Being order'd and appointed by the Masters and Wardens of the Company of Stationers to Collect from the Booksellers three Books of each sort Printed which were due to the two Vniversities and the King's Library I received of Mr. Tho. Bennet a great many Books upon that Account without any Dispute whatsoever I find likewise by my Accounts that his Books and those from most of the other Booksellers were delivered in before the 13th Day of July 1693. And on that Day part of them were sent to the Universities Nich. Hooper Beadle The Dr. in his Preface P. 30â— upon a certain occasion not worth the repeating had said That after he was nominated to the Library-Keepers Office before his Patent was finished he was informed that one Copy of every Book Printed in England which were due to the Royal Library by Act of Parliament had not of late been brought into the Library according to the said Act upon which passing by for Expedition sake the rest of the Story he called upon Mr. Bennet and demanded his share towards it which was then but very small But Mr. Bennet instead of complying with the Demand answered very pertly That he knew not what Right the Parliament had to give away any Mans Property The Company of Stationers were a Body had a common Purse and he hop'd they would stand it out at Law c. 'T is for the Disproof of this Story that Mr. Bennet got this Certificate of the Beadle Upon which let me only desire the Reader to take particular Notice of First this Expression of it Delivered in and Secondly the Date of the Year when the Books were so Delivered in In both which Particulars we shall find Mr. Bennet guilty of a little slight of hand The Books were Delivered in but who is Mr. Bennet's Deponent here speaking of of the King's Library-Keeper I think And what is he speaking of Of the King's Library And where are we to understand these Books to have been Delivered in Into the Royal Library And when were they so Delivered in before the 13th Day of July 1693. Very few Readers would understand this Certificate of the Beadle in the Connexion it bears and according to the occasion for which it was produced in any other meaning But to our Surprize we find that none of these things were intended by Mr. Bennet This Appendix of Mr. Bennet's had not been long out e're he gets some inkling that all the Abuses offered to the Dr. by that Sawcy Bookseller would scarce be put up so tamely as he expected and fearing thereupon that some Body might re-examine their Beadle upon this lame Account of his Mr. Bennet presently takes care to be before-hand with them and with all speed posts out a Second Edition of his Appendix and there just after this Certificate of his Beadle he slides in by way of farther Explication of himself a little Paragraph wherein the whole Story is new made Since the First Edition of this Book P. 116â— c. Let the Reader that thinks it worth his while see the passage at large and there he 'll find That neither is the Library-Keeper at S. James's at all concerned in this Certificate of the Beadle but the Treasurer of the Stationers Company neither was it the King's Library the Books were Delivered into but the Company 's Ware-house neither had the Dr. any Account of what Books were Delivered in or from what hands they came but the foresaid Treasurer All this appears from Mr. Bennet's own Second Edition The puzzling Account Mr. Bennet had given of this Affair and the Knowledge I had of his methods put me indeed upon making some Enquiry into this Story about the Beadle For seeing such very unfair Dealings from the Half-Moon in all the rest of this Controversie I made no doubt but here was as much trick and faise Colour in this too if I could but come at the Truth And so indeed it prov'd for a Friend of mine of Mr. Bennet's Trade got me this following Certificate from the same Beadle which I have now by me Sign'd by himself It s consistent indeed with what he deposed before but it will fully refute the false Inferences that Mr. Bennet drew from it September 12th ....... I Deliver'd to the Reverend Dr. Benthley then Library-Keeper at St. James ' s a parcel of Books gather'd for the King's Library and I never deliver'd any before either to Him or to any of his Predecessors having been Beadle to the Company of Stationers ever since the 26th of March 1692. Nich. Hooper Beadle The Reader may take notice That the Beadle is positive as to the day of the Month September 12th when he deliver'd the Books at St. James's But he does not tell the Year The Reason was That he had entred the day of the Month in his Book of Accounts but he had omitted the Year and though he believes it was 1694 yet in his Affidavit he would affirms no farther than he could be absolutely sure of In which he acted like a Man of Conscience and if Mr. Bennet had been as scrupulous in his own Testimonies I dare say this Phalaridan Controversie had never been started But however as to the Year when the Books were Deliver'd we need to Testimony of the Beadle for it could not possibly be before 1694. because September 12th 1693. Mr. Justel the Dr's Predecessor was still alive and no Successor then named to him and its certain from the Date of the Dr's Patent and from several other authentick Testimonies that he had no Power nor Custody of the Library till above half a year after Now to Examine Mr. Bennet's Inferences from his Beadle's Certificate and to compare them with this