a Copy. To read so many Books, to pick up so many Stories, and to vent them in so foul a Style, and with such Enlargements and Commentaries, does no great Service to his Party, nor Honour to his Profession. They show that he is under the unhappiness of too much leisure ill employed, and under the far greater unhappiness of a restless Spite, and an eager Malice.  
I have only said what I thought necessary to defend ourselves and our Cause, without any other Reflections but what arises out of that. I thought it an Employment unbecoming a Christian, or a Man in Holy Orders, to read over all their Books, to harken after all Tattles, and to gather Materials for defaming Him or his Friends. God preserve me from such a Temper. The false Mother could see the Child murdered, rather than the true Mother should have it. He labours even to fortify Atheism by exposing us so as to defeat our Labours, and to strengthen the common Enemy, disgracing our Persons and Performances, and representing us to be of their Side. We leave that to God, who knows the Sincerity of our Hearts, and the cleanness of our Hands in his sight; and will tender to every Man according to his deeds. The Contentious, the Blasphemous, and those that love and make Lies, have a Portion abiding them, from which I pray God preserve this poor Man; though he is labouring hard to make it sure to himself. And therefore having said enough to show the Falsehood of his Book, I will pursue this Matter not further.  
I have been for many Years silent; and have thought none of their Calumnies worth the giving the World the trouble of an Answer. Apologies for one's self are things in which no modest Man can take Pleasure; they look like an anxiety concerning Fame, or the Esteem of the World. Our Saviour answered not a word when he was vehemently accused, and bitterly reviled; yet he spoke at last, when the justifying his Innocence required it.  
One would choose always to be silent, and to commit his cause to God, and bear Slanders on every side; it being a much nobler Triumph to live one's own Apology, than to writ it; yet sometimes it seems necessary to say somewhat. If the Memory of that Great Man, and now Blessed Saint, who honoured me with so long and so particular a Friendship, had not been very dear to me, and if a passage in the History of the Reformation had not seemed to require an account of it, I could have born this with the same Patience that I had expressed upon other Provocations. But since I found it was generally expected that I should defend the Memory of my Friend, as well as myself; I have kept within those bounds, and have avoided to say any thing that might look like Retaliation.  
I have left many trifling Things without any Answer; not for want of good Matter, but from that just tediousness that it gives to a Man's self, as well as to his Readers, to enter into a long Discussion of many trifling Stories relating to himself. I have not considered many Reflections he makes on some of my Reverend Brethrens, nor those he levels at our Most Reverend Primate; they show a keenness of Spite that can hurt no Man but himself, and therefore I pass them all over.  
Much lesle will I take any notice of that Impudence of his Malice that dares attack so great a Name, who shines now so gloriously in the universal Admiration of the Age, and whose loss has put the World under the deepest Mourning. Yet even that Blessed Saint is not let lie quiet in Her Grave: But Her Fame as well as Her Person are above Malice: And therefore I leave him to that load of Infamy, which his base Aspersions on Her Memory must throw upon himself. I can bear all that he, or his Party, can say of myself patiently, and for most part silently; I can bear what is said of our late Primate decently, and answer it calmly: But I own those Sacred Ashes so profound a Respect, that I think a transport of Indignation does not misbecome me when so Sacrilegious a Hand offers to Violate or Slain them. I shall add not more on this Head, but that it is an Honour to be defamed by the same profane and polluted Breath, that durst attempt on the Memory of our late BLESSED, BLESSED QUEEN.  
It is now more than time to conclude. I wish with all my Heart that the Discoveries I have now made of the Falsehoods and Calumnies of this Book, may open the Eyes of those, whom some wicked Men have too much blinded; that so they may be not more possessed with their Stories, nor apt to receive such new ones as they may be still inventing and spreading. They show they have little quiet within; and than, no wonder, if like the troubled Waters they are still throwing up Mire and Dirt. I hope enough is now said to convince the Nation of their Injustice and Ill-nature, and how little any thing that comes from them is to be believed; and that it appears how boldly they vent downright Lies; and with what false Colours they set out those few Truths, upon which they think they may Triumph without ceasing. It is not to be expected that we can often suffer ourselves to be diverted from better Exercises, by Animadverting upon their Libels. If we do not answer every one of them, it is because we pity their Malice, and will neither feed nor humour it by a continual Contradiction. Let them boast their Catalogues of Books not answered as much as they will, we are sure there is more than enough writ to justify our Cause and our Proceed; and as for those Discharges of Bile and Choler that they throw out upon us, we can bear them as to our own particular; and commit our Cause to him that judges Righteously, that will execute Judgement upon them for all their ungodly Deeds, and the hard Speeches which these Murmurers and Complainers are daily speaking against us. But of some of them we have a just Compassion, and know how to make a difference among them; of others we are more justly afraid; and yet we would gladly even save them, pulling them out of this Fire into which they have thrown themselves, and which will, if not prevented, make way to a more intolerable and endless one. From which God of his Mercy preserve them; and preserve all others from being corrupted by their ill Example, or infected with their Contagion.   

