IT is so natural for Men that lose their Places to lose their Tempers and their Fortunes at once, that some allow­ances are to be made to the Peevishness, which often follows ill circumstances: But how gently soever Men under this Paroxism may be treated, yet we cannot but observe, that of all the sorts of Men who have within the me­mory [Page 6] of the present Age been of the suffering Side, never any suffer'd so little, and raged so much as the Jacobites at present do. They have lost their Preferments, and some of them are doubly Taxed; but they are not hunted from place to place, nor vexed with Imprisonments and Prosecutions. They live at quiet, even when they do all they can to let no body else have quiet about them. Some of them were so far gratified, that they named their Successors into their Benefices, of which it is be­lieved they do still receive the greatest part. I leave it to this Author's Ingenuity and Gratitude, to own what share he had in this. But tho some Serpents may be charmed, there is a Generation of Vipers that shut their Ears, and after all that has been done either in [Page 7] the way of Argument, or of Gen­tleness, will not be charmed, but will bite and poyson all they can. I hope they are not all of the same temper, I should be heartily sor­ry if they were; for I had much rather bear all the ill effects of their Malice, than be under the power of that Gall and Spite that does possess too many of them. They think they do well to give it a vent; it is perhaps some ease to themselves to have thrown out so much Venom: But I can assure them, they do us no hurt by it, and give us no disturbance; it is as harmless as a Bee's striking with his Tail when he has lost his Sting. It is indeed a Melancholy thing to see such a Scandal brought on Re­ligion, as must arise from all Books of this kind. Such a way of writing convinces few, and [Page 8] pleases none but those who are as ill-natur'd as the Writers them­selves; and how much soever they may be troubled when they are told of the smallness of their Numbers, yet it is to be hoped, for the good of Mankind, that there are not ma­ny such among them as this Au­thor is.

Mankind is indeed enough dis­posed to receive Defamation from what hand soever it comes; and no sort of it is so welcome, as when the Clergy defame one another; yet when it is manag'd with so particular a virulence of Seatest and blackness of Malice, it grows too fulsome and odious, few can bear it; few believe a Man who shews too much heat, to be sincere or candid; it really turns back upon those who use it. The World will think the worse [Page 9] of Men when they seem to be Frantick with Rage: This Spirit has such ugly Characters, that how much soever Men may be pleased at first reading, with the Maledicence of Libels, yet they desire to have them a little better dressed up, and not delivered so crudely as they are here: For though there is a strange Leaven in all the Books that come from that Party, yet there are some which have so peculiar a sourness that the Author is presently known; and as in his other pieces he exceeds the bitterness of the whole Fraternity, so it must be confessed that he has in these Dis­courses exceeded himself.

To violate the quiet of the Dead, and pursue the Ashes of Men who have finished their Course, would pass for a Crime [Page 10] against Nature, even amongst Barbarous Nations. The keen­ness with which this is manag'd is here so singular, that he must try all his own reading to find a pattern to it; mine affords me none at all. But as he cannot disturb those Blessed Souls who have now entred into their Rest; so neither will his impotent Ma­lice signify much to lessen the Ve­neration that this Age pays their Memory.

As for my part in this Book, which is the first, as well as the longest Act of the Fable, if it had not been for two or three particu­lars which seem to need Expla­nation, I should with no trouble to my self have born all that he throws at me. I have been long accustomed to bear the Malice of the (more than supposed) Au­thor; [Page 11] for above twenty Years he has been, without ceasing, pur­suing me with it; though I thank God for it I never had any Ac­quaintance with him; I never once spoke with him, for ought I know; nor did I ever hear that he has so much as pretended that I ever provoked him. He has been at me in many of his Pamphlets, and I have still let him rail on; and unless the neglecting his Ma­lice has offended him, I do not know that I have ever said or done any thing that could feed so long and so black a Spite. It must be a peculiar Venom that he has, which can preserve it self without any Food given it, any thing to nourish or quicken it. But I do not love the sight or smell of Poyson so well, as to dwell too long upon it.

[Page 12]I will not pursue him through his lesser digressions, which come in as the Ornaments or Interludes of the Fable. I will say what is necessary to discover the falshood of the main parts of it, upon which the rest is built. I will not quarrel with him for his dispa­raging my Stile, my Learning, and Preaching. In these I have done my best, and I hope God will ac­cept of that: I am not much mortified with his Contempt, nor will I give over my Endeavours to do what small Service I can, though he is pleased to undervalue them: I had much rather with the Roman Emperor say, Utinam nescirem Literas! than have Studied to such purposes as he has done: And I had much rather that my Stile were liable to all the Cen­sures with which he threatens me, P. 87, 88. [Page 13] than that it should be all over such a Solecism in Christianity as his is. I pray God forgive him all his Ma­lice and Calumny, and give him a better Mind. God pity him, and deliver him from it, for I am very sure he suffers more by it, than any other man can do from it. There is a great Day coming, in which he must Answer to the Just and Righteous Judge, for all that Malice that he has been long breathing, and for all those Slan­ders which he has been throwing out on many men better than him­self. I pray God give him the due fense of this in time, before it is too late. And there I leave him.

I had in my Sermon at the Archbishop's Funeral said these Words of the Non-Juror Bishops; They left their Authority entirely with [Page 14] their Chancellors, who Acting in their Name, and by their Commission, were the same Persons in Law with them­selves; Oaths were tendered to others, and taken by them in their Name, which they thought Unlawful. This touch'd in the quick, and it is no wonder if they felt it sensibly. But why must they publish this? Surely their wiser way had been either to have let it gone over in silence, or to have Answered it to purpose. The thing they are charged with is either False in Fact, or True; if false, they should have denied it, and put me to the proof. If the matter of fact was true; either the thing was to be justified, or at least a frailty was to have been acknowledged, or excused the best way they might. But this Author, instead of Answering the Charge, thinks in his Preface to [Page 15] carry it off by a Story, false in all its main parts, with which he Charges me. But if that had been as true, as it is false, it had not justified them: It might have indeed obliged me to have been more reserved, but their fact was still what it was. I will only set down both Facts one against ano­ther, and so leave the matter to the Inferences which every Reader will easily make.

He tells a long Story of a Cler­gyman with whom I was much dis­pleased; and after I had vented it in many severe words, I used an Imprecation against my self, if ever I granted him Institution; but afterwards to avoid this, I or­der'd My Chancellor to do it. It seems that Clark has sent in his Paper to their Office of Intelli­gence; and therefore if this mat­ter [Page 16] is truly published, he must blame himself for it. The Man is Mr. Lambert, now Rector of Boyton and Sheringhton, Two Li­vings at a Miles distance one from another. He is descended of a very worthy Family; but at the time of the Revolution he broke the course of his Studies, and bore Arms in it. He had an Old Re­verend Uncle, Dr. Lambert, pos­sess'd of those Two Livings, which belong to the Family who was then declining; so in hope of succeeding him, he was perswaded to pursue his Studies: His Uncle informed me of all this. For a whole Summer I directed him in his Studies; and ordered him to come frequently to me, that I might observe what progress he made; which he did; I still found him very ignorant; I warned [Page 17] him often, that neither the Merits of the Family, nor his own Ser­ving under the Present King, would biass me, or make me give him Orders, till I saw him better qualified for it. At the Michaelmas Ordination, he offered himself to Examination, and his Knowledge was found to be so defective, that he whom I desired to Officiate as Archdeacon, since his Uncle who was Archdeacon did not come abroad, said, he could not with a good Conscience present him. I desired him to Study till the next Ember Week. But he took advantage of the Va­cancy of the See of Canterbury, and obtained a Faculty (upon what considerations they who granted it, know best) upon a Petition, in which he pretended that he was Nominated to a Curacy in [Page 18] Oxfordshire, in order to which he desired he might have both Orders in one day: The Faculty was di­rected to the Lord Bishop of Exe­ter, or any other Bishop: That Noble Prelate very Canonically refused to Ordain one, who he knew belonged to my Diocess, suspecting somewhat that was not fair. Another was more easi­ly imposed on, and so he had both Orders together, upon this false suggestion, which was be­lieved without examining it. A few days after this he brought me his Presentation. I looked upon all this as such a Sacri­legious mocking of God, and a getting into Holy Orders by a Trick and a Lie, that I thought my self bound to lay this matter very severely home upon the Consci­ence of this Clark: He seem'd ve­ry [Page 19] little sensible of it, which made me redouble my severity; I told him positively I would give him no assistance towards the obtaining of his Plurality; but for his first Living I immediate­ly assigned him a day for his Examination before Two of the Dignitaries of this See. I did examine him rigorously, and he answered very defectively: So I refused his Presentation, and left him to the Law. It lay a Month thus. Then some of his Friends desired me to admit him to come again and Confess his Of­fence, and to Examine him more gently. I did it in the presence of Dr. Geddes Chancellor of my Church. He with Tears Confes­sed his Fault, and pleaded his Ig­norance of the Rules of the Church. I accepted of his Excuse, [Page 20] and proceeded to a second Exami­nation, in which I found his mea­sure of Knowledge the lowest that ever I passed; yet since it would have answered the Letter of the Law, I submitted, and gave my Fiat to his Presentation. But the Parchment-Tax had put me under some difficulties, because I could not be sure of the Value of Benefices, and therefore I had left with my Chancellor a Power to grant Institution upon my Fiat. And thus I sent him to Salisbury for Institution: but when he had obtained a Dispensation for his second Living, in which I gave him no Assistance, as I told him I would not; being then return'd to Salisbury, I gave him Institu­tion my self: For I made a diffe­rence between the doing of that which was Incumbent on my [Page 21] Function, and that which was a meer Act of Grace and Favour. I would not encourage a man that had entred into Orders in so Un­lawful a way, by doing any thing for him, to which I was not obliged. This is a true and full account of that matter; in which it appears, that I have followed the Rules of the Church without any partiality, either in favour of a very Noble Family, or of one who had born Arms in this Revo­lution. And this I do publish with the more assurance, because I gave this account of that whole matter in September last, at my Triennial Visitation, in the face of the Clergy and Countrey, the Person concerned being present; who indeed offered to interrupt me, but though I had no reason to suffer that, I gave him his turn to [Page 22] speak when I had done: But he did not pretend to deny any one Cir­cumstance of it.

Now I come to set against this the other part of the Story, to which these words in my Ser­mon belonged. I shall first tell that Instance which I had best rea­son to know. When my Electi­on to this See, in which I serve, was returned and confirmed, the Precept for my Consecration went to the Archbishop in course. Arch­bishop Sancroft said he would not obey it: Some Bishops tried to persuade him, but in vain. The Earl of Nottingham tried, and suc­ceeded no better. The Party got it among them, that he had pro­mised them not to do it. But as the time came on, and he saw that he must be sued in a Premu­ni [...]e, when this was laid before [Page 23] him, he all on the sudden order­ed two Commissions to be drawn, both which he Signed and Sealed, and both are yet extant: One di­rected to the Archbishop of York and all the Bishops of England; The other to the Bishops of London and all the Bishops of the Pro­vince, to execute his Metropoli­tical Authority during pleasure. This last was made use of; and pursuant to it I was Consecrated; so this was as much his own Act, as if he himself had Consecrated me. His Vicar-General produ­ced this Commission, and was present at my Consecration, and all the Fees were paid to his Offi­cers, for care was taken to reserve them. Here is only the half of the Story, a blacker Scene fol­lows. It seems the Party com­plained of this, and he to give [Page 24] them some Satisfaction, sent by Mr. Wharton a Message (unless he went in his Name without Or­der) to Mr. Tillet the Register, to send him that Commission: it was sent, and was withdrawn. This was not only the Violating of Re­gisters, but it was a plain Rob­ing me of that Writing upon which the Canonicalness of my Consecration, and my Legal Right to this Bishoprick was founded. By telling this I am far from intending to lay any hard Character on the Memory of that Archbishop: I look on it as an effect of the Injustice and Vio­lence of the Party, by which he might be carried too easily, to some things against his own Mind. Thus it continued till many Months after his Death, when notice was given to me of it by [Page 25] one who had occasion to know it. Upon enquiry I found it was true, and I took advice upon it. It was thought necessary to bring this Matter into Chancery, to ex­amine all Persons concerned in it upon Oath, and to prove the Te­nor of the Commission. I gave notice of my design to Mr. Tillet, and let him know, that if he did not recover that Commission be­tween that time and Michaelmas-Term, I would sue him in Chan­cery, in order to the discovery of the Matter. He best knows how he bestirred himself upon this occasion. The Commission was brought back to him; but by whom, I have not made it my business to enquire.

Let the Reader judge if the Story that he objects to me meets this, or can in any sort be wrested [Page 26] to turn it upon me. I go next to the other particulars.

