I must now desire leave to say something to a gentleman, who has been pleased to publish a discourse against a paper of mine relating to the convocation.[10] He promises to set me right, without any undue reflections or undecent language.  I suppose he means in comparison with others, who pretend to answer the “Examiner”:  So far he is right; but if he thinks he has behaved himself as becomes a candid antagonist, I believe he is mistaken.  He says, in his title-page, my “representations are unfair, and my reflections unjust.”  And his conclusion is yet more severe,[11] where he “doubts I and my friends are enraged against the Dutch, because they preserved us from Popery and arbitrary power at the Revolution; and since that time, from being overrun by the exorbitant power of France, and becoming a prey to the Pretender.”  Because this author seems in general to write with an honest meaning, I would seriously put to him the question, whether he thinks I and my friends are for Popery, arbitrary power, France and the Pretender?  I omit other instances of smaller moment, which however do not suit in my opinion with due reflection or decent language.  The fact relating to the convocation, came from a good hand, and I do not find this author differs from me in any material circumstance about it.  My reflections were no more than what might be obvious to any other gentleman, who had heard of their late proceedings.  If the notion be right which this author gives us of a Lower House of Convocation, it is a very melancholy one,[12] and to me seems utterly inconsistent with that of a body of men whom he owns to have a negative; and therefore, since a great majority of the clergy differs from him in several points he advances, I shall rather choose to be of their opinion than his.  I fancy, when the whole synod met in one house, as this writer affirms, they were upon a better foot with their bishops, and therefore whether this treatment so extremely de haut en bas, since their exclusion, be suitable to primitive custom or primitive humility towards brethren, is not my business to enquire.  One may allow the divine or apostolic right of Episcopacy, and their great superiority over presbyters, and yet dispute the methods of exercising the latter, which being of human institution, are subject to encroachments and usurpations.  I know, every clergyman in a diocese has a good deal of dependence upon his bishop, and owes him canonical obedience:  but I was apt to think, when the whole representative of the clergy met in a synod, they were considered in another light, at least since they are allowed to have a negative.  If I am mistaken, I desire to be excused, as talking out of my trade:  only there is one thing wherein I entirely differ from this author.  Since in the disputes about privileges, one side must recede; where so very few privileges remain, it is a hundred to one odds, the encroachments are not on the inferior clergy’s side; and no man can blame them for insisting on the small number that is left.  There is one fact wherein I must take occasion to set this author right; that the person who first moved the QUEEN to remit the first-fruits and tenths to the clergy, was an eminent instrument in the late turn of affairs;[13] and as I am told, has lately prevailed to have the same favour granted for the clergy of Ireland.[14]