AN ANSWER TO A late BOOK Written against the Learned and Reverend Dr. BENTLEY, relating to some Manuscript Notes on CALLIMACHUS.  
Together with An EXAMINATION of Mr. Bennets APPENDIX, to the said Book.  
LONDON: Printed in the Year, 1699.   

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.  
'TIS but a poor Invitation to the Reader, and an uncommon way of prefacing, to tell him, that he is presented with a Book not worth the perusal. But as the matter is past Denial, and as I am certain to hear of it from other hands; 'tis not so much Ingenuity as Policy to confess it. Some little Account however I think myself obliged to give of the Motives that put me upon intermeddling in so insignificant a Debate. There is a Passion called by the Latins, Indignatio, which of all others my Nature hath left it least in my Power to resist. one Property of which is not to be able to behold with Patience Lions teaz'd by Gnats: If any thing can justify such a Passion in so little a Creature as myself, the rude Insults offered to an extraordinary Man, one of whose most impotent Adversaries I have in the following Papers taken upon me to bring under Examination, and the Applause with which the Party received them; I should think will do it. What drew this Storm of Criticism upon that Reverend Person, the Reader will find not obscurely intimated to him in the Animadversions I have bestowed upon Mr. Bennets Appendix. 'Tis no wonder, that a War so unjustly begun should be prosecuted by not much more Honourable methods; and the Littleness of the Instruments made use of in executing their Revenge added to the Contumely. The Assurance with which their young Hero took the Field, 
Mr. B s praef p. 6.  that Air of Superiority with which he every where treats his Adversary, the Acclamations with which the Party, nay the Applauses with which he Himself proclaimed himself Conqueror, made the World begin to look upon the Dr's Case as desperate; and 'twas in every Body's mouth, Mr. boil's Book is an unanswerable piece. Nor was it enough, that Mr. boil had posted his despised Dr. Bentley at the top of two hundred and ninety Pages; that he had made him the Jest and Sting of I know not how many thousand Periods, the Common Chat of Coffeehouses and Taverns: He threatens him with yet more dismal things to follow: That there should be a Book written against him in Latin; 
P. 229.  that Foreign Universities should in due time be informed, what a Man the King of England had to his Library-Keeper; and particularly Monsieur Spanheim, and Monsieur Graevius be instructed how to choose out some more deserving Person to place their Civilities upon. Nay, and, 
P. 289.290.  to put him beyond all Hopes, he plainly tells him, that he was fallen into the Hands of an whole Body of Men, whose Hatreds and Revenges were Immortal; who when once they begin with a Man, there's no knowing when they will leave him; and who were resolved to use him as unmercifully with their Pens, as ever Phalaris did poor Innocents' with his Musical Bull.  
Had not the Dr. been either very Conscious to himself of the Goodness of his Cause, or very insensible of Danger, he would tamely have quitted the Field, and have striven by Patience and Silence to have mitigated their Displeasure. But to the surprise of the Town it was soon got abroad, that the Dr. did not yield; nay, that he did but Laugh at them, and would certainly give them an Answer. This, we may suppose, created them some Disturbance. For I cannot imagine, that they did ever in their Hearts believe Dr. Bentley to be so very manageable an Adversary as in their Writings they had every where represented him. However, one considerable Advantage they had gained in their first Adventure. The Town and common Fame were on their side, which when once they have fallen in with a false Cry will not easily change their Note. Supported with this Comfort, they were resolved to stand their ground, and if the Dr. was for answering them, they would be sure to find him work enough. I very well remember, that some Months before the Dr's last Book was published, I heard it in these very Words and Syllables from a certain Person, whom I suppose no stranger to the Secrets of the Party; Let the Dr. come out with his Answer as soon as he will, they are in a readiness for him; to my certain knowledge, saith he, they have Rods in Piss against him. Accordingly, within not many Weeks after the Dr's Answer was published (but just time enough for the Club to patch up Mr. Bennets Appendix) it was followed by this Rod in Piss of a Vindicator: as indeed well it might, all the Sheets (or I am misinformed) being wrought off before. And here was another piece of work for the Dr. wherein they had him upon an unlucky Dilemma. If he answered it, the Littleness of the Subject, as well as the inequality of the Antagonist, must needs have exposed him to Contempt: If he answered it not; that had been interpreted a submitting to the Charge, and would have kept some Life in the Cause. And again; if he answered This, they might have had another piece against him, and after That another; and after That another, and so on; verifying Mr. boil's Prediction, that there were an whole Body engaged against him, who when once they begin with a Man, there's no knowing when they will leave him. Nay, I have heard it more than once, that they gave out, they would write a Book against him once a Month as long as he lived. Nay, and I can produce my Witnesses, to whom Mr. Bennet, hearing, it seems, that there was something of an Answer designed to the Vindicator, said with his own mouth; That they were best let his Appendix alone: If they Printed any Reflections upon him, he'd be even with them, and have them exposed all the Town over, both in Verse and Prose. And these are the Methods by which the Gentlemen of the Half-Moon are resolved to humble the Library-Keeper at St. James', and terrify the rest of Mankind from opening their Lips on his behalf.  
And must therefore Men and Books, like Dr. Bentley, and Dr. Bentley's Books, be run down merely by noise and numbers? Shall Banter so securely Triumph over Learning, and Phrase and Confidence over Sense and Truth? Must Men of Worth (as I think, I have somewhere or other expressed it in the following Papers) be made the mock of Fools, because they that make them so write things so wretchedly trifling, that a Man who hath any regard to his own Reputation, would be ashamed of having so misemployed his time as to answer them?  
As 'twas this Consideration, and this only, drew me into this Dispute; so I must desire the Reader to consider, that 'tis not the Subject-matter of the following Lines which I recommend to his Observation, but the manner of these gentlemen's managing their Controversy with Dr. Bentley. And because it is scarce to be hoped that many should be found, who will give themselves the trouble of examining every particular, I shall point out some few Instances of our Vindicator's Allegations against the Dr. by which the Reader may give a guess at the whole, which upon Trial I can assure him, he will find all of a piece. The chief Design of the Vindicator's Book, is to charge the Dr. with Plagiarism upon account of a certain MS. from whence it is pretended Dr. Bentley borrowed a great part of his Collection of the Fragments of Callimachus published in Mr. Graevius' late Edition of that Author, and put them off for his own. As I may pretend to have examined this part of his Accusation, more nicely than I can expect many others will do, I sincerely declare, that I see not the least Reason to believe, that the Dr's Collection was one line or hint the richer for his having seen that MS. The true State of the Controversy is given in the first Sheet and half, ending at page 23. To which, he that shall have the Curiosity of going to the Half-Moon and collating the Original Evidence itself there to be shown against the Dr. is desired to add the Cautions laid down, page 51, etc. If he would without losing the time of going over the whole see some particular Exemplifications of our Vindicator's Ingenuity in prosecuting his Charge against the Dr. and of the Validity of his Proofs, he may consult these following Passages. Remark the first upon Proofs 6, 7. p. 25. and p. 33.62, 63.116, 117, 118. and especially, p. 79.80.81.86. As for a choice Observation of our Vindicator's (though indeed not his own, but taken up at second hand from Mr. boil) upon the Extent of the Dr's Reading, I refer him to p. 37, etc. He that would take the measure of his Learning and Judgement, will find it, as in all his most judicious Animadversions upon the Dr's pretended mistakes, so more especially in these Observations of his own, p. 88, 89.91, 92.102, etc. and in his Supplement, p. 120, etc. 125.128, etc. And here let me give (which was omitted in its proper place) the English of those two Greek Lines, pag. 89. by the help of which even the Wits and the Fools of Parts (who are indeed the support of the Cause) may be able, without the help of more Learning than what their Mother tongue affords them, to give some guess at the profundity of our Vindicator's Judgement, and how proper a Person he is to set up for a Corrector of other Men's Writings; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. According to Stephanus, and Dr. Bentley's Emendation in English thus. I also, as well as Pythagoras, command you to abstain from the feeding upon Beans, or the Flesh of any living Creature. But according to our Learned Vindicator's Correction thus. I also, as well as Pythagoras, command you to abstain from feeding upon Beans, and that you sit still without speaking a word.  
As for the Veracity of our Honest Vindicator, his whole Book is one continued Proof of it. The very Design of his Book being to prove; that the Dr. stole the best part of his Collection from their MS. But, He having perused and collated that MS. with the Dr's printed Collection, he could not but know this to be a most notorious Falsehood. (vid. p. 64.118.) And he that shall prefer an Indictment, the very Matter of which he knows to be false, cannot design Truth in his Proofs. But to point the Reader to one full, clear, and undeniable Proof of our Viudicator's Veracity, let him turn to pag. 114. line 15. Dr. Bentley to Conceal, etc. and his very next Allegation against the Dr. p. 115. is much of the same stamp.  
As for the other part of his Accusation against the Dr. Dr. Bentley's Injustice and Inhumanity to the Authors that lived before him, I have dispatched the whole in so few words, that the perusing of it will be but little loss of time, p. 133. etc. Which when the Reader shall have done, to his own Judgement I leave it, whether I had not Reason to address myself to him in the manner I there do. P. 141.  
Observe it, Reader, and consider the Consequence; when once Banter hath broken in upon a Man's Reputation, how securely Ignorance will follow its Leader.  
Mr. Bennets Appendix being about that Matter of Fact, which hath filled the mouths of the Party with such Clamours, if any thing I have written shall find a Reader, I may presume it will be my Examination of that Appendix; to which therefore I shall not here say any more, than that I am even amazed at Mr. Bennets Confidence in concluding his Appendix with so serious and solemn a Protestation, 
P. 133.  That those things were written by him with the same Sincerity, and Care as if he had been upon his Oath; that he had not where made use of any false Colours, nor willingly misled his Readerin any the least trifling Circumstance of that tedious Story. Which, taking his words in the plain and natural Sense they seem to Design, I dare pronounce, to be a most notorious Falsehood.  
And now upon the whole, after all the Pains these Gentlemen of the Half-Moon have taken upon the Dr. and his Writings, there is not, I think, any thing material advanced against him, either as to matter of Fact or matter of Learning, which hath not received a thorough Examination, that part of Mr. boil's Book excepted, which the Dr. hath reserved to his own farther Consideration; though I believe they could be very well content to dispense with him for the performance of his Promise. And all the black Accusations hitherto preferred against him of Ignorance, Plagiarism, Falsehood, etc. appearing upon Trial (as I think they plainly do) both frivolous, false and malicious: They may, if they please, still go on with their landable Design of Printing things upon the Dr. and write a Book against him once a Month as long as he lives: I dare say, they will neither give him any Disturbance in his own Thoughts, nor injure his Reputation with others. Since they stand already convicted of so many notorious Prevarications; whatsoever they may hereafter advance, I shall not scruple to pronounce that Reader, not only Simple and Credulous, but also Partial and , that shall trust them upon their own bare words, or give any heed to the most specious of their Pages till they have stood a Trial. And what I assume on the behalf of the Dr. the same Privilege I think, I have a Right of claiming for myself; who having showed myself so fearless of their Displeasure, may reasonably expect the worst of Revenges that the Pen can execute: 
V Mr. B. p. 220.  And as for any rougher Instrument, I shall soon be placed out of their reach.   

ADVERTISEMENT.  
LATELY published The Epistles of Phalaris, translated into English from the Original, by the Author of this ANSWER.   

TO THE Author of the Remarks UPON Dr. Bentley's Fragments OF CALLIMACHUS.  
SIR,  
THAT part of your Book which I have now under consideration bears this Title.  
An Honest Vindication of Tho. Stanley, Esquire, and his Notes on Callimachus. To which are added some other Observations on that Poet. In a Letter to the Honourable Charles Boil, Esquire. With a Postscript, in relation to Dr. Bentley 's late Book against him.  
This Title promises two things.  
First, An Honest Vindication of Tho. Stanley, Esquire, and his Notes on Callimachus.  
Secondly, Some other Observations on the same Poet.  
But withal here is special care taken to give the Reader notice of a certain Postscript in Relation to Dr. Bentley's late Book against Mr. boil: by which late Book of Dr. Bentley against Mr. boil, I understand the Doctor's late Book in Vindication of Himself, and his Dissertation upon the Epistles of Phalaris from the Objections made by the Honourable Charles Boil, Esquire, against Both  
Though 'tis your Honest Vindication of Mr. Stanley and his Notes on Callimachus I am principally concerned with: yet since you have been pleased to bless the world with some Things of your Own; 
P. 34. lin. 7.  Those your own Observations I shall separate from those of Mr. Stanley, and, to make them the more observed, present them to the view of the Reader in a place by themselves. And as for the Postscript, it will give me as little trouble, as I believe it did you.  
That the Vindication of the Dead, 
P. 25.  and speaking for them who cannot speak for themselves, is a Generous and Honourable Undertaking, I freely grant you. But if this Vindication of the Dead was wholly Unnecessary; if there was not the least manner of Injustice offered by Dr. Bentley to the Manes of Mr. Stanley requiring such a Vindication; 
P. 74.  the Doctor never omitting the mention of his Name, where there was just occasion for it, nor ever mentioning it without the regard due to his Merit; 
Dr. Bentley's Answer to Mr. boil, pref. p. 93. p. 232. & Epist. ad fin. Malel. p. 45.  if this your Vindication of the Dead be in reality nothing else than an Accusation of the Living, and that Accusation altogether frivolous, false and malicious; if upon due Examination this should appear to be the truth of the case: an indifferent Reader will be much tempted to doubt, whether or no in the whole management of this Affair you were indeed acted by those noble Principles you profess of Conscience, Honour, and Religion, 
Pref. p. 1, 2, and P. 25, 76, 77.  and not rather put upon it by some very unjustifiable Motives of a quite different Nature. As perhaps the mean view of making your Court (though at the Expense both of your own Modesty, and your Neighbours Good Name) to a Young Gentleman, 
P. 54.  or the vainglorious Ambition of falling in with a Triumphant Party and dividing with them the Spoils of a● already (as you too soon thought) conquered Enemy.  
But the Controversy in which I am engaged is too trifling to bear the Solemnity of an Introduction. I shall therefore without farther Ceremony forthwith enter into the Merits of the Cause; which I hope in not many words to dispatch with that Clearness and Evidence, that even you yourself shall be willing to let the matter drop, and wish it had never been started.  
To try the force of your Allegations against Dr. Bentley upon the account of Mr. Stanley's MS. I shall begin with the first of them, 
Callimach. op. Edit. Graevian p. 305. Vindicator. p. 34. Harpocrat. Suidas.  and under that plead to the whole Indictment.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— as in Dr. Bentley, p. 305.  
This Citation out of Suidas (which Mr. Stanley only hinted at) the Doctor hath transcribed and printed in words at length.  
These are your words. By the Parenthesis here (which Mr. Stanley only hinted at) is employed, I suppose, that if Mr. Stanley had not hinted at it, Dr. Bentley had not transcribed it.  
Thus have you drawn up the Charge, which reduced into form lies thus.  
The Citations out of Harpocration and Suidas are in Mr. Stanley.  
The Citations out of Harpocration and Suidas are in Dr. Bentley: ergo,  
Dr. Bentley stole the Citations out of Harpocration and Suidas from Mr. Stanley.  
Now of the self same stamp are all and every one of your Proofs that follow; as thus.  
The Citations, Num. 2, 3, 7, 8, 12. and so of the rest, are in Mr. Stanley.  
The Citations, Num. 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, etc. are in Dr. Bentley: ergo,  
Dr. Bentley stole the Citations, Num. 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, etc. from Mr. Stanley.  
Thus lies your Argument, nor can you say, but that I give it its whole force.  
And these are those Proofs, to which you give the Epithet of undeniable, and upon which you pronounce the Doctor a Convict of Notorious Plagiarism. 
P. 76.  Were I minded to express myself ingeniously upon this occasion, I could not do it in better words than in those of an Approved Author, for whom you doubtless have a particular Esteem. Either our Vindicator must be a very Thoughtless Writer, 
Mr. B. p. 259.  or he must hope to meet with very Thoughtless Readers; and such I am sure they must be, if this way of arguing passes upon them. Never was that bold Epithet, Undeniable, more miserably abused in the Press, or placed in a Post where it could less maintain its Ground. But it hath been the peculiar Happiness of some Books to meet with very Thoughtless Readers. Nor can I imagine what other Consideration could have given our Honest Vindicator also the Heart to set up for an Author. I could pinch you somewhat close upon this your undeniable. But I scorn to take a weak Enemy at Advantage. That would be a Disparagement to the cause I have in hand: and Dr. Bentley might well think himself a man as unhappy in his Advocate, as he is happy in his Adversary, were this the best defence I could make for him, that your Proofs against him are not Undeniable. No, Sir, I'll freely abate you that strong word. If you can but make them, even to the lowest degree of Probability, Probable; I'll allow you a little heightening of your Style, and you shall call them undeniable.  
Now the Probability of your Proofs depends upon the Probability of the Supposition upon which they stand: and that Supposition is this; That Dr. Bentley never met with those Citations which you charge upon him as stolen from Mr. Stanley's MS. either in the Authors themselves, in whose Names they are published, or in any other Book whatsoever, save in your MS. For had he met with them any where else, he might as well have transcribed them from thence as from your MS. 
Mr. B. p. 101, etc.  Now to suppose this reduces the industrious Dr. Bentley's Polymathy and multifarious Reading into a very narrow compass. Or else you must suppose, that though he might have met with them elsewhere, yet he would never have observed them, so as to have drawn them together, and presented them to the World in the manner he hath done, had he not found them readily collected to his hands by Mr. Stanley; which to prove will put you as hard to it as the former. 
Concess. 8.9, infr. p. 11, 12.  This I think is a clear case. So that the Controversy depending between us is plainly this. Whether it be more probable that the Doctor should have both seen and observed those Citations in some other Books besides your MS. which is that part of the Question I take. Or, whether it be more probable, that he had never met with them any where else, or never would have observed them, had not your MS either presented him with them in words at length, or at least directed him to the Books where he might find them; which is the point you are to maintain.  
Having thus, I think, very fairly and clearly stated the Case, and as much as possibly could be done to your advantage; let us calmly and deliberately argue it out. In the doing of which, for method sake, I shall proceed in this Order.  
First, I shall produce your own, and your Friends Concessions on behalf of the Doctor.  
Then I shall compare your Concessions with your Assertions, and from thence raise some just and reasonable Exceptions deeply affecting the whole Body of your Proofs. Which being, in the last place, applied to the particular instances, I shall think this Controversy at an end.  
But this one thing I must observe to you before I go any farther, that hitherto I am but upon the Defensive, nor as yet any farther concerned in the Doctor's interests, than barely to discharge him of the Accusation you bring against him; so that I am willing to stand upon the very lowest Terms with you, and shall be content to take up with that indifferent Account of the Doctor, which you and your Friends are pleased to give me, and make the best I can of it.  
To begin therefore with your Concessions. And here I am forced to Subpoena in two or three Witnesses for the Doctor, whose Testimonies will be of so much the greater weight in this cause, by how much the less they can be suspected of Partiality in his Favour. As for that Honourable Gentleman, whose name I must somewhat often make use of upon this occasion, considering how necessary his evidence is to me, and ho will I could have spared it, I hope he will the more readily pardon my presumption in producing it.  


CONCESSION I. Dr. Bentley is a Person of Singular Industry.  
Witness 1. The Honourable Charles Boil, Esquire, Examination of Dr. Bentley, p. 285.  
And to give him my opinion, what He (sc. Dr. Bentley) is fit for, I think that the collecting of Greek Fragments and Proverbs would be a proper Employment for him.  
And presently after, I am the rather apt to think, that such works as these might thrive in his hands, because the well executing them depends chief on two Qualities, which he must be allowed to possess; Application and a Willingness to be employed in such sorts of Studies, as only load the Memory without improving the Understanding.  
Witness 2. Honest Vindicator, p. 42. Notwithstanding his (sc. Dr. Bentley 's) Accuracy and great Diligence in searching after the Fragments of Callimachus.  
Witness 3. The Author of the Postscript to the Honest Vindication of Tho. Stanley, Esquire, lin. antepenult. I am neither afraid, nor ashamed to declare that I have a great Esteem for Dr. Benley 's Learning and Industry.  
Next to Industry, in order to the carrying on any great design is required Leisure, and the opportunities of pursuing it. And that I think 'tis well known the Doctor's Circumstances have happily afforded him. But since we have an express Testimony for it, I'll make that   

CONCESSION II. Dr. Bentley is a Person who hath enjoyed Leisure and the other Opportunities of pursuing his Studies.  
Witness Mr. boil, Pref. p. 3. where these words lin. 5. The Person, who by the help of Leisure and Lexicons shall set up for a Critic, are manifestly designed as part of the Doctor's Character, vide & p. 187, 189. But how was this Industry and Leisure employed? why, which makes Concession the third.   

CONCESSION III. Dr. Bentley is a Person well read in Dictionary-Learning.  
In turning over Greek Vocabularies, Onomasticons, Etymologicons, Lexicons, Glossaries, Nomenclators and Scholia.  
Witness 1. Mr. boil, loco jam dicto, Concess. 2. 
P. 197, & 208, 213, 223, 286, etc.  and the places referred to in the Margin. But two of these Lexicographers are singled out from the rest, and therefore well deserve it, to have a particular mark set upon them, sc. Suidas and Hesychius.  

1. With Suidas the Doctor is very conversant, p. 197, and  
2. Hesychius is one of the great Storehouses of his Alphabetical- Learning, p. 183.   
Witness 2. Honest Vindicator, p. 9 A Volume as big as the Lexicons he designs to publish.  
ANd if he designs to publish them, surely he must very throughly have Read them. Conser cum Mr. B. p. 223.  
Idem iterum, p. 33. Dr. Bentley is the man who hath sisted the Lexicographers and Scholiasts, both printed and in MS.  
Witness 3. One A. Alsop late Bachelor of Arts of Christ-Church College in the University of Oxford, Prefat. to his Fabularum Aesopicarum Delectus Gr. Lat. è Theatro Sheldoniano, 1698, lin. 3, 4 RICHARDUM quendam BENTLEIUM virum in volvendis Lexicis satis Diligentem, i.e. One Richard Bentley, a Man Diligent enough at turning over Lexicons. For this Sir Alsop's Richardum quendam Bentleium, I take to be the very self same Person, whom Mr. boil, p. 195, more respectively styles Richard Bentley, Doctor of Divinity, and Chaplain in Ordinary to his Majesty: and that R. Bentley, D. D. is most certainly Mr. Graevius' RICHARDUS BENTLEIUS Potentissimo Regi GULIELMO à Bibliothecâ, novum sed splendidissimum Britanniae Lumen, i.e. RICHARD BENTLEY, that New but Brightest Star of Britain, Keeper of the Library to the most Potent King WILLIAM.   

CONCESSION IU. Dr. Bentley is well versed in the Indices of Books.  
Witness 1. 
P. 68, 145, 165.  Mr. Boil in the places referred to in the margin, and more especially that Quotation out of Quinctilian, as applied to Dr. Bentley. Nec sanè quisquam est tam procul à cognitione eorum remotus, ut non Indicem certè ex Bibliothecâ sumptum transferre in Libros suos possit: which words it was designed, I suppose, we should understand to this purpose. No man can be so great a Dunce, 
P. 220.  but that by turning to Indices in a Library he may collect Authorities in abundance, p. 68 Confer cum Dr. B's Answer, p. 421.  
Witness 2. Honest Vindicator, p. 83.— Harduin, whose Indices directed Dr. Bentley to those Quotations, sc. out of Pliny.   

CONCESSION V Quotation was once thought the Doctor's peculiar Province; and particularly the Quoting things lying out of the common way of Reading.  
And if once so, I see no reason why his after Performances should sink his Reputation upon that Account.  
Witness Mr. boil. I thought Quotation had been the Doctor's peculiar Province, p. 29. Confer cum Dr. B 's Answer, p. 5, & 13.  
Idem, p. 45. As much out of the way as the Doctor loves to read; and p. 226. The Doctor is one that distinguishes himself, by finding out Hints in the odd Corners of Books, where 'tis probable, no body else would look for them.   

CONCESSION VI Dr. Bentley consults the several Editions of Books.  
Witness Mr. boil, to consult the several Editions, to collate the MSS, to turn over Dictionaries, p. 223. This is spoken of Dr. Bentley.   

CONCESSION VII. Dr. Bentley is presumed to have read all Authors in Critic.  
Witness 1. Honest Vindicator, p. 38. in the words now named.  
Witness 2. Mr. boil, a man of the Doctor's Polymathy, and great Reading, p. 101, 23, & al.   

CONCESSION VIII. In reading the Ancients, Dr. Bentley digests his Observations and Collections into the method of Common-place.  
Witness Mr. boil. For so I suppose he would have us understand him, when p. 27. he joins Stobaeus and Suidas together, the one an eminent Common-Placer, the other a no less eminent Dictionary-Writer, as the two sorts of men for whom the Doctor hath a particular Regard, q.d. the Doctor hath no less a Talon at Common-placing than he hath at Dictionary-making. Confer cum p. 223.   

CONCESSION IX. Dr. Bentley had long since form a Design of Collecting the Fragments of all the Greek Poets.  
How long since to a point of time we cannot tell. That he had not only form the Design, but made considerable Progress in it before the year 91, is certain.  
Witness 1. Mr. boil, p. 194. where he quotes, and by building an argument upon it, subscribes to the following passage out of the Doctor's Letter to Dr. Mill, printed at the end of Malela, Anno 1691, p. 20. Name in his rebus verba mihi dari haud facilè patior; qui, ut scis, fragmenta omnium poetarum Graecorum cum Emendotionibus ac notis, grande opus, edere constitueram. In which words (as Mr. boil truly and fairly represents the meaning of them) the Doctor boldly declares his opinion of himself that he thought he could not easily be deceived in knowing whether a Greek Verse were ascribed to its proper Author, and that because he once had it in his intentions to have published the Fragments of all the Greek Poets, with Emendations and Notes upon them; which, should he have finished it, would have made a large Work.  
Nor had he form the design only, but made considerable Progress in it. Witness the many pregnant Instances of it in the forenamed Epist. ad fin. Malel. and more particularly the Specimen there given upon the Tragic Poet jon, p. 50, & seqq. and Mr. boil's own Confession, p. 285. In one of these ●s●. the collecting of Greek Fragments) he hath succeeded well.  
Witness 2. Honest Vindicator, who, p. 94, calls the Collecting Greek Fragments, the Doctor's old beloved Studies.   

CONCESSION X. Dr. Bentley hath been Critically exact in Correcting the Fragments of Callimachus.  
Witness Honest Vindicator, p. 42. Notwithstanding his Accuracy, his great Diligence in searching after the Fragments of Callimachus, and strictness in Correcting the Failures of others.   

CONCESSION XI. Dr. Bentley hath made some Additions of his own to Mr. Stanley's MS.  
Witness Honest Vindicator in the place just now referred to, p. 42. It ought to be confessed that Dr. Bentley hath made some Additions of his own, to what was collected to his hands so readily. And p. 33. It ought to be acknowledged that Dr. Bentley hath made some Additions to Mr. Stanley 's Collections; and it must have been a Prodigy, if a Man, who had sifted the old Lexicographers and Scholiasts both Printed and in MS, should not have found out some Passages, which had escaped the Diligence of that Learned Gentleman; of whose Notes it must be observed, That they are an imperfect Draught of a more complete work.  
Mr. Stanley's MS. being but an imperfect Draught of a more complete work; from a Man who had sifted the Lexicographers and Scholiasts both Printed and in MS, and sifted them with a design of Collecting the Fragments of all the Greek Poets, one might reasonably have expected Additions deserving a better Title than that Diminutive Epithet SOME; SOME Additions, sc. some few inconsiderable ones, here and there an odd Quotation. So cautiously do you express yourself. But as I am as yet upon the receiving hand, I must content myself with what you are pleased to give me, only desiring of you, that what you hear not over liberally grant, you would not elsewhere retract, but still allow these some Additions to be the Doctor's own.  
I shall make bold to borrow of you yet one Concession more, in which, though the Doctor be not immediately concerned, yet it will be of some use to me in the managing of his Cause. And that is this.   

