AN APPENDIX To the LIFE of the Right Revd Father in God SETH Lord BISHOP of Salisbury; Written by Dr. WALTER POPE, F.R.S.  
IN A LETTER to the AUTHOR.  
LONDON: Printed for E. Whitlock, near Stationer's Hall, 1697.   

An APPENDIX to the Life of the Right Reverend Father in God SETH, Lord Bishop of Salisbury.  
SIR,  
I Am wonderfully surprised at your History of the Life of Bishop WARD, 
Life of Bishop Ward. p. 193.  considering too that you inform the World, that Your Intellectuals are as good now as ever th●y were.  
Pray be pleased to recollect, that a Writer of such an History should endeavour at a concise, easy decent Style, expressing a Reverence for the Memory of the Person whose Life he describes. The Relations ought to be contrived for instruction, and chiefly set as Patterns of Imitation. Minute matters ought to be chosen with Discretion, and common Passages just touched and hinted at. Whereas your Narration is dressed up in a Comical and Bantering Style, full of dry Scraps of Latin, Puns, Proverbs, senseless Digressions, long tedious unedifying Tales, and not without an insipid 
pag. 165.  Bawdy Jest, and an impious 
pag. 26.  Ridicule of the Morality of the Fourth Commandment.  
I protest I cannot see one instructing Page in the whole History, or that tends that way, unless it is a wild and whimsical Account of the Bishop's Charity and Hospitality.  
Would a Man of tolerable Judgement commend a Reverend Prelate for a good jockey, 
pag. 51.  and in the History of his Life describe his Mare, with Dr. Weeks' Nag, and Dr. Pope's own Nag, with an account of the Nag's unfortunate Life and Death, 
pag. 96  though the joint Endeavours of the best Fariers were used for his recovery? What Exposition will the ill-natured World make, when the Author says, by way of Commendation, that his Bishop was never destitute of Friends of the fair Sex? and that he 
pag. 83.  provided Husbands for his Nieces, 
pag. 6.  and preferred them? You injudicially ridicule him, 
pag. 179.  when you tell the World, he was cheated and laughed at by Surgeons and Apothecaries; you make sport with his 
pag. 181.  Decay of Memory, and introduce into this History a pitiful Criticism upon Ovid de Tristibus miraculously redeemed from the Fire in Lombardstreet. 
pag. 151.  With a great deal of Solemnity you positively affirm that Dr. Barrow made use of a Tinderbox, 
p. 145, 146  and had no buttons upon his Collar; for that you knew the whole matter, because you were his Bedfellow. How shrewdly do you argue, that if Dr. Barrow was born in February, 
pag. 129.  it could not be in October? Your Discourse of sore Eyes and couching Cataracts; your Advertisement that 
pag. 108.  Mrs. Mary Turbervile is a good Oculist; and that you had a disbanded Soldier for your Bed-Maker at 
pag. 113.  Wadham-Colledg, etc. make such a mixture of Vanity, gossipping and quibbling Folly, that I cannot choose but recollect the just Character which Mr. Anthony Wood gives of your Worship to this effect, viz. That Dr. Pope has spent much time in observing the Motions and Appearances of the Heavens, which is hoped will be published by him hereafter, instead of those vain and trivial things, as he hath hitherto done, Athen. Oxon. vol. II. p. 821. Thus that plain and impartial Historian.  
You have filled your History with such Remarks, as if you had designed to imitate the Failings of Sorbiere, and had a mind that a better Pen should record your Name by correcting your Errors. That I may explain my meaning, I will follow your Method, and tell a Story. After Sermon, once upon a time, I accosted an ingenious Friend that was plodding homewards after this manner; Prithee how didst like the facetious old Doctor to day? My Friend fetched a deep Sigh, and replied in a melancholy note, Sir, very pert and very dull; the sorriest Man that ever stood up to the Armpits in Wainscot; he has methodised and collected into a Sermon all the impertinent Quibbles and Sayings of the worst Preachers, and I really believe he has feloniously taken good part of what Dr. Eachard exposed in his Contempt of the Clergy.  