other from the same hand Dr. Bentley had said That he was informed that one Copy of every Book Printed in England which was due to the Royal Library by Act of Parlioment had not of late been brought into the Library according to the said Act. Vpon this I made Application to the Master of the Stationer's Company and demanded the Copies The Effect whereof was that I procur'd near a 1000 Volumes of one sort or other which are now lodg'd in the Library Now the Truth of this is confirm'd by the Beadle himself For he Deposes that he had never Deliver'd one Book to the Library till after the Dr's Application But then comes Mr. Bennet by Dint of Logick to disprove this Account of the Dr's The Dr. P. 114. says he Would be thought to have first set a-foot this Collection due to the Royal Library and again P. 116. he Dr. says he set about this Project of getting the Books due to the King's Library Collected for so he would have us understand him And this he disproves because there was a Collection made in July before 1693. Now this is so exactly like Mr. Boyle's way of refuting the Dr. that one would be apt to suspect the same hand was employ'd in drawing up both
comes to Mr. Bennet Orders him to send his Prentice to the Library for it and delivers it And what doth Mr. Bennet do with it when he hath it He commits the Collating of it to a person whose hands he knew to be so full of other Business that he could not make any tolerable Dispatch with it a Corrector to a Press who could allow as Mr. Bennet most Hexametrically expresses it no part of his days from that laborious Service P. 127. and had only some few Evening hours at his own Disposal Nay P. 128. and into His too without giving him any notice in what haste the young Gentleman at Oxford was for the Collation P. 126. For the true Reason of Mr. Gibson's being so much behind hand in the Collation was because the Press employ'd him and left him no hours to himself but in the Evening And because he had not been careful to make the very best use of those And the true Reason why Mr. Gibson made not the best use of his hours was because Mr Bennet had not when he delivered him the MS. limitted him in his time Mr. B. No For Dr. Bentley had not in That matter so limitted me I mean P. 127. not ty'd me up to days or hours or given me any notice of the time fix'd for his Worcester Journey And that 's all my Collator says that there was no time set him for the Return of it That is no time set him to a day Coll. Nay but you say That the Dr. had not given you any Intimation No not so much as in General That you should make what Dispatch you could with it And as much at large it seems you lest you Collator For when the Dr. at near a Weeks end called upon you for the MS. there was not so much of it Collated as might have been done and that leisurely too and without making very great haste P. 129. at one Evenings sitting But as for you and your Collator divide the Fault between your selves upon as equal Terms as you can though I think you have fairly discharg'd Mr. Gibson That Dr. Bentley should bear the blame is altogether unreasonable But 't was not Mr. Boyle's business to see Faults in their right places We have seen here one Instance of Mr. Bennet's Talent at denying a thing very positively I cannot forbear presenting the Reader with another of the same kind The Dr. had said That when the MS. was delivered to him He had not the least Suspicion that the Collation was not finished They had had more days to compare it in than they needed hours the Bearer at the Delivery of it intimated nothing to the contrary if they had had any occasion for the farther use of it he might have expected upon his Return to the Library which was several Months before Mr. Boyle's Book was Printed to have heard farther from them which he not having done what reason had he to think but that they had finished their whole work with it This however was a Circumstance there was a necessity of their Denying and that very positively Which therefore Mr. Bennet has done in the following Form of words With what Conscience can the Dr. pretend to say That when the MS. was carryed down to him at VVestminster a little afterwards he had no Suspicions that the Collation was not finished Unless he means That he did not suspect it because he most certainly knew it GOD forgive him this Untruth which with several others I hope before he goes out of the World he 'll be so just both to himself and me as to retract publickly And is not this denying a thing very positively Now must I crave Mr. Bennet's Pardon if I tell him That what he here so positively avers for a certainty is not only an uncertainty but an absolute Impossibility But how can that be Will Mr. Bennet say V. p. 124 Doth not the Certificate of my Collator expresly confirm it I very well remember Here we find that when the Dr. called upon me for the MS. and I sent my Man to the Collator's for it word was brought that he had not finished the Collation Notwithstanding which the Dr. utterly refuses to spare it any longer but sends my Man a second time for it with express Orders to have it brought to him immediately himself staying in my Shop and waiting the Return of it And that That was the true Reason why Mr. Gibson could Collate no more of the Epistles With what Conscience then can the Dr. pretend to say that when the MS. was sent down to him at Westminster a little afterwards he