CONCESSION XII. That besides what had been formerly printed upon this Author, the Illustrious Spanheim hath done some service to Callimachus both in his Collection of Fragments, and in an entire Volume of Learned Annotations upon that Poet; hand in hand, with whose Collection Dr. Bentley's Collection appears, and in multiplied Instances concurs.  
Witness Honest Vindicator, p. 32. in the words here expressed.  
Thus have I gained of you a competent number of Concessions, with which I am got up to the very Throat of the Cause, and have little more to do now, than to sum up the Evidence, and apply it to the matter in hand. And if you do not by this time apprehend the danger which threatens all your Vndeniables, you are a person of that happy Constitution, which renders a man secure and fearless.  
Dr. Bentley is a Person of singular Industry and Application, 
V supra the several Concessions, and the places there referred to.  and by the very make of his Nature particularly addicted to these sorts of Studies, upon which he is now called into Question: hath met with the most encouraging opportunities of pursuing them: Is extremely well versed in the old Lexicographers; Nor less familiar with the Scholiasts: Knows no man better how to make his Advantage of an Index: Quotation is his peculiar Province: When he reads an ancient Author, Greek or Latin, is for consulting the several Editions of him, and Collating the MSS: Is a man of vast Polymathy, and presumed to have read all Authors in Critic: Digests his Lections and Observations into the method of Common-place: Had long since form the design of Collecting the Fragments of all the Greek Poets: Hath been critically exact in correcting those of Callimachus in particular: hath made some Additions of his own to Mr. Stanley's Collection: Was in this work of Collecting the Fragments of Callimachus, as preceded by Vulcanius and Dacier, so accompanied with his Excellency Spanhemius; Hand in hand with whose Collection the Dr's Collection appears, and in multiplied Instances concurs. All which notwithstanding, after all this Industry and Leisure, so employed as is before described, and upon a design so long since form: this self same Dr. Bentley is a most notorious Plagiary. But how so? why because Mr. Stanley also had fallen upon the same design of Collecting the Fragments of Callimachus, and had made some little Beginnings in the work, an imperfect Draught of which is still preserved: and this imperfect Draught of Mr. Stanley's Collections the Doctor had the Misfortune to have put into his hands; and in this imperfect Draught there are (in a considerable number of Instances) the same Quotations, and (in some very few) the same Corrections as are in the Doctor's more finished Piece. Building upon this, you conclude your work is done, and to place the matter beyond Dispute, invite the Reader to Mr. 
P. 32.  Bennets Shop in St. Paul's Churchyard, where he will see the self same words and Syllables in Mr. 
P. 76.  Stanley's Manuscript as in Dr. Bentley's printed Collection. This seems so fair an Appeal that the unwary Reader is presently taken with it. For what farther satisfaction would one desire in such a case than Ocular Demonstration? What fuller Conviction than so apparent matter of fact? All which notwithstanding, I shall not scruple to pronounce that Reader very Thoughtless upon whom this way of arguing shall pass for Demonstration. For both Mr. Stanley and the Doctor having fallen upon the same Thought of Collecting the Fragments of Callimachus, that there should be some of the same Quotations in the one as in the other is so far from being a convictive Evidence of the Latter's having Transcribed them from the Former, that the nature of the thing render it impossible to have been otherwise: unless we must suppose some strange chance so to have divided the course of their Reading, that they should not so much as have dipped into the same Books. For if they both read the same Authors, and both with a design of collecting the same Fragments; it is impossible, but that so far as from the time of their having entered upon that Design, they kept pace with each other in the course of the Reading, they must also (allowing for here and there an oversight) have transferred into their Collections the same Quotations. And had Mr. Stanley carried on his work farther, Dr. Bentley's Collection must also of necessity, though without his ever having seen Mr. Stanley's, have fallen in with it oftener than now it doth, and his some Additions, as you call them, have been proportionably fewer than now they are. So that (to remind you of the state of the question) to make good your Accusation of Plagiarism against Dr. Bentley upon the account of Mr. Stanley's MS. one of these two points ought to have been more particularly insisted upon; either that Mr. Stanley's Collection was a very complete one, those some Additions of the Doctor's being but few and inconsiderable in comparison of what he is supposed to have found readily Collected to his hands by Mr. Stanley; the direct contrary to which is the truth of the case: Or else, that those other some Quotations, which you charge upon him as borrowed from Mr. Stanley, were such chosen pieces, and lying so much out of the way of the Doctor's Reading, that he would certainly have missed of them, had he not found them in your MS. of which I say the same as of the former; the Citations of Mr. Stanley's MS. being the most easily come at of any in the whole Set, and lying so full in the Doctor's daily walks, that he could not but have stumbled upon them, even whether he would or no. And yet you run on from the beginning to the end upon your wild and groundless Supposition, 
Sup. p. 5.  which you take for granted, without offering one Syllable in proof of it, That the Doctor had never met with those Citations any where else, or never observed them, till he lit upon them in your MS. This is that grand Supposition which supports all your Proofs: which therefore, when upon a Review of the Concessions before laid down, you shall see so miserably betrayed, you will find cause to blame your own Incircumspection, and wish you had been more sparing of your Compliments.  
And now Sir, as for the Promise which I made you of a comparison between your Concessions and your Assertions; I think I may save myself that labour, and leave it to the Reader from what hath been already said to collect how far those Liberal Encomiums bestowed upon the Doctor for his Industry, and the several other peculiarities of his character, so happily qualifying him for Undertake of this nature, will go to discharge him of the foul Imputation of Plagiarism; and how inconsistent the one part of the character you give us of him is with the other part of it.  
'Tis not for that the necessity of the cause requires this Precaution and Exactness, that I am thus grave, and (if I may so say) Mathematical in making my Approaches to the Argument, but out of the respect I bear to your person, whom being altogether unknown to me, I would not willingly Affront; which construction might be made of it, should I answer your Suggestions in so slighty and superficial a manner, as if they did not deserve a more thorough Consideration. And besides, those so Emphatic terms in which you press on your Accusation upon the Doctor, will plead my excuse, if I be at more pains than otherwise could have been judged necessary to bestow upon it so serious and operose a Reply. Undeniable Proof, Ocular Demonstration, matter of Fact, Manifest Conviction: These, sure, are too weighty things to be passed over with a lose Harangue. The nature of your Evidence in general, I think hath been already sufficiently considered. I proceed now in due form and manner to lay in (which was the next thing proposed) my Exceptions against your Proofs in particular. All your Allegations therefore against the Doctor I admit to pass for good Evidence, (or if you will have it so) undeniable Proofs; those only which fall under these Exceptions following, excepted.    


Exception I.  
The several Passages taken out of the old Lexicographers and Scholiasts: 
Supr. p. 8. & seqq.  with whom the Doctor being so familiarly acquainted, cannot be supposed to have overlooked those Quotations with which those Authors must needs have supplied him.   

Exception II.  
The Passages marked out in the Indices of Books. For the Doctor being presumed to be so well versed in Indices, cannot be presumed, when he was upon Collecting the Fragments of Callimachus to have been at a loss for such of them, as those Indices would most readily have directed him to.   

Exception III.  
The several Fragments or Testimonia relating to Callimachus extant in Vulcanius and Dacier's Editions of that Author. 
Antw. 1584., 12o. Paris, 1675, 4ᵒ.  For the Passages there extant the Doctor, whose practice it is to consult the several Editions of Books, must needs have seen: which yet make up a considerable part of the instances you produce against him, as Proofs of his Plagiarism from your MS.   

Exception IU.  
Those Quotations which the Doctor had actually printed before ever he saw your MS or which are taken from Authors with whom it plainly appears he was before then very familiarly acquainted. 
In Ep. ad fin. Malel.    

Exception V.  
Those Citations or Corrections in which Mr. Stanley's Collection, Mr. Spanheim's, and the Doctor's concur. For if Mr. Spanheim could without the help of your MS. light upon many of the same things which are in your MS. Why, might not Dr. Bentley do the like? unless we must suppose the Doctor to have been less diligent in searching after the Fragments of Callimachus, or less curious in correcting the failures of others: which both your own words, and the plain matter of Fact (as will appear to any one that shall compare the Doctor's Collection with any of the other Collections printed together with his) manifestly confutes.   

Exception VI.  
Such Passages which are not to be met with in any Book whatsoever, whether printed or MS. save only in Mr. Stanley's Collection. For the Doctor taking such delight in Quotation, having been so long upon this Collecting Design, Treasuring up his collections into Common-place, being presumed to have read all Authors in Critic, spending his time in turning over old MSS, and fetching his Quotations out of the odd Corners of Books, where scarce any body else would look for them: I cannot imagine what One of all your Proofs may be presumed to have escaped so Diligent a Search; unless produced out of some such Books, whether printed or MS, which the Doctor never had the Possibility of seeing.   

Exception VII.  
And lastly, I except also out of the number of Proofs those few Corrections in which Mr. Stanley's Manuscript Collection, and the Doctor's printed one concur, though not to be shown in any Book in the world, saving in those two. For the Doctor having been so Critically exact in correcting the Fragments of Callimachus, and having proved the exactness of his Judgement upon so many difficult places untouched by Mr. Stanley, he cannot reasonably be presumed to have overlooked those other so manifestly corrupt Lections, which no 
* As that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, n. 52. v. Spanhemii fragm. p. 278.  man that understood any thing belonging to Callimachus, could have passed by unobserved; nay, which any Schoolboy, that had but Grammar enough to scan a Greek Verse, would have 
† As that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, n. 49.  rectified. And of this kind are most (if not all) of those Corrections, which you charge upon him as stolen from Mr. Stanley. Though both Mr. Stanley's and Dr. Bentley's Talon at these sort of studies being well known, it had been so such strange jumping of Wits, if they had in more Instances of this kind hit upon the same Conjectures, which: yet they have so rarely done (and then only in places of the most obvious Emendation) that there was no need of laying in this Caveat.  
And thus much for the Exceptions I had to make against your Proofs, all of them founded upon your own Concessions; which you cannot in honour retract: though indeed you have given little more than what I might honestly have assumed for the Doctor without becoming your Debtor. But since you were so over and above obliging, I was willing to close in with you upon your own Terms. Especially most of those things being delivered with such a peculiar Gracefulness and Decency of Style, which my unpractised Pen could never have attained to. Nor can you now say, that I have anywhere abused or misrepresented you, having all along recited your own Words and Syllables, put no forced Interpretation upon them; nor charged them with consequences which they do not naturally bear. And 'tis but agreeable to the Law of Arms, if one can make one's self Master of the Enemy's Artillery, to turn it upon themselves: and if your Testimonies for the Doctor must be of no weight; 'Tis a most unequitable demand, that your Testimonies against him should be of greater. So that till you can produce some such Proofs as will not fall under some or other of these Exceptions, the Doctor may still be, for all his having seen your MS, as free from the Crime of Plagiarism as the man that never saw it.  
There are some sorts of Transactions, wherein the Preliminaries rightly adjusted, the whole Affair is soon brought to a Conclusion: of which kind I take to be our present Controversy. The Reader, who understands any thing of the nature of the Subject we are upon, cannot but by this time begin to perceive how the case stands between the Doctor and your MS. and where things are like to end. I must however, were it only for form sake, enter into the Detail of particulars, which I shall do in this method.  
First, I shall take some Decades of your Proofs just in order as they lie, and try them by the Rules before given, subjoyning to them at convenient Distances, some proper Remarks, which added to those general Observations already made, you will have no cause to think yourself neglected, or complain that I have done my work but by halves. And by that I shall have taken this course with three or four Decades of your Proofs (for they are a great number of them in all) I shall presume upon it, that both you and my Reader will be well enough content I should hold my hand, and dispatch the rest of them by wholesale. To place things under an easy view to the Eye, I must make use of two of the Letters of the alphabet, the one to represent (as it were) the Plaintiff, and head the Allegations, the other to represent the Defendant, and father the Replications. The former shall be V standing for Vindicator, the other, from its order in the Alphabet, W.    

The First Decad of Proofs.  
V 
Proof 1.  The Citation out of Harpocration, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— as in Dr. Bentley, p 305. n. 1.  
W. And as in Mr. Spanheim, p. 293. n. 11. Exception 5. Harpocration is a Lexicographer. Exception 1. 'Tis marked out in the Index to Harpocration. 
L. B. 1683. 4 to.  Exc. 2.  
V 
Pr. 2.  The same Citation out of Suidas, ibid.  
W. With Suidas the Doctor is very conversant, Conc. 3. Exc. 1.  
V 
Pr. 3.  An Epigram out of Martial, n. 2.  
W. In Dacier 's Callimachus inter Testimonia Veterum, Exc. 3.  
V 
Pr. 4.  The Citation out of Clemens Alexandrinus, n. 2.  
W. Index to Clem. Alex. Exc. 2.  
V 
Pr. 5.  Another of the same, n. 3.  
W. Index again.  
V 
Pr. 6, 7.  Two Citations out of Didymus upon Homer, n. 5.6.  
W. Not Proofs.  
V 
Pr. 8.  A Quotation out of Servius upon Virgil, n. 7.  
W. 
4 to, 1648.  Index to Servius upon Virgil, Exc. 2.  
V 
Pr. 9  Another of the same, n. 8.  
W. Index again.  
V 
Pr. 10.  A Citation out of Stobaeus, n. 11.  
W. Index again, Exc. 2. in Vulcanius his Callimachus, p. 138. or in Dacier 's p. 152. Exc. 3.  

Remarks upon Decad 1.  
Leaving the rest of your Proofs to answer for themselves to the several Exceptions clapped upon the back of them; 
Remark 1.  two of them there are of so peculiar a Complexion, that I cannot but make a stop at them, sc. Pr. 6, 7. The two Citations out of the Scholiast upon Homer, Dr. B. fr. n. 5, 6. To which I returned no other Answer than Not Proofs. Which whether it were sufficient let the Reader judge from what follows. With them therefore I begin my Remarks.  

Remark I.  
Putting your sense into words at length, and making it intelligible, you allege them in this Form. 
P. 35.  From Parrhasius, to whom the Doctor is referred by Mr. Stanley 's MS. he had his Information that the Scholiast upon Homer often cited the Aetia of Callimachus. From whence the Inference is; ergo, Dr. Bentley stole his two Citations out of Didymus upon Homer, n. 5, 6. from Mr. Stanley's MS But how so? Are they in your MS? No, not so. But Mr. Stanley directed him to Janus Parrhasius, and so he came by them. To Janus Parrhasius therefore I go, and by the help of Gruter's Index to the first Volume of his Fax Artium, I readily turn to the place you intent, and there, p. 874. I find these words, Ex Aetiis praetereà Callimachi vetustus & innominatus interpres Homeri, qui in Publica Vaticana Bibliotheca Romae legitur, saepissimè testimonium petit, i. e. There is to be seen in the Vatican Library at Rome, an old nameless Scholiast upon Homer, who often quotes Callimachus' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And this is every word that Parrhasius says to the matter. And now let us see how deeply the Doctor is indebted to your MS. upon the account of these two Quotations. Just thus much and no more. Mr. Stanley, he sends him to Parrhasius; and Parrhasius, he sends him to Rome, telling him withal, that 'twas but going into the Vatican Library, and enquiring there for a certain old nameless Scholiast upon Homer; and so, if he had the luck to hit upon the right Book, he would meet with somewhat to his purpose in it: And so the Doctor came by his two Citations out of Didymus. An Information much like that which the old man in the Fable gave to his Son of a Treasure buried under ground in the Vineyard, but not telling him the place where, the young Heir was fain to dig the Vineyard all over, and so he found his Treasure indeed, not what he expected, Pots of Money, but what his Father designed, the fruit of good Husbandry. After the same manner, the Dr. having (by the help of your MS.) heard somewhat of an old Scholiast upon Homer, that quoted somewhat out of Callimachus his Aetia, was resolved, whatever it was, and whatever pains it cost him, he would have it. But that Scholiast upon Homer being a nameless one, lest he should not hit upon the right, he turns over all the Scholiasts upon Homer: and so he gets not only these three Citations belonging to Callimachus his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (for there's another of them to follow in the next Decad) but about half an Hundred more some way or other belonging to the same Author: but all by the help of your MS. which first put him upon the Quest. For had not your MS. sent him to Janus Parrhasius, the Doctor had never thought of any of the old Scholiasts upon Homer. But to be serious with you, Sir; would you have offered such things as these for Proofs against the Doctor, but upon the presumption that no body would have been at the pains of tracing you? The Doctor is a Notorious Plagiary. And why? why, because the Doctor hath three Quotations out of Didymus upon Homer, referring to Callimachus his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and before the Doctor had printed his Fragments, he had seen Mr. Stanley's MS; and Mr. Stanley's MS. takes notice of Parrhasius, who takes notice of an old Scholiast upon Homer, who takes notice of Callimachus his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ergo Dr. Bentley is a Plagiary. A surprising Consequence! But, Sir, before you can bring this Proof to bear, there may be made several Queries, to which it behoves you to give a punctual Answer. As do you think the Doctor would never have looked into Didymus upon Homer, had it not been for this special Information, which at second hand he received from your MS? Or would not Gruter's Index, which literâ C. hath these words, Callimachi Aetia, quo argumento Parrhas'. p. 873. have sent him as straight to Parrhasius as your MS. could have done? Or are you sure that Parrhasius his old nameless Scholiast of the Vatican was ever yet committed to the Press? or that Didymus was it? For there are several old Scholiasts upon Homer both printed and in MS. As besides Eustathius and Didymus, whom every body hath heard of, Gruter's Index to the 5th Volume of his Critics refers me to H. Stephani Schediasmata, lib. 4. c. 21. where I find mention of Quaedam in Homerum Scholia, quae nondum edita sunt, & quae quàm paucissimis legere datur. In the Epistle printed at the end of Malela's Chronology, p. 63. I find the Doctor himself quoting Joannes Tzetzes his Ilias interpretata Allegoricè, quae nondum edita est. And in num. 135. of this his Collection, I find him producing a Fragment of Callimachus with a large Quotation out of Porphyrius in Homericis Quaestionibus. And these indeed have been printed over and over, but in Holstenius his Notes upon Porphyry's Life of Pythagoras you will find mention of other old Scholia upon Homer, bearing also the name of Porphyrius, which have never been yet printed. And other old MS. Scholia upon Homer undoubtedly there are in the world more than either you, or I, or the Dr. or Mr. Stanley, or Parrhasius, or any one man else whatsoever may have seen. Now to which of all these did Parrhasius send the Doctor? To that which is now known by the name of Didymus you suppose, but it might be to any other nameless Scholiast as well as to him I might farther ask you, Sir, how many Quotations out of all or any one of these Scholiasts are there in your MS? In the Doctor's Collection, taking them all together, there are (for I have been at the pains of counting them) above half an hundred Quotations out of the old Scholiasts upon Homer. As far as you have carried on the comparison, I find not so much as one single reference directly out of your MS. to any one of all these Scholiasts, and therefore very much question, whether in the drawing up this Imperfect Draught Mr. Stanley made any use of any one of them. And yet by a strange fetch these three Quotations must be stole from your MS. But if he came by these three by the help of your MS. how came he by the other half hundred? were they from your MS too? a compendious way of making him as Notorious a Plagiary as you please. For you might as well have charged him with the whole as with part. And do such Proofs as these deserve a better answer than what I gave them? Not Proofs, nor any thing like Proofs, but mere Suggestion, and altogether groundless. And now as for that Sentence out of Parrhasius with which, as it were by way of Epiphonema, you back these two Proofs, and by the help of which translated into English, you call the Doctor Plagiary in two Languages, I have no more to say to it, than that I believe the Transtation to be your own: which is more than I dare venture to say for that choice piece of an Aesopick, which adorns your Title-page. There seems to be too much of the Spirit and Style in that for a person of your Gravity and Seriousness. I am almost as confident as if I had seen the hand that did it; that in your Title-page and Postscript you had the assistance of some Second. 'Twas pity he did not take the same care of you throughout your whole Book. Your Style stood in great need of mending. I fear I have already detained the Reader too long upon this particular. But I was willing to let him see how resolved you were to make the most of your Cause. And Remark the second, as for another instance of your plain dealing, and a bold stroke of the Pen, he'll find not at all inferior to the first; but (as to the former part of it at least) of a more general Concern.   

