The CONFLICT.
THE grand, and sole Charge (whereof the Reflector essays to give Proof) against the Apology, is leesing-making, i. e. telling of Lies, which in Scotland being made Treason, 'tis the Apologist's Mercy his Tryal is at an English Bar. Two Instances hereof are quoted with hideous Out-cry: One in pag. 4. of the Apology, respects David Cairns, Esquire; the other in pag. 23. the Arch-Bishop of Dublin. To both in general, I say, there is not a Syllable of either in the Original Copy of the Apology, which is yet extant, and whence the Printed Copy was taken. To the latter I shall Answer anon in due place: The former in pag. 4. Argument Fourth, runs thus [in special Counsellor Cairns, who declar'd for the then Prince of Orange, and the Protestant Religion; who form'd the Multitude into Companies, after locking the Gates.] The style as well as matter of these words, with the exact antithesis in the following, and fore-going parts of that Paragraph (these words excluded) may convince any Judicious Reader, they were inserted by a different hand. Not the Gentleman to whom the Apology was directed, not the Book-seller, nor the Printer, and least of all Mr. Cairns, to whose Style and Sense they bear no Analogy, who is much a Sufferer by them, though he knew nothing of 'em before he had it from the Press. But whoe're inserted them, where lies the falshood that has rais'd such a Dust, occasion'd so much Clamour? Where? first, 'tis said, Mr. Cairns declar'd (when he only by private Discourse endeavour'd to influence both City and Country) for the Prince of Orange and the Protestant Religion. Again, 'tis said, Mr. Cairns form'd the Multitude into Companies after the Gates were lock'd. He should have said, he inform'd the Multitude of their Interest and Duty, excited them by Arguments and his own Concurrence, to pursue with Constancy the good Cause they had generously espous'd. The truth of this passage, as it respects Mr. Cairns, is this: He was out of the City when the Gates were lock'd, but arriving the next hour, and being mighty well pleas'd at the Action, and Resolution of the Actors, but finding none of the grave Citizens with those brisk Juniors, walk'd with them round the Walls and Gates of the City, animating them to perfist in their Vigour and Resolution for the Protestant Religion, their Country, (and as far as he durst whisper it) for the Prince of Orange, as under God, Protector of both. Having left them in the Guard-House, he made it his next business to engage the Chief Citizens in the same Cause, some of which accompany'd him to the Guard-House the same Night, joyn'd with him in giving Encouragement and Direction to those Juniors: He with others wrote that Night to several Gentlemen in the Country, solliciting their Concurrence, and effectual Assistance. He also Discours'd the Bishop, but without effect. This Account I have from good hands, and do Appeal to any Competent Judge, whether it do not justifie the attributing to Mr. Cairns the equivalent at least, tho' not the same, which the Insertor, in somewhat a Rustic style, Complements him with. But Mr. Osborn's Vindicator transcends the Reflector and all others on this head, and says (pag. 26.) the Apologist ascribes that to Mr. Cairns, as single, which he always own'd, was done by joynt-consent with others. Ascribes? where? Either in the words now vindicated, or no where: Ascribes? what? The Honour of that first Action. How is that possible, when nothing is attributed to him, till after locking the Gates, which sure was the commencement of that first Action? Ascribes to him as single? Strange! when all is ascrib'd to him in conjunction with a plurality. To give Mr. Cairns the first room of either Citizens or Gentlemen of chief Note, that first influenc'd, countenanc'd, and concur'd with those Juniors mention'd, is no more than his due; unless the meer locking the Gates engross all the Honour of that Action: But to infer hence, the Apology ascribes that Honour to him as single, when it first makes him but one, (tho' a Chief and Leading Man) of the first Actors; and next mentions him relatively to a multitude, and both in part of one Period, is a new mode of deducing Consequences I never before this heard of. Nor can I divine what the Gentleman infers his [as single] from, unless it be the Infertor's [in special Mr. Cairns] that is especially, chiefly, or principally Mr. Cairns, I cannot else understand it: But then, how all, or any of these Synonimous terms can mean Mr. Cairns as single, exclusive of all others, has puzl'd my Grammar and Logic, and some Learned Men I have consulted about it; do therefore submit this inference, with the Explication I have now given of that Paragraph, to the unprejudic'd Reader; to whom I shall give no further trouble in perusing what I had prepar'd in Vindication of my first Plea for C. Walker, being reliev'd in part by Mr. Osborn's Vindication, and now superseded by the true Narrative last week Printed. Shall therefore pitch next in pag. 9th. of the Reflections, and make bold to reckon with the Reflector for his Leesing-making. For, having quoted these words of the Apology [It will be found the Interest of Church and State, to Repeal the Act of Scandalum Magnatum, as it respects that Order, i. e. of Bishops,] he thus subjoyns, That is to say, to abolish Episcopacy, and seclude them from the House of Lords. I knew a Verbose Man, who would ever begin his Elucidations and Expositions with a That is to say; who, tho' he never had a word to the purpose, yet often spake truth, was therefore by one half less unhappy than the Reflector, who rarely stumbles on either. What? Episcopacy and Scandalum Magnatum reciprocal terms? Must they stand and fall together? If they do, I cannot [Page] [...] my Vote for abolishing [...]opacy, because I would not abolish Presbytery, which is or should be the same. Bishop and Presbyter are made the same by two Apostolical Acts, both Prior to the Act of Scandalum Magnatum. The first, Act Apostol. Cap. vices. commate 17o. compar'd with Verse 28. where our English Translators, being by the Canons (I suppose) oblig'd to maintain a distinction of Order as well as Degree (jure divino) between Bishop and Presbyter, translated the word [...], i. e. Bishops, by the word Overseers; which with submission to their since-improv'd textual Learning, was ill done; for the most negligent Curate with greatest over-sight inspects his Flock, and in a sense is the greatest Overseer. The second Apostolical Act is that cited by the same Apostle Paul, Epistle to Titus, commate 5o. compar'd with Verse 7th. I might add several more from both St. Paul and St. Peter, but these two are sufficient to prove Bishop and Presbyter identifi'd by Apostolical Sanction, which to me is a Jus Divinum. But pray Reflector take notice, when I say these Apostolical Acts are Prior to our Acts of Parliament, I mean, tempore, not dignitate, or authoritate; For I am not ignorant that our Religion in England (which holds also in Church-Government) is call'd the Establish'd Religion, on the account of the Authority deriv'd to it from Acts of Parliament, but am withal assur'd, that the present Parliament (whatever may be said of any former) pays a great deference to Apostolical Acts, especially when cited with such convincing Evidence as I have these two.
