YOU may remember, that discoursing with you frequently about some Pieces that have appear'd under the late Learned and Pious Bishop of Lincoln's Name, particularly that of the Genu­ine Remains, I always express't my Sense about them to this effect; That though there was foul play practised in the publishing of them, and such as deserved to be taken notice of, yet that those concern'd therein had laid their design (of getting a penny) so open, and their poor Arts of raising the price and bulk of a Book so obvi­ous and undisguised, that they were visible to every Eye without being pointed to, and so needed not be more effectually exposed than they had done it them­selves.

And for the clearing us, whom the Bishop was plea­sed to appoint Legatees for all his own Original Manu­scripts, I thought it sufficient for us openly to disavow (as for my part, I did upon all occasions) our being either consenting or so much as privy to the Printing any of them; which if we had been minded to do, it [Page 8] had been easy to have made choice of such, as were infinitely more worthy of the Bishop's Character. And to remove all Suspicion at the greater distance, I fail'd not to acquaint others (as opportunity served) that the Bishop, at the disposal of his MSS. shew'd no inclination to have any of them publish'd after his Decease; for that the freedom being taken to ask his Lordship whether he would have any of them Printed, his Answer was, (as near as I could recollect) that he did not desire that any should. Now though this did not amount to an absolute Prohibition, yet I told them we took it to be a Signification of the Bishop's Mind, and accordingly thought our Selves bound religiously to observe it, notwithstanding the expectations and impor­tunities of others, or the Advantage we might otherwise propose to our selves.

And thus being in no wise conscious to our selves, of sending any thing abroad under the Bishop's Name; I hope it may seem the more excusable that we have been the less concern'd to publish our Innocence.

The only thing then that could be expected from us, was, thas something should be offer'd in Vindi­cation of the Bishop's Memory, to which upon several accounts we owe a great Esteem and Veneration, and which indeed would be extremely injured, if the World should believe (what is suggested in the Pomp­ous Title) that Those were THE Genuine Products of the Learned Prelate's long Study and Labour. But the truth is, I could never perswade my self that any that were acquainted with his Lordship's great Abilities (as few were ignorant of them) could ever entertain so injurious a thought of him. It was very well known that as He had made a noble Collection of Books, so he put them to better use than any thing that's Printed [Page 9] since his Death doth shew; and has taken the most effectual way to make them serviceable hereafter, by bequeathing them to Bodley's and Queens-College Li­braries in Oxford, and thereby accomplishing his own often repeated promises, and the hopes that others had conceiv'd thereupon.

And these Considerations you know, Sir, wrought so far with me, that I thought it unnecessary any thing should be offer'd in print, either for the Vindication of our Patron, or the Satisfaction of others. And herein you seem'd heretofore to concur with me. Nevertheless, since as well upon the said accounts, as to justify our selves from some groundless surmises, you judge it need­ful something should be said; I am ready to commu­nicate a few things that occur'd to me in the perusal of the Remains (for to take notice of every thing that would bear a Reflection, would be an endless labour) and shall leave it to your Discretion to make what use of them you think fit.

It was not to be expected, but that one specious Pretence or other would be made use of to palliate the matter, and the rather, because the most unbecoming Actions (like the homeliest Faces) require the most Art to set them off. And therefore to make Bookseller and Buyer the better to swallow the Pill, nothing less is pretended than the gratifyng the Learned World, and erecting a lasting Monument of Praise to the Bishop's Memory, by the Publication of this Book. As to the latter part of the Plea, it must be owned that the Pious Architect's Zeal for the Bishop's Honour has trans­ported him so far, that rather than want Materials for a Monument, he has piled together such despicable ones, as if compar'd with others the Bishop has left behind Him, would make Him lamented as buried in Ruins. [Page 10] How far he design'd to oblige the World by this Col­lection of Relicks, is only discernible to the Searcher of Hearts; but how far he has compass'd that Design, o­thers may judge: And I can't forbear (on this Occa­sion) reflecting on the subtile Trade which the Romish Fryars drive in vending the Relicks of their Saints, which, there are shrew'd Temptations to believe, is not so much for the benefit of the People as themselves.

But that which seems a Jest upon the Reader's Un­derstanding, is, that the Editor would make him be­lieve he is tender ofp. 567. swelling the Volume to too great a bulk, when 'tis visible he has scraped together both Old and New, Good and Bad, Genuine and Adulterate, the one to be a Vehicle to the other, and both together to screw Mr. Dunton up to a Pitch. If the World be so Superstitious as to be fond of Relicks, does he think Men will renounce their Senses too, and in spight of them believe that he is in good earnest careful not to be too bulky, when to advance the number of Sheets he has added several of his own, and patch'd up a third part of the rest of the Book out of old Pieces, witness the Preface to the Gun-powder Treason, the Tract against Baxter, and the two Metaphysical Exer­citations; when he has glean'd up a parcel of private Letters and Correspondencies, and much other crude and indigested Matter, which we may reasonably pre­sume the Bishop would never have desired should have seen any other light after his death, but that of the Flames?