Remark II.  
Just after the Titulus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you have these words. The two Epigrams out of the Anthology are omitted by Mr. Stanley, with which the Doctor makes a flourish; but the Epigram out of Martial is in Mr. Stanley's Collections.  
With which the Doctor makes a flourish.  
Which the Doctor quotes you mean; for the one of which he produces of fresh Authority, and upon the other of which he bestows a Correction. this is all the flourish the Dr. makes with them; and this is the Dr's way of making a flourish: scarce any thing passes through his hands, but he leaves it better than he found it. Nor can you yourself forbear now and then offering at such kind of flourishes: with what success we shall see in its proper place. But whether the Doctor hath the same things with your MS. or hath not the same things; something must be said to him. I might also ask you, since we are here allowed to suppose the Doctor to have fought these two Greek Epigrams out of the Anthology itself, why may we not also suppose him to have fought martials Epigram out of Martial himself? Is it because Martial is a common Book, and the Dr. loves to read out of the way? So let it be then. But this Paragraph is fruitful of Observations of a more important consideration. I shall deliver them as succinctly as I can; yet so as to make myself throughly understood, and set things in a full Light.  
First then I observe that we are but just got over two of your Proofs against the Dr. (sc. the Quotations out of Harpocration and Suidas) but that he matches them with two Additions of his own, (sc. the two Epigrams out of the anthology) to the one of which the new Authority added makes the Dr's some Additions, Three; to this supposed Plagiarisms, Two. You see, Sir, you have lost ground at the starting-Post, and I dare say you'll be distanced out and out e'er you reach half the Course. I might farther observe that this new Authority produced by the Dr. (which if any body had done before him, 'tis more than I know) for part of one of these Epigrams, gives it with something of difference in the reading from that of the Anthology. 'Tis true, that difference is not in this place very material, the sense in both coming to the same And yet this cannot be said to be an Insignificancy; since though not here, yet in many other places the same Fragments produced out of several Authors, what from the variety of the Lections, and other circumstances is rescued from that obscurity in which it must otherwise for ever have remained unintelligible. And this is a case which happens so very often in the Dr's Collection, that there are but few Pages, which afford not instances of it in abundance; proving at the same time the compass of his Reading, and the exactness of his Judgement. Or however if any one should (as none that understands any thing in Affairs of this nature will) censure this multiplying of Authorities to the same purpose for a vain and fruitless Curiosity: yet at least it clears him from the Imputation of Plagiarism. For if in some, nay in many places, the Dr. and your MS. fall in with the same Quotations: 
Supr. p. 17.  that, as hath been before said, the nature of the thing renders impossible to have been otherwise: But if your MS. produces a Fragment attested (as is generally the case) with only one Authority, or suppose two, and the Dr. adds one, two, or three more; how is he a Plagiary? if he could out of his own Stores produce four, three, two, nay or but one Authority to which your MS. directed him not; why may we not suppose him as able to have produced those other also which are to be seen in your MS? Since the same Reading of the Ancients required for the former would have done his work for the latter  
And here I cannot but give the Reader notice of a common Fallacy put upon him throughout the whole course of your Book: which is this, That you generally allege your Proofs against the Dr. by the Tale of the Number of the Fragments: and these Figures in many places stand crowded together so thick one upon the other, that they make a formidable appearance. Thus p. 36. under the Title AITION OF (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it should have been, as in Dr. Bentley, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) you run on strangely with your Numbers; as, N. 12, 13, 14, are taken from Mr. Stanley, as is also the 17th; the 18th from Parrhasius, to whom he was directed; 21st from Mr. Stanley; 27, 28, 29, from Mr. Stanley. But what a Shoal of them is there in p. 42, No. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60. And what of all these? Why all taken from Mr. Stanley. But this is a most Notorious Illusion; the Quotations produced by your MS. under the several Numbers, or other References to the Dr's Collection making sometimes not the half 
(a) As N. 2, 27, 38, 40, 42, 46, 50, etc. , sometimes not the Quarter 
(b) As N. 52, 67. tit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, n. 86, etc. , nay sometimes not the 10th 
(c) As tit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vid. Dr. B. p. 324. & 228, & Graevii Pro●●m. p. 5. & tit. ΙΒΙΣ Dr. B. p. 345. , nay sometimes not the 20th 
(d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ut supra, & (notwithstanding our Vindicator's Caveat, p. 54.) tit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dr. B. from p. 327, to p. 337.  part of those produced by the Dr. in the places so referred to. He that thinks I am upon the stretch let him collate the Dr's Collection with Mr. Stanley's MS. upon the places pointed out in the Margin; where under the first of those References he will find the Dr's Additions to be at least three to two, under the second at least five to one, under the third at least ten, and under the fourth twenty to one to what he is supposed to have found ready collected to his hand in Mr. Stanley's MS. And yet so have you printed the Case that the Reader who understands no more of the matter than what he sees of it in your Book, and never gives himself the trouble of looking into the Dr's Collection, takes it as if all that was under those Numbers were transcribed from Mr. Stanley: and goes away satisfied of your Ingenuity, because you acknowledge the Dr. to have made some Additions of his own; sc. the addition of those simple Numbers omitted in your Tale; as between Number 50 and 60, the Addition of that single Number 56. whereas the Addition of the simple Numbers doth not upon the whole (and I am sure I speak within compass) make up a quarter part of these some Additions which you ingenuously allow the Dr. to have made to Mr. Stanley's MS. Nay I am inclined to believe, that upon a just Calculation, all that is in your MS. will scarce be found to bear the proportion of one to twenty to what is in the Dr's Collection: taking in all, I mean, that the Dr. hath done upon Callimachus, either by way of Addition of fresh Epigrams, Fragments, or Testimonia; or the Addition of fresh Authorities to those already produced (as effectual an Addition as any) or by way of Emendation and Explication of the Text in his Notes upon the several parts of that Author: his Translation of almost all the Fragments, and many of the Epigrams I put not into the accounts, though a work requiring the exercise of some other faculty besides that of Memory. 
Sup. p. 7.  All these things, I say, laid together, I am pretty confident the Dr's some Additions will be found more than twenty to one to what is in your MS. But there is no need of my running things so high. Suppose we stood upon the Par, and the Dr's Additions did but just keep up with your MS. yet even so, why must he have stole his half share from Mr. Stanley? Since the same Industry that supplied him with the one half part, not in your MS. would in course have supplied him with thy other half which is in your MS. As for instance, in p. 37 of your Book, the quotation out of the Scholiast upon Sophocles, n. 21. you charge upon the Dr. as directly stolen out of your MS. in these words, n. 21. from Mr Stanley. But another Quotation out of the same Scholiast, 
P. 310.  and standing in the same page of the Dr's Collection, n. 26. you leave him in full possession of: nay, and yet another Quotation out of the same Scholiast, n. 209. you allow him to have transcribed from that Scholiast himself, adding in express terms, whom the Dr. had consulted. 
P. 71.  But what reason can you give for the difference here? why n. 26. and n. 209. should have been (as you elegantly express it, 
P. 30. ) the genuine Offspring of the Doctor's own Brain; but n. 21. directly taken, as you positively aver, from Mr. Stanley? So again, in p. 42. I find you bringing in the Dr. Debtor to Mr. Stanley for a Quotation out of the Scholiast upon Apollonius Rhodius, n. 49. but another Quotation out of the same Scholiast, Dr. B. p. 355. you frankly allow to be his Own. But why the one rather than the other? your words in that place are so very express and significative, that I think them worth the transcribing, p. 68 under the Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
P. 68  the passages out of Athenaeus and Harpocration are transcribed from Mr. Stanley; the other two out of the Scholiast upon Apollonius and Eustathius are the Product of Dr Bentley 's own Observation in reading the Ancients. And with this you conclude (as to the Fragments) your Detail of Particulars: and more unluckily you could not have done it. Thus much I must needs say for you, that you are no Artist at managing an Accusation, nor much practised in this way of writing; which I assure you I am far from objecting against you as a Disparagement. I wonder that some or other of the Party did not spy this flaw, and put some better Disguise upon the matter for you. But 'tis plain, from the many mistakes in the first Edition of your Book not corrected, or coloured over in the second, that they took no manner of care of you. 'Twas ungratefully done of them thus to neglect a person who had discovered so forwardly a Zeal for the cause; 
P. 21.  and ventured his all to serve them. But 'tis strange, that you yourself should not have perceived it, that these last words overthrow all that you had been doing before. For I cannot conceive any Reader so very Thoughtless, as not to catch you up here of his own accord: If the Passages out of the Scholiast upon Apollonius and Eustathius were the Product of the Dr's own Observation in reading the Ancients; why then, why might not the two Passages out of Athenaeus and Harpocration be so too? Or by what strange fate were the Dr's fingers directed, that should thus have led them directly to the very Book, Page, and Line, where lay any of those Fragments of Callimachus, which Mr. Stanley had not meddled with; but bound them up from so much as once touching upon any one of those which Mr. Stanley had before impropriated? This is so obvious a Reflection, that upon second thought you cannot but blame your own Indiscretion in laying it so full in view. The untoward way of your concluding your Detail of Particular puts me in mind of the words with which you conclude your whole Book, 
P. 95.  If this will not convince and amend him, I resign him to better management. And really, Sir, that you must do. If it be resolved that Dr. Bentley shall be confounded, it must be done by some hand more accustomed to these sorts of Exercises.  
This Article of the Dr's some Additions I looked upon to be a most material point, and such wherein the very substance of the cause is very nearly concerned; and therefore gladly laid hold on the first opportunity of considering it somewhat particularly.  
At the beginning of this Remark, I made mention of a bold stroke of the Pen, and what that is we shall see in the observation I am now going upon. It naturally arises from this same Paragraph, and is one of the choicest of the whole Set: and therefore I cannot but usher it in with a special Recommendation.  
I observe therefore, that the other Book, besides the Anthology, out of which the Dr. fetches part of one of these Epigrams, is that known Lexicographer, Suidas; nay, but Suidas in the Letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? If you remember a certain passage in your Book, the very mention of these words cannot but a little startle you: perhaps you have forgot it: turning therefore to your 82d page, you will find yourself thus directing your Speech to your Honourable Patron.  
These two Quotations (your meaning plainly is, the Omission of these two Quotations) from so known a Lexicographer incline me to believe, that the Remark is very true, p. 245. (m. 244.) of your Learned Examination of his Dissertation, that he is got no further than the Letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Suidas.  
Those two Quotations you speak of are out of Suidas, lit. K. w. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which being in Mr. Stanley's MS but not in Dr. Bentley's Collection; from thence you infer, that the Dr. hath not read Suidas beyond the Letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: now from thence should I have inferred, That the Dr. did not transcribe Mr. Stanley's MS. for had he transcribed Mr. Stanley's MS. he could not have missed of those two Quotations. How these two passages out of Suidas came to be wanting in the Dr's Collection I know not. 'Tis most likely it was purely by oversight in his digesting and transcribing his Collections for the Press, 
Summâ festinatione, not. in Epig. 49. P. 40.  which he tells us was done in great haste. And I am the rather inclined so to believe, because in the Dr's Collection I find the Title ΓΛΑΥΚΟΣ (as you well observe) wanting in its proper place: which can have been only an oversight; that Title, with several others being preserved by Suidas, v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and accordingly, though wanting in the Body of the Collection, yet we find it standing among the rest in the Catalogue which the Dr. hath given us of all the Works of that Poet. 
P. 304.   
As you refer us to the very page where that Remark is to be found, and indeed that Honourable Gentleman himself seeming desirous that his Penetration upon a like occasion should be taken notice of; I presume I shall oblige you Both by transcribing it. Not every one that reads these Papers may have that Book by him: and besides, I were ambitious of having in this silly Piece of mine some few Lines at least, that will be Unexceptionably Good.  
And this (to his Eternal Scandal be it spoken) is a Plain Proof that he hath not read over all Suidas. 
Mr. B. p. 244.  Nay, I have reason to suspect, that he is got no further than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which I observe 
* I see that little word here, and guests at the meaning of it; but how that altars the case, I see not.  here to be the utmost Line of his Citations. I would not have the Reader slight this Discovery of mine, for 'tis as considerable as any of Dr. Bentley 's, that are purely his own.  
No, Sir, I do not slight it, nor did I at the first reading of it. And though there be so many Peculiarities in that ingenious Gentleman's way of writing, that no man who hath read through (so as to know what he is doing) but one half quarter part of his Book can be much surprised at any thing that follows: yet when I came to this particular passage, both the matter of it, and that Air of satisfaction with which it is delivered, struck me with fresh Admiration. How! thought I; the Dr. so very familiar with the Lexicographers, 
Vid. p. 197.  so conversant with Suidas in particular; and yet not got beyond the Letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Suidas? 'Tis strange. I cannot suppose that Honourable Gentleman, when he wrote his Examination of Dr. Bentley, not to have thoroughly read that Piece of the Dr's which he so often quotes, 
P. 147, 158, 166, 170, 191, 192, 193, 194, 196, etc.  sc. his Letter to Dr. Mill, printed at the end of Malela's Chronology: where he could not but have seen the Dr. p. 32. upon the Letter λ. in Suidas, v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and p. 62, 68 upon the Letter o. w. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: upon the Letter π v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 85. and p. 12. upon the Letter σ v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. After all which I cannot see what reason he had to suspect that the Dr. was got no further than the Letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Suidas.  
But there is a certain Proverbial Gnoma in our Language, 
Mr. B p. 140, 285. Vind. p. 26.  which by the help of an Extensive Charity will cover a Multitude of that Ingenious Gentleman's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, viz. Good Wits have short Memories. How you should have been so forgetful, is a thing not so easy to be accounted for. With what Grace could you say, That you are inclined to believe, that the Dr. is not got beyond the Letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Suidas, when in the very first page of his Collection, you find him in the Letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? 'Twould be unmannerly in me to say, to your Eternal Scandal be it spoken: but if your Complexion will bear a Blush, you cannot read these Lines without changing Countenance. You tell us, that the Dr. ought not to be angry at it, if he be greated as he deserves, 
P. 30.  and that you have done it in a plain unaffected Style, 
P. 95.  calling a Spade by its right Name. Should I, upon this and the several other occasions, which almost every Page of your Book presents me with, treat you as you deserve, and call things by their Right Names; I know what I should be called myself: unmannerly would be too soft a word for me, 
Mr. B. p. 220.  and perhaps the Pen too gentle a Weapon for my Chastisement. But I am for sleeping in a whole skin, and therefore shall only in the plain unaffected Style tell you; That what you say you are inclined to believe, you are not, you can not be inclined to believe: at least you cannot be inclined so to believe upon the Reason here given. For if the Dr's having omitted those two Quotations out of Suidas, w. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, inclined you to believe, that he was not got beyond the Letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Suidas: then his having quoted Suidas in v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, should have as strongly inclined you to believe, that he was got as far as the Letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Suidas. Give me leave here to trifle with you a little, Sir, and answer you in your own way: For why may not I now and then make a flourish with my Numbers as well as you? Turning to Num. 245. in the Dr's Collection you will find him upon the Letter λ. in Suidas. In Num. 46, 144, 350. and p. 431. Upon the Letter μ. Upon the Letter ν. Num. 345. and p. 431. In Num. 2. and 92. upon the Letter ο. In Num. 48, 84, 227. and 344. upon the Letter π. In Num. 49, 59, 71, 299. upon the Letter σ. In Num. 210. upon the Letter τ. In Num. 42. upon the Letter υ. In Num. 50. and p. 349. upon the Letter Φ. In Num. 193. upon the Letter Χ In Num. 184. upon the Letter Ψ. And lastly, in pag. 352. upon the Letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
And now, Sir, what think you of the matter? Are you still inclined to believe, that the Remark is true, That the Dr. is got no further than the Letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Suidas? Is not this what I called in the beginning, 
Sup. p. 3.  making your Court to a Young Gentleman at the Expense of your own Modesty? Nay, and is not that Honourable Young Gentleman himself most deeply obliged to you for your bringing the escapes of his Pen also under a review?  
I wonder what the Reader thinks of me. Certainly 'tis that I am an Idle Man. What a parcel of Figures have I been at the pains of drawing together here? And to what end or purpose? What's any body the better for reading such stuff as this? Upon my word I am perfectly ashamed of myself. But who can help it? If men will put such things as these into Print, in Print they must be told of them again. For there is no reason in the world for it, That Impertinence should be a Protection to Impudence: or that Men of worth should be made the Mock of Fools, because they that make them so write things so wretchedly trifling, that a man of any Regard to his own Reputation, would be ashamed of the Scandal of having so misemployed his time as to answer them.  
To come off handsomely with your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Observation, you have no other way left you, than to plead that the Dr. stole all his Quotations out of Suidas, beyond that Letter from Mr. Stanley's MS. In answer to which, I need give myself no farther trouble than to turn you back to except. 1. to the special mark standing at the top of p. 9th, 
Supr. p. 19  to the Dr's familiarity with this Lexicographer before ever he saw your MS. Except. 4. and to several other things before said. But the case of SUIDAS is somewhat particular, and therefore I cannot think it foreign to our purpose to bestow upon it a special consideration.  
This Undertaking therefore of collecting the Fragments of Callimachus I have reason to suspect was not with that Learned Gentleman, Mr. Stanley, 
Supr. p. 12.  as it was with Dr. Bentley, a Design long before premeditated, and therefore of a long time carried on throughout the whole course of his reading; but a late and sudden Thought taken up upon some special occasion, as probably upon a prospect of publishing a new Edition of the Works of that Poet; which had he finished, it would in all probability have superseded the Labours of those Learned Persons that came after him, 
Dacier. Graevius.  and Mr. Stanley's Callimachus might have stood to this day (as his Aeschylus still doth, and is like long so to do) the last Edition of that Poet.  
His first Essays toward this work appear in those Papers with which you make such a stir, which were once (without his seeking) put into the Dr's hand, and which are now put into other hands to be shown as Evidence against the Dr. at the sign of the Half Moon in S. Paul's Churchyard. 
Sup. p. 14.  That they are an imperfect draught of a more complete Work you yourself acknowledge. But the method in which he proceeded in drawing up this imperfect Draught, is perhaps more than what you may have yet observed. I must confess I could willingly have seen the Original itself, but as I think I can do my work without it, I were not over eager of satisfying an unnecessary Curiosity at the hazard of venturing into a place where 'tis so dangerous a thing to express one's self too familiarly. I think I have even without the sight of your MS. made a Discovery, which if I can make out; let me tell you, Sir, I shall not a little value myself upon it, but judge it altogether as considerable as that upon which your Learned Friend so much applauds his own Sagacity: and as it is purely my own, I hope the Reader will not slight it.  
Mr. Stanley therefore having once entered upon this design of Collecting the Fragments of Callimachus, he doth, as upon the like occasion another man would have done; that is, he fetches in his first Materials from such places where they were the most readily found: he turns over the Indices Authorum at the end of several 
* As Clem. Alexandrinus, Stobaeus, Strabo, Athenaeus, Etymolog. Magn. Stephan. Byzant. etc.  Books, and from thence hastily transcribes into his Papers the several passages pointed out to him, v. Callimachus, reserving (as you yourself in part acknowledge) a more diligent perusal of the Authors themselves, 
P. 60.  and a more accurate Examination of the passages taken out of them to his second Thoughts. There was not any one Author more proper to his purpose than Suidas. But Suidas having no Index Authorum annexed to him, with him Mr. Stanley gins, and turns over all that Lexicographer himself from the beginning to the end: as for the rest contenting himself, for a time, with what the Indices supplied him with. This I confess is mere Conjecture: but a Conjecture so manifestly founded upon matter of fact, that I dare boldly pronounce it next to a Certainty: and whether I am too confident, I shall submit to the Judgement of the Reader upon an instance or two by and by to be produced. Now Mr. Stanley having taken this course with Suidas in particular, it is impossible but that the far greatest part of the Quotations out of Suidas in the Dr's Collection should have been anticipated by Mr. Stanley. And had that Learned Gentleman in these Papers of his taken the same course with many other Authors, you would have had, though not more of Truth, yet a better Colour for your Accusation. But if you will still resolutely maintain it, that the Dr. having seen your MS. therefore all the Quotations out of Suidas in the Dr's Collection shall have been transcribed from Mr. Stanley, I know not how to clear myself of you, but by the help of a Distinction. And this Distinction of mine, Sir, I desire you well to consider, and withal to remember, that it will perform the same upon any other Author, as upon Suidas: and therefore though Suidas be the name we are here upon, yet the Argument extends to the whole body of the cause: which will excuse me in insisting the more particularly upon it.  
Of the Quotations out of Suidas therefore I observe some of them to stand in that Lexicon with the name of Callimachus affixed to them in words at length: others of them to contain some Fragments of that Poet, or to refer to some passages in him, but without express mention of his Name. Those of this later sort (as they are not numerous) I will be at the pains of marking out to you; viz. one Quotation, Num. 2. one of the Quotations (sc. that v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Num. 42. another Num. 48. Two Quotations, Num. 50. and another 88 Now, Sir, there are in the Dr's Collection (as far as you have carried on the comparison, that is from Num. 1. to Num. 103. in all about thirty Quotations out of Suidas, to every one of which, saving those in the Numbers here mentioned, you will find added the Name of Callimachus standing in words at length: and every one of those Fragments, to which the Name of their Author is so added, I find you charging upon the Dr. as stolen from Mr. Stanley; that single one v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Dr. B. p. 352. excepted, though even that also (however by you omitted) I am apt to believe upon further search would be found in your MS. But of these latter sort, which have not the Name of Callimachus so added to them, I do not find you mentioning any single one of them as taken from Mr. Stanley, and therefore have some Reason to suspect that Learned Gentleman to have overlooked them. Upon this point I have endeavoured to express myself as plainly as I could, and I desire the Reader to look over these Lines again, till he fully takes my meaning.  
Now, Sir, if this Observation of mine should hold as to all or but the major part of those Quotations, it would do me considerable service, and that upon more accounts than one.  
1. It absolutely confounds your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 observation, since in several of even these Quotations from Suidas, not (as I presume) to be found in your MS. we find the Dr. advanced far beyond 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as in the Letter o. Num. 2. π. Num. 48. ν. Num. 42. φ. Num. 50. with others I could name. But of this I think you have had enough already.  
2. It effectually clears the Dr. from having stolen from your MS. those Quotations which are in your MS. For if he could of his own Sagacity fetch out of Suidas such Fragments of Callimachus as had not the name of their Author joined with them, he cannot be supposed to have overlooked those where the very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 staring him in the face, could not but have put him in mind of his Common-place Book. 
Supr. p. 11.   
3. We have here yet another instance of what I have so very often observed in the Writings against Dr. Bentley; That there is scarce any one single Article any where advanced against him by way of Accusation or Reproach; which, when throughly sifted, doth not turn to his Acquitment and greater Approbation. As in the present case, what a plain proof is here of his extraordinary Readiness at these sorts of Studies, 
Supr. p. 12.  and with how just an assurance he might make that Boast (for so, to be sure, you'll call it) beforementioned that he thought he could not, easily be deceived, in knowing whether a Greek Verse were ascribed to its proper Author; since in so many instances here given, meeting with a poor straggling Fragment of this Ancient Greek Poet, though in a lost, and as it were orphanized condition; yet he presently knew (so well was he acquainted with the whole Race of them) to whom it belonged, and returned it to its right Parent. Thus while you prefer against the Dr. an Accusation of Plagiarism, you do but the more fully prove to any one that will be at the pains of examining into the matter, how rich he is in his own Stores, and how little a loser by being placed in any comparison.  
Cease therefore, let me beseech you, this your Critical War, or rather go on still writing till you shall have made him, as generally observed and admired at home as he is abroad.  
So Diamonds take a lustre from their Foil,  
B —y owes his Honours to B—e. 
Dispensary.   
4. But fourthly, and that which I principally intended in making this Observation, it hath given me that hint of putting the Reader, who is minded to be satisfied in this Affair into the method of doing it for himself more effectually than I could have done it for him. But in order to that, I must put my Distinction upon a little farther Trial. How the case stands between the Quotations from Suidas of the former and of the later sort; and between the Dr's Collection and Mr. Stanley's upon that Distinction from Num. 1. to Num. 103. hath been already considered. From Num. 103. to the end of the Dr's Collection there may be thirty or forty more Quotations out of Suidas; of which all the rest are of the former sort, sc: standing there with the name of their Author added to them: but these few following are of the later sort, sc. referring to passages in Callimachus, but without any mention of his Name. The Quotations under Num. 103, 128, 193, 227. (w. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 233, and 304. (v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Now to show the Use and Application of this Distinction.  
In that pithy Peroration which, p. 68 you make upon the main body of your Proofs against the Dr. you have these words. Thus have I passed through many of those Fragments that are capable of being placed in their several Classes.— And for the rest the Reader may, as his Inclinations lead him, collate the MS. Copies (in which great variety offers itself out of Athenaeus, the Lexicographers, and Scholiasts) with Dr. Bentley 's printed Collection.  
With all my heart: most gladly do I join with you in your Appeal to the MS. itself, and I hope these Papers may fall into the hands of some Readers, whose Inclinations may lead them to make the Experiment you propose. I would desire no fairer play in this cause than to have the Jury bring in their Verdict upon View.  
Let the Reader therefore take these Papers along with him, go to the Bookseller's Shop at the Sign of the Half Moon in St. Paul's Churchyard, call for the Manuscript to be shown there against Dr. Bentley, and leisurely collate Mr. Stanley's Collection of the Fragments of Callimachus with the Dr's. And though I have never seen that MS. nor know any thing more of it directly or indirectly than what, Sir, I have learned from your Book: yet I fancy I can pretty nearly tell the Reader what he will find there, and what he will not find there. 
Mr. B. p. 98, 232.  A profound Scholar this! (will you say of me now) as well read in what he has not seen as in what he has. But such things may be done, Sir. You haveled me part of my way: and you know the Proverb, ex ungue leonem. How far I go upon sure grounds, sc. upon the Authority of your Book, shall be marked out by this stroke (†): and though for what follows, (saving for here and there a Number) I shall be purely upon the Conjecture; yet I hope the Reader will not find me very often mistaken in my Guests.  
Of the Quotations out of Suidas in Dr. Bentley's Collection of the Fragments of Callimachus these following Numbers.  

In Mr. Stanley.  
Num. 1, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 49, 50, 53, 59, 66, 68, 71, 82, 84, 92 †; and 110, 144, 182, 184, 210, 227, 232, 238, 249, 279, 288, 289, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 338, 339, 340, 344, 345, 350. with five or six more Quotations out of Suidas, Dr. B. p. 430, 431.  
Note, Some of the Fragments under these Numbers being produced from both the Etymologicon and Suidas, perhaps Mr. Stanley may have contented himself with one of those Authorities for them, and so have omitted the Reference to Suidas: and others of them containing only single and independent words, perhaps he may not have thought them worth the transcribing But this is mere guess.   

Not in Mr. Stanley.  
The Quotations under. Num. 2, 42, 48, 50, 88, 103, 110, (w. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 128, 227, 233, 245, 304. supr. p. 45, 48.  
And now, Sir, could you yourself, had you pursued your Topick to the end of the Chapter, have made more of your MS. against the Dr. than I have made of it for you? having scarce left him throughout his whole Collection one single Number not voluntarily surrendered up to Mr. Stanley: which yet is so far from Convicting him of Plagiarism, that the more it appears against him, the more it proves for him. For Mr. Stanley having (as 'tis plain he had) read over all Suidas, and read him with a Design of Collecting the Fragments of Callimachus; few of those Fragments which stood there marked out to him with the Name of their Author written upon them can be supposed to have escaped his Observation: but if many or the greatest part of those of the later sort not so marked out to him; which are to be seen in the Dr's Collection shall not appear in Mr. Stanley's; my Inference is already made: 
P. 46.47.  therefore those Fragments which are in Mr. Stanley the Dr. did not transcribe from Mr. Stanley. For since for the Quotations of this latter sort he must have read Suidas himself, he cannot have wanted the help of your MS. for those of the former. So that the Conclusion from the whole is this; That Mr. Stanley had read Suidas thoroughly, but Dr. Bentley had read him more thoroughly.  
'Tis time now that I let you see what I have been doing all this while in making such a stir with the Quotations out of Suidas.  
Great variety, say you, 
P. 68  of the same passages which are printed in Dr. Bentley 's Collection will the Reader (whose inclinations shall lead him to make the Trial) find in Mr. Stanley 's MS.  
Yes, Sir, great variety of that kind undoubtledly he will find. But have you many Authors that will present him with greater variety than Suidas?  
Out of Athenaeus.  
Yes; for Athenaeus hath an Index Authorum made to him.  
Out of the Lexicographers.  
And most of those Lexicographers too have such Indices printed with them; and some of the Lexicographers (of one 'tis certain) Mr. Stanley may have turned all over.  
And out of the Scholiasts.  
For some of the Scholiasts also have the like Indices; and with other of the Scholiasts Mr. Stanley may have taken the same course that he hath with Suidas.  
Here therefore to the Reader, who shall have the curiosity to make the experiment you propose, and who shall be endued with the patience to go through with it, I shall offer some few Cautions, by the help of which he may be secured from passing a mistaken judgement.  
1. In the first place therefore, he is not to judge of the Dr's Collection by the great variety of its Coincidences with Mr. Stanley's as to those Fragments of Callimachus which are taken from such Books as have their Indices Authorum printed with them. These indeed, were they all mustered up together, with our Vindicator's— in Mr. Stanley, bringing them up in the Rear would make a terrible show against the Dr. as.  
Harpocration, The Quotations in Dr. Bentley, n. 1. p. 352, 353, 354. † and n. 319.— in Mr. Stanley.  
Clemens Alexandrinus, The Quotations. n. 2, 3, 87. p. 337. † and n. 133, 145, 187, 188.— in Mr. Stanley.  
Strabo, The Quotations, p. 337, 354. † and n. 104, 112, 113. p. 430, 431.— in. Mr. Stanley.  
Hesychius, n. 58. † and 229, 230, 231, 232, 352, 353, 354, 355, 357.— in Mr. Stanley.  
Pindari Scholiastes, 
Q. Is not n. 48. in Mr. Stanley, though omitted in the Vindicator's tale of the Numbers.  n 77, 80. p. 352. † and n. 108, 112, 119, 120, 121, 122, 136, 138, 188, 195, 196, 197, 198.— in Mr. Stanley.  
Etymologicon, n. 12, 17, 19, 28, 36, 40, 44, 53, 66, 67, 86, 96. p. 349, 351, 467, 469. † and n. 129, 130, 131, 132, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184,— 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, etc. in Mr. Stanley.  
All or at least the greatest part of these Numbers in the Dr's Collection, with their leading Fragments, I little doubt, but that the Collator will find in Mr. Stanley's MS. with far greater variety of the same kind out of Athenaeus, the Lexicographers, some of the Scholiasts, Servius upon Virgil, Stobaeus, Priscian, Hephestion, and some others. But then he must consider, that all these Authors have Indices to them, in which (v. Callimachus) all these Fragments were ready pointed out to him. So that Mr. Stanley, in drawing up this imperfect draught, having taken (as most certainly he did) that method of fetching in his first Materials from the Indices of Books, where those Indices were tolerably perfect: the Dr's Coincidencies with Mr. Stanley must be proportionably frequent; and, as to those particular Authors, far outnumber his Additions to it.  
Here therefore the Collator is to apply the Distinction before made upon the Quotations out of Suidas, and the Inference from thence drawn: and to consider whether or no those some Additions of the Dr's own are not such which necessarily imply his having read, and that thoroughly too, the Authors themselves, out of whom he produces his Quotations, and consequently such as place him far above, wanting the help either of the Index or of your MS. As for instance; the Fragment, n. 50. is in Mr. Stanley; but in Mr. Stanley (I conjecture) from Athenaeus, whose Index supplied him with it. Is it in Mr. Stanley from Suidas, w. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (or at least from the later of them) in both which it stands without the name of its Author? The Fragment, n. 48 may be in Mr. Stanley. But in Mr. Stanley from the Scholiast on Pindar, an Indexed Book. Is that manifest reference to this Fragment, Suidas, v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Mr. Stanley? So that Fragment, n. 227. from Suidas, I doubt not but that the Collator will find in Mr. Stanley, but from Suidas, v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will he find it also from Suidas, v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where it stands without the name of its Author? The Fragment, n. 245 he will find in Mr. Stanley, but from the Etymologicon, whose Index directed him to it: will he find the Authority of Suidas for the same Fragment, who hath it, but without the name of its Author. The Fragment, n. 169. he will find in Mr. Stanley from the Etymologicon; but will he also find the Emendation and Explication of that Fragment from the Scholiast on Theocritus, and from another place in the Etymologicon. If not, therefore that other place in the Etymologicon the Dr. read himself. But this is a thing so very certain, that no man who hath but once dipped into any chance place of the Dr's Epist. ad fin. Malel. who hath but just glanced over some few pages of his late Answer to Mr. boil (though as hastily and heedlessly as the man that read it all over in a day) who will but cast his Eye upon this his Collection of the Fragments of Callimachus, 
Mr. Bennets Appendix, p. 134.  can entertain the least scruple concerning it. However, since I have to do with men who will not be content with a moderate Conviction, I shall desire the Reader, who will be at the pains of making the experiment, to collate, and that somewhat nicely, the Dr. with Mr. Stanley upon these following Numbers.  
Num. 13, 14, 18, 29, 32, 51, 54, 55, 57, 75, (v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) †, and n 4, 15, 16, 23, 30, 31, 33, 56, 73, 75, (v 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 126, 168, 186, 207, 218, 234, 238, 259, 260, 306, 314, 334, 351, 362, 367, 368, 369, 370, 417.  
Upon this List of Numbers the Reader is desired to observe, that all the Numbers standing before †, together with the Quotation produced by Dr. Bentley in his Notes on the Epigrams of Callimachus Ep. 39 p. 210. are in Mr. Stanley; 
P. 36. N. 18. from Parrhasius. n. b. not from Stephanus.  excepting Num. 18. (v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) which Fragment I have as great an assurance as 'tis possible for a man to have in a matter of this nature, and which our Vindicator himself with a simplicity truly simple acknowledges, Mr. Stanley transcribed from that forementioned passage in Parrhasius, marked out to him in Gruter's Index. But of the Numbers following † there's not one of them so marked out in the Index to Stephanus. Here therefore Query, How many of these Numbers after † are there in Mr. Stanley? Upon this the Collator is to make the Scrutiny. And if the Experiment answers my expectation my inferences are plain. 1. That Mr. Stanley did indeed take this method of fetching in his Fragments from the Indices of Books. 2. Dr. Bentley read over the Books themselves, and was above both the Index and Mr. Stanley's MS. Here are in all, Quotations out of Stephanus Byzant. forty; of which Eleven indexed, sc. ten in the Index to Stephanus; and the other in Gruter's Index: all these— in Mr. Stanley.— Not indexed twenty nine,— in Dr. Bentley.— Not, I suppose, in Mr. Stanley.  
And if this Conjecture of mine should hold, I think 'tis pretty much to the purpose. But where the Indices are completely drawn, the like experiment cannot be made. In such cases a great part of the Dr's Quotations must of necessity have been anticipated by Mr. Stanley. Nor need I, I think, say more to show the reasonableness of this Caution, not to judge of the Dr. by the great variety of his Coincidencies with Mr. Stanley, as to his Quotations out of such Authors, where the Fragments of Callimachus are marked out in the Indices. Nor,  
2. Secondly, is he to judge of the Dr. by the great variety of his Coincidencies with Mr. Stanley, as to his Quotations from some few particular Authors, who may have no such Indices made to them. For with some particular Author's Mr. Stanley may have taken the same course as he hath with Suidas, and if so, the same effects of it will appear in his MS. As for example, I find the Scholiast upon Nicander once produced by Dr. Bentley, n. 60. and that the same Fragment is in Mr. Stanley. Nor within the line of comparison do I find any thing more of that Scholiast. But from after n. 103. I find the Dr. producing out of him several Fragments, as n. 139, 140, 201, 228, 253, 267, 268, etc. Now if Mr. Stanley had after his having began his Collection read over this Scholiast, those Numbers of the Dr's must also be in Mr. Stanley. The like may be conjectured of the Fragments from Ammonius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. But the Vindicator hath not carried on his comparison far enough for me to go here upon any certainty. Now such Coincidencies, though never so constant, prove no more against the Dr. than that Mr. Stanley and he had read the same Books, vid. supr. p. 17. And here, since I have been at the foolish labour of drawing them up, I shall present the Collator with a list of Authors.  
Apollonius Alexand. Artemidorus, Athenagoras, Censorino adjectus scriptor, Johannes Charax, Cheroboscus, Cicero, Diogenes Laertius, Dionysius Halicarnass. Sextus Empiricus, Erotianus, Eusebius, Fulgentius, I lanciades, Galenus, A. Gellius Helladii Chrestom. Herodianis Parecbol. Hyginus, Julianus, Lucianus, Macrobius. MSS. etc. Codd. inediti, ut Photii Lexicon, ineditum, etc. Phlegon Trallianus, Plinius, Plutarch, Proclus in Platonis Timaeum, in Parmenid. inedit. in Hesiodum, Chrestomathia. Quinctilian, Solinus, Statius Poeta. Terentianus Maurus, Theodoretus, Tertullianus, Tzetzes (uterque) Varro. Scholiastae in Homerum, 
Supr. p. 26.  Didymus, Eustathius, Porphyrius; in Aeschylum, Aratum, Aristophanem, Euripidem, Ibin Ovidii, Theocritum.  
Thus have I chosen rather to expose the Dr. to the repeated Censure of being a Polymathist, 
Supr. p. 11.  (that is, a Great Scholar, and one that hath read a great many Books) than to be wanting in my Instructions to the Reader, whose Inclinations shall lead him to collate the MSS. Out of all these Authors will he find in the Dr's Collection somewhat (more or less) either by way of Fragment or Testimonium, properly belonging to Callimachus. Queen How many of these Authors will appear in Mr. Stanley's MS. and how often? Some of them ('tis likely) will be found there, for some of them (for aught I know) he may have made use of toward his Collection, and some particular Passages out of others of them his course of reading may have casually presented him with. But not many of them, I presume, will appear there, nor very often. If so: then I hope the Reader will see the reasonableness of this Caution; not to judge of the Dr. by the (though constant) Coincidencies of his Collection with Mr. Stanley's MS. as to some few particular Authors, though unindexed. For if the Dr. shall be found to have turned over so many more Books, than (after his having began his Collection of the Fragments of Callimachus) Mr. Stanley had; surely he may be allowed to have read those other few of the same with Mr. Stanley.  
N. B. I have ventured to insert the name of Plutarch into this List. For though the Quotation out of Plutarch, n. 86. be in Mr. Stanley; yet I rather suppose it to have been taken immediately from the Etymologicon; as n. 103. from Hadr. Junii Animadvers. lib. 4. c. 21. marked out in Gruter's Index to the fourth Volume of his Critics. Q. is n. 25, 137. there.  
The Scholiast upon Aeschylus I have also (though perhaps too boldly) put into this List The Reader will not, I hope, suppose me so unacquainted with the very Titles of Books, as to make a question of Mr. Stanley's having read (and that most thoroughly) the Scholiast upon Aeschylus. But the question is, whether he had turned over the Scholiast after his having began this Collection? For I am not here making the comparison between Mr. Stanley and Dr. Bentley, or enquiring which of them had read the most Books; but between Mr. Stanley's imperfect Draught of a Collection of the Fragments of Callimachus, and Dr. Bentley's most finished Collection of them that hath ever yet appeared; 
Supr. p. 42.  and who had read most Books from after their having began their Collections. And let this answer serve once for all to what I should otherwise certainly have heard of, that I am reflecting upon the Memory of Mr. Stanley; which he that shall say of me, will say a falsehood.  
These two Cautions preceding will justify the Reason of the two following, as that,  
3. He is not to discount from the Dr. every Number, the Fragment of which he may find in Mr. Stanley's MS. And so without more ado report it abroad, that he hath been at Mr. Bennets Shop, collated the MS. and finds matters to stand just as the Vindicator hath related them; that out of the 417 Numbers in the Dr's Collection there are so many Hundreds, Ten, and Unites in Mr. Stanley. What a numerous appearance of this kind he will be sure to meet with, I have given him so fair notice of beforehand, that I hope he will not be surprised at it. For where a Fragment is preserved but in one Author, and in him correct, there the Dr's Collection and Mr. Stanley's must fall in with the same Words and Syllables: for let two men transcribe the same Quotation from the same Author, I cannot see why it should be to any one, 
P. 76.  as it seems to have been to our Vindicator, a matter of Admiration, that they should hit upon, not only the same sense, but the same words. The reason of this Caution therefore, I hope, the Reader is satisfied in; that he ought not to discount from the Dr. every Number, the whole and only passage under which, without the least Syllable of variation, he will find in Mr. Stanley. Much less is he, in the  
4. Fourth place, To abjudge from the Dr. every Number, of which only the leading Fragment is in Mr. Stanley; and so, which is the Vindicator's method, for the sake of half a line in Mr. Stanley's MS. to cashier, it may be, a whole Page, or two, or more, in the Dr. vid. supr. p. 33. But here also he is to remember and apply the distinction before made upon the Quotations out of Suidas, and to take into the account the many Additions of the Dr's own making under every Number, and to consider not only the Quantity of his Additions, but the Quality of them also. And particularly, whether or no those Additions are not such as would have supported the Number itself, though the Fragment, supposed to have been taken from Mr. Stanley, had not been there. As for instance, the Fragment, n. 179. is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This Fragment the Collator will undoubtedly find in Mr. Stanley: for 'tis (with only a little difference in spelling the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) in both the Etymologicon and Stobaeus, and indexed in both these Authors. And yet the Dr. did not steal it from Mr. Stanley; for 'tis in both Vulcanius and Dacier's printed Collections, vid. supr. p. 20. Exc. 3. But in the Dr's Collection this same Fragment is produced from a new Authority, sc. Artemidorus his Oneirocriticks: which new Authority is not in any of the other Collections. Qu. Is it in Mr. Stanley? If not: then this Fragment would have been in the Dr's Collection, though it had not been either in the Etymologicon, or Stobaeus, or Vulcanius, or Dacier, or Mr. Stanley: Therefore this Number must not be cashiered. Changing the name of Artemidori Oneirocritica into Eusebius Praep. Evang. The case is exactly the same with the Fragments from Clemens Alexandrinus, n. 87, 133. Now in such cases, though the Fragment itself be in Mr. Stanley, yet the new Authorities from whence it is produced makes it the Dr's own, and secures to him even the Tale of his Numbers. Instances of this kind I could produce by Scores, where the Fragment itself would have been in the Dr's Collection, though it had not been in any of the others. If therefore so many Fragments would have been in the Dr's Collection, though they should have escaped the Observation of all that went before him; 'tis not very likely that many of those Fragments collected by them would have escaped the Dr.  
And thus much by way of Caution to the Collator of the MS. the justness and reasonableness of which I submit to the judgement of the Impartial, nay, or even the most partial Reader. Many more of the like nature and tendency may he collect for himself from the whole Tenor of my Discourse foregoing; but I have satisfied myself in particularising upon these few. Furnished therefore with these Instructions, let him go to the Half Moon, collate the MS. and speak as he finds. And so good an opinion have I of my own Performance, as to hope, that he will find, that I have done even more than my work, and answered as well what I have not seen, as what I have.  
This Suidas hath carried me on (such is the Chain of Thought) a wide circumference, and made me launch out into unknown Seas. But our Vindicator's Appeal to the MS. was a Temptation I found myself unable to withstand: and whether my Discoveries will prove Land or Clouds will soon be known; unless upon some sudden occasion or other the MS. should chance to the called in.  
I made a kind of promise of managing three or four Decades of our Vindicator's Vndeniables in the same manner I have this first. But the Reader must needs be weary before now of reading such a Parcel of unedifying Lines as these, nor can he think me less weary of writing them. But who can help it? Such is the Book I am answering. And since I am fallen upon so dry a Subject, I were willing to give it a thorough Examination, and write a Book for egregious Dullness, and elaborate Insignificancy, outdoing (if it be possible) even our Honest Vindicator himself. And so, for a Brace of Controvertists I defy the Age to match us. I cannot however pass over this Decad, without bestowing upon it yet one more Remark.    