My Second Plea for Col. Walker consisted in this, i. e. That Mr. Walker's Ecclesiastic Superiours, and chiefly that very Reverend Prelate from Ireland, who receiv'd Col. Walker into his Coach at Barnet, and under whose Conduct he was observ'd to Compile his Narrative, are the Principal Authors of the Misrepresentations charg'd on his Narrative. And do's the Reflector essay to disprove it? No: he dares not deny it, nor so much as name the Plea; but diverts the Reader from taking any Notice of it, by a pleasant Story. The Apologist's Informer mistook it seems Sir Robert Cotton's Coach for the Arch-Bishop's; but the Reflector assures you, the Coach was Sir Robert Cotton's, for (says he) I saw it. And then (as if the Plea deriv'd all validity and strength from this Circumstance) he subjoyns very Comically [So that if Sir Robert Cotton be an Arch-Bishop, he carries a Cloak over his Pall, and stands in need of a Dispensation for his Lay-Habit. I have heard of a Padder, that us'd to wear a Bishop's Gown and Sleeves over a Buff Coat, as often as he examin'd the Travellers Pockets: Being at Long-run catch'd, the Gentleman was hang'd; whether the Sacred Vestures were hang'd with him, or were consecrated anew, and apply'd to their Sacred Use, I cannot say, for I saw it not, as the Reflector says he did this Action: But I never till now, heard of a Knight in a Pall, nor an Arch-Bishop in a [...] [...]ector's Fancy elevated him [...] bit above Mercury; but what retur [...], [...] Arch-Bishop has made him for having lodg'd with his Grace (as Principal Author) the Failures of Mr. Walker's Narrative, as did the Apologist, I know not; I on my part hereby render him my hearty thanks for having sav'd me the labour of confirming my second Plea. Nor is the Reflector less kind in confirming my first Plea for Col. Walker, tho' in somewhat a preposterous Method, and where he little intended it.
That first Plea consisted of seven Arguments, evincing that Col. Walker neither is, nor can be Author of that Narrative. And here the Reflector neither affirms Mr. Walker wrote it, nor denies the contrary; nor so much as bids at one Argument, to prove him at all the Author of it; how then does he attempt an escape from the Apologist? as in the preceding Paragraph he vainly hop'd to mislead his Reader by a witty Story; so here he essays to divert him by this profound Query. Good Sir (says the Reflector) do me the favour to tell me, do you think Mr. Walker was the Compiler of that Narrative which passes under his Name, or no? Good Sir, do me the favour to tell me, whether it was Full Moon or Midnight, when you read my first Plea for Col. Walker, and first eight Pages of the Apology, both bestow'd in evincing, he is not the Compiler of that Narrative? The Reflector proceeds in a very Logical, disjunctive distribution of his Query; If you do (says he) as in the former part of your Paper you seem to insinuate) why do you Calumniate him for the Errors and Imperfections in it? I shall anon salute one or two of the Reflector's [it seems,] as to the term Calumniate, in my Opinion (as the Reflector has it of the word Abdicate) that Verb implies a spontaneous act and somewhat more; no less than a cooperation of the two Supream Powers of the Rational Soul, the Understanding, and Will, (a Calumny being confessedly an heinous immorality) but an Ass, I mean of four Legs, can exert a spontaneous Act, I am sure the Reflector's Horse could, if that Member of our Club was not mistaken, in faying, he run away with the Reflector's Rational Faculty, which I thought had been impossible, but for a wing'd Post from the higher or lower Regions. Were therefore the Supposition as true as 'tis false, it could amount to no more than a Mistake or intellectual Error, not a Calumny; since it neither had, nor ever shall have the consentient act of the Apologist's Will. But you, O Reflector, have calumniated the Grammatical, Logical, Moral sense of the Apology, the Sense and Reason of all, and your own among others that read it, in suggesting that it charges those Errors and Imperfections in that Narrative on Mr. Walker, when its main scope is to prove the contrary. And whereas you insinuate, that I seem to suspect Mr. Walker's Sense or Courage; I tell you, of his Courage he has given sufficient demonstration in page 24 of his Narrative, where he says, he mounted one of the Horses that were beaten to the Gates of Derry, and reliev'd Col. Murry, whom he saw surrounded with the [Page] [...] Name, with the colour of the Horse which Mr. Walker mounted at the Gate, neither of which could I ever learn, tho' all the surviving Actors were Interrogated on that Head; nor does Col. Murry remember he ever but from that Narrative, heard that Mr. Walker was that day on Horse-back, or at all seen in any Sally, much less see him come to his Relief. The other, and (I fear design'd) is the Narrator's conconcealing the greatest act of Gallantry performed at Derry, or perhaps in Europe, these seven years past at least, by one Man, i. e. Col. Murry his killing in that Sally General Mamow in a Personal Conflict, when the Colonel was deserted by so many of his own Party (as that Narrative reports) and surrounded by the Main Body of the Enemy's Horse. But to return to Mr. Walker, I should be very sorry he should not prove a Man of Sense too; for I hope to live to see him sit in the House of Peers in Westminster or Dublin; and then every body would be apt to say, that the King had spoil'd a good Colonel, and an excellent Governour of a Garison, (I hate to say, a Careful and faithful Store-keeper, and distributer of Provisions, as Mr. Osborn's Vindicator, pag. 2. and 23.) to make an ill Bishop, who would never be able to secure the Church from being crucified between Popery and Presbytery, as — between two Thieves, if he did not better plead her Cause than his Vindicator (that has scarce the Soul of an Insect) does his Narrative. Mean while, Reflector, give me leave to tell you, that if I had been so credulous as to have believ'd Mr. Walker compil'd that Narrative, these two Paragraphs of yours I have now scann'd, would have reliev'd my mistake, and confirm'd both Pleas of the Apology. I marvel your fertile Invention could not suggest to you, that once at least in those Weeks wherein Mr. C. &c. were licking the Paper into the form of a Narrative, Mr. Walker might be seen with a Pen in his hand, and Paper before him to write a Letter at least to some of his absent Friends, and then a Man of the Reflector's Courage would never have fail'd solemnly to aver he saw him writing the Narrative. But where the Fancy is Ʋbiquitarian, and the Judgment Ʋtopian No where., such slips are unaccountable, and so I pass this of the Reflector. And now ex abundanti, I offer him another Argument to prove it impossible Mr. Walker should compile that Narrative: The impossibility I infer from Mr. Walker's Circumstances during his Government in Derry, and in London till the Narrative was published. 'Tis to be observ'd, that Col. Walker in his Government much Copied Romulus and Tullus Hostilius's Platform of Government, yet he preferr'd that of Numa Pompilius. I do not mean (far be it from me) that the Colonel had any Nocturnal Consults with an Egerian Nymph; but my sense is, that as the best Governours of Garisons awake a Nights, and sleep by Day; so the Colonel being much up, and at his business a-nights, must be much down a-days, by the Old Maxim, Quod caret alternâ requie durabile non est. Now, all the memo [...] [...] the History of Actions [...], while he was asleep. The Analogy betwee [...] [...] ma's Government and the Colonel's may likewise [...] in this, that as Numa introduc'd many new Religious Ceremonies in Rome, so the Colonel one in Derry, i. e. whenever any Governour of Derry shall prefer a Parson to the Office of Keeper of the Stores, such Parson, in Veneration to his Gown, shall pass for Principal Governour, and enjoy the Honour of Priority in all Authoritative Orders and Subscriptions. But this I pass, for I can't bear, Mr. Walker should be neither Keeper of Men nor Sheep, but of some Belly-Timber, and a little Powder and Ball; and my Argument will stand impregnable without it, from the Colonel's Circumstances in London, during the patching up of that Narrative; for as it had been a merciless Cruelty to have impos'd that Task upon him immediately after the Fatigue both of the Siege and his long Journey, so if he had attempted it, he had undoubtedly prov'd Felo de se, before its accomplishment. For his day-hours (till after it was Printed) were bestow'd partly at Court, about State-Affairs, but principally in exchanging Public Entertainments with a more Public, yet never-satiating view of his own never-enough admir'd Person, who had much surpass'd in Warlike Exploits Alexander and Caesar, ay, and Hercules too with his Twelve Labours, though the Son of the best and biggest Jupiter. Pray read pag. 2. of his before-cited Observations. Mr. Walker was the man — whose Prodigious Actions no Age nor History can parallel, and which create credibility even in the most improbable Romances.
