Apology for Mr. Walker FULLY VINDICATED, In a Conflict with the Author of the Reflections on the APOLOGY.  
The Reflector's Intellectual Endowments, Learning, and Morals displayed.  
This Paper, having waited above three Months for the true Narrative of the Siege of Derry, is now published, chief, for the Diversion of such as have read the Apology.  
Quid mihi Londini? mentiri nescio, liber,  
Si malus est, nequeo laudare, & poscere,  — Juv. Sat.  

The INTRODUCTION to the Apologist's Conflict with the Reflector.  
'TIS expedient the Reader understand, That the Pamphlet, bearing the Title of, Observations on Mr. Walker 's Account of the Siege of Derry; this I am now to Examine; and that Sheet Printed against Mr. Osborn's Vindication, are all three the Births of the same Brain, levelled at the same (general) scope, animated by the same Genius, delivered in the same Strain and Style. In those Observations are as many observable Passages as Periods, in special, two, which, for the courage of an Observator, may vie with Sir Roger himself. One is the Harangue he bestows chief on Mr. Os. p. 6, 7, 8. This has run the Gauntlet in Mr. Osborn's Vindication, and so I wave it. The other is in p. 5. where the Observator celebrates His Majesty's Bounty to Mr. Walker in these words;— And howsoever the Sum (I suppose of 5000. l. may bear the show of a Reward proportionate to his (i. e.) Mr. Walker 's Service; I dare aver, it is far short of his very Sufferings, and will not reach to the refunding of what he has lost in his Houses and Personal Estate, by Fire, Plunder, and other Outrages done by his and our implacable Enemies. I quote these Passages to move the Reader to condole at least, my pitiable Fate, in being so unequally matched with a Champion, of whose invincible Prowess these two fresh instances are alone a sufficient demonstration: Do therefore expect my Judges will do me the Justice, Minos, sitting on the Infernal Bench, did Hannibal, that they pass the Apologist for a Man, and of some Metal too, tho' he should be foiled (which Hercules forbidden) by a Combatant, whose bare averment will pass 500 l. or a much smaller Sum, for greater weight and value than 5000 l. of the best Coin in our King's Exchequer; and with a few squirts of his Pen can make whole Legions of pragmatical, perverse, murmuring 
* Observations, p. 3, 4, 6. , malignant Spirits scut it away to the Boreal Regions, faster than Tobit's Powder could the cowardly Hobgoblins to their invisible Cells. But adieu, Elves and Hobgoblins, Narrators and Vindicators, I'm resolved I'll have one brush with Mr. Walker's late Lyncean Observator (now contemptuous Reflector, and again, the Greek Calends, the Church and State's Champion and Orator.) Come ye Sons of Mars, behold such a bloody Duel between the Reflector and Apologist, as Homer, till he lost his Eyes, never saw between Mice and Frogs, the Thracian Cranes and Indian Pigmies. The Reflector indeed makes his approaches somewhat Comically, but you may in fine perhaps see his Tragical Castrophe. After his little Skirmish with the Legions before mentioned, he tells you, he had a great Conflict with himself, i. e. between his Will and Understanding; whether he should think first, and then scribble; or scribble first, and think after; but his Will being too strong for his Reason, sets him on scribbling an hour, ay, a week, Learned Animadversions on the Apology for Mr. Walker. And did he not scribble to good purpose? Yes, surely; for 'tis, says he, a trifling Pamphlet, an immethodical Rhapsody, of Vapour, Banter, Fallacy, Equivocations, idle, impertinent, incoherent stuff, the style flat and rustic— a thing that deserves no Consideration, needs no Answer. Thus in his first Paragraph he gives his Opinion of the Apology: On the Apologist he bestows the gentile Epithets and Appellations of rude, irrational, spiteful, phlegmatic, Hypocrite, snarler, invidious, malicious Querent, etc. And in his Conclusion recommends to him Achitophel's Resolution, i. e. to hang himself 
* Vide the last Period in his Reflections. . These are the Embroideries of this Masterpiece of the Reflector's Art. I had thought Bishop Montague, Mr. (since Dean) Pierce, Dr. Heylin, and to name no more, Dr. Parker, late Bishop of Oxford, all pretending themselves Champions for our Church, as this Gentleman does, had so much prejudiced their own, so much advantaged their Adversaries Cause by this illiberal Method of managing Controversy, that no English Protestant would ever write after their Copy. The Equity of that Cause is justly suspected, which can only be defended by that Rhetoric which is peculiar to the 〈…〉 specific dis●●●ce from the different qualities of the Person concerned for 〈◊〉 against it. But to return to our Reflector; one of our Club parted a Question concerning him, Whether 'twas his malignant Star, or his evil Genius, put him upon turmoiling as hard as Sisyphus at ●olling the Stone up-hill in Hell; and to as little purpose, in answering a Pamphlet, of which himself had pronounced, it is a Thing (a nothing) deserves no Consideration, needs no Answer? Another replied, There was no need of assigning so sensible an action to Causes so very remote, and unseen; that the Animal part proving too hard for the Rational, or (as he less civilly expressed it.) the Horse for the Rider, has often produced Effects more repugnant to Reason, than his Scribbling could appear to be to the Reflector's Imagination in that Conflict with himself whereof this is the portentous issue. A Second would have it, that his Credit was extremely sunk by those , unhappily misadventured Observations, by which Mr. Wrs Favour was like to turn into a lasting feud; that the only way to retrieve both, was to blast the Credit of the Apology, as it had done that Account, called Mr. Wrs. A Third affirmed this End not to be the End really designed by the Reflector, who never essays directly to confute, on the contrary, strongly confirms the Apology: And as oft as he stumbles on any truth of a manly Complexion, which sometimes happens in his Reflections, improves it in favour of the Apologist; but whenever he catches any thing of a contrary Genius (in which he has admirable Success) he indeed makes it simper, or as himself has it, cast a tacit glance on Mr. Walker, but in fine, renders it the Apologists faithful Servant. But I, who will be sure ever hereafter to help the Reflector at a dead lift, gravely admonished them of their inadvertency, told 'em he had given the Reasons of his Scribbling in his first Paragraph, where he solemnly protests, 'twas because he would interpose for the Honour of the King, Council, etc. so rudely, maliciously, etc. treated by the Apologist. A Fourth roundly averred, whatever Solemnity there might be in the Reflector's Protestation, there was not one grain weight of Sincerity in the Protestor, or Truth in the Protestation; since his lost Labour is bestowed to support the tottering Credit of Mr. Walker's Narrative, and as all that read not the Apology with a disloyal Eye, own the Apologist's Ardent Zeal for the Honour and Interest of the King and Government, so the Reflector himself acquits him of the detestable Crime of Disloyalty, though it cost the Reflector very dear, no less than the reverse in fine, of the principal part of what he so Solemnly protested in front; that therefore the true Reason was, the Panic but just fear that seized the Reflector, that as Mr. Walker for his supposed good Service, had received the thanks of the Honourable House of Commons now sitting, so his Observator might receive upon his Marrowbones the Reprimand of the same House, if no severer Punishment, for his very rude, most irrational Reflection on His Majesty's Princely, unparallelled Bounty to Mr. Walker, that every good Subject would applaud the Justice done to the one, as the Honour done to the other; that there is an instance of such Justice, of about Ten Years date, where the Crime was not attended with the tithe of the aggravating Circumstances that surround this of 〈…〉 some singular Exploit must be 〈…〉 a specious Character of his singular Loyalty, and profound Concern for the Honour of the King and Government, which might once more place him rectus in Curia; and the Apology appearing a few weeks after his Observations, he lifts up his Eyes, adores his Propitious Star, by whose Benign influx he hopes to be relieved soon from his anxious Fears, and imminent Perils. What! an Apology for Mr. Walker's failures; all Reason in the World Mr. Walker's Apologist should bear the chief part of the Misprisons, Misdemeanours, Falsehoods, Fopperies, Failures charged on Mr. Walker's Observator too; for he can better bear both, than the poor Observator can bear either. Now, I confess I find in myself a greater propension to pity than prosecute him in his Distress, since I find him as generous (when he descends to particular Articles) in acquitting me, as he was temerarious (in his general Charge) in Impeaching me of those Crimes whereof he knew me to be purely innocent. A Fifth bid me consider, that Charity gins at home; and that I must first purge myself, then pity my Accuser; that the Reflector had observed Machiavel's Maxim, Calumniare fortiter; that my silence to so high an Impeachment of no body knows what, against my Sovereign, would be interpreted a tacit Confession of Gild; that if the Charge were true, the Apologist deserved no Vulgar Chastisement; but if false (which he did not doubt of) and the Reflector being conscious of it, deserved the Punishment due to such Crimes: Yet advised me to acquiesce in that in somewhat a disparallel Case inflicted by Apollo on Cassandra, (which he was sure would prove the least of the Reflector's Doom,) i. e. never to be credited when he avouches truth, who so strenuously avers and protests what he knows, and in fine, declares to be a— Mean while (says the Gentleman) the Apologist's present Province is, to Vindicate the Apology from the imputation of falsehood, and himself from the charge of Misdemeanour towards the Government, both which will be abundantly performed by directing the Reader to those passages in the Apology which the Reflector pretends to Animadvert upon; and to explain, not the Text, but the Reflector's Comment upon it. I confess this Gentleman's sentiments are so much my own on this Subject, that I am resolved to follow Religiously his Directions, having first declared (for I'll have a care of bold Averments, and solemn Protestations, except against the Solemn League and Covenant, Popery, Presbytery, and all other deadly sin) that I would not have drawn my Dagger at this time upon the naked Reflector, if he had not charged me with High Misdemeanours towards my Sacred Sovereign and the Government; Crimes I more detest than any I have now protested against, the Solemn League itself not excepted; shall therefore purge myself of 'em, and in this Paper Present the Reflector with a Dose of the Pills I have taken, which if it scour not all his three Ventricles, and the Gun-Room too, I shall conclude him infested with that Malady, which nothing but the Hellebore of Anticyra effectually Cures. And now begging Pardon for the brevity of this Preamble, I'll strenuously to't, martially resolved never to put up my Sword, till I have rescued my Virgin Apology from the Vulture-Talons of the Reflector, and another Self-and-all-contaminating Harpy, come off Victor, or die on the Stage.   