Postscript.  
AFter I had sent this to the Press, I received two Advertisements from the Hands of one of my Reverend Brethrens; he tells me, That Dr. Gee met with Mr. Napleton this Summer at Tunbridge, and among other things this story come to be talked of; but it appeared that this had been related by our Author with the same sincerity that has appeared to run through his whole Book. Mr. Napleton said, That I did indeed ask him several times, Why they did not let King James go? And that he did answer, That the Mob would have torn him in pieces: That within a little while I asked him the same Question again, and that thereupon he asked me, Would I have had him torn in pieces? To which he added, that I replied, God forbidden, I abhorred the thought of it. This last part, which explains the whole, was suppressed to represent me as one that would have had him torn in pieces; whereas all my meaning was, that I thought, as was formerly set forth, that since the Gentlemen had got the King into their hands from the Mob, they might have found opportunities to have suffered him to pursue his first Design. But that when I saw he mistook my meaning, I expressed my horror at what he thought might have followed on their attempt to have let him go. If Mr. Napleton has reported this Story always in this manner, as I have reason to believe he has; either this Writer or his Author have showed a most malicious piece of disingenuity in representing it as he does.  
The same hand has likewise advertised me, that whereas there is a saying laid to the Dean of St. Paul's, 
Page 55.  as delivered by him to Bishop Sheridon; that Bishop denies it, and says he will writ to the supposed Author of this Book, to know what his meaning was in fathering such a falsehood upon him.  
But he who has falsified so many things in which he pretends to writ upon certain knowledge, may be very reasonably supposed to have enlarged more copiously in his Hearsay-stories. I have been told that many particulars were gathering, to be transmitted to me for a more full diseovery of the malicious Untruths with which this Book is stuffed; but I thought it was not worth the while to stay for them, and that there was enough at hand, to prove that no Credit could be given to so foul a Slanderer, who has not art enough to disguise his Malice, or skill enough to give his falsehoods the colours, not to say of Truth, but even of probability.  
Page 105. I had said that I was confident not body would ever answer 〈◊〉 Libel cited by our Author with great approbation. I found I am mistaken, but it is natural to all Men to judge of others by themselves; and so, though I have a large share of that poor Pamphlet, yet it being so wretchedly writ, that I am resolved to give its Author no sort of Reply, I was apt to think the first part of it, which falls on the late Archbishop, would have been likewise despised, and let go without an Answer. The Book indeed deserved none. But I am hearty glad to see Justice done to the Name of so Great a Man, by one who has answered, not only that Libel, but some parts of this, in so full and so convincing a manner. He has concealed no part of their Objections; and by setting down all those parts of the Archbishop's Sermons upon which these Men have studied to fix their Malice, not only in some short Periods, which malicious Men have made noise with, but in all that went before and after, he gives so fair as well as so true a Representation of that Great Prelate's sense, that I an confident no ill Impressions will stick with any who will be so just as to consider the whole matter, the Vindication as well as the Calumnies, with sincere and equitable Minds.  
Page 62, 63. There is a long Accounted given here of many particulars relating to the Archbishop during his stay at Clare-Hall; upon which a very Worthy Member of that Body has told me, that they have been enquiring into the truth of these, and that they found them to be false. He was admitted to that House, April 23. 1647. It was no wonder if such a fresh Man was not admitted to the Honour of kissing the King's band, when he was in that Neighbourhood two Months after that. It is not likely that he pretended to it, or that it would have been denied, if he had. He was Bachelor of Arts, Midsummer 1650. and became a Fellow before Christmas that Year; Dr. Gunning had been turned out six Years before that; so it cannot be said that he came into his Fellowship. Men may consider the avoidance that did immediately go before their Admission; but I never heard of any who were so scrupulous as to run the enquiry further. As for his taking on him to altar the College- Grace after Meat, and to add a Special Mention of Worcester Fight; There is no Memory of any such thing that ever happened in that House. It is not likely, that a Junior Fellow, and so Young a Bachelor of Arts, could have presumed to have done such a thing, or that the Master and Senior Fellows could have suffered it. Dr. Blythe, the present Master, and Dr. Vincent, the Signior Fellow of the House, were admitted soon after that; but never heard of any thing of that nature. Every one that knows those Bodies, will easily believe that such things are not soon forgot in them. In the Year 1660. as is ordinary upon such Revolutions, all stories of that sort were remembered, and Characters were made of Men acrordingly. But this was not than spoke of, and after an Oblivion of 45 Years, a Knight of the Post at last is found who affirms it; but I believe few give any credit to it. These two Reverend Persons do likewise affirm, That the late Archbishop was, as long as they can remember him, the same Modest and good-natured Man that we all knew him to be in a higher Elevation. I hear many other Informations of Falsehoods in this Book are a gathering, and would probably be sent me if I should stay for them. For I understand, from many hands, that few Books have appeared in memory of Man, that have raised a more general Indignation than this has done. I do not wonder at it, nor at what they add, That this has brought the Party under a more general Prejudice than could have followed upon any thing that could have been writ against them. So true is the Proverb,  Da miei amici mi guarda Dio. 