Thus I have in the Apology, and in this Vindication (both confirm'd by the Reflector) plac'd it beyond all Suspicion (though one Case-hardned Nego would have serv'd the turn) that Mr. Walker wrote not that Narrative. And yet, lest it should be turn'd into an Old Almanac before it has serv'd its Year, and the Purchase of the Copy break the Printer, I'le put the Reflector into a method, that may a little retrieve its Reputation with ignorant (i. e. the greater number of) Readers for some time. Let him Purchase two Witnesses with the following Qualifications: First, they must be no Gown-men, therefore no Women, Clergy-men, nor Lawyers; they may were Coats, but not of the Souldiers Fashion, lest they be suspected of having serv'd the Colonel in Derry, and to have been suborn'd: They may wear Cloaks, but not of the same Fashion with Knights, lest they have a Pall under them; the Presbyterian Cut will do best of any: Being thus array'd, they must appear in the Lower House of Convocation, (i. e. when they shall sit next) and standing before the Prolocutor's Chair, after they have turn'd up their Whiskers, and gravely strok'd their Beards, (Tacto quinetiam collari Penulae Presbyterianae, minimè vero paginâ Sacrâ, nè, si fortè manus, in librum Tobit, aperto nimirum codice, delaberetur, jurarent per creaturam, quod, ne fiat, jure Canonico veteri, gravi cautum est poena) they must hold forth, and solemnly [Page] [...] Glass in his left, and Pen [...] mouth, write that Narrative, five Pound of the [...] Thousand will precure him two Witnesses thus [...]alified in London or Westminster.
I proceed with the Reflector, who page 10. taxes [...]ny sincerity, in a very weighty point. The Apology supposes the Bishops advice to the Citizens was deliver'd immediately before locking the Gates, whereas he assures us 'twas some hours after. This is a very momentous circumstantial mistake, I therefor thank him for Correcting it. But by his misapplication of the Term Sincerity, and that of Calumny a little before, the Reflector seems to be as much a Stranger to the Notion of the Moral and Theological Vertues, as he is practically conversant in their opposite Vices. I wonder he should so much mistake the Notion of Sincerity, the most comprehensive, or rather the form of all Graces and Vertues: when, as I shall all along to the end of this Pamphlet shew, there is neither Vertue, nor Vice so familiar to him as the opposite Vice of Sincerity: whereof in his subsequent Words he gives us an Instance; where he charge me with the partial ascription of the credit of looking the Gates of Derry (intirely) to Mr. Irwin: Whereas the Apology expresly saies page 14. Mr. Irwin with some others of his Fellows locked all the Gates. The Reflector page 15. owns the truth of the passage related of the Bishop of Derry. It is true (says he) the Bishop left the City, being not able to influence the Citizens with his Doctrin: But what then? Why so many words, and so much notice taken of this singl? Action? Well pleaded, Reflector on behalf of the Bishop: What then Reflector? Because I would hope your Question preceeds more from pitiable Weakness then from unpardonable Malice to the King an Kingdoms, I will tell you, had the Bishops Doctrin taken place, and Derry been surrendred to Tyrconnel, what Power, or Policy, Humanely Speaking, could have prevented King James his being in undisturb'd Possession of all Ireland, before the first of May last? Not Inneskilling, I trow; not our Army that Arrived in Ireland in nine Months after locking Derry Gates. And if that King had then been possest of Ireland, how easily might he by Transporting but a third of his Army last Summer, recover Scotland too? What could have retarded his Progress in that Kingdom, but that great body of Presbyterians in the West of Scotland, as their Brethren did in the North of Ireland? What the consequence would have been in England before this, considering what Interest King James had then, (horresco referens) still has in this Isle, all good Men dread and detest: So much in answer to your wise Query. My temptation to mention the Bishop's Speech, was the affinity of some of the Crimes falsly charged by the Narrative on Mr. Osborn with the Bishops Doctrin and after departure from Derry. Of Mr. Osborn I need not, shall not now say any thing; but as to the very Reve [...] [...] that I am beyond all scruple perswade, [...] ever his Speech, and subsequent demeanour (supposing a compliance in the Citizens) had proved pernicious to Ireland, and dangerous to the three Kingdoms, yet what he said and did in that juncture, was the consequent of the Dictat of a real not pretended Conscience, which is the proximat rule of all both Religious and Moral Actions: that as Universal suffrage gives him the character of a very Learned, Exemplarily-Pious, Industrious, Preaching Prelate; so I firmly believe him as Loyally affected to the present Government, of a Temper as moderate, Pacifick, as fit an Instrument to reconcile and unite divided Protestants as any of his Gown. This much I sent to the Press after the Apology, but it came too late. The Reflector proceeds. But what? Could he find never a Text in Scripture pat to his purpose, but must sully the cleanness of his Apology by a prophane Heathen Poet? Yes, I could find one in the Old Testament, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy Neighbour. And another somewhere in the eighth of Saint John the Evangelist. But I made a scruple of sullying (indeed prophaning) Scripture with the subject of the Apology, in which nothing occurred properly Sacred, except a Ceremony, the Arch-Bishop and Gown: and I could not find so much as one name of any of the three in Sacred Code. For, the 1 Cor. 14. ult. [...], the only Scripture in the New Testament alledg'd for the Ceremonies, was by Mr. H. Jeans a Presbyterian Minister, twisted out of the great Hamonds hands, and I am afraid it will never be retriev'd unless Dr. Beveridg make it the Text for his next Concio ad Clerum; but had your pretty Story of the Cloak and Pall been Printed before the Apology, I could have prevailed with the Apostle Paul to vouch for the Cloak, and I could have turn'd the Pall into Parchment, and then it would bear a Sacred stamp, tho' the Arch-Bishop (I mean the Knight) remained prophane, (I mean) lay still. The Reflector subjoyns, it is a far fetcht allusion (he means my lines out of Juvenal) and as justly and patly I may retort from Verses of the same Author.
Monstrous patly Reflector, and very modestly said of your self: but whether the following Distic had not been more pat, let the Reader judge.
[Page] [...] till you make go [...] that [...] one in your first Paragraph; till then not a [...] London or London-Derry will purchase them at a Cann of Ale per dozen. Proceed we next to my Ten Queries which the Reader will do well to take a view of in the Apology, and next of the Reflectors wise Remarques on them.
QƲERE. I.
I give the Reflector my devout thanks for confirming the grand import of the First Query. I likewise gratefully accept his pains in correcting in words at length the carless Printers additional Cypher, though the simplest Reader must observe the mistake. But he having yielded, the number of the Ʋlster, Scots, last year to amount to an Hundred Thousand; in the same Paragraph to suggest the Service of those in Derry and Inniskilling was performed by Gentlemen of another Nation and Perswasion, bespeaks him a Man of a very hard Fore-head, but somewhat a Phlegmatic brain; for, as the suggestion in the latter part of the Paragraph subverts the concession in the former: so the appeal to all concerned in those two places for proof of it, is an instance of confidence paralell'd only in those two already quoted out of his Observations. But 'tis very probable he writ his Reflections with a Steel Pen, which gives him so much advantage of me, that use only a Goose-quil. His insinuation of a design in the Apologist to create differences and jealousies between the two Nations, the Church of England and Dissenters, is a Calumny I detest and shall anon fully purge my self off.