In the Directions to a Young Divine, there are abun­dance of things marshall'd under that Head, which the Bishop never intended for that purpose. Amongst o­thers, there's a Syllabus of Socinian Questions foisted in; concerning which 'twould perhaps puzzle the Editor to [Page 11] give a satisfactory Answer to any of these Four Questi­ons. Why it was Printed at all? Why at such an unsea­sonable time? Why under a false and improper Head? And why so lame and imperfect?

Why Printed at all? Was it that the Editor would have the Bishop thought an Abettor of Socinianism? from which he stood at as great a Distance, as one part of a Contradiction from the other, as every one knows that was not a meer Stranger both to his Writings and Con­versation. Or was it for the general Information of Mankind, in a part of knowledge they might with more safety be ignorant of? The Socinians are look'd upon by some as great Masters of reasoning, and perhaps they bid as fair for it, as the weakness of the Cause, they maintain, will admit of: So that what M. Cato observ'd of Caesar, seems in some wise applicable to Socinus, Ʋnum ex Omnibus ad Evertendam Rempublicam [Christianam] Sobrium accessisse. And his Opinions being so dangerous to the Foundation of Christianity, it is somewhat unaccountable what necessity there was, to be directed to Chapter, Page, and Section, where to find them asserted to all the advantage they are capable of: Especially if we consider, that Men are naturally too inquisitive after forbidden Knowledge: The Experiment cost our first Parents very dear, and their Posterity have ever had such a fatal Curiosity to pry into the Errors of former Ages, as never needs to be set on edge. Whatsoever therefore the Bishop might Communicate to a particular Friend, and one that was more than ordinarily curious in the Study of Theological Matters (as the Prefacer has it) yet he could never intend that Syllabus of Questions (in the dress it ap­pears in) for common and Publick Use: Much less would he ever have consented to the dispersing of it [Page 12] at such a time as this, when the Pestilent Heresies of Socinus are more industriously propagated in the Na­tion than ever.

But there is yet more Injustice done the Bishop, by Printing it under an improper Head. 'Tis certain he never made That any part of his Instructions to a young Divine, either in that Copy the Editor met with or any other. For the Learned Prelate could not be ignorant, how dangerous it might prove to a Novice in Divinity, to direct him to a number of So­cinian Writers, without Signifying withal where to find their Errors confuted. This had been to prescribe Poison without it's Antidote; to pervert and lead astray his young Student, rather than instruct him in the right Search of Truth, and so to influence his more injudi­cious years with the leaven of Heresie, as it might cost him some time and pains to wear off the Impres­sion.

But lastly, if printed it must be, and at an unsea­sonable time too, and moreover under an improper Head; why was it after all sent abroad so lame and imperfect, I mean, without those references to Orthodox Authors, who have designedly and successfully writ against the Socinians, and which are found in the Bishop's Original Papers? I am not willing indeed to believe that the Collector omitted them, out of any affection to Socinianism. No, to do him right, he is so true to his main end, and has so carefully inserted (without Distinction) whatever might serve to pro­mote it, that he can't be suspected to postpone his In­terest in favour of that, or any other Perswasion what­soever. And therefore we may well enough suppose he has left out nothing that was in the Copy he met with: But then, is there not reason to expostulate the [Page 13] Case with him, why this or any thing else should be publish'd under a great Name from Copies defective or unfinish'd, to the Impairing of the Author's Repu­tation, and rather injury than benefit of others? But to make no more words about it, to shew how Genu­ine a Remain this same (amongst others) is, I have sent you what I find in the Bishop's MSS concerning the Anti-Socinian Writers, which I should think, ought ra­ther to have been Printed single, and the other omit­ted, than the contrary.

What follows the Directions (to Page 383.) is little else but some private Letters and scatter'd Papers, glean'd up from several Quarters; many of which are not to be found amongst the Bishop's Writings; a certain sign this, that if they be Genuine, he set little or no value on them; it being his constant Method, when he communi­cated any thing he valued, to his Friends, to desire them to return the Copy, or at least to cause it to be tran­scribed before he sent it. Amongst his Papers there are found Letters writ from every Corner of the Com­pass, and amongst others, some sign'd with P. P. and dated from the Strand, near the May-pole. If all were such as His, it would be worth the while to make a Present of them to the Haberdasher of Small-wares in the Poultrey. But I would first know whe­ther P. P. would take it well to have His Expos'd to publick Censure. The Prefacer to the Remains, (if that be his Name at large) says that no Works are more grateful to Critical Readers, than such as are compri­zed by way of Epistle. Now I do assure him, His are very entertaining that way; and if we should divert the Reader at his cost, it would be but a just Reta­liation. However, his Letters will be kept by way of Reprizal for further Service.

