YOU are pleased to say you have had very ill Treatment from me, tho you believe, I never saw you, nor ever received any Affront or Injury by your means. 'Tis true in­deed that (to my knowledge) I never did see you; as also that I know of no Affront or Injury you ever did or occasioned me. And I do here assure you, that it was no Private disgust at Dr. T.R. that induced me to write the Discourse that so much offends you, but a Resolution to bestow some Remarks on those who from such poor Piques will set themselves by secret and unfair ways to oppose Truth, Undermine Reli­gion and True Philosophy, and Blast the Reputation of those that endeavour to propagate them. But wherein I have ill Treated you, I shall particularly enquire. And first, you charge me with Insinuating that you are the Beast L. P. and that therefore I have fallen hea­vily on the Introduction to Sir John Narborough, &c. To which I answer, that I no where call L. P. Beast, nor directly charge the Essays on you. 'Tis true, I hint now and then that there are some passages in them very like your way of writing; and by what you used to talk about Town before the publication of them, as well as what you are now pleased to Ac­knowledge, 'tis plain without going any further, there is ground enough for an Insinuati­on of that nature. The Reason why I cited some things out of your Writings, was both because (as I said just now) I found a strange agreement in Sense and Stile between them and those of L. P. and also that I found several passages there lyable to just Exception: and why I may not make Remarks on such, wherever I find them, you have not yet convinced me.

You solemnly declare you are not the Author of the two Essays; And yet you own that you as­sisted towards the Composition of that Elaborate Pamphlet, being induced to it, not by any motives of Reason, but (such is your soft, gentle and Christian meekness) by a Private disgust at D. W. But since you say you are sorry that you were tempted to cast your Eyes on some vicious Fragments of those Patch'd Essays, and also that the Author hath made such an ill use of your kind furnishing him with Books and Letters: I declare I am sorry too, that you did not prohibit the Publication of those Patch'd Essays, and which had not you, as you say, toucht here and there, I had never toucht you. You must therefore Sir, thank your self for the unkind Animadversions you complain of; which how unkind soever they may appear to you, I am sure are not un­just.

You say indeed, that I have a peculiar faculty of bringing forth Monsters, catching here and there a line, and sometimes single words, piecing them together into one ridiculous Paragraph. Had you proved this, Sir, t'would lye as hard on me, as now it doth on you; but the Instance you give is very short of it. You say, I introduce on my Stage the Monkeys and Apes (as before I had done False Dice and Trick Tack) which if any one thinks it worth his labour to compare with your Letter to Mr. Ray, he will soon discover the Venom and Ʋlcer of this Mercurial Remarker. But, Sir, your Invention it seems is much better than your Eye-sight, for I make no mention of False Dice any where, and not of Tick Tack till 76 pages after this: And for the Monkeys and Apes, 'twas your self introduced them on the English Stage; as will plainly appear if the Reader please to peruse that Letter of yours. In the Place you referr to, viz. p. 51. of my Remarks, I urge against L. P. that though it could be proved that the Fossil Shells were not deposited, where they are found, by the Deluge, yet would it not thence follow, that they were not Shells at all: And for this I bring the Testimony of the most Learned Doctor T. R. who tho he thought some of these Bodies might be scatter'd up and down the Earth by Encampments of Armies, &c. or by Apes and Monkeys: yet calls them Shells notwithstanding. Now in this, Sir, I do you no wrong, for the Passage in your Letter to Mr. Ray is only a little longer, but to the very same sense. Say you there Mr. Lou­bere, the late French Envoy to Siam, affirms that the Monkeys and Apes are almost continually car­rying Shells, and other Marine Bodies from the Sea-side up to the Mountains. All I can be culpa­ble for here, is only that I did not cite the Authority from whence you had this Observati­on, and that I call that your Opinion, which you had from Mr. Loubere. And is it not so? don't you bring this as one way, by which Shells may come to the Tops of Hills? Mr. Lou­bere perhaps was so happy as to see the Monkeys and Apes about this important work; his [Page]therefore was knowledge, and yours that relate it from him in that Letter, is Opinion of the Truth of that Fact: which is all I say of it. And therefore, wherein the Barbarity, Ʋlcer and Venom of this matter lies, you would have done better to have demonstrated, than to have charged it unjustly and unfairly upon me, without doing so.