Remark III.  
Upon Proof 8, 9 (to return at last to our Vindicator himself) you are pleased, Sir, thus to express yourself. 
P. 35.  His two Quotations out of Servius upon Virgil, are transcribed from Mr. Stanley, verbatim. Upon which, I cannot but Remark to you, that you Style is somewhat too positive and emphatic. Are transcribed from Mr. Stanley: 
Mr. B. p. ●09.  Nay, verbatim transcribed from Mr. Stanley! I remember I have some where or other met with an hard, and indeed (when rightly placed) just Censure passed upon such Writers, with whom positively to aver, and assume the thing in question, 
Id. p. 67.  is to prove it. You must give me leave, Sir, upon this occasion, to ask you, I will not say an insulting question or two, though I know who has been asked a great many such: but that would be an unmannerly thing in such an one as I am, to ask you an insulting question: a modest question or two, I hope I may without offence put to you. Did you see Dr. Bentley transcribe these two Quotations out of Servius upon Virgil from Mr. Stanley? Had you a peephole into the Dr's Study? Or did you hang your head over his Shoulder, when he transcribed these two Quotations? May he not have transcribed them out of Servius upon Virgil himself? Or are the Dr's shelves, or is the King's Library unprovided of a Servius upon Virgil? Let me tell you, Sir, to be thus positive upon Uncertainties, is, even in the most trifling and indifferent matters, foolish and ridiculous; but in such cases, where my Neighbour's good name is concerned, highly criminal. And yet this, with little variation, is the Style of your whole Indictment: This, and that, and t'other Number or Quotation, is transcribed from, or taken from, or (with a transcribed, or taken Subintellect) from Mr. Stanley; which the Dr makes his own; 
P. 46, 64.  which the Dr. claims for his own; which Dr. Bentley, without naming his Benefactor, has confidently made his own. Yes, confidently, Sir. But there I shall meet you again by and by. And then will it be seen who is the confident man.  
I had also designed to have made something of Remark upon your Proof 4. The Quotation out of Clemens Alexandrinus, n. 2. you positively aver is in Mr. Stanley's Collection. But that Quotation out of Clemens I verily believe is not in Mr. Stanley. That Quotation gins with these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Now I desire the Reader to collate the MS. Is the word ΙΒΙΣ in Mr. Stanley? If not: then are you taken positively averring not only an Uncertainty, but an Untruth. For if that Quotation be not there the same, as it is in Dr. Bentley, 'tis (as to our present Argument) the same thing as if it were not there at all. If the Dr. both produces it from a new Authority, neither in Mr. Stanley, nor referred to by him; and with a Lection materially different both from Mr. Stanley's MS. and from all the printed Copies of Clemens Alex.; the consequences from thence are plain: ergo. 1. The Dr. did not transcribe it from Mr. Stanley; and ergo, you are a false Accuser. 2. The Dr. did not fetch it from the Index; since he gives it differently from all the printed Copies to which alone the Index could have referred him. 3. Though this passage had escaped both Mr. Stanley and all the other Collectors, yet the Dr. would have had it, since he produces it from an Authority which none, as far as I can find, ever so much as thought of besides himself. And therefore this Quotation also out of Clemens Alexandr. n. 2. must be added to those two others from the same Author, n. 87, 133. Sup. p 60. and what is said upon them be repeated upon this; which the Dr. would have had, though he had never had the sight of a printed Clemens Alex. vid. Dr. Bentley's Colletion, p. 345. Thus have you again alleged against the Dr. as an undeniable Proof of his Plagiarism from Mr. Stanley, an instance, which undeniably proves the contrary, and verifies what I have before observed upon the Writings against Dr. Bentley, that the more is alleged against him, the more (to any man that will be at the pains of examining into the matter, and is capable of doing it) is proved for him. I have read, Sir, your Page 85. but that is so far from helping you out, that it doth but sink you the deeper in the Mire, and afford still fresh Demonstration against you: as perhaps, if I can find Paper-room for it (for I have almost exceeded my bounds already) I may particularly show you in a place by itself.  
I shall detain the Reader no longer upon this Decad the first, nor trouble him with any more of these tedious Remarks. I may now leave it to himself, to imagine what work might have been made with the Vindicator's Vndeniables, should I have examined every particular as specially as I have done these few. And there are abundance more of the same kind. I shall now just cast up the accounts, and see how the case stands between the Dr. and Mr. Stanley upon this Decad the first, and then dispatch the remainder of my work with all the expedition imaginable.    

The Accounts of Decad the First.  
Within the compass of Decad the First, there are in all, Quotations 16. Of which in Mr. Stanley 7. For that Quotation just now named from Clemens Alexandr. n. 2. and those two from Didymus upon Homer, n. 5, 6. for the reasons before given, I shall make bold to bring over to the Dr's side. Of these 7. in Mr. Stanley, every one, (but that from Suidas,) n. 1. Indexed: sc. 5. of them in the Books from whence they are taken; and the other, viz. martials Epigram in Parrhasius, by Gruter to his Fax Artium, ut supra.  
In Dr. Bentley, Quotations 9 not one of them, that I know of, so indexed. Corrections 5. ●his right accenting the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I count for one) not in Mr. Stanley. 
In Mr. St. and Suid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  So that though the Dr's some Additions rise up but very thin here in comparison of what they do in the following part of his Collection, yet they are even here two to one for what is in Mr. Stanley; to which the consideration of indexed and not indexed added will give a farther advantage. Nota speciatim, n. 4. Stephanus Byzantinus, not indexed; in Dr. Bentley: not in Mr. Stanley, vid. supr. p. 54, 55.    

The Second Decad of Proofs.  
V 
Proofs. Pr. 11.  A Quotation out of the Etymologicon, n. 12.  
W. A Lexicographer, Exc. 1. Index, Exc. 2. in Spanheim, Exc. 5.  
V 
Pr. 12.  Out of Stephan. Byzant. n. 13.  
W. Just as before, Exc. 1, 2, 5.  
V 
Pr. 13.  Another of the same, n. 14.  
W. Index.  
V 
Pr. 14.  Out of the Etymologicon, n. 17.  
W. As Proofs 11, 12. Exc. 1, 2, 5.  
V 
Pr. 15.  Out of Stephanus Byzantinus, n. 18.  
W. Gruter 's Index, Exc. 2. vid. & sup. p. 54, 55.  
V 
Pr 16.  Out of the Etymologicon. n. 19  
W. Indexed and in Vulcanius, Exc. 1, 2, 3.  
V 
Pr. 17.  A Quotation from Didymus upon Homer, n. 20.  
W. N. B. No Proof. Not in Mr. Stanley, vide supr. Dec. 1. Rem. 1. p. 26, etc.  
V 
Pr. 18.  Out of the Scholiast upon Sophocles, in 2●.  
W. A Scholiast, Exc. 1. in Spanheim, Exc. 5. vide & supr. p. 35.  
V Out of Priscian, or Hephaestion, n. 27. 
Pr. 19   
W. Index, Exc. 2. Spanheim, Exc. 5.  
V Out of the Etymologicon, n. 28. 
Pr. 20.   
W. As Proofs, 11, 12, 14, Exc. 1, 2, 5.  

The Accounts of Decad the Second.  
In Dr. Bentley, Quotations 23: in Mr. Stanley 10. or (perhaps) 11. In the Dr. Corrections and Explications 14. not in Mr. Stanley; though indeed several of these Corrections being but the same Emendation repeated (sc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) I am content to discount half the number.  
N. B. Stephanus Byzantinus, n. 13, 14. indexed; in Mr. Stanley, N. 15, 16, 23, 24, not indexed; in Dr. Bentley: not in Mr. Stanley.    

The Third Decad of Proofs.  
V Stephanus Byzantinus, n. 29. 
Pr. 21.   
W. Index.  
V Stephanus Byzantinus, n. 32. 
Pr. 22.   
W. Index.  
V Hephaestion, n. 36. 
Pr. 23.   
W. Index. Exc. 2. Spanheim, Exc. 5.  
V Athenaeus, n. 37. 
Pr. 24.   
W. Index, in Vulcanius, Dacier, and Spanheim, Exc. 2, 3, 5.  
V Another of the same, n. 38. 
Pr. 25.   
W. Answer the same, Exc. 2, 3, 5.  
V 
Pr. 26.  Etymologicon, n. 40.  
W. Index, Spanheim, as Proofs 11, etc. Exc. 1, 2, 5.  
V 
Pr. 27.  Petronius Arbiter, ibid.  
W. Dacier, inter Testimonia Veterum, Exc. 3.  
V 
Pr. 28.  Suidas, n. 41.  
W. Suidas.  
V 
Pr. 29.  Suidas, n. 42.  
W. Suidas.  
V 
Pr. 30.  Suidas, n. 43.  
W. Suidas.  

The Accounts of Decad the Third.  
Quotations in Dr. Bentley between 30 and 40. in Mr. Stanley 10. Emendations and Explications (direct and incidental) in Dr. Bentley about a dozen, of which, I presume, in Mr. Stanley none.  
N. B. Stephanus Byzantinus, n. 29, 32. indexed; in Mr. Stanley. N. 30, 31, 33. not indexed; in Dr. Bentley: not in Mr. Stanley.    

The Fourth Decad of Proofs.  
V 
Pr. 31.  Suidas, n. 44.  
W. Suidas.  
V 
Pr. 32.  Suidas, n. 46.  
W. Suidas.  
V A Quotation out of Suidas, 
Pr. 33.  with a reference to the Scholiast upon Apollonius, n. 49.  
W. Of Suidas enough already. As for the reference to the Scholiast upon Apollonius Rhodius, vid. supr. p. 35.  
V A Fragment out of Athenaeus, 
Pr. 34.  (I suppose) n. 50. (Q. is it out of Suidas too? vid. supr. p. 45, 53.)  
W. Index to Athenaeus, Exc. 2. in Spanheim, Exc. 5.  
V Etymologicon, n. 51. 
Pr. 35.   
W. Index, in Vulcanius, Exc. 1, 2, 3.  
V Stephanus Byzantinus, n. 51. (repetitò.) 
Pr. 36.   
W. Index.  
V A Fragment from Olympiodorus, n. 52. 
Pr. 37.   
W. In Vulcanius, and Dacier, Exc. 3.  
V Etymologicon, n. 53. 
Pr. 38.   
W. Index, Vulcanius, Exc. 1, 2, 3.  
V Stephanus Byzantinus, n. 54. 
Pr. 39   
W. Index.  
V Stephanus Byzantinus, n. 55. 
Pr. 40.   
W. Index.  