QƲERY. II.
The Reflector, instead of giving a direct Answer to the second Query (his invention failing him) fondly hopes to mislead the Reader by a very pleasant (I say not ridiculous) Question, i. e. Whether the Presbyterian Perswasion be the Logical Property of a Scotch-Man? Whether Presbyter and Scot be terms convertible? To which I answer Categorically; no, for the fourteen Bishops Excommunicated in Thirty-Eight by the National Assembly in Glasco, were all Scotch-men as I am inform'd, and the fourteen cashir'd by Parliament last year, I think are all Scotch-men, yet no Presbyterians. I further answer, King James the Sixth who was a Learned Prince, and well understood the Logical property of a Scotch-man, took (it seems) Presbyter and an honest Scot (understood of the Clergy) for terms convertible: for when some bold Scot presumed to ask His Majesty, why he would make ill men Bishops? He answered (as I have often heard from grave Men of that Nation) by his Saul he was forced to make Knaves Bishops, for he could not get one honest man in Scotland that would take a Bishoprick. Now I confess I pay [...] honest Bishops, that [...] Son and Grandsons, he would [...] himself with [...] demonstration they would give him, that Presbyterian is not the Logical property of an honest Scotchman. And yet, will I venture the Apology against your Reflections, that is ten to one with the Bookseller, that the Case being fairly stated, as in the Apology you find (and dare not so much as scratch at) it, the twentieth Soul of any Rank or Nation in the North of Ireland, that have any real rast of Serious Religion falls not to the Churches share: There is therefor not one word of pertinent truth in your Answer, being intirely besides my Question.
QƲERY. III.
The third Query is a dark riddle to the Reflector: I profess I cannot help it, for I neither have, nor know where to beg, buy, or borrow a light or clear Riddle: Nor dare I be so unmerciful to my self, as to be at the pains to unriddle this Query, having had task enough to prepare nine Questions all spig-and-span-new for the Reflector and his Learned Club, to resolve, without being at the drudgery to answer 'em my self. But in charity to the Reflector do advise him hereafter not to quote unnecessarily (I say not Impertinently) that distinction, between the Personal and Politic Capacity of a King, till his improv'd Judgment and Learning qualify him to refute it; and then, I'm confident he will let it rest till he has gone first to his own rest or last receptacle. Nor will I accept his witty (forsooth) Application of it as a sufficient evidence that he ever understood conscentious fighting, much less actually did conscientiously fight for King Charles, or his Sovereign.
QƲERY IV.
Whether the same or a different Genius inspired the Reflector when he wrote his Remarks on the fourth Question, and his first Paragraph, I cannot divine: if a different, then without question his evil Genius suggested the former, and his good the latter; but if one inspired both, to be sure it was one of the Elfs of that pragmatical Legion he drove to the Northern Regions, which brought seven Spirits more robust than it self, to avenge the affront on the Reflector. Omne malum a Septentrione. In his first Paragraph he makes the Apologist guilty of what not towards his Sovereign; here he says of him [he i. e. the Apologist so generally absolves our gracious Soveraign] but I do assure the Reflector I shall not absolve him, nay I impeach him of, and retort upon him the same Crimes, i. e. his most rudely, irrationally, but very bluntly treating his Sovereign. The Impeachment consists of two Articles. First, He makes his Sovereign a Transgressor, for, where there is no Transgression, there can be no Absolution: Where, by the way I would know of the Reflector, [Page] [...] England: If the former, [...] ridiculous has he made himself, by ridiculing the distinction between the Kings Personal and Politic Capacity, or Charles and Sovereign. The Second Article is his Innuendo of the Kings receiving Absolution, i. e. Pardon from a Subject. Both Articles are prov'd by his own words now quoted. I might add a third, That he affirms Absolution given, without inquiring whether the Absolver be a Priest or no. I might further impeach the Reflector of palpable prevarication; for in the same Sentence wherein he makes me an Absolver of my Sovereign, the City of London, and the Dissenters, I expresly Absolve the Moderat Conformists, which he studiously conceals. Therefor the Church of England, which he civilly says, I maliciously intend to cast the guilt and odium upon, can be no other than the Immoderate Conformists; to whose bounty I recommend the Reflector for a reward of his good Service. Nor will I impeach his Ergo, as illogically inferred, because he seems to have borrowed his Mode of Syllogizing from the before mentioned King James his Dogs, who at a fault, thus argued with their noses, the Hare did not run this way, nor that way, tarbox the third way.
QƲERY V. VI.
The Reflector being agreed with me in the Fifth Query, I must attend his resolution of the Sixth. I appeal to the Reader, whether in his Reflections on this and the following Queries, he has not given me the farest advantage, as well as highest provocation to treat him as an open enemy of common Civility, and Morals. Yet in the whole has he proved so kind to me, so unkind to himself, tho he intended neither, that I very gratefully resent both. Observe how here (as under the former Query) he conceals, my more generous absolving Act (since such he'l have it) of the Church of England, both Clergy and Laity; having also concealed my Question, he gives three of his own, instead of an Answer to that one of mine. To all which I answer in a word, that Dissenters cannot be said to be in an equal capacity with other Protestant Subjects to embarque in any Publick Service, while the Sacrament Test continues in force. I must therefore desire the Reflector, not for shame, I come too late for that, but for security to his remaining credit, to retract this injurious Calumny of his.
QƲERY. VII.
