I Received your Answer to my Letter dated the 13 ^th of April last, and I thank you heartily for your civility. In mine I gave you a short Account of the barbarous Treatment I met with, in a Book Entituled, A Twofold Vindication of the late Archbishop of Canterbury, and of the Author of the History of Religion. I presum'd to address my com­plaint to your self, because you was pleas'd to prefix an Epistle to that Book, in which I am expos'd with greater contempt and severity than I deserve at your hands.

I humbly suppose you proceeded upon the same Mi­stakes and malicious Informations, that provok'd your two Anonymous Authors to so much Fury and Indigna­tion. The ground of their quarrel is, that they take it for granted, that I am the Author of a certain Pam­phlet Entituled, The Charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tillotson considered. This is the second time that I have been rudely and publickly accus'd on this very Head. I might reasonably expect, that your Two Philosophers would more narrowly examine the Matter of Fact, be­fore they had abus'd an innocent Stranger in so scurri­lous a manner; they are such as left me no opportu­nity to know their Names, or the place of their Resi­dence: Nor am I now at liberty to make a stricter search where those Birds of darkness may be seen. We know without the Assistance of a Revelation, that he that doth evil hateth the Light.

[Page 2] The Advertisement, which I printed in the Month of January last, in opposition to the Censures publish'd against me, upon the foot of that Calumny, might (one may reasonably think) cover me from all Libels of that Nature, since I am ready to take my Oath, before any Judge, that I never had the least thought of writing any such Book, as the Charge of Socinia­nism, &c. in any former moment of my life: And so far from writing any Animadversions on your Histo­ry of Religion, that I never saw it until the 16 ^th of April, 1696.

It may be, that your two Champions will impute this second Vindication to my fear and pusillanimity, and say, that I am some timorous and silly Creature, I dare not now avow what I have foolishly done: I am so lash'd, that it is not fit to write any more, to provoke the Anger of such terrible Men, whose grea­test Talent is calumny and impertinence. Neverthe­less, I may venture to tell you, (hoping that your passions are more calm,) that I can prove, to a demon­stration, by Witnesses of more unstain'd Authority and Reputation than any of my Accusers, that another is the true and sole Author of that Book: And perhaps he may, in due time, discover himself, if he can be secur'd against those Inconveniencies which may pro­bably follow upon his being known. When your ve­ry learn'd Authors consider this, it may mortifie their accurate Wisdom, to have thrown away all their Amu­nition of Wit and Raillery before they discover'd their Enemy. And now, Sir, I beg your pardon, if I have not the same opinion of their Morals, that you have of their Intellectuals. To rob a Man of his good Name maliciously, and without any certainty of matter of Fact, can as little be reconcil'd to the Rules of Honour as to the common Measures of Justice.

[Page 3] The first of them endeavours (all he can) to re­present me a Beast. The next makes me a Devil, tho' one of the weakest and silliest Orders. 'Tis happy for the Prisoner at the Bar when the Evidences con­tradict one another. However between them two I make a very sad figure. I am not now to entertain you with my thoughts of their Learning and Theology; they may Write or refute what Books they please: 'Tis time for me to interpose when they medle with any thing that is truly mine. I arrogate to my self no man's performances. As for the the Book, that they seem to tear in pieces with so much bitterness and violence, I only read some few pages in it; And the Gentleman who gave me a Copy is ready to take his Oath, that, upon the delivery of the Book, I said to him, that I should never be able to read it to the end, it was printed in so small a Character.

It is not enough for your two Philosophers to fall upon me like Madmen, and to abuse me for what is contain'd in the Book, but they must needs drop some Reflections that they think are peculiar either to my Person or my Country. If they had confin'd their Libels to the Subject matter, I would Judge it no part of my business to undeceive them: But when they make use of Arguments and Critical Ob­servations, to prove that I am the Author of such a Book, their Reasons are so short and superficial that I may be allow'd to examine them. The first says, pag. 33. that I was not able to keep my own Secret, but that it got abroad among a great many, that I was the Man, that thought my self qualified to censure the Doctrine of an Archbishop of Canterbury, and to encounter with the great Author of the History of Religion.