The Accounts of Decad the Fourth.  
Quotations in Dr. Bentley between 30 and 40. in Mr. Stanley 10. (or perhaps one or two References more,) Emendations in Dr. Bentley more than a dozen, of which there are three in Mr. Stanley, sc. those two (n. 49, 52. mentioned above, p. 22. marg. and a third of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, n. 46. which is also in Mr. Spanheim, p. 275. (vid. Exc. 5.) confirmed by Mr. Spanheim, with one Quotation from the Scholiast upon Homer, by Dr. Bentley with two from the same Scholiast, vide & Except. 7. In Dr. Bentley, Explications several, of which in Mr. Stanley, I presume, none.  
These four Decades have taken in more than half of our Vindicator's Proofs. The Remainder of them I promised to dispatch by wholesale.  
V Num. 57, 58, 59, 60, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 75, 77, 79, 82, 84, 86, 87, 92, 93, 96,— from Mr. Stanley.  
W. N. 57 Stephanus Byz. Index, 58. Hesychius, The very Storehouse of the Dr's Alphabetical Learning. 
Supr. p. 9   
2. Vide & Mr. B p. 197. and Dr. B's Answer, Pref. p. 80. & Epist. ad fin. Malel. cùm passim, tùm maximè p. 33, 34. & seqq. 'Tis indexed. n. 59 Suidas. 60. Nicandri Scholiastes, Exc. 1. vide & supr. p. 56. n. 65. Scholiast on Callimachus, Exc. 1. But who'd have thought it? The Dr. so busy in collecting the Fragments of Callimachus, and making his Observations upon him; and yet not read the Scholiast on Callimachus? Prodigy! N. 66. Suidas, Vulcanius, Dacier, Spanheim. 67. Etymologicon, indexed. 68 Suidas and printed in all the Editions of Callimachus. 69. Athenaeus; indexed, Vulcanius, Dacier. 71. Suidas. 72. Athenaeus, Index, Spanheim. 75. Stephanus Byz. indexed. 77. Scholiast upon Pindar, indexed, Dacier. 79. Zenobius, a known Paroemiographer, 
Vid. & n. 360.  and the Dr. is a great Dealer in Proverbs of all Languages, especially Greek, Mr. B. p. 285. supr. Concess. 1. p. 7. n. 82. Steph. Byzant. indexed, Spanheim. 84. Suidas. 86. Etymologicon, indexed, Vulcanius, Dacier, Spanheim, (all with the Correction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉). 87. Clemens Alex. indexed, Spanheim, vid. & supra. p. 60. n. 92. Suidas. 93. Ammonius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. a little Alphabetical piece of about an hour's reading and culling, printed at the end of Scapula's Lexicon, Exc. 1. vide supr. p. 56. n. 96. Etymologicon, indexed, Vulcanius.  
The Dr.'s some Additions in this part of his Colletion, sc from. n. 57 p. 321. to n. 103. p. 355. are so numerous, and so very unproportioned to those few things in Mr. Stanley's MS. that there's no stating Accounts between them. And yet as I have (after our Vindicator's method) drawn up the Numbers, n. 57, 58, 59, etc. they make an handsome show against him. But as for that, let the Reader see what hath been said before p. 33. and let the Collator turn to n. 66, and consult Mr. Stanley's MS. p. 35. There he will find a little Scrap of a Fragment from out of Suidas. But the putting this Fragment into its proper measures, the correcting the Etymologicon, the reducing it to its proper place, the confirming it from Tzetzes, and from that place in Plutarch, from whence Tzetzes produces it; this is all the Dr's own. From all which it appears that this Fragment would have been in Dr. Bentley, though it had scaped all the other Collectors, ut supr. p. 60. Then Follows in the Dr. about a Page and half of Quotations, Corrections, and Explications, of which but one Line, and that from the Etymologicon, indexed, in Mr. Stanley; at least but that one line in this place. For I am apt to believe, that all the four Veries of this Fragment, n. 67. as from Stobaeus, may be in Mr. Stanley, but misplaced, sc. among the Epigrams. Then three Quotations in Mr. Stanley, sc. 68 out of Suidas, printed with all the Editions of Callimachus, 69. Athenaeus, indexed, n. 71. a Fragment out of Suidas, corrected indeed by Mr. Stanley but crudely, and in such a manner as sufficiently shows how hastily and incuriously he drew up this imperfect Draught. For these three Quotations in Mr. Stanley, about as many Pages in Dr. Benthley. N. 75. in Mr. Stanley, one Quotation out of Steph. Byzantinus, indexed, in Dr. Bentley two out of the same Lexicographer, not indexed. Then in Dr. Bentley about 9 or 10 pages, small Letter and close print; for which only a little marginal Reference (by and by to be considered) in Mr. Stanley. From thence n. 76. p. 337. to n. 100 p. 345. He will find the Dr's some Additions bearing much the same proportion as before under the several Decades. After n. 96. p. 344. to n. 103. p. 355. The Dr's some Additions do so drown the some Quotations in Mr. Stanley's MS. that one must look very hard to get now and then a sight of one of them, saving some of the large Capitals, that is, the Titles of some of Callimachus his Works from Suidas and Athenaeus, in Mr. Stanley, and in Dr. Bentley, and in Vulcanius, and in Dacier, and very few of them not in every Edition of Callimachus, that hath yet come from the Press, and yet, saith our Vindicator, transcribed from Mr. Stanley; Yes, transcribed from Mr. Stanley, in whom had not the Doctor met them, in vain had they been in every printed Callimachus.  
Thus have I gone through all those Proofs of our Vindicator, which lie in the direct line, and examined them one by one. I have considered them all with great Fairness, I am sure, and, 
Mr. B. p. 181.  I fear, with more exactness than they will be thought to deserve. And now, without mincing the matter, I dare boldly pronounce myself Victor in this Cause. No Reader, I am sure, that understands any thing of the Subject we are upon, can think any one of all these Proofs against the Dr. undeniable. And as for him that understands nothing of it; let him hold his peace, and not run on (as has been of late the humour of the Town) clamouring upon Dr. Bentley for he knows not what. Only because Mr. B. hath the Talon of telling a Story very prettily, therefore Dr. B. is a Dunce, a Clown, a Pedant, and all the rest of Mr. B's Book.  
But one demonstrative Argument you have against the Dr. not as yet so much as once touched upon by me: and that is the method in which his Collection is digested. The Dr's Fragments and Quotations are a great part of them printed in the very self same order and method in which they stand in Mr. Stanley's MS. And though two men might light upon the same Quotations, yet how should they hit upon it to set them down in the same order, without having written the one after the other? This indeed to a man that knows nothing of the matter bears the appearance of an Argument, and you seem to lay a great stress upon it.  
I shall prove, say you, that Mr. Stanley 's Locks were picked, and his Trunks rifled; 
P. 32.  and that (among other things) Dr. Bentley 's method, in Marshalling his Fragments, was taken from that very Learned Gentleman. And in the next Page, But it's remarkable, that to manage the affair dextrously, Dr Bentley has in some places (it may be believed wilfully, and to conceal the Fraud) inverted the order of the MS. And much to the same purpose, but somewhat more satirically, do you deliver yourself, p. 78.  
Now what is this Method? what deep contrivance was there in it, that Dr. Bentley could not have reached it himself? This Method is purely Alphabetical; that is, the several Titles of the lost pieces of Callimachus are set down in the order of the Alphabet; as, Α. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Β. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Τ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. and under these Titles are placed the several Fragments or Quotations properly belonging to them. But there being many Fragments bearing no Title, nor carrying in them any plain Indication to what Tracts of that Author they belonged, these are thrown together promiscuously at the end of the other, under the common Character of Fragmenta incerti loci. This is that method which our Vindicator makes so strong an Argument against the Dr. than which, a more obvious thought could not have entered into any man's head, than to put things which have no dependence one upon the other into the order of the Alphabet. In this Alphabetical order, long before Mr. Stanley drew up his imperfect Draught, were collected and digested the Fragments of Aristophanes, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Theophrastus, Varro, Nigidius Figulus, Lucilius, and several others. So that the Dr. how natural soever it may be to him to transgress the Rules of Method, 
P. 78.  when he is solely under his own Government; yet he had here Precedents enough before him besides Mr. Stanley's MS. to have given him this lucky hint. And this I think may suffice for that mighty Argument of yours, the regular Digestion of his Fragments.  
But it's very remarkable, that to manage the affair dextrously, Dr. Bentley has in some places (it may be believed wilfully, and to conceal the Fraud) inverted the order of the MS. But this, You say, will be remembered in due time and place.  
In the plain, unaffected Style, Sir, nothing in the world could have been more nonsensically suggested. Dr. Bentley (to conceal the Fraud) takes the directest course in the world (had there been any Fraud in the matter) to have discovered it. For could he have laid himself more open to a Discovery, than by transcribing Mr. Stanley 's Method? and setting down his Quotations in such order, that every one that was so minded, might, without being at more pains for it, than just to turn over the Leaves one by one, trace ●im line by line? ●●e●trous management! Besides, what need at that time had the Dr. of such Precaution? I presume, when that MS. was, in so friendly a manner, put into his hands, he had little apprehension, of its being likely ever to be given in as evidence against him.  
But he hath in some places inverted the order of the MS.  
Yes, Sir, in some places; and you have been pleased to mark them out: and such they are, as will at the same time sufficiently show both what a precious Vindicator Mr. Stanley's Manes have met with, and how hastily that very Learned Gentleman (as the wisest men may do) committed his first Thoughts to his private Papers. But the name of Mr. Stanley is too well known to suffer any thing by such a Vindication.  
Your Instances are these that follow.  
V That Citation out of Stobaeus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Mr. Stanley hath given under the head 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
W. But Mr. Stanley would never have printed it so as you have done it for him. That Citation gins,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are Hexameters, this is Elegiac. The Dr's Correction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is certain; your Learned Story of the two Trincavells, p. 48 nothing to the purpose.  
To this Class of the Dr's wilful variations from Mr. Stanley's MS. on purpose to conceal the fraud belongs also that Omission of the Tit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, omitted (say you) by the Dr. for what reason I know not.  
The case, I presume, exactly the same with that of Tit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, supr. p. 38.  
V ΒΑΡΒΑΡΙΚΑ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vind. p. 40. So Suidas gives the title agreeable to Mr. Stanley 's MS. (Mr. Stanley's MS. you mean, agreeable to Suidas) But Dr. Bentley having made the Citation is own, p. 349. hath inverted the order of the words, for what reason himself best knows.  
W. I fancy I can give a shrewd guess at his reason, sc. because such Quotations standing as Titles, whether in Indices or elsewhere, must stand with the leading word (which is generally the Substantive) foremost. Mausacus in his Dissert. Critic. in Harpocrat. citys this Title at least a dozen times, and always with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 standing first. So doth A. Schottus in his Adagia, p. 164. not. in loc. Callimachus in Nomimis Barbaricis. What Fraud were these two Critics interested to conceal?  
You have another of them, p. 43, 44 which happily afforded you the opportunity of bringing in that most prodigiously Learned Parenthesis of near a page long. I pass it over; leaving Casaubon and Dr. Bentley to maintain their ground against yourself and Natalis Comes.  
Dr. B's n. 192. is placed by Mr. Stanley under Tit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, probably, you say. But there's no other guessin at a Probability here, than than Hephaestion mentions it as an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, as his design there plainly implies, Numero elegiaco. It may have belonged to his Epigrams or any other piece of Callimachus, written in long and short Verse, as well as to his Book of Elegies properly so called: and therefore Dr. B. had reason to fling it amongst his Fragm. inc. loci.  
V The Quotation out of Steph. de Urbib. (vind. p. 52.) which Dr. Bentley hath omitted, but inserted in his Notes on the entire Epigrams.  
W. And to the it belonged, vid. Indicem in Stephan. v. Callimachus.  
V Ibid, Dr. B. n. 103. The Fragment beginning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. of which Mr. Stanley saith, Cogitandum an non ad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 haec pertineant, an ad librum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
W. It being but a cogitandum an non, it is still an incertum, and therefore properly placed by the Dr. amongst the Fr. incerti loci.  
There is another of them also, p. 51. sc. Dr. B; s n. 142. But upon that Fragment you having bestowed some Observations of your own, at present I pass it by.  
Dr. B's n. 299. of which you say, p. 56. under this Head (sc. of ΙΑΜΒΟΙ & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Mr. Stanley ranks Num. 299. in Dr. Bentley's Collection, ad Choliambos isthaec refero. Certainly, Sir, you must have been mistaken in transcribing your MS. Mr. Stanley could never have held the Pen in his hand in so dreaming a condition, as to have written what you print upon him. Put on your Critical Spectacles, and look on your MS. again. Is it not ad jambos isthaec refero? That Fragment is only these three words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is manifestly the end of an jambick. A Choliambick, Sir, always ends in two long Syllables. And yet thus it stands in your second Edition. No body takes any care of you.  
P. 59 you have these words, Why so plain a passage should be transported (transposed another man would have said, but Metaphors are elegant) let the Reader judge.  
Innuendo, to conceal the Fraud. This so plain a passage, (a passage so plainly belonging to the Tit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you mean) is in Dr. B. n. 321. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Mr. Stanley with great judgement (say you) hath placed under the foresaid Tit. de Avibus. In great haste would another man have said. For Callimachus his Book of Birds was manifestly (as any one may collect from the Quotations referring to it produced by Dr. B. p. 349, 350.) written in Prose, and this Fragment is as manifestly the end of an Hexameter, as appears both from the Feet and the Epithet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. which is purely poetical. So that this Passage plainly appearing not to belong to the Tit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and it not appearing to what other piece it might belong, Dr. Bentley had good reason to throw it among the Fr. incerti loci.  
An instance or two more, of this kind perhaps I may have overlooked: but these already produced, are, I think, sufficient to satisfy the Reader, that the Dr. might have some other reason for inverting (if he did invert, or so much as took any notice of it) the order of your MS. Nor need I say more to this mighty Argument: the Dr's Collection stands in the same order as Mr. Stanley's. Being both drawn up Alphabetically, it must be so, as far as that Alphabetical method holds, and saving in some few places, where Mr. Stanley had not so properly disposed his Collections; and there we find the Dr. hath inverted the order of the MS.  
I was speaking even now of a confident man, and promised you a meeting again upon that point. Though I am somewhat in haste, I am unwilling to balk your Expectation. Let the Reader look over once again this List of Numbers.  
Num. 11, 19, 34, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 46, 51, 52, 53, 66, 67, 68, 72, 77, 86, 87, 92, 96.  
These Numbers make up at least one third part of your direct Number-Proofs against the Dr. now let the Reader turn to p. 20. Exc. 3. Let him cast his Eyes over the several Decades, and that List of Numbers at the end of them, and observe how often he will find there the name of Vulcanius and Dacier. All and every one of these Numbers are to be met with in the one or the other of those printed Collections: and this methinks is somewhat confidently done of the Vindicator to charge them all upon the Dr. as stole from Mr. Stanley, vid. supr. p. 72. One or two of them, Sir, to explain my meaning by, I shall single out for you.  
Upon Dr. B.'s n. 86. you have this Remark, The third out of Plutarch with the Correction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
P. 56.  n. 86. i. e. Both n. 86. and the Correction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, stole from Mr. Stanley. But, Sir, this Correction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is no Correction, nor is it taken from Mr Stanley's MS. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is printed in all the Editions of Plutarch, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is printed in the Scholiast upon Theocritus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is in Vulcanius, 
P. 266.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Dacier, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Spanheim, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is I believe in all the Books you can show me, saving in the Text of the Etymologicon (or in other Books as directly transcribed from thence) where the Lection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is manifestly corrupt, making neither Sense nor Verse, and accordingly was, long before Mr. Stanley's time corrected by Sylburgius, not. in loc. And yet is this Correction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 charged by you upon the Dr. as stole from Mr. Stanley's MS. And have I not reason to say of you, that you are either a man of very little Reading, if you did not know this; or if you did know it, than I do not abuse you in giving you the character of a Person of a for singular Confidence.  
To conclude with that which forced me upon making this Animadversion upon you. p. 46. Elegia de come. Berenice's, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Mr. Stanley, which Dr. Bentley, say you, without owning his Benefactor, hath confidently made his own. Have you never read any Books, Sir, but Mr. Stanley's MS? Is not this to affront your Reader? To suppose him so careless, so credulous, so unversed in Books, as not to know how very common this Quotation out of the Scholiast upon Apollonius, as applied to this very passage in Catullus is grown ever since the time of Politian? 'Tis printed in Vulcanius, 
Miscellan. c. 68  and in Dacier's Callimachus, in Muretus, in Scaliger, in the Catullus come not. var. In usum Delphini. Is. Vossii. Nay, I very much question, whether there be a Catullus printed for above this hundred years, if with Notes upon him, in which this Quotation is wanting: which Dr. Bentley, without naming his Benefactor, has canfidently made his own.  
But there is another Quotation, Sir, just after this is Dr. Bentley, which though common enough in itself, yet as corrected and applied to another passage in this same Elegy in Catullus, perhaps you will not find in any body else save in the Dr. sc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quod sic latinè vertit Catullus, v. 40.— Adjuro teque tuumque caput. And since he could out of his own Observation refer this later Fragment of Callimachus to its proper place in Catullus, which none before him had done; 'tis very probable, he would have done the like with the former himself, had he not been prevented by other hands.  
To this Class of Confidentisins I shall also reduce another little parcel of the Dr's Quotations, and with them conclude this tedious work of counting Figures.  
The Quotation out of Suidas, v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dr. B. p. 339. out of Harpocration, v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 352. Out of Athenaeus, Tit. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. Out of Clemens Alexandr. Tit. ΙΑΜΒΟΙ, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 337.  
All these Quotations also I find you charging upon the Dr. as taken from Mr. Stanley. But, Sir, every one of these Quotations are to be met with in the Dr's Epist. ad fin. Malel. And that Epistle was printed before he ever saw your MS. I need not paraphrase any farther upon this. vid. supr. p. 20. Exc. 4. You must give the Dr. leave, Sir, to play the Plagiary a little upon himself.  
Vide Mr. B. p. 192. confer cum Dr. B's epist. ad fin. ad Malel. lin. 1. Memini. His Dissertation at the end of Mr. Wotton, lin. 1. I remember. vide & seqq. M. T. Ciceronis Epistolas. ad Fam. lib. 7. ep. 28. Memini. & lib. 5. ep. 13. Quanquàm. lib. 10. ep. 19 Quanquam. & lib. 5. ep. 16. Etsi, ibid. ep. 18, 19 Etsi. & lib. 6. ep. 12. Gratulor tibi. ibid. ep. 15. Tibi gratulor. & lib. 7. ep. 19 vide quanti, lib. 16. ep. 5. vide quanta. & fam. lib. 7. ep. 27. Miror. ad Attic. lib. 13. ep. 10. Minimè miror. ad Attic. lib. 13. ep. 35. O rem indignam! ibid. ep. 38. O incredibilem vanitatem!  
As to the Dr's numerous Coincidencies with Mr. Stanley in his Quotations of the Ancients, I think, I have given a tolerably fair account of them. But you have not yet done with him. There are still behind his Notes and Animadversions upon this Poet, 
P. 32.  a great part of which, you assure us, are taken from that very Learned Gentleman. If you could make out this, you would do somewhat. But this great part you speak of, I am inclined to believe the Collator will find to be scarce one in fifty, and those very few, wherein they do concur to be either such with which the Index here also supplied Mr. Stanley, or else so very obvious in themselves, that no man tolerably versed in these sorts of Studies could have missed of them, vid. supr. Exc. 7. As you have been merciful to the Dr. upon this point, and not overloaded him with Numbers, I will take them in order one by one, as you have given them.  
V In the Dr's note on the Hymn in Jou. (v. 3. p. 458.) the Correction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, upon the Authority of the Etymologicon, 
P. 69.  and Hesychius; from Mr. Stanley.  
W. Indexed in the Etymologicon, who sent him in course to the same word in Hesychins. Besides the Quotations from these two Lexicographers, Dr. Bentley hath seven more. Qu. how many of them in the MS? A correction of the Text of Hesychius, sc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Q. Is that also in Mr. Stanley? Qu.  
V The Correction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Ibid.  upon the Authority of the Scholiast upon Callimachus, of Aldus' his Edition, and of the like examples from Callimachus himself; all transcribed from Mr. Stanley's excellent Notes.  
W. This seems to be spoken somewhat too confidently. May not the Dr. have seen Aldus his Edition of Callimachus? May he not have read over the Scholiast on Callimachus? 
Supr. p 70  May he not have transcribed those passages out of Callimachus from Callimachus himself? the Dr. alleges Frobenius his Edition also, gives an Authority out of Homer, offers a second Conjecture upon the Text of Callimachus, with a Grammatical reason for it. Is all this transcribed from Mr. Stanley? Yes, all you say. Qu.  
V His third Note of the same Hymn is much ●f the Complexion with that of Mr. Stanley, as ●re others that follow.  
W. Those that follow make up near eight ●ages. Are they all in Mr. Stanley? or the greatest part of them? or any of them? For in saying, they are much of the Complexion with those of Mr. Stanley, you speak as much nothing as 'tis possible for a man to speak. Either they are the same, or they are not the same. If the same; undoubtedly we should have heard of it: if not the same with Mr. Stanley, not transcribed from him. That two men, well versed in the same sort of Studies, writing upon the same Subject, should not in some, nay in many Instances, hit upon much the same things is next to impossible; which makes me wonder, that even the first strokes of Mr. Stanley's Pen should not, throughout the whole, have afforded you more instances of this kind against the Dr. vid. supr. Exc. 7. p. 21. But a very small variation in matters of this nature, be it but of a Word, or Syllable, or Letter or two, giver a clear different Complexion to the whole. Afther a leap of 8 pages in comes Mr. Stanley again with  
V The Correction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not. in Hymn Lavacr. Pallad, Dr. B. p. 466.  
W. The sense absolutely required this Correction; 'twas to a man never so little versed in these Studies, an easy and obvious Correction. The Dr. gives the Grammatical reason for it, and confirms it by two or three Authorities for the like mode of Expression: Q. Are they all in Mr. Stanley?  
V Dr. B. not. ibid. in v. 130. A Quotation out of the Etymologicon magnum with another out of Lactantius.  
W. Both which the Dr's own Industry may have supplied him with, as well as it did with the other Quotations to the same purpose from Athenaus, Hesychius, Nicander, with the Epigram out of Gruter's Inscriptions, an exquisite Correction and Explication of that Epigram, attempted, but not with like Success by Scaliger. Q. Are all these things in Mr. Stanley? Mr. Spanheim's Notes upon the same passage are much of the same Complexion. 
P. 642.  Had he also the hint from your MS? v. Exc. 5. supr. p. 20.  
Toward the lower end of the third page following, we meet with Mr. Stanley again.  
V In Dr. B's Notes in Hymn in Cerer. v. 133. p. 469. a Correction of the Text upon the Authority of the Etymologicon, and Hesychius, 
P. 70.  and of an old Edition of Callimachus.  
W. Indexed in the Etymologicon; to turn to Hesychius in the same word was not very laboriour Search; in consulting the several Editions of Books Dr. Bentley is not less curious than was Mr. Stanley. In the Dr. I find the Etymologicon itself twice corrected; the Grammatical analogy of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very nice and particular; a Quotation out of Eusebius; a Censure upon Luc. Holstenius, his mistaken Correction of that passage in Eusebius in his Notes upon Porphyry; a very pertinent Quotation from Theocritus, with an Epigram of Crinagoras never before published. Qu. Are all these things in Mr. Stanley?  
Thus much for the Dr's Notes and Animadversions upon the Hymni, wherein the accounts between him and Mr. Stanley stand thus. The Dr. hath upward of 12 pages, for which I very much question, whether the Collator will find ●o many lines in Mr. Stanley's MS. and even of ●hem, the first hint (as to the greatest part of ●hem) taken from the Index to the Etymologicon, ●nd pursued by turning to the same word in Hesychius. As for the Dr's Notes and Animadversius upon the other part of this Poet (as his Epigrams and Fragments) I pretty confidently presume they will be found to exceed the MS. in yet a far greater proportion. And yet hath our Honest Vindicator the Confidence to say of the Dr's Notes and Animadversions, a great part of them taken from Mr. Stanley. Not a line for a page, one place with another, I dare say. I am not able to comprehend the nicety of your distinction between Notes and Animadversions. 
P. 32.  A great part of his Notes, you say, and some of his Animadversions. But taking them in both together, of the Dr's I know not how many Scores of curious and (if we may believe Graevius) very valuable Notes and Animadversions upon the Epigrams, 
Praoem. p. 5.  I do not find so much as one charged upon him as borrowed from Mr. Stanley: of his I know not how many Scores of the same upon the Fragments within the line of your comparison, as far as I can recollect, but four; three of them already accounted for; sc. that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Quotation out of the Scholiast upon Apollonius.  
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Scan the Verse, Sir. (vid. & supr. p. 22, 70.) To which you have here added a Fourth.  
V The Critic upon N. 85. is taken from Salmasius de Usuris, p. 494.  
W. That Book, Salmasius de Usuris I have not by me, and therefore can say nothing to it.  
V Only the Dr. reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which might have been spared.  
W. Which might have been spared! So far from that, that the whole stress of the Correction lies upon that very word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without which there's no sense to be made of that Fragment. And the Correction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you allow to be the Dr's own. As for the other part of the Correction, of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he took it (with the easiest change imaginable) from Vossius MS. vid. loc. n. 85. Dr. B. p. 339.  
From n. 85. you take a leap to n. 148. 
P. 26.  Was it out of the mercifulness of your Inclinations that you were so forbearing of the Dr. or for want of matter against him? He that is half so well acquainted with you as I am, will suspect the latter.  
V The Reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
P. 72.  n. 148. is from the same Author.  
W. 'Tis not from the same Author, Sir; But from Helladius, in whose very words and syllables the Dr. gives this Lection, Corrigenda sunt ex Helladio. The Correction is of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Scan the Verse again. 'Tis an Elegiac.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Now from n. 148. another leap to n. 242.  
V 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, n. 242. which Dr. Bentley assumes (to himself, 
P. 72.  should have been added) is taken from the MSS. of Ammonius.  
W. Were I in company with you, I would ask you, how many MSS. of Ammonius have you seen? I believe you mean, from Ammonius in the MS. sc. in Mr. Stanley's MS. not MSS. Such little 'scapes of the Press your Book is full of.  
The Lection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was natural, easy, unavoidable, ready pointed out to him in the Etymologicon, and in Ammonius himself.  
Thus have you done with all the Dr's Notes and Animadversions stole from Mr. Stanley. Which what they are both for Number and Quality, let the Reader judge, and the Collator farther inquire into. You go on.  
V To which I shall add a probable Correction or two of some other Fragments.  
W. Very opportunely! And so have you fairly brought me to those Observations of your own. Which I promised you to set in a place by themselves: 
P. 2.  and 'tis pity I cannot afford them more Room, for they are most incomparable things.  
V Num 128. 
P. 72.  Suppose it were read thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & silentes sedere, Hesych. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the Pythagorean Silence is too well known to be disputed.  
W. 'Twould be a dangerous thing for a person of that old Comic Poet, 
V Lucian. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. versus fin.  Philemon's Constitution, to read such a piece of Criticism as this. Or was it your design to print a Banter upon yourself? For had a man premeditated how to write learned Nonsense, he could not have done it more effectually. The Fragment here spoken of is taken from A. Gellius, lib. 4. c. 11. who introduces it thus, Opinio vetus falsa occupavit & convaluit, Pythagoram— It hath been of a long time a current Tradition, but false, that Pythagoras the Philosopher abstained from eating the Flesh of Animals, and from Beans. 
Ex hâc opinion.  'Twas in Conformity to this vulgar Error, that Callimachus wrote these two Verses.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
In the first of these lines the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a manifestly false Lection, and makes no possible sense. So that there being a necessity of some Correction, Stephanus gives it thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dr. Bentley thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. These two Corrections of the Dr. and Stephanus agree in exactly the same sense; and which offers the less violence to the Text, the Eye may judge. After them both comes our judicious Vindicator with his Correction And what's that? why, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & silentes sedere: for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hesychius is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, silentes; and the Pythagorean Silence is too well known to be disputed. But, good Sir, what signifies the Pythagorean Silence to the Pythagorean Abstinence, the only thing here spoken of, which you are content to drop as nothing to the purpose. 'Tis a wonder to me how such a piece of Criticism should enter into an head that has Brains in it. A. Gellius is producing a couple of Verses directly relating to Pythagoras his supposed Abstinence from Flesh: by the help of your Correction they no more relate to it, than they do to his Golden Thigh. What an easy thing were it for me here to ask you an insulting question or two? but I'll not be unmannerly.  
V I am sure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Dr. Bentley's sense is a pure Anglicism, and I cannot think that Callimachus pretended to our Language.  
W. Were I the spitefullest man that ever took Pen in hand, I could not retort this Accusation upon you. I must do you that Justice to confess, that of all the Books I have ever seen in our Language, I never yet read one with fewer Anglicisms in it than yours. That the Signification here given to the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is uncommon, Dr. B. owns; 
Rara quidem, fateor, est, ea verbi significatio: sed, etc.  but withal observes, that Callimachus was a great Innovator in Language; and that Suidas after the more common interpretation of the word, gives it this less usual one; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Callimachus therefore being a great Innovator in Language, and Suidas having manifestly somewhere or other met with this word used in this sense; 'tis not improbable, but that in writing his Lexicon he might have this very passage of Callimachus in his Eye: an Author whom he refers to more than once without express mention of his name, vid. supr. p. 45. & speciatim Suidam, v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, conf. cum Dr. B. n. 48.  
V Num. 200. Dr. Bentley reads it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. & solus adolescentum comedebat tutorem, (one of the worst of crimes and worthy the Dr's considering.)  
W. What a biting Parenthesis is here? Wit and satire all over. But suppose a man should ask you the question; what Thought, Sir, what Meaning had you in your mind when you wrote it down? Can you answer him?  
V. But suppose we read, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
W. But suppose there be no such Greek word as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I question, wheter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be ever contracted into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  than I suppose we must not read it so. And if you cannot maintain your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, than your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 falls to the ground of course, and with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your Julius Firmicus, and with Julius Firmicus your known Story of Saturn's devouring the Immortal Infants before they were a day old. And thus I think your second Correction is as insignificant as your first was ridiculous.  
To fetch in the rest of those learned Observations of your own, I must return to the beginning of your Indictment.  
V Dr. B's Correction of Fulgentius Planciades was needless. 
P. 35.   
W. That Correction was none of the Dr's. The Dr's words are, viri eruditi emendant. So that if it was needless, those learned men are to blame, not Dr. B. But why was it needless?  
V For why should he cite a faulty Edition?  
W. The Dr. citys it from the Edition of Jos. Mercerus, Par. 8vo. 1613. which all men of Learning esteem as the best Edition of that Author. Gothofred did well in correcting the sense of his Author, but in supplanting his words, and making his own Conjecture though just) part of the Text of his Author, he exceeded the Bounds of a Commentator. The Dr. could have done the like upon Malela; but he better understood the Laws of Critic. Another little shriveled Observation you have here, at which I cannot afford to make a stop. Perhaps there's nothing in it.  
If any Bookseller's Shop in Town could present me with a page more fruitful of mistakes than is your 38th and 39th, it must be Mr. Bennets; but I'll defy even his to match you here. Passing by your unintelligible (I am sure 'tis so to me) Story of that old Edition (you are speaking of Hephaestion) and this last; and your idle Cavil upon a escape of the Dutch Printer, in putting a v for an v, I come to your own Remarks, or at least those which you espouse and make your own.  
V The Dr's Quotation out of Terentianus Maurus was long since cited by Lactantius in his Notes on Statius his Thebais, 
P. 38. Lib. 3. v. 479.  and much more correctly, and to better purpose, thus, Branchi meminit Terentianus de metris, Hymnum Branchiadae Phoebo—.  
W. Let the Reader, if he pleases, see it at length in your Book, and compare it with the Dr's out of Terentianus himself, n. 36.  
Much more correctly, you say, and to better purpose. How a Quotation could be more incorrectly given, and to less purpose, is scarce to be imagined. If any Mortal can make either Sense of Grammar of it, as it stands in that Lactantius, I'll lose the whole cause.  
V For as the Verses are now read, 
P. 39  I cannot excuse them: Chronology itself cannot defend them.  
W. Chronology!— Stuff.  
V For Branchus could not sing an Hymn of Callimachus. 
Ibid.   
W. Nor could you construe Terentianus, which therefore I'll do for you.  
Nec non & memini, pedibus quater his repetitis,  
Hymnum Battiadem Phoebo cantâsse Jovique  
Pastorem Branchum: quem—  
Nec non & memini, And I also remember, Battiadem, that Callimachus, cantâsse, composed, Hymnum, pastorem Branchum, an Hymn (called) Branchus the Shepherd, pedibus quater his repetitis, with these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Choriambick feet four times repeated, Phoebo Jovique, in praise of Jupiter and Apollo. And though Chronology will not admit Branchus, who lived so many years before Callimachus, to have sung an Hymn composed by Callimachus, yet Callimachus may have composed an Hymn in praise of Jupiter and Apollo, and given to that Hymn, from, 'tis probable, the principal Fable of it, the Title of Branchus. And of that very numerical Hymn there is scarce any doubt to be made, but that this Fragment was part, and probably the first verse, it being in that Metre Terentianus speaks of, and with express mention of Jupiter and Apollo.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Here's the Pentameter, which Hephaestion and Terentianus speak of, after the 4 Choriambics ending in a Bacchius.  
V Branchus, says the same Commentator, 
Ibid.  was a Thessalian. Branchus Thessalus fuit, dilectus Apollini— illinc Branchiades Apollo dictus.  