When the Act obliging the Clergy to take the Oaths to their Majesties was in debate in Parlia­ment, I was earnestly spoke to, in order to the diverting of it, and a Scheme was laid how the Church should be taken care of, if the Bishops that refused the Oaths should be connived at; of which the main Branch was this, That Church-Matters might be administred by their Chancellors, who were ready to take the Oaths themselves, and to tender them to others. This I thought they might do without taking new Commissions from their Bishops; and therefore according to those Inclinations which I have, and always had to Moderation, I closed with this, and I have many [Page 27] Honourable Witnesses of the Zeal with which I promoted it. The Act pass'd as it is; and because six Months were to run before the Suspension of the Non-Jurors, in which they might have been over­whelm'd with Actions upon Quare Impedit, they left that Matter to their Chancellors. They are, it is true, as to the Government of the Diocess, in Acts of Delegated Power, the same persons in Law with the Bishops; yet since the Year 1662, Bishops had limited them as to many particulars, and chiefly in the point of Institutions. But this restraint was taken off, either by new Commissions, or by a connivance of the Bishops. And how liable soever a Chancel­lor may be to a Forfeiture for gi­ving Institutions, if his Patent limits him, yet if he grants it, it [Page 28] will hold good in Law. I have not examined in every See how this Matter was managed; but so it was, that generally their Chan­cellors did it without any re­straint or stop put to it from them. And this was all I said; and so I think that part of my Sermon is sufficiently made good; what is further to be said on this Head, will come in its proper place.

Men commonly chuse out tho best of what they have to say, and put it in the Preface, which many will read who will hardly give themselves the trouble to go much further. A Preface that begins with so much falshood, is not very inviting. The Book and Preface are of a piece, and both are well suted to one ano­ther. I will go through all those [Page 29] parts of it, which may be apt to make an Impression. But be­cause the greatest part of his Charge, not only against me, but against the late Most Reverend Archbishop, is founded on this, that we once in Books and Ser­mons declared our selves fully and positively against all Resistance; chiefly on the account of Religion, from whence he infers, that we are Apostates, by our approving the late Revolution, and acting in it, or under the present Autho­rity; I will enlarge a little on this: though I will not follow him in his scurrilous Expressions (such as the calling me a shameless Writer, Pag. 6. whom an impenitent Conscience hath hardned against the Confusion of Remorse and Blushing, and made one of the greatest Examples of Impudence that ever Dishonoured the Lawn­sleeves.) [Page 30] He writes in this Style all through; but I will not here­after so much as take notice of his foul Langague, I will content my self to answer every thing that seems to have the Face of an Ar­gument.

He cites some passages out of a Book that I wrote Four and twenty Years ago when I was in Scotland, in which I asserted, The Unlawfulness of Subjects resisting their Kings upon the pretence of Religion. To this he adds several other passages collected out of some of my Sermons and Letters; and upon all this he concludes, that I have Apostatized from a Doctrine that I had long professed; and in setting this out he is not wanting in the Figures of that Eloquence, in which he allows himself so free a scope. This is urged not [Page 31] only against my self, but against all those who have taken the Oaths, and are faithful to the pre­sent Government. For those, who have taken the Oaths but are un­faithful to it, are much courted by him: So let a Man prevaricate even to Perjury, and to the mock­ing of God in a constant course of Worship against his Con­science, yet if he be but of their side, he may hope for fair usage from them. I leave them to con­sider how they can answer this to God. And now to answer his Objection.

When I was engaged to write in Defence of the Government of Scotland, against some Seditious Books that were then published; I, even in that Work, avowed a Principle that I had been bred to, and from which I had never de­parted. [Page 32] That in the case of a total Subversion of a Constitution the Prince might be resisted. I form­ed my Studies in this point chiefly upon Barclay and Grotius, who both allow of it. It was not neces­sary to own this when I was wri­ting against Men who asserted, That Subjects in the Cause of Religion might resist their Prin­ces, even when they were acting according to Law; yet so open was I then in owning my own Opinion, that I said in express words, That in case the Magistrate be furious, Confer. p. 16, 17. or desert his Right, or expose his Kingdom to the fury of others, the Laws and Sense of all Na­tions agree, That the States of the Land are the Administrators of the Power till he recover himself. And a little after, these words follow, The case varies much when the abuse is [Page 33] such, that it tends to a total Subver­sion; which may be justly called a Phrensy, since no Man is capable of it till he be under some lesion of his Mind; in which case the Power is to be ad­ministred by others for the Prince and his People's Safety. But this will ne­ver prove, that a Magistrate governing by Law, though there be great Er­rors in his Government, may be resisted by his Subjects. And this is the Argument which I pursue quite through that Book; and upon it I examine what the Laws and Constitutions of particular Go­vernments were, upon which I fixed the Principles of Obedience. I will not say that all the Argu­ments that I used are good; I have answer'd some of them since; but my Opinion was the same then, that it is now; and I had the Courage to own it, even when I [Page 34] was Writing against Resistance. To all this I adhered so firmly of late, that when many in England sent over Messages to Holland, first upon the occasion of the High Commission, and then upon the bu­siness of Magdalen College, moving His Present Majesty, then Prince of Orange, to think of preserving this Church and State; and when it was affirmed, that many Divines thought it lawful; I did still op­pose it zealously. I have one Wit­ness in Heaven, and another up­on Earth, who is beyond excep­tion; besides several others, to whom I always delivered my self, thus: These were Illegal and Ty­rannical Acts I did not deny: But what tendency soever they might have, by their natural Conse­quences, to a total subversion of our Constitution, yet they were [Page 35] not a total subversion of it: And therefore, if upon those grounds a Breach had followed, I declared to them, whom I afterwards ser­ved, That I could not have gone into it, nor have served in it. For I ever thought, and do still think, that Acts of Tyranny, and the remote Consequences of them, did not justify the resisting of Princes. I said, When a total sub­version of our Constitution should be plainly apparent, then, and not till then, I thought the Late King's Authority would come under such a Suspension, that he might be resisted: And that if he would not return to a Just Government, but would forsake his People, then his Authority was determined by an Act of his own. I was still so firm in my Loyalty, that till I was Na­turalized a Subject of the States, [Page 36] I did not so much as know of any Designs to use Force: And when I thought it was lawful for me to know and conceal them, I still adhered to the Principle to which my Father had bred me, whom I may, without vanity, name upon this occasion; since it is well known in Scotland, that he was the most eminently distinguished of any man in that Kingdom for his constant adhering to the Interest and Service of the Crown: He was thought no ordinary Man in his Profession, which was the Law. This Principle he infused into me early. And in this I had, without one single deviation, continued all along; That till a total Subversion was set about, we were still Sub­jects, and bound to submit.

But when Ambassies went be­tween England and Rome, when [Page 37] Popish Bishops were publickly authorised to act as the Popes De­legates in England, and when a Dis­pensing Power was not only claimed by several Publick Acts of State, but that all the Clergy were re­quired to publish this, under se­vere Penalties; I then thought, as I do still, that this struck at the Root of our whole Constitution: The Fundamental Article of it is this, That we are a Nation go­verned by Laws, agreed to by our Selves, and not by the meer Will of our Kings; and that we are an en­tire Body within our selves, not subject to any Foreign Jurisdi­ction. Then my first Principle led me to think, That the Late King might be restrained: But his going away afterwards, when so fair a Proposition was made to him, of leaving all the Concerns [Page 38] of the Nation to its only proper Cure, A Free Parliament, which was signified to him before he left Whitehall; I judged, That this With­drawing was a plain Desertion. Upon these Grounds I thought his Authority, which was before only suspended, was now quite sunk: So that the Nation had a right to secure and settle it self.

I will not go further at present to justify all this. I have done it upon other Occasions; my Design at present is only to shew, That here was no change of Principles, nor departing from former Opi­nions.

But as this may serve to justify my self, who had expresly and publickly owned a reserve for Re­sistance in case of a total Subversion; so I must add, that to my know­lege, other Divines still under­stood [Page 39] that Doctrine of Non-resi­stance with this Reserve; though they did not think it necessary to mention it. If a man were to ex­hort married Persons to their du­ty, he might use that general Ex­pression of St. Paul, That the hus­band is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church; and that as the Church is subject unto Christ, so wives ought to be subject to their own husbands in every thing: He might say all this, without an Ex­ception; and yet in the Case of Intolerable Cruelty, the Wife may see to her own Preservation; but Desertion or Adultery sets her more at liberty. In the same manner, when we exhort Children to obey their parents in all things; we do not suppose the Case of their Parents going about to kill them, nor ar­gue what they may do in such a [Page 40] Case. Extraordinary Cases ought not to be supposed, when we give the Directions that belong to the ordinary course of Life; and therefore Divines might preach Submission in very large and full Expressions, who yet might be­lieve, That a total Subversion was a Case of another nature, which might warrant more violent Reme­dies. This I am sure was our late Primate's Opinion. This was that which we laid before that Great, but Innocent Victim, that was sacrificed to the rage of a Party, I mean the Lord Russell, who was condemned for Treasonable Words, tho there was not one Witness that swore one Word a­gainst him: it being only deposed, That Treasonable Words were said in his hearing; to which, as was sworn, he was consenting, tho [Page 41] no Words of His were expressed, that imported any such consent. The true Case of that whole matter was stated thus; A vi­sible Design was carried on to bring in Popery and Arbitrary Govern­ment. In order to that, Quo War­ranto's were brought against seve­ral Cities and Boroughs, which would have changed the Consti­tution of the House of Commons; and Sheriffs unduly Elected, were put on the City of London, on de­sign, as was believed, to pack Juries. These things were thought just grounds of Resistance; the late Primate and my self were of another Opinion; We knew, or at least had reason to believe we knew, the Secret of the King's Religion who then reigned; and did not doubt of the bad Designs that were then on foot, and of [Page 42] the illegal Actings of that time; yet we still thought, that remote Fears and Consequences, toge­ther with illegal Practices, did not justify Resistance; but that the Laws both of the Gospel and of the Land, did bind us in that case to submission. That Lord upon this said, He did not see a difference between a Legal and a Turkish Con­stitution, upon this Hypothesis: And when we told him, That a total Subversion changed the Case; He answered, Then it would be too late to resist. In all that Affair, the late Primate had the same Opini­on, and no other than that he had to the last. Some particular Considerations restrained him from Writing about it; but he did not decline to explain this, as oft as there was occasion given for it.

[Page 43]Upon the whole matter, there are two Questions in the Point of Resistance: The one is, Whether Subjects may Resist meerly upon the account of Religion, or not, either to force a General Refor­mation, or to secure themselves from Persecution? The other is concerning the Constitution of States and Kingdoms; and of this in particular, How far they have retained or lost their Liberties? The one is a Point of Divinity, the other is a Point of Law and History. As to the first, I do not know one of all the Divines that have sworn to the present Govern­ment, who are not still of the same Opinion that they were formerly of, and that do not still judge Re­sistance on the account of Religion to be unlawful. Nor does it any way reflect on them, if they [Page 44] should have changed their Opi­nion in the other Point, which falls not so properly within their Studies. They might have been misled by Chimerical Notions of Imperial and Political Laws; they might have thought, that the Zeal with which some had promised to stand it out against a Popish King, threatning that they would tell him to his Face (at least own­ing that it was their Duty to do it) That he was an Idolater, a Bread-worshipper, a Goddess-worshipper, with a great many other fine Names, Jovian, p. 96. that they said they would give him. They might, I say, have thought, that we were safe under the Conduct of Men, who were so bold when there was no dan­ger; but were much tamer and more cautious as the danger came nearer them. Thus many might [Page 45] go into wrong Notions of our Government, and think we had no Liberties left us, but what were at the discretion of our Princes. It is no Derogation from the Learning and Studies of Divines to own, that tho they are still of their former Opinion in that which is Theological, and that was on­ly incumbent on them to know; yet in matters of Law and Poli­cy, they might have been led into mistakes. This answers all that pompous Objection, with which so much noise is made, and upon which so many ill Words have been fastened. A great many have not at all changed their Opi­nion, even in this second Point; and others do see that they were mistaken in their Opinion con­cerning our Constitution, and the nature of Laws and Legal Secu­rity; [Page 46] and the Right that arises out of these, in the case of a Total Subversion. It will not be easy to see the advantage that Atheistical or Immoral Men can draw from any part of this, how earnest soever our Author is to furnish them with it, as a just pre­judice against us, and against all that we can say or do.

But if there are any who can Swear against their Consciences, and can continue in Acts of Wor­ship, Prayers, and Thanksgivings, Ordinary or Extraordinary, while their Persuasions are full to the contrary; if there are any who Pray for the King, while they Talk and Act against him; these are the Men who bring a scandal on our Holy Religion; they sell their Consciences, and sacrifice that which they fancy [Page 47] to be Loyalty, for the Convenien­ces of this Life, that they may hold their Livings and Prefer­ments.

And yet these are the Men that our Author courts; he has kind thoughts of them; and he takes pains to assure us, that we have many of them among us. If we have any number of such, I am sorry for it. I will hope rather, that he is an unjust accuser of the brethren, than believe that we have many of this kind; who are certainly the worst sort of Men in the Nation.