[Page 4] This is impudence with a witness. Did I say so to himself, or to any other Trifling Calumniator? Is it not reasonable for him to let me know who this Gentleman is to whom I said any thing of this Nature? But this fair and ingenuous Dealing is not his way; it is enough for him that he was inform'd by some little Whisperer that I was the Author of such a Book. And your Philosopher thought this a sufficient proof; he was glad any Man was nam'd, on whom he might so safely discharge his fury. But when he found it was some tame Illiterate Pedant, then he puts himself all in Armour, as all Cowards do, where there is no danger. If I confess'd the matter of fact my self it is in vain to contradict it. In the mean time I presume to tell you, that whether he spoke this of himself, or whether he was prompted by others, that he is in the Strictest sense a Calumniator and a Liar. I confess these words are harsh, and are not ordinarily heard in the Conversation of Gentlemen. But if any thing can provoke this Impertinent Accuser to do himself Justice, I think it may warm him into some generous behaviour, to be so represented to his Great Patron. If he patiently endure the Character of a Liar, I do not envy him the honour of his invention; if not, he will let me know who was his Informer, as in justice and common sense he is oblig'd to do. And this is not answer'd by Writing of Pamphlets, and gathering together several incoherent Stories and Probabilities, but by an ingenuous acknowledgment of his willfull and unaccountable Forgery; for when he re-examines his Evidence, he will discover his own Precipitation and rashness. I gave occasion to no such Calumny, no not by the least inadvertence or in­discretion: And it is very hard to oblige me at this [Page 5] time of day to the Drudgery of Vindicating my self from Infamous Libels.

You say in your Preface, that they are two very Learned Men. Men may be mad without too much Learning: I wish their civility and good breeding had been equal to their Learning. Nor is it a pin matter to me how Learn'd they are: I am sure they are very Impertinent to Libel a Man, upon the Pub­lick Theatre of the Nation, to whom they are as great Strangers in all Regards (either as to his life or accomplishments) as I am to the Emperor of Mo­rocco.

However, as far as I am concern'd, it is needless to baulk any of their Arguments. The question be­tween me and your two very Learn'd Gentlemen is not any Common Place of Theology, but a matter of fact. I let pass all their Virulent Reproaches, that seem to be occasioned by the Book that they undertake to re­fute.

The first Argument to prove me the Author of it is, that I did not keep my own Secret. Of this you very kindly put me in mind in your Letter, dated the 13th. of April. But how does he prove this? Very well, after his way; He says, that it got abroad among many People, that I thought my self qualified for such an Undertaking. Does it become a Man that sets up for an Accurate Philosopher to proceed upon Whisper, Hear-say, and Surmise, to the ruine of his Neighbour's honour and reputation. Was not he obliged to give the World a plain account of the Authority and honesty of him, upon whose testimony he built his Defamatory Libel. He must needs know, that a Malicious inconsiderate Liar sets thousands of People by the Ears every moment, especially such Informers [Page 6] as may be reasonably supposed our two Authors have conversed with. They heard such a thing, and there was no more necessary in their opinion to make one the Author of such a Pamphlet. But if a Report of this nature can bear the Superstructure of such a calumny, Men might have nothing else to do than to Write Vindi­cations; they must run from one corner to another, without intermission, to publish their Defences and Apologies against every Rude and Impertinent Libel.

The Philosophers advise us to be slow and wary in Drawing Consequences; yet, it seems, they have lost all their pains upon your two Precipitate Authors. We ought to treat no Man otherwise than the Golden Rule of our Blessed Saviour allows; Quod tibi fieri non vis, &c. There is nothing so Treacherous or fails a Man sooner than a transient Whifling report;

But perhaps the next Argument is more Conclusive and Solid. He is very sure the Author is a Scot, because for positive he always Writes possitive. To this he adds some Elegencies, or rather Improprieties that he thinks are peculiar to the Scots, viz. The Men above-told, the Reason above-told. And again; it makes all my flesh to creep.

From these he concludes the Author not only to be Scot, but a Highlander. Now, upon supposition that these were Idioms of the Scotish Dialect, his ri­diculous conjecture would scarcely make up a pro­bable Argument, if there was but one Scots-man in the Isle of Britain: But when there are so many thousands of them, his guesses vanish into a Dream, and proves that there are greater flaws in his reasoning [Page 7] faculty, than there are Improprieties in the Scottish Dialect. May not those Forreigners, who learn to speak English, put their own Idiotisms in English words? Are there not some English that frequently converse with those, as well as with the Scots? Are there not several Counties in the Northern parts of England, that differ in their Phrase as well as in their Account from those in Kent, and Middlesex? Are there not some other People in the World, besides the Scots, who have different Phrases and Idioms from the English? And have not they also a dependence up­on the Monarch of Great Britain, as well as the Scots? and this may oblige them frequently to reside in or about the City of London.

