BY your so much urging me to think of Writing somewhat by way of Answer to Amyntor, it seems to me that you have not yet read the Book, but only dipt here and there in it, and be­cause you saw my Name frequently men­tioned, think there must needs be some­thing in the Book that bears hard upon me, and which I am concerned in Honor to make some Reply to.

I desire you therefore first, to read o­ver the Book very carefully, (if you have not yet done it) and after that, to con­sider those Reasons which I shall now give you, why I have no thoughts at present of Writing any Answer to it; and then I make no doubt but you will be of my Mind, viz. That it is altogether need­less for me, to give either my self, or the World any more trouble about this Mat­ter.

[Page 2] In Amyntor, there is first a general A­pology for Writing Lives, whether of good or bad Men. But in this part of the Book, from p. 1. to 11. you will see plainly I am not concerned.

The next part of it, from p. 11. to 81. was indeed occasioned by a Passage in my Sermon before the House of Com­mons; and therefore you with others, may think perhaps it lies on me to re­ply to it: But when you have read it o­ver, I believe you will be of another Mind, because you will easily perceive that the Author and I are at last, well enough agreed in that Point wherein we seemed most to differ.

The Matter of Fact is this. He had said in the Life of Milton, that many Sup­posititious Pieces under the Name of Christ and his Apostles, and other great Persons had been Published and Approved, (by some I suppose he means, not by all) in the Pri­mitive Times: And to this Observation, because (by my little Reading) I knew there was much of Truth in it, I made [Page 3] no Exception. But he had said moreo­ver, that he doubted the Spuriousness of seve­ral more such Books was yet undiscovered, thro' the Remoteness of those Times, &c. And this Passage I found fault with, as what proceeding from the Mouth of a Person in high Esteem (as I had heard) with some Men for his great Parts and Learn­ing, might give occasion to them, and to others not so well read in Antiquity as they took him to be, to think that some of those Books which are received by the whole Christian Church, as Parts of Ca­nonical Scripture, are of very uncertain Authority; (because, as I then said, I knew of no other Pieces under the Name of Christ and his Apostles, the Spurious­ness whereof had not been discovered) and I charged him with Infidelity, if indeed he did doubt of the Authority of these Books; and with Immodesty, for so o­penly Affronting the holy Religion, Pro­fessed and Established among us, by de­claring this his Doubt in Print.

But he sayes now, that I was mistaken [Page 4] in my Censure, because the Books which he meant, (viz. In this last Passage which I excepted against, as well as in the for­mer; or else all that he Writes from p. 18. to p. 43. is nothing to me, nor to the Purpose) are, either some Books, the Spuriousness of most of which has been discovered many hundred Years ago, and which are few of them now extant; a large Catalogue whereof he has given us from p. 20. to p. 42, and it seems it was only my foolish Mistake to think that the word (yet) when he sayes the Spuriousness of these Books is yet undiscovered, did refer to this present Year, whenas indeed it was meant by him to refer to some time many Years since past and gone; or else he meant the Books ascribed to certain Apo­stolick Men; particularly the Epistle of Barnahas, the Pastor of Hermas, the Epi­stle of Polycarpus to the Philippians, the first Epistle of Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians, and the seven Epistles of Ig­inatus

[Page 5] And I can't imagine now what you would have me reply to this; for whether he did mean these, and only these Books in that Passage which I excepted against, none can certainly tell but himself; if therefore he sayes he did mean only these, and not the Books of the New Testament, how can I contradict him?

All that I could say to this, (if I had a mind to reply to this part of his Book) would be only to give the World the Reason that made me think, he meant not these only, but likewise some of the Books of the New Testament; which was this; that he having spoken before of Supposititious Pieces under the Name of Christ and his Apostles as well as of other great Per­sons; it was very reasonable to think, that when immediately after, in the same Pe­riod, he speaks of several more such Books, the Spuriousness of which is not yet discover­ed, he had meant, several, some at least, of all the sorts before mentioned; that is, some under the Name of Christ, and some under the Name of his Apostles, as well [Page 6] as some under the Name of other great Persons. For how should I know what he meant by such Books, but by looking back, and seeing what Books he had spoken of before? And finding that he had there spoken, not only of Books un­der the Name of other great Persons, but likewise under the Name of Christ and his Apostles, what could I understand by such Books, but some Books under the Name of Christ and his Apostles, as well as some under the Name of other great Persons? And if he did not mean so, or would not have been thought to have meant so; he ought, I think, to have distinguish'd and have made that Passage which I excepted against, an intire Sen­tence by its self; and have said plainly, that tho' he thought some Books Spurious, which some others believed to be Genuine, they were only some pieces that had been sacribed to the other great Men, but not any of those that were received as Pieces of Christ or his Apostles; and if he had Written his Mind thus clearly, I should [Page 7] no more have excepted against this Passage than I did against the former.

