But we are constrained to say that, whether the paper is what it purports to have been or not, and whether it was copied and delivered to the Commissioners or not, of both of which we have grave doubts, there are evidences within itself of its entire untrustworthiness, in its recital of known facts ; that we do not believe, therefore, that it was written by Samuel Seabury, carefully and deliberately, if he really wrote it ; and that we need more evidence than we have yet seen, that he was capable of deliberately and understandingly telling or writing unqualified falsehoods, for any purpose, either while he was in New Haven, in 1775-6, or in Lond n, after he had received his Doctor's degree from Oxford University, several yeare afterwards.

In view of the fact, if it is a fact, which Mr. Williams has copied from Boucher's Sermons, that a pension was granted to some other person for having done what, in this paper, was Siiid to have been done by .Seabury, it is very evident the British Government preferred to believe that Samuel Seabury was not the author of the " A. W. Farmer " tracts nor of the other publications named in that draft of a Memorial, referred to in Mr. William's paper ; and that it acted, accordingly.

We are not insensible of the fact that a great-grandson of Samuel Seabury, in a paper which was published in The American Quarterly Church Review, for April, 1881, without any supporting testimony which any Bench in the country would have received as evidence, in any case, undertook the ungracious tiisk of showing, by argument, that Samuel Seabury was not sincere, when he wrote the disclaimer which is now under notice ; that his words, on the matter of his alleged authorship of the political pamphlets and newspaper articles referred to, were artfully intended to mislead the General .\ssembly, beneficially to himself; and that, in fact, notwithstanding what he and others had said and written to the contrary, Samuel Seabury was really the author of the "A.