Let our very learn'd Philosophers view his own Ar­gument again; he may easily find he hath not been so slow and cautious in drawing his Consequences as he ought to be. Are there not some English-men, that, for reasons best known to themselves, now and then make use of Scottish Phrases? If any of these suppo­sitions hold true, his Argument, to prove me the Au­thor of such a Book, is the most precarious, weak, in­coherent Conjecture that ever dropt from a Man's Pen.

But, Sir Robert, I have more to say to this Argu­ment, it is this; that one of your Authors takes those words to be Idioms of the Scottish Dialect, which no Scotch-man ever heard of: For my part, neither in their Writings nor Conversation did I ever remark any such Phrases, as he sets down for Arguments, to prove his Author to be a Scotch-man; such as these, the Man a­bove told, the reason above told. And the difference be­tween the Scottish and the English Language, is not in those imaginary Improprieties, that he fancies may di­stinguish [Page 8] the first from the last, but rather in this, that We of Scotland, (besides a different Accent) re­tain a great many of the Old Saxon words, which are not now us'd in England: But they that understand the English Language accurately, understand also those Saxon words, some of which may be met with, in the Old Version of the Psalms, daily read in the Churches. And if he be so squeamish as not to read that Version of the Psalms; he may read Milton's Poems, and Chau­cer's Works, where he may see many of those words that distinguish the Scottish Idiom, from that which is now us'd in England. The difference is not to the mis­placing of words, but in the Phrase it self, the first may proceed from the inadvertence of an Author, ei­ther Scottish or English: And it is a very bad Argu­ment to prove that the Author of such a Book is not an English-man, if I meet with an unusual word, or an impropriety in his compositions. There is no fixt true Standard for the English Language, and therefore eve­ry day we see new Words, as new Books do appear; and several of them so harsh in the sound, and so little us'd, that immediately they vanish unto their former darkness and solitude. Thus have I read in a late Book the word (impunibly) (and in a Book written against Mysteries too.) But I suppose no Man will reasonably conclude, that the Author was either Scot or English, only from this unusual word.

To come a little nearer: If I might venture to rea­son, as your Philosophers seems to do, I would prove that the Author of the History of Religion is not an En­glish-man; for in the 96 ^th Page, I meet with a word which very few English-men know or ever heard; for there the Author says, that the mistakes and opi­nions which proceed from innocence do not make Men [Page 9] guilty, that is to say, from their weakness and igno­rance.

How much weakness and ignorance there may be im­ply'd in the word (innocence) I cannot tell; it may have in it all the Mysteries of Vid. Seld. de Dis. Syris. Abraca­dabra, for any thing I know; for I ne­ver read it before. Nor do I admire the word (Impersonation) in the Author of the Charge of Socinianism, no more than I do the word (Innocence) both of them want Authority and Custom, to preserve them from being banish'd out of ordinary Conversa­tion.

Perhaps your Author built his Confidence, not so much upon the strength of his critical Remarks, as up­on the Authority of his Informer; yet, to mortifie him and his cholerick Neighbour; I may be allow'd to tell you, that the Author of the Book, Entituled, The Charge of Socinianism against Dr. Tillotson, was never in Scotland; so far from being beyond the River of Tay, that he never was on the other side of Tweed, nor any City or Village in that Ancient Kingdom.

One of your Authors tells us, (speaking of Mr. At­terbury) that Students do not hold themselves oblig'd to reason accurately and closely, as other (common) Men must, but, by leaping over some intervening suitable Pro­positions, may skip from Tumult to King Pipin; or, what [...]s as good, from Historian to Scorner.

