I Perceive the Letter that was sent you hath so en­raged you, that you have laid open your own ex­treme weakness, and at last Betray'd your self. And I am concern'd at it for this only reason, because you have taken occasion to discharge a whole load of Cho­ler upon the Person of one, who is of known Integrity, Learning and Eminence in our Church, and in every re­spect so unlike Dr. Burnet, that I think my self obliged in Justice to so a worthy a Man, to assure you, that all this while you are mistaken in your Adversary, and I solemnly declare in the presence of God, that the Per­son against whom you write so Barbarously, had neither directly nor indirectly any Knowledg of the Letter you pretend to Answer; so that in Honor and Conscience you are bound to make him Reparations, if you can; espe­cially considering that he hath given you no Provocati­on unless it be this, that his is a Man true to the Crown and Church of England. I could hardly forbear smiling to observe your mistake, and to consider that Dr. Burnet is not Infallible: but could not but pity your Rashness, [Page 2] that you ran away with such a Cry upon a Presumption of your own. This it is, when you will hastily Plague the Press; but you give us this Caution, not to build too much upon your great Confidence in what you write. The only Excuse for you (I think) is, that the sense of your Guilt, for that Unbecoming and Unnecessary touch about the close and Comfortable Importance, constrained you to believe, that you had Justly created an Enemy, and Deser­ved a Rebuke: but no body admires either your Ingenui­ty or Politicks, for characterizing One whose Reputation is above your reach, and who is so well able to give you your Due; especially when you your Self stand so fair to be flung at for your own close and comfortable Im­portance; I wish you to consider on it, and to beware lest you Trust too much to good Natures.

Let us now go to the business in hand: a matter that (I assure you) is not managed out of rude Disrespect, or Quarrel against your Person; but partly to Rescue the Reputation of Honest Mr. Lowth; partly to do Right to the Memory of that Holy Martyr, Archbishop Cran­mer; and chiefly to vindicate the Honor and Interest of our establisht Church, which plainly lieth at the bottom of this dispute. For, if Cranmer changed not his First Opi­nion about Church-Power, any Man that is an Enemy to our Church may appeal to Cranmer's Judgment in favour of Erastianisme, and Presbytery; and you very well know, that that First Opinion of that great Man, has been stout­ly pleaded against the Necessity of our Episcopal Govern­ment. But if Cranmer did Retract his Opinion (as 'tis now granted he did) by Subscribing to the Judgment of Dr. Leyghton, it is of great moment to have the Truth of that Retraction made out clear. Now this, we say, you have not done; and that therefore you have dealt Unfaithfully with the World, because you saw in the Manuscript Cranmer's Retraction, and Subscription to [Page 3] Leyghton's Opinion, under his own Hand (upon the Point of Church-Power) and yet have not noted it in your Collection of Records. So that the Point being of such great Concernment, you must not think it will be ended by hard Words, by Ʋnmannerly and Scurrilous Language, especially such as is beyond the rate of a Bil­linsgate style, however it may be used by some ill-natur'd Pedlers abroad. Two things only you say in your De­fence. First, That in Copying out the Resolutions of several Bishops and Divines, you judged it might be more acceptable to the Reader to see every Man's Answer set down after every Question, and that therefore you Publish'd them in that Method (meaning a Different Method from what you found in the Originals) and that this you was advised to, as being the easier Method, &c. Secondly, That when you came to the last Question (about extreme Unction) you set this down on the Margent over against Cranmer's Subscription (to his own Paper) These are the Subscriptions which are at the end of every Man's Paper. Now truly all this seems to be nothing but Prevarication: for, as to your First Plea, (that you altered the Method in the Original Manuscripts) instead of being a just Excuse, it is a direct act of Un­faithfulness, and a clear argument of a Sinister Design. How came you to be so Bold, as to mangle the Monu­ments of the Dead, especially of those, upon whose Judg­ments and wise Proceedings the Honor of our Refor­mation doth so much depend? Whoever it was that gave you Advice, who gave you Authority to Methodize the Transcript of their Manuscripts at your pleasure? Or what End could you propose to your self, when you took Leyghtons entire Paper (which Cranmer Subscribed) in­to Pieces, and Divided the several parts of it Scattering­ly, and by piece-meals, here and there, (as you own you have done) unless it was Artificially to Conceal Granmer's Subscription to every Point in the Paper, save only the [Page 4] last Point, concerning Ʋnction? For, can you with Rea­son or Modesty pretend, that you did this for your Rea­ders Ease? And when you had written a Large Volume of your own? We have a Proverb in England, That he that swalloweth an Ox, need not stick at the Tail, especially when 'tis the best. Could it be out of regard to the Readers Ease, that you mangled the Paper of Leyghton and the rest, when you have Publish'd so many Entire Ori­ginals (and some that are not of such Great Considerati­on) in the Rest of your Collection, and in the Addenda too? Nor could it be for your Readers Satisfaction in the least. For all Men Love to see Exact Copies of Manu­scripts: and had these been so, we should have been at a Certainty, touching the sense of every one of those Bi­shops and Divines in every particular Point; whereas now we must take things upon Trust (especially such as have not the Manuscripts at Command) we must pre­sume upon the Faith of Dr. Burnet, which we think a Task too Hard and Ʋnreasonable to be imposed upon us. Besides, I appeal to the judgment of every Divine in our Church, whether every thing had not been infinitely clearer, than now it is; especially that thing in debate, viz. the Opinion of Granmer in the Point of Church-Power, had Leyghton's Paper been Pubish'd Entirely, with Cranmer's own Hand to it all, as 'tis in the Original. The truth is, had the Paper been so Copied out, Cranmer's Opinion could never have been urged more against our Establisht Church Government: and for that Reason ('tis to be feared) Leyhton's Paper (with Cranmer Subscribed) was chopt and minced into Porcels (without Cranmer's Hand to every Resolution) that his Opinion might be left very Dark and Doubtful, at the least; whereas every Faithful and Honest Historian will be careful to Print Manuscripts as he finds them, without using any manner of suspicious Tricks.