You have borrowed your Method, Transitions, and the Arguments of your Chapters from the ridiculing History of Don Quixote. As thus, in the end of your Third, Fourth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Seventeenth, Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth Chapters of your Book, you conclude to this effect, What befell him afterwards during his stay at Cambridge shall be the Subject of the next Chapter. And how Mr. Ward behaved himself at Oxford, and what befell him there, will be the Subject of the ensuing Chapters.  
The Arguments of several Chapters are in these Words, (viz.) A Continuation of the precedent matter; The same matter continued; The Controversy concerning Caps and Hoods; Of what happened to Dr. Ward at Oxford, concerning myself; A Digression containing some Criticisms; Of the Bishop's Sickness and Death.  
In the History of Don Quixote it runs thus; He began to speak what shall be heard or seen by him that shall hear or read the next Chapter. It shall be so, (quoth Don Quixote) and thus lifting up his Eyes, he saw that which shall be recounted in the Chapter following, Chap. 7. Lib. 3. Part. 1. Of what happened to Don Quixote going to Barcelona. (Chap. 60. Part II.) What befell Don Quixote going to see his Mistress Dulcinea del Toboso. (Chap 8. Part II.) wherein is prosecuted the former Narration of our Knight's Misfortunes. (Chap. 5. Lib. 1.) wherein is recounued, prosecuted and finished the Novel of the curious Impertinent. (Chap. 5, 6, 7. Lib. 4.) Wherein the Canon continueth his Discourse of Books of Chivalry. (Chap. 21. Lib. 4.) A Digression in the Rehearsal of the despairing Verses of the dead Shepherd. (Chap. 6 Lib. 3.) How Don Quixote fell sick, of the Will he made, and of his Death.  
I firmly believe, no Man will be punished in the next World for being dull or impertinent; but for Malice and Falsehood there will be a severe account. I shall not trouble myself to examine the truth of the matters of fact through your whole History. I will only show you your Mistakes in reference to one 
pag. 171.  Anthony à Wood, as you are pleased to phrase it; a Name that is mentioned with Honour in places, where even that of Bishop Ward's is unknown.  

ibid.  You have accused him as an Inventor of Calumnies: But that does not appear in the Characters of Dr. Ward or Dr. Pope. And if you will venture to name any other, I dare appeal to the World (but excepting those and their Relations who have suffered by his plain dealing Pen) whither his Pictures have not near resemblances with the Originals.  
Dr. Ward, 
pag. 172,  you say, in the times of the Usurpation lived peaceably at Oxford, but was far from any Compliance. Whereas the Committee for the Reformation of that University made him Astronomy-Professor; and in October 1649. he took the Engagement to be faithful to the Commonwealth of England, as it was then established without a King or House of Lords, Athenae Oxon. p. 627. Vol. II. as it appeared in the Registry belonging to the Committee for the Reformation of that University, and as the Clerk belonging to that Committee informed Mr. Wood and others many Years since. Vindication of the Oxford Historiographer, etc. p. 27.  
You have added further, That he went not to his Grave unpunished, for he lived to see his Book censured and burnt, himself expelled the University, obliged to recant, 
pag. 174.  and give Security not to offend any more in that kind. And this he underwent for writing too lavishly concerning a Great Man, etc.  
I will not question the Legality of that Sentence, I shall content myself to tell you that a Writer may relate a matter of fact upon an evidence sufficient for History, which cannot amount to a Justification in a Court of Law. There may be many things true in your Account of the Life of Bishop Ward; but I believe you can hardly bring Two Witnesses that will swear to the truth of every particular Paragraph. If the Sentence was legal, and if a Person deceased many years ago can, properly speaking, suffer by a Reflection in History, and the Heir bring an Action of Defamation for it: History must be laid aside; all Inquiries into the Characters of Great Men in the Ages before us, and all controversial Discourses, where the Opinions, Conduct, and Behaviour of our Forefathers of necessity must be examined. The Virtues of Men ought to be displayed, and their Vices exposed for our instruction. And if the Historian is mistaken, his Punishment is to be despised and neglected for a bad Writer.  