The CONFLICT.  
THE grand, and sole Charge (whereof the Reflector essays to give Proof) against the Apology, is leesing-making, i. e. telling of Lies, which in Scotland being made Treason, 'tis the Apologist's Mercy his Trial is at an English Bar. Two Instances hereof are quoted with hideous Outcry: One in pag. 4. of the Apology, respects David cairn's, Esquire; the other in pag. 23. the Archbishop of Dublin. To both in general, I say, there is not a Syllable of either in the Original Copy of the Apology, which is yet extant, and whence the Printed Copy was taken. To the latter I shall Answer anon in due place: The former in pag. 4. Argument Fourth, runs thus [in special Counsellor cairn's, who declared for the then Prince of Orange, and the Protestant Religion; who formed the Multitude into Companies, after locking the Gates.] The style as well as matter of these words, with the exact antithesis in the following, and foregoing parts of that Paragraph (these words excluded) may convince any Judicious Reader, they were inserted by a different hand. Not the Gentleman to whom the Apology was directed, not the Bookseller, nor the Printer, and least of all Mr. cairn's, to whose Style and Sense they bear no Analogy, who is much a Sufferer by them, though he knew nothing of 'em before he had it from the Press. But whoever inserted them, where lies the falsehood that has raised such a Dust, occasioned so much Clamour? Where? first, 'tis said, Mr. cairn's declared (when he only by private Discourse endeavoured to influence both City and Country) for the Prince of Orange and the Protestant Religion. Again, 'tis said, Mr. cairn's formed the Multitude into Companies after the Gates were locked. He should have said, he informed the Multitude of their Interest and Duty, excited them by Arguments and his own Concurrence, to pursue with Constancy the good Cause they had generously espoused. The truth of this passage, as it respects Mr. cairn's, is this: He was out of the City when the Gates were locked, but arriving the next hour, and being mighty well pleased at the Action, and Resolution of the Actors, but finding none of the grave Citizens with those brisk Juniors, walked with them round the Walls and Gates of the City, animating them to perfist in their Vigour and Resolution for the Protestant Religion, their Country, (and as far as he durst whisper it) for the Prince of Orange, as under God, Protector of both. Having left them in the Guard-House, he made it his next business to engage the Chief Citizens in the same Cause, some of which accompanied him to the Guard-House the same Night, joined with him in giving Encouragement and Direction to those Juniors: He with others wrote that Night to several Gentlemen in the Country, soliciting their Concurrence, and effectual Assistance. He also Discoursed the Bishop, but without effect. This Account I have from good hands, and do Appeal to any Competent Judge, whether it do not justify the attributing to Mr. cairn's the equivalent at least, tho' not the same, which the Insertor, in somewhat a Rustic style, Compliments him with. But Mr. Osborn's Vindicator transcends the Reflector and all others on this head, and says (pag. 26.) the Apologist ascribes that to Mr. cairn's, as single, which he always owned, was done by joint-consent with others. Ascribes? where? Either in the words now vindicated, or no where: Ascribes? what? The Honour of that first Action. How is that possible, when nothing is attributed to him, till after locking the Gates, which sure was the commencement of that first Action? Ascribes to him as single? Strange! when all is ascribed to him in conjunction with a plurality. To give Mr. cairn's the first room of either Citizens or Gentlemen of chief Note, that first influenced, countenanced, and concurred with those Juniors mentioned, is no more than his due; unless the mere locking the Gates engross all the Honour of that Action: But to infer hence, the Apology ascribes that Honour to him as single, when it first makes him but one, (tho' a Chief and Leading Man) of the first Actors; and next mentions him relatively to a multitude, and both in part of one Period, is a new mode of deducing Consequences I never before this heard of. Nor can I divine what the Gentleman infers his [as single] from, unless it be the Infertor's [in special Mr. cairn's] that is especially, chief, or principally Mr. cairn's, I cannot else understand it: But then, how all, or any of these Synonimous terms can mean Mr. cairn's as single, exclusive of all others, has puzzled my Grammar and Logic, and some Learned Men I have consulted about it; do therefore submit this inference, with the Explication I have now given of that Paragraph, to the unprejudiced Reader; to whom I shall give no further trouble in perusing what I had prepared in Vindication of my first Plea for C. Walker, being relieved in part by Mr. Osborn's Vindication, and now superseded by the true Narrative last week Printed. Shall therefore pitch next in pag. 9th. of the Reflections, and make bold to reckon with the Reflector for his Leesing-making. For, having quoted these words of the Apology [It will be found the Interest of Church and State, to Repeal the Act of Scandalum Magnatum, as it respects that Order, i. e. of Bishops,] he thus subjoins, That is to say, to abolish Episcopacy, and seclude them from the House of Lords. I knew a Verbose Man, who would ever begin his Elucidations and Expositions with a That is to say; who, tho' he never had a word to the purpose, yet often spoke truth, was therefore by one half less unhappy than the Reflector, who rarely stumbles on either. What? Episcopacy and Scandalum Magnatum reciprocal terms? Must they stand and fall together? If they do, I cannot 〈…〉 my Vote for abolishing episcopacy, because I would not abolish Presbytery, which is or should be the same. Bishop and Presbyter are made the same by two Apostolical Acts, both Prior to the Act of Scandalum Magnatum. The first, Act Apostol. Cap. vices. commate 17ᵒ. compared with Verse 28. where our English Translators, being by the Canons (I suppose) obliged to maintain a distinction of Order as well as Degree (jure divino) between Bishop and Presbyter, translated the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. Bishops, by the word Overseers; which with submission to their since-improved textual Learning, was ill done; for the most negligent Curate with greatest oversight inspects his Flock, and in a sense is the greatest Overseer. The second Apostolical Act is that cited by the same Apostle Paul, Epistle to Titus, commate 5ᵒ. compared with Verse 7th. I might add several more from both St. Paul and St. Peter, but these two are sufficient to prove Bishop and Presbyter identified by Apostolical Sanction, which to me is a Jus Divinum. But pray Reflector take notice, when I say these Apostolical Acts are Prior to our Acts of Parliament, I mean, tempore, not dignitate, or authoritate; For I am not ignorant that our Religion in England (which holds also in Church-Government) is called the Established Religion, on the account of the Authority derived to it from Acts of Parliament, but am withal assured, that the present Parliament (whatever may be said of any former) pays a great deference to Apostolical Acts, especially when cited with such convincing Evidence as I have these two.  