One would think, that the distance between an un­usual Phrase, and a Scotch-Highland, is as wide as that be­tween Tumult and King Pipin; or that between an Hi­storian and a Scorner. I see, that Students are not the only Men that reason loosely, and incoherently; there are other Sparks who pretend to digest nothing but Self-evident Propositions, and accurate Infallible Dedu­ctions [Page 10] from clear Premises; and they sometimes mistake the Mark as much as the former, who are said to owe their false reasonings to dark keeping, and other Infeli­cities of their Education. I cannot per­ceive Vid. Preface of the Two-fold Vindic. how the Highlander was forced to make up the Comical part of the Book. I suppose Buchanan and Cameran were greater Cri­ticks than the two Philosophers; and they were both of them Scotch-Highlanders. But when I consider the pe­tulance and temper of our Authors; I am afraid, the naming of any of our Country-men, to remove their Mistakes, may savour more meanness than Condescen­sion.

His observation that the flesh of a Highlander creeps, is as New to me as the Phrase: I am sure, there are seve­ral of them, that he thus Lampoons, would be very apt to make his Flesh tremble, if they knew him, and that withal he continued obstinate in his scurrilous rudeness. National Reproaches make up the divertisement used Witticisms of Porter's and Buffoon's. I know no Coun­try but may boast of its Heroes and Excellent Men; And they, who are forward to make comparisons, are never reckoned into the number; they are Knights of a lower Order, such as pass all their Campaigns in Ta­verns and other places not sit to be named. In these, there may be dangers; but, I humbly suppose, very little Honour.

'Tis true, our Soil is not so fertil as the more Sou­thern parts of the Island: Our Sun seems to be sick for several Months in the Year; nevertheless, the com­mon Character of the Scot's prae fervidum Scotorum In­genium, may be thought (generally speaking) more true than that which he is pleased to bestow upon his imaginary Adversary, Viz. That his Northern frozen [Page 11] head could not perceive the Socinian Subtilties. I thought they were a Sect that pretended to advance nothing (nay, allow of nothing) but plain and undisputable Propositions; that they were so slow and cautious in drawing Consequences, that nothing short of Mathe­matical Evidence could satisfy them: And when I was reading the Book that occasioned this Letter, I meet with the following words; For as to report and the Whispers of those Sagacious Men, who so certainly know all Authors, they are so oft mistaken, that, ex­cept it be here and there a Student, no body heed: them, or rather every body abhors them.

Yet, this very sagacious Philosopher; this very Man of Evidence and Demonstration, without any other proof, than a slender Whisper or an Impudent lye, finds out all Authors, and knows them exactly, as if he had been conversant with them from their In­fancy. But if his Conjecture stumble upon a High­lander, then such a contemptible Creature must be crush'd to death. But Men of valour use not to draw their Swords at so a great distance, they approach their Enemy with less noise: and they that pretend to Philosophy trust more to their Arguments than to their Fury and Indignation. It is certainly so and so as he concludes; it can be no other than such a one; there are Improprieties in the Book, and none else could be guilty of them but that one Man; and then, by such accurate reasoning, his creeping Witticisme must get abroad. I would advise this unknown Gentleman once more to consult the trifling Informer that gave him his intelligence, and ask him but a few plain questions, viz. Whether he had his in­formation from me? Whether he himself is familiarly acquainted with me? Whether, after all he be a [Page 12] Man of any Honour or Justice? Whether he is resolved to appear to make good the Charge? One may reasonably presume, that a vid. pag. 51 of the Towfold Vindication. very Learned Author would not be so very Confident, unless the Authorities, that he built upon, were strong enough to support the weight of his Insolence and Buffoonry.

The next Author treats me with the same virulence and contempt that the former does; but he may appear, even to himself, a very ridiculous Fellow, that, with so much wit, undertakes the defence of such particular Propositions as I my self lately proved (I hope plainly enough) against another tribe very different from the Socinianism, in a small Treatise en­tituled, An Enquiry into the New Opinions, Printed for Walter Kettilby at the Bishop's-head in St. Paul's Church-yard. And this Book appeared, with my name, a considerable time before his scurrilous Libel was Printed. I instance but in one particular, which I advance in that Essay, and it is this; that our Bles­sed Saviour complied with those Rituals in the Worship of God among the Jews, which had their Rise and Ori­ginal only from human Authority: Nay, I think the Op­posite Doctrine, that allows of nothing in the Solem­nities of Worship, but what is founded upon express Divine Institution, to be the source of all Bigottry and Enthusiasm. God is to be Worshiped, and that in Unity and Society. If this be allowed, several Rites and Ceremonies must be Practis'd and enjoin'd, which have no Institution but in the Prudence and determi­nation of our Superiours. If the angry Gentleman read this little Book that I have named, he may then be more able to pass his Decretory Sentence, how far the Con­temptible Professor is of Mr. Knox's Principles. He [Page 13] or his Neighbour, (I do not now remember which of the two) not only lashes me as being tainted with those Principles of Sedition and Confusion, that were so warmly Propagated by Mr. Knox, but he says, that all the Episcopal Clergy of Scotland, tho' they forsook Mr. Calvin and Mr. Knox in the question about Church Government, yet, in points of Doctrine, they have varied nothing at all from Mr. Knox Author of the Reformation there.