There is a Respect due to such as are willing to Suffer for their Consciences: And if they who left their Benefices, had not likewise left their Tempers and their other Principles, we should still pay them all due Respect, which we [Page 48] shewed universally to them all at first. But for such Perjured Men as can Swear and Pray against their Consciences, they are the Shame of the Church. We are not con­cerned to excuse them, but leave them to such Apologies as our Author may make for them.

I thought this matter required to be Treated more largely than the other Particulars, which will be sooner dispatched. I will just name them with such Remarks on them, as the nature of them may seem to require. As for that which is mere Fiction and Calum­ny, I will pass over a great deal of it: For if that which seems to be supported with some colour of Proof, shall be found to be groundless, then every Reader will be so equitable as to acknow­lege, that no sort of Credit is [Page 49] due to stories reported, as many of his are, merely upon hearsay.

Some of these are so ridiculous that Shame, if not Honesty, should have restrained him. Such is this, Pref. near the end. That the late Primate went about after this Revolution, to set on foot again the Opinion of the late Duke of Monmouth's being Legitimate; and Argued, That therefore we could not be bound by our Oaths to King James, since another had the Right of the Crown in him. He fancies that I was the first Author of those Stories: And yet at the time when he says this was done, we were taking pains to persuade the World to Submit to the Present Government. I was then the Prince of Orange's Ser­vant; the late Primate was one of those that gave him a hearty wel­come, and took great pains to [Page 50] settle the Waverings of some Peoples Minds in this matter. And what methods took we for it? Why, to insinuate that the Right of the Crown was still in another; that the Righteous Heir who had left Issue behind him, was Wrong'd and put to Death Unjustly: Risum teneatis. This Author may be accustomed to such ways of Reasoning. The late Primate used not to Argue at that rate. But here is too much time lost on such an extravagant piece of Falshood and Impertinence.

Pag. 8.He reflects on my urging the case of the Maccabees in a late Book, which I had fully Answered before in my Book against Re­sistance. I have already said, that tho I retain the same Principle that I had advanced when I writ that Book, yet I may have changed [Page 51] my opinion of several of the Argu­ments that I had made use of in it. This was one of them; for I had relied upon the common Answer made to the Objection from the Maccabees, that they were Zealots; so that what they did was no Pre­cedent. Pref. to Four Dis. This I do answer fully in my late Book; and shew that the Case of the Maccabees proves, that tho Acts of Tyranny will not justify the Resistance of Subjects, yet a Total Subversion of their Constituti­on will. A man studies to little pur­pose, if after an Interval of Twen­ty Years he does not examine the Matters that are before him more critically than he did when he was so much younger. It had been a fairer thing in our Author to have shew'd wherein the Argument, as I put it in my last Book, was weak or ill-grounded; but none of them [Page 52] have yet attempted that. It is a much easier way to fly off from a hard piece of labour, than to go through with it. So they would ex­cuse the not answering of Dr. Hody. Pag. 87. He has fully ended the Argument that he had begun, from the Pra­ctice of the Church; and that in so convincing a manner, that Matters of Fact seemed not capable of a clearer Proof. But the not answer­ing his Book, is now excused upon this pretence, Because he had pro­mised another Treatise, Of the Power of the Magistrate in such cases; which he has not thought necessa­ry to enter upon, till he sees what is said to his Book, in which he has fully concluded the Argument up­on which the Dispute first began: And the not publishing this, is made an excuse for their not an­swering the other. We know the [Page 53] true reason why it is not answered is, because it cannot be answered. Men may wrangle on eternally in Points of Speculation; but Matters of Fact are severe things, and do not admit of all that Sophistry.

He runs out into a long Digres­sion, Page 9. upon my having believ'd the Story of the Thebean Legion, when I writ in Scotland; which yet I re­jected as Fabulous, in my Preface to Lactantius: Here he had an itch to argue, and he runs out a great way. That in a Matter of Fact a man should change his Opinion, upon the discovery of a new Book of History, writ by one who lived in the time, is a thing that would be objected by no man who were not blinded by Spite. Lactantius was Tutor to Constantine's Son Cris­pus, so he had opportunities to know the Concerns of that Fami­ly, [Page 54] and of their Share of the Em­pire. He wrote his Book of the Death of the Persecutors, when the Facts were fresh in all mens me­mory; and he not only says no­thing of that matter, but says in express words, That Constantius did not execute the Edicts; so that the Persecutions did not reach Gaul, nor his Share of the Empire. One would think that this was enough to destroy the Credit of a Legend, that was before that looked on as very doubtful: But no doubt can remain after so positive an Autho­rity against it. I will not pursue this matter further, but leave him to flourish upon it, and to argue as long as he will upon the Authori­ties of Grotius and Usher, who ne­ver saw this Book of Lactantius. For ought I know there is not one Learned Man now in the world, [Page 55] that supports that Story, since this Book de Mortibus Persecutorum has been published.

He charges me as if I had own'd in Company, Page 12. that I was pitched upon to break the design of depo­sing the late King, to our late Blessed Queen, two Years before the Revo­lution. He vouches Witnesses for this the Bishop of Worcester (whom he very modestly and gratefully calls Dr. Stillingfleet) and Bishop White. I will not forestal what either of those Reverend Persons may say; but I will assure our Author that it is all a downright Forgery of the blackest sort. This and all the Circumstances that either here or in any other part of these Dis­courses are brought to adorn it, are all false. I had not the Honour to see or speak with our late Blessed Queen, for Two Years together [Page 56] before the Revolution. Mr. d' Al­beville had it in Commission to gain that point of Her not seeing me, be­fore he entred upon other Busi­ness, and it was granted. And She was a Princess so strict to Truth, that having once said that She would not see me, She adhered exactly to it. So till a few days be­fore we left the Hague, I saw Her no more. And then there was no occasion for persuasion; the Mat­ter was all settled. Nor did I ever enter upon that Argument with Her, till Two Years after She was Queen of England. Then I did it up­on an occasion that led to the Dis­course. I saw that She had consi­der'd it on all its Sides, and in all its Branches. In any other Person I should have been amazed at it, but I had been accustomed to see so great an Exactness in every Par­ticular [Page 57] through Her whole Con­duct, that nothing of that kind from Her could surprize me. I did once in September, 1686. speak to Her of Matters relating to this, but it was upon another Key. Up­on the setting up the High-Com­mission, and the Prosecution of my Lord Bishop of London, some began to think that all was gone, and that violent Remedies were necessary. Upon that I delivered my sense ve­ry fully to Her, according to what I set down in the former part of this Discourse; That I made a great difference between Illegal Acts, and a Subversion. I was afraid things would grow to a Subversion; but till that appeared, I could not think it lawful to go into violent Methods. And I can assure the World, that in the List of the Di­vines who were represented as [Page 58] wishing that the (then) Prince would engage in our Defence, the late Dean of Worcester was named for one; how truly, he best knows. When I heard that upon the busi­ness of Magdalen-College, many thought that then it was high time to interpose. I then Writ (for I saw not the late Queen all that while) that even upon that Inci­dent, I did not judge Resistance Lawful. Then I drew up a Paper, in substance the same with the ge­neral part of that, which was after­wards Published under the Title of The Measures of Submission: And that was all the share I had in that matter. Our late Blessed Queen was not a Person of so pliant an Understanding, as to be wrought upon by any. If ever the Sacred Remains of Her Pen are suffered to come abroad, then the World will [Page 59] see with what a searching Under­standing She penetrated into things; and how little it was in the power of any Mortal to impose upon Her. This was a Subject that She had so well Studied, that tho She touched seldom upon it, yet She was as much the Master of the whole Argument, as any Person I ever knew.

Of a peice with this Falshood, is that which he says concerning my Reading Prayers in the Prin­cesses (our Late Queen's) Chappel at the Hague, Pag. 14. when the Prince of Wales was Prayed for. It is notori­ously known, that I never once Read Prayers in the Chappel at the Hague: For I had not the Honour to be the Prince (His Present Ma­jesty's) Chaplain, till the Night before we left the Hague. These lies have been often told, and as often [Page 60] neglected: For it were an endless labour to go and confute every Fiction that Angry Men think fit to publish. But since an Answer was judged necessary on this occa­sion, it was reasonable to go tho­rough with it, and to shew the Falshood of this sort of Men, that do now study with so restless and clamorous a Malice, to disturb our Quiet.

He goes next to accuse me of a Spirit of Persecution against the Non-Jurors: Pag. 15, 16. But when he brings stories to confirm things of this kind, he ought to have a little more decency, than to lay the scene of his Fictions in the Honourablest Body in the World, I mean, the House of Lords. They would never suffer a­ny of their Body to Argue in a Cause only from the good or ill Affections of the Party to the Go­vernment. [Page 61] None ever argued so all the while that I had the honour to sit there. So this is a fiction so en­tirely without a foundation that I cannot so much as guess either the Person, or the Cause that he aims at. I have as often argu'd with Zeal in the Causes of those whom I knew to be ill-affected to the Go­vernment, as in any other whatso­ever; and never took the liberty to trouble that Great Body more fre­quently and more earnestly, than in the Debate for excusing the Clergy from having the Oaths im­posed upon them: More in pur­suance of a Principle of Modera­tion, from which I have never once departed; than from any very good Opinion that I had of most of those in whose favour I argued. As for his fine words, of the death of a Dog, and the burial of an Ass, they be­come [Page 62] the Author that forged them. The whole House of Lords knows that no such words were ever spoke by me within their walls.

As for my persecuting the Non-jurors, I have been so far from it, that I should rather have needed a Pardon from the Government for my behaviour towards them, but that I knew that in so doing I con­formed my self to the Spirit of the Government, as well as I acted conform to my own Principles. I had but five Nonjurors in my Dio­cess. One of these, Mr. Martin, was continued by me in his Living to his Death, which happened two years ago, and I still paid him the Annual Income of his Prebend out of my own Purse. He would not in­deed take the Oaths, but he would never join in the Schism with the rest of the Non-jurors, whose Prin­ciples [Page 63] and Practises, he said to me, he detested. Another of them, Mr. Spinks, enjoys a Donative to this day, which I suffer him to serve by a Curate, whereas I could require his serving the Cure in person; and he enjoyed his Prebend a year be­yond the time prefixed by Law. Another of them, Mr. Jones, had the Nomination of his own Successor, whom I collated to his Living; a 4th, Mr. Dickson, died immediatly after the Deprivation by the Act of Parliament, but I shewed all possi­ble regard to him as long as he li­ved. I reserve Dr. Beach to the last place. He has taken Liberties that few, if any, of them have taken. He kept himself violently in his Li­ving for two years after he was by Law deprived. I was once so ill-ad­vised, that I suffered him to talk with me alone. It was concerning [Page 64] a Caveat that he had entred against my instituting a Clark presented to his Living. His long Discourse, which our Author has published, is neither worth remembring nor re­peating. I told him I must Institute the Clark that was Presented, ex­cept he could satisfy me that he had taken the Oaths: He would neither affirm nor deny that he had taken them, but thought that I was bound to prove the Negative, That he had not taken them: And among o­ther things he said, he desired no Mer­cy, but only Justice. I told him that in this particular I could do neither. The Law was made; I was neither the Lawgiver, nor had I a Dispen­cing Power: He went away, and set it all about, that I had said, That I would shew him neither Favour nor Ju­stice. Soon after that, he was Indi­cted for Seditious Words; and was [Page 65] brought in Guilty: Then after all the Abuse with which he had endeavou­red to load me, he came and begged that I would interceed for him: I was more cautious than to trust my self a­gain to his Honesty, or to speak alone with him. I first cleared my self of that false Imputation: But upon his begging my Favour, and promising to live Quietly, which he did in a Let­ter under his hand, that I still have, I writ so effectually to the Earl of Not­tingham in his favour, that his Lord­ship returned me answer, That the Queen had Graciously granted my desire, but thought that he ought to make some publick acknowledgment, for the Scandalous Words that were proved against him: I by a Second Letter gained this point likewise, that no Confession should be insisted on. In return of which, Dr. Beach has held a Conventicle ever since at Salisbury; and pours out all the malicious stuff he [Page 66] can vent against me, and has now sent in this false Dialogue that our Author has published: But though I have had Informations brought me that are very Criminal against him, I have chosen rather to be too remiss, than to do any thing which might make those, who know what his behaviour towards me has been, fancy that it flowed from Resentment.

Pag. 18, 19.He Reproaches me for some high Complements I gave to the Duke of Lauderdale in the Dedication of the Book that I writ in Scotland, and that yet afterwards I told a very different story concerning that Duke. And he tells a long tale of a Discourse be­tween Mr. Pit and Me; of which I can say nothing, because I do not re­member one word of it; but that I believe it is all over a Fiction. I writ that Book when the Duke of Lauder­dale was the King's Commissioner in Scotland; he both desired the Dedica­tion, [Page 67] and asked to see the Epistle De­dicatory. It is no wonder if one, then but Twenty eight years Old went too high in the Compliment: But if what happened a year and a half after that, gave me other thoughts of that Minister of State, that does not prove that I writ disingenuously at that time.