had no Suspicions that the Collation was not finished For could my Collator go on with collating the MS. when the MS. it self was taken out of his hands But hold Mr. Bennet you are somewhat too hasty in your Conclusions P. 98. From your own Account it appears that it was on a Saturday Noon That he called upon you for the MS. and was told that the Collation was not then finished He did not thereupon forthwith Dr's praef P. and immediately take it away with him as most certainly he would have done had he had a private Design of disappointing Mr. Boyle of the use of it He only order'd you without fail to send it to his Lodgings some time that Afternoon beyond which time he did indeed and he hath given a good Reason why refuse to leave it in your hands So that you had still half a day good in less time than which as the Dr. hath proved by an Experiment of his own making the whole Book might have been collated though not one stroak had been set to it before Nor need we suppose your Collator able to Dispatch such a piece of work altogether as expeditiously as the Dr. since having had it in his hands for so many days before the Dr. might reasonably then presume him nearer the end than the beginning Nor can I imagine but that had you represented to him the pressingness of the occasion your Collator would have found means of borrowing from the Press three or four hours even of Day-light to have devoted to the Service of Mr. Boyle If the MS. was taken out of your Collators hands at Noon and if the Dr knew as much though that is more than the Dr. remembers yet it being left in your hands in three or four minutes space it might have been put into your Collator's again which that it was not was more than the Dr. could certainly know or more than he had any reason to suspect Unless he had then most certainly known that Mr. Boyle's Sollicitor would have taken no more Care of Mr. Boyle's Concerns than he now appears to have done So that the Dr. though he was told indeed when he called upon you for the MS. at Noon that the Collation was not then finished yet having left it in your hands at Noon not knowing how much of it then remained unfinished nay the
Collation of the whole MS. which is much shorter than the printed Book being the work of less than half a day Whether it were sooner or later in the Afternoon that the Book was sent to his Lodgings it is Impossible unless the Bearer had given him such Information for him to have known that the Collation of it was not then finished Nothing less I say than absolutely impossible that he should certainly have known it and most highly unreasonable had it been in him to have suspected it And for a Man to averr and that so very positively as Mr. Bennet here doth for Certainties not only Vncertainties but Impossibilities argues as great a want of common Sence as of Conscience Ay but faith Mr. Bennet here the Dr's Memory hath fail'd him as to one particular The Dr. saith that the MS. was not returned nor required to be returned more limitedly than only some time that Afternoon But that saith Mr. Bennet is another slip of the Dr's Memory he demanded it out of my hands at Noon and refused me the use of it any longer but order'd it to be sent to his Lodgings out of hand as it was a little afterwards immediately just after Dinner Another slip of the Dr's Memory But this slip of the Dr's Memory Sir is a Circumstance in which he is as positive as you can be to the contrary And can you give me any tolerable reason for it why I should more depend upon your Memory than upon the Dr's In the next place the Dr's Account of this Affair entirely agrees with your own first Account given us in Mr. Boyle's Book and with the Certificate of your Collator And how comes the. That day of your first Account to be in your second shortned into a little afterwards out of hand immediately even just after Dinner And in the next let any Man of common Sense judge of the Probability of the thing If the Dr. was in such mighty haste for the MS. that he must needs have it returned to him so instantly out of hand immediately just after Dinner why did he not take it away with him himself Or why did he not order your Man to carry it to his Lodgings out of hand immediately before Dinner as well as immediately after Dinner Or did you desire him to let your Man stay and take his Dinner first His Victuals would do him more good when 't was hot Mr. B. Pish Nay who can help it Is there any other way of answering such stuff as this than by laughing at it Or must they go on uncontradicted because there 's no answering them without making one's Self ridiculous And now let me make some few Remarks upon this terrible Sentence which our Bookseller of the Half-Moon passes upon the Dr. In the first place this Sentence is pretended to be founded upon the Certificate of your Collator But how can that Certificate of your Collator convict the Dr. of so notorious an Untruth who Denyes nothing that is in it Or must I believe the Dr. to be so grievous a Lyar because Some-Body hath lent Mr. Bennet a Figure in Rhetorick called Exclamatio to clap into his Appendix against him In the next place I observe that there is nothing in this Certificate of your Collator not fully answer'd in the Dr's Preface saving that new Circumstance in your second Account quite forgot to be remembred by you in your first And to what purpose then was that Certificate of your Collator