If this Man's knowledge in Theology was equal to his skill in our History, he would certainly make the sad­dest figure that ever appear'd, that is to say, he would be all over Innocence in its true Original and Insignifi­cant Notion, so much below a Cypher that there is no Room left for him in Arithmetick. Therefore he may be advised to let the Clergy of Scotland and their Doctrine alone; they are not yet so low, after all the oppressions and contradictions of sinners that they have endured, as to want an Apology against the Railings of an inconsiderate Calumniator, who knows as little the Persons, that he thus bespatters, as he does the Author of the Charge of Socinianism, &c. Let him read Dr. Forbes Bishop of Edinbourg his Consi­derationes Modestes, and then let him tell me whether he was in all points of Doctrine of Mr. Calvin or Mr. Knox's Sentiments: And he was a Person whose Cha­racter and Learning was more likely to make Disci­ples amongst the Clergy of Scotland, than the two Re­formers that he is pleased to name. Nevertheless, Calvin ought to be mention'd with honour, because of the purity of his stile, and other extraordinary ac­complishments.

Some of our Clergy may have their differences amongst themselves about the Doctrine of Predestina­tion [Page 14] and Freewill, but then this is no reproach peculiar to Scotland; these are Common Places in Divinity that divide (not Churches from Churches but) Men from Men. Those questions have been disputed in all Ages, and will remain dark to the end of the World, even to the Socinians themselves, who pretend to banish all mysteries. I believe the Infinite Incomprehensible Power of God, and that he is the first cause of all things; in him we live, move, and have our Being. I believe him also infinitely Good, and that he loves us better than we can do ourselves, and that he governs the World by Laws just, holy, and excellent. I Worship him under this Idea of Original Goodness and Power; and I am very sure, that none of the true and necessary deductions, from these two great Attributes, can be at variance with one another. If I, (who am but Dust and Ashes,) neither can see, nor happily ex­plain their agreement in all Minute instances, it is my Ignorance and Weakness. The Good I do is from God, the Evil altogether from my self: And this is a short Confession of what I think all Men ought to adhere to, in those Intricate and abstruse questions of Predestination and Freewill.

I am not now inclin'd to enter into any particular disquisition concerning the Original of Sacrifices; nor had I ever the least thought of writing Animadver­sions on any Sermons Publish'd by the Late Archbi­shop Tillotson; most of them as were Printed before the Revolution I read with great satisfaction; and those that since appear'd I only read some of them, as I met with them accidentally in the Booksellers-shops, being not in an humour to buy New Books, when I knew not how long I could keep such as I had formerly purchased.

[Page 15] Then your Philosopher recommends to me that I should read Spencer and Outram. I love him the better that he converses with such Authors, who are as much above the Common Level of Systematick Wri­ters as their Learning exceeds his own modesty and good nature.

The former Author draws a Picture of me in little. I am not concern'd much to view it, tho' the Linea­ments and Features had been more true: but as they are extreamly ugly and extravagantly false, he may lay it up in his own Closet, to entertain himself with it, when he is in his Hypochondriack fits. The first stroaks of his Tableau are Historical, and terminate only in my Person, and such as the Author of the Charge of Socinianism is not at all concern'd in. In the mean time, I think my self oblig'd to give him no account of any part of my life, unless I knew him better: And if I did, perhaps I might still continue in the same resolution. He accuses me to have charged the late Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishop of Sarum, and the Author of the History of Religion of Socinianism: And he adds this most accurate Reason, because I mistake the Doctrine of the Church and the Arguments she useth for the Socinian Doctrine and Reasons.

Whether any of those Gentlemen now named were, or are Socinians, is more than ever I intend to enquire. It is a very new thing to me to hear that the Church useth Arguments for the Socinian Doctrine and Reasons.