He says that I put many things in my Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton, Ibid. to the Honour of the Duke of Lauder­dale, which I left out in the Printed Edition. I see accidents may do peo­ple service. The very Copy that the Duke of Lauderdale Read, and that was Licens'd by Mr. Secretary Coven­trey, has been carelesly left by me, these many years, in the Bishop of Wor­cester's hands: By it the falshood of this will appear to any, who will be at the pains to compare it with the Print: I left out nothing, for which the Duke of Lauderdale had furnished me with Vouchers. He indeed had [Page 68] furnished me with Papers relating to a long story of an Incident in the year 1641. which Secretary Coventry, up­on very good reasons, not necessary to be mentioned here, ordered me to leave out; and it is the main diffe­rence between that Copy and the Printed Book. But whosoever looks into Page 307, near the end, and sees no Name given to the Author of a Letter reported there, will conclude that I did not corrupt the Truth of History, by mixing my own Resent­ments with it: I was rather faulty the other way, in avoiding to name the greatest Enemy that I had then in the World, upon so odious an occasion, when the proof was so Authentical.

He reproaches me for adding a Marginal Note to a part of Bishop Bedell's Book, Pag. 20. in which he treats of Subjects resisting their Princes. There seems to be a fate on our Author, in publishing things of such a Nature, as [Page 69] must oblige me to discover Matters that will be little to the service of that Cause which he has espoused. When I writ Bishop Bedell's Life, his Book a­gainst Wadsworth was found to be so well written, and was so much out of print, that it was thought fit to reprint it, and bind it up with his Life. I could not but take notice of the Case of Sub­jects resisting their Prince, fully stated and justified by him; and that in a Book dedicated to King Charles the First, then Prince of Wales; and that this was never once objected to him, nor he obliged to retract it; but in­stead of that, he was afterwards made Provost of Trinity College in Dublin, and then Bishop of Kilmore and Ar­dagh, in that Kingdom. This was one of the first Indications that I observed, which led me to see how late it was before this now so much contended for Opinion, was received as the Do­ctrine of this Church: I have another [Page 70] that is later, as well as more publick. In the Year 1628. during the Siege of Rochell, there was a publick Fast ap­pointed upon that account over Eng­land: And the Besieged were prayed for as our Brethren; and Success to them was by that Form prayed for. I have the Form of Prayer: But it is at present lent out, otherwise I should here set down some of the Expressions in that Office; which shews how far this Church was at that time from condemning Resistance in all Cases, as Rebellion.

But to return to Bishop Bedell's Book. I thought my self bound to warn Mr. Chiswell of that Passage. He was much threatned at that time for having printed Julian, and he was afraid of raising a new Storm against himself. I told him, I would not suffer the Book to be printed, unless that Passage were printed in it. He shewed it to Sir Roger L'Estrange, who would [Page 71] not let it pass, till several words were scattered quite through it, to give it an Air, as if Bedell had been only re­peating the Arguments of other men: And yet even that did not serve turn. A marginal Note was to be added to the end of that Paragraph (in p. 446. of Bedell's Letters in the 8 vo Edition) which was framed by Sir Roger himself. Such was the Seve­rity of our Expurgators at that time. I was very ill pleased with all this, but could not help it: All I could do, was to get those words put between Crotchets, so that the Reader by pas­sing them over, might have seen the thread of Bedell's Discourse. And now what shall be said to our Author, who charges all this upon me? But to make the Importance of this matter appear the more sensibly, I will set down Bishop Bedell's own words as they were published by himself, with­out those later Vampings; and by [Page 72] them the Reader will see, whether the Opinion of Resistance in the Case of a total Subversion, was so much condemned in this Church at that time, as the Men of that Cabal would now make the World believe. I need not put my Rea­der in mind of the state of Affairs here when the Spanish Match was in treaty. Wadsworth had Apostatised, and writ some Letters, to which an An­swer was to be made. Bishop Hall's Letter is not equal to the other Pro­ductions of that Holy Prelate. But Be­dell's Book was so well received, that we may well look on it as the sense of the Church of England at that time. His words upon the Head of Resi­stance are as follows.

‘Do you think Subjects are bound to give their Throats to be cut by their Fellow-Subjects? or to Offer them with­out either humble Re­monstrance or Flight their Prin­ces [Page 73] at their mere Wills, against their own Laws and Edicts? You would know quo jure the Prote­stants Wars in France and Holland are justifi­ed. I interpose not my own Judgment, not being throughly ac­quainted with the Laws and Customs of those Countries; but I tell you what both they and the Papists also, both in France and Ita­ly, have in such Cases alledged. First, The Law of Nature; which they say not only allow­eth, but inclineth and inforceth every li­ving thing to defend it self from Violence. Secondly, That of Nations, which per­mitteth those that are in the Pro­tection of others, to whom they owe no more but an Honourable Acknowledgment, in case they go about to make themselves Absolute Sovereigns, and usurp their Liberty, to resist, and stand for the same. And if a Lawful Prince (which is not yet Lord of his Subjects Lives and Goods) shall attempt to despoil [Page 74] them of the same, under colour of reducing them to his own Religion, after all humble Remonstrances they may they say stand upon their own guard; and being assail­ed, repel Force with Force: As did the Maccabees under Antiochus. In which case notwithstanding, the Person of the Prince himself ought always to be Sacred and Inviolable, as was Saul's to David. Lastly, if the enraged Minister of a Lawful Prince will abuse his Authority, against the Fundamental Laws of the Countrey, they say it is no Re­bellion to defend themselves a­gainst Force; reserving still their Obedience to their Sovereign invio­late. These are the Rules of which the Protestants that have born Arms in France and Flanders, and the Pa­pists also both there and elsewhere, as in Naples, who have stood for the defence of their Liberties, have ser­ved [Page 75] themselves. How truly, I esteem it hard for you and me to determine; unless we were more throughly acquainted with the Laws and Customs of those Coun­tries, than I for my part am.’

I have in References over-against these Words that were thus printed in 1623, set down the Cautionary Words of our Expurgators in 1685; yet all that was not sufficient, without the Addition of this Marginal Note at the Conclusion of them; ‘ This Pas­sage above is to be considered as a Relati­on, not as the Author's Opinion; lest it should mislead the Reader into a dange­rous mistake.’ This our Author with his usual Candor lays to my charge. I have been long uneasy under this Fraud, which was imposed on the world in a Book that was bound up with another of my writing; and so it might seem to lye at my door. I was only waiting for a just occasion [Page 76] to detect it; which this Author has now given me; for which I heartily thank him.

He next charges me with a Paper, stating the Lawfulness of Divorce in case of Barrenness, P. 20. with relation to King Charles the Second's Marriage; which he says was a Project of the Earl of Shaftsbury's, and his Party, to put by the Duke of York. I cannot reflect on this Author's way of wri­ting, without remembring an Italian Proverb, that has indeed more of Sense than of Religion in it; God pre­serve me from my Friends, I will preserve my self from my Enemies. The Reader will have occasion to reflect on this oftner than once, as he goes through these Remarks. What the Earl of Shaftsbu­ry's Designs in that matter were, I do not know; for he never once spoke of them to me. But I remember well that the Duke (then Earl of) Lauder­dale moved it to me. He was the first [Page 77] that ever discovered to me the Secret of King James's Religion; and when he saw me struck with great appre­hensions upon it, he fell upon the Head of Divorce, and told me many Particulars that I think fit to suppress. I afterwards knew that the Matter of Fact was falsely stated to me. I was then but Seven and twenty, and was pretty full of the Civil Law; which had been my first Study. So I told him several things out of the Digests, Code, and Novels, upon that Head; and in a great variety of Discourse we went through many parts of it: He seemed surprized at many things that I told him; and he desired me to state the matter in Paper. I very frankly did it, yet I told him I spoke of the sudden; but when I went home among my Books, I would consider it more severely. The following Winter I writ to him, and retracted that whole Paper; I answered the [Page 78] most material Things in it; and I put a Confutation of my first and looser Thoughts, in a Book that I writ that Winter, which I can shew to any that desires it. The Duke of Lauderdale was too wise to publish any thing of this kind, tho in his pas­sion he might have shewed it to this Author. He knew that he had pres­sed me to talk upon this Subject to the King himself; which I had refu­sed to do. A great deal more belongs to this Matter, which I think fit to suppress: None but such a Person as this Author is, would have published so much.

He reproaches me for publishing King John's Great Charter in a most pre­varicating manner, P. 21. contrary to my own sight and knowlege; but he does not mention any particular. I have the Original still in my hands; and have shewed it to a great many Persons, who do all know that I have not said one [Page 79] word of it, but what is according to the Original it self. This is a Ca­lumny at large, and falls back on the Author.

He reproaches me for having in the History of the Reformation pub­lished a Letter of Luther's Imperfectly and Falsly; Ibid. upon which he charges me with many Prevarications used to set up this Pattern of Comprehension. I am now come to that which determined me to write these Remarks. I could otherwise have despised the Malice of this Man, with the same Patience and Easiness that I had formerly expressed when provoked by him. But, I con­fess, I have a true Zeal for maintain­ing the Honour of that Work, and to justify it from all Blemishes. I will not open so Black a Scene, as to tell what pains Some who are called Pro­testants, have taken to undermine the Credit of that Book. The three Per­sons who were most concerned in it [Page 80] have answered it elsewhere. Two of them were the underworkmen to one of a higher Form. But hitherto all the Attempts that have been made that way, have succeeded contrary to their expectation, to the raising and esta­blishing theCredit of that Work. I was in Summer, 1679. desired by the pre­sent Most Reverend ABp▪ of Canterbu­ry to go and examine the MSS. in Corpus Christi College. He met me there, and that Learned Society afforded me all Conveniences for Reading or Co­pying their MSS. I do also own the great Kindness shewed me at that time by Bishop Turner, who not only lodged me with himself, but furnish'd me with two Amanuenses, Mr. Smith and Mr. Tomkinson. They are now in the same Opinions and Circumstances with our Author; but they are Men of Truth and Probity; and I appeal to them how faithfully every thing was Copied out, and how exactly all [Page 81] was Compar'd. The Hands of the Reformers, Luther's in particular, were very hard to be read; and tho I had then been much practised in reading the Hands of that Age, yet we were often put to guess, rather than read. In some Letters that could not be read, Archbishop Parker had writ their Reading on the Margent. That Letter of Luther's grew so hard to be read, that we could not go far in it; so I only Copied out the beginning and end of it. Nothing could be built on it; for I knew if this was a lucid Interval of his, it was a very short one. It was faithfully copied, just as we thought we had read it. It seemed to agree so entirely with the Method that most of the Divines of this Church took for a great while, of ex­plaining Christ's Presence in the Sa­crament by the Term Real Presence, without using the Word Figure, that tho I never liked that Method too [Page 82] well, (for I never cared to use the Phrase of Real Presence, nor avoided to call the Sacrament a Figure) yet I was willing to shew, that here a way was proposed, and as I thought once agreed to, of keeping the matter in those General Words: And thus in compliance with a Method that I had never used my self, I honestly publish­ed this, as I thought we had read it. No Comprehension could be designed by this; but that which has been promo­ted by many of the most Zealous Divines of this Church. The Learn­ed and Noble Seckendorf addressed some Persons to me, to be satisfied concerning that Letter. I directed them the best I could. They had free Access given them; and they report­ed no difference to me, but Nihilomi­nus for Nihil minus. If either this was too hastily examined, or if the Wri­ting seem'd to favour those Mistakes with which he charges me, of which I [Page 83] can say nothing at such a distance of time, I am sure whatever might occa­sion the Mistake, there was no Fraud intended; there could be none: Nor was there any Consequence to be drawn from it. It only shewed what Bucer's Proposition was, to which I fancied that Luther had once agreed. But so exactly will I follow Truth, that whensoever an Attested Copy of that Letter is sent me from that Learned Body, which two Worthy Members of it have promised to procure for me, I will certainly publish it in the next Edition of my History. And now our Author, who has out of his small Stock cast in this Mite to the Trea­sure of that Church to which his Na­tural Temper does best entitle him, may see what great Inferences can be drawn from it. In a matter of no great consequence there was too little Care had in Copying or Examining a Let­ter writ in a very Bad Hand.