Next, Sir, you charge me with Jirking at the Boyling and Burning Fountains, which you are pleased to say, are not so much as warm, and even actually cold (vid. My Remarks p. 59.) And really, Sir, I can't but think still, that you deserve a little Animadversion for that manner of ex­pressing your self. For if by Boyling and Burning, you mean as other People do, and accor­ding to the true signification of those words, you will find very few Persons that will believe the Fact you Relate, viz. that Boyling and Burning Fountains are actually cold. But if by Boyling you mean nothing but a Fountain's bubbling up, I can't see what need there is of a Pompous Ac­count of such a Fountain: For wherever there is a great Pressure or weight of Water, and the Orifice of the Spring but Narrow: Or wherever any Air or Vapour comes out along with the Water, there this mighty Phaenomenon of the Bubbling or Boyling of the Water will follow: And yet it will be no great news to tell the World that you have seen a Spring bubble up, whose Water is cold. And then as to Burning; if by it you mean no burning of the Water at all, but only, an irruption of some Sulphurous or Bituminous Vapours at, or near the Fountain Head (which was the Case of the Spring near Wigan in Lancashire, Phil. Trans. N. 26.) I think still you had as good not have called it a Burning Fountain: And 'tis your pretty wording of it only, that I find fault withall; being satisfied there is in nature in many Places, something like what you mean, without desiring any old Woman to pour those Fountains into my Skull, which (by a way peculiar to you) you say she can so easily do.

After this you tell Mr. Wotton that I have some where or other, tho where you know not, a very nauseous piece of Scurrility on himself for his Laborious and Accurate Account of Agostino Scilla: Now Sir, since you discourage Mr. Wotton from Reading my Book, by a witty Argument drawn from its price, you ought to have been so just and kind as to have quoted that Nauseous and Scurri­lous Passage: But the mischief is, there is no such thing there. I never mention Mr. Wot­ton once in all my Book, nor do I charge the Extract of Scilla on him: Indeed I say, that Extract is liable to Exceptions, and that I can prove it, and I say now that the Extracter shall have that Proof whenever he desires it. But where is the Nauseousness and Scurrility of this: Alass, 'tis only a poor dis-ingenuous Artifice of yours to prejudice Mr. Wotton and draw him into your Quarrel; and you practice the very same with reference to Dr. Hook, Mr. Ray, and Dr. Lister: which I doubt not, but those Gentlemen are well aware of: And now Sir, having finished my Answer to the great Charge against me; pray give me leave to ask you a few Questions, and so I will leave you.

And first Sir, I wou'd fain know whether your calling such pretty Gentile Names as you do, such as, Buffoon, Mountebank, Scaramouch, and Harlequin, Draw-Can-Sir, Leviathan, Fitz-Harris, Pueril Declamator, &c. be suitable to that Christian Meekness, and to those soft and gentle Instructions you have so often been (as you say) inspired withall? and whether it be agreeable to the kind promise you made of not treating me after my own Petulant and Inhumane Manner? and whether this be not a little suspicious and most disagreeable to the refined part of Mankind? to give it in your own way. 2dly. May not a man that so soon forgets his promised way of handling Mr. Harris, forget also whether he ever knew the Author of the two Letters or not? for indeed Sir, there are in them (as I observe in my Remarks) so many things agreeable to the Stile and manner of writing used by L. P. that they wou'd tempt any one to think they had the same Original. And truly Sir, there are even in this very Letter of yours a great many Touches which are very like the Masterly hand of L. P. such as the Ʋlcer and Ʋenom of this mercurial Remarker: ducking in a mighty Volum of vanity: Every old Womans being able to pour the Boyling and Burning Fountains into my skull: And that concluding piece of Elegance, that you are not affected with the Grimaces of Buffoons, and Mountebanks, unless by way of Laugh­ter as in this J. H. his Remarkable Theatre of Scaramouch, and Harlequin: Judge you now of this Hue-in-cry from your Brother of Winchelsey: All which I think are enough to justifie a Re­mark I have made at the top of my 51 Page: Which I will not here repeat, but leave you to consider of it at your Leisure.