It is true; one of his eminent Authors accused me of being the Author of the Charge of Socinianism, in the Month of De­cember Vid. Vind. of the Bishop of 8. p [...]inted for Mr. Chiswel. pag. 105 106. last; a mercenary malice and profound ignorance were but some of [Page 16] the vertues he allowed me. I heartily forgive him those precipitate ramblings I have suffered since that time some things more terrible than the disdainful stroaks of his Pen, I am apt to think that his Credu­lily led him into this mistake. It is the unhappy lot of most, who are advanced to Eminent. Stations, to be haunted with, Sycophants, false Accusers, Lyars, and Tale-bearers. If they guard against the malignity of such Vermin, their Vertue is more than ordinary; and if they do not hear with both their ears they are certain plagues to human Society.

But one of the most surprising and impertinent stroaks of your Author's Libel is, that he charges me to have accused your self of ingratitude to K. James, for I never heard of your name until this Book was put into my hands by one of my Friends: And I am as much qualified to write the lives of all the Irish Kings before the Conquest, as I am to give any tolerable ac­count of any part of your selfe. As for your Book en­titled, the History of Religion, I never saw it until the 6th of April 1696. So far have I been from writing any Animadversions upon it. And if did, they should be very short. And I had rather communicate them to your self, than print against an Author that I have not the honour to be acquainted with. The Book seems to be designed against [...] Persecution, and mystery. The word (Preist-craft) is of late become very fashionable in the mouths of some; who are no great Patterns for Philosophical Gentlemen to imitate. If by Priest-craft is intended the sacred employment of a certain Order of Men, who, by their Office and Character are oblig'd to superimend the Solemnities of Publick Worship: Such Men are no less necessary to the Preservation of the State than to the Administra­tions [Page 17] of Religion. And the Persons so employ'd, (even in their Lowest ebb of Interest and Reputation,) are too strong to be attacked by any private Gentleman in Europe. I argue now from what is Present and Visible, and not from the more divine and excellent considerations of Religion, because, what is felt and seen is much more valued and considered; than the Original Distinction between Good and Evil, or what may be pleaded from the terrours of an Invisible State. I confess the Argument is not so Philosophical and Su­blime, but it is such a one as now I offer to your own consideration how far it ought to regulate the Practice of any Man, who lives in a Nation, where the Priests are so able to assert; from the best Topicks, their Distinction and Character, and the Priesthood it self is guarded by so many Laws.

As for Persecution, I hope, I am as much an enemy to it as any other in the World. But since Conscience may be pretended when faction and sedition are in­tended, I think, the State may be left to judge for it self in all things relating to its own preservation; and therefore the Good Laws, that have been made, to preserve the Beauty and Order of God's House; may be reasonably and charitably put in execution to prevent such Confusions as must needs follow, where Giddi­ness and Enthusiasm are upper most. We may suffer hard things from Ecclesiastical Laws that are severe; but human nature it self, common sense, and civi­lity are banish'd where a Boundless Scepticism pre­vails.

Arbitrary Power is most frequently declaimed against by such as are invested with no Power: But it is very hard to oblige the Soveraign Powers of the World to give an account of all their Actions; and if they [Page 18] did, the Body of the People can never perceive the Rea­sonableness of what they do, even when their measures are most Divine and unquestionably just. If I should say that I know no reason why I am committed to the Gate-house, I would be thought very Imper­tinent, tho' I should stumble upon the truth. No Go­vernors are oblig'd to let every body know what they do at all times.

If there are mysteries in the Government of the World, it may be more reasonably presum'd that that there mysteries in Religion which we ought to believe, tho' we can never fully grasp nor compre­hend them. When Men have done their best, there is some thing dark in the object of Faith. If we have good reason to believe, that the Revelation, which contains the Articles of our Religion, pro­ceeds originally from God, and that we do not mistake the plain signification of those Words, in which it is convey'd, we may, with the greater safety, be­lieve that such and such Propositions are true, tho' they be above the comprehension of our Reason. We cannot say, that we fully understand the Essence of any the least Created being, far less the Infinite and Eternal Mind, who made the World and governs it. We believe, that his power is beyond our thoughts and Incomprehensible; but can any Man confidently say, that he himself has a full and adequate Idea of what is Infinite or Incomprehensible?