My Second Plea for Col. Walker consisted in this, i. e. That Mr. Walker's Ecclesiastic Superiors, and chief that very Reverend Prelate from Ireland, who received Col. Walker into his Coach at Barnet, and under whose Conduct he was observed to Compile his Narrative, are the Principal Authors of the Misrepresentations charged on his Narrative. And does the Reflector essay to disprove it? No: he dares not deny it, nor so much as name the Plea; but diverts the Reader from taking any Notice of it, by a pleasant Story. The Apologist's Informer mistook it seems Sir Robert Cotton's Coach for the Archbishop's; but the Reflector assures you, the Coach was Sir Robert Cotton's, for (says he) I saw it. And then (as if the Plea derived all validity and strength from this Circumstance) he subjoins very Comically [So that if Sir Robert Cotton be an Archbishop, he carries a Cloak over his Pall, and stands in need of a Dispensation for his Lay-Habit. I have heard of a Padder, that used to wear a Bishop's Gown and Sleeves over a Buff Coat, as often as he examined the Traveller's Pockets: Being at Long-run catched, the Gentleman was hanged; whether the Sacred Vestures were hanged with him, or were consecrated anew, and applied to their Sacred Use, I cannot say, for I saw it not, as the Reflector says he did this Action: But I never till now, heard of a Knight in a Pall, nor an Archbishop in a 〈…〉 hector's Fancy elevated him 〈…〉 bitten above Mercury; but what returns, 〈◊〉 Archbishop has made him for having lodged with his Grace (as Principal Author) the Failures of Mr. Walker's Narrative, as did the Apologist, I know not; I on my part hereby render him my hearty thanks for having saved me the labour of confirming my second Plea. Nor is the Reflector less kind in confirming my first Plea for Col. Walker, tho' in somewhat a preposterous Method, and where he little intended it.  
That first Plea consisted of seven Arguments, evincing that Col. Walker neither is, nor can be Author of that Narrative. And here the Reflector neither affirms Mr. Walker wrote it, nor denies the contrary; nor so much as bids at one Argument, to prove him at all the Author of it; how then does he attempt an escape from the Apologist? as in the preceding Paragraph he vainly hoped to misled his Reader by a witty Story; so here he essays to divert him by this profound Query. Good Sir (says the Reflector) do me the favour to tell me, do you think Mr. Walker was the Compiler of that Narrative which passes under his Name, or no? Good Sir, do me the favour to tell me, whether it was Full Moon or Midnight, when you read my first Plea for Col. Walker, and first eight Pages of the Apology, both bestowed in evincing, he is not the Compiler of that Narrative? The Reflector proceeds in a very Logical, disjunctive distribution of his Query; If you do (says he) as in the former part of your Paper you seem to insinuate) why do you Calumniate him for the Errors and Imperfections in it? I shall anon salute one or two of the Reflector's [it seems,] as to the term Calumniate, in my Opinion (as the Reflector has it of the word Abdicate) that Verb implies a spontaneous act and somewhat more; no less than a cooperation of the two Supreme Powers of the Rational Soul, the Understanding, and Will, (a Calumny being confessedly an heinous immorality) but an Ass, I mean of four Legs, can exert a spontaneous Act, I am sure the Reflector's Horse could, if that Member of our Club was not mistaken, in saying, he run away with the Reflector's Rational Faculty, which I thought had been impossible, but for a winged Post from the higher or lower Regions. Were therefore the Supposition as true as 'tis false, it could amount to no more than a Mistake or intellectual Error, not a Calumny; since it neither had, nor ever shall have the consentient act of the Apologist's Will. But you, O Reflector, have calumniated the Grammatical, Logical, Moral sense of the Apology, the Sense and Reason of all, and your own among others that read it, in suggesting that it charges those Errors and Imperfections in that Narrative on Mr. Walker, when its main scope is to prove the contrary. And whereas you insinuate, that I seem to suspect Mr. Walker's Sense or Courage; I tell you, of his Courage he has given sufficient demonstration in page 24 of his Narrative, where he says, he mounted one of the Horses that were beaten to the Gates of Derry, and relieved Col. Murry, whom he saw surrounded with the 〈…〉 Name, with the colour of the Horse which Mr. Walker mounted at the Gate, neither of which could I ever learn, tho' all the surviving Actors were Interrogated on that Head; nor does Col. Murry remember he ever but from that Narrative, heard that Mr. Walker was that day on Horseback, or at all seen in any Sally, much less see him come to his Relief. The other, and (I fear designed) is the Narrator's conconcealing the greatest act of Gallantry performed at Derry, or perhaps in Europe, these seven years passed at least, by one Man, i. e. Col. Murry his kill in that Sally General Mamow in a Personal Conflict, when the Colonel was deserted by so many of his own Party (as that Narrative reports) and surrounded by the Main Body of the Enemy's Horse. But to return to Mr. Walker, I should be very sorry he should not prove a Man of Sense too; for I hope to live to see him sit in the House of Peers in Westminster or Dublin; and then every body would be apt to say, that the King had spoiled a good Colonel, and an excellent Governor of a Garrison, (I hate to say, a Careful and faithful Store-keeper, and distributer of Provisions, as Mr. Osborn's Vindicator, pag. 2. and 23.) to make an ill Bishop, who would never be able to secure the Church from being crucified between Popery and Presbytery, as— between two Thiefs, if he did not better plead her Cause than his Vindicator (that has scarce the Soul of an Insect) does his Narrative. Mean while, Reflector, give me leave to tell you, that if I had been so credulous as to have believed Mr. Walker compiled that Narrative, these two Paragraphs of yours I have now scanned, would have relieved my mistake, and confirmed both Pleas of the Apology. I marvel your fertile Invention could not suggest to you, that once at least in those Weeks wherein Mr. C. etc. were licking the Paper into the form of a Narrative, Mr. Walker might be seen with a Pen in his hand, and Paper before him to write a Letter at least to some of his absent Friends, and then a Man of the Reflector's Courage would never have failed solemnly to aver he saw him writing the Narrative. But where the Fancy is Vbiquitarian, and the Judgement Utopian 
* No where. , such slips are unaccountable, and so I pass this of the Reflector. And now ex abundanti, I offer him another Argument to prove it impossible Mr. Walker should compile that Narrative: The impossibility I infer from Mr. Walker's Circumstances during his Government in Derry, and in London till the Narrative was published. 'Tis to be observed, that Col. Walker in his Government much Copied Romulus and Tullus Hostilius' Platform of Government, yet he preferred that of Numa Pompilius. I do not mean (far be it from me) that the Colonel had any Nocturnal Consults with an Egerian Nymph; but my sense is, that as the best Governors of Garrisons awake a Nights, and sleep by Day; so the Colonel being much up, and at his business a-nights, must be much down a-days, by the Old Maxim, Quod caret alternâ requie durabile non est. Now, all the memo●● 〈…〉 the History of Actions 〈…〉, while he was asleep. The Analogy between ●●ma's Government and the Colonel's may likewise 〈◊〉 in this, that as Numa introduced many new Religious Ceremonies in Rome, so the Colonel one in Derry, i. e. whenever any Governor of Derry shall prefer a Parson to the Office of Keeper of the Stores, such Parson, in Veneration to his Gown, shall pass for Principal Governor, and enjoy the Honour of Priority in all Authoritative Orders and Subscriptions. But this I pass, for I can't bear, Mr. Walker should be neither Keeper of Men nor Sheep, but of some Belly-Timber, and a little Powder and Ball; and my Argument will stand impregnable without it, from the Colonel's Circumstances in London, during the patching up of that Narrative; for as it had been a merciless Cruelty to have imposed that Task upon him immediately after the Fatigue both of the Siege and his long Journey, so if he had attempted it, he had undoubtedly proved Felo de se, before its accomplishment. For his day-hours (till after it was Printed) were bestowed partly at Court, about State-Affairs, but principally in exchanging Public Entertainments with a more Public, yet never-satiating view of his own never-enough admired Person, who had much surpassed in Warlike Exploits Alexander and Caesar, ay, and Hercules too with his Twelve Labours, though the Son of the best and biggest Jupiter. Pray read pag. 2. of his before-cited Observations. Mr. Walker was the man— whose Prodigious Actions no Age nor History can parallel, and which create credibility even in the most improbable Romances.  
Thus I have in the Apology, and in this Vindication (both confirmed by the Reflector) placed it beyond all Suspicion (though one Case-hardned Nego would have served the turn) that Mr. Walker wrote not that Narrative. And yet, lest it should be turned into an Old Almanac before it has served its Year, and the Purchase of the Copy break the Printer, I'll put the Reflector into a method, that may a little retrieve its Reputation with ignorant (i. e. the greater number of) Readers for some time. Let him Purchase two Witnesses with the following Qualifications: First, they must be no Gownsmen, therefore no Women, Clergymen, nor Lawyers; they may were Coats, but not of the Soldier's Fashion, lest they be suspected of having served the Colonel in Derry, and to have been suborned: They may wear Cloaks, but not of the same Fashion with Knights, lest they have a Pall under them; the Presbyterian Cut will do best of any: Being thus arrayed, they must appear in the Lower House of Convocation, (i. e. when they shall sit next) and standing before the Prolocutor's Chair, after they have turned up their Whiskers, and gravely stroked their Beards, (Tacto quinetiam collari Penulae Presbyterianae, minimè vero paginâ Sacrâ, nè, si fortè manus, in librum Tobit, aperto nimirum codice, delaberetur, jurarent per creaturam, quod, ne fiat, jure Canonico veteri, gravi cautum est poena) they must hold forth, and solemnly 〈…〉 Glass in his left, and Pen 〈◊〉 mouth, writ that Narrative, five Pound of the 〈◊〉 Thousand will precure him two Witnesses thus qualified in London or Westminster.  