My Seventh Query runs thus, whether, if all Protestant Subjects were equally forward with the Dissenters, for the Service of the King, Kingdoms, and Protestant Religion, the many effects there mention'd (of inestimable consequence to their Majesties and Kingdoms) would not follow? but the Reflector [...] to the Dissenters a [...]one, [...] [...] renthesis are (excluding other Protestant Subjects) What? exclude other Protestant Subjects, when the express scope of the Question is to include them? What else were this, but to exclude my own sense, and intendment from the Query, and to include nonsense and contradiction? Now would I know, whether the Reflector when he thus misrepresented my Question in a sense repugnant to the very Grammer of my words, did understand their litteral sense or not? if the latter, I both pardon him and heartily pray for an advance of his intellectuals: But if the former, then I freely allow him an overmatch for the most Ingenious and Learned of Mankind, that confine themselves to Truth for the Matter, and Reason for the Rule of what they write; and therefore I yield him the Buckler. And to his forreign and far fetched double Question; First, Whether I do not take Major - General Ludlow to be a Dissenter? I Anwser, I take him for neither Dissenter nor Assenter, because dead in Law, and at present not in or of the Kingdoms. Cannot divine why he mentions him on this subject, unless it be an expectation of meeting with somewhat in my Answer, that may purchase him the honourable Office of an Informer. But I shall frustrate his hopes. His Second Query is, Whether I did not tacitly glance at M. G. L. to have the chief Conduct of the Army or Navy? A tacit glance? I had thought taciturnity respected the Organ of Speech, glancing that of Sight. But now I think on't, the ingenious Cowley somewhere tells us of words that weep, and tears that speak, and so I pass it. To the Question I answer Categorically, I neither have seen, or had any Correspondence by Letters or otherwise with M. G. L. while he was last in England, nor had him once in my thoughts that I can remember, while I was scribling the Apology. But the Reflector says, that what he insinuates in his double Query, is reported to be the declar'd Opinion of the Apologist. Reported by whom? by the Reflector, or a Knight of the Post? If he finds a third Person, and of a different Genius, I'le be content to suffer for M. G. L. But that I may Oblige the Reflector with something his Invention may enlarge upon, and Metamorphose into various shapes, I'le adventure to tell him, that if M G. L. had gone for Ireland in the Quality of Major-General of our Army (under the Auspice of King William) last Year, and landed any time before the last of May with a Thousand Horse, ten Thousand Foot, with Arms for Twenty Thousand more, nothing but the unfitness of Protestants there for a Deliverance could have prevented his Reducing and Subjecting that Kingdom entirely to the English Crown, and driving all the French and Irish into the Boggs or Sea. The Reason supporting my Opinion is, That the Rebels of Ireland in the last Rebellion were subdu'd, and that Kingdom reduc'd only by the Rebels of England, i.e. the Army of the Rump-Parliament, as the Reflector calls it; and the Irish Rebels stand not in such dread of treble the number of any that serv'd [Page] [...] either English or Scotch in Ireland so heartily engage in that Service with Major-General Kirk as with Major-General Ludlow. But remember, Reflector, I speak of what M. G. L. might atchief last year, not this: For, after the Parliament's Addressing to the King (as you have it) for his Apprehension, I can promise nothing for him but that he shall be hang'd, if we can catch him handsomly on English Ground. Nor shall he have any thing from me but my Prayers (which even my Enemies share in) that he may Repent; you know the Apostle tells us, it is the Divine Will, that all men come to Repentance. — And that he may obtain Mercy, as our Liturgy teaches me to pray — That it would please thee to have mercy on all men; and he must be a Man, and a stout sturdy Fellow too, that prov'd such a K— killing Rebel.
QƲERY VIII.
The Reader may observe how the Reflector improv'd the same Art here he us'd in his Reflections on the former Query; for he tells you, Reflections, pag. 16. — it seems to be intended by the connexion of the Apologist's Discourse, that those five Thousand, or ten Thousand Men, (at the Head of whom General Schomberg might have perform'd such wonderful Exploits) should consist wholly of Dissenters. It seems, good Reflector, to whom? Not to Angel or Man I'm well assur'd; not to Angels, no, not to the laps'd Tribe; for even these retain their Rational Faculty, can read and understand English: not to any man in his Wits, for the quite contrary sense is as plain as words can make it; not to any man out of his Wits, for if such cannot apprehend the plainest sense, much less an obscure, yea, impossible, which no Grammar nor Logic can give any colour to, which the Reflector gives my words; I conclude therefore, the Reflector's it seems, seems so to neither Angel nor Man, wise or otherwise; Ergo, not to the Reflector himself. I remember, Thomas Aquinas in his Sums, begins his Resolutions of all Queries with a Videtur, in English, it seems: But if the Reflector tacitly glanc'd at him, he is none of the happiest in imitation; for Aquinas prefixes his [it seems] to an Heterox Opinion, he finds, or supposes in his Antagonist, and having refuted it, he substitutes the Opinion he takes for Orthodox, and confirms it: But the Reflector conceals the true, substitutes an Heterox, and then exposes it; that is, it seems, would murther my Legitimate Off-spring, place in their room the spurious Births of his own Brain, and oblige me to maintain the supposititious Brats. It seems [...] in defiance of [...] Angelical Intelligence.
QƲERY IX.
I pass the Reflector's it seems, on the Ninth Query; and pass to his [I dare boldly say] only could wish he had subjoyn'd [any thing] which every body would believe; whereas now I can perswade no body, no, not himself, to believe any thing he says, attests, contests, or protests against the Apology. I have before observ'd, the Reflector can act the Woman's part, as well as the Man's; and here he gives you a pat Instance; for laying aside his bold Challenges, Averments, &c. in the Rhetoric of a distressed Lady, he thus makes his moan: Little did I think over to see the Spirit of William Prynn reviv'd. — Little did I think that Spirits could be seen by the Reflector, who cannot see the plainest English Characters in Print: I likewise thought, that Bodies vested with some colour, were the Objects of sight: but now I remember, the Ingenious Dr. H. Moor, somewhere ascribes some kind of (I know not what) Body to Spirits, and with Reason ridicules the Schoolmens idle Debate about a Thousand Angels dancing the Galliard on the point of a Needle, keeping a decorum, without breaking their shins, or jostling one another out of their places. But leaving this to the Philosophers, I cannot yield William Prynn's Spirit reviv'd, till the Reflector has prov'd the Soul dies, which neither the Old Hereticks, nor Muggliton of late could ever prove. And though I should grant all this, yea, that the Reflector had the Courage to look William Prynn's grim, black, stern, terrible Ghost in the Face, which no body will grant me, what then? What tricks did the Specter play? The Reflector tells us, he has scurrilously revil'd by the Apologist's Pen, the Function and Person of the Bishops. If the Reflector allude (as I think he must) to Mr. Prynn's Timothy and Titus on-Bishop'd, which he challenges the two Arch-Bishops of Canterbury and York to Answer, the Reflector has very unhappily reviv'd the memory of that Book: For tho' there be some Arguments in it inconclusive, there are many more, which as none (that I know of) have attempted to Answer, so shall I believe any ever will solidly when I see it, not before. As to the Reflector's Charge of Scurrillity, Calumny, and his demand to specifie particular Persons and Actions, after he has read them in the Query, and made his wise Reflections on 'em, he speaks indeed like himself, and shall anon have a due Answer. Mean while let him know, that the Insinuation respecting the three [Page] [...] to be prov'd by men of, good [...] and unsuspected Veracity; tho' I must withal declare, nothing short of a just Resentment of the manifest and very injurious misrepresentation of the Dissenters in the Printed Narrative, and the Arch-Bishop of T. his concern therein, could have extorted that ungrateful Account of these great Prelates from me at this time. Come we next to that passage that respects the Arch-Bishop of Dublin; this with the former relating to Mr. Cairns (accounted for) are the only instances impeach'd of falshood in the Apology: Tho' the back-side Advertiser has the Front to say, 'tis full of Lies. I have before said, that neither of these passages are in the Original Copy of the Apology, but this being in the Printed Paper, I shall Account for it as I have for the former. The Reflector says, that what is here suggested (he'l by and by recalling his Art call it Averment) concerning the Arch-Bishop of Dublin is a positive falshood. How proves he the falshood? The Commissioners appointed for distributing the Charity, &c. being Interrogated, and the Books search'd, it evidently appears he has not received one penny. But Reflector, your Interrogations and Search are besides the purpose: For, can I suppose you ignorant that what money either that Arch-Bishop, or some other Bishops receiv'd of that Fund, falls not under the Cognizance of the Commissioners, nor is inserted in the Book you mention. And I'le for once direct you to a shorter and eafier Method to disprove the Suggestion. 'Tis but your going to the Arch-Bishop, and prevailing with (that is, when you find his Grace at leisure) to give you under his Hand, that neither his Grace, nor any other Person, in his Name, by his Order, with his Privity or Consent, has receiv'd, nor signifi'd his expectation of receiving any money out of that Fund, for his Subsistence since his arrival. And when such Cerrificat is procur'd (which will be a business of Deliberation, because momentous) it will no more prove the Suggestion a positive falshood in the Insertor, than your Interrogations and Search a positive Fallacy in you. The words of the Apology are these; The Arch-Bishop of Dublin — has receiv'd of our Publick Fund of Charity to distressed Protestants from Ireland, not above a Thousand Pounds, that be, i.e. the Book-seller, can bear of. Now, Reflector, improve your Grammar and Logic (if any man alive can transform a plain truth into a positive falshood, you can) and try whether you can squeeze out of these words any other meaning than a Suggestion (which you still your self call an Averment) of the Insertor's having heard, that the Arch-Bishop receiv'd the mention'd Sum. That the Insertor [...] [...]tive a truth, as I [...] any [...] yours a positive falshood.