But he says, If I had been disposed to deal ingenuously with him, I might have seen, with­out the help of the Fathers, (which he suppo­ses I know nothing of) that he did not mean the Books of the New Testament, when he men­tioned Supposititious Pieces under the Name of Christ, since there is none Ascribed to him in the whole Bible, nor do we read there, that he ever wrote any thing, except once with his Finger on the Ground, when he acquit­ted the Woman taken in Adultery. But I wonder this should be urged by a Man that has so very lately written the Life of John Milton; for by the same Argument I might prove, that Paradice lost, and o­ther late Pieces Ascribed by this Author, as well as others, to John Milton, are none of his, because 'tis certain they were not written by him; for how could he Write when he was blind? And if to this he should answer, as I suppose he would, that they may however, truly and pro­perly enough, be said to be Pieces of [Page 8] Milton, because they were Dictated, al­though not Written by himself; I see no Reason why our Saviours Sermon on the Mount, and his several other Sermons and Discourses which were utter'd and spoken by himself, tho' Recorded by the Evangelists, may not be Ascribed to him; and be said (in this Author's Phrase) to be Pieces under the Name of Christ. So that if this be the only Reason I had to think, that when he mentioned Pieces under the Name of Christ and his A­postles, and other great Men, he did not mean the Books of the New Testament; I think that since there are no Pieces now extant, that can in any sense be called Pieces under the Name of Christ and his Apostles, the Spuriousness whereof hath not been discovered, except only those which make up the New Testa­ment. I had much better Reason to believe that he did mean these, or some of these. And in this Opinion I was the more con­firmed, because I never (either before the 30th of January, or since) have [Page 9] met with so much as one single Person that did not understand that Passage in his Book in the same Sense that I did.

Whether therefore I did mistake and misrepresent his Meaning, is a Question that none but he himself, who best knew his own Meaning, can decide; but whe­ther I mistook it (if indeed I did mistake it) without sufficient Ground from his own Expression, is another Question, which I could very willingly leave to be decided, by any indifferent Persons; nay, if I were to chuse the Judges, and could be well assu­red that they would speak their Minds freely, they should be those very Men that are his great Admirers, who I am perswa­ded would all with one Voice say that they understood him as I did; and that they look upon that Exposition which he has now given of that Passage, as little better than a Retractation of that bold Position which they thought he had be­fore advanced, and for the sake of which, and of other such like impious Insinua­tions, in that and other Books, said to be- [Page 10] Written by the same Author, (I fear) it is that they do chiefly admire him.

But whether I did misunderstand him, or no, and whether I had good reason to understand him as I did, or not, are private Questions, which only he and I are concerned in; and I think it foo­lish to trouble the rest of the World about them.

It is sufficient, that now at last we are agreed in the main Question, which is of more general Concern; for (unless I misunderstand him now as much as he says I did before) he now agrees with me, that the Books of the New Testament are Genuine, which was all I ever meant to contend for.

He therefore having declared,P. 42. that in the first Member of that Pas­sage in Milton's Life, by the Spurious Books published in the Primitive Times un­der the Name of Christ and his Apostles, and other great Men, he meant some of the Books mentioned in his Catalogue, p. 20. [Page 11] &c. (in which Point I did ne­ver disagree with him) and that in the second member of that Passage (with which only it was that I found fault) by the several more, [P. 43. such Books] he meant the supposed Writings of certain Apostolical Men (as they call them) Barnabas, Hermas, &c. About which the Learned World has been much divided, and probably will be, until greater Reason shall appear either wholly to reject them, as alto­gether Spurious, or wholly to receive them, as in all parts Genuine, than has yet been produced, either on the one side or the other: And he having moreover expresly granted,P. 57. that even those seven Pieces, (as he calls them) viz. The Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of James, the second of Peter, the second and third of John, Jude, and the Revelation, which were doubted by some of the Ancients, are (not without convincing Reasons) received by the Moderns; I have now no further Quarrel with him upon the account of this Passage; [Page 12] we are thus far fully agreed; may he always continue in the good Mind he seems now to be in. Only if I might be heard by him as a Friend, I would advise him, in the next Edition of Milton's Life, either so to alter the Ex­pression of that Passage which I ex­cepted against, that his meaning may not be so liable to be misunderstood; or else to add this Explanation which he now makes of it, in the Margin.

And now this great Difference being thus amicably composed; I don't see what Reason I (more than any one else) have to maintain a Dispute with him upon any other Account. For whereas I charged him with Confidence for asserting King Charles the First's Book, call'd Icon Basilike, to be spurious, with­out either producing any new Evidence for the Proof of his Assertion; or offering one word in Answer to those just and rational Exceptions, that had been made before to those only Testimonies, which he insists up­on to prove it a Forgery; or making any [Page 13] Exceptions to those later Evidences that have been produced to prove it Authentick; The matter of Fact he does not deny, and whether the Charge was justly grounded on the Matter of Fact, the World will judge.

In this last Book indeed, he says, he will make amends for all former O­missions; and, I suppose, thinks has done it; but whether he has or not, I shall likewise leave the World to judge; because I do not think it pro­per for me, to take this Controversie out of another Man's Hands, who is better prepared, and better able to ma­nage it than my self.