I proceed with the Reflector, who page 10. taxes ●ny sincerity, in a very weighty point. The Apology supposes the Bishop's advice to the Citizens was delivered immediately before locking the Gates, whereas he assures us 'twas some hours after. This is a very momentous circumstantial mistake, I  thank him for Correcting it. But by his misapplication of the Term Sincerity, and that of Calumny a little before, the Reflector seems to be as much a Stranger to the Notion of the Moral and Theological Virtues, as he is practically conversant in their opposite Vices. I wonder he should so much mistake the Notion of Sincerity, the most comprehensive, or rather the form of all Graces and Virtues: when, as I shall all along to the end of this Pamphlet show, there is neither Virtue, nor Vice so familiar to him as the opposite Vice of Sincerity: whereof in his subsequent Words he gives us an Instance; where he charge me with the partial ascription of the credit of looking the Gates of Derry (entirely) to Mr. Irwin: Whereas the Apology expressly says page 14. Mr. Irwin with some others of his Fellows locked all the Gates. The Reflector page 15. owns the truth of the passage related of the Bishop of Derry. It is true (says he) the Bishop left the City, being not able to influence the Citizens with his Doctrine: But what then? Why so many words, and so much notice taken of this singl? Action? Well pleaded, Reflector on behalf of the Bishop: What then Reflector? Because I would hope your Question precedes more from pitiable Weakness then from unpardonable Malice to the King an Kingdoms, I will tell you, had the Bishop's Doctrine taken place, and Derry been surrendered to Tyrconnel, what Power, or Policy, Humanely Speaking, could have prevented King James his being in undisturbed Possession of all Ireland, before the first of May last? Not Inneskilling, I trow; not our Army that Arrived in Ireland in nine Months after locking Derry Gates. And if that King had then been possessed of Ireland, how easily might he by Transporting but a third of his Army last Summer, recover Scotland too? What could have retarded his Progress in that Kingdom, but that great body of Presbyterians in the West of Scotland, as their Brethren did in the North of Ireland? What the consequence would have been in England before this, considering what Interest King James had then, (horresco referens) still has in this Isle, all good Men dread and detest: So much in answer to your wise Query. My temptation to mention the Bishop's Speech, was the affinity of some of the Crimes falsely charged by the Narrative on Mr. Osborn with the Bishop's Doctrine and after departure from Derry. Of Mr. Osborn I need not, shall not now say any thing; but as to the very Reve●● 〈…〉 that I am beyond all scruple persuade, 〈◊〉 ever his Speech, and subsequent demeanour (supposing a compliance in the Citizens) had proved pernicious to Ireland, and dangerous to the three Kingdoms, yet what he said and did in that juncture, was the consequent of the Dictat of a real not pretended Conscience, which is the proximat rule of all both Religious and Moral Actions: that as Universal suffrage gives him the character of a very Learned, Exemplarily-Pious, Industrious, Preaching Prelate; so I firmly believe him as Loyally affected to the present Government, of a Temper as moderate, Pacifick, as fit an Instrument to reconcile and unite divided Protestants as any of his Gown. This much I sent to the Press after the Apology, but it came too late. The Reflector proceeds. But what? Can he find never a Text in Scripture pat to his purpose, but must sully the cleanness of his Apology by a profane Heathen Poet? Yes, I could find one in the Old Testament, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy Neighbour. And another somewhere in the eighth of Saint John the Evangelist. But I made a scruple of sullying (indeed profaning) Scripture with the subject of the Apology, in which nothing occurred properly Sacred, except a Ceremony, the Archbishop and Gown: and I could not find so much as one name of any of the three in Sacred Code. For, the 1 Cor. 14. ult. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the only Scripture in the New Testament alleged for the Ceremonies, was by Mr. H. jean's a Presbyterian Minister, twisted out of the great hamond's hands, and I am afraid it will never be retrieved unless Dr. Beverage make it the Text for his next Concio ad Clerum; but had your pretty Story of the Cloak and Pall been Printed before the Apology, I could have prevailed with the Apostle Paul to vouch for the Cloak, and I could have turned the Pall into Parchment, and then it would bear a Sacred stamp, tho' the Archbishop (I mean the Knight) remained profane, (I mean) lay still. The Reflector subjoins, it is a far fetched allusion (he means my lines out of Juvenal) and as justly and patly I may retort from Verses of the same Author.  
Scilicet horreres, majoraque monstra putares,  
Si mulier Vitulum, vel si bos ederet agnum.  Juven. Sat. 2. 
Monstrous patly Reflector, and very modestly said of yourself: but whether the following Distic had not been more pat, let the Reader judge.  
Observator eram, sum, non vir, non Cacodaemon,  
Non bos, non Mulier, sed pro re quilibet horum.  
〈…〉 till you make go● that 〈◊〉 one in your first Paragraph; till than not a 〈◊〉 London or London-Derry will purchase them at a Cann of Ale per dozen. Proceed we next to my Ten Queries which the Reader will do well to take a view of in the Apology, and next of the Reflectors wise remarks on them.  

QVERE. I.  
I give the Reflector my devout thanks for confirming the grand import of the First Query. I likewise gratefully accept his pains in correcting in words at length the careless Printers additional cipher, though the simplest Reader must observe the mistake. But he having yielded, the number of the Ulster, Scots, last year to amount to an Hundred Thousand; in the same Paragraph to suggest the Service of those in Derry and Inniskilling was performed by Gentlemen of another Nation and Persuasion, bespeaks him a Man of a very hard Forehead, but somewhat a Phlegmatic brain; for, as the suggestion in the latter part of the Paragraph subverts the concession in the former: so the appeal to all concerned in those two places for proof of it, is an instance of confidence paralleled only in those two already quoted out of his Observations. But 'tis very probable he writ his Reflections with a Steel Pen, which gives him so much advantage of me, that use only a Goose-quill. His insinuation of a design in the Apologist to create differences and jealousies between the two Nations, the Church of England and Dissenters, is a Calumny I detest and shall anon fully purge myself off.   

QVERY. II.  
The Reflector, instead of giving a direct Answer to the second Query (his invention failing him) fond hopes to misled the Reader by a very pleasant (I say not ridiculous) Question, i. e. Whether the Presbyterian Persuasion be the Logical Property of a Scotchman? Whether Presbyter and Scot be terms convertible? To which I answer Categorically; no, for the fourteen Bishops Excommunicated in Thirty-Eight by the National Assembly in Glasco, were all Scotchmen as I am informed, and the fourteen cashiered by Parliament last year, I think are all Scotchmen, yet no Presbyterians. I further answer, King James the Sixth who was a Learned Prince, and well understood the Logical property of a Scotchman, took (it seems) Presbyter and an honest Scot (understood of the Clergy) for terms convertible: for when some bold Scot presumed to ask His Majesty, why he would make ill men Bishops? He answered (as I have often heard from grave Men of that Nation) by his Saul he was forced to make Knaves Bishops, for he could not get one honest man in Scotland that would take a Bishopric. Now I confess I pay 〈…〉 honest Bishops, that 〈…〉 Son and Grandsons, he would 〈◊〉 himself with 〈◊〉 demonstration they would give him, that Presbyterian is not the Logical property of an honest Scotchman. And yet, will I venture the Apology against your Reflections, that is ten to one with the Bookseller, that the Case being fairly stated, as in the Apology you find (and dare not so much as scratch at) it, the twentieth Soul of any Rank or Nation in the North of Ireland, that have any real razed of Serious Religion falls not to the Church's share: There is  not one word of pertinent truth in your Answer, being entirely besides my Question.   

QVERY. III.  
The third Query is a dark riddle to the Reflector: I profess I cannot help it, for I neither have, nor know where to beg, buy, or borrow a light or clear Riddle: Nor dare I be so unmerciful to myself, as to be at the pains to unriddle this Query, having had task enough to prepare nine Questions all spig-and-span-new for the Reflector and his Learned Club, to resolve, without being at the drudgery to answer 'em myself. But in charity to the Reflector do advise him hereafter not to quote unnecessarily (I say not Impertinently) that distinction, between the Personal and Politic Capacity of a King, till his improved Judgement and Learning qualify him to refute it; and then, I'm confident he will let it rest till he has gone first to his own rest or last receptacle. Nor will I accept his witty (forsooth) Application of it as a sufficient evidence that he ever understood conscentious fight, much less actually did conscientiously fight for King Charles, or his Sovereign.   

QVERY IU.  