W. But here this same beloved Commentator of yours is no less than twice mistaken. First, Branchus was not a Thessalian, but a Milesian: vide inter Historiae Poeticae scriptores Conon. Narrat. 33, 
Statii oper. Par. 4to. 1618., Vol. 1. p. 143.  & 44. and Bernartius in loc. takes notice of Luctatius (al. Lactantius) as the only Authority for Branchus his having been a Thessalian. Nor secondly, was Apollo ever called Branchiades, though you will find it so in some Lexicographers and Epithet-mongers, into whose hands it first came from this Lactantius, and so passed downward by Transcription. I find it in Hoffman, but Baudrand hath rectified this mistake. For Apollo to have been called Branchiades, or rather Branchides, he must have been the Son, not the Father of Branchus. For that termination— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 determines the Patronymick to the Descendants. There was indeed an Oraculum called from the Successors of Branchus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. but Apollo, as related to that Oracle, took his name from the place of it, Didymaeus. As is employed in this very Fragment.  
V I question not therefore, 
Ibid.  but that Branchiades is the better reading.  
W. And I as little question, but that the reading Branchiades is most ridiculously absurd.  
V It carries its own Credentials with it. 
Ibid.   
W. It carries its own Confutation with it. It is against Grammar, Chronology, and common Sense; has been long since condemned by Brodaeus in his Notes on the Anthology, lib. 3. cap. 23. and by Nic. Brissaeus Montevillarius in his Notes upon the passage in Terentianus now produced, Paris, 4to. 1531. Never, I believe, approved of by any man before yourself.  
V. Nor is there any need of playing the Corrector, 
Ibid.  and changing quum into quem.  
W. So much need of it, that without changing quom into quem (an easy change) there's no construing those Lines.  
V And to this head I question not, 
Ibid.  but the Quotation, p. 337. in the Dr's Collection ought to be referred.  
W. And upon this point I question not, but that you are again as much as ever mistaken. For most certain it is, That that Quotation cannot belong to this head. For this Poem called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was all of it written in that sort of Pentameter just before mentioned, and therefore the Quotation, p. 337. which is Hexameter, cannot belong to this Head. As Virgil's Tityrus being all of it written in long Verse, that cluster of short ones, sic vos non vobis— cannot belong to his Tityrus. Had you construed that Greek you transcribed to the Press in the page just before, 
P. 38.  you could not have fallen into this mistake. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΟΛΟΝ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  
I think you have made me work enough in one page: what have we in the next? why another, I question not.  
V The Book (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) was written, 
P. 40.  (I question not) after the example of Aristotle, whose Treatise under that Title is cited by Varro.  
W. This is brought in for no other end or purpose, but to create in the Reader a good opinion of your Learning. And therefore purely for the humour-sake, I shall tell him that this Learned Remark is Scaligers in his Notes upon Varro, which our Vindicator, without naming his Benefactor, has confidently made his own. And yet whether or no Varro did indeed cite any Treatise of Aristotle under that Title, is still a question. The Copies of Varro have it Nomina, and the Nomima is but a Conjectural Emendation of Scaliger, which though not improbable, yet is it not altogether unquestionable. See the forementioned Mausaci Dissert. Critic. in Harpocrat.  
V Natalis Comes, n. 45.  
W. I'll have no concerns with Natalis Comes, supr. p. 77. 
P. 45.   
V Joannes Franciscus Trincavellus,— Victor Trincavellus,— Cardinal Bembo,— with a Tristich.  
W. A Tristich, beginning with a short Verse. sed vid. supr. p. 76.  
V The Dr. hath, I doubt not, studiously omitted those entire Epigrams which had been collected by [Himself and] others—.  
W. Here the [Himself and] is added in your second Edition; the only instance I have observed in you of a second Thought. But a strange kind of Omission this, methinks; the Omission of the Epigrams collected by Himself: and n. b. collected by Himself; q. d. not by others, ergo the Collection his own, ergo, not stole. Your meaning, I suppose, is he studiously omitted the inserting these entire Epigrams among the Fragments, and, to conceal the Fraud, placed the entire Epigrams among the entire Epigrams. Studiously, I doubt not. This aught to have been referred to the Class of Transportations, supr. p. 78.  
V A Critic so curious in what did not belong to his Poet. 
P. 50.   
W. The name of Callimachus did belong to his Poet: which name therefore being falsely ascribed to a wrong person, 'twas no unnecessary Curiosity in the Dr. but full to the Subject he was upon, to rectify that mistake: for which a man less litigious than yourself, would have thanked him.  
V The Dr. might have been so careful as to have acquainted the Learned World with what was genuine and presumed to be truly his Authors. 
Ibid.   
W. Which the Dr. hath amply done. But is that Latin Epigram you are here speaking of in Mr. Juret's Collection of Epigrammata veterum genuine, and truly Callimachus'? If you can have had any other meaning in this than purely the contradicting Dr. Bentley, it must have been a very silly one: and in that you all along come off so scurvily, I hope we shall hear no more of you.  
V Natalis Comes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Ibid.   
W. I tell you again, I'll have nothing to do with Natalis Comes.  
V Mr. Stanley having—. 
P. 51.   
W. Here gins a Paragraph, but where it ends I know not, nor how to construe it. 'Tis big of Accusations against the Dr.  
V Mr. Stanley reckons the Dr's n. 142. among the Fragments of the Epigrams; which seems very likely.  
W. But for what reason, Sir, doth it seem so? I see none.  
V And that the Title of this Epigram was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Suidas averrs. 
Ibid.   
W. Whether your meaning be, upon the skin of a Lion, or upon the skin of Leontius, (for either or neither of these you may mean, for aught I know) Suidas averrs neither the one nor the other. The Greek Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sir, in this place signifies the (de pelle) not in (in pellem.) And all that Suidas averrs, is, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes applied to the skin of a Lion, or that the skin of a Lion is sometimes called in Greek by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For which signification of the word he produces the Authority of Callimachus in this Fragment. This is all that Suidas means, Sir, by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
V As his despised Aemilius Portus had corrected his Author.  
W. 'Tis no presumption in Dr. Bentley to despise Aemilius Portus.  
V Dr. Bentley takes it from Aemilius Portus. 
Ibid.   
W. Dr. Bentley takes it not from Aemilius Portus.  
V. Not to mention the Doctor's changing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Ibid.   
W. The Dr. does not change 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This Fragment stands in two Authors: in Suidas, and in the Scholiast on Sophocles. In Suidas it is given with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and therefore with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from Suidas did Mr. Stanley transcribe it. In the Scholiast on Sophocles it stands with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and so from him hath the Dr. given it. So that the Dr. did not change 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but as he sound it in his Author; so without any change at all he wrote it down.  
V Whereas both words are genuine.  
W. And therefore the Dr. might use either of them. Qu. Is not this cavilling?  
V That the Reader may judge whether the Corrections, 
P. 52.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, be Dr. Bentley's, I will transcribe the Fr. n. 103. from the MSS. [MS. writ like a Scholar.]  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—.  
W. I do judge that Dr. Bentley took not those Corrections from Mr. Stanley's MS. As for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Verse required that Lection, and I do judge that Dr. Bentley knew the Rules of the Greek Prosody before he saw Mr. Stanley's MS. As for the other two Corrections (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the Dr. hath many very material variations from your MS. upon which variations from your MS. those two Corrections altogether depend; in Conjunction with which therefore they must have been made. The Dr. comes nearer to Junius his Lection, 
Had Junii animad. lib. 4. c. 21. Gruter, Vol. 4.  than to that of your MS. And therefore if we must suppose him to have been beholding to either of them, it was to the former. The mistaken Lection of your MS. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lin. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lin. 2. make its true Lection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lin. last of no use, and in the same last line the Lection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as you have given it) can never be brought to bear either Sense or Construction. But the Dr. having established every one of his Lections upon Reasons and Authorities rendering them certain, hath thereby made all the parts of the Fragments consistent, and given a very learned and perspicuous Explication of it; which according to the Lections of your MS. could never have been done. So that upon the whole, my Judgement is, That the Dr. was no more beholden to Mr. Stanley for his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here, than he was for his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before. 
Supr. p 70, etc.  But this is the way of you; 'tis but arming forth your Pages with a set of Greek words against the Dr. and throwing them off with a confident Turn; and so, with your Readers, the work's done.  
V The Reader is left to compare the Dr's n. 71. out of Suidas, beginning with these words, 
Ibid. — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. with the same Fragment in Mr. Stanley's MS. beginning with these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and to pass his judgement upon the Dr's Assertion, Quae anteà corruptissima felicitèr nunc restituimus.  
W. And my judgement is, that the Dr. had very good grounds for his Assertion. Dr. Bentley's Lection comes much nearer to the Text in Suidas: and there be almost as many flaws as lines in Mr. Stanley's. He gins with a too licentious inversion of the order of the words; his second line 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— were there no Exception lay against the Grammar of it, runs, methinks, very heavy and unpoetical.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would not make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verse 4th, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Conjunct 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (so I suppose it should have been printed) seems in this place somewhat too impetuous for the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to which it cleaves, besides that it is a farther departure from the Text (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉;) instead of which, the Dr's Interjection of Lamentation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to be demanded by that expression of Suidas ' ΟΙΚΤΙ'ΖΕΤΑΙ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which I take to be as much as miserabiliter repraesentat. What Mr. Stanley means here by his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I know not. But Dr. Bentley hath given us a fair account of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Such is the Justice which is done to the Manes of the Deceased, when their Papers are put into the hands of them that know not how to use them. But 'tis no Imputation to any man that his first thoughts are not correct.  
Besides, Sir, if Dr. Bentley were such a Plagiary as you would have us believe of him, what a Prize had here been for him? And why did he not make haste off with it, and forthwith to beating about again for more Prey? That's the way of them that live upon the Plunder. What another instance have you here given us of your unskilful management? So often telling us of his transcribing your MS? So fully demonstrating how little he regarded it? The character upon which you spend the former part of your Book, a most supercilious Corrector, is not very consistent with what you give us in the latter part of it, a most notorious Plagiary. Who'd imagine both these belonged to the same man?  
V In n. 86. the Correction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
P. 56.  was long since made to his hands.  
W. Nor doth the Dr. lay any claim to that Correction. But the Observation that that fault in the Copies of Plutarch had been of so long standing as to have misled Eusebius and Theodoret the (former of which Praep. Evang. l. 13. and the later Therapeut. Graec. Ser. 2. follow that corrupt Lection of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and consequently the rectifying the mistakes of those Ancient Writers, this was the Dr's own.  
V And whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be not a genuine Reading, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be not as likely as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Ibid.  I refer him to Sam. Petits Miscellan. observat. l. 1. c. 2. p. 9, 10.  
W. And I refer him to Richardus Bentleius, in not. ad Fragmenta Callim. num. 86. p. 340. For, Sir, do you think your so often saying, I refer the Reader to, &c will pass any where, but among yourselves, for a Confutation of Dr. Bentley? Though this Sam. Petit being a Critic from whom as little is to be learned, as from any of those whose Books have the good luck to bear a price, I am apt to believe you may have read him.  
V Callimachus may have written a Tragedy called Daedalus, of which Tragedy, 
P. 65, 66.  this Fragment, (n. 305.) may have been part.  
W. No, Sir, that cannot be. But that you were resolved to be an Author, you might, perhaps, have passed for a Scholar. This Fragment is part of an Hexameter, a sort of Metré which a very moderate Antiquarian would have told you the Ancients never made use of in Tragedy.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
V The Dr. n. 139. citys among the Fragment a incerti loci, 
P. 67.  that known passage out of Athenagoras, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. which Verses are no Fragment, but part of that entire Poem, Hymnus in Jovem  
W. This looks like cavilling. Athenagoras his Reflection upon Callimachus is not so vulgarly known, and for the sake of that alone did the Dr. I presume, produce this passage, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  
Besides these learned Observations of your own, and your many judicious Animadversions upon the mistakes of the Dr. You have been pleased to present the Learned World with some farther Discoveries by way of Supplement to the former Editions of Callimachus. After my having been at such pains to disclose some of your Failures, 'twere Injustice to conceal your Improvements. But before I come to them, there is another part of your charge against the Dr. not immediately concerning Mr. Stanley's MS. upon which I am obliged to bestow some few Reflections.  
Not content to have made the Dr. so notorious a Plagiary upon the account of Mr. Stanley's MS. you intermix here and there some Proofs of Plagiarism upon him from some other printed Books. 'Tis resolved, I see, the Dr. shall be a Plagiary. 
Mr. B. p. 143, 171, 183, & 54, 138, 216, 226, 233, 248, 261, 262, etc. Vid. & Dr. B's Answ. p. 213, 333, 383, etc.  The work is begun and it must be finished. If any of the same passages be to be found in any other Books-whatsoever, whether printed or MS. as in the Dr. from thence shall the Dr. have stole them. According to which method I challenge you, Sir, to name that modern Writer, writing upon a Subject wherein the producing the Authorities of the Ancients is necessary, whom I shall not (even without the assistance of a Club, and with no more than one set of fingers to turn over Books) prove a Plagiary. And yet this is the way of these gentlemen's (I'll venture to put it in the Plural number) managing their Controversy with Dr. Bentley. But as for you yourself, Sir (such is your reading) you are very sparing of your instances of this kind; and in these few you do produce as obliging to the Dr. as heart could wish.  
In p. 72. supr. I took notice of about 9 or 10 pages in Dr. Bentley's Collection, small Letter and close Print, sc. from p. 327. to p. 337. for which only a little Marginal Reference in Mr. Stanley; the consideration of which I then postponed, and shall here take it up. It is indeed at first sight the most plausible thing against the Dr. in the whole Indictment, and seems to make him directly beholden to Mr. Stanley for a little hint at least, though the working it out was left to himself. Were I at a loss for an answer here, our Vindicator (which, 
P. 54, 55.  I thank him, he seldom fails to do) hath supplied me with one. But I need not crave his affistance. The case is this  
In Mr. Stanley's MS. over-against the Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Margin, stands, Meurs. in Antig. c. CXLIV. That Chapter in Antigonus gins thus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; i. e. Callimachus of Cyrene hath made a Collection of things strange and wonderful, the most remarkable of which I shall transcribe. And so he gins his transcribing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. He (Callimachus) saith, that Eudoxus relates that, etc.  
Now upon this Mr. Stanley had made this Remark. Quibus ex verbis omnia quae sequuntur usque ad finem libri ex Callimacho deprompta esse conjicere licet; i. e. From which words one may conjecture that all that follows in Antigonus to the end of the Book is taken from Callimachus. And good reason had he so to conjecture; for Antigonus in his cap. 144. entering upon transcribing from Callimachus, and it not appearing (his Book being imperfect) where he ended, the inference is very fair, that all that follows in that Book, as it now stands imperfect, is taken from Callimachus. An instance of the same kind we have before in the same Book, Antig. c 32. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cap. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. i e. The several other wonderful Sagacities of certain Animals one may find most accurately described in the writings of Aristotle, out of which, before I go any further, I shall make this following Collection. cap 33. He saith that the Wolves about the Lake of, etc. And so he goes on still transcribing out of Aristotle to cap. 127. which he thus concludes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. i.e. But Aristotle hath left behind him many Books, out of which, what I have here given is all that I could at present recollect. And so he breaks off his transcribing out of Aristotle. After the same manner doth he begin his Collection out of Callimachus, c. 144. But where he ended, his Book being imperfect, we know not. Therefore saith, Dr. Bentley, p. 328. & profectò ut omnia, quae deinceps, etc. As all that is in Antigonus from, cap. 32. to cap. 127. is transcribed from Aristotle, so all from cap. 144. to the end of the Book is taken from Callimachus. And accordingly all those passages he transfers into his Collection. Upon which our Vindicator cries out shame upon him. I cannot acquit him, saith he, either of being vainglorious, or a Plagiary, when he avers (as 'tis true he doth) that he himself was the first who restored those noble Fragments to their true Author. For how can Dr. Bentley have the face to say, that he was the first, when Mr. Stanley had observed it before him. But had Mr. Stanley also observed the like of Aristotle? But to let that drop. Pray, Sir, will you please to read your own words immediately following your Transcription out of Mr. Stanley. Quibus ex verbis etc. And with Mr. Stanley agrees the Learned Johnsius in his second Book of the Writers of Philosophic History, cap. 12. p. 176. 
P. 55.  If therefore Johnsius had observed it as well as Mr. Stanley, than Mr. Stanley was neither the first man nor the only man that had observed it. And why may not our Learned Critic (a Title, which, 
P. 61.  since some Books lately published against him, no wan will deny to Dr. Bentley) have observed it without the help of Mr. Stanley's MS. as well as had the Learned Johnsius, whose right to the same Title is as little disputed? But in the words immediately following, 
P. 55.  and in several other places of your Book, you tell us over and over, and that very emphatically, that the Dr. had thoroughly read that piece of Johnsius. 
P. 61. & seqq. Mr. B. p. 142.  You have overdone your work, Sir, and laid the Indictment in two places. The unhappiest man at managing an Accusation, that ever took such a piece of work in hand. Pray, Sir, will you please to certify the world in your third Edition, from whom did the Dr. take this hint first? Did he take it from Johnsius first, and afterwards from Mr. Stanley? or first from Mr. Stanley, and afterward from Johnsius? This, Sir, is a point upon which you ought to be very determinate, 
P. 76.  the Province you have taken upon you obligeth you to restore every Paragraph to its right Author. And therefore you must let the world know precisely, if Dr. Bentley's name must be expunged, whose name must be put in the room of it in the next Impression of Callimachus: 
P. 74.  whether Mr. Stanley's or the Learned Johnsius. For without a more particular information than you have yet given, Mr. Graevius will not be able to do justice between them.  
But I'll maintain the Dr's right. His name must not be expunged out of the next Impression. I very confidently presume the Discovery was of the Dr's own making, and (not to flatter him) 'tis one of the meanest in his whole Book. Antigonus himself had laid it so full in view, that no body, reading him with attention, especially having that Greek Poet, Callimachus in his thoughts, could have passed it over unobserved. Let the Reader cast his eyes back upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Callimachus made a certain Collection— He saith that— Now, Sir, dip upon what Chapter you will in Antigonus after c. 144. to the end of his Book, (abating here and there an Intersertion of the Collectors own, easy enough to be distinguished from the rest) you will find this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either express or subintellect before the Infinitive Mood: for the Dr's Correction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, c. 145, and of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, c. 147. with others of the like kind, I suppose no body (unless perhaps yourself) will dispute with him: And that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must have some Nominative Case, and that Nominative Case can be no other than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So that the utmost of the Dr's Discovery here was only finding out first the principal Verb, and the then Nominative Case to it: which 'tis a strange thing if he could not have done without the help of your MS.  
But why then is the Dr. so vain glorious upon his performance here if it was so easy a thing? 
P. 54.  Haud malè, opinor, de Callimacho meritus jum, qui primus tàm luculenta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illi restituo. I think Callimachus is not a little obliged to me for being the first who restore to him so fair a quantity of Fragments.  
Because the thing is true. For how obvious soever the Discovery might lie, yet no body having before given the Public any notice of it, (no not, in express terms, Johnsius himself) or taken care to restore these Fragments to their true Author: to the Dr. alone doth Callimachus owe his Obligations. Besides which, Callimachus is not a little obliged to the Dr. for the commendable pains you yourself acknowledge him to have bestowed upon these Fragments: 
Ibid.  For his having restored them to their genuine Lection, and for his having justified our Poet's Narrations from the concurring Testimonies of so many other good Authorities. And if you will please to look over the many improvements which (after the learned and accurate Meursius and Xylander) the Dr. hath made upon that part of Antigonus, you will find that he might well think Callimachus not a little obliged to him, and that I spoke within compass when I said before, 
Supr. P. 33.  bringing this very instance for a proof of it, that in many places for one single line which you allege against the Dr. as stolen from Mr. Stanley, the Dr's Additions are more than twenty to one. As in this present case is very manifest, taking in your marginal Reference in its utmost extent.  
Ay, that's true indeed, in this place. But to whom is the Dr. obliged for all this? To the learned Johnsius, 
P. 55.  who advised his Reader to consult Stephanus, Pliny, and Suidas. And 'tis plain by the comparison, that Dr. Bentley followed his Advice, though he will not own his kindness.  
As much as to say; That Dr. Bentley would never have read Stephanus, Pliny, and Suidas, had not the Learned Johnsius put him in mind of it, that there were such Books in the world, and that he ought to read them. For this Advice and Advertisement is it that the Dr. is so deeply obliged to the Learned Johnsius, and (ungrateful man as he is) hath not told the world who told him of those Books.  
'Tis plain, by the comparison, you say, that the Dr. followed his Advice. That is, To a man that will read over the Dr's Collection it will plainly appear, that the Dr. hath read Stephanus, Suidas and Pliny. As for Stephanus and Suidas we have had enough of them already. 
Supr. p. 39, 54, 55.  But hath the Dr. read Pliny too? Yes, 'tis plain, you say, he hath. Now, pray, Sir, turn to the 83d page of your Book, and there you do as good as say the Dr. hath not read Pliny. For the Dr. having produced several passages out of Pliny, as n. 392, 393, 394, etc. Harduin's Indices, say you, directed Dr. Bentley to these Quotations out of Pliny, q. d. Dr. Bentley did not meet with these Quotations in Pliny himself, but just turned to the Index Authorum, v. Callimachus, and so came by them. But if the Dr. followed Johnsius' Advice, and turned over Pliny himself, as 'tis plain he did; what need was there of running to Harduin's Indices? 'Tis a plain case, Sir, from the beginning of your Book to the end of it; that you know not, or matter not what you say, so that you can but fling out somewhat against the Dr. And this is the way of all of you. Calumniare fortiter, is the rule you go by. But there should be a little wit in it. I wonder how your Book comes to bear a second Edition. In p. 65. I find you upon Harduin and Pliny again. His Quotation out of the Scholiast upon Apollonius Harduin in his Notes upon Pliny supplied him with. Ridiculous! as if the Scholiast upon Apollonius himself were not sooner read over than a Pliny with Harduin's Notes, or as if that were the only Quotation out of the Scholiast upon Apollonius in the Dr's Collection. 
Vid. supr. p. 35.  But that Quotation is not in Harduin's Index. So that all that is in Harduin's Index, from the Index the Dr. stole it: but what is not the Index, for that he is obliged to Johnsius, who advised him to read over Pliny himself, which Advice, 'tis plain, the Dr. followed. Are you not ashamed, Sir, of putting such stuff as this into print? I do not answer these things, as if they deserved an Answer, but to let the world see how these men manage their Controversy against Dr. Bentley. The Dr. must have what is in the Index, or not have what is in the Author, vid. supr. p. 55.  
But you are a person as unlucky in your Memorandums, as you are inconsistent in your Allegations. Let me lay down this as a rule: 'tis not for a young Writer to despise an Index. 'Tis but comparing the Author of Dr. Bentley's Dissertation, upon the Epistles of Phalaris examined, p. 164. with Dr. Bentley's Answer, p. 229. And with the Index to a very common Book, Aelian. Var. Hist. literâ x. and you'll find out my meaning.  
V 
P. 57  The Quotation out of the Learned Scholiast upon Aristophanes, n. 101. was ready brought to his hands by the Editor of Aristaenetus his Epistles, ep. 10. p. 229.  
W. I had reason to observe of you, that you are the most unhappy man to your Friends, and the most obliging to your Adversary that ever took Pen in hand.  
The Dr. stole his Quotation out of the Scholiast upon Aristophanes from the Editor of Aristaenetus his Epistles.  
Answ. 1. Compare your Learned Patron, p. 31. Marg. with Dr. B. Answer, p. 21. and Mr. B's p. 164. again with Dr. B's Answer, p. 229, 230. and you will find that the Dr. was too well acquainted with the Scholiast upon Aristophanes, to have borrowed his Quotation out of that Scholiast from the Editor of Aristaenetus.  
2. The Dr. in this very place rectifies a mistake of that Learned Scholiast, which the Learned Editor of Aristaenetus transcribes into his Annotations without taking any notice of it. So that you have here marked out an instance for the Reader to reflect upon: That the Dr. how notorious a Plagiary soever, yet he is none of your Pedanious Critics, a literatim Transcriber of other men's Mistakes, and making them him own. The Dr. is able to correct the faulty Opinions of the Ancients, as well as the faulty Copies of their Works.  
3. The Dr. also rectifies a little mistake of that Learned Editor of Aristanetus (Josias Mercerus, Sir, the Father-in-Law to Salmasius) who misquotes this piece of Callimachus under the Title of Aiontius, whereas it should have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; as the Dr. from the Authority of Ovid establishes it. And that I put the Reader in mind of this other second little advantage, which (as to this particular) Dr. Bentley hath over the Learned Mercerus, is owing to yourself, who were so friendly to the Dr. as to point it out to me.  
4. You. have supplied the Dr. with a fresh Authority here for that new Lection which he gives of this Fragment, and justified his Correction of the Learned Scholiast upon Aristophanes. The Fragment itself is this.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
In the Scholiast upon Aristophanes, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it stands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and as that Lection is admitted by him for genuine; so from him in the same words is it transcribed by the Learned Mercerus: and otherwise than with that Lection I presume it is not where to be found, nor was there ever, perhaps, before the Dr. any suspicion entertained concerning it. But the Dr. than whom ('tis plain by the comparison) no man reads Books more intently, discovered some thing of incongruity in this Lection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and therefore ventures, by a conjectural Emendation, to restore it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And was at some pains to justify the Correction both from Reason and Authority: but the most proper Authority in the world to his purpose he had (I know not how) omitted. In comes our most obliging Vindicator here, and supplies him with it. Nor could one that had studied for it, have given a fuller demonstration of the Dr's happiness at a Conjecture, than hath this very man, who is writing a Book against him; having pointed out to us the very place which establishes beyond control every thing the Dr. hath said, Aristaenet. ep. 10. (m. p. 46, 49.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, n. b. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, words coming as near to those of the Fragment according to the Dr's Correction of it, as Prose and Verse would fairly admit. Sir, the Dr. is obliged to you, and (in his name) I presume to return you Thanks. This Discovery (the very best in your whole Book, though made without your knowing any thing of it) will, I doubt not, be inserted in the next Impression of Callimachus. And therefore,  
5. From hence I infer a Negative directly contradictory to your Affirmative, viz. The Dr. did not take his Quotation out of the Scholiast upon Aristophanes from the Editor of Aristaenetus. For if the Dr. had then had Aristaenetus in his view, he would not have omitted an Authority so direct to his purpose. You may cavil; but the Inference is undeniable.  
I have drawn out my Answer to this your Allegation into so many particulars, to show you, first, How imprudently you have acted in putting one so often in mind of things which were better forgotten: though indeed let the best Pen that can be found engage any farther in this Cause, it will be next to impossible to escape splitting upon the same Rock. And secondly, to let you see how much it turns to the Dr's advantage to have his writings brought under a close Examination.  
V 
P. 61.  The greatest and best part of those numerous Quotations which adorn Dr. Bentley's Edition under the several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 351. & seq. were before collected by Johnsius.  
W. At which lest the Reader should be surprised, you spend no less than three pages to show with what Judgement and Accuracy that Learned Person hath treated of these. Catalogues, 
Ibid.  Indices, or Tables of Callimachus. So that all that you prove here is, that he must be a very extraordinary man indeed, who can so exhaust his Subject as that Dr. Bentley coming after him shall not find room for improvements. And if you could have said not only the greatest and best part, but all and every one of the Quotations in the Dr's Collection were before drawn together by Johnsius, yet even so it would have amounted to no more than this; That two very Learned Persons treating upon the same point of Antiquity, neither of them had made any material Omissions. If you had known how to have managed your cause, you should have spared your elaborate Eulogies upon Johnsius, 
P. 55, 61, etc.  with which you have but made a Garland for Dr. Bentley. Like the Monarch, who spent the greatest part of a long Reign in gathering Trophies only to place them all at last upon his Neighbour's head.  
But you will not part with Johnsius so. If you can have read me hitherto without a Blush, prepare for one now.  
V Dr. Bentley to conceal his transferring Johnsius' Correction of Antimachus for Callimachus into his own Stores, 
P. 64.  citys the passage (n. 390.) out of Eusebius, whereas in the Edition of Tatianus, from whom Eusebius had it, the names are as they ought to be read.  
W. Good Reader, look over these words again; Dr. Bentley to conceal, etc. Here doth this Man, 
P. 19, 25, 76.  who quotes Scripture and Councils, charge Dr Bentley with having stole a Correction from Johnsius, and with using a certain Artifice to conceal the Fraud. Every Syllable of which is as wilful a falsehood as words can express. Turn to the Dr's n. 390. p. 423. Tatianus apud Eusebium, Praep. Evang. lib. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. After the Quotation given at large the Dr hath these words. Ex hoc loco Vossius in libello posthumo de Poetis laudat Collimachum, Colophonium: sed lege apud Eusebium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ut recte habetur apud ipsum Tatianum, sed hoc video doctissimum JOHNSIUM ante me animadvertisse. 'Tis true the Dr. transcribes the passage out of Eusebius, but the tells us how it stands in Tatianus. The reason of his transcribing it out of Eusebius, was, I presume, to take this opportunity of giving the Reader notice of a false Lection crept into the Copies of that Author, and of a mistake from thence transferred into Vossius his posthumous Piece de Poetis. No, saith the Vindicator; he did it on purpose to conceal his having stole this Correction from Johnsius. Oh Confidence! Construe it, Sir. Sed hoc video doctissimum JOHNSIUM ante me animadvertisse. To conceal! as plain as Pen can put down words on Paper, 'tis declared that the Learned Johnsius had made that Correction before him. Here are your Writers against Dr. Bentley! And will you still believe them, Reader? But take another instance.  
V The Corrections of the Fragment, 
P. 71, 72.  n. 233. were ready made to the Dr's hand by Salmasius, and in Is. Vossius his MS. The old Translator of Pollux had given the true rendering of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Fluto Aristophanes: which Dr. Bentley calls his own.  
W. Confidently! Dr. Bentley doth not call the true rendering 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his own. So far is the Dr from claiming to himself the Corrections ready made to his hands by others, that in express terms he disclaims them. The Dr's words are these: Qui quidem locus, in vulgatis codicibus mendosissimus, rectè ità emendatus est à ●iris eruditis.— & ità sanè Codex qui fuit Isaaci Vossii. Is this calling things his own? 'tTwere Charity to believe you cannot construe Latin. But the rectifying the mistakes of the Scholiast, and the correcting the Text of Aristophanes' himself: a Correction just and necessary, and which perhaps was never so much as aimed at before the Dr. and without which, neither could the Poet, nor his Commentator, nor J. Pollux have been understood; This the Dr. doth call his own, and his own it is, vid. loc. Fragm. n. 233. p. 395.  
V 
P. 85.  Salvagnius Boessius in his Prolegomena to his Commentary upon Ovid's Ibis, hath inserted the Epigram out of the Anthology (which Dr. Bentley has transcribed num. 2.) with the Emendation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (claimed as his own by the Dr.) though he confesses that the admirable Critic Eustathius reads it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
W. Of all this I do not understand one word. The Emendation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Dr. doth (both here Fragm. n. 2. and Ep. ad fin. Malel. p. 71.) claim as his own, and his own I believe it is. In Salvagnius Boessius' Prolegomena I find not a Syllable of that Epigram either with an Emendation or without. Who confesses, that the admirable Critic Eustathius reads it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Salvagnius or Dr. Bentley? in neither of them do I find the least mention of Eustathius relating to this matter. My Salvagnius Boessius is 8vo. Lugd. 1661. There may be some later Edition for aught I I know, in which may be the passages you speak of: but I have never seen any such Edition, nor (as I have a reason, not worth the telling, to believe) hath Dr. Bentley. So that how many soever Editions of Salvagnius Boessius there may be, what Dr. Bentley here calls his own is still his own.  
V In those Prolegomena also is to be found the Epigram of Martial upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
W. In Dacier's Testimonia veterum also is to be found the Epigram of Martial upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and in Farnaby's Marshal also is to be found the Epigram of Martial upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Stuff!  
V In Salvagnius Boessius his Commentary upon Ovid's Ibis are many other good Observations, which Dr. Bentley hath read.  
W. 'Tis more than natural Stupidity: it looks like a kind of Infatuation, that a man should be so constant in confuting himself. Compare, Sir, these two pages of yours; page 35. with page 85.  
Page 35. The Epigram out of Martial (n. 2.) is in Mr. Stanley's Collection.  