QƲERY X.
In his Reflections on the Tenth Query, he says, I own my self of the Presbyterian Perswasion, tho' he neither in terms read, nor by Logical consequence can infer from any thing in the Apology what Perswasion I'm of. However, I own he has done me a greater Honour than he has done the Church of England, in pretending himself as well her Champion, as one of her Sons. Nor am I offended at his suspecting me to be a Disciple of William Penn, for therein he seems to suppose me his own Condisciple; there being that I know of, not a Man in England the Reflector so much imitates in style as W. P. Either of 'em has English Rhetoric enough for two Orators, but both too little Logic, Natural and Artificial, for one fresh man. He further suspects the Apologist to be a Disciple of Ignatius Loyola; which is monstrous strange: Sure he forgot the fag-end of his famous Paragraph, and the Backside Advertiser his Friend. This frequent selfcontradiction in the same Pamphlet, verifies the Old Saying, That some men had need of a good Memory. However I'le be kind to the Reflector and Advertiser, and will secure 'em from all suspicion of Jesuitism. The Christian World knows to its cost, that Blasphemous Seat entertains very sew Fops or Ignoramuses; and tho' those two Gentlemen, especially the Reflector, may vie for Courage against Sense and Reason, and his own Conscience too, with the hardiest of 'em; yet I that know them, durst not venture his Conduct against a Novice of that Sect. The Reflector proceeds, and suggests, That the Apology charges the Bishops with bestowing two or three Years premeditation for one Consecration-Sermon: This seems to be the sense of his words, which I am not willing to impeach of Nonsence. Now, this palpable misrepresentation must proceed either from a weakness of Judgment, which neither Boy nor Girle of common sense could be guilty of; or from a defect in Morals, which any wearing the Protestant Livery but the Reflector and Advertiser would blush at. Let the Reflector choose whether of the two best please him. I proceed to account (this being the proper place) for that passage in the Apology, which mentions the Odium incurr'd, &c. — And here I do solemnly and sincerely declare, that neither in this passage, nor any other in the Apology, I made the least Reflection on the Establisht Church of England, nor any Member of her Communion, but those alone, who deriving Authority from Charles the Second, or rather in his Reign from [Page] [...] of England, and Persecuted at least in Name, as well some of the best Sons of the Church of England, which I need not here name, as the Dissenters in Name, Person, and Estate; who have manifested disaffection to the Present Government, obstruct the Union of the Protestants, the Tranquillity and Florishing of these Kingdoms, and Their Majesties Prosperous Reign. Nor do's the Apology bear near so hard upon those men, as many other Papers writ as well since as beofre it was publish'd, by very Learned, Reverend Sons of the Church of England. I'le name but two of many, i. e. the Bishop of Sarum's Sermon, and Dr. Carswell's. And why that should be made a Crime in the Apologist, which is esteem'd meritorious in other men, I understand not. Let these Gentlemen Reconcile themselves to the present Government, and thereby to their Brethren, who are justly entitl'd to the Denomination (taken à meliori parte) of the Establisht Church of England; and then may they assure themselves of a just Veneration from all Protestant Churches, with the best Service of all true Protestants, and of the Apologist, who I hope may pass for one, tho' of the lowest Form. The Provocation to my inserting that ungateful Passage in the Apology is too obvious to need another: But as to the Occasion, besides my own Observations, and the several Papers I had with regret read of our Murmurers, that Letter from a Minister of State abroad, to a Person of Honour in England, which you have in Number 14. of our New Scotch Observator, was fresh in my Memory; and tho' the Letter taxes the Nation promiscuously with this murmuring Humour, Ingratitude, &c. without discriminating the Innocent Party or Principle from the Nocent; yet who knows not, the Impeachment can only reach that party of men now describ'd, and intended in the Apology. By the way I would Advise the English Reader, to borrow (as I did) the assistance of a Scotch Interpreter to that Print, in which besides the words [Communicate put for a Participle, contrair, ungrate, resistence] which are not English, and the false English in mis-spelling; the Phrase gives a sense sometimes quite contrary to the Observator's Conceptions; as, when he would signifie, that Protestants abroad can scarce believe, there should possibly be found in England one (i. e. so much as one) single Protestant dissatisfi'd, &c. He has it [be found but one single, &c.] which in the English Idiom implies a Plurality. Now, if he publishes Volumes (as he has one already) in this medly of Scotch and English, yet neither genuin Scotch nor English, what prejudice must the English Tongue sustain by it, which after these last Twenty Years re [...] [...] more easily tempt, [...] Pieces? 'Twere therefore to [...], Sir Roger and Hary's Succestor, could at least write true English, since Nature has deny'd him the Wit, and his Education, perhaps his Years too, the general knowledge of the English Government, and Publick Affairs, these two Gentlemen were possest of. But reserving this Observator for another Occasion, I return to the Reflector, who by turning the end of his Prospective, could do wonderful fears in describing the failures and miscarriages of another Party. Let him begin when he will; that Party which I suppose he means bid him defiance, if he intend those failures and miscarriages with respect to the Government. As he goes on he repeats his own words in pag. 2. of his Observations before cited in celebrating Mr. W's. extraordinary performances, which, says the Reflector — no Age nor History can parallel. This Hyperbole might find some colour in Col. Murry, who was indeed the Man, whose Gallantry was not equal'd in Derry; by whose Loyalty and faithful Service, with those that adher'd to him, Derry, and by consequence the North of Ireland, was preserv'd from being (once and again during the Siege) betray'd into the hands of King James; who better deserv'd the Five Thousand pounds, than Mr. W. did Five pounds. Consult the true Narrative last Week Printed.
The Apologist said, that to believe what is attributed to the hand of the Church in the Dedicatory Epistle prefix'd to Mr. Walker's Narrative, requires equally with Transubstantiation a Head abdicated of Reason and five Senses. On which words the Reflector will play the Critic, because (says he) 'tis not worth while. In my Opinion (says the Reflector) that word [abdicat] cannot be apply'd in the passive sense. Why so? For (says he) it implies a spontaneous Act. In my Opinion here is such a piece of Criticism, as no Age nor History can parallel. I nibbl'd at it an hour, but to no purpose, till I rais'd the Ghost of Aristotle the Father, Aristarchus the Prince of Critics, and Old Priscian's mangl'd Skull. And all three having piss'd in an Ʋrinal (as the Reflector has it) produc'd the Reflector's Critical Brat hopping upon these three Leggs, All-to be-p. No word (he means Verb) that implies a spontaneous act, can be apply'd in a passive sense; but the Verb Abdicat implies a spontaneous act; Ergo cannot be apply'd in a passive sense. Up starts a Westminster Schoolboy, and says, he would dash out the Brains, and break all the Leggs and Limbs of the Reflector's Brat, so as Aesculapius himself should never bring it to Life again. Thus, says the Lad, the three [Page] [...] taken in a passive sense, now, for honest Litly [...] sake will I deny the Major, and challenge all the Logic in the Reflectors head to make it good.