Postulatur novo ac tunc primum audito Crimine (says Tacitus of Cremutius Cordus) quod editis Annalibus, laudatogue M. Bruto C. Cassium Romanorum ultimum dixisset. He goes on a little further, Libros per aediles cremandos censuêre Patres, sed manserunt occultati & editi. Quo magis socordiam eorum irridere libet qui praesenti potentiâ credunt extingui posse sequentis aevi Memoriam; nam contrà, punitis ingeniis gliscit autoritas, etc. Tacit. Annal. lib. 4.  
But perhaps you or some other would willingly have this Question discussed, viz. Whether an Injury real, or by Word, or Writing may be offered to a Deceased Person, terminating the Injury there, according to the Civil Law of the Romans (as Mr. Wood's Case was, and by which Law Mr. Wood's Book was condemned) so as an Action may be brought by the Heir, or Articles exhibited by way of Indictment by him or any other.  
I shall readily give my thoughts upon this Question; provided what I say is not construed to extend to arraign the Legality of the Sentence against Mr. Wood For I thank God I have learned so much Sense and Manners, as to know that the Determinations of Courts of Judicature ought to be respected and revered; or that a Sentence may be just, though you or I do not understand it.  
To prevent Confusion in the Laws and Cases throughout the Books of the Civil Law, which may delude some unwary Persons, I shall first acknowledge that a real Injury, as opposed to a verbal one may be offered to a dead Person, and that it is punishable by way of Articles, if it affects the Heir in Reputation or Inheritance, and that an Action then also shall accrue to the Heir for Recompense; For there the Estate and Reputation of the Heir himself is concerned: But if the Injury (for the Propriety of the Word thus applied shall not yet be questioned) terminates in the deceased Person only, and is so pleaded, without any regard to or for the Heir, I cannot find any thing in that Law sufficient to support the Assertion. For Et si fortè Cadaveri defuncti fit injuria, cui Haeredes, bonorumve Possessores extitimus, Injuriarum NOSTRO nomine habemus Actionem. Spectat enim ad Existimationem nostram (that is, Haeredis) siqua ei fiat Injuria. IDEMque & si fama ejus cui Haeredes extitimus lacessatur. Dig. Lib. 47. tit. 10 De Injuriis & famosis Libellis.  
And further in the sixth Paragraph, Quoties autem funeri Testatoris vel cadaveri fit injuria, si quidem post aditam Haereditatem fiat, dicendum est Haeredi quodammodo factam. Semper enim interest Defuncti Existimationem purgare; quoties autem ante Haereditatem magis Haereditati & sic Haeredi per Haereditatem acquiri. Denique Iulianus scribit, si Corpus Testatoris ante aditam Haereditatem detentum est, acquiri Haereditati Actiones non esse Dubium. I say the Injury in these cases follows the Inheritance, and is terminated in the Heir, in the Person living, and upon his account only is the Complaint to be heard. And this seems very reasonable, for if the Estate and Inheritance is given to him, it ought to be his Duty to bury the Testator, to defend his Body, while aboveground, from the Rudeness of Creditors, and from the barbarous usage of any other Persons: and that, according to his quality, a Monument should be erected in his memory, and afterwards preserved by him, etc.  