reprinted To none other in the world but to keep the Cause in heart and dazle the Eyes of your Thoughtless Readers by making a shew of Hands against the Dr. And what end is there of contending with Men. who go on Printing and Prating the same baffled Stuff over and over again and will not accept of an Answer And Thirdly Let any Man judge whether or no that new Story of just after Dinner be not a perfect Fiction of Mr. Bennet's second Memory altogether absurd and improbable and framed for no other end or purpose than to patch up a breach in their true Story of the MS. And yet Fourthly The Plaster is still too narrow for the Sore For how did the Dr. know as he tells you himself when your Collator sent him word that he had not finished the Collation indeed but was at work upon it that he was above two or three Pages short of the end And if so they might have been collated while your Man was eating his Dinner And what a leaky Cause have you got in hand The more 't is patch'd the more it draws water But a rotten Bottom will not bear mending And now upon the whole let the Reader once more look upon that peremptory Sentence which this Bookseller passes upon the Dr. his With what Conscience then and GOD forgive him this Vntruth and make what Reflections he pleases These Gentlemen of the Half-Moon may go on with their printing things upon the Dr. as long as they pleased but they must not expect to be much longer believed for their bold speaking But admitting your Postulatum suppose that the Dr. had most certainly known that when the MS. was returned to him the Collation was not finished What then Why was not the Dr. a very uncivil Man then in forcing the Book out of our hands and that though he knew the Collation was not finished and consequently couâ—â— not but know what is Disappointment his refining to let us keep it any longer would be to Mr. Boyle's And 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 Dr. a very uncivil 〈…〉 Not at all Sir For the Question is not whether the Collation was finished or not finished when he called in the MS. and refused to leave it with you any longer nor whether the Dr. knew or not knew as much but whether he did not as soon as it came to be in his Power voluntarily supply you with the use of it whether or no you had it not in your hands long enough to have collated it over and over and by whose Fault it was that the Collation was not finished before the MS. was called in whether or no he had not some other Reason for his calling it in when he did than a Design of disappointing Mr. Boyle of the use of it and whether or no his refusing at that time to leave it in your hands any longer ought in Reason to have been interpreted as want of Respect to a person of that honourable Name and Quality These are the Queries to which you ought to give a more satisfactory Answer than I have yet met with e're you will be able to justifie the Clamours you have raised upon the Dr. for his refusing you at that time the farther use of the MS. Mr. Boyle himself is pleased to acknowledge P. 20. that when the Dr. came to demand the MS. of Mr. Bennet again he then no not before that was very positively to be denied but he then told him That he was to go into the
are as fully fatisfied of the one as of the other and yet Mr. Boyle must not infer from hence that we are at all satisfied of either of them I am as fully fatisfied that Mr. Boyle writ the late Defence of Phalaris as I am that Mr. Bennet writ the Appendix that he has set his hand to This I can truly say I am fully satisfied in and yet notwithstanding this full satisfaction I have some Scruples concerning the true Author of that Defence of Phalaris especially when I consider this very Letter and a certain Copy of Verses before the Dispensary Mr. Boyle's second Letter p. 107. I am almost asham'd to trouble you any more Mr. Bennet about the MS. I wish I had it But if at all I must have it very quickly And though I can do pretty well without it yet Dr. Bentley's Rudeness is not the less And here 's another Complement upon the Dr. Dr. Bentley's Rudeness But wherein consisted this Rudeness of the Dr's Mr. Bennet hath been pleased in the words immediately following to explain it A little before this it seems I had given Mr. Boyle an Account of Dr. Bentley's disobliging Delays and Expressions The Rudeness therefore here complained of consisted in First his Disobliging Delays and Secondly his Disobliging Expressions And first as to his disobliging Delays Now this Letter of Mr. Boyle's was dated Oxford May 1st when the Dr. was not yet actually entred upon the Possession of his Office And that Information which Mr. Bennet had sent down to Christ-Church against the Dr. was drawn up some time before So that the disobliging Delays of which Mr. Bennet had been making his Complaints to Mr. Boyle were the Dr's not Lending them the MS. before it was in his Power to lend it them Of which enough already But here might I ask Mr. Bennet a Question or two 'T was not you say till after nine Months Sollicitation that you at last obtained the use of the MS. Nor till after at least twenty times asking for it But why did you not after your having been one two three four five six seven eight Months delay'd by the Dr. try some other methods Why did you not after having been once twice thrice twenty times disappointed by the Dr. make some Enquiry where the matter stuck This had been the part of a