If he aver, that Amo implies a necessary, (not spontaneous) act in him, when an encharming Object presents; Then (says the Lad) will I give him Verbero, which in our Venerable Dr. B. signifies a Spontaneous act, tho' to the Reflector a necessary act of Justice. But the Reflector for Illustration adds [A Man may be said to abdicate, but not properly to be abdicated] the Schoolboy replies, the Reflector discovers his profound Ignorance of our common School Authors. Did he never read in Terence abdicare generum, and frequently in other Authors, abdicare filium, servum, &c. in which Phrases a Man is properly said to abdicate and to be abdicated. The Apologist answers, the Reflector makes himself the Man that abdicates and is abdicated; not the Apoligist, who makes reason the Abdicator, the head abdicated: And now adds the reason of his so doing; i. e. reason is properly the Man and King too of the Microcosm, the Head his Throne, the whole Body his Kingdom. And therefore the Apologist wishes the Reflector to consider whether his Head was not abdicated of Criticks and Latin, when he carp'd at that expression and said the word abdicate is a new fashion'd Word.Vid. Quin' Justit. orat. p. 330. Senc. Phil. contro. cui titulus patruus abdicans—& alios passim. The Reflector is nothing happier in taxing the word [ebibe] bebetween which and the word [imbibe] which wou'd have gratifi'd the Reflectors Palate, there is as much difference as between sipping and drinking a brimmer, and as his beloved Poet has it, Si trulla inverso crepitum dedit aurea fundo; is therefor of the two the more emphatical to express the Apologists sense, and equally with the other merits enfranchisment in the English City; especially for the Reflectors Evening Service over a Bottle. The Reflectors Banter on the Apologists Metaphors us'd in assigning Thumb and Fingers to that Hand of the Church, discovers that Canting stuff, and Canonical verity make but one Idea in the Reflectors understanding: but where he says the Apologist claps his wings, and crows like a Cock, I wish he had added a Comb, which the Reflector cou'd well have spar'd, and which alone wou'd have rendred me an equal match for the Reflector. I accept as a rarity the Reflectors Testimony, where he says The Apologists conclusion is very agreeable to the Premises; For the Premises being valid and immoveable the [...] [...] premiles, for [...], I have flown in the face of the Government, he but says here what he protested in his first Famous Paragraph, and has in the body of his Pamphlet contradicted both. Whether in the whole he has one true period against the Apology, nay, has not confirm'd where he essay'd to confute it, I appeal to every unprejudic'd Reader. His Epilogue is as desperate as his Prologue is daring. He it seems lost all hopes of making any advantage of all Impeachments, Averments, Calumnies, &c. Therefor as his last refuge betakes him to the last weapon of an angry Female: i. e. a wish to the Apologist with Achitophel to hang himself, since the Reflector wants the courage, and can prevail with no other to attempt the surly Fellow. Your wish Reflector is unseasonable, and I wish it may never prove ominous to your self. In the last Reigns the best of Subjects were hang'd and otherwise cut off; but the compassionat Genius of our King spares notorious Rebels and Traytors: There is therefore no danger I hope of the Apologist a true Man and a Loyal Subject, especially, when so many false and difloyal at hand go unpunisht. Now Reflector having won the Field, as I doubt not your self with all men of Sence will own; I'l punish your inhumane Epilog with a very humane Chastisement; that is give you your option of those inflicted by Caligula's Law on the foil'd Declamators at the famous Altar of Lyons in France. To describe those several Punishments were to impeach your Historical acquests; but the easiest and to you most eligible will be one of these two, either Orationem componere in laudem Victoris; or, Reflectiones in Apologiam spongiâ linguave delere. Remember Reflector, this gentle Correction is for past faults.
For the future, I have a word to you at parting; There is a Gentleman now in England, cloath'd with the Characters of Esq Col. Govern. Counsel. you know him as you do any Man; please to give him my service, and assure him 'tis as infallible a Truth as ever he aver'd, that out of respect to him, as Supervisor at least, I have credited your Pamphlet with so civil an Answer; have omitted here to give you and it a counter Character with the return due to your extream demerits. But assure the Gentleman, if hereafter you or the back-side Advertiser your Friend, vent against the Apology your pestilential exhaltations, by either retail or wholesale, sheet or page, I shall do your three Pamphlets justice, and emblazon the Reflectors Virtues; in special, his transcendent Zeal and equal Courage against all degrees of Truth, the fixed dictates of his own practical Judgment, [Page] [...] Man, biggoted Papists only excepted. Shall shew withal, how far that Gentleman is interessed in the Reflectors Character, and the Remarks due to his performance; and so I bid you and him at present adieu.
I am next to take notice of the credit Mr. Boyes has done the Apology, in borrowing from it the occasion and not a little of the matter of his three pag'd Conclusion to his Vindication of Mr. Osh. which the Bookseller has made a Six-Penny Book, as some others have the Apology; when each paper at half the price wou'd better have served the Authors ends, and I doubt not the Booksellers too. Mr. B. tell us a Relation of Mr. Wrs. has done him the honour (ironically, as the sequal explains it) to report him the Author of the Apology; but he ingenuously professes he does not certainly know the Author, nor any thing of the Writing of it. I add, for his final Vindication, to this day he knows not who writ it. And here I wish he had stopt, and reserv'd for some better occasion those feeble succours, which want Nerves and Spirits requisit to the pretended service against the Advertisement. their Center and Spring (I doubt) make but one point, tho' their Motion promise a different Period. Nor do's he bestow a word in favour of the Apology, but what is depretiative of it, appretiative of his own performance; as by a brief Survey of particulars will appear. He wou'd have it believ'd, The sharp Advertisement would help off the first Impression of the Apology; whereas he either did or might know, the first Edition sold so fast that in four days there was Printed a second. He next descends to the two passages respecting Mr. Cairn's and the Archbishop of Dublin; which I have accounted for in this Paper, and have discover'd Mr. B's Pen to be less fallible than the Apologists, who had no other Foundation to build upon, but some verbal Reports, with some few observes of his own; yet has not been convicted of one Material error, much less a culpable fashood, in all that paper. Whereas Mr. B. has mistaken the obvious Sense of the former of these passages, as upon the place was shewn. Mr. B. might have spar'd calling any thing in that Advertisement an ungrateful reproach; an Elogy from that Pen, I should rather have interpreted such to the Apologist. And however Mr. B. began early to diminish the Credit of the Apology, and would have Mr. Wr. seem to despise, because he could not Answer it; yet, he shou'd not have added of his own, that Mr. Wr. Consign'd it into the hands of the Executioner; that being as much above his power, as its demerit. In his placing the Apology among the little squabbles (by and by ill natur'd Subjects) [...] he bestows [...] in Answer ( [...] Mr. Wrs. N. [...] Apology on the whole; and in vindicating one Non-conformist, than the Apology in vindicating (as far as was then proper) the whole party, including also his one. Mr. B. will be eas'd of his trouble about the Clergy, &c. when he has read his mistake (of the Party he supposes reflected on) corrected in this Pamphlet. When he says, I perfectly Copi'd Mr. Wrs. Example, he both wrongs me, and injures himself. For I have said nothing