Secondly▪ I conceive, that a Verbal Injury, or Injury by Word or Writing cannot be offered to a deceased Person by this Law, terminating the Injury there; so as an Action may be brought by the Heir for it, or that there is any such Crime or Punishment. Lest the contrary may be thought to be inferred from the foregoing Laws, those parts must be explained which seem to look that way. As, Spectat enim ad Existimationem Haeredis siqua Defuncto fiat injuria. Idemque & si fama ejus, cui Haeredes extitimus lacessatur; for there also spectat ad Existimationem sive famam Haeredis. I say the Text does not mean that this can be done by Discourse or Writing. A real Injury affecting the Reputation or Estate of the Heir himself is to be understood throughout the whole Law, as appears by the leading and subsequent Expressions in it. The leading instances are, Offering an Injury to the Dead Carcase, whereby an Action does accrue to the Heir in his own name, upon this Account Spectat ENIM ad existimationem Haeredis, if an Injury of that Nature is offered to it. The Reason being given upon that Instance, the Discredit coming upon the Heir must be referred to that Act, or to some other real Injury that is like it. Then follows, with reference to the Injury offered to the Heir, IDEMque & si fama ejus cui Haeredes extitimus, lacessatur, not by Words or Writing. but by some Real Act, as the Gloss upon the Word lacessatur intimates, and gives Directions for an Instance to the Institutions in the Title, Qui & ex quibus causis, Man. par. 1. licet autem. Where because the General Law of Aelius Sentius hindered the Manumising of Bondmen if it was in fraud to the Creditors, an Exception is introduced, and Provision is made that a Bondman shall be made free to act as Heir to the deceased, notwithstanding that the Creditor suffer by his Freedom; and this, as the Text and Gloss declare, lest the Goods and Estate of the deceased should otherwise ignominiously be sold by the public Cryer sub hasta; A method among the Ancients accounted always scandalous. Tully pro Pub. Quinctio.  
Remember I said, That the Reputation of the deceased was affected by some such real Act as this, in the meaning of the Law, and that it did not include any. Verbal Injury. But farther it is to be observed, that the abovecited Gloss says, Ne memoria defuncti (in that case) quâdam injuriâ adficiatur, disowning, that any Injury, properly speaking either verbal or real in a legal and strict signification of that Word, can be offered to a deceased Person. And of this Impropriety Hottoman the famous French Lawyer, in his Commentaries on this place, taketh notice and says, UTCUNQUE est injuria hic pro contumelia accipitur, referring himself to such another improper Expression under the Title De injuriis & famosis libellis, in the Digest which I repeated at large above, and from whence, as I said before, we were referred to this place of the Institutions.  
Injury therefore in that place of the Digest and Institutions is so called, quia non fit jure, as Ulpian gives the Etymology in a vulgar and general way, according to the opinion of Commentators, but not in its legal Sense, or proper Signification.  
This is the result of those Expressions, Si Fama ejus, sc. Defuncti, lacessatur, and Semper enim Haeredis interest Defuncti existimationem purgare, which if they are considered further than the bare Letter, and the Passages and References of the Gloss compared, the Injury falls only upon the Living, and that neither real non verbal can properly speaking be offered to a deceased Person, terminating the Injury there, without any further consideration. Upon this Exposition, the Definition of Injury and other Laws are intelligible, as Injuria est Delictum quo quid ad Contumeliam vel Dolorem alterius admittitur. The Word alterius supposes a Person in being, and the Words Contumelia and Dolour suppose him sensible of it.  
Illud relatum peraeque est, eos qui injuriam pati possunt & facere posse, excepting only the Cases of Infants and Madmen. L. illud relatum. Dig. De Injuriis & Fam. Libel.  
Injuriarum Actio neque Haeredi, neque in Haeredem datur. L. 13. Dig. de Injuriis.  
Est certissima juris regula ex maleficiis poenales Actiones in Haeredem rei non competere, veluti furti, vi bonorum raptorum, injuriarum, Damni injuriae; Sed haeredibus, hujusmodi Actiones competunt nec denegantur, EXCEPTA injuriarum actione, & si qua alia similis inveniatur. Inst. Lib. 4. p. 2. non autem omnes. Where Mynsinger upon the same Paragraph, on the Words Exceptâ injuriarum Actione, says, Quod ideo est quia haec actio non pertinet ad rem familiarem, sed ex merâ vindictâ descendit. What can be plainer!  