FINIS.   

Books printed for Ri. Chiswell.  
DR. Tenison (now Lord Archbishop of Canterbury) Nine Sermons preached on several Occasions. 4o. 0  
Dr. Patrick (now Lord Bishop of Ely) His Heart's Ease, or Remedy against all trouble. 12 0  
— His Parable of the Pilgrim. The Sixth Edition. 4 0  
— Eight Occasional Sermons since the Revolution. 4 0  
— Answer to The Touchstone of the Reformed Gospel. 8 0  
— Exposition on the Ten Commandments. 8 0  
— Commentary on the Book of Genesis. 4o. 1695.  
Vindication of His Majesty's Authority to fill the Vacant Sees of the deprived Bishops.  
A Discourse of the Unreasonableness of a New Separation, on account of the Oaths to the present Government.  
A Vindication of the said Discourse.  
Rushworth's Historical Collections, the Third part, 2 Vol. from Novemb. 3. 1640. to the end of the Year 1644.  
Father Paul's Letters, with a large Preface giving Account thereof.  
Dr. John Conant's Sermons published by Dr. Williams. 8o. 0  
Mr. Geo. Tully, Of the Government of the Thoughts. The Second Edit.  
Origo Legum: or, a Treatise of the Origine of Laws, and their Obliging Power; as also of their great Variety; and why some Laws are immutable, and some not, but may suffer change, or cease to be, or be suspended or abrogated. In seven Books. By George Dawson, Fol. 1694.  
A Discourse of the Pastoral Care. By Dr. Gilbert Burnet Lord Bishop of Sarum. 8 0  
— Four Discourses delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of Sarum: Concerning, I. The Truth of the Christian Religion. II. The Divinity and Death of Christ. III. The Infallibility and Authority of the Church. iv The Obligations to continued in the Communion of the Church.  
— Sermon at the Funeral of Archbishop Tillotson. 1694.  
— Sermon preached before the King at St. James' Chapel, on the 10 th'. of February 1691/5, being the first Sunday in Lent, on 2 Cor. 6.1.  
— Essay on the Memory of the Late Queen. 8o. 0  
Dr. Williams' Discourse concerning the Lawfulness of Worshipping God by the Common-Prayer: In answer to a Book, Entitled, [A brief Discourse of the Unlawfulness of Common-Prayer Worship.] 4o. 1695.  
— A true Representation of the absurd and mischievous Principles of the Sect commonly known by the Name of the Muggletonians. 4o 1694.  
— His Sermons concerning Divine Revelation. Preached at the Lecture founded by the Honourable Rob. boil, Esq. For the Year 1695.  
— His Exposition of the Church-Catechism, with Proofs from Scripture.  
— His Vindication of the Sermons of His Grace John Archbishop of Canterbury, Concerning the Divinity and Incarnation of our Blessed Saviour, and of the Lord Bishop of Worcester's Sermon on the Mysteries of the Christian Faith, from the Exceptions of a Late Socinian Book, Entitled, [Considerations on the Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity]. To which is annexed, a Letter from the Lord Bishop of Sarum to the Author of the said Vindication on the same Subject.  
Memoirs of the most Reverend THOMAS CRANMER, Archbishop of Canterbury: Wherein the History of the Church, and the Reformation of it, during the Primacy of the said Archbishop, are greatly illustrated, and many singular Matters relating thereunto. Now first published. In Three Books. Collected chief from Records. Registers, Authentic Letters, and other Original Manuscripts. By John Stripe, M. A. Fol. 1694.  
The History of the Troubles and Trial of WILLIAM LAUD Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY; wrote by himself during his Imprisonment in the Tower. To which is prefixed, the Diary of his own Life, faithfully and entirely published from the Original Copy; and subjoined a Supplement to the preceding History; The Archbishop's Last Will; His large Answer to the Lord Says Speech concerning Liturgies; His Annual Accounts of his Province delivered to the King, and some other things relating to the History. Published by Henry Wharton, Chaplain to Archbishop Sancroft, and by his Grace's Command, Fol.  
Remarks of an University-Man upon a Late Book written by Mr. Hill, falsely called [A Vindication of the Primitive Fathers against the Imputations of Gilbert Lord Bishop of Sarum]. 4o. 0  
Animadversions on the said Book of Mr. Hill, in a Letter to a Person of Quality. 4o. 0  
Reflections on a Libel lately printed, Entitled, [The Charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tillotson Considered]. 4o. 0  
Archbishop Trilorson's Sermons of Sincerity and Constancy in the Faith and Profession of the True Religion. [Being the First Volume, published from the Originals, By Dr. Ralph Barker, Chaplain to his Grace.] 8 0  
— Sixteen Sermons preached on Several Occasions. [Being the second Volume published by Dr. Barker from the Archbishop's Originals.]