against any Conformists, but what I'm more capable than willing to prove; Mr. Wr. has said nothing against the Dissenters, but what Mr. B. has made his business to disprove. How then I can be said to have copied Mr. Wrs. Example. I see not. In the subsequent Period he tells us, He sees so little good from, takes so little delight in these illnatur'd Subjects, that he'l give no occasion for new heats by examining their truth or justice on either one hand or the other; an excellent Resolution I confess, in a Person that had not administred occasion for new heats. But in Mr. B's. Circumstances, 'tis as if he seeing two Men quarelling, should lay about him on both hands till he were out of breath, and being a little recover'd shou'd tell 'em, Gentlemen, I shall give no occasion for new heats, by examining the justice of your quarrel on either hand. But above all passages in Mr. B's Conclusion, I'm amaz'd at his summoning the Apologist to make reparation to the Public for the harm he has done by his unseasonable Reflections. If in that comprehensive Term [Public] the Government be included, it surpasses my skill to reconcile Mr. B. to himself; who but a few lines, before acquits the Apologist of any Reflections cast on the Government. I could also tell him, from Persons of eminent figure, and comprehensive knowledge in public affairs (but as much Strangers to the Apologist as Mr. B.) the Apology is so far from doing harm, that it has done good service to the Government. By suggesting in some of the Queries several momentous points, which had not been done by any before in Print, and was the Interest of the Government and Kingdoms to be inform'd off and further inquir'd into. I cou'd say more of that Pamphlet were it not my own. If by (Publick) Mr. B. mean, the Subjects of these Kingdoms Loyally affected to the present Government, studious of an Union of Protestants, he will not find the least Reflection cast upon any one of 'em. It remains, then that by Public be understood the Disaffected to the Government and Public Weal, (a fourth I cannot [Page] [...] eminent Sons of [...] or England. I will [...]harge therefor against the Apology might have been spar'd, as being both unkind in him, in it self unjust, and of no service to the Public. Nor can I admire the reason or modesty of his inference from that groundless charge—i. e. that the Apologist make a Panegyrick on the opposite Party; before conviction of wrong (in an high degree) done 'em, and demonstrative evidence too of their extraordinary both merit and quality, such only being the proper Objects of a Panegyrick. But I forgive Mr. B. who no doubt expects to find his own Name in the Catalog of the Worthies of the Moderate and Sober Clergy Con and Non, whose Carriage (he tells us in the next period) will furnish our two Panegyricki with materials enough. And tho I somewhat scruple to say with Mr. B.'s the venerable Mr, Wr. his excellent Pen; which Epithets Mr. Wr. himself cannot think seriously bestow'd, nor wou'd Mr. B.'s be thought to speak Ironically. Yet least Mr. B. shou'd hereafter tax the Apologift with ill Humor, and that I may also demonstrat my Zeal for the Union of Protestants, I hereby promise to accomplish his wish, in Writing a Panegyric on my opposit party; that is, the Church of Rome including the Head, all Protestants disaffected to the present Government, and who have been in any former, or in the present Reign are obstructers of the Union of Protestants and the Peace of these Kingdoms. These only have I reflected on, these only are my opposit party; these will afford me plenty of Materials for a Panegyrick. Omitting therefore the first six Centuries of Christianity I shall comwith mence the seventh, in which Gregory Bishop of Rome furnisht England with the first Metropolitan i. e. Augustin the Monk, who subjected the Church of England to that of Rome, being himself install'd in the Arch-Bishoprick of Canterbury, by two of the Saxon Kings, who by arm'd force cut off 1200 of the poor Monks of Bangor in one day, for refusing Subjection to the Bishop of Rome, and to receive Augustine for their Arch-Bishop. His most eminent Successors, Anselm, but especially St. Thomas Becket, with several other Bishops to the beginning of the Reformation; I shall signalize with Characters and Elogies answerable to their eminent Qualities and Services to the Church and State: In the Reign of King Henry VIII. I shall omit nothing of the high Merits of Cardinal Woolsey— in Queen Mary's Reign Bishop Bouner, Bishop Gardiner, and others of Eternal Memory. In Queen Elizabeth's, Arch-Bishop Whitgift, who by his letters and Counsels prevail'd with Her [...] [...] jesty reserv'd to Herself, and wou'd by no means, submit to the Scan of a Parliament; Such were the Reformation of Religion, the making of War and Peace, the Succession to the Crown, the Queens Marriage. By which methods, says the Historian, the Reformation was for an intire Age obstructed in England. Of all Bishops I design the highest Encomiums for Arch-Bishop Laud, whose incomparable Wisdom, in the Conduct of our Church, he gave eminent Instances off, in the latter end of King James's Reign, and fully display'd in the Reign of Charles I. But my Rhetorical Flowers I shall reserve for those that Acted on our Theatre in the two last Reigns, and in this Reign only for the Bishops of Scotland; the Bishops and Clergy of England having universally of late given ample demonstration of their Loyalty to their Present Majesties, can therefore with no colour of Truth or Justice be included in the object of my design'd Panegyric. All this I shall deliver in a Stile as much sublimer than the Apology, as it is above those dreggs of sense in the back-side Advertisement. But before I put Pen to Paper on this Subject, I expect Mr. Wr. will from the Press oblige himself to be equally generous, in Writing a Panegyric on my party; the matter whereof I will, if he require it, furnish him with. And that the Reflector make a Panegyric on the Apologist, who in this Paper has demonstrated the truth of the Apology, and every Period against it in the Reflections false and many of 'em Self-contradictious. I wou'd also hope that Mr. Boyes who has given the Precept will likewise give the Precedent of a Panegyric on Mr. Wr. whom he has so severely reflected on in page 2 and 23. which I read with Indignation; Legem sibi dixerat ipse. What follows in Mr. Boyes Conclusion I dare say, both Parties will in those general Terms subscribe to. For my own part, I am so averse to the humor and principle of those who wou'd set the Protestant Religion on the narrow Pedestal (now I understand that hard word) of a Party, that I sincerely promise to dedicate my little all to promote the Union of Protestants, Their Majesties and the Kingdom's Interest. I should in the last place encounter the Advertisement at the end of Mr. Wrs. Vindication; this noisom Page brings to my thoughts the great Chamier a Presbyterian Divine, Beza's Successor (whose Panstratia is not equall'd by any performance extant of any one Divine in these Kingdoms against the Church of Rome.) This great Man some where says, he us'd to visit the Schoolmen, as Strangers do a Princes Palace; where being entertain'd with all the grateful [Page] [...] of this Page, and shall not here rob the Advertiser of the honour of Triumph in his refined Stile; tho' I could name men of Sense, two or three, who have impeach'd of Nonsence, his Only that he wou'd be glad, as incoherent with the preceding words; of Battology (to pass his tautologys) his Not worth the notice—any farther notice— and all in one Period; for the whole Page is no more. The only lines Printed on behalf of Mr. Wr. Narrative that bid at a masculin Stile, are the Dedication. Yet, in Page 1. line the last, but, is at best Impertinent: in Page 2. Could ever make them think of surrendring, is mean Grammer: the Period which begins, but as the whole—this should then— is mean Sence: In Page 3 —but that since— for that because more— is such a stile as [...] the Answer [...] Advertisement you may read in Arist [...] Anim. Lib. 45. [...].