Homo mortuus non patitur injuriam, says Tuschus in his 389. General Conclusion, quia non potest vulnerari, neque suspendi, neque puniri. The Exceptions to this General Rule are only some particular real Injuries, which affect the Heir, or are punishable by some particular Constitutions, or are esteemed Crimes upon some Religious Accounts, or are made so by the Canon Law, viz. Robbing Tombs, a Man corrupting himself with the dead Carcase of a Woman, and the striking or wounding the dead Body of a Clergyman, etc. Tho here I must confess Tuschus and the Author which he quotes, give a Reason quite contrary to the General Conclusion, viz. that those Crimes are punishable, because in those particulars an Injury is offered to the Dead Body. But this Contradiction is reconciled, if in the Exceptions the Word Injury is taken in its general and loose Sense as before, according to its various Significations repeated in the Digest, or in its improper Sense, as Hottoman before observed, and not as in the abovementioned General Rule or Conclusion, according to its special Meaning or Legal Definition. But what if the Exceptions were to be taken in the same strict Meaning of the Word as we have supposed it to be in the Conclusion? It confirms the General Rule in all other Cases, and is far from maintaining that an Injury by Word or Writing may be committed. Either way, in the Sense of this Compiler, that Notion is destroyed, and unknown to his laborious Collections.  
Hippolytus de Marsiliis, an Author of an established Reputation, in his Commentaries upon the Title of the Digest De Quaestionibus, à num. 31. ad num. 65. has collected all the Laws and opinions of the Doctors, in what Instances a Man dead or alive do agree or disagree, as to the Protection of the Law, or in reference to legal Rights and Consequences. In their Disagreement, and that particular Rights once due are altered by Death, he has observed and collected twenty four Instances, and proved them by good Authorities. In their Agreement, where the Effect of the Law continues after Death, he has found out nine Cases, but not one Word that a dead Person may be defamed either by Word or Writing, as undoubtedly he may when living, but expressly gives the Law, That Si Titius est mortuus, non dicitur amplius Titius, telling his Reader that he would have him remember those Instances, for that they will scarce be found so collected in any other Author.  
Praeterea nec haeredibus nec in haeredes conceditur injuriarum actio, quia nihil abest ex patrimonio, neque enim in avertenda & minuendâ re familiari injuria versatur, sed in solâ contumeliâ, & proinde qui ante litem contestatam moritur, nihil transmittit ad Haeredem, quia simul Vindicta extinguitur. Haersolte de Actionibus Civilibus & Criminalibus, in Prolegom. num. 64.  
Some Authorities here cited suppose indeed the Deceased to have received the Injury while alive; but if upon his Death, before Action entered or Issue joined in the Cause brought by him while alive, no Person afterwards (not so much as the Heir) could continue that Action, or raise a new one in the name of the Deceased or in their own, either civiliter or criminaliter, we may be allowed to make a Consequence, that it is not reasonable to suppose that the Law will afford Satisfaction or a Remedy, if an Injury is pretended to be offered him after his Decease.  
An Action of Injury is a personal Action, whether moved civilly or criminally, and it is a Maxim that such Actions die with the Person: It is extinguished and ceases, both by the Death of the Person giving the Injury, and by the Death of the Person who pretends to have suffered. How therefore is it reconcileable, that such an Action should be supported by another, or Articles exhibited in his behalf, for a pretended Injury that commenced against him after his Death, of which he is wholly ignorant, and for which his Heir had no Remedy, if the Ancestor had suffered while alive? For that such Actions should die with the Person is a very rational Principle; because perhaps the Sufferer himself might think it prudent to neglect the Injury, or his Interest to overlook and pardon it. Shall therefore a disinteressed Person, after his Death, take up the Quarrel and correct such prudential Forgiveness?  
In this case I wish, Sir, I had your opinion, who are a Civilian by Office, and manage Matters with a Skill and Learning peculiar to most of those who preside in the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction throughout England.  