Whether the same or a different Genius inspired the Reflector when he wrote his Remarks on the fourth Question, and his first Paragraph, I cannot divine: if a different, then without question his evil Genius suggested the former, and his good the latter; but if one inspired both, to be sure it was one of the Elves of that pragmatical Legion he drove to the Northern Regions, which brought seven Spirits more robust than itself, to avenge the affront on the Reflector. Omne malum a Septentrione. In his first Paragraph he makes the Apologist guilty of what not towards his Sovereign; here he says of him [he i. e. the Apologist so generally absolves our gracious Sovereign] but I do assure the Reflector I shall not absolve him, nay I impeach him of, and retort upon him the same Crimes, i. e. his most rudely, irrationally, but very bluntly treating his Sovereign. The Impeachment consists of two Articles. First, He makes his Sovereign a Transgressor, for, where there is no Transgression, there can be no Absolution: Where, by the way I would know of the Reflector, 〈…〉 England: If the former, 〈◊〉 ridiculous has he made himself, by ridiculing the distinction between the King's Personal and Politic Capacity, or Charles and Sovereign. The Second Article is his Innuendo of the Kings receiving Absolution, i. e. Pardon from a Subject. Both Articles are proved by his own words now quoted. I might add a third, That he affirms Absolution given, without enquiring whether the Sin-absolver be a Priest or no. I might further impeach the Reflector of palpable prevarication; for in the same Sentence wherein he makes me an Sin-absolver of my Sovereign, the City of London, and the Dissenters, I expressly Absolve the Moderate Conformists, which he studiously conceals.  the Church of England, which he civilly says, I maliciously intent to cast the guilt and odium upon, can be no other than the Immoderate Conformists; to whose bounty I recommend the Reflector for a reward of his good Service. Nor will I impeach his Ergo, as illogically inferred, because he seems to have borrowed his Mode of Syllogizing from the before mentioned King James his Dogs, who at a fault, thus argued with their noses, the Hare did not run this way, nor that way, tarbox the third way.   

QVERY V VI  
The Reflector being agreed with me in the Fifth Query, I must attend his resolution of the Sixth. I appeal to the Reader, whether in his Reflections on this and the following Queries, he has not given me the farest advantage, as well as highest provocation to treat him as an open enemy of common Civility, and Morals. Yet in the whole has he proved so kind to me, so unkind to himself, though he intended neither, that I very gratefully resent both. Observe how here (as under the former Query) he conceals, my more generous absolving Act (since such he'll have it) of the Church of England, both Clergy and Laity; having also concealed my Question, he gives three of his own, instead of an Answer to that one of mine. To all which I answer in a word, that Dissenters cannot be said to be in an equal capacity with other Protestant Subjects to embark in any Public Service, while the Sacrament Test continues in force. I must therefore desire the Reflector, not for shame, I come too late for that, but for security to his remaining credit, to retract this injurious Calumny of his.   

QVERY. VII.  
My Seventh Query runs thus, whether, if all Protestant Subjects were equally forward with the Dissenters, for the Service of the King, Kingdoms, and Protestant Religion, the many effects there mentioned (of inestimable consequence to their Majesties and Kingdoms) would not follow? but the Reflector 〈…〉 to the Dissenters a●one, 〈…〉 parenthesis are (excluding other Protestant Subjects) What? exclude other Protestant Subjects, when the express scope of the Question is to include them? What else were this, but to exclude my own sense, and intendment from the Query, and to include nonsense and contradiction? Now would I know, whether the Reflector when he thus misrepresented my Question in a sense repugnant to the very Grammar of my words, did understand their literal sense or not? if the latter, I both pardon him and hearty pray for an advance of his intellectuals: But if the former, than I freely allow him an overmatch for the most Ingenious and Learned of Mankind, that confine themselves to Truth for the Matter, and Reason for the Rule of what they writ; and therefore I yield him the Buckler. And to his foreign and far fetched double Question; First, Whether I do not take Major- General Ludlow to be a Dissenter? I Anwser, I take him for neither Dissenter nor Assenter, because dead in Law, and at present not in or of the Kingdoms. Cannot divine why he mentions him on this subject, unless it be an expectation of meeting with somewhat in my Answer, that may purchase him the honourable Office of an Informer. But I shall frustrate his hopes. His Second Query is, Whether I did not tacitly glance at M. G. L. to have the chief Conduct of the Army or Navy? A tacit glance? I had thought taciturnity respected the Organ of Speech, glancing that of Sight. But now I think on't, the ingenious Cowley somewhere tells us of words that weep, and tears that speak, and so I pass it. To the Question I answer Categorically, I neither have seen, or had any Correspondence by Letters or otherwise with M. G. L. while he was last in England, nor had him once in my thoughts that I can remember, while I was scribbling the Apology. But the Reflector says, that what he insinuates in his double Query, is reported to be the declared Opinion of the Apologist. Reported by whom? by the Reflector, or a Knight of the Post? If he finds a third Person, and of a different Genius, I'll be content to suffer for M. G. L. But that I may Oblige the Reflector with something his Invention may enlarge upon, and Metamorphose into various shapes, I'll adventure to tell him, that if M G. L. had gone for Ireland in the Quality of Major-General of our Army (under the Auspice of King William) last Year, and landed any time before the last of May with a Thousand Horse, ten Thousand Foot, with Arms for Twenty Thousand more, nothing but the unfitness of Protestants there for a Deliverance could have prevented his Reducing and Subjecting that Kingdom entirely to the English Crown, and driving all the French and Irish into the Bogs or Sea. The Reason supporting my Opinion is, That the Rebels of Ireland in the last Rebellion were subdued, and that Kingdom reduced only by the Rebels of England, i.e. the Army of the Rump-Parliament, as the Reflector calls it; and the Irish Rebels stand not in such dread of triple the number of any that served 〈…〉 either English or Scotch in Ireland so hearty engage in that Service with Major-General Kirk as with Major-General Ludlow. But remember, Reflector, I speak of what M. G. L. might atchief last year, not this: For, after the Parliament's Addressing to the King (as you have it) for his Apprehension, I can promise nothing for him but that he shall be hanged, if we can catch him handsomely on English Ground. Nor shall he have any thing from me but my Prayers (which even my Enemy's share in) that he may Repent; you know the Apostle tells us, it is the Divine Will, that all men come to Repentance.— And that he may obtain Mercy, as our Liturgy teaches me to pray— That it would please thee to have mercy on all men; and he must be a Man, and a stout sturdy Fellow too, that proved such a K— killing Rebel.   

QVERY VIII.  
The Reader may observe how the Reflector improved the same Art here he used in his Reflections on the former Query; for he tells you, Reflections, pag. 16.— it seems to be intended by the connexion of the Apologist's Discourse, that those five Thousand, or ten Thousand Men, (at the Head of whom General Schomberg might have performed such wonderful Exploits) should consist wholly of Dissenters. It seems, good Reflector, to whom? Not to Angel or Man I'm well assured; not to Angels, no, not to the lapsed Tribe; for even these retain their Rational Faculty, can read and understand English: not to any man in his Wits, for the quite contrary sense is as plain as words can make it; not to any man out of his Wits, for if such cannot apprehend the plainest sense, much less an obscure, yea, impossible, which no Grammar nor Logic can give any colour to, which the Reflector gives my words; I conclude therefore, the Reflector's it seems, seems so to neither Angel nor Man, wise or otherwise; Ergo, not to the Reflector himself. I remember, Thomas Aquinas in his Sums, gins his Resolutions of all Queries with a Videtur, in English, it seems: But if the Reflector tacitly glanced at him, he is none of the happiest in imitation; for Aquinas prefixes his [it seems] to an Heterox Opinion, he finds, or supposes in his Antagonist, and having refuted it, he substitutes the Opinion he takes for Orthodox, and confirms it: But the Reflector conceals the true, substitutes an Heterox, and then exposes it; that is, it seems, would murder my Legitimate Offspring, place in their room the spurious Births of his own Brain, and oblige me to maintain the supposititious Brats. It seems 〈…〉 in defiance of 〈…〉 Angelical Intelligence.   

QVERY IX.  