Page 85. The Epigram out of Martial (n. 2.) is in Salvagnius Boessius (m. p. 48.) And Salvagnius Boessius Dr. Bentley hath read.  
Page 35. The Quotation out of Clemens Alexandrinus (n. 2.) is in Mr. Stanley's Collection.  
Page 85. But Salvagnius Boessius Dr. Bentley hath read: and in Salvagnius Boessius is that Quotation out of Clemens Alexandrinus, verbatim, p. 47.  
Page. 35. 
Supr. p. 62.  The Quotation out. of Servius upon Virgil, n. 8. is transcribed from Mr. Stanley, verbatim.  
Page 85. Salvagnius Boessius his Commentary upon Ovid's Ibis Dr. Bentley hath read: and in that Commentary, p. 301. is that Quotation out of Servius upon Virgil.  
How will you look your Honourable Patron in the face, after having thus discovered to him how carelessly you read his Book, and how little you minded the caution he gave you, Not to lay your Indictment in two places. 
Mr. B. p. 142.   
And this is what I before promised you to take some particular notice of. 
Supr. p. 64.  Read what is there (p. 63, 64.) written upon that Quotation out of Clemens Alexandrinus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. I here repeat my charge against you, Sir, and in the plain unaffected Style I call you false Accuser, and prepensely such. You knew these several passages to be in Salvagnius Boessius; Salvagnius Boessius you knew the Dr. to have read: how then durst you charge these particular passages upon him as Proofs of his Plagiarism from ●ir. Stanley's MS. all of which you knew the Dr. to have met with elsewhere; and one of which you knew, you could not but know, your own Eye sight assured you, that the Dr. did actually transcribe, not from Mr. Stanley, but from Salvagnius Boessius? I say, which you could not but know, that the Dr. did not take from Mr. Stanley. For that Quotation out of Clemens Alexandrinas, as it is given us in the Dr's Collection, I am very confident is not now (whatsoever it may be e'er long) in Mr. Stanley's MS. nor, I believe in any other printed Book whatever save in Salvagnius Boessius; and therefore only from him can the Dr. have transcribed it. And this you cannot have been ignorant of, since both Salvagrius Boessius, and Dr. Bentley himself have given express notice of it: Salvagnius, p. 47. Sic & Clemens Alexandrinus, lib. 5. Strom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Sic enim Manuscriptus meus pervetustus Codex cum in omnibus Editionibus desint haec verba 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΙΒΙΣ and in Dr. Bentley, p. 345. Tit. ΙΒΙΣ it à Codex MStus Dionysii Salvagnii: in vulgatis ΙΒΙΣ abest. I do therefore again and again repeat it upon you, Sir, though your whole Book be a Proof of it, yet more especially from this particular passage, as being an irrefragable Demonstration; that you are a false Accuser, and that you are prepensely such. First, In telling the World, that that is in your MS. which is not in your MS. and secondly, in placing among your Proofs of things transcribed from your MS. that which you knew was not transcribed from your MS. and upon both these Articles I bring in your own Salvagnius Boessius for Evidence against you. And this you have gotten by overdoing your work, and laying your Indictment in two places. And the Man once convicted of wilful, I cannot say Perjury, because 'tis not in a Court of Record, though you have kissed the Bible upon it more than once; yet of wilful Prevarication is become for ever afterwards (at least, as to that cause) an incompetent Witness. And how far this Sentence may extend, I leave it to those who are most concerned in it to consider: desiring them withal, out of pure Compassion to themselves, not to be over eager in tempting a not very unwilling man to discover all he knows. For the letting the world know, how far Busy men are to be credited, I take to be doing a good piece of Service to the Public; which he that shall venture upon, as he must incur the Displeasure-of Many, so he deserves the Thanks of more than One. I have complied (and not many more so obedient Readers can he boast of) with Mr. B's unreasonable Request, with which he concludes his Preface to his Examination of Dr. Bentley. But as for you yourself, Sir, I have now near upon the matter done with you. For as for your wre●●●ed common-place Raillery, and your blunt 〈◊〉 upon the Dr. (most of them stole from ●our Honourable Patron, but spoiled in the telling: I scorn to take any notice of them. But there is still behind your SUPPLEMENT.  
And that Supplement of yours must not be passed over in silence Then might you call me a partial Writer indeed, if I took no notice of you Supplement. This Supplement of yours you have set forth in a place by itself; and, the more effectually to draw the Reader's Eye upon it, marked it out into XIII Capital Figures. You introduce it thus.  
V I expected, when I looked on the last beautiful Edition of Callimachus, to have found every little passage of the Ancient Writers, wherein but his Name was mentioned, gathered to my hands by Dr. Bentley.  
W. Then you could not but have expected to have found in Dr. Bentley all those Quotations out of the Ancient Writers which are in Mr. Stanley's MS. whether ever he had seen that MS. or not. 'Tis Fate; The Dr. shall be acquitted by the same Mouth that accuses him.  
V But I have met with a few, which, I presume he either had not seen or forgotten.  
W. A few.  
V And because I am persuaded it will not disserve the Learned World, I shall insert them.  
W. Sc. By way of Supplement to the former Editions of Callimachus. For otherwise, what service could it be to the Learned World? And so you explain yourself when upon Num. XII. you expressly say (p. 49.) that that Epigram, Quaenam haec forma Dei, etc. was (you thought) omitted in the late Edition. Here therefore we may expect to see the whole extent of your Reading, and what Services the Learned World may promise itself from your Pen. I shall take them one by one in order as they lie.  
Num. 1. Suidas v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. formerly cited at length, p. 42, 43.  
W. Supra, p. 38.  
V Num. II. v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. in the same page.  
W. In the same page.  
V 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mr. B. p. 245.  
W. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 supra, p. 39  
V Num. III. Natalis Comes' his Citation out of Callimachus' Hecate, accounted for already, p. 44.  
W. I'll have nothing to do with Natalis Comes.  
But why should I be so angry, will you ask me, with Natalis Comes? 
P. 50, 51.  That Italian Critic was a famous man in his Generation, and had read no body knows how many MSS. 
P. 45.   
I'll tell you, Sir, there was a certain Italian Critic, a man of vast Learning indeed, 
V Mr. B. p. 225. confer. cum Dr. B 's Answ. Praef. p. 100  but withal so horrible unmannerly, that the world ha●ed and despised him at the same time that it was profiting by him; one Joseph Scaliger. And he ●ath given me such an Idea of this Italian Critic of yours, that makes me apt (at first sight) 〈◊〉 think the worse of any Book (yours I except) wherein I do but meet with so much as the name of this Natalis Comes. 'Tis in one of his Letters to Sethus Calvisius, 
Scaliger. Ep. 309.  where he tells that great Astronomer with what satisfaction all men of Learning received that excellent Book; his Chronology. Upon which he immediately adds; Qui unum, ac cum illis ego, à te petunt, ut scriptorum quorundam minorum gentium mentione, qualis est Natalis Comes, homo futilissimus, abstineas. Dolet enim magnis viris illos pannos tuae purpurae assui: Tu haec in secundâ editione curabis. That it grieved all men of Learning to see the name of so wretched a Trifler as Natalis Comes standing in so excellent a Book as Calvisius his Chronology, and therefore Scaliger begs of him, that in the next Edition he would strike him out; which accordingly was done. This passage of Scaliger, Mausacus in his Dissert. Critic. (referred to more than once before) repeats, and expresses himself even to a passion upon it. It raised an indignation in him, that there should be found men in the world so weak as to pretend to establish any thing upon the Credit of such beggarly Scribblers as Natalis Comes, and set up for Critics and Authors by stuffing out their Books with such borrowed Authorities. So that whether the Dr. had never seen this passage in Natalis Comes, or whether he had forgotten it, or whether (which is more likely) he neglected it, I am not able to determine: But that this Natalis Comes is an Author with whom you are extremely we acquainted, is a plain case. There's not any one Name in your whole Book come so often over as Natalis Comes. Doctor Bentley takes his Fragment, n. 110. from th● Etymologicon (Nicas some call him— turn to it, Reader, in the Vindicator's Book, p. 43, 44. 
P. 43, 44.  'Tis a Learned Parenthesis) but Natalis Comes had published a larger Fragment: Dr. Bentley takes after Cosaubon's Lection; 
P. 45.  but Natalis Comes gives them more correct, and translates them better: and who knows what MSS. Natalis Comes may have seen? Natalis Comes gives another Epigram too as from Callimachus, 
P. 50.  and though I know not, whether that Italian Author was Critic enough to determine the Controversy; [what Controversy?] yet Dr. Bentley might have been so fair, as to have mentioned him. Natalis Comes hath given us a handsome Commentary upon the Fragment, num. 209. in't. 
P. 71.  Bentleian. But Dr. Bentley transcribes it (and that but abruptly) from the Scholiast upon Sophocles: and that Book indeed, the Scholiast upon Sophocles the Dr. had consulted: but as for Natalis Comes, one knows not whether Dr. Bentley hath ever so much as seen that Italian Critic. And here again, Num III. we have Natalis Comes: and Num. XI. Natalis Comes again. 
Mr. B. p. 26. confer. cum Dr. B's Answ. p. 5, 6.  And may not a man say of this Natalis, your Darling Author: This Natalis Comes, Sir, is an erranter Pedant than Dion Chrysostom himself. But,  
Pro captu Lectoris habent sua fata libelli.  
The sense of which words I find happily alluded to in a late excellent Poem.  
But each vile Scribler's happy on this Score, 
Dispensary.   
He'll find some Draucus still to read him over.  
After Natalis Comes your next darling Author is Lactantius Placidus. In page 36. we have had Lactantius, or (as you well observe) Lutatius Placidus; in pag. 38, 39 You have run on score with the same Lactantius Placidus for a considerable parcel of mistakes of the first size. Here n. IU. 
Supr. p. 93.  you are in with your Lactantius again, and n. IX you will even Account with him, making as many mistakes, and as foul ones upon Lactantius, as Lactantius had before made for you.  
V N. iv Lactantius Placidus, etc.  
W. Enjoy it. The other three you are beholden to your MS. for. For though I doubt not, but that Mr. Stanley had read all Suidas over, yet for Mr. Stanley's Vindicator I cannot make out the like Evidence. Lactantius Placidus is a Critic so stooping towards your height, that I am apt to believe you may have read him. And therefore this Number iv (though I think I could dispossess you of it) yet I am willing to let pass for your own.  
But here (as you cannot forbear him) you occasionally bring in another Remark upon the Dr. which should indeed have been referred to the Class of Transportations, supr. p. 78.  
V 
P. 82.  To that Book of Callimachus, entitled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that is, The foundation of Cities and Islands, and the change of their Names; I would also refer all those passages in Pliny, cited by Dr. Bentley, n. 392, 393, 394, 395, 397. in which there is an express mention of the change of the names of those places.  
W. In not one of these passages out of Pliny is there any such express mention. There is indeed express mention of the Names of several Places and People, and sometimes of several Names of the same places: but not of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Change of those Names. That which comes the nearest to your purpose, is n. 397. Eam (Samothracen) Callimachus antiquo nomine Dardaniam vocat. But to have answered your design, it should have been, antiquo nomine. (or rather antiquitùs) Dardaniam vocatam (fuisse) tradit. Express mention, you say, of the change of those Names. But, pray, Sir, what express mention of the change of the Names do you find in this Fragment, n. 393. inter Corcyram & Illyricum Melita; undè Catulos Melitaeos appellari Callimachus Auctor est. Here is, you say, express mention of the change of the Names. Were the Melitaei therefore formerly called Catuli, or the Catuli, Melitaei? For the one or the other of these you must mean. There were, Sir, of old a certain Race of Lap-dogs called Catuli Melitaei; and this name, saith Callimachus, was given them from the Island Melita; that is, from this Island Melita lying near Corcyra (Corfu:) not that other Island of the same name lying near Sicily, now called Malta. And this is all that Pliny means. But by one dash of your Pen are an whole Nation of Islanders metamorphosed into a breed of Lap-dogs. A man that was minded to deal less tenderly with you, than I am, would not have parted with this choice piece of Lap-dog Criticism for two or three pages together. But I cannot imagine you to be so wretchedly ignorant, as to have taken the Catuli Melitaei for a People. 
Mr. B. p. 45.  No, certainly, Sir, you are a greater Scholar than so. This was put down only to carry on the humour of contradicting Dr. Bentley. But as you have got nothing by it hitherto, let me advise you to give it over.  
V 
P. 83.  I am of opinion that the Fragment num. 399. may belong to Callimachus the Statuary.  
W. Here you are at it again; Dr. Bentley must be corrected. There can no other reason in the world be given for any man's being of that opinion, but because that Fragment relates to a Statue. Pliny tells us a story of a certain person, that had, during his life-time two Statues, erected to him, both of which Statues, though standing in places far distant the one from the other (the one in Italy, the other in Greece) were struck with Lightning on the same day. This, saith Pliny, Callimachus looked upon as next to a Prodigy. And might not Callimachus the Poet wonder at so strange an Accident as well as Callimachus the Statuary? But however this serves to expose the Dr. who (with Harduin) was so injudicious as to refer this passage to Callimachus the Poet.  
V Num. V A Quotation out of Diomedes Grammaticus.  
Num. VI The like out of Atil. Fortunatianus de Priapeio metro.  
W. The only Discovery with which you have in these two Numbers obliged the Learned World is, that as among the Romans, Propertius, Tibullus, and Gallus wrote in Elegiac Verse: So before them did Callimachus and Euphorion among the Greeks. And that Callimachus in his Epigrams had, as to the choice of his Metre, some Peculiarities of his own ('tis not said what) as had also Bacchilides, and some other Poets, theirs. And this is one of those Discoveries omitted by Dr. Bentley; 
P. 49.  the bringing of which to light, you are persuaded is no Disservice to the Learned World. Certainly so; Sir, no Disservice. Your Quotation of Atil. Fortunatianus is out of Putschius his Grammatici Veteres, p. 2676. In the Dr's Answer to your Honourable Patron, p. 227. I find him within three pages of you in the same Atil. Fortunatianus, sc. on p. 2679. de Saturnio versu. Which passage in the Dr. with the occasion of his producing it. (p. 226.) I recommend to the perusal of the inquisitive Reader. So lucky are you all along in your Memorandums, though I take notice of but few of them.  
V Num. VII. Atilius Fortunatianus, p. 2680. de Saturnio versu.  
W. Much to the same purpose as the two former, only with this difference, That as in them you did no Disservice to the Learned World, so in this you do no Service: this very passage being printed in Graevius' Callimachus, and placed by Spanheim, where it should be, amongst the Testimonia, p. 302.  
V Num. VIII. A Quotation out of Caecilius Minutinnus Apuleius from Caelius Rhodiginus.  
W. In the forementioned Salvagnius B●essius his Prolegomena, p. 16. which our Vindicator, without naming his Benefactor, hath confidently made his own. But those Prolegomena of Salvagnius Boessius Dr. Bentley hath read, 
Supr. p.  and therefore cannot but have seen this Quotation. 'Tis a known Story, and produced by the Dr. over and over, (p. 345.) and that from far more certain Authorities, than that unknown Caecil. Minutianus Apuleius, upon whom Salvagnius sets this mark; Qui nondum lucem vidit, unique Caelio Rhodigino ●otus fuit.  
V Num. IX. Lactantius Placidus.  
Your darling Author Lactantius Placidus. There was no occasion in the world for your exposing yourself here. In the first place you do not contradict Dr. Bentley. In the next, when you were only making a Supplement to Callimachus, you should have let those things alone which were already done to your hand. The passage here produced is printed with a large Commentary upon it, by Spanheim in his Volume of Learned Observations upon this Author, p. 571, 572. And a little Modesty might have taught you not to have meddled with a subject before exhausted by so masterly a Pen. But to do you Justice, I verily believe, you did not know of Mr. Spanheim's having said any thing to it.  
V 
P. 86.  Were I allowed to play the bold Critic, I would for Arcadoes read Argivi, (for Tydeus, the Father of Diomedes—.  
W. Bold Critic! Most properly spoken, and since 'tis an Epithet of your own choosing, may it be your Character. The Bold Critic. Such a number of gross Absurdities crowded into the compass of so few Lines (one short Parenthesis) I defy any man to show me in any Book in the whole world again. And they are all your own: not one of them here, as before in the case of Branchiades Apollo, borrowed from Lactantius Placidus. 
Supr. p. 92, 93.  In the first place, Sir, Spolium signifies the Spoils (as the Armour, and Badges of Honour) taken from off the Body of an Enemy slain in open fight; as in Virgil, Actoris Aurunci Spolium; and not the Armour worn by a man while living. So that according to your Correction of the Poet. This Diomedes the Son of Tydens must have been (as indeed afterward he was) a famous Warrior, must have performed all his Exploits, must have been slain in the Wars; and all this long before he was born; nay, he must, after he was slain, and before he was begotten, have danced in Armour at his Father's Marriage. For secondly, Sir, if you had took time to look into the Author upon whom you were commenting, you would have found that these words were timed at Tydeus his Marriage with the Mother of Diomedes. And thirdly, If you had looked into any of your Poetical Dictionaries, you would have found, that there were two Diomedes, that is, Diomedes the Thracian, slain by Hercules, and this Argian Diomedes the Son of Tydeus; and that 'twas the Thracian Diomedes, who was so famous for his Man-eating, Chimney-nosed Horses. 
Impius humano viscere paevit equos, Ovid.  And consequent from these Premises you will find; 
Et Diomedis equi spirantes naribus ignem, Lucret.  First, That your Argos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is nothing at all to the purpose. Secondly, That Euhippus was substantial Flesh and Blood, and not a mere Noun Adjective. And thirdly, From hence may the Reader take this Information, that a Book may have a great many Greek and Latin words in it, and bear a mighty show of Learning, though written by a Man that understands nothing of the matter he is writing upon; and withal, that some of the pages written against Dr. Bentley are of this kind.  
V Manuscript— p. 87. 
P. 87.   
W. Stuff!  
V Num. X. A Quotation out of Photius.  
W. A bare mention of the name of Callimathus with something of a cenfure passed upon him with several other Writers in a Lump.  
V Num. XI. A choice Epigram out of Natalis Comes.  
W. Ill have nothing to do with Natalis Comes.  
V Num. XII. An Epigram out of the Collection of the Epigrammata veterum with this Title.  
Callimachi Imagini inscriptum Jovis. Quaenam haec forma Dei? cur versa est? Fulgura lucis.  
Divinae non fert debilis haec acies, etc.  
Which Enigram (p. 49.) if I am not mistaken, the late Editors of Callimachus have not mentioned.  
W. You are mistaken, Sir, 'Tis in both the last Edition of Graevius', and in the Edition last before that of Dacier; in both of them inter Testimonia veterum. Oh shameful! Not so much as turned over the very first Leaves of the Book you were making your Comments upon!  
V N. XIII. A Citation out of Malela.  
W. Omitted by the Dr. (I confidently presume) for the same reason, as were those out of Natalis Comes.  
V The Learned Editor of that Historian for Etesiis reads Aetiis.  
W. The Learned Editor of that Historian faith not a word of the matter.  
V Perhaps it should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
W. An easy Correction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For there be two of the same Letters in both words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And besides what have the Etesian Winds to do with the Racing-Chariots? Did those Chariots go with Sails? vide loc. Malel. p. 221.  
V Callimachus wrote of Winds, and therefore perhaps the true reading is in the Text, and should be translated de Etesiis.  
W. What need therefore of such a forced Correction. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we know Callimachus wrote, but I never yet heard of any Book of his Entitled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
V And 'tis not altogether improbable, (but) that Suidas might mention his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if a small Correction be allowed, and instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. But this opinion wants the Countenance of a Manuscript.  
W. There was no manner of occasion for this Learning of yours in this place. You'll never meet with any such thing in a MS. Or if you do, I'll venture to tell you beforehand, that MS is faulty. He that hath the least Gust of the Greek Language will tell you, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot here be parted. But somewhat you must be a doing. A Critic without his Corrections, Editions, and MSS. is like a Beau without his Wig, vid. Mr. B. p. 146. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & Dr. B's Answ. p. 113.  
And here ends your Supplement, upon which let us now cast up accounts, and see how deeply the Learned World stands indebted to you.  
This Collection of yours, as you call it, 
P. 88  consists of XIII Capital Figures; of which Num. I, II. transcribed from Mr. Stanley's MS. are somewhat to the purpose, and will, 'tis likely, be inserted in the next Impression of Callimachus. III, VII, IX, XII, printed in the last Edition. IV, V, VI, X. a bare mention of the Name of Callimachus. The Epigram of XI. no more Callimachus' than your own. VIII, XIII. the substance of them both in the Dr's Collection over and over. But as for those indifferent names which you have tacked to them, Dr. Bentley scorned to make use of such Authorities. So that, Sir, not to flatter you, the service you have done to the Learned World by presenting it with this your Supplement is just none at all: or the very utmost you can pretend to, is the having transcribed from Mr. Stanley's MS. the two Quotations out of Suidas. But as for those useful and accurate Observations which you have added, as that of the Catuli Melitaei, and Diomedes' his Armour, they are purely your own. And if Mr. Graevius, or any one else shall think fit to insert them in the next Impression of Callimachus' Works, 'tis pity but that the world should be informed to whom it is obliged for them. 
P. 74.  In the mean time, I have not been wanting in my Endeavours to blazon your. Achievements, and make the Learned World take notice of them.  
I have now performed all that, as far as you are concerned in it, my Title page promises. For upon the former part of your Book I had once designed a separate consideration. But I am weary of my work, and, I fancy, both yourself and the Reader think it high time for me to have done with you. Yet since it might look somewhat suspiciously to take no manner of notice of it, I shall, with all the Brevity imaginable, bestow upon it a cursory Reflection or two.  
That former part of your Book contains in it a most grievous Accusation. Dr. Bentley's Injustice and Inhumanity to those Authors who have written before him. Upon which I cannot but in the first place observe to the Reader; that had one designed to have written a Panegyric upon the Dr. one could not have pitched upon a more proper Subject for it, than what this man makes choice of for matter of Reproach against him: All this Injustice and Inhumanity of the Dr. to those Authors who have written before him terminating in this point; That Dr. Bentley hath observed some mistakes that have dropped from the Pens of several Great Men, who have written before him, and corrected them: a service for which he hath received the public acknowledgement of persons altogether as considerable in the Commonwealth of Learning, as any of the Retainers to the Half-Moon Club. But if the Dr. doth (as indeed he pretty often doth) disagree from the opinions of those Great Men, who have written before him, it is, though sometimes with the assurance of a man that knows what he is speaking of, yet always, with a due respect and deference to the worth of the persons from whom he Dissents. But let us proceed to particulars.  
V Dr. Bentley calls Aemilius Portus, 
P. 7.  hominûm futilissimum, the greatest of Triflers, op ad fin. Mal. p. 51.  
W. Aemilius Portus was but a puny Critic, 
Vide quae de Aemilio Porto Pearsonus in Prolegom. ad Hierocl. Aemilius Portus, qui Suidam adeò infoeliciter transtulit, etc.  and to persons of his Character there is no Epithet oftener applied, than that of futilissimus. We have had it once before, supr p. 122.  
V. 
Ibid.  Nor can Gerard Vossius, and Johnsius escape being treated by him with the like Language.  
W. 'Tis a most notorious falsehood.  
V 
Ibid.  Who suffered themselves to be led into an Error through their Ignorance.  
W. In errorem inscii inciderant, D. B. ep. p. 51. The word inscii, here is to be translated unwarily, incogitantly, not ignorantly. And but that these great men were guilty of a strange Incogitancy as to the matter the Dr. was speaking of, is a thing which cannot be denied, vide locum. You must learn to construe a piece of Latin, before you writ another Book against Dr. Bentley.  
V 
Ibid.  The same most Learned Vossius he severely arraigns in another place of committing a great mistake without Consideration and Judgement.  
W. You misconstrue the Dr. again, and turn his words to a sense directly contrary to what they intent, Dr. B. ep. p. 83. non certo judicio, sed inconsideratè, preterque morem egisse videtur. The sense of the Dr's words is plainly this, That though Vossius had written the Name Malela without an s, yet 'twas not his certum judicium, not his own Judgement, or his own standing opinion, that it ought always to be so written; for that his own practice contradicted: but he wrote it so, inconsideratè, praeterque morem, inaccurately, incuriously, or (if you will have it so) inconsiderately; praeterque morem, and contrary to his usual practice. For the whole stress of the Dr's argument is, that 'twas not Vossius' his standing opinion, that the name Malela ought to be written without an s. and consequently, that his writing it so, could not be through ignorance, or mistake, or for want of judgement; but purely either through inadvertency, or rather with a contented unexactness in compliance with some other Authors who had usued that way of writing it. So that you here charge the Dr. with charging Vossius with want of judgement, when the Dr. is arguing directly the contrary, and discharging him from that suspicion. Here's Justice and Judgement joined together!  
V 
P. 8.  He speaks of the most Learned Man of the later Greeks, Leo Allatius, as if he were [a Brute] not so much a Man, as a composition of Ill-nature and Envy.  
W. The flourish of [a Brute] is of your own making. The Dr. allows him the Title of eruditissimus, ep. p. 50. As for the other part of his character, ep. p. 51. See how, after Bochart, the Learned Dr. Th. Smith speaks of Leo Allatius in his Narratio de vitâ, etc. Cyrilli Lucarii; as in many other places, so particularly, p. 113. Leo Allatius— suspectae fidei testis, & ad convitiandum propensissimus. An unlucky Quality, Sir, especially where there's no good one (which was not Allatius' case) to counterbalance for it.  
V He endeavours to prove. Erasmus, 
Ibid.  Scaliger, and Grotius, men of no Palate in matters of Learning; or Fools.  
W. A most notorious falsehood.  
V And accuses them of a most foul error.  
W. But 'tis a most foul error in you to say so. He accuses not them of a most foul error, but the Copies of Plutarch of a very faulty Lection, which he wonders indeed none of those great Men should have observed. Here follows your own Correction of the Dr's Correction. 'Tis like all the other things that are your own. You don't understand what the Dr's at, Sir, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Dr's Criticism runs more upon the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 than the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And therefore your Marginal Learning is (like every thing else you writ) nothing to the purpose.  
V 
P. 9  He allows not Florus Christianus, Scaliger, or any other of the Moderns to have understood the true measures of an Anapaestick Verse.  
W. Of which presumption Mr. Boil long before yourself had accused the Dr. and in a much livelier manner; and before your Book came out had received the Dr's answer to it. Mr. B. p. 159. Dr. B's Answer, p. 132. & seqq. Is not the republishing boffled Objections without taking a Syllable notice of the Answer which had been before given to them, a piece of Impertinence?  
V 
P. 10.  He speaks very coursely of Lilius Gyraldus, and Monsieur Menage.  
W. 'Tis false. He never speaks of them otherwise than very respectfully.  
V 
Ibid.  He takes occasion frequently to quarrel with, and correct Isaac Casaubon.  
W. That he quarrels with Isaac Casaubon is falsely spoken. 'Tis true, Dr. Bentley hath observed that great Man to have made (as the greatest of men have done) some mistakes; and some of them he takes occasion to correct; but this is not quarrelling with him. Dr. Bentley admires Isaac Casaubon, and never speaks of him out in terms of respect.  
V He censures the Commentators upon Pliny. 
Ibid.   
W. The worst you can make of his censure upon the Commentators upon Pliny is, that they were Learned Men, but not omniscient. He takes notice of a particular passage in that Author of which the Commentators had failed to give a right Explication, but saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, No man seethe all things. A severe Censure!  
V He condemns Meursius of Ignorance. 
Ibid.   
W. 'Tis false. The Dr. hath indeed, p. 40. these words concerning Meursius, Horum versuum ignoratione totâ viâ erravit Joannes Meursius. The meaning of which is this: Julius Pollux, l. 7. c. 33. produces upon a certain occasion the Authority of that Ancient Comic Poet Eubulus, and gives it in Eubulus his own words. That Quotation being written in jambic Verse (a sort of Metre next to Prose) and having nothing in it of a Poetical Air (as containing only a Catalogue of Names) and standing in Pollux continued with the rest of the Test; Meursius mistakes it for the words of Pollux himself, and not of the Author whose name Pollux citys to it: and horum versuum ignoratione, mistaking this Quotation for Prose, whereas indeed it was Verse; and taking it for the words of Pollux, whereas they were indeed Eubulus'; upon this mistake, totâ viâ erravit, he was quite out in ●his Explication of that passage. But that, Sir, was a mistake (as any one that shall consult the place will see) more easily committed than corrected. And Dr. Bentley's taking notice of it was no condemning Meursius of Ignorance. Show me where in any of his writings, Dr. Bentley calls Meursius an ignorant Man, and I'll retract every word I have spoken on his behalf. Sir, I must tell you again, that before you writ any more Critical Books, you must understand Latin a little better, and learn to translate properly.  
V 
ibid.  He condemns Quintilian too: As if Quintilian did not know the true reading of a word in Cicero, as well as Dr. Bentley. But I thought Quintilian a creditable Authority.  
W. Credible, Sir, you mean. But I have mended your Form for you upon this Article. What you speak of is this passage in Tully, De inventione, hujus constitutionis Hermagor as inventor esse existimatur. And Ibid. Quòd si magnam in his Hermagor as habuisset facultatem. In both these places Quintilian reads it Hermagora. I dare say, the ingenious Mr. boil, who, 'tis plain, by his Style, hath a Musical Ear; after all which (rather than lose a flourish) he hath said upon the matter, is on the Dr's side against Quintilian. With the Dr. stand all the MSS. and so would any man that hath aures non Asininas. But I believe, as to this affair, you are sincere, and do think the Dr. too presumptuous.  
V. Nay, the Dr. saith, that though Tully himself should affirm he had written so; yet the Dr. would not believe Tully himself. No, Dr. Bentley would not submit to Tully himself. Tully the Master of Elcquence and Standard of good Language.  
W. 'Tis true the Dr. doth say, (p. 80.) Ego verò Ciceronem ità scripsisse ne ipsi quidem Cicernoi affirmanti crediderim. Bold words, I confess. But Sir, you must allow the Dr. to rhetoricate now and then. I have known an whole Book, as large as yours and mine put together, made up of nothing but Rhetorications; and yet it took very well and turned to better account to the Bookseller, than the best that ever he printed.  
V He calls Malela a Mule  
W. Nay the Dr. is very rude to Malela, 
P. 11. V D. D. H. Hodii, Prolegom. in Malel.  that's the truth on't. Make a Collection, Sir, of the Dr's Compliments upon his Author Malela, and print them by way of a second Appendix to the next Edition of your Book. You'll expose him most terribly. Amabo te, Syrisce; serione haec an joco? Quae te enim larvae atque intemperiae agitabant cum haec scriberes? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; Muli sunt ista, non hominis— Os hominis! Oh hominis stuporem! ab ist â pecude, etc. These are the Dr's Civilities to the Author of the foregoing Papers. But as for your own Civilities, Sir, in the following part of the same page (11.) I leave them to be fairly divided between yourself and your Friends.  
V He indites and arraigns the Reverend Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Theodoret, and Athenagoras of Forgery.  
W. 'Tis a most notorious falsehood.  
V He flies higher and brings the Rational and Learned S. Paul under his Pounces. 
P. 17.   
W. Very clumsily expressed, Sir. Dr. Bentley is not the first man that hath offered at a Conjectural Emendation of the Text of the New Testament. I hope, Sir, though you talk so much of Scripture, Fathers, and Councils; yet you are no Clergyman. I should be very sorry to hear, that a man who takes such delight in reviling his Betters belongs to the Gown.  
V 
P. 23.  He falls foul upon his most beloved Friend Dr. Hody, exposing his Exposition of the Orphic Ericapaeus with an air peculiar to himself.  
W. The Reverend and Learned Dr. Hody is Dr. Bentley's most beloved Friend. Amicissimus noster atque eruditissimus HODIUS are the Dr's own words, ep. p. 1. to which he adds, p. 93. cui multum olim debebit historia Ecclesiastica.  
But what a strange thing is this! That a man should set up for a Critic and Censor of other men's works, without having ever read so much as the very Title page of the Book upon which he is making his Reflections. Sir, if you had but read so much as the Title-page to Malela's Chronology (as 'tis very plain Latin, I believe you could have construed it) you would have found, that Dr. Hody was no more concerned in this Exposition of the Orphic Ericapaeus than yourself. The Title-page of that Book bears, JO ANNIS ANTIOCHENI, etc. cum interpret. & Notis EDM. CHILMEAD●— Praemittitur dissertatio de Authore per HUMFREDUM HODIUM. Dr. Hody, you see, Sir, was neither the Interpreter nor Commentator upon that Book, but only the Editor, and Writer of the Dissertation concerning the author. And yet this same most horrible Blunder you have over again, p 89. Or if you had turned to the place itself, that you are speaking of, Malel. Chronogr. p. 90. you would have found, that this Exposition, as it was not Dr. Hody's, so neither was it Mr. Chilmead's, but Mr. I. Gregory's, taken out of his Miscellany Tracts published in English 4 to. p. 147. Here's a Critic for you, as well read in what be has not seen, as in what he has.  
V Despising the Author as well as the Criticism with an, it is not my province to trample on what lies prostrate at my feet.  
W. But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is, mortuis insilire, Sir. To trample on those that lie prostrate, as dead men in their Graves, not as vanquished Enemies at the feet of the Conqueror. You must learn to construe Greek and Latin, Sir, before you writ any more Books in Critic. Yet even did this man think himself good enough to undertake Dr. Bentley.  
Observe it, Reader, and consider the consequence: when once Banter hath broke in upon a man's Reputation, how securely Ignorance will follow its Leader.  
I have done with you, Sir. And I think there is not one single Article advanced against the Dr. throughout your whole Book, of which I have not given a fair account. Or if some little things may have escaped me, I promise you, to give them, upon demand, the regard they shall deserve. As for what I have written, some few little odd Exceptions you may make to here and there a particular passage: I saw them, and I passed them over; I was willing to leave you here and there a Cavilling Gap, and 'twere but on purpose to draw you on, and lay before you the Temptation of exposing yourself to fresh Disgraces. But take my advice, Sir, Fas est & ab hoste doceri: 
P. 3.  Return your Sword into its Scabbard, and let's hear no more of you. You are not a person made for the humbling of Dr. Bentley. You have not the way of doing these things; The Style, the Wit, and the Delicate Turn: nothing in you but blunt Confidence. Your Friends (if you have any that will deal freely with you) will tell you the same.  
One word to the Postscript, and I have done. That that Postscript is not of your own writing, I have before told you, I am certain. My reason for it is, because 'tis written in English, in a Style and Language that a man may understand it. Be the Author of it who he will; all that I shall say to him is this; That since he hath so officiously made all the Malice and Ignorance of your Book his own: all that is said to you let him take to himself.  
I had designed in imitation of your Honourable Patron's charitable Instructions to Dr. Bentley, to have concluded my Address to you also with two or three Articles of Advice. But I am afraid 'twould be lost Labour. And besides, several hints of this Nature you will find loosely scattered abroad in the foregoing Papers, which you may easily draw together, and make what use of them you please. One thing let me most seriously and importunately beg of you, which is this; If you are resolved still to go on writing in this kind, let the Bible alone. For in good earnest, 'tis a most scandalous thing, to see a man so gravely quoting Texts of Scripture, when he is upon so unchristian a work as is that of bearing false Witness against his Neighbour. I am,    
SIR, Your Unknown, etc.   