It is to be allowed, that in the Common Laws of England there is one Precedent contrary to my Interpretations of the Texts of the Civil Law; but that Doctrine was never heard of till the Star-Chamber Case, mentioned in the fifth Report, and as I believe never put in practice since. It is notorious that the Star-Chamber would make Law, if they could not find any prepared for the purpose. But there is a vast difference between the Star-Chamber Case and the Case of Mr. Wood john Whitgift the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Person traduced, had been just before a Magistrate, a Privy Counsellor under the then King, james I, and died under that Government, which had an Interest to support his Reputation. Comment que le private Homme ou Magistrate soit mort, says the Report, all temps del fes●uirs deal Libel, uncore ceo est punishable, car en l'un Case ceo incite auters de mesme le family, ou society, a revenge & a infreindre le peace, & en l'autre le Libeler traduce & Slander le State & Government, que ne morut pas. A Man therefore at this day by the Common Law may be punished for talking scurvily of Henry VIII. or of William the Conqueror, and the Courtiers and Magistrates under them; for the Government never dies: and while there remains one of a Family to resent an Injury offered to his Ancestor, there is danger, and the Law will lay hold on you for it.  
This seems absurd in the general Notion. There ought therefore to be reasonable Limitation and Distinction, if it can at any time be the Common Law. Otherwise the former Ages are under this Protection as well as the later; and the old Fool and Knave with the yesterday Honest Wise Man: the Ancient Disgrace and this day's Honour of Government or Family, stand upon the same Bottom.  
But however, neither can this Law govern in the present Case. My Lord Chancellor Hide died in Retirement, a Private Person in France, before this present Reign or the last; out of the protection of the Laws, while living and under a Condemnation to perpetual Exile and Banishment. For the truth of this I refer to the 19 Car. II. entitled An Act for banishing and disenabling the Earl of Clarendon.  
But it is true, Sir, there was such a Sentence or something like it as you describe. For how could a poor Melancholy Monkish Scholar contend with that powerful and noble Person (who was pleased to appear personally in the Prosecution, and was the greatest Officer next to the Chancellor in the University) in an inferior Court, before a modest private Fellow of a College, who signed the Sentence as Judge, at the Instances of some worthy Persons, who wisely concluded, it was convenient to pacify his Lordship.  
One would think by the Gazette Account of it, and your Description, that his Writings were censured in Convocation by the whole University, and that there was the same Formality in the Condemnation as in that of Heresy. But, alas, the Book was smothered in the Theatre-Court, not one Soul, besides an Apparitor, at the Solemnity, as I could ever hear of. Notwithstanding all this, Mr. Wood carried on his Studies in the University to his dying day, frequented the public Library, took little or no notice of the Fire or Programmas, continued his Acquaintance with the Learned Men of that venerable Body, and generously gave by his Will his Printed Books and Manuscripts to the Public Museum; where, and in the Public Libraries, all his Works, viz. Antiquitates Oxon. and Athenae Oxonienses, in 2 Vol. are deposited as they were first printed, as immortal Monuments of his Industry and Learning.  
But that he recanted or gave Security, as you insinuate, it is utterly false, for he died in firm persuasion that he had dealt impartially with my Lord Chancellor, though great Endeavours were used to convince him of a Mistake, and that his Information coming from angry and disobliged Cavaliers, aught to be suspected.  
The Character of the Life of Dr. Pope, which is under his own Hand, in the Custody of his trusties, as I am informed, is certainly impartial, and a Masterpiece, a very honest and pleasant Performance. In which I suppose the most glorious Action of the Doctor's Life. about the Contest of Formalities is recorded.  
And here I should dismiss Mr. Wood, and close this Chapter, had I not a just Cause of quarrelling with him upon my own account, for having endeavoured to rob me of my deserved Praise, and to obscure the most Glorious Action of my Life. 
— Diripere ausus  
Haerentem capiti multâ cum laude Coronam.  In not mentioning that famous Contestation, concerning Formalities, which I have described at large in the Fifth Chapter of my being Proctor, but out of ignorance or design, either of which is sufficient to ruin the Credit of an Historian; he has falsified the History, having made the Proctors Byfield and Conant serve for the Years 1657. and 1658. which is not only notoriously untrue, but also it thrusts my Colleague and myself out of the Fasti, or the University Chronicles; which is an intolerable Grievance to Persons thirsty of Fame and ambitious of Honour. And this you are pleased to say was of importance to his History.  