faithful Scllicitor and had prevented this unhappy Controversie in its Original And a little Enquiry would have informed you where the Key of the Library was lodg'd for the greatest part of those nine Months and who had been the proper Persons to whom to have made your Application If therefore you did not know the then State of the Royal Library it must have been for want of Enquiry and a Proof of your Sloth and Indifference as to Mr. Boyle's Concerns If you did know it and yet wrote such a Letter to Mr. Boyle against the Dr. what can we call it but a delight in doing mischief But I hvae Charity enough to impute it to the former your Laziness only For 't was an easier thing to sit still behind the Counter and write Letters to Mr. Boyle than to take Journeys and run from Paul's Church-Yard to Westminster a borrowing the Book for him your self Your Letter to which this of Mr. Boyle's is an Answer was written you tell us probably in the very latter end of April But a Letter then written to have given a fair Account of the matter should have been to this purpose I have spoken to Dr. Bentley several times about the MS. and he hath faithfull promised to help me to it But his Patent hath not yet pass'd all its Formalities so that he is not as yet possess'd of the Key of the Library But hopes within a short time to be so And then we shall take Care to answer your Expectations Though by the bye as I have been speaking to him of the MS. I have heard him now and then pass an untoward kind of Ceasure upon your Author 'T is a Spurious and contemptible piece he says and not worthy of a new Edition and thinks as I have sometimes heard him say you might better besrow your time than in throwing it away upon such an unedisying undertaking Had Mr. Bennet written such a Letter as this it had been a fair Account nor could Mr. Boyle have justly taken offence at it And if he wrote more than this I very considently presume he was a false Informer For Secondly what can we reasonable suppose to have been these disobliging Expressions the Dr. used concerning Mr. Bayle The Dr. was at that time a perfect Stranger to Mr. Boyle and his Qualities and Mr. Boyle the same to the Dr. It cannot therefore have been any personal Pique against him and sure he cannot have despised him for the sake of his Name What then can have been these disobliging Expressions None other I dare say than what I have been just now touching upon the Censure the Dr. may have pass'd upon not Mr. Boyle's person but his Author and so Mr. Bennet himself both in this very Page 107. and in his first Account is pleased to explain it The many slight and injurious things Dr. Bentley threw out now and then both upon him Mr. Boyle and the Work he was about and the Reflections the Dr. made from time to time when I spake to him from Mr. Boyle for the use of the MS. p. 99. And after the same manner is the matter reported in the Depositions of Dr. King These Reflections therefore all along terminate upon him with regard to the Work he was about the collating of MSS. and the Editing of a spurious and contemptible Author Mr. B 's praef p. 2. A Character which had the Dr. been asked his Opinion I presume he would have given it to this mock Phalaris whether Mr. Boyle had been put upon a new Edition of him or not And if the Dr. may perhaps have yet further reflected upon the Collating of MSS. and the nea Editing and translating of Greek Books a Work requiring a maturity of Judgment and a Palate by long use habituated to the Niceties of the learned Languages as an improper Employment for young Students to begin the first Essars of their Pens upon Ap. 131. neither doth this stick upon Mr. Boyle but where 't was placed the Directors and Coadjutors of his Studies Mr. B. p. who cannot but be thought to have merited some kind of blame first for their having put that young Gentleman upon a Work somewhat above his then Capacity and Secondly for affording him so slender an Assistance in it nor is the Scholar answerable for the mistaken methods of his Teachers And for a Man either to feign an Affront where there is none given or to aggravate things beyond measure only to execute the Revenges of a party or to expose to the World his Stock of Phrase and Witticisms is as ungentleman like an use of the Pen as picking Quarrels in the
in any of these things an utter Improbability But that Mr. Bennet should never have spoken one Syllable tending towards his asking the Dr's Opinion concerning the Book which is the Clause upon which the whole stress of the Dr's Allegation depends and which Mr. Bennet utterly denis this certainly every Man must look upon as an utter Improbability And as to that Sir upon which all depends Mr. Crooke's Certificate speaks not a word This Evidence therefore I think we may dismiss as frivolous and insignificant And notwithstanding Mr. Bennet's utterly denying it yet I shall believe the Dr's contrary Affirmation That Mr. Bennet did sometime or other ask the Dr's Opinion concerning the Book which occasioned the Dr's Reflection upon Mr. Boyle and the Work he was about Next after this Certificate of Mr. Crooke Mr. P. 128. Bennet gives in the date of a certain Letter of the Dr's own Hand-writing in Evidence against himself by the help of which with a more than ordinary Assurance he borrows a Phrase or two of the Dr's own to call him Lyar in nay and desires the Reader who is not capable of examining the