Sir, I have kept you too long on this subject. I would humbly intreat either or both of the two Calumniators to be a little more wary in their Li­bels. 'Tis an easy thing for them to put it to a fair Trial whether I can read Greek or Latin, or whether either of them can Speak any other Language than [Page 19] what his Mother taught him. As for the reflexions thrown upon the Universities of Scotland, those So­cieties are above the Censures of an unknown Trifler; his tongue is an Unruly Evil, it is full of Deadly Poison. I cannot tell how Jam. 3. Chap. 5. 8. 9. oft he blesses God with it; his greatest talent is to curse Men made after the Similitude of God.

One of them recommends to me two very good Books; and I thank him for his kindness. I think, he himself had need to read over again Crellius Ethicks; And if that be troublesome, he may cast his eye upon a most excellent Sermon against Evil-speaking, Published by one of his eminent Authors. And now, Sir, your two Philosophers may ask one another, whether they know the Person they have so impu­dently Calumniated? Whether the Authority they proceeded upon be so firm as to bear the weight of their notorious Forgeries and Lies? Whether ever they heard that there was any Pro­fessor in any University of Scotland at any time, since their first foundation, so ignorant as they re­present me to be. But if they built their Calumnious stories upon the Authority of one of their Eminent Bishops, I may be allow'd to tell them, that I was already at some pains, in the Month of January last, to undeceive their Author as to this Calumny. Then there was a Libel Published against me; and it seems it was below his Eminence to retract an injury he had done to so mean a Person. It is much more easy eloquently to extol the Morals of Christianity, than to practise self-denial and humility: Pride, Po­pular Applause, and Vanity do animate Men to the first; but nothing short of a profound Resignation [Page 20] to the will of our Blessed Saviour can terrible us to practise the latter.

I take it for granted that my greatest Accuser is now convinced, that I never wrote any such Book as the Charge of Socinianism, &c.] Yet because the same Libel is again Propagated by the industry and malice of two unknown Slanderers, I think it fit to subjoin to this Letter the Advertisement, that I was forced, (some Months ago in to Publish in my own Defence: And he that reads the Bishop's Vindication, Printed for pag. 105, 106. Mr. Chiswel in St. Paul's Church-yard, may easily un­derstand what is either express'd not insinuated in the following Paper. There are some words in it which might have been spar'd, but if compar'd with the Character bestow'd upon me, perhaps many more might have been added, without any Consure from the Impartial World. If the open injustice, that I met with, made me then so free, the peevishness, which may be occasioned by imprisonment, may ex­tenuate the Reprinting of it, since the Loads of Re­proach thrown upon me, by your two scurrilous Cham­pions, are but some Larger Annotations on the Ori­ginal Character, in which I was then represented in such taking colours to the view of the Nation.

Sir, I now make an end of this Letter, and I presume to ask but the same question that I humbly desired you formerly to consider, namely, what re­parations you think are due to an innocent Stranger so unworthily abused. I forbear to aggravate the Injustice that is done to me in your Preface, as well as in the other parts of the Book, for I believe you wrote it carelesly, and you thought that your two Hereos were as infallible in their censures, as they ap­pear'd [Page 21] to you accurate in their Reasonings. I heartily forgive you; and I wish you may be, for the time to come, more critically nice in examining those Re­ports that have no other beginning than Malice, Non­sense, and Impertinence. Sir, I am in all Sincerity and due respect,

YOur Letter found me very ill in a sit of the Gout, yet I was unwilling (notwithstanding my pain) to seem so uncivil as to give you no Answer. In short, Sir, the two Treatises were sent to me, be­before they went to the Press, to peruse; And by reason of the kindness show'd to me and the great [Page 26] abilities I saw in them, I prefix a short preface to them, having also the opportunity to say something to Mr. Atterbury, who, in a Sermon at Whitehall before the Queen, had ventur'd to treat me very ill. But when these Papers were brought, I neither knew nor was told from whom they came: But the first seems to say that you did not keep your own Secret, but that it got abroad among many that you were the Author. And the second sets down your name, and tells you at the beginning that I hardly knew his face. This, I confess made me take it for granted that it was yours. But if it is not, which I believe upon your affirmation, I confess, I think, they ought to ask your pardon, which if ever I know them I shall invite them to do. For your Printed Paper, there is not a little in it that concerns any thing I ever knew or said. As to your Person, I am so far from having any quarrel or animosity, that I am rather sorry that this Letter should find you in restraint. I wish you all freedom and re­main,