I pass the Reflector's it seems, on the Ninth Query; and pass to his [I dare boldly say] only could wish he had subjoined [any thing] which every body would believe; whereas now I can persuade no body, no, not himself, to believe any thing he says, attests, contests, or protests against the Apology. I have before observed, the Reflector can act the Woman's part, as well as the Man's; and here he gives you a pat Instance; for laying aside his bold Challenges, Averments, etc. in the Rhetoric of a distressed Lady, he thus makes his moan: Little did I think over to see the Spirit of William Prynn revived.— Little did I think that Spirits could be seen by the Reflector, who cannot see the plainest English Characters in Print: I likewise thought, that Bodies vested with some colour, were the Objects of sight: but now I remember, the Ingenious Dr. H. Moor, somewhere ascribes some kind of (I know not what) Body to Spirits, and with Reason ridicules the Schoolmens idle Debate about a Thousand Angels dancing the Galliard on the point of a Needle, keeping a decorum, without breaking their shins, or jostling one another out of their places. But leaving this to the Philosophers, I cannot yield William Prynn's Spirit revived, till the Reflector has proved the Soul dies, which neither the Old Heretics, nor Muggliton of late could ever prove. And though I should grant all this, yea, that the Reflector had the Courage to look William Prynn's grim, black, stern, terrible Ghost in the Face, which no body will grant me, what then? What tricks did the Spectre play? The Reflector tells us, he has scurrilously reviled by the Apologist's Pen, the Function and Person of the Bishops. If the Reflector allude (as I think he must) to Mr. Prynn's Timothy and Titus on-bishoped, which he challenges the two Arch-Bishops of Canterbury and York to Answer, the Reflector has very unhappily revived the memory of that Book: For tho' there be some Arguments in it inconclusive, there are many more, which as none (that I know of) have attempted to Answer, so shall I believe any ever will solidly when I see it, not before. As to the Reflector's Charge of scurrility, Calumny, and his demand to specify particular Persons and Actions, after he has read them in the Query, and made his wise Reflections on 'em, he speaks indeed like himself, and shall anon have a due Answer. Mean while let him know, that the Insinuation respecting the three 〈…〉 to be proved by men of, good 〈◊〉 and unsuspected Veracity; tho' I must withal declare, nothing short of a just Resentment of the manifest and very injurious misrepresentation of the Dissenters in the Printed Narrative, and the Archbishop of T. his concern therein, could have extorted that ungrateful Account of these great Prelates from me at this time. Come we next to that passage that respects the Archbishop of Dublin; this with the former relating to Mr. cairn's (accounted for) are the only instances impeached of falsehood in the Apology: Tho' the backside Advertiser has the Front to say, 'tis full of Lies. I have before said, that neither of these passages are in the Original Copy of the Apology, but this being in the Printed Paper, I shall Account for it as I have for the former. The Reflector says, that what is here suggested (he'll by and by recalling his Art call it Averment) concerning the Archbishop of Dublin is a positive falsehood. How proves he the falsehood? The Commissioners appointed for distributing the Charity, etc. being Interrogated, and the Books searched, it evidently appears he has not received one penny. But Reflector, your Interrogations and Search are besides the purpose: For, can I suppose you ignorant that what money either that Archbishop, or some other Bishops received of that Fund, falls not under the Cognizance of the Commissioners, nor is inserted in the Book you mention. And I'll for once direct you to a shorter and eafier Method to disprove the Suggestion. 'Tis but your going to the Archbishop, and prevailing with (that is, when you find his Grace at leisure) to give you under his Hand, that neither his Grace, nor any other Person, in his Name, by his Order, with his Privity or Consent, has received, nor signified his expectation of receiving any money out of that Fund, for his Subsistence since his arrival. And when such Cerrificat is procured (which will be a business of Deliberation, because momentous) it will no more prove the Suggestion a positive falsehood in the Insertor, than your Interrogations and Search a positive Fallacy in you. The words of the Apology are these; The Archbishop of Dublin— has received of our Public Fund of Charity to distressed Protestants from Ireland, not above a Thousand Pounds, that be, i.e. the Bookseller, can bear of. Now, Reflector, improve your Grammar and Logic (if any man alive can transform a plain truth into a positive falsehood, you can) and try whether you can squeeze out of these words any other meaning than a Suggestion (which you still yourself call an Averment) of the Insertor's having heard, that the Archbishop received the mentioned Sum. That the Insertor 〈…〉 stive a truth, as I 〈…〉 any 〈…〉 yours a positive falsehood.   

QVERY X.  
In his Reflections on the Tenth Query, he says, I own myself of the Presbyterian Persuasion, tho' he neither in terms read, nor by Logical consequence can infer from any thing in the Apology what Persuasion I'm of. However, I own he has done me a greater Honour than he has done the Church of England, in pretending himself as well her Champion, as one of her Sons. Nor am I offended at his suspecting me to be a Disciple of William Penn, for therein he seems to suppose me his own Condisciple; there being that I know of, not a Man in England the Reflector so much imitates in style as W. P. Either of 'em has English Rhetoric enough for two Orators, but both too little Logic, Natural and Artificial, for one fresh man. He further suspects the Apologist to be a Disciple of Ignatius Loyola; which is monstrous strange: Sure he forgot the fag-end of his famous Paragraph, and the Backside Advertiser his Friend. This frequent self-contradiction in the same Pamphlet, verifies the Old Saying, That some men had need of a good Memory. However I'll be kind to the Reflector and Advertiser, and will secure 'em from all suspicion of Jesuitism. The Christian World knows to its cost, that Blasphemous Seat entertains very sew Fops or Ignoramuses; and tho' those two Gentlemen, especially the Reflector, may vie for Courage against Sense and Reason, and his own Conscience too, with the hardiest of 'em; yet I that know them, durst not venture his Conduct against a Novice of that Sect. The Reflector proceeds, and suggests, That the Apology charges the Bishops with bestowing two or three Years premeditation for one Consecration-Sermon: This seems to be the sense of his words, which I am not willing to impeach of Nonsense. Now, this palpable misrepresentation must proceed either from a weakness of Judgement, which neither Boy nor Girl of common sense could be guilty of; or from a defect in Morals, which any wearing the Protestant Livery but the Reflector and Advertiser would blush at. Let the Reflector choose whether of the two best please him. I proceed to account (this being the proper place) for that passage in the Apology, which mentions the Odium incurred, etc.— And here I do solemnly and sincerely declare, that neither in this passage, nor any other in the Apology, I made the least Reflection on the Established Church of England, nor any Member of her Communion, but those alone, who deriving Authority from Charles the Second, or rather in his Reign from 〈…〉 of England, and Persecuted at least in Name, as well some of the best Sons of the Church of England, which I need not here name, as the Dissenters in Name, Person, and Estate; who have manifested disaffection to the Present Government, obstruct the Union of the Protestants, the Tranquillity and Flourishing of these Kingdoms, and Their Majesty's Prosperous Reign. Nor does the Apology bear near so hard upon those men, as many other Papers writ as well since as beofre it was published, by very Learned, Reverend Sons of the Church of England. I'll name but two of many, i. e. the Bishop of Sarum's Sermon, and Dr. Carswell's. And why that should be made a Crime in the Apologist, which is esteemed meritorious in other men, I understand not. Let these Gentlemen Reconcile themselves to the present Government, and thereby to their Brethren, who are justly entitled to the Denomination (taken à meliori parte) of the Established Church of England; and then may they assure themselves of a just Veneration from all Protestant Churches, with the best Service of all true Protestants, and of the Apologist, who I hope may pass for one, tho' of the lowest Form. The Provocation to my inserting that ungateful Passage in the Apology is too obvious to need another: But as to the Occasion, besides my own Observations, and the several Papers I had with regret read of our Murmurers, that Letter from a Minister of State abroad, to a Person of Honour in England, which you have in Number 14. of our New Scotch Observator, was fresh in my Memory; and tho' the Letter taxes the Nation promiscuously with this murmuring Humour, Ingratitude, etc. without discriminating the Innocent Party or Principle from the Nocent; yet who knows not, the Impeachment can only reach that party of men now described, and intended in the Apology. By the way I would Advise the English Reader, to borrow (as I did) the assistance of a Scotch Interpreter to that Print, in which besides the words [Communicate put for a Participle, contrair, ungrate, resistance] which are not English, and the false English in mis-spelling; the Phrase gives a sense sometimes quite contrary to the Observator's Conceptions; as, when he would signify, that Protestants abroad can scarce believe, there should possibly be found in England one (i. e. so much as one) single Protestant dissatisfied, etc. He has it [be found but one single, etc.] which in the English Idiom implies a Plurality. Now, if he publishes Volumes (as he has one already) in this medley of Scotch and English, yet neither  Scotch nor English, what prejudice must the English Tongue sustain by it, which after these last Twenty Years re●●●● 〈…〉 more easily tempt, 〈…〉 Pieces? 'Twere therefore to 〈…〉, Sir Roger and Hary's Succestor, could at least writ true English, since Nature has denied him the Wit, and his Education, perhaps his Years too, the general knowledge of the English Government, and Public Affairs, these two Gentlemen were possessed of. But reserving this Observator for another Occasion, I return to the Reflector, who by turning the end of his Prospective, could do wonderful fears in describing the failures and miscarriages of another Party. Let him begin when he will; that Party which I suppose he means bid him defiance, if he intent those failures and miscarriages with respect to the Government. As he goes on he repeats his own words in pag. 2. of his Observations before cited in celebrating Mr. W's. extraordinary performances, which, says the Reflector— no Age nor History can parallel. This Hyperbole might find some colour in Col. Murry, who was indeed the Man, whose Gallantry was not equalled in Derry; by whose Loyalty and faithful Service, with those that adher'd to him, Derry, and by consequence the North of Ireland, was preserved from being (once and again during the Siege) betrayed into the hands of King James; who better deserved the Five Thousand pounds, than Mr. W. did Five pounds. Consult the true Narrative last Week Printed.  