[Page 84] Pag. 23.He reproaches me for joining my self with one of the Greatest and Best Men that this Age has produc'd, in that which he calls Latitudinarism. This was the seconding Dr. Leighton in his Great Design for reforming and uniting the Church of Scotland: And it is that which I will never be asha­med of: I have rather cause to glory in it; and to reckon my knowledge of that Apostolical Man, one of the greatest Blessings of my whole Life. The Ignorance of our Scribler shews it self too grosly here. He reproaches Bishop Leighton for being willing to take in the Ejected Presbyterian Ministers with­out Episcopal Ordination: Upon which he tells a long Tale, which is all one continued Impertinence. The Bishops of Scotland never required the Presby­terian Ministers there to take Episco­pal Ordination; they required them only to come and act with them in Church Judicatories; even Archbi­shop [Page 85] Sharp himself, when he was to be consecrated Archbishop of St. An­drews, stood out for some time here in England, before he would submit to take Priests Orders. No Bishop in Scotland during my stay in that King­dom, ever did so much as desire any of the Presbyterians to be re-ordain'd. So falsly is this Charge laid against the Memory of that Holy Man. All that long Tale that he hangs to it, is of a piece with its foundation.

He reproaches Bishop Leighton for accepting the See of Glasgow, Ibid. when Archbishop Burnet was turned out. But Dr. Burnet had resigned it, and had accepted of a Pension. Yet our Author ought not to have mentioned this, for the sake of a Friend of his own, who in the late Reign procured the Archbishop of that See to be turn­ed out, only for his Zeal and Actings against Popery; and obtained it to himself.

[Page 86] Page 24.He charges me for loving an Asce­tical Life, and Mystical Divinity; and represents me as an Enthusiast. Ca­lumny is run low with him, when he flies to such stuff. A man had ra­ther be any thing, than be delivered over to a Spirit of Malice and Calum­ny. The Enthusiastical Words he says I vented to a Lady, are certainly a Falshood; for I never once saw that Lady, but in Publick Rooms, and be­fore much Company, when things of that nature are seldom talk'd of; and he has hit on Words that cannot be re­conciled with the Opinion that I have always held concerning Predestination.

Page 25.He reproaches me for mistaking the Subject of a Letter of Q. Eliza­beth's, and fancies it is a Letter to Q. Katherine Parre, when she was with Child by the Lord Admiral, af­ter the Death of K. Henry the Eighth. I am not concerned whether his Con­jecture or mine be the truer; nor do I [Page 87] think it worth the while to argue it. It is but conjecture on both sides; I stand upon my Sincerity in all that I affirm; and when that is not shaken, I leave my Conjectures to take their fate.

The last Head of the Reproaches that he lays upon me, Pag. 26. is from my Life of Bishop Bedell. Mr. Fulman sent me Remarks on some parts of it, and I made no Answer; and these have fallen into the Author's hands, and he has printed them with great Triumph. I publish'd that Life just when I went out of England. Mr. Ful­man sent a Packet after me to Paris, for which I paid very dear. I had neither the Conveniences nor the inclination to Answer it at that distance. Since I came into England, a Copy of it was sent to me, by him into whose hands Mr. Fulman's Papers came, for he was then dead. I sent him a full Answer to them, to be [Page 88] Printed or not, as he thought fit. He judged it better to let the matter sleep, and so returned all back to me again. I will not weary out my Reader, who may justly nauseate at such stuff. I will only say this for my part in that work; The whole Materials were prepared for me many years before I meddled with them, by an Ancient and Reverend Clergyman, Mr. Cloggy. I was apprehensive that some might take exceptions to my writing on that Argument; and so declined to do it for some Years; but repeated Importu­nities overcame me at last; so I un­dertook it: I had then separated my self from my Books, which I had be­stowed in a place where I knew they would be preserved safe for me: I upon that took no sort of care to exa­mine the matter of those Papers, I only put them in Form: I am not an­swerable for any mistakes that may be in the First part of them, which [Page 89] my Author may have misremem­ber'd: So if any of these are wrong▪ they are another man's Errors, they are not mine. When I have said this, I have said enough to justify my self; but I could say a great deal more upon the particulars themselves, if I thought that were necessary.

Thus far I have followed this Au­thor in one very black part of his De­famations; but his next is much blacker; both as it is laid on a far bet­ter Man, and on one who might be let lie in his Grave in quiet, though while he lived he was still Persecuted by the Malice and Slander of Absurd and Wicked Men. He might the rather be Treated with Humanity, if not with Respect; since he was the great­est Example I have ever known of a Gentleness that could not be surprized nor overcome; and was free from using any of those liberties in speak­ing of others, which were to so un­measured [Page 90] a degree made use of against himself. He is now above Envy, and beyond Slander; and his Name is and will be long Remembered with Honour, when it will not be so much as known that this Man was ever Born.

Pag. 35.He begins with Reproaching him for Apostacy; but all that matter has been already so fully cleared, that I cannot think there is any need of say­ing more upon that Argument; how much or how long soever this Writer may enlarge upon it.

He thinks he was not only an Apo­state, but an Atheist. Page 40. In short, he goes round all the Topicks of his scurri­lous Eloquence, to carry this matter as far as is possible: Tho the whole amounts to no more, but that he thought it a Sin to Resist only upon Jealousies and Consequences, upon some Illegal Acts, and remote Fears, but did not think it a Sin to Resist [Page 91] when a Total Subversion was openly declared, and was actually begun. If Evil-speaking and Reviling are Sins, our Author has, I am sure, a large measure of them on his Conscience, I had much rather bear his Malice than his Burthen.

He makes him to be a Venter of Lies and false Stories. Pag. 42. He may as well say he was a Low, Lean, Black Man, that he had a sour Frowardness in his Look, and an Air of Malice spread over his whole Countenance, and look'd like Envy it self; as we know some do. We who lived familiarly with that Great Man, know well how false all this Man's Accusation of him is, and how un­like it is to his True Character. He kept up his Credit with all Wise and Good Men, and always used it with great Discretion, and a constant Zeal in doing Good.

He runs out long upon some passa­ges of Two of his Sermons; Pag. 44. to which [Page 92] he adds a great deal of Tattle, and aggravates every thing far beyond it's true sense. I am, perhaps, not of the same Opinion with him in every thing in those Sermons; but they are far from being liable to those Un­charitable Charges that he lays on them. Divines may differ in their ap­prehensions of things, but Good Men can bear with one another, even when they believe they are mistaken. All this is Venome, and deserves no other Answer.

P. 46.He may say any thing after he re­presents him as Stealing his Rule of Faith from Dr. Cradock, in some Di­scourses with him. It is certain no body could Converse with Dr. Cra­dock on any Subject, but they might learn much from him; but I do not believe he ever intended to answer Serjeant, or any other Book whatsoe­ver. I am sure it is not very like him. Our Primate had a Stock of his own, [Page 93] and needed to borrow from no body. I passed over what he had said of my stealing many Hints from Bishop Gunning, and then printing them. It is no great matter whether it be true or false, but as it happens, it is ab­solutely false. Bishop Gunning had much Learning and true Piety; but his Ideas were so confused, and so oversubtile, that I never could learn any thing from him in all the time that ever I conversed with him, and so I did not wait often on him.

He enters upon some Particulars of the late Primate's Life, P. 51. with which I am not so well acquaint­ed, as to be able to give any ac­count of them. ‘They do all re­late to his having enjoyed first the Fellowship of one turned out by the Parliament, during the Rebellion; then the Living of one turned out by the Bartholomew Act; and last of all, his possessing the See of Can­terbury: [Page 94] And that, tho he had com­mended Dr. Whitchcot for his Gene­rosity to the Learned Dr. Collins; yet he practised no part of that himself.’ Here a Question arises, What right a man has to any Tem­poral Estate, after the Powers that are, have taken it from another, and given it to him. I will not enter upon it. It is certainly wrong to endeavour to get a man turned out, that one may be possessed of his Benefice, which he knows was the Case of a Friend of his own. But when a man had no share in turning another out, and only pos­sesses a small Encouragement to Learning, that he had, I know of no Rule that obliges to Restitution in that Case. If the Powers are lawful, and they create a Vacancy upon a just Occasion, then since the Church must be served, how much soever a man may pity the Condition of such as are turned out, and how reasonable [Page 95] soever it may be for him to relieve their Necessities; yet their Title to what was Temporal, subsisting only upon Law, certainly that Law can al­ter the Property, and transfer it to another; so no Title remains: And tho in case of want, a Generosity, like that which Dr. Whitchcot practised, deser­ved to be highly commended; yet since that was not the Case of Arch­bishop Sancroft, there was no reason for it. The one carried with him a good Estate out of Lambeth, and the other spent a considerable one in it, in a most Charitable and Generous manner. Archbishop Sancroft is at rest, and is, I am confident, in Heaven. I will not enter upon any part of his Life to lessen him in any respect, no, not so far as to pretend that I have any materials to go upon it, but that I chuse upon other Considerations to suppress them, which is one of the common Artifices of Malice.

[Page 96]I will only remark a little upon that part of his Deportment which related to the Publick, to shew that there was something very singular, either in his Opinion, or in his Tem­per: Either his Opinion of the Pre­sent Establishment differed from his Brethrens, or he had a Fearfulness of Temper that neither became his Post, nor those Times. He was one of those Lords that met at Guildhall, and signed the Invitation to the (then) Prince of Orange, to come and look to the Pre­servation of Religion, and of the Na­tion. When his (present) Majesty came to St. James's, he neither came to wait on him, nor did he send any Message, importing that the State of Affairs was changed, and that he had thereupon changed his mind. When the Convention was summoned, he would not appear all the while, tho his Brethren did, and both spake and Voted according to their Principles. [Page 97] The matter stuck so many days in the House of Lords, and was at last car­ried upon so small an inequality, that the weight of an Archbishop of Can­terbury might have held, if not turned, the balance. No man did run any risk either at that time, or since, for the freedom with which he debated or vo­ted. Here was a very unaccountable behaviour, if he thought it was Re­bellion, or Treason, that was then in debate. If he had but once come and declared against all that was then in agitation, and then withdrawn; this would have become him and his Sta­tion. His Chaplains took the Oaths, and were not discountenanced by him: Those who knew him best, gave it out, upon that strange de­portment of his, that he wished well to the Change, only that he himself would not be active in it; and this they imputed to some Promise that, they believed, he had made to the [Page 98] Late King. I am sure I was at that time so possessed with this, that it was one of the chief Considerations that determined me to argue against the Act concerning the Oaths so long as I did.

When King James went to Ireland, and during all the time of that War, when the Party in England grew bold, and was full of hopes, he continued in his former silence, and reserved­ness; and still kept up his former friendship with those who had taken the Oaths. At that time several Cler­gy men who had Scruples concerning the Oaths, as they have told my self, went to him, and desired to discourse the matter with him, but he declined it. Of some of these I am sure he had no sort of distrust. When Bp. Turner's Letters were intercepted, he said to a great many from whom I had it, that he had no Authority from him to write as he did in his Name. After [Page 99] he was deprived, he never took on him to act with his Archiepiscopal Authority. He never stood upon his Right, nor complained of wrong, in any publick Act or Protestation. He never required the Bishops or Clergy of his Province to adhere to him, or to disown his Successor; and neither living nor dying, did he publish any thing to the Nation, charging these Sins upon them, or requiring them to return to their former state. And yet if all that we have been doing of late, is Rebellion, Treason, Murder, or Per­jury, these can be no light matters. He who was at the Head of the Church, if he thought so of them, ought to have lift up his voice like a trumpet, to have cried aloud, and not have spared. It was visible to all who saw the state of our Affairs, that he would have been in no danger, if he had done it. But suppose he had been in danger, ought not such a man as he was, to have [Page 100] even sacrificed his Life, rather than have abandoned such a Post, and have been silent at such a time? Since there­fore such a way of proceeding is not reconcileable with an Apostolical or Primitive Spirit, and looks like not only a deserting, but a betraying the Obligations that he lay under: It is the most favourable judgment that can be made of him, to think, that he was more indifferent in this matter, than some would make us believe he was: That tho he would not Act, nor keep his Post under the present Government, yet that flowed from particular Considerations, which tho they might work on himself, yet he acted for the Cause it self with no Zeal nor Courage; which in respect to his Memory, we ought to think he would have done, if he had judged of the matter as these Schismaticks do: For let them talk of the Church of England as much as they will, we are sure they [Page 101] neither adhere to the Principles of Church-Communion, professed in it, nor are they acted with that Spirit of Mo­deration, which has been all along Her Character and Glory, till of late some Sons of Thunder began to breathe out Cruelty.

To return from this Digression; if Archbishop Sancroft was not turn­ed out, but for not doing those things which were Incumbent on his Functi­on; and if he was far from being in Want, then it had been a Profuseness, and neither Charity nor Generosity in our late Primate, who exhausted all he had in the noblest manner, to have offered to supply one that need­ed it less than himself.

But since I am now engaged in this Subject, and intend never to Write more upon it in this way, I will give an account of another Transaction in this matter, in which a Person of great Honour will be my [Page 102] Voucher, who is beyond all excepti­on; and whom, though I do not name in this way, yet I will use more plainness to any that shall ask me the question.

