happened some years ago to be of this number.  My Lord of Sarum in his reply ventured to tell the world, that the gentleman who had writ against him, meaning Dr Atterbury, was one upon whom he had conferred great obligations; which was a very generous Christian contrivance of charging his adversary with ingratitude.  But it seems the truth happened to be on the other side; which the doctor made appear in such a manner as would have silenced his Lordship for ever, if he had not been writing proof.  Poor Mr. Wharton in his grave is charged with the same accusation, but with circumstances the most aggravating that malice and something else could invent[13]; and which I will no more believe than five hundred passages in a certain book of travels[14].  See the character he gives of a divine, and a scholar, who shortened his life in the service of God and the church.  “Mr. Wharton desired me to intercede with Tillotson for a prebend of Canterbury.  I did so, but Wharton would not believe it; said he would be revenged, and so writ against me.  Soon after he was convinced I had spoke for him, said he was set on to do what he did, and, if I would procure any thing for him, he would discover every thing to me[15].”  What a spirit of candour, charity, and good nature, generosity, and truth, shines through this story, told of a most excellent and pious divine, twenty years after his death, without one single voucher[16]!

[Footnote 11:  Henry Wharton (1664-1694-5), a divine, born at Worstead, Norfolk, and educated at Cambridge.  Became chaplain to Archbishop Sancroft in 1688, and then rector of Chartham.  Wrote “A Treatise on the Celibacy of the Clergy;” “The Enthusiasm of the Church of Rome demonstrated in the Life of Ignatius Loyola;” “A Defence of Pluralities;” “Specimen of Errors in Burnet’s ’History of the Reformation;’” “Anglia Sacra, sive Collectio Historiarum;” and “History of Archbishop Laud.”  The criticism on Burnet’s “History” was written under the nom de guerre of Anthony Farmar. [T.  S.]]

[Footnote 12:  Dr. Atterbury.]

[Footnote 13:  Page 22.]

[Footnote 14:  Burnet’s “Travels.”]

[Footnote 15:  Page 23.]

[Footnote 16:  Burnet’s account of this matter was reprinted in the Preface to his “History of the Reformation,” and it contains also the bishop’s rejoinder against Wharton’s method of criticism in the “Specimen”:  “He had examined the dark ages before the Reformation with much diligence, and so knew many things relating to those times beyond any man of the age; he pretended that he had many more errors in reserve, and that this specimen was only a hasty collection of a few, out of many other discoveries he could make.  This consisted of some trifling and minute differences in some dates and transactions of no importance, upon which nothing depended; so I cannot tell whether I took these too easily from printed books, or if I committed any errors in my notes taken in the several