I am of your opinion, that your greatest Praise, and the most glorious Action of your Life was for being concerned in the famous Contestation about Formalities, and in not giving your consent to alter the Caps in the University. For indeed this Account of Bishop Ward's Life is but a Trifle to it, and even to a Person (as you hint yourself to be) thirsty of Fame and ambitious of Honour, adds a less Credit and Reputation.  
But as this Stuff is intolerably vain and fulsome, so it is also false and malicious. Mr. Wood had no design to falsify the History, or to thrust you or your Colleague out of the University Chronicles. It is perfectly a Mistake either in the Printer or Transcriber; for in Mr. Wood's own Book given upon his Deathbed to one of his Nephews, it stands corrected with his Pen, and Dr. Pope (that important thing to his History) is inserted in its proper place. But for your further satisfaction, look into the Historia & Antiquitates Oxon. in the Fasti for the Year 1658. George Potter and Walter Pope are mentioned to be the Proctors, with this Remark upon the latter, Potestatem sub finem Anni impetravit Procurator junior profectionem ad exteras gentes instituendi, quare vices absentis implevit Mr. Tho. Gourney è Coll. Aenaen. pag. 439.  
Mr. Wood has another sort of Character given him by a Reverend and Ingenious Writer, in his Vindication of the Oxford Historiographer, and his Works, in page 29. which I shall make bold to transcribe, because I know that it is true, (viz.) He did never in haste and forwardness meddle with a Subject to which he was not prepared by Education and a due Method of Studies. He never wrote to oblige a rising Party, or to insinuate into the Disposers of Preferment, but has been content with his Station, and aimed at no End but Truth. He never took up with the Transcript of Records where the Originals might be consulted, nor made use of others Eyes when his own could serve. He never wrote in post, with his Body and his Thoughts in a hurry, but in a fixed Abode and with a deliberate Pen. He never concealed an ungrateful Truth, nor flourished over a weak place, but in sincerity of meaning and expression thought an Historian should be a Man of Conscience. He never had a Patron to oblige or forget, and has been a free and independent Writer. In a word, He confesses there may be some Mistakes in modern Things and Persons; when he could have no evidence but from the information of living Friends, or perhaps Enemies, but he is confident, that where Records are cited, and where authentic Evidence could possibly be had, there he has been punctual and exact. He may further confess, that the Style of the Author is rugged and inartificial, almost as flat as your own; But without your Quibbles and tedious Digressions which have no connexion with the principal Subject.  
Had he had a Skill to have given an Air to his Narrations, his Books had been more diverting; but he designed them for nothing else but a Record or Registry.  
This, Doctor, contains Matter of good instruction to you and others. From hence you may learn not to meddle with a Subject to which you are not prepared by Education and Study. Some Men travel and converse, that they may be qualified to tell a Story or crack a Jest over a Bottle, and to make such Sport as you were pleased to divert yourself with, when you took the cheerful Cup in the Barn near Rochel, as you were making your grand Tour of France, or to come home furnished with Abilities to compose a Salisbury Canto, a Catch, or a Ballad; But if this was also your Design, you must not meddle with any thing that requires Thinking and judgement. If you do, we ought to accost you in those proper Expressions which you say the Vicechancellor did in full Convocation, viz. Egregie Procurator Tace.  
Hence also you may conclude, that all Men are not of your opinion, that the Credit of an Historian is ruined, because he is guilty of some Defects and Escapes. Many things in Mr. Wood's Writings ought to be lopped off, and many things will bear an Enlargement, yet I cannot but admire the vastness of his Design, the Curiosity and Usefulness of his Performance. We are contented that he himself should be censured where really defective. Deal with him as he has dealt with others, yet his Friends will not be under any apprehension that they shall be deprived of the Honour of his Reputation.  
My Lord Chancellor Hyde was most certainly a brave, a loyal, and a wise but unfortunate Statesman. His Country, I mean the more knowing part, will always mention him with Gratitude and Honour; But that he had all the Virtues of a perfect Hero, it is ridiculous to pretend to allow it.  