Only, because perhaps that worthy Person, (said by him and others to be Mr. Wagstaff,) may not think a formal Reply needful to that little, (that very little indeed) that is said in Amyntor, more than had been said before, to prove the Book Supposititious; I will just hint this one thing to you; (and upon Perusal of all that has been said [Page 14] on both sides, I believe you will find it true;) viz. that Dr. Gauden himself is the only Evidence that has yet ap­peared (and he, not in Person, but by his Friends, though in this I think no Friends to his Reputation or Memory) to prove himself the Author of that Book. For all that Dr. Walker says, is from Dr. Gauden; except only that he saw the Book under Dr. Gauden's Hand-writing; (which might be, and yet Dr. Gauden the Transcriber only, not the Author; according to what is said in Mr. Le Pla's Letter.) And all that Mrs. Gauden says, whether in the Fragments before published, or in the larger Narrative printed in A­myntor, is, as from her Husband, that is, from Dr. Gauden still. Nay, and even all that my Lord Anglesie testifies under his Hand, as told him by the Royal Brothers, (supposing the Memoran­dum to be my Lords Hand-writing, and that it contains a true Relation of what was told him by them;) and all [Page 15] that any other Persons, (though there be Five Hundred of them,) do or shall testifie as by Hear-say from the Royal Brothers, is from Dr. Gauden still; it plainly appearing by the whole Sto­ry, and particularly by Mr. North's Pa­pers, that both King Charles the Second, and his Brother did believe, or were thought to believe the Book to be their Fathers, till Dr. Gauden, in order to get a good Bishoprick for his good Servi­ces, told them otherwise. Dr. Gauden's Testimony being therefore the single E­vidence on that side: I leave it to you to consider, whether his manifest Inte­rest in affirming this, and his Zeal in pursuing his Interest by this Report of his, being so very evident, they do not render his single Testimony liable to great Suspicion. And I leave it to all the World to consider, of what weight or Validity any Man's Testimony can be, es­pecially when he testifies for his own Advantage, in case the Matter of his Testimony be such, that it can't be [Page 16] credited without allowing, that he (the Witness himself) has formerly been guil­ty of a most notorious Forgery, and consequently that he is not a credible Witness.

In the Conclusion of Amyntor the Author takes Occasion, from the Offence my Sermon has given him, to represent the great inconveniencies that have hap­pened by the Observation of the 30th. of January, and by the Sermons that have been preached upon that Day; and you may expect perhaps that I should say something to this; but I don't think it either needful or convenient; because I judge this to be a Matter more pro­per to be debated in Parliament then by private Persons.

But there is one thing noted in this Conclusion, which perhaps you may think lies upon me, more then any one else, to defend, viz. That speaking of K. CHARLES I. in my Sermon, I should say, the best of Kings, and the best of Men; which Expression he saies several [Page 17] were angry at; especially because I did not except the present King; (and he might have added, that 'twas a grea­ter Fault in me than it would been in another, because I Write my self Chap­lain to His Majesty) But the Author, I think, does not say he himself was of­fended at this Expression; and I suppose those several, (if indeed there were any that, upon this Account only were an­gry at it,) were only such, as not on­ly have not been conversant in ancient Authors, but are not yet so far read, even in their Testament, as to the be­ginning of St. Luke's Gospel, where v. 3. he stiles Theophilus, most excellent; by which, I suppose few, even of these beginners to read, do think that St. Luke meant to make a Comparison between him and other excellent Persons, and much less to prefer Theophilus before all other Men, the Holy Apostles of our Lord not ex­cepted. And therefore this being so manifestly an invidious Cavil, I think needs [Page 18] no Answer; especially when in the Ser­mon it self, tho' I commended K. Charles I. for his Virtues, I did allow that he had Faults; But the Faults that were then, and have since been charged upon him, being only such as he might be, and I believe was led into by Mis­information, and a mistake of the extent of his Power and Prerogative, I said they were only such as were consistent with Integrity of Mind; and such Faults as these I think can hardly be called Vices and Immoralities.

And Now, Sir, I hope you are sa­tisfied, that I have no Reason, more than any other Man, to engage my self in a further Controversie with J. T. the Author of Milton's Life; for as to the Reflections which he has in several places of Amyntor, (almost in every Page) made upon me; particularly, as to the meanness of my Parts, and my great want of Learning; I value them not; let the World believe of me as it [Page 19] pleases. Or if I was minded to make any Answer to these parts of his Book, it should be only this; That my Na­tural Parts are such as God was plea­sed to give me, to which I can no more add than to my Stature; howe­ver, such as they are, I am contented with them, and thankful for them: And that my Learning is as much, as by moderate Study, with such Parts, I have been able to attain. And to this perhaps, I should subjoyn a Prayer, in which I make no doubt J. T. would think himself included (as well as he is thought by some to be, in the Prayer for Jews, Turks, Infidels, and He­reticks) viz. That they who have better Parts, and more Learning, may use and improve them to the Glory of him that gave them; and do more good in the World than I am able to do.

These Reasons for my not Writing an Answer to Amyntor, if they satisfie you, you may please to communicate, [Page 20] as you have Opportunity, to any other of my Friends, whom you shall find to have the same Expectation from me that you had, by doing which, you will oblige,