accounted a disgrace to him, will make him be remembered with honour to posterity.

I will trouble the reader but with one observation more, and that shall be to shew how dully and pedantically they have copied even the false steps of the League in politicks, and those very maxims which ruined the heads of it. The Duke of Guise was always ostentatious of his power in the States where he carried all things in opposition to the King; but by relying too much on the power he had there, and not using arms when he had them in his hand, I mean by not prosecuting his victory to the uttermost when he had the King enclosed in the Louvre, he missed his opportunity, and Fortune never gave it him again.

The late Earl of Shaftesbury, who was the undoubted head and soul of that party, went upon the same maxims; being (as we may reasonably conclude) fearful of hazarding his fortunes, and observing that the late rebellion under the former King, though successful in war, yet ended in the restoration of his present majesty, his aim was to have excluded his Royal Highness by an act of parliament; and to have forced such concessions

Gadbury, [the Almanack-maker,] and hugged the witch,
Celliers; and have been a true hypocrite, and played a
prize with religion for advantage. But why should I say
religion, when you never had any; but
were ever a pro-
fuse rolling hero; having nothing now left you but the
shape of a man, whereby you are become nauseous to
this house, and therefore they now spew you out."

from the King, by pressing the chimerical dangers of a popish plot, as would not only have destroyed the succession, but have subverted the monarchy; for he presumed he ventured nothing, if he could have executed his design by form of law, and in a parliamentary way. In the mean time, he made notorious mistakes; first, in imagining that his pretensions would have passed in the House of Peers, and afterwards by the King. When the death of Sir Edmondbury Godfrey had fermented the people; when the city had taken the alarm of a popish plot, and the government of it was in fanatick hands; when a body of White Boys was already appearing in the west, and many other counties waited but the word, to rise, then was the time to have pushed his business; but Almighty GOD, who had otherwise disposed of the event, infatuated his counsels, and made him slip his opportunity; which he himself observed too late, and would have redressed by an insurrection which was to have begun at Wapping, after the King had been murdered at the Rye.

And now it will be but justice, before I conclude, to say a word or two of my author. He was formerly a Jesuit: he has, amongst others of his works, written the History of Arianism, of Lutheranism, of Calvinism, the Holy War, and the Fall of the Western Empire. In all his writings he has supported the temporal power of sovereigns, and especially of his master, the French King, against the usurpations and encroachments

of the papacy; for which reason, being in disgrace at Rome, he was in a manner forced to quit his order, and from father Maimbourg, is now become monsieur Maimbourg. The great King, his patron, has provided plentifully for him by a large salary; and indeed he has deserved it from him. As for his style, it is rather Ciceronian,-copious, florid, and figurative, than succinct. He is esteemed in the French court equal to their best writers, which has procured him the envy of some who set up for criticks. Being a professed enemy of the Calvinists, he is particularly hated by them; so that their testimonies against him stand suspected of prejudice. This HISTORY OF THE LEAGUE is generally allowed to be one of his best pieces: he has quoted every where his authors in the margin, to shew his impartiality; in which, if I have not followed him, it is because the chiefest of them are unknown to us, as not being hitherto translated into English. His particular commendations of men and families is all which I think superfluous in his book; but that too is pardonable in a man, who, having created himself many enemies, has need of the support of friends. This particular work was written by express order of the French King, and is now translated by our King's command. I hope the effect of it in this nation will be, to make the well-meaning men of the other party sensible of their past errours, the worst of them ashamed, and prevent posterity from the like unlawful and impious designs.

THE

DUCHESS OF YORK'S PAPER DEFENDED.

PROLEGOMENA,

SOON after the Accession of James the Second, was published by his Majesty's order, and dispersed very sedulously throughout England," Copies of twa Papers written by the late King Charles the Second, and found in his strong-box;" the tendency of which was, to prove that there could be but one true church, which was that of Rome. To these was subjoined, A Copy of a Paper written by his first wife, Anne, Duchess of York; in which, for the satisfaction of her friends, she stated the motives that induced her to become a convert to the Roman Catholick religion. An ANSWER to these three papers was written by Dr. Edward Stillingfleet, and published in 4to. in 1686; which produced in the same year, "A DEFENCE of the Papers written by the late King, of blessed Memory, and the Duchess of York, against the ANSWER made to them: By command:" to which in January, 1686-7, Stillingfleet replied, in a piece containing 118 quarto pages, and entitled "A VINDICATION of the ANSWER," &c.-His name is not annexed to either of the tracts.

The DEFENCE, which is anonymous, has been attributed to our author; but it appears from his own

statement in the Preface to THE HIND AND THE PANTHER, that he was the author of only the Third Part of that tract, namely, that which concerns the Duchess of York. "I refer myself (says he) to the judgment of those who have read the Answer to the Defence of the late King's Papers, and that of the Duchess, (in which last I was concerned,) how charitably I have been represented there." That the words-in which last, mean, not the DEFENCE in general, as contradistinguished from Stillingfleet's ANSWER, but the Defence of the Duchess of York's paper, as distinguished from those of the King, appears from what he adds afterwards in that preface, which relates solely to the paper of her Royal High ness. It may also be added, that the colour of the style in this Defence of the third or Duchess of York's paper, is very different from that of the two preceding parts, (which contains many extracts from the Fathers,) and that it has much of our author's

manner.

COPY OF A PAPER

WRITTEN BY

THE LATE DUCHESS OF YORK, &c.

Ir is so reasonable to expect that a person always bred up in the church of England, and as well instructed in the doctrine of it, as the best divines, and her capacity could make her, should