In Summer 1690. after the Battel of the Boyne, the late Queen (a Name that will ever strike and melt all that knew Her) sent by me a Mes­sage to one, who She had reason to believe, would execute all her Com­mands with joy, and who had great Credit with the then Deprived Bishops; I am sure he had reason to have it, for he had served them with much Zeal: The Message was to try if the Bishops, in case the Parliament could have been brought to have Dispenced with their taking the Oaths, would go on and do their Functions, Ordain, Confirm, assist at Prayers and Sacraments, give Institu­tions, and Visit their Diocesses. These are the great Duties of the Episcopal [Page 103] Function; and it seemed an extrava­gant thing to have Bishops in a Church, who should do none of them, but should only live in their Sees and enjoy their Revenues. If they were resolved to do these things, a Scheme was prepared for offering that matter to a second Considerati­on in Parliament. That great Person undertook the Business, which I like­wise communicated by the same Au­thority to an Eminent Person in the House of Commons, distinguished both by his Post, and by his Credit with them, at least with their Friends. About Two Months after, that Per­son did me the Honour to come to me, and tell me, he had obeyed the Queen's Commands with Zeal and with all the Skill he had; but he said the Deprived Bishops would Answer nothing, and Promise nothing, only he believed they would be Quiet. So all thoughts of bringing that matter [Page 104] again into Parliament, were laid a­side; yet Their Majesties proceeded in it slowly, and seemed unwilling to fill their Sees; till those Letters were discovered that shewed what Corre­spondencies and Engagements there were among them. That determined the matter; which, perhaps, without that accident, might have been hung up for another Year. Now let the world judge what a sort of an Episco­pacy this would have been; Bishops would have Eat and Drunk well at the Church's Charge, and done nothing; neither have served the Government that Protected them, nor have De­clared for that, to which they in their thoughts adhered; but would have lived Easy, pretending they were Quiet, and doing nothing against the State, till they had found a favourable Opportunity, like the Invasion de­signed from la Hogue, to have Decla­red themselves to some purpose.

[Page 105]When the Party had given credit to a most Impudent Calumny that was raised by the Papists against the late Primate, of his being a Socinian, Pag. 53. his Book against those Errors had for some time made even the Party it self ashamed to support that any lon­ger: At last an Ignorant and Malici­ous Writer was found out to maintain that Charge still, which had made too great a Noise to be easily parted with. Our Author it seems saw that this was too shameless a Calumny to be own'd by himself, who loves to di­gress so well, and practises it so much, that probably he would have made great excursions here, if it could have been defended; he only refers his Reader to the long Title of ano­ther, who has done it. But let the Reader try his Patience on that Book if he can. The Writer of it may depend on it, he will never be an­swered: Every one that looks into it, [Page 106] will soon see the reason. Some men have an Art of Writing, to disparage the Side that they write for. We do not envy them such Underworkmen. If their Labours can procure them a Maintenance from the Party, it is the better for them; to be sure no body else will trouble them. Men must understand a Controversy before they write of it: Bold railing, without any sprinklings of Salt to give it a Relish, may perhaps be agreeable to a Taste like this Writer's, but gene­rally it is so little regarded, that it is probable this Journey man, after some Attempts to make himself be consider'd among them, will be de­sired by themselves to give over wri­ting, and to reserve himself for fight­ing, in which he has been more pra­ctised.

Pag. 54. ‘He brings out a long Passage of a Sermon of our late Primate's, against Perjury, and makes an Ap­plication [Page 107] suitable to the rest of his Candor; as if we had openly de­clared for Perjury; and then falls into an Invective against him, for having so little regard to those who durst not venture on that sin.’ But what tenderness soever our Au­thor may express for those, (if there are any such among us) who have taken the Oaths to this Government, while they think themselves tied to the former, we have no regard at all to them, we look on them as the worst of men. We hold this to be Perjury indeed, and a sin of that heinous­ness, that no Characters are black enough to set it out. But if the Obli­gation of the former Oath ceases, then all the Charge of Perjury falls. This brings us back again to the Main Question, of which I have said so much already, that I will repeat no part of it.

As for our late Primate's Severity [Page 108] against the Non-Jurors, if they had behaved themselves modestly and quietly with their Scruples, every man among us would have had all just regard to them; we would not only have pitied, but have protected and assisted them. The Virulence of their Libels, and of their whole Be­haviour, is such a Strain, that this Age, how fruitful soever in bad things, has not yet produc'd any thing like it. When they attack the Go­vernment, and defame it and all that are concerned in it, with so foul and so keen a Malice, we must sometimes shew our Zeal for the Publick, against their Unchristian Temper. After all, most of his small Stories with which Tattlers have furnished him, (if they are not his own Ficti­ons) have so little of the way of the late Primate, that they will be believed by few, except those of his own Temper.

[Page 109] ‘He thinks he has great advantage from my owning, Pag. 57. that the Re­proaches of the Party might have had an ill effect on our late Primate's Health; and fancies that is a low and abject Character.’ It may be so with those that affect to pass for Stoicks or Heroes. But Lot vexed his righteous soul with what he saw and heard. David owns that reproach had broken his heart; and Jeremy is full of those afflicting strains. St. Paul was burnt up with the Concerns of the Church, and with the Scandals that were then given or unjustly taken. And even our Blessed Saviour looked about with anger, and was grieved with the hardness of their hearts, with the spiteful and hypocritical temper of the Pharisees. A truly good man will be little concerned upon his own ac­count, at all that can be said of him, or against him; but when a Veno­mous Temper spreads it self fatally, [Page 110] and defeats the good that is designed to be done; when mens minds are sowr'd by it; when Ill-nature, which too generally prevails in the world, is so much fed by it; and when even Atheism it self is fortified, by persua­ding the world that those to whom so much Respect has been paid for their Labours in Religion, and against Atheism, are called Atheists them­selves, and are allowed no other di­stinction from other Atheists, but that they are of the graver sort; Pag. 40. it is no wonder if a man who is forced to re­flect often on these things, feels a deep concern at heart about them. To all serious men this will raise a Character, rather than depress it.

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

Pag. 59. ‘He cannot bear it that our late Primate should be thought to have [Page 111] turned so great a part of the City to love the Church: He thinks he did it not; that he only persuaded men to bear with the Church, but not to love it, or become zealous for it; as the Converts of others have shewed themselves to be.’ As for this, I appeal to all who knew what the City was in 1662, and what it was brought to in 1682, when those Virulent Men begun to let loose their Malice against this Great Man. There are too many Witnesses to this, there­fore he cannot quite deny it. But these men, says he, did not become Zealots; that is, they did not rail at, nor inform against their old Friends; this is, in our Author's sense, to be hearty to the Church: but as for those who do still sincerely adhere to the Communion of our Church, and love it, all who know the City will be for­ced to own, that whosoever gained their Thousands, our late Primate gain­ed [Page 112] his Ten thousands. After all, our Author's Friends in France might have taught him, that it is no small Me­rit to bring Numbers over, tho it were done by such Expositions and Mollifyings as the Bishop of Meaux has tried his Skill at. Our Author him­self is willing to mollify matters to­wards such as have taken the Oaths against their Consciences; but to per­suade a man to the Communion of the Church by such Softnings, is a Crime with him.

I pass over a great deal of his Stuff, as things that can make no Impressi­on, Pag. 60. and deserve no Answer. If any man had argued only from Provi­dence, he might have run out upon it as long as he had pleased: But when a Foundation is once laid, and a Cause is proved to be just in it self, then the Steps of Providence that watch over it will be observed by all men that are not Atheistical and Ir­religious. [Page 113] I will not follow him again into his Tattle: I believe not a word of it, or of any thing else, for his say­ing it, even when he adds, Pag. 62. to his cer­tain knowledge. But I do not know Par­ticulars so well as to be able to con­fute them; nor were it worth the while to enquire after them.

‘He thinks the Foreign Churches were more ruined by their not be­ing able to answer their want of Mission, Page 64. than by all the late Perse­cution.’ But after all, I believe our Author trusts to the method of Perse­cution more than to that of Argument. If the Dragoons had made no greater execution than this Argument did, the French Churches had been entire to this day: For how valuable a thing soever a Regular Mission and a Con­tinued Succession may be, yet the great­er part of mankind will always think, that Truth has a sufficient Authority to oblige men both to receive and [Page 114] publish it, how doubtful soever the Mission of him that brings it may seem to be.

P. 66. ‘He had pickt up a new Story concerning me, after he had finish­ed the Chapter that is designed for me; and with this he entertains his clamorous Malice for Two Pa­ges. Duke Hamilton told a Person of Honour, That I advised him, as he regarded his own standing and the King's Favour, to be sure to promote the Pres­byterian Interest: And upon this he runs out of breath with his Excla­mations.’ It is a practice too gross, and too much decried, to lay a Story so, that it must end in a dead man. Slanders should be contrived more dextrously; especially when the Tale that is told is not in it self very cre­dible. This is one of those ill-design'd and ill-executed Lies, that can do no hurt but to those that forge them. If it were worth answering, I could [Page 115] give very copious Proofs to the con­trary. Such Impudent Stories are too much honour'd when they are con­futed.

After this angry man had spent 68 Pages in Two Chapters of Defama­tion, for which, let him think of it as he will, he must one day answer to God, he comes in Conclusion to the Funeral Sermon it self; where he finds so little Matter of Remark, that the Biass of a Sowre Temper makes him again return to the beaten sub­ject of his Thoughts, Falshood and Calumny. ‘He quarrels with my say­ing, P. 68. that the Apostle had large thoughts concerning the Idol Feasts, and meats offered to Idols.’ I will not run out in­to Controversy here; but I am sure these Words of St. Paul, repeated on different occasions, 1 Cor. 10.23. Chap. 6.12. All things are law­ful for me, but all things are not expedient, and edify not. I will not be brought under the power of any. Chap. 9.22. I am made all things to [Page 116] all men, that I might by all means save some. And the mention St. Paul makes of the ill use of knowledge in him who sat at meat in an idols temple, Chap. 8.10, 11. by which the conscience of him that was weak was em­bolden'd, so that through the knowledge of the one, the other perished. These words, I say, do so fully justify what I said, that it seems he himself was appre­hensive of it; for whereas on other occasions he fills Pages with Quota­tions, here he only refers by a Margi­nal Note to those Passages of St. Paul's Epistle. It seems he knew, that if he had set down the Words themselves, they would have too evidently pro­ved all that I had said: But some matter of Divinity was to be touched on, and wheresoever the Harpies touch, they defile every thing.

His next Exception is against my using these words, The just Freedoms of Human Nature: Pag. 70. And here comes a new Declamation of Three Pages. [Page 117] There is a sort of men, that because they hope to be the Instruments of Tyranny and Cruelty, cannot with any patience bear the mention of Freedom or Liberty. They are too much Slaves themselves to be capable of Generous Thoughts. Our Author seems to fall into Fits when they are but named. Let others love Unjust Slavery as much as they will, Just Freedoms will still be loved by all those that have not dege­nerated from Human Nature, and with that have lost their relish of its Just Freedoms. I shall not wish so ill a thing to them, as that they may feel the effects of this Principle in its full extent. I am sure I cannot wish them a worse thing with relation to this world. But I have not Ill nature enough to furnish out such a Wish, which requires a Spite as black as our Author's.

‘Upon my mentioning the Con­cern that our late Primate had at Pag. 73. [Page 118] the Progress of Atheism and Im­piety, he goes over his former stuff, to lay the Blame of it in a great measure at his door and mine, as if our asserting the present Constitu­tion, did fortify men in their Athe­ism.’ But all this has been already considered; therefore how much so­ever our Author delights in such Re­petitions, that he may give vent to his Gall in new Flourishes of Viru­lent Language, I will refer my Rea­der to what was formerly said, and leave him to the pleasure of throw­ing out his Ill nature as oft as he has a mind to it.