The Apologist said, that to believe what is attributed to the hand of the Church in the Dedicatory Epistle prefixed to Mr. Walker's Narrative, requires equally with Transubstantiation a Head abdicated of Reason and five Senses. On which words the Reflector will play the Critic, because (says he) 'tis not worth while. In my Opinion (says the Reflector) that word [abdicat] cannot be applied in the passive sense. Why so? For (says he) it implies a spontaneous Act. In my Opinion here is such a piece of Criticism, as no Age nor History can parallel. I nibbled at it an hour, but to no purpose, till I raised the Ghost of Aristotle the Father, Aristarchus the Prince of Critics, and Old Priscian's mangled Skull. And all three having pissed in an Urinal (as the Reflector has it) produced the Reflector's Critical Brat hopping upon these three Legs, All-to bep. No word (he means Verb) that implies a spontaneous act, can be applied in a passive sense; but the Verb Abdicat implies a spontaneous act; Ergo cannot be applied in a passive sense. Up starts a Westminster Schoolboy, and says, he would dash out the Brains, and break all the Legs and Limbs of the Reflector's Brat, so as Aesculapius himself should never bring it to Life again. Thus, says the Lad, the three 〈…〉 taken in a passive sense, now, for honest Litly● sake will I deny the Major, and challenge all the Logic in the Reflectors head to make it good.  
If he aver, that Amorett implies a necessary, (not spontaneous) act in him, when an encharming Object presents; Then (says the Lad) will I give him Verbero, which in our Venerable Dr. B. signifies a Spontaneous act, tho' to the Reflector a necessary act of Justice. But the Reflector for Illustration adds [A Man may be said to abdicate, but not properly to be abdicated] the Schoolboy replies, the Reflector discovers his profound Ignorance of our common School Authors. Did he never read in Terence abdicare generum, and frequently in other Authors, abdicare filium, servum, etc. in which Phrases a Man is properly said to abdicate and to be abdicated. The Apologist answers, the Reflector makes himself the Man that abdicates and is abdicated; not the Apoligist, who makes reason the Abdicator, the head abdicated: And now adds the reason of his so doing; i. e. reason is properly the Man and King too of the Microcosm, the Head his Throne, the whole Body his Kingdom. And therefore the Apologist wishes the Reflector to consider whether his Head was not abdicated of Critics and Latin, when he carped at that expression and said the word abdicate is a new fashioned Word. 
Vid. Quin' Justit. orat. p. 330. Senc. Phil. contro. cui titulus patruus abdicans— & alios passim.  The Reflector is nothing happier in taxing the word [ebibe] be-between which and the word [imbibe] which would have gratified the Reflectors Palate, there is as much difference as between sipping and drinking a brimmer, and as his beloved Poet has it, Si trulla inverso crepitum dedit aurea fundo; is  of the two the more emphatical to express the Apologists sense, and equally with the other merits enfranchisment in the English City; especially for the Reflectors Evening Service over a Bottle. The Reflectors Banter on the Apologists Metaphors used in assigning Thumb and Fingers to that Hand of the Church, discovers that Canting stuff, and Canonical verity make but one Idea in the Reflectors understanding: but where he says the Apologist claps his wings, and crows like a Cock, I wish he had added a Comb, which the Reflector could well have spared, and which alone would have rendered me an equal match for the Reflector. I accept as a rarity the Reflectors Testimony, where he says The Apologists conclusion is very agreeable to the Premises; For the Premises being valid and  the 〈…〉 ●● premiles, for 〈…〉, I have flown in the face of the Government, he but says here what he protested in his first Famous Paragraph, and has in the body of his Pamphlet contradicted both. Whether in the whole he has one true period against the Apology, nay, has not confirmed where he essayed to confute it, I appeal to every unprejudiced Reader. His Epilogue is as desperate as his Prologue is daring. He it seems lost all hopes of making any advantage of all Impeachments, Averments, Calumnies, etc.  as his last refuge betakes him to the last weapon of an angry Female: i. e. a wish to the Apologist with Achitophel to hang himself, since the Reflector wants the courage, and can prevail with no other to attempt the surly Fellow. Your wish Reflector is unseasonable, and I wish it may never prove ominous to yourself. In the last Reigns the best of Subjects were hanged and otherwise cut off; but the compassionate Genius of our King spares notorious Rebels and Traitors: There is therefore no danger I hope of the Apologist a true Man and a Loyal Subject, especially, when so many false and difloyal at hand go unpunished. Now Reflector having won the Field, as I doubt not yourself with all men of Sense will own; I'll punish your inhuman Epilog with a very humane Chastisement; that is give you your option of those inflicted by Caligula's Law on the foiled Declamators at the famous Altar of Lions in France. To describe those several Punishments were to impeach your Historical acquests; but the easiest and to you most eligible will be one of these two, either Orationem componere in laudem Victoris; or, Reflectiones in Apologiam spongiâ linguave delere. Remember Reflector, this gentle Correction is for past faults.  
For the future, I have a word to you at parting; There is a Gentleman now in England, clothed with the Characters of Esq Col. Govern. Counsel. you know him as you do any Man; please to give him my service, and assure him 'tis as infallible a Truth as ever he averred, that out of respect to him, as Supervisor at least, I have credited your Pamphlet with so civil an Answer; have omitted here to give you and it a counter Character with the return due to your extreme demerits. But assure the Gentleman, if hereafter you or the backside Advertiser your Friend, vent against the Apology your pestilential exhaltations, by either retail or wholesale, sheet or page, I shall do your three Pamphlets justice, and emblazon the Reflectors Virtues; in special, his transcendent Zeal and equal Courage against all degrees of Truth, the fixed dictates of his own practical Judgement, 〈…〉 Man, biggoted Papists only excepted. Shall show withal, how far that Gentleman is interessed in the Reflectors Character, and the Remarks due to his performance; and so I bid you and him at present adieu.  