Learned part of the Controversie to judge of That by the most palpable Errors the Dr. is guilty of in plain matter of Fact nay and to place the matter beyond doubt he tells us that we shall in time have the Letter its self Printed at large and the Dr. confounded by the words of his own mouth And who would imagine now P. 121. to take my turn of borrowing a Phrase from Mr. Bennet but that a matter of Fact which he is so full of should really be as he has represented it The Case indeed is somewhat puzzled and would have appeared more so but that Mr. Bennet I thank him hath been at some Pains to unravel it and in the same breath he accuses the Dr. to acquit him In the Dr's Presace is this passage p. 5 6. The first time I saw Mr. Boyle 's new Phalaris was in the hands of a Person of Honour to whom it had been presented and the rest of the Impression was not yet published This encouraged me to write that very same Evening to Mr. Boyle at Oxford and to give him a true Insormation of the whole matter expecting that upon the Receipt of my Letter he would put a stop to the Publication of the Book till he had alter'd that passage and Printed the page anew which he might have done in the space of one day and at the Charge of five Shillings This the Dr. mentions as an Aggravation oâ— Mr. Boyle's injustice that he would not alter that passage in his Preface though he had time notice given him how he had been imposed upon by the Mis representations of his Bookseller and might have stop'd the farther spreading of that injurious Reflection the Impression being not yet dispersed Now saith Mr. Bennet this Story of the Dr's I shall demonstrate to be a most notorious Falshood by one of those Notes of time which the Dr himself well observes to be the truest and surest Helps towards detecting Impostures The Dr. pretends in this Letter to have given Mr. Boyle notice timely enough to have altered that passage and stop'd the Books in the Printing-house Now saith Mr. Bennet this Letter which is still preserved bears Date Jan. 26th 1694 5. a good while before which Mr. Boyle's Book was certainly Published and publickly sold in Oxford London and other poaces The first of that Month above one hundred of them were dispersed in Christi-Church according to a Custom which Dr. Bentley appears to be no stranger to and in the twenty five days between this and the Date of the Letter they were distributed into all the Booksellers hands that deal that way And yet Dr Bentley would have the World believe that he writ so early that Mr. Boyle might have stop'd the Books in the Printing-bouse I answer The Dr. did know that a good quantity of them were dispersed in Christ-Church and 't was probably one of those New years Gifts that he saw in the hands of that person of Honour But the rest of the Impression either was not published or not so published as for the Dr. to know it You say they were distributed into all the Booksellers hands that deal that way I deny it where are your Proofs Here you ought to have come in with your Certificates I do not believe that the Books were publickly Sold in the Shops till some time after the Date of this Letter If otherwise the Dr. must have been not only a Lyar but a Fool to desire the Books to be stop'd in the Printing-house when yet he knew they were all got out of the Printing-house Or how and in what manner was the Book so published as that the Dr. should not know of the Publication Quary in which of the publick Prints was the Publication of Phalaris's Epistles first Advertized And when was it before Jan. 26th 169 4 5 If not what Proof have we that the Book was published before Query were the Copies so dispersed as that Mr. Boyle had he been minded to do Justice might not have printed one Page anew and altered that passage in the Preface If not then Mr. Boyle had notice early enough to have done it Mr. Bennet hath these words upon the Dr. Indeed not only the Date P. 122. but the whole Course of the Letter is an evident Proof that Dr. Bentley when he writ it could have no such aim in his Eye as he pretends Query What Aim could he have then The Letter was written on purpose to desire Mr. Boyle to stop the Books in the Printing house and yet the Dr. had no such Aim in his Eye This I cannot understand Why that Letter all runs upon the Supposal Ibid. that the Afffont had been publickly given and was past recall Monsters The Dr. writes a Letter to Mr. Boyle the very Subject of which was to desire that Gentleman to recall the Affront And yet all that Letter runs upon the Supposal that the Affront was past recall These are Inconsistences which if Mr. Bennet cannot reconcile I dare say No Body else can I can say no more to this Affair but that you are wanting in your Proofs We have nothing but your bare word for it that the Book was certainly Published and Sold publickly in Oxford London and other places before Jan. 26. Which till I shall see in what publick Prints the Publication of it was advertiz'd I shall not be able to believe Is it to be imagin'd that the Dr. should have written a Letter to desire the stopping of the Books in the Printing-house when yet he knew that before his writing that Letter they were all got out of the Printing-house So that after all that Assurance with which you deliver your Self upon this Article either you have not proved the Dr. to be a Lyar or you have proved him to be an Ideot Another of Mr. Bennet's Evidences