Pag. 75. ‘He comes at last to the Provoca­tion that I gave them in my Ser­mon, after he had exhausted his whole Common-Place of Defama­tion. He begins his Charge with the baseness of insulting over men in af­fliction.’ If mens Tempers were in any sort suited to their Circumstan­ces, [Page 119] then it were barbarous indeed to lay a load upon those that are sunk with misfortunes. But when men are Pert and Insolent, when they are fil­ling the Nation with Lies and Slan­ders; when they are at work in every Coffee-house, defaming the Govern­ment, and all that adhere to it; when they do so visibly take part with the Enemy of our Nation, and of our Religion, and seem to hate both; when they shew so keen an edge in all their Discourses and Li­bels; when their Malice is as Rest­less, as (God be thanked for it) it is Feeble and Harmless; and particu­larly when Justice was to be done to the Memory of One whom they had pursued so Implacably for so ma­ny years, it was fit and in some sort necessary, to say somewhat to humble them. Let them put on modest and humble Tempers; let the Party be quiet and si­lent, [Page 120] and let them disown such Writers as this Person shews himself to be, and then let us bear what blame indifferent Men can lay on us, if we are not tender of them, and kind to them. Great regard is due to every Person that is in bad Cir­cumstances; but much greater is due to those who are willing to suffer, rather than to act against their Con­sciences; such sufferings have so beautiful an appearance, that even some peevishness, and a great many mistakes are to be forgiven, where so good a Temper appears; and when Men are willing to Sacrifice the con­cerns of this present Life, rather than endanger their eternal Interests. If such Men were to be persecuted (or according to a finer term, used to disguise so black a thing, if they were to be prosecuted) for all this, I should think it both Inhumane and Unchri­stian to inflame the Nation against [Page 121] them, by saying, ‘It is not Consci­ence, it is Humour, Pride, or ill Nature that governs them; must the State be ruin'd, and the Church rent, to gratify such an unreasonable and contemptible Party?’ Our Au­thor knows where we could find a great many Topicks to stuff out black Declamations on this Argument. May all the shame that belongs to other People, fall on us, if ever we are corrupted with such a Temper, or become guilty of such excesses. We can bear with their Errors, and love their Persons, and not only pity, but respect and assist them in all their concerns. But if the Party will not govern their Passions, nor bridle their Tongues; if they will not give over practises to undermine the State, and distract the Church, how gentle so­ever the Government may be to them, and how tender soever we may be of them, the patience of the [Page 122] former may at last be exhausted, and our Zeal may be justly inflamed a­gainst Men, who have been hitherto the greatest instances of Insolence against Government, that perhaps this Age has produced.

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

Pag. 79. ‘He comes at last to excuse the si­lence of the Deprived Bishops in so critical a time. He says, The Mob would have fallen upon them, and have torn them in pieces if they had spoke their Minds.’ This every one [Page 123] knows to be false in fact. Upon the late King's deserting the Govern­ment, the Mob was indeed the Ma­ster for some days; but immediately after the (then) Prince came to Lon­don, all that was quieted; and there was not the least Disturbance during the rest of the Winter. In all those Weeks in which the Debate lasted in the Convention, there was not so much as Colour given, to pre­tend that Violence was offered, or that any Threatnings were used. Some wished that they might have had that pretence, to say they were overawed in their Proceedings, and so hoped to have had the Plea of a Nul­lity, which arises from a Consent ex­torted by such a Fear, as may over­come even a Man of Courage. But there was not a shadow given to such Pretences; therefore an Obligati­on lay upon these Bishops to have de­clared themselves more openly than [Page 124] they did, for they were under no danger. But suppose they were, ought not Men in their Station to have hazarded even their Lives to have gi­ven the Nation warning, that they were running into the Sins of Murder, Rebellion, Perjury, with all the crying Epithets with which our Author charges our present Constitution? They were not to chuse their own time to do this; the time of Sin and Temptation is the time in which the Clergy ought to give warning. Indeed if they had given this warn­ing, I shall not deny, but that in imi­tation of the Precedent of Athanasius, and other great Saints, they might have taken care of themselves, and of their own Preservation, But the Ob­ligation that lay on them, to give publick warning, was strict and in­dispensible; and therefore, I think, we shew both more Respect and more Charity to them, when we be­lieve [Page 125] that at that time they had not these apprehensions of this Matter that they have now; that they were then willing to be passive, without strugling hard or venturing much, than they do who represent them as so careful of themselves, and so fearful of Danger, that they would not speak out or deal roundly, in a time in which they ought either to have spoken, or for ever thereafter to have held their Peace.

‘He fills a Page with a Quotati­on from Athanasius, Pag. 82. to justify his fly­ing and hiding himself.’ But that is not the Question at present, it is their Silence that we are now upon. Athana­sius was far from being silent, he gave many loud warnings, and when he had done that, he reserved himself to better times. It is trifling, when we ob­ject against their silence, which is no­toriously known, to tell us that it was lawful for them to fly, which they [Page 126] did not, nor did we charge them with it.

Pag. 82.He says next, ‘That if through Fear they had been wanting to their Duty, it was a pardonable piece of Frailty: St. Peter deni'd his Master; and many Confessors and Martyrs were at some times overcome with it.’ A surprize, and a deliberate course of acting, that lasted many Months, are things very different. Their silence has continu'd ever since. Their Arch­bishop lived and died in this silence, having never by any publick and ex­press Act declared himself, nor given warning to the Nation. He neither required the Bishops of his Province, nor the Clergy of his Diocess to ad­here to himself, or to the late King, to refuse the Oaths, and to reject his Successor. He did not require it of those of his own Family. He did nei­ther fly nor abscond, but was all the while at home both safe and silent; [Page 127] all the rest have followed his Ex­ample, and continue to this day si­lent: That is, whatsoever any of them may talk in corners, or may write or print without name, they have not by any Publick Instrument, or Episcopal Act declar'd themselves.

He says, Pag. 83. ‘That to have thundred against Foreigners, would have been to no purpose, because they were of other Communions; and to have thundred against our own People would have been to ex­communicate the Multitude, which is against the Rules and Directions of the Canon-Law.’ If we had a mind to have that Body of Men appear ridiculous, we need only wish them to employ such a Writer to make Apologies for them. The Rules of the Canon-Law are a noble defence, when Men have been wanting to the Rules of the Gospel. Bishops would not openly declare themselves when the [Page 128] thing was entire, and the Nation was not yet involved in all that Guilt which they now charge on us, be­cause, forsooth, the Canon Law forbids the excommunicating the Multitude. He is sparing of his Quotations here, tho he is liberal of them when they are not to the purpose. But the ci­ting of the Canon Law at large was great, and not easily to be confuted.

P. 80.In the middle of all this Apology, he brings in a hearsay-Story of a Dia­logue that passed between Mr. Naple­ton and my self: For tho he had in another part of this Book represent­ed me as shedding Tears when I heard how the late King was treated at Fe­versham, P. 25. he now reports a Discourse between Mr. Napleton and me, the Importance of which is, That I wished they would have left the late King to be torn in pieces by the Mob. This Story has been in one or two of their Books that have appeared of [Page 129] late. It has been kept up as a Se­cret Five or Six Years, and now it is made an Ornament in several of their Libels. I never saw that Gentleman before nor since that time; so I do not know whether he owns or disowns it: Nor can I pretend to give an account of a Discourse almost Seven Years old. Another Worthy Gentleman, Mr. Chadwick, was Witness to all that passed between us. I am sure I was deeply concerned at the Mis­fortunes of that Prince. I imme­diately went about the procuring an Order to be speedily given, to take care of his Preservation. All that I can remember of any Dis­course with that Gentleman, is, That when he told me that upon the Gentlemen of the Countrey's coming to Feversham they had brought the People to shew more [Page 130] Respect; and that the late King was very desirous to prosecute his Voyage beyond Sea, I thought they ought to have helped him in it. I do not deny, but that I thought that since He by Deserting had abandoned the Government, it was a great Misfortune that any Stop was put to that; and I wish­ed he had been left to his own freedom; and I thought that the Gentlemen of the Countrey might have so managed the Multitude, as to have set him at liberty. This is all that I meant in that mat­ter; but I cannot charge my self with further Particulars of that Dis­course.

Page 83. ‘He quarrels with my saying that the Deprived Bishops left their Authority entirely with their Chancellors; who acted in their Name, and by their Commission: And he [Page 131] asks, Whether they granted them New Commissions for tendring the Oaths, or if their Chancel­lors did it by virtue of their former Patents.’ I have said some­what on this Head already, which needs not be repeated here. But there is no need of enquiring how their Chancellors came by that Au­thority, which in respect to some of them I forbear to do. It is certain that they were all silent at the least, and left that matter with their Chancellors; whereas they ought to have declared openly a­gainst it. For since their Chancel­lors by their Patents were their Vi­cars-General, they ought to have let their Clergy know, that in this particular their Chancellors acted not only without directions from them, but against their minds. They were the Pastors of their Diocesses, [Page 132] and ought to have fed their Flock, and particularly to have kept the door shut against those who entred in by Taking Oaths which they judged unlawful. And as Silence in the whole extent of their Pastoral Care can not be reconciled with the Obligations that they lay under, so least of all can it be excused when their Chancellors were in their Name acting quite contrary to their Judg­ments, and yet were neither dis­owned nor declared against by them, and that for a whole Year toge­ther.

Page. 84. ‘He charges me with juggling at an odd rate, for saying, That though they thought the Oaths unlawful, yet they would scarce say so much in confidence to any of the Clergy who asked their Opinions about it. Then, says [Page 133] he, they did say it; because I say they would scarcely say it.’ But this was only a soft way of expressing a harsh thing. They were bound in Conscience to speak freely to their Clergy, and to call upon them to consider their Duty, though they had not come to ask them; but when they came to them they were bound to speak out, and that freely. But he still excuses them, ‘From the fear they had, that those who came to them, came to entrap them, as the Pharisees did our Saviour:’ An Impious Expression, and not cor­rected in the Errata, though there is a Correction on what is two Lines before this. The Pharisees intended to entrap our Saviour, but did not entrap him, according to the Blasphemy of this Period. It did never appear that any of the [Page 134] Clergy delated any of them: If they had done it, I do not know how far our Law could have made such Discourses Penal; I am sure our Government would not have either enquired after it, or punish­ed them for such things. In those days in which these men were so much exalted, a Book writ by a Man of Quality, and never shew­ed, but found in his Cabinet ma­ny Years after, was an Evidence then to convict him of High Trea­son. But how much soever they may magnify those days as a Gold­en Age, we live in happier times. So that these their Fears were the effects of the weakness of their own minds, or else they had at that time other thoughts of this matter than they have at pre­sent.

[Page 135] ‘He quarrels with my saying, Page 85. That they abandoned the Government of the Church: And says, They did it as the (late) King abandoned, and as Man abandons his House, who is driven out of it by the force of Arms. And so he concludes me to be a­bandoned by Modesty and the love of Truth.’ I think it is fully made out that the late King did abandon his People; but they did it much worse; for from August 1689. till May 1691. for near two years to­gether, they lived in their Sees, without taking any Care of the Church, or doing any of their Fun­ctions. They thought that they were all that while lawful Bishops, and for a good part of the time they were certainly so, and yet they did nothing as Bishops all that while; they neither fed their Clergy nor their People with Instructions, Ad­monitions, [Page 136] Reproofs, or Censures; and if in so critical a Time, a Body of Men who are entrusted with the Care of feeding the Flock of Christ, will leave them to themselves, to the Wolves that devour them, or to the Poyson that must destroy them, it is hard to tell what is a­bandoning, and what is not. As for his Complement to my self, I am so accustomed to such Civilities from him, that I am pretty well hardned against them.

Ibid. ‘He quarrels me for saying, That neither our Laws nor our Princes could bear it long. He shews, That since nothing lapses from the King, no Inconvenience could have happened, if the filling the Sees had been longer delayed; by which this Schism, this horrible and unnatural Schism had been pre­vented.’ If to have a shadow and [Page 137] name of a Government, and no real Government, if to deliver up Sees to the Conduct of Lay-Chan­cellors, without the Bishops taking any care of them, be no Inconve­niences; if to have the Bishop's Bench so empty in Parliament, and to have many known Ene­mies in publick Posts; if to have given the Enemies of the Church advantage, by seeing that Diocesses could be managed without Bishops, are such harmless things in our Au­thor's Opinion; others are not of his mind; but see how certainly these things must have ended in the ruin of the Church, if not of the State. It is certain no bo­dy apprehended his wise Incon­venience of the lapsing from the Crown. I do not deny, but this is a horrible and unnatural Schism, managed in a most horrid and un­natural [Page 138] way; but both the Schism, and the Management lye at their Door, and they must answer for it. God be thanked that how horrible and unnatural soever it may be, it is very inconsiderable; and their way of management has made it both odious and contemp­tible.