APPENDIX.  
TO the Reader whose Curiosity shall lead him to collate the MS. at the Half-Moon with the Dr's printed Collection, I have yet a farther Request to make, which is this; That he would at the same time collate the Countenance of the Bookseller there with his Appendix. This Appendix of Mr. Bennets, I hear, is looked upon as an unanswerable piece, and such as sticks harder upon the Dr. than any thing that hath yet been printed against him. As for my part, I have a clear different notion of it, and think that Mr. Bennet could not have done the Dr. a greater piece of service than he hath by writing this Appendix, wherein he hath so fairly driven the matter to an head, and let such light into the cause, that it can be no longer a Dispute, where the Quarrel began, and what was that unsufferable affront which rendered the Dr. an Enemy unfit to receive Quarter. As it principally relates to some private Transactions between the Dr. and himself, it cannot be expected that I should account for every Particular. I shall only select out of it some of the more remarkable passages, and raise my Queries upon them.  
Mr. Bennets Appendix, p. 99 I applied [myself to the Dr. for the use of the MS. not as his Majesty's Library-Keeper, but] as a Friend very conversant in these things, who lived not far from the Royal Library, and could procure the MS. for me: n. b. as a Friend.  
Ibid. p. 102. The Dr. called in every now and then at my Shop, for we were then in good term; together, and he was pleased to consult me sometimes about Matters in my way.  
Hereupon let the Collator look Mr. Bennet full in the face, and ask him a civil Question or two.  
Query. And were not those disobliging Expressions relating to Mr. boil and the work he was upon, uttered by Dr. Bentley during the time that the Dr. and yourself, Mr. Bennet, were very good Friends together, and while the Dr. was so familiar and confiding with you, as to consult you sometimes about Matters in your way? And particularly was it not within this Period of time that the Dr. threw out that capitally great & caetera Reflection which you speak of, pag. 131? And is it not enough to make a man afraid, Mr. Bennet, of calling in at the Sign of the Half-Moon? and ought not a man to have a care how he moves his Lips there? least his words should be catched up as they drop from his Mouth, and afterwards, it may be, affidavited against him, put into print, and made part of a Lampoon upon him. These are dangerous Considerations, Mr. Bennet, and a sufficient caution to a man, how he enters into too near a familiarity with the Bookseller at the Half-Moon. For though you and I may stand at present in good terms with each other, yet who knows, who and who may be together a Twelvemonth hence?  
Upon this I expect Mr. Bennet should reply to this purpose.  
Mr. Bennet. What a malicious Suggestion is here? Why have I not told you already in print, that I did all I could to avoid the doing what you charge me with? And Sincerely, Sir, and I protest, and I solemnly declare, and all that I say is true to a Title: and I hope you'll believe me, Sir, sooner than you will Dr. Bentley; I all along concealed from Mr. 
P. 107.  boil the many slight and injurious things Dr. Bentley threw out now and then both of him and the work he was about. And sincerely, Sir, 
P. 113.  I sincerely endeavoured as much and as long as I was able to have prevented the breach. For though this Controversy hath turned to good account to me: yet I wish with all my heart I could have kept clear of it myself. For in the way of my business, you know, 
P. 106.  it had been more to my advantage to have preserved the good will of both of them.  
Collator. But of the two, you were like to be less a loser by losing the Dr. than by losing Mr. boil. For 'tis well known, Mr. boil is not in this affair a single man, and had he gone to another Shop, he'd have carried off an whole shoal along with him.  
Mr. B. You mistake me, Sir, I am above those things.  
Coll. Why did you mention them then?  
Mr. B. But how could I help it? Mr. boil calls me to account over and over, and examines me so strictly, 
Mr. 〈◊〉  there was no avoiding telling the world all I knew. For, Sir, Mr. boil's whole Book, in a manner, turns upon mine and Dr. King's Depositions. For had not we made out the Affront for him, how would he have been able to have made out his Book?  
Coll. Very true. But methinks your Depositions lean a little on one side.  
Mr. B. Sincerely, Sir, and I protest, all that I have said, is punctually true, true to a Title, Sir. If Dr. Bentley tells stories of me, God forgive him for't. But as for what I have deposed; Sir, I have set my hand to it, and am ready (if duly required) to take my Oath upon it.  
Coll. All these Asseverations might have been spared, and the cause have fared never the worse. But you have given two accounts, Mr. Bennet: which of those two accounts is true to a Tittle? The first account given in Mr. boil's Book, or the second account of your own Appendix.  
Mr. B. Both of them, Sir; true to a Tittle both of them. And I am ready to take my oath upon it. Sincerely, Sir, I am: I solemnly affirm.  
Coll. But Mr. Bennet, he that takes upon him to speak as a sworn Witness ought to declare the whole Truth, as well as nothing but the Truth. In such cases purposely to conceal any considerable circumstance is next of kin to the inventing of one; since the Truth may be on both sides equally disguised. And a wilful disguising of the Truth, whether it be by Substraction or Addition, with the Solemnity of an Oath, or of an Asseveration equivalent to an Oath, deserves an harder name than I will give it. And so Mr. Bennet, let's compare a little your first account with your second.  
Mr. B. They are both of them punctually true, true to a Tittle. Coll. Truth is one; and I am sure these are two.  
Mr Bennets first account in Mr. boil's Book, p. 6. I was employed by the Honourable Mr. boil (and by him only) to borrow the MS. of Phalaris from Dr. Bentley. After about nine Months. solicitation it was delivered into my Custody.  
Coll. Was Dr. Bentley Library-Keeper, Mr. Bennet, during this nine months' time that you were soliciting for the MS?  
Mr. B. I crave your pardon for that, Sir: you don't find me saying any such thing.  
Coll. Ay, but Mr. Bennet, to deal plainly with you, here were you guilty of a very fraudulent Concealment. No honest man, or one that had been minded to do Justice, would have expressed himself to loosely when he was speaking as upon Oath. This was a very gross Omission, Mr. Bennet, and 'tis to be seared, a wilful one. The Dr's being Library-Keeper, or not Library-Keeper during that nine months' time, is so material a circumtance, that it gives a clear different cast to the whole matter of fact, and makes all Mr. boil's Book run upon a very foul mistake: and 'tis scarce to be imagined, that the Omission of a circumstance upon which so much depended, and which expressed would have spoiled all Mr. boil's Book, was purely an Oversight.  
Mr. B. This business of the nine months' Solicitation is fairly stated in my Appendix.  
Coll. Ay, Mr. Bennet. But that was not till Dr. Bentley had first stated it for you, and stated it upon such Authorities there was no contesting. Otherwise the Town might still have been, by the help of your faithful relation, with Mr. boil's Paraphrase upon it, no less than eight Months in nine out in their reckoning. But let's see how Mr. Boil manages your first account, and what Explication he gives of it.  
Mr. B. p 2. About four or five years ago, the worthy Dean of Christ-Church, Dr. Aldrich, desired me to undertake an Edition of Phalaris. In order to it a Manuscript in the King's Library was to be consulted. I sent to Mr. Bennet, my Bookseller in London to get the Manuscript, and desired him to apply himself to Dr. Bentley in my name for the use of it, not doubting in the least a ready compliance with such a Request from one of his Station and Order. After an expectation of many Months, Mr. Bennet sends me at last a Collation of part of the MS. with this account, that he had with a great difficulty, and after long delays, got the MS. into his hand. And again, p. 19 The Reader is desired to take notice, that there was about nine months' Solicitation used to procure it; a longer time than— the Ceremony of his Inauguration to his Library-Keeper's place could require.  
Sparkling Lines! in which, if there be any design beyond Phrase, it must be this, to intimate to the Reader, that the Dr. was, for at least, a great part of that nine months' time Library-Keeper, and had the MS. in his custody. Or if we must not look for meaning here, where he is only pouring out words, yet in the former passage he seems to speak plain Sense, and in the more simple and historical Style.  
Query Therefore; what Station can Mr. Boil there intent? must it not be that of Library-Keeper to his Majesty? Nay, is not this made the aggravating circumstance of the whole matter of fact, that one in the Dr's Station should refuse so common a favour, 
Mr. B p. 9  (such Mr. bail esteems the use of the King's MSS.) to a person of his Quality. That a Library-Keeper should be no more obliging to a Gentleman Scholar. 
Id p 11, 17. Id. p. 15, 267, conf. cum 20, 40, 105, & p. 220. etc. passim.  That the Library at St. James 's should be, next to that at Fez, (a strange leap of Thought the most inaccessible in the world; that there should be no approaching the King's Library without a Fee; that the King of England's Library should have such a Dunce for its Keeper, so poor a Scholar, and so little knowing how to behave himself to a Gentleman, that he ought to be turned out of his place. But I need not tell any one who hath but once cast his Eyes upon Mr. boil's Book, how plentiful he is of his Civilities to the Library-Keeper at St. James'. So I am sure the Town took it, that the whole ground of the Quarrel between Dr. Bentley and Mr. boil lay in the Dr's refusing to a person of Mr. boil's Quality the use of a Book out of the Library of which he was Keeper, and consequently the proper person to whom such an Application was to be made. This false representation of the matter of fact was necessary in order to the use Mr. boil had to make of it, which was to justify the peculiar Liberties it was resolved that young Gentleman should take with one of his Majesty's Servants. This mistake Mr. Bennets first account favours, and upon that first account of Mr. Bennet doth Mr. boil build his whole Book. The disobliging delays, and great difficulties Dr. Bentley put them to in procuring the MS. and when at last they had it, the little time he let it lie in their hands. All which being a partial, disguised, and distorted relation of the matter of fact, and so contrived on purpose to misled the Reader, he that shall publicly attest it, by giving it under his hand in print, and make an offer of affirming it upon Oath for a faithful relation, 
Append. p. 93.  deserves as coarse a Compliment as the Dr. gave him.  
But let us proceed to Mr. Bennets second account, and see how he qualifies the matter there.  
Mr. Bennets Appendix, p. 99 There was not a single word in my relation, that doth in the least imply me to have thought the Dr. Library-Keeper the whole time I asked him for the MS. I only applied to him as a Friend, very conversant in these things, who lived not far from the Royal Library, had an interest there, and could have procured the MS. for me.  
Idem, p. 103. I never went to Dr. Bentley upon the Errand of borrowing the MS. I only spoke to him about it sometimes as he stopped at my Shop, or passed by it. Though I asked him so often (twenty times at least) that I might well say I solicited for it.  
Idem, p. 109. I admit so far of the Dr's account, that the MS. was delivered, used, and returned within a Month (or rather five weeks) after it was in his Custody. But I applied to him seven or eight Months before he was Library-Keeper.  
Idem, p. 110. He had interest enough to have procured it me, etc.  
Idem. p. 111. I do not say that the Dr. could have LENT me the Book much sooner than he did. But that he could have GOT the Book to 〈…〉 be lent to me: or at least, that so he pretended: and that be did so I most sincerely affirm.  
Upon this first and second account of Mr. Bennets, the Collator might tease him with a world of troublesome questions. As Coll. Had you orders, Mr. Bennet, from Mr. boil to procure the MS. for him nine Months before you got it into your hands? Mr. B. At lest Coll. And he directed you to Dr. Bentley for it, and to make use of his name to the Dr. for it? Mr. B. Yes. Coll. Nine Months before you obtained it? Mr. B. Yes. Coll. This was necessary to put a fair gloss upon the matter, but it looks somewhat suspicious. The Dr. was not Library-Keeper nine Months before you had it? Mr. B. No. Coll. Or in prospect of being Library-Keeper? Mr. B. That he might be For there was a Rumour of his standing fair for that Office some considerable time before he actually entered upon it. Coll. What nine Months before? Mr. B. Perhaps. Coll Scarce so, Mr. Bennet. For I am apt to believe, that for some part of those nine Months, Mr. Justel, the Dr's Predecessor in that Office, might be living. And Mr. boil being a perfect Stranger to the Dr. it doth not look very probable, that he should send you to Dr. Bentley in his name, for a MS. out of the Royal Library, when the Dr. neither was Library-Keeper, nor at that time so much as in prospect of being so. I am rather inclined to believe, that upon Recollection you would find, that Mr. Boil for some of the former of those nine Months, only gave you orders in general to procure him the MS. and being so long delayed, in casting up the accounts draws the whole into one Sum, and, to avoid Fractions, throws it all upon the Dr. Recollect your Thoughts, Mr. Bennet, and judge of the probability of the thing. But again, Mr. Bennet. Did Mr. Boil ever write any thing himself to Dr. Bentley about the MS? Mr. B. Not that I know of. Coll Why then Mr. boil was not affronted by the Dr. to near that degree he would make the world believe. How can he make such a stir about being refused a favour which he never condescended to ask? Mr. B. But he employed me to ask it for him: and that's the same thing. Coll. No, Mr. Bennet, not altogether the same thing. But to let that pass. How long was the Dr. actually Library-Keeper and in possession of the Key, before you had the MS? Mr. B. Not long actually Library-Keeper. Coll. But how long? Mr. B. A Fortnight, or three Weeks, it may be, or thereabouts. Coll. What a fall is here, Mr. Bennet? This nine months' delay, I find, is sunk into a Fortnight or three Weeks: Is this your faithful Relation? Mr. B. But he lived at that end o'th' Town, and he had interest enough there to have procured it for me, if he had been so minded. Coll. But suppose the Dr. did not think himself obliged, Mr. Bennet, to runs on your Errands? Mr. B. My Errands? 'twas Mr. boil's Errands. Coll. My. boil never wrote a word to him about it. Mr. B. But when I spoke to him of it, he promised that he would help me to it, 
p. 100, 111.  and that I sincerely affirm. Coll. That is, he would help you to it, when it should come to be in his own power to help you to it. And so he did. For no sooner was he actually possessed of his place, than that he delivered it to you. Did he promise to run about from one to another to BORROW it for you? But how long was it after he was actually in possession of his Office e'er you had the MS? Mr. B. About a Fortnight or three Weeks, I tell you; or it may be, somewhat more. Coll. But how long do ye think at most? Mr. B. Why, it may be, a Month. See what I have written, p. 105, 106. Coll. I have read those pages you refer to, and considered them. There's nothing there but wild and groundless Supposition, all of your own making. And as for every word you have said there, I am as much at liberty to suppose the direct contrary to what you suppose. And how then would you help yourself? And therefore passing over that for a Nothing, let me ask you, How many times were you with the Dr. about it after he was Library-Keeper? Mr. B. With him about it? I was never with him about i● at all, either before or after. I only spoke to him of it, as I met him now and then by chance, 
P. 103.  There was no need of my taking journeys to him, 'twas but just giving him a word or two, now and then, as he stepped into my Shop or passed by it. There was nothing at all of trouble in it. Coll. So us in your second account indeed, but in your first account which you sent to Mr. boil to Oxford, 'twas not without great difficulty, that after long delays, at last you got it into your hands. Mr. B. Why, I asked him for't so often, twenty times at least. Coll. But without ever stepping twenty Inches out of your way for it. A great difficulty! And yet both your accounts are true to a Tittle. Well! but after he was Library-Keeper you soon had it. Mr. B. But not what he Dr. saith, as soon as he was Library-Keeper. There I think I have caught the Dr. But see the whole matter in my Appendix itself, p. 104, 105. Coll. But to shorten the matter, tell it yourself by word of Mouth. Mr. B. Why then I say I have caught the Dr. in a falsehood, Sir, and can prove it upon him out of his own Mouth. Coll. That's a Compliment very familiar with you. But how? Mr. B. Why, he saith, that as soon as it was in his power he gave it me. But it was not till three Weeks after, or, it may be, more. And is that as soon as? Coll. Why not truly. In strictness of Speech, he should as soon as ever he had received the Key, immediately, forthwith, the very same Minute have run into the Library, Snatched up the MS. clapped it in his Pocket, and without staying so much as to comb his Periwig, have posted away with it to the Half-Moon. And then he might have said as soon as. Mr. B. Do you banter me? It may cost you dear. I have them that can banter with you for your ears, in Verse and Prose. Coll. But how long was it after he had it in his power e'er you received it? Mr. B. Why three Weeks, I tell you, or, it may be, more. And is that, as soon as? Coll. But how did you come by it at last? Mr. B. Why I met him in the Street, I renewed my Request to him about the MS. He told me I should have it, bade me send my Apprentice to him, I sent him, and he delivered it. Coll. And so you had it? Mr. B. And so I had it. But not as soon as— There the Dr's Memory failed him. Coll. But had you seen the Dr. after he was Library-Keeper any time before this time that you asked him for the MS and had it? Mr. B. I had asked him for it twenty times before. Coll. What, after he was Library-Keeper? Had you so much as once seen him, or spoke to him, or sent to him about it, after he was Library-Keeper, before this time that you asked for it, and had it? Mr. B. Not after he was Library Keeper, but I know not how many times before. Coll. That is before it was in his power to lend it you. But after it was in his power you no sooner asked than received. Mr. B. But he might have procured it for me before. Coll. And that's all you have to say for yourself. There's not a word of this procuring it for you in your first account. A poor come-off, Mr. Bennet. Mr. B. But how will you reconcile the Dr. with himself? In one place he saith, As soon as it was in my power, I went voluntarily and offered it him: in another place; Mr. Bennet meeting me again renewed the former Request, and I readily granted it; and in another place, that he ordered me to send my Apprentice to his Lodgings for it. These are Inconsistencies which Dr. Bentley may perhaps reconcile, but I dare say, no body else can. Coll. You have learned the confident Turn, I see. But how, where, what are these Inconsistencies? Mr. B. How could the Dr. voluntarily come and offer it me, and yet not grant it, till meeting him again I renewed my Request to him? Coll. In the first place, Mr. Bennet, I must observe to you, that this little variation of circumstance in the Dr's relating the matter is very inconsiderable, and such as doth not affect the main of the cause; And therefore not worth the while of having a Lie made for it. And, Mr. Bennet, after all the pains that you and your Friends have been at to prove the Dr. a Liar in print, you must still give me leave to believe of the Dr. what you desire the Reader to believe of yourself, 
P. 120.  that he is not a man, who loves to tell Lies for no manner of purpose. For whether the Dr. (after his being actually Library-Keeper) first spoke to you of the Manuscript, or you first spoke to the Dr. the case remains still the same, that, after he was Library-Keeper, you no sooner asked for it than you had it. But secondly, I see not that Inconsistency in the Dr's relation upon which you make such a Flourish. For let me but suppose what I believe to be in fact true, that this meeting was the first Interview the Dr. and you had after his being possessed of the Keys: then, Mr. Bennet, there is nothing more natural on both sides, than either for you to have renewed your Request to the Dr. about the MS. or for the Dr. to have made the offer without your renewing it. So that the whole matter lies upon the chance of who should speak first. Let me feign a little Dialogism between yourself and the Dr. upon this occasion. Meeting him therefore by chance in the Streets (as Fleetstreet suppose) you make a stop, and thus accost him.  
Mr. Bennet. Sir, your humble Servant. Mr. boil hath wrote to me again about the MS. he gins to grow impatient.  
Dr. Bentley. That's the business I were coming to you about, Mr. Bennet: I have now at last got the Key of the Library. Send but your Apprentice to my Lodgings for it, 'tis at your service.  
Or let us turn it a little otherwise.  
Dr. Bentley. Oh, Mr. Bennet, I am glad to meet you. I were just a coming to you. Well, I have got the Key into my hands at last, and now if you'll send to my Lodgings for it, the MS. is at your Service.  
Mr, Bennet. I am glad of that, Sir. I were just a going to have put you in mind of it. We have been waiting for it a long time. Mr. boil gins to be impatient.  
Dr. Bentley. I could not lend it before I had it to lend. As soon as it is in my keeping, you see, 'tis ready for you. And pray let the Gentlemen know as much.  
I confess this is a feigned Dialogue; but, I think there is nothing strained or unnatural in it, and, though I go upon pure dint of Conjecture; yet I fancy it comes as near to the truth of the fact as any thing you have written, Mr. Bennet. Upon such an occasion it is scarce possible but that both you should speak to the Dr. and the Dr. to you about a business which had been so long depending: and much after the manner I have represented it. And take it which way you will, whether the Dr. first spoke to you, or you first spoke to the Dr. the matter comes much to the same; and the Dr. might justly enough at one time say, that he voluntarily offered it to you; and at another time, that you renewed your Request to him about it. For both of them may be literally true. Mr. B. Yes, truly; if you'll put words into my Mouth for me, you may make what you please of me. Coll. Not worse of you than you have made of yourself, Mr. Bennet, by printing such an Appendix to such a Book. Let a By-stander judge whether there be any thing unnatural in the matter, as I have represented it, Mr. B. But how can you bring him off as to th'other point. I went voluntarily to him, saith the Dr. and offered it him. And yet in another place, I bade him send his Apprentice to me, and he should have it. How could he bring it me himself, and yet bid me send my Apprentice for it? Coll. Bring it you himself? Mr. B. Yes, bring it me himself, for that his words were evidently designed to imply, Coll. What words? Mr. B. These words, I went voluntarily, and offered it to him. Coll. Do those words evidently imply, that he brought it to you himself? Mr. B. Yes, marry, do they. Coll. Not at all, Mr. Bennet. Mr. B. But I say they do though. Coll. But I say they do not though. What do these words, I went voluntarily, and offered it to him, necessarily imply, that he put it up in his Pocket, and delivered it to you with his own hands? Mr. B. I say, that he designed the Reader should understand it so. Coll. But, I say, he designed no such thing. For, pray Sir, what did he design in these words; He sent his Apprentice to the Library for it by my Appointment. Mr. B. The meaning of those words is plain enough. Coll. And these words, coming from the same mouth, make the meaning of the other words plain beyond the possibility of a Misconstruction. I voluntarily went and offered it to him. That is, I voluntarily went and told him, that now the MS was in my keeping Mr. boil might command the use of it, and, Mr. Bennet, if you'll send your Apprentice to the Library for it, you shall have it. In all this, I defy any Mortal to find out any Inconsistency or Contradiction. Is there? Syllable here, that implies the Dr. to have brought it to the Half-Moon himself? Mr. B. I say, the Dr. evidently designed them to imply so. Coll. I say, that's a Lie, Mr Bennet. Accept of some of your own Civilities. You and your Friends together have given the Dr. the Lie in Print, and printed Lies upon the Dr. over and over. Accept of some of your own Civilities. You may have more of them in time, if you go on. Mr. B. These are gross words and might tempt me (&c p. 109.) but that 'tis in my own Shop Coll. True words, Mr. Bennet.  
Come, come, Mr. Bennet, after all your Shuffle, and double telling your Stories, this business of the nine months' Solicitation, the great difficulty, the disobliging Delays, the rude, uncivil, unmannerly Library-Keeper at St. James' is foul play all over, and direct Misrepresentation. And all Mr. boil's Book, and all the noise it hath made in the word, runs upon this foul account of yours. And that I could out of your own words more palpably confute and confound you than hither to I have done; put it upon the Trial and I'll convince you: for (to speak like a Fool) he that draws his Sword in this cause, throws away the Scabbard. 
Vindic. p. 31.  What is said already is enough to satisfy an impartial Reader. And as for them, who having once fallen in with a false Cry, are resolved to persist in it; let 'em go on: I can't think it worth the while to waste more Paper in stopping their mouths. The case is plain; the Dr. accommodated Mr. boil with the use of the MS. as soon as 'twas in his power to lend it, and chose rather to trespass upon the duty of his place, 
Vid Dr. B's Pref. p. 23.  than to be guilty of any thing that might seem want of Respect to a person of that Honourable Name.  
This Story of the MS. is all in all in Mr. boil's Book, and therefore I could not balk the opportunity of considering it somewhat particularly, though I have passed by many Arguments, which Mr. Bennets own words afford against himself; and particularly as to his careless management of Mr. boil's Affairs, and his unjust charging the Consequences of his own Negligence upon Dr. Bentley. The sum of the whole is this; that the Dr. lent them the SM. as soon as it was in his power to lend it; or if they will not admit of that, as soon as; then, that the only neglect of the Dr. was, that he did not, strictly and literally speaking, as soon as ever he had gotten the Key of the Library into his keeping, presently, the first thing he did, put the Book into his Pocket, and run to the Half-Moon with it. For after he was Library-Keeper, as soon as they asked for it, they had it. And before that, the only Omission of the Dr. was, that he did not upon Mr. Bennets and no bodies else speaking to him of the MS (and that only now and then by the buy, as he met him by chance) employ his Interest at th'other end o'th' Town to borrow it for him: that is, That Dr. Bentley was not more diligent in subsolliciting for Mr. Bennet, than Mr. Bennet was, in soliciting for Mr. boil. And if Mr. Bennet cannot out of both his faithful Relations, his first faithful Relation, and his second faithful Relation, make any thing more of the matter than this: he must even to work again, once more expose himself in print, and fall to clubbing for a third fiathfull Relation. The matter of fact (and I know what I say) in all this Controversy with Dr. Bentley, when once it comes to be squeezed, contracts into as narrow a compass as the matter of Learning, and is (I am not afraid to speak it) all over Misrepresentation.  
But the grand Article of their Accusation against the Dr. in reference to the MS, and that with which Mr. boil was pleased to commence his Critical War upon the Library-Keeper at St. James', is still behind, his Rude and hasty way of recalling it. Not till after nine months' Solicitation could they get it into their hands, and in less than so many Days it was taken from them again. And here Mr. Bennet undertakes to prove, that the Dr. Lent them the MS. with a Design of disappointing them of the use of it. A most unaccountable management! To Lend a thing with a Design of disappointing the Borrower of the use of it.  
Mr. B. I do not directly charge him with having such an Intention. 
P. ●●●, 127  He himself gave me the hint; and I may, I hope, without offence repeat his own words. Coll. What that he Lent you the MS. but with a private Design of disappointing Mr. Boil of the use of it? Mr. B. He made a show of lending it us. Coll. Made a show of lending it you? I thought he had actually lent it you. Mr. B. He made a show of lending it us. But that was only to avoid the Scandal of refusing it; managing things in such a manner, as that he might seemingly oblige Mr. boil, and yet certainlainly defeat him. Coll. As how? Mr. B. Lending us the MS. indeed, and so seemingly obliging Mr. boil; but taking it out of our hands before the Collation was finished, and so certain, by defeating him. Coll. But suppose the collation had been finished before the MS. had been taken out of your hands; than you had certainly defeated the Dr. And I think he lost it in your keeping more d●●● than you ●●eded to have had 〈◊〉 hours. So that ●●less the Dr. had known beforehand, that Mr. Bennet would have proved so Negligent a Man as indeed he did, and have taken no manner of Care of Mr. Boyles Affair; 'tis impossible he should have had the least imagination of disappointing Mr. Boil of the use of the MS, But sure, Mr. Bennet, you did not write these things to be believed, but to be laughed at.  
Mr. B. But why, 
P. 111.  unless he had had some such Design in his Head, should he not have ordered me the MS. till just at that particular nick of time, that he was leaving the Town? and then too, without any Intimation how soon it was to be restored? Which is a Circumstance that I am very positive in. Coll. I'll tell you why, Mr. Bennet. Because 'twas but just before just that particular nick of time that he entered upon the Possession of his Office of Library-Keeper to his Majesty, and consequently not much before just that particular nick of time was it in his Power to have lent it you. And I think it was very obligingly done of the Dr. just after he was possessed of the Key of the Library, and just before he was leaving the Town for some Months together; just at that particular nick of time, I say, finding that Mr. Bennet had so far forgot his honourable Friend, as never either to come or send to him about the MS. himself to go to Mr. Bennet, and put him in mind of sending for it. This is the truth of the Case; and this doth not look as if he had a Design of disappointing Mr. Boil.  
But why, 
Ibid.  when he did at last trust me with the MS. did he not, at the Delivery of it, give me some Intimation, how soon it was to be restorel, that so I might have taken Care to have gotten the Collation finished in due time?  
Coll. And why, was not that Care taken, whether he had given you any such Intimation or not? But he did give you such Intimation, and expressly ordered you to bid your Collator lose no time, for that he was going out of Town for two Months. Mr. B. This I utterly deny: 
P. 127.  He gave me no such notice; I protest he did not; No, not the least Intimation tending that way; No, not so much as in General, or that, I should make what Dispatch I could. He did not, I solemnly affirm. Coll. A very unlikely thing; That he should lend you a MS. out of the King's Library, 
Dr. B's prof. p. 21.  to keep it as long as you pleased. Men do not use to lend MS. at that rate: And the Dr. solemnly affirms the contrarry. Mr. B. This is a Circumstance that I am very positive in. Coll. Yes, Sir, There was an absolute necessity for your being very positive in this Circumstance. The whole of your Defence depended upon it: For if the Dr. as soon as it was in his Power, took Care to supply you with the MS. if he let it lie in your hands more days, than the Collating it would have taken up hours; and if withal at the Delivery of it, he gave you notice how soon it was to be restored, and expressly ordered you to lose no time; then the Consequence is too plain; and that Mr. boil was disappointed of the use of the MS. must lie at some other Door than the Dr's. This is a Circumstance therefore there was a necessity of your being 〈◊〉 positive in. And 'tis very remarkable, and 〈◊〉 M●. can have read Mr. Bennets. Appendix with the least manner of Attention, 〈…〉 served it; That Mr. Bennets 〈…〉 and 〈◊〉 just as the occasions of the C●●se require. No Man hath his 〈…〉 at Command that Mr. Bennet, or better knows his Seasons where to be positive, and where suspending,  
Mr. B. To confirm what I say, here's the Certificate of my Collator.  
I do declare, 
P. 108.  that when Mr. Bennet delivered me the MS. of Phalaris' Epistle, there was no time set me for the return of it. Geo. GIBSON.  
From whence I argue thus. If the Dr. had set me so short a time, when he put the MS. into my hands, it is utterly improbable, that I should not have given notice of it to Mr. Gibson; especially apprehending the Collation to be a work of more trouble than really it was, and knowing Mr. Gibson's hands to be so full of other Business But that Mr. Gibson had no such notice from the appears from this Certificate. Coll. Your Argument reduced into Form, I think runs thus. If Dr. Bentley, at the Delivery of the MS. had given me any notice how soon it was to be restored, and bid me lose no time, but make all the Dispatch I could; 'tis utterly improbable, that I should not have given the like notice to Mr. Gibson; but no such notice did I give to Mr. Gibson; therefore 'tis utterly improbable, that Dr. Bentley should have given me any such notice.  
Now in this same Appendix of Mr. Bennets p 107. I meet with part of a Letter from Mr. boil of Christ-Church to his Solicitor of the Half-Moon, dated May the 1st. 1694. and beginning in these words.  
I am almost ashamed 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.  
From whence I argue thus; if Mr. Bennet had received any such Letter from Mr. boil, requiring the Collation of the MS. to be transmitted to him with the utmost Expedition, it is utterly improbable, that he should not have given some notice of it to Mr. Gibson; but no such notice did Mr. Bennet give to Mr. Gibson; therefore no such Letter did he receive from Mr. boil.  
I think this Argument of mine runs exactly parallel with that of Mr. Bennet. But 'tis certain, Mr. Bennet did receive such a Letter from Mr. boil, requiring the Collation of the MS. to be procured for him with the utmost Dispatch, and yet gave Mr. Gibson no such notice; therefore it is not at all improbable, but that, at the Delivery of the MS. he may have received the like Intimation from Dr. Bentley with the like indifference.  
Upon this Certificate of Mr. Bennets Collator therefore I may remark. First, that it doth not prove what Mr. Bennet affirms, that is, That the Dr. did not, at the Delivery of the MS. given Mr. Bennet any Intimation how soon it was to be restored: Which this Certificate of Mr. Bennets Collator no More proves, than it doth, that Mr. Bennet never received any such Letter from Mr. boil. What Mr Bennet therefore affirms, That this Certificate of his Collator doth not prove; No, not so much as to an appearance. But Secondly, what Mr. Bennet would fain deny; That it doth prove beyond the Possibility of Contradiction. Which is, that tho' the Library-Keeper at St. James' bears the blame, yet, 'tis as clear as the San, the Bookseller at the Half