In the Second part of your Plea (touching your Mar­ginal Note upon the last Question about extreme Unction) you seem to set forth, that by publishing Cranmer's Sub­scription to the Opinion of Leyghton upon that Point, you have given us sufficient grounds to believe, that he Subscribed in all other Points, and that therefore you have been Faithful. To this I say, Sir, that you are ut­terly mistaken. For in regard that you have New Metho­diz'd, and Canton'd out, and Scatteringly dispos'd of Leygh­ton's Paper, Cranmer's Subscription to him in the last Ar­ticle, is no clear Argument that he was of Leyghton's Judgment in every Article beside: nor could you believe that your Reader would take it so, unless you had given this kind of Notice on the Margent over against every one of Leyhton's Resolutions, This, and This, and This Reso­lution of Leyghton's, Bishop Cranmer Subscribed to: and thus you ought to have done (if you would have dealt Clearly and Sincerely) considering that you took upon you to Methodize Leyghton's Paper after your own way. What you say, that by this art of Reasoning I may pretend, that my Subscription belongs only to the last line in my Letter, is impertinent and of no force. For should you, Sir, Retract your Error, as Bishop Cranmer did His, should you, Subscribe at the bottom of my Letter G. Burnet, and should some Vagrant Pedler at last carry this Letter into Scotland in broken shreds and piece-meals, would your Hand to the last little script of Paper clearly argue that you were of my Opinion in every particular? This would hardly satisfie the Loyal Clergy there of your Re­pentance and Ingenuity, though they would be very glad to see it. Pray Doctor let me intreat you seriously to consider this one thing. These Manuscripts were in the Hands of Dr. Stillingfleet when he wrote his Irenicum: and what think you? Did Cranmer's Subscription to Leyghton upon the last Point of Extreme Ʋnction, satisfie [Page 6] Dr. Stillingfleet that he was of Leyghton's Opinion in all other Points? Answer this Question clearly, and like an Honest, Plean-dealing Man. To prevent Cavil I desire you to believe, that I do not speak with any the least Reflection upon that Learned and Excellent Person, nor is Dr. Stillingfleet's name to be mentioned by me without due Respect and Honor: I know what his Opinion was when he wrote that Book; but such are his Merits, and the great Services he hath done on each Hand, that they out-weigh a single Error of his younger years, especially since he hath been so Just and Ingenuous as to Retract it. But since that great Man hath (like Archbishop Cranmer) own'd his mistake, I hope he will not take it amiss from me, if I mention it: and you know it was this, That no form of Church-Government is Necessary, but that it depends upon the Wisdom of the Magistrate and Church. For proof hereof, among other Arguments (such as they be) he particularly insisteth upon the Judgment of Cranmer, with­out taking any notice of Cranmer's Changing his Opinion,Vid. Irenic. a pag: 386. ad p. 393. or of his Subscribing to the Judgment of Leyghton, tho Cranmer's Sub­scription (at the end of Leyghton's Paper, and under the Article of Extreme Ʋnction) was under his own Hand in Dr. Stillingfleets Manuscripts. Now will you say, that Dr. Stillingfleet was satisfied by Cran­mer's Hand to one Article of Extreme Ʋnction, that he was of Leyghton's Judgment upon the Point of Church-Power? You cannot say this, without doing that worthy Person irreparable injury; for you must accuse him of great Ʋnfaithfulness, for urging an Opinion of Cranmer's, which he was satisfied in his Conscience by Cranmer's Sub­scription, that Cranmer altered and changed upon second and more Mature thoughts. You must say (if you will do Dr. Stillingfleet Right) that he was not satisfied by that Subscription of Cranmer's to that Article; and if He who [Page 7] had the Originals in his custody, and had considered the thing so much, was nevertheless Ʋnsatisfied and Deceived; well may all other Men be so too. I do not see how you will be able to get over this difficulty; and therefore you must be contented to give us leave to think, that because you have mangled the Originals in copying them out; by taking notice of Cranmer's Subscription to one Point only, you have dealt Ʋnfaithfully, and was willing either to Lead the World into an Error, or to Leave Men in one.