Bishop Ward was a noted Mathematician and Astronomer, a good Divine, a profound Reasoner, of an affable, courtly, Gentlemanlike temper, a public Spirit, and a good Friend. But before he was advanced to the Episcopal See, he was suspected to waver in his Opinions about Government, and his good Nature formerly betrayed him into some Irregularities; insomuch that I cannot see the necessity why he should be set in the Calendar for a Saint, or canonised. But for all that, to the Honour of the Church of England; I wish all his Successors may deserve as good a Character, and have a better Historian.  
Had the modern Biographers been as just and sincere as the Author of Athenae Oxonienses, without Flourishes and Concealments, their Pieces had not been thrown aside with Dissatissatisfaction, as Panegyrical, inimitable, and Romantic.  
Quintus Curtius, (says one) deserves Praise for being sincere. He says what is good and bad in Alexander, and never suffers the Merit of his Hero to prevent him. Whereas Eusebius shows nothing in Constantine but what is commendable; who nevertheless had great Failings. We may expose their chief Faults faithfully, but not irreverently. It is a fault in Platina to treat the Popes in such a manner. Perhaps my Friend too upon this account may deserve sometimes to be corrected. All that I contend for, is, that the Biographers ought to set down the chief Virtues and Vices of those they represent. Every Historian of repute does relate the Defects of those they write of. The sacred History shows us Instances of the basest Villainy in the best Examples. Much rather should a Biographer (whom we cannot properly call an Historian) describe his Subject in its due proportion, being supposed, whilst he is writing, to have his Eyes and his Thoughts contracted only to that narrow compass. Bishop Burnet says, in his Preface to the Life of Sir Matthew Hale, to this purpose, That since all Men have their blind Sides, and commit Errors, he that will industriously lay these together, leaving out, or but slightly touching what should be set against them to balance them, may make a very good Man appear in bad Colours. So upon the whole matter, there is not that reason to expect either much Truth or great Instruction from what is written concerning Hero's or Princes; for few have been able to imitate the Patterns Suetonius set the World, in writing the Lives of the Roman Emperors with the same Freedom that they had led them.  
In God's Name therefore let there be no such Prevarication in Writing Lives of private Persons, as there is no Necessity and little Temptation for it.  
Diogenes Laertius, though dry and jejune, is very plain and faithful. He tells us that Socrates Wife would scold and throw Water upon him, and that he himself would endure a Beating.  
Plutarch says that the brave Cato Uticensis was a fuddling Fellow and a Cuckold. That Alcibiades lisped, or, as one of his Translators renders it, that his Tongue was something fat; that he gave a Schoolmaster a Box under the Ear because he would not lend him a Homer; that he had a very large Dog, and that the Athenians mightily blamed him for cutting off his Tail, which occasioned this ingenious Reply, That he did it to divert them from saying worse things of himself; that he was a Promise-breaker, perjured, and that he got King Agis' Wife with child, etc. Plut. in vitâ Alcib.  
Suppose Plutarch's Works had been censured because he could not have brought two Witnesses that would have sworn all this to be true? Do you think it would have ruined the Credit of the Historian?  
In short, Cornelius Nepos, a Latin, followed the same Method in writing of his Lives, and makes the same Alcibiades an extraordinary Man and a very naughty Spark.  
Had Mr. Wood deferred the Publication of his last Volume for twenty or thirty years, the Book had found more Friends; but there is a Simplicity and an honest Design which runs through the whole that will for ever support it, were it guilty of all those Errors which you or your Fellow-Sufferers have been pleased to charge it with.  
The Sum of what I object is, That you have grossly abused Bishop Ward and Mr. Wood, for which all good and learned Men call loudly for Satisfaction. And though perhaps I might have drawn up your Indictment in a more solemn manner, I found it difficult to put on a serious countenance to confute your Jests, or something absurd to answer your Merriments with a Syllogism. If you are incorrigible, I concur in your WISH, that you may have leave to depart in peace, for otherwise there will be little or no occasion of you in this World.  
I am, Sir, Yours at command. London, july 1, 1697.  
FINIS.