Page 86.I had said, That they were Depri­ved by the same Authority that displaced the Nonconformists in 62. and depri­ved the Popish Bishops in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth 's Reign. To this he answers, ‘First, That the Authority is not the same, because we are not under a Hereditary King; and so he strikes at the Authority of all that is now done.’ But he knows that the Controversy has been hitherto managed upon this Point, whe­ther a Deprivation by a Lay-Autho­rity [Page 139] be valid or not? It is upon this that both Mr. Dodwell and Dr. Ho­dy, have Writ so much. Since therefore this was the Question, I was in the right to say, The Authority was the same, for it was a Lay-Authority in both Cases. As for his Excursion upon the Autho­rity of Hereditary Kings, and of others who were not so. This is a Point of Law, in which all our Lawyers (without one single Ex­ception, as far as I have ever heard) agreeing, I think their Au­thority may well balance one ill-natured Writer where he is single, and is no Lawyer, and but a very mean Divine. The Statute of Henry the 7 th is very express and full here, and is a Law of Two hun­dred Years standing, never once struck at; but our Lawyers do univer­sally say, That tho that Act had ne­ver [Page 140] past, the thing was clear before. Here is a good Foundation laid down by our Author to question all Queen Elizabeth's Laws; for not to stand on the Plea of the Papists, against the Lawfulness of her Fa­ther's Marriage to her Mother, that Marriage was afterwards declared null from the beginning, and so she was illegitimated: This was never taken out of the way by any sub­sequent Judgment. Our Author, perhaps, intends to do this service to that Church and Interest, and so will try to shake the Authority of those Laws; but they will still retain their Credit and Force, after all his poor Endeavours to the con­trary. The confusion that would arise from the voiding of Laws, that flowed from a setled Government, might delight Men of Spite and Ma­lice; but our Nation, in no Age, [Page 141] has had the ill Nature that was ne­cessary to maintain so wicked and destructive a Maxim. But all this is a returning to, or rather a sup­posing that which is the Subject of our main Debate: We affirm, and believe that we have proved it, that we are not only under a Legal, but under a Just and a Lawful Power, built upon, and suited to the Fundamen­tals of our Constitution.

His second Answer is, That what­ever a Lay-Authority may do, yet ‘since it may sometimes act unjustly, and make wicked Laws, I ought to have justified the grounds upon which the Bishops were deprived: and he protests that the Apologies and Defences writ­ten for them are such, that if he were their most implacable Enemy (as he fears I am) he could not tell how to answer them.’ But suppose they were turned out unjustly, that [Page 142] will indeed make them very guil­ty who have enacted such an un­righteous Law, yet the constant Practice of the Church is evi­dently made out to have been this, That since the Church cannot be kept in order without Governors, when Princes turn out Bishops, tho upon groundless and untrue Sug­gestions, but without any design to corrupt or alter the Faith, in such a case the Church is rather to bear a particular Injustice than to break with the Prince, to forfeit his Pro­tection, or to venture on his Dis­pleasure; even in protecting an in­nocent and injured Bishop. Sa­cred Orders are indeed derived ac­cording to the Rules of the Go­spel: But the allotment of this or that Bishop, to this or that See, are things of a mixed Nature, in which the Civil as well as the Ecclesiasti­cal [Page 143] Authority have their share. Both are under the Rules of Discretion and Prudence: and the Protection of the Magistrate, is of that con­sequence to the whole, and to the advancement of Religion it self, as well as to the quiet and safety of all the Members of that Body, that it is certainly better to bear, even with a particular Injustice, than by op­posing it to venture on a general Concussion of the whole frame.

What was formerly mentioned, with relation to the deprived Bi­shops, will serve not only to justify the Proceedings against them, but to shew the Necessity of them. The method of all Governments, for se­veral Ages, has been to demand the security of an Oath, from Sub­jects in general; more particularly from those in publick Imployments, who being in a high Trust, and ha­ving [Page 144] great Influence, it has been thought necessary to engage them to the Government in the Sacred'st manner possible. Nor do I know of any Constitution in which the Oaths to the Publick are conceived in such general words, as ours are; which was agreed, to that so all just Occasions of Scruples might be re­moved. But as the Bishops, who refused these Oaths, obliged the Government to see to its own Pre­servation; so they by their wilful abstaining from all their Functions, doing no part of their Duty, made it become Sacriledge in them to hold their Sees, and enjoy their Re­venues: who did lay aside all the concerns of their Diocesses, and would discharge no part of their Ministry. We hold our Tempora­lities, as Encouragements and En­dowments for the performance of [Page 145] those Functions and Offices that belong to our Spiritualties; and it is plainly Sacrilege to hold the one, when the other is wholly neglected. Thus a full Apology is given for those Proceedings: Our Author's Opinion and Protestations to the con­trary, will not, I think, weigh much; he is too much concerned to judge Equitably, and too much soured to judge Calmly. He thinks that I am their most implacable Enemy; I thank God I am neither an Enemy nor Impla­cable towards any person. One that feels how powerful such a Temper is in himself, may be too apt to judge others by what he knows of himself. When I was Commission'd to act in the Diocesses of Bath and Wells, and of Gloucester, I was wanting in no Ex­pressions of Respect to the two Re­verend Persons that held those Sees. I can esteem Men for what is truly [Page 146] valuable in them, even when I dif­fer in Opinion with them. But per­sonal Reflections signify little; so I leave them all to him to whose eyes all things are naked and opened.

Upon this whole Matter there are two particulars, in which we can boldly appeal to the Practice of the Catholick Church in all Ages. The first, We challenge them to shew us any one instance, where after a Revolution in the State happened, that was generally received and set­led, the Bishops and Pastors of the Church refused to acknowledge the present Civil Government, and to act in their Stations under it; and more particularly, where any Revo­lution happened, which rescued and setled the true Religion, that was not received with a general Joy and Gra­titude, even though the Methods of it, and Steps to it, were liable to great [Page 147] and just Exceptions. We are sure they cannot shew us any instance that looks like a Precedent to their Pro­ceedings; but that the whole course of History is one continued Precedent in our favour.

The second is, We challenge them to shew us where ever a Schism was formed upon the Lay-Deprivation of a Bishop, even when the grounds that it proceeded on were visibly unjust, if the Faith of the Church was not pretended to be concerned in the matter; more particularly, we challenge them to shew us an in­stance where the Bishops or Clergy of a Church adhered to a Metropolitan or a Bishop, so turned out, or made a Schism upon his account, when he did not by any publick Act or In­strument assert his own Right, and challenge the Obedience of those who were Subordinate to him.

[Page 148]These are points of Fact, in which it were easy for them to bring Prece­dents, if they had any; and these are capable of being exactly consi­dered.

We have often produced our Pre­cedents, That of the Maccabees, of Constantine the Great, and Licinius; that of Maximus are noted ones. The intruders into the High priesthood un­der the Jewish Dispensation, and the many instances in Church Histo­ry, that Dr. Hody has cleared be­yond a possibility of denying the Matter of Fact, are so express and full on our side, that their avoiding to answer them, is plainly a giving up the Cause. Their leaving the general Argument from the constant and uninterrupted Practice of the Church, and betaking themselves to the Methods of Slander and Defama­tion, is such an evident indication of [Page 149] a bad Cause and of a worse Manage­ment, that it is not possible but that the generality of indifferent Men will soon discern how weak their Reasons, and how strong their Pas­sions are. They have in all their other Writings built too much on the Authority and Practice of the Church, to be able with any Shame to reject this Argument, and to say that they ought to be governed by Rules, and not by Examples. The World has been always a Scene of Confusion: Many Revolutions have happened since the Christian Religion prevail­ed; some of these were in the best Ages; they were often brought a­bout by treacherous and cruel Me­thods, and were both introduced and maintained by Violence. Bi­shops were often put from their Sees, sometimes without the Forms of Ecclesiastical Proceedings; and [Page 150] the Passion and Injustice with which they were pushed, is often too visible to be capable of an A­pology: Therefore we think that when the general Arguments, which we bring for maintaining the Peace and Order of the World in all such Cases, besides the more special ones, by which we justify the present Con­stitution, and our late Proceedings, receive a confirmation from the constant and uniform Practice of the Church in all Ages in such Cases, though much worse as to their par­ticular Circumstances, and in all Respects such as cannot be justified, yea and scarce excused, we think: I say, that this will fully satisfy all Men of clear and unbiassed Minds.

With this I leave the Matter, and our Author both. I have in this whole Debate stood meerly upon the defensive against him; and have [Page 151] detected the Injustice and Falshood of his Calumnies, without endeavour­ing to retaliate or to examine either his Books or his Life. The Pattern that he has set, and pursued in so many of his Writings, has so little of common Humanity and Decen­cy, not to say of true Christianity in it, that I am no way disposed to write after so vicious a Copy. To read so many Books, to pick up so many Stories, and to vent them in so foul a Style, and with such En­largements and Commentaries, does no great Service to his Party, nor Honour to his Profession. They shew that he is under the unhappi­ness of too much leisure ill im­ploied, and under the far greater unhappiness of a restless Spite, and an eager Malice.

[Page 152]I have only said what I thought necessary to defend our Selves and our Cause, without any other Re­flections but what arises out of that. I thought it an Imployment unbecoming a Christian, or a Man in Holy Orders, to read over all their Books, to hearken after all Tattles, and to gather Materials for defaming Him or his Friends. God preserve me from such a Temper. The false Mother could see the Child murthered, rather than the true Mother should have it. He labours even to fortify Atheism by exposing us so as to defeat our La­bours, and to strengthen the common Enemy, disgracing our Persons and Performances, and representing us to be of their Side. We leave that to God, who knows the Sincerity of our Hearts, and the cleanness of our Hands in his sight; and will render to [Page 153] every Man according to his deeds. The Contentious, the Blasphemous, and those that love and make Lies, have a Portion abiding them, from which I pray God preserve this poor Man; though he is labouring hard to make it sure to himself. And therefore having said enough to shew the Falshood of his Book, I will pursue this Matter no further.

I have been for many Years si­lent; and have thought none of their Calumnies worth the giving the World the trouble of an Answer. Apologies for ones self are things in which no modest Man can take Pleasure; they look like an anxiety concerning Fame, or the Esteem of the World. Our Saviour answered not a word when he was vehemently ac­cused, and bitterly reviled; yet he spoke at last, when the justifying his Innocence required it.

[Page 154]One would chuse always to be silent, and to commit his cause to God, and bear Slanders on every side; it being a much nobler Triumph to live one's own Apology, than to write it; yet sometimes it seems necessary to say somewhat. If the Memory of that Great Man, and now Blessed Saint, who honoured me with so long and so particular a Friendship, had not been very dear to me, and if a passage in the Hi­story of the Reformation had not seemed to require an account of it, I could have born this with the same Patience that I had expressed upon other Provocations. But since I found it was generally expected that I should defend the Memory of my Friend, as well as my self; I have kept within those bounds, and have avoided to say any thing that might look like Retaliation.

[Page 155]I have left many trifling Things without any Answer; not for want of good Matter, but from that just tediousness that it gives to a Man's self, as well as to his Readers, to enter into a long Discussion of many trifling Stories relating to himself. I have not considered many Re­flections he makes on some of my Reverend Brethren, nor those he le­vels at our Most Reverend Primate; they shew a keenness of Spite that can hurt no Man but himself, and therefore I pass them all over.

Much less will I take any notice of that Impudence of his Malice that dares attack so great a Name, who shines now so gloriously in the universal Admiration of the Age, and whose loss has put the World under the deepest Mourning. Yet even that Blessed Saint is not let lie quiet in Her Grave: But Her Fame [Page 156] as well as Her Person are above Ma­lice: And therefore I leave him to that load of Infamy, which his base Aspersions on Her Memory must throw upon himself. I can bear all that he, or his Party, can say of my self patiently, and for most part silently; I can bear what is said of our late Primate decently, and an­swer it calmly: But I owe those Sacred Ashes so profound a Respect, that I think a transport of Indigna­tion does not misbecome me when so Sacrilegious a Hand offers to Vio­late or Stain them. I shall add no more on this Head, but that it is an Honour to be defamed by the same profane and polluted Breath, that durst attempt on the Memory of our late BLESSED, BLESSED QUEEN.

It is now more than time to con­clude. I wish with all my Heart [Page 157] that the Discoveries I have now made of the Falshoods and Calum­nies of this Book, may open the Eyes of those, whom some wicked Men have too much blinded; that so they may be no more possessed with their Stories, nor apt to re­ceive such new ones as they may be still inventing and spreading. They shew they have little quiet within; and then, no wonder, if like the troubled Waters they are still throwing up Mire and Dirt. I hope enough is now said to convince the Nation of their Injustice and Ill­nature, and how little any thing that comes from them is to be be­lieved; and that it appears how boldly they vent downright Lyes; and with what false Colours they set out those few Truths, upon which they think they may Tri­umph without ceasing. It is not [Page 158] to be expected that we can often suffer our selves to be diverted from better Exercises, by Animadverting upon their Libels. If we do not answer every one of them, it is be­cause we pity their Malice, and will neither feed nor humour it by a con­tinual Contradiction. Let them boast their Catalogues of Books not answered as much as they will, we are sure there is more than enough writ to justify our Cause and our Proceedings; and as for those Dis­charges of Bile and Choler that they throw out upon us, we can bear them as to our own particular; and commit our Cause to him that judges Righteously, that will execute Judgment upon them for all their ungodly Deeds, and the hard Speeches which these Mur­murers and Complainers are daily speaking against us. But of some of them we have a just Compassion, and know [Page 159] how to make a difference among them; of others we are more justly afraid; and yet we would gladly even save them, pulling them out of this Fire into which they have thrown themselves, and which will, if not prevented, make way to a more intollerable and endless one. From which God of his Mercy preserve them; and preserve all others from being corrupted by their ill Example, or infected with their Contagion.