I think the substance of your Letter is now fully An­swer'd. If still you conceive, that you have been unkind­ly used by some tart expressions, I pray consider what high Provocations you have given. That you, a Foreigner, who have been so Pragmatical and Turbulent in your own Country, after so much mischief done by you There, should at last Thrust your self in among Ʋs, and lend your Assistance to Factious Spirits against Our Church, which is so well constituted, and might be quiet, were it not for such as you. And moreover, that you should pre­sume after such a Contemptuous and Insolent manner to treat the Regular Members of our Church, who by their Oaths and Duty are bound to maintain our Constitutions; this (not to speak of many things more) is such an un­pardonable Indignity, and an Argument of such intole­rable Pride, Arrogance, and a Factious Spirit, that you have reason to Bless your good Fortune, if you escape only with a Flea in your Ear. As to that expression in the former Letter, which you are pleased to call a Lewd Reflection on the whole Nation of Scotland; you palpa­bly wrest the meaning of it to a wrong Construction (a Faculty which Mr. Ferguson and Dr. Burnet have in a eminent degree.) It was not a Touch upon the Scotch Nation, but upon the disingenuous dealings of some par­ticular Scotch Men; the Author of that Letter having a [Page 8] true Honor (much more than Dr. Burnet) for those many Loyal Persons, who of late have so industriously shut the back-door against a Rebellion there, while some Scotch Ministers and others were fomenting Treason and Rebel­lion in our own Nation. Much less may you look upon it as a contempt of the King (whom we Honor next to God) or of the whole Royal Family (which God pre­serve) or of that Blessed Martyr (as you justly call him, of whom the World was not Worthy.) I give you ten thousand Thanks, and am your most humble Servant, for that one single expression, Blessed Martyr.

I have no more to add, unless it be to advise you, if you think it worth your time to Return upon me, that you Calumniate not Men's Morals, as you did so unwor­thily in your last Letter; lest you provoke some Body to follow your own Example, in writing Lives. Indeed it is Improper and Indecent to write any Man's Life before he Dies: yet sometimes a character may be as safely written upon one Man's Face, as upon another Man's Grave-stone, especially when the Forehead is Like the Marble, that up­on occasion Sweats, but never changeth Colour.

Farewel; I and a great many more good Men should be heartily glad that your next Letter to me were dated from Edinburgh: there it would quickly appear whether you or I have the greater Honor for the Scotch Nation.