answered.

All the other calumnies raised by the Whigs may be as easily wiped off;
and I have charity to wish they could as fully answer the just
accusations we have against them. Dodwell, Hicks, and Lesley,[6] are
gravely quoted, to prove that the Tories design to bring in the
Pretender; and if I should quote them to prove that the same thing is
intended by the Whigs, it would be full as reasonable, since I am sure
they have at least as much to do with Nonjurors as we. But our objections
against the Whigs are built upon their constant practice for many years,
whereof I have produced a hundred instances, against any single one of
which no answer hath yet been attempted, though I have been curious
enough to look into all the papers I could meet with that are writ
against the "Examiner"; such a task as I hope no man thinks I would
undergo for any other end, but that of finding an opportunity to own and
rectify my mistakes; as I would be ready to do upon call of the meanest
adversary. Upon which occasion, I shall take leave to add a few words.

I flattered myself last Thursday, from the nature of my subject, and the
inoffensive manner I handled it, that I should have one week's respite
from those merciless pens, whose severity will some time break my heart;
but I am deceived, and find them more violent than ever. They charge me
with two lies and a blunder. The first lie is a truth, that Guiscard was
invited over:[7] but it is of no consequence; I do not tax it as a fault;
such sort of men have often been serviceable: I only blamed the
indiscretion of raising a profligate abbot, at the first step, to a
lieutenant-general and colonel of a regiment of horse, without staying
some reasonable time, as is usual in such cases, till he had given some
proofs of his fidelity, as well as of that interest and credit he
pretended to have in his country: But that is said to be another lie, for
he was a Papist, and could not have a regiment. However this other lie is
a truth too; for a regiment he had, and paid by us, to his agent Monsieur
Le Bas, for his use. The third is a blunder, that I say Guiscard's design
was against Mr. Secretary St. John, and yet my reasonings upon it, are,
as if it were personal against Mr. Harley. But I say no such thing, and
my reasonings are just; I relate only what Guiscard said in Newgate,
because it was a particularity the reader might be curious to know (and
accordingly it lies in a paragraph by itself,