[Page 14]Next in order follow a Preface to a Discourse con­cerning the Gunpowder-Treason, an Answer to a Tract of Mr. Baxter's, and a little after two Metaphysical Exercitations; all which being in Print before, 'tis hard to say for what end they are now Re-printed, unless to swell the Volume, and thereby lay a Tax upon the Subject. I believe few will think the Translator of the Exercitations has merited any thing by his pains, either from the Bishop or the Reader. For of good La­tine States, he has made them but very indifferent Eng­lish ones, and as unintelligible to the English Reader, (for whom, I suppose, they were design'd) as Rosacrusian Philosophy.

The like, nay much worse Treatment have the States of Questions met with, which begin p. 568. and so in a manner close the Book. These they have given us in such an Heterogeneous, Equivocal Mungrel Version, as I defy the whole Fraternity of Translators to match, from the famous R. L. down to M's. School-boys. So that it may truly be vouched upon this occasion, if ever, Faciunt intelligendo ut nihil intelligant. Besides 'tis manifest, the Bishop has writ them hastily and incuri­ously; And though probably he might sometimes read them in the College Chappel, yet it can no more from thence be concluded, that he calculated them for the Press, than that a Man designs every thing he utters amongst private Friends should be proclaim'd at the Cross. But whatsoever they are in themselves, they have suffer'd in many places, by being garbled, depra­ved and ill Translated, and sometimes by the omission of (what was of great Use in such short and imperfect Tracts) the References to particular Authors, who have handled the Points more copiously.

[Page 15]That this Charge may not seem to be laid without Ground, I will give you a few Specimens of the Tran­slator's or Transcriber's Performance in one of the States. And to prevent all Suspicion, as if I intended to ag­gravate the matter, and with a spiteful Diligence to cull out the worst for a Pattern of the rest, I will be so fair as to look no farther than into the very first Question that offers it self, and from thence leave o­thers to judge what may be expected in the rest.

The first Question then is,p. 568. An Praescientia Divina à Rebus praevisis tollat Contingentiam? where we need not seek far before the Translator gives us some Tryals of his Skill. For in the very first Page but one, and within the compass of half of it, there are half as ma­ny Blunders as Lines. Instead of Alicui praesens esse, (lin. 14.) as it is in the Original, and as the Author's Sense requires it should be, we read corruptly, Alicujus praesens esse. The Bishop is proving that a Future Con­tingent, cannot be actually Present (Scientiae etiam Di­vinae) even to Divine Knowledge; and gives this Rea­son for it, because Alicui praesens esse supponit esse ex parte rei, To be present to any one, &c. not alicujus, but alicui in the same Case with Scientiae Divinae. This, 'tis true, may be a slip of the Press, but it looks much liker an Error elsewhere.

Two or three Lines further the Bishop adds, Cum ideo Deus praescivit Futura Contingentia ab aeterno, necesse est ut ipsi etiam sint futura, nempe respectu actualis existen­tiae. This is render'd, When therefore God did fore-know future Contingencies from Eternity, it is neces­sary that they should be to him even Future. Now any School-boy would have render'd [Cum ideo] pro­perly [Since therefore]; and necesse est ut ipsi etiam sint futura, should likewise have been turn'd, It is necessary [Page 16] that they be future even to him, or to him also, not to him even future; because, 'tis plain, Etiam makes Ipsi Emphatical, not Futura; agreeably to the Bishop's de­sign, which was to prove that Future Contingents are future even to God, is, to him as well as to others; that which some, whom he mentions, did deny.