I am next to take notice of the credit Mr. Boys has done the Apology, in borrowing from it the occasion and not a little of the matter of his three paged Conclusion to his Vindication of Mr. Osh. which the Bookseller has made a Sixpenny Book, as some others have the Apology; when each paper at half the price would better have served the Author's ends, and I doubt not the Booksellers too. Mr. B. tell us a Relation of Mr. Wrs. has done him the honour (ironically, as the sequal explains it) to report him the Author of the Apology; but he ingenuously professes he does not certainly know the Author, nor any thing of the Writing of it. I add, for his final Vindication, to this day he knows not who writ it. And here I wish he had stopped, and reserved for some better occasion those feeble succours, which want Nerves and Spirits requisite to the pretended service against the Advertisement. their Centre and Spring (I doubt) make but one point, tho' their Motion promise a different Period. Nor does he bestow a word in favour of the Apology, but what is depretiative of it, appretiative of his own performance; as by a brief Survey of particulars will appear. He would have it believed, The sharp Advertisement would help off the first Impression of the Apology; whereas he either did or might know, the first Edition sold so fast that in four days there was Printed a second. He next descends to the two passages respecting Mr. Cairn's and the Archbishop of Dublin; which I have accounted for in this Paper, and have discovered Mr. B's Pen to be less fallible than the Apologists, who had no other Foundation to build upon, but some verbal Reports, with some few observes of his own; yet has not been convicted of one Material error, much less a culpable fashood, in all that paper. Whereas Mr. B. has mistaken the obvious Sense of the former of these passages, as upon the place was shown. Mr. B. might have spared calling any thing in that Advertisement an ungrateful reproach; an Elegy from that Pen, I should rather have interpreted such to the Apologist. And however Mr. B. began early to diminish the Credit of the Apology, and would have Mr. Wr. seem to despise, because he could not Answer it; yet, he should not have added of his own, that Mr. Wr. Consigned it into the hands of the Executioner; that being as much above his power, as its demerit. In his placing the Apology among the little squabbles (by and by ill natured Subjects) 〈…〉 he bestows 〈…〉 in Answer (〈…〉 Mr. Wrs. N. 〈…〉 Apology on the whole; and in vindicating one Nonconformist, than the Apology in vindicating (as far as was then proper) the whole party, including also his one. Mr. B. will be eased of his trouble about the Clergy, etc. when he has read his mistake (of the Party he supposes reflected on) corrected in this Pamphlet. When he says, I perfectly Copied Mr. Wrs. Example, he both wrongs me, and injures himself. For I have said nothing against any Conformists, but what I'm more capable than willing to prove; Mr. Wr. has said nothing against the Dissenters, but what Mr. B. has made his business to disprove. How then I can be said to have copied Mr. Wrs. Example. I see not. In the subsequent Period he tells us, He sees so little good from, takes so little delight in these illnatured Subjects, that he'll give no occasion for new heats by examining their truth or justice on either one hand or the other; an excellent Resolution I confess, in a Person that had not administered occasion for new heats. But in Mr. B's. Circumstances, 'tis as if he seeing two Men quarrelling, should lay about him on both hands till he were out of breath, and being a little recovered should tell 'em, Gentlemen, I shall give no occasion for new heats, by examining the justice of your quarrel on either hand. But above all passages in Mr. B's Conclusion, I'm amazed at his summoning the Apologist to make reparation to the Public for the harm he has done by his unseasonable Reflections. If in that comprehensive Term [Public] the Government be included, it surpasses my skill to reconcile Mr. B. to himself; who but a few lines, before acquits the Apologist of any Reflections cast on the Government. I could also tell him, from Persons of eminent figure, and comprehensive knowledge in public affairs (but as much Strangers to the Apologist as Mr. B.) the Apology is so far from doing harm, that it has done good service to the Government. By suggesting in some of the Queries several momentous points, which had not been done by any before in Print, and was the Interest of the Government and Kingdoms to be informed off and further enquired into. I could say more of that Pamphlet were it not my own. If by (Public) Mr. B. mean, the Subjects of these Kingdoms Loyally affected to the present Government, studious of an Union of Protestants, he will not find the least Reflection cast upon any one of 'em. It remains, then that by Public be understood the Disaffected to the Government and Public Weal, (a fourth I cannot 〈…〉 eminent Sons of 〈…〉 or England. I will charge  against the Apology might have been spared, as being both unkind in him, in itself unjust, and of no service to the Public. Nor can I admire the reason or modesty of his inference from that groundless charge— i. e. that the Apologist make a Panegyric on the opposite Party; before conviction of wrong (in an high degree) done 'em, and demonstrative evidence too of their extraordinary both merit and quality, such only being the proper Objects of a Panegyric. But I forgive Mr. B. who no doubt expects to find his own Name in the Catalogue of the Worthies of the Moderate and Sober Clergy Con and Non, whose Carriage (he tells us in the next period) will furnish our two Panegyricki with materials enough. And though I somewhat scruple to say with Mr. B.'s the venerable Mr, Wr. his excellent Pen; which Epithets Mr. Wr. himself cannot think seriously bestowed, nor would Mr. B.'s be thought to speak Ironically. Yet least Mr. B. should hereafter tax the Apologift with ill Humour, and that I may also demonstrat my Zeal for the Union of Protestants, I hereby promise to accomplish his wish, in Writing a Panegyric on my opposite party; that is, the Church of Rome including the Head, all Protestants disaffected to the present Government, and who have been in any former, or in the present Reign are obstructers of the Union of Protestants and the Peace of these Kingdoms. These only have I reflected on, these only are my opposite party; these will afford me plenty of Materials for a Panegyric. Omitting therefore the first six Centuries of Christianity I shall comwith mence the seventh, in which Gregory Bishop of Rome furnished England with the first Metropolitan i e. Augustin the Monk, who subjected the Church of England to that of Rome, being himself installed in the Archbishopric of Canterbury, by two of the Saxon Kings, who by armed force cut off 1200 of the poor Monks of Bangor in one day, for refusing Subjection to the Bishop of Rome, and to receive Augustine for their Archbishop. His most eminent Successors, Anselm, but especially St. Thomas Becket, with several other Bishops to the beginning of the Reformation; I shall signalise with Characters and Eulogies answerable to their eminent Qualities and Services to the Church and State: In the Reign of King Henry VIII. I shall omit nothing of the high Merits of Cardinal Woolsey— in Queen Mary's Reign Bishop Bouner, Bishop Gardiner, and others of Eternal Memory. In Queen Elizabeth's, Archbishop Whitgift, who by his letters and Counsels prevailed with Her 〈…〉 majesty reserved to Herself, and would by no means, submit to the Scan of a Parliament; Such were the Reformation of Religion, the making of War and Peace, the Succession to the Crown, the Queen's Marriage. By which methods, says the Historian, the Reformation was for an entire Age obstructed in England. Of all Bishops I design the highest Encomiums for Archbishop Laud, whose incomparable Wisdom, in the Conduct of our Church, he gave eminent Instances off, in the latter end of King James' Reign, and fully displayed in the Reign of Charles I. But my Rhetorical Flowers I shall reserve for those that Acted on our Theatre in the two last Reigns, and in this Reign only for the Bishops of Scotland; the Bishops and Clergy of England having universally of late given ample demonstration of their Loyalty to their Present Majesties, can therefore with no colour of Truth or Justice be included in the object of my designed Panegyric. All this I shall deliver in a Style as much sublimer than the Apology, as it is above those dregs of sense in the backside Advertisement. But before I put Pen to Paper on this Subject, I expect Mr. Wr. will from the Press oblige himself to be equally generous, in Writing a Panegyric on my party; the matter whereof I will, if he require it, furnish him with. And that the Reflector make a Panegyric on the Apologist, who in this Paper has demonstrated the truth of the Apology, and every Period against it in the Reflections false and many of 'em Self-contradictious. I would also hope that Mr. Boys who has given the Precept will likewise give the Precedent of a Panegyric on Mr. Wr. whom he has so severely reflected on in page 2 and 23. which I read with Indignation; Legem sibi dixerat ipse. What follows in Mr. Boy's Conclusion I dare say, both Parties will in those general Terms subscribe to. For my own part, I am so averse to the humour and principle of those who would set the Protestant Religion on the narrow Pedestal (now I understand that hard word) of a Party, that I sincerely promise to dedicate my little all to promote the Union of Protestants, Their Majesties and the Kingdom's Interest. I should in the last place encounter the Advertisement at the end of Mr. Wrs. Vindication; this noisome Page brings to my thoughts the great Chamier a Presbyterian Divine, Beza's Successor (whose Panstratia is not equalled by any performance extant of any one Divine in these Kingdoms against the Church of Rome.) This great Man some where says, he used to visit the Schoolmen, as Strangers do a Prince's Palace; where being entertained with all the grateful 〈…〉 of this Page, and shall not here rob the Advertiser of the honour of Triumph in his refined Style; tho' I could name men of Sense, two or three, who have impeached of Nonsense, his Only that he would be glad, as incoherent with the preceding words; of Battology (to pass his tautologys') his Not worth the notice— any farther notice— and all in one Period; for the whole Page is no more. The only lines Printed on behalf of Mr. Wr. Narrative that bid at a masculine Style, are the Dedication. Yet, in Page 1. line the last, but, is at best Impertinent: in Page 2. Can ever make them think of surrendering, is mean Grammar: the Period which gins, but as the whole— this should then— is mean Sense: In Page 3 — but that since— for that because more— is such a stile as 〈…〉 the Answer 〈…〉 Advertisement you may read in Arist●● Anim. Lib. 45. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
FINIS.    

ERRATA in this VINDICATION.  
IN Page 1. Column. 1. Line 15. at 5000 l. shut the Parenthesis. l. 25. at Hannibal, put a Colon. Column 2. l. 8. r. Catastrophe. p. 2. c. 1. l. 5. r. Fersons. l. 25. for end r. could not be. p. 6. c. 1. l. 5. at Narrative add a Period. l. 45. after arrived insert not. c. 2. after in insert the. p. 7. c. 1. l. 5. after Man insert in. c. 2. under Query 4. l. 13. r. generously. p. 8. under Query 6. l. 5. r. fairest. l. 19 r. Sacramental. c. 2 l. 10. r. represented. p. 9 c. 1. under Query 8. l. 6. r. 50000, or 100000 Men. c. 2. under Query 9 l. 2. after pass, writ too, p. 10. c. 1. l. 33. r. Books. l. 37. after with, insert him. c. 2. l. 26. r. Sect. p. 11. c. 1. l. 9 after of, deal the. Lesser faults the ingenious Reader will pardon, if not Correct in passage.   

ERRATA in the APOLOGY.  
IN Page 2. line 16. for Ingenious read Ignominious. p. 3. l. 7. after (with) place a Colon. p. 4. after (already) put a Semicolon. p. 16. l. 8. at (any) put a Colon. l. 9 for (to) read, (do) l. 14. read quid. p. 17. l. 18. at Europe, insert (so) l. 24. deal a cipher. p. 19 l. 16. read Utopia. p. 21. l. 2. read (say) p. 23. l. 28. after (only) insert (as it.) p. 24. l. 24. deal (been) p. 25. l. 28. at (discomfiture) close the Parenthesis.