But the next words that follow are perverted more inexcusably. The words in the MS. are, Futura Con­tingentia ab aeterno non erant, which the unskilful Gar­bler has turn'd, They were not futura contingentia ab aeterno; which neither answers the Bishop's Latin, nor his Argument, nor makes him write consistently with Truth, or with himself. It answers not his Latin; For these words Futura contingentia ab aeterno non erant, are a Proposition secundi Adjacentis (as the Logicians term it) wherein the Verb includes both the Copula and the Predicate; and so non erant signifies as much as non existebant, or non erant existentia: and the Sense of the words will be, that Future Contingents were not existent from all Eternity. This will appear plain enough, if we consider the Argument. For the Bishop's Asser­tion immediately preceding is, that Future Contin­gents could not be present with God from Eternity, in respect of their actual Existence; the medium where­by he proves it expresly, is, because Future Contingents ab aeterno non erant, were not existent from Eternity, therefore he infers from Eternity they could not be pre­sent with God. Thus it appears the Translator has neither understood the Sense of the Bishop's words, nor the drift of his Argument: and yet both these are more pardonable, than to make him assert that which is really false in it self, and moreover a Contradicti­on to what he had said just before. It is false to say, They were not futura Contingentia ab Aeterno; for fu­ture [Page 17] Contingents were such from Eternity; the matter of this Proposition, for Instance, Petrus Dominum ab­negabit, being future and contingent from Eternity. And if they were not from Eternity, then they could not be fore-known by God from Eternity; but the Bishop had said in the words foregoing, that God fore-knew them from Eternity: Therefore to make Him assert that Fu­ture Contingents were not from Eternity, is to make him inconsistent with himself: For which all due Thanks to the Translator's Care and Judgment.

If any of the foremention'd Mistakes seem too light to be animadverted upon; yet Mistakes they are, and such as none that had rightly understood what he had been about, could have been guilty of. And stum­bling upon so many within so short a compass, and at the very Threshold (as it were), I thought I needed go no further in; looking upon these as an Omen, or sufficient warning what we have to trust to elsewhere.

But besides the unfaithfulness of the Version-part either the Transcriber of the States (whom the Editor speaks of p. 567.) took but imperfect Copies of them, or the Translator has assum'd (by what autho­rity, I know not) an Inquisitorial Power of Purga­tion, or rather Depravation, through the whole. And of this also (according to promise) I will seek for no other proof, but what the first Question furnishes us with.

The Bishop, it seems, resolves it into these two Conclusions:

• 1. Quod Deus Futura Contingentia cognoscat.
• 2. Quod cognitio haec eorum contingentiam non tollat.

The former (viz.) That God do's foreknow future Contingents, he proves, against the Socinians, by three [Page 18] Arguments; the first of which is taken from God's Foreknowledge and Prediction of the Circumstances of our Saviour's Conception and Birth. This the Pur­gator has vouchsafed to transmit more faithfully than the other, though not entirely neither. But for the other two, he has so contracted them into Short-hand, that they are rather Hints than Arguments, as is easily perceiv'd by comparing the Arguments as managed by the Bishop, and as dock'd and mangled in the Remains.

The Bishop's Second Argument stands thus:

2. Joh. 19. v. 36. Christo de arbore infelici Suspenso, unà cum Sicariis, accedunt Milites; reliquorum crura fran­gunt, sed Christi crura integra relinquunt & illaesa: Ratio­nem reddit Textus, Omnia haec gesta sunt, ut Scriptura impleretur, dicens, Non frangetur ejus os unum. Cum ideo hoc Deus praedixit, cum (que) contingens omnino erat, (Mi­lites enim potentiam habuerunt liberam, ut frangerent, & Christi crura talia erant, ut facilè frangi poterant) ma­nifestum est Futura contingentia Deo esse certò cognita. Dico, Certò cognovit Deus crura non esse frangenda, alias falli poterat, quod tamen Sacer Textus expressè negat. Joh. 10.35. Si illos dixit Deos, ad quos Sermo Dei factus est, & Scriptura solvi non potest, &c. Scil. si Christo fides, Scriptura [...], non potest solvi, i. e. violari aut irrita reddi; [...], non possibile est, seu (quod idem) impossibile est ut solvatur: Et ideo necesse est ut Futura Contingentia ita eveniant prout praedixit Deus.

Here is some Management of an Argument in this; but one must have very good Eyes, or else the Tran­slator's Spectacles, that can discern the true stress of it, as he has order'd it; which take as follows, at Large.

[Page 19] And then it was foretold, that not a Bone of Christ should be broken on the Cross, and many Circumstances were verified according to the Prophesies of old therein.

The same Fate has the Bishop's Third Argument un­dergon, which in the MS. runs thus,

3. Deus hoc sibi arrogat ut incommunicabile Deitatis pri­vilegium, quod futura praenuntiet. Isa. 41.22, 23. Sic enim Deus falsos alloquitur Prophetas—Annuntiate futura, ut cognoscamus, quia Dii estis. Sic Isa. 44.6, 7. Praeter me non est Deus: quis mihi similis? Vocet & de­nuntiet, ex quo constitui populum antiquum; ventura & futura annuntient iis. Sic Dan. 2. Mysterium, quod Rex interrogat, Sapientes, Magi, Arioli & Aruspices ne­queunt indicare Regi; sed est Deus in Coelo revelans mysteria, qui indicabit Tibi, O Rex, quae ventura sunt in novissimis temporibus. Nempe futura in novissimis temporibus revelat Deus, ea (que) contingentia: nam (1^o.) Futura necessaria non solum Daemones, sed & homines sa­pientes revelare poterant; at futura, de quibus sacer Tex­tus hic loquitur, Deus sibi-ipsi soli arrogat revelanda (2^o.) Futura de quibus hic loquitur Daniel, erant de regno Christi Sub Evangelio, de regno Babylonico, Persico, Macedonico, Romano; futura scil. per homines liberrimè administrata. At haec omnia certò & infallibiliter praedixit Deus. Ergo, Futura contingentia certò cognoscit.

Of all this the Epitomizer vouchsafes to give us only a short hint in these words:

This Fore-knowledge in Scripture God assumes to Himself, and upbraids the False Prophets, because they did not know things to come, Isa. 44. Dan. 2.

The Bishop having said all he thought necessary up­on the first Position above-mention'd, viz. That God fore-knows future Contingents, he refers his Hearers for [Page 20] further Information to severalQui plura vellet, Aquin. vid at P. 1. qu. 14. Magistr. Sentent. [...]. 1. [...]u. 38. Et Commentatores ibi [...]m omnes, praecip [...]è Fran­ [...] C [...]mel, [...]a [...]ar. Disput. in p [...]m partem Aquin. tibi per [...] de Praesetentia Dei circa F [...]. C [...]nting. fusè disputat & nerv [...]è, &c. Au­thors, who handle it more largely; whom the Purgator has very judici­ously pass'd over, though one would think such References were of most Use in Abstracts, or short States.

You see I have run through the Book, but after a Desultory manner: Yet these Evidences (out of many that might be pro­duced) are sufficient to shew what an unlimited and an unwarrantable Liberty is taken, not only to publish things without the Author's Consent, either express or presumptive, but also to maim, corrupt and abuse them, and after all to Palm them for Genuine upon the World.

I would here make an end, but that the Editor has contrived such a Remain for the close of his Book, as deserves not to be pass'd over without an Observation. 'Tis a Letter of the Bishop's to his Clergy, occasion'd by an Order of Sessions, for the Prosecution of the Laws against Dissenters, which whatever Service or Credit it may do the Bishop, I am sure can do the Editor neither. For 'tis notorious that Sir P. P. has been a Champion for Toleration; witness the Case of Toleration heretofore Printed with his Name to it, and his Preface to a for­mer Book of the Bishop of Lincoln's Tracts: And yet he has taken care to let the World understand by this Letter, that the Bishop thought the Laws against Dis­senters good, and their Execution necessary, and that he not only requir'd his Clergy to publish the above­said Order, and diligently to advance the design of it, but inforc'd the Reasonableness of Conformity to the Establisht Church by such Arguments, as in my opinion, 'tis scarce possible to comprise more or weightier in so small a compass. The Letter is but of two Pages, and if you have read it, pray tell me whether the Bp. has not said as much [Page 21] as could well be said, in so few lines, & what your thoughts were upon reading of it. Was it not obvious to conceive, that Considering Men would begin to question, whether the Discourse for Toleration, Printed amongst others lately under the Bp's Name, were really the Bp's, or some Suppo­sititious Piece? (And then let Sir P. see how he will avoid the suspicion of Forgery). Or if they acquit Sir P. in that, they would at least perceive, that how reasonable soever in the Theory a Toleration might seem to the Bp. yet when he came to reduce it to Practice, and have to do with the troublesome Spirit of our Dissenters, he found it not feasi­ble, nor consistent with the Weal of the Church: And then let Sir P. (the Champion for Toleration,) see how he will justify the Publishing so much against a Toleration, and under a Government too, that he would fain flatter for having granted it, and Establisht it by Law.

I fear I have transgress'd the bounds of a Letter; there­fore I shall add no more, save only to put in a short Caveat or two. And in the first place, Caveat Emptor, let the Pur­chaser beware hereafter, how he is impos'd upon by Sur­reptitious Pieces. All Coins have not the true Stamp; and some that have, have too great a mixture of the Alloy in the Metal to pass currant.

And if I might be admitted for once to be of Counsel to Persons of Quality and Learning, I would humbly advise them to be very cautious whom they admit à Secretis, lest it be their lot (as it has been lately of a Spiritual and a TemporalVid. Sir Joh. Thom­pson's Vin­dication of the E. of A. Lord) to have their Privacies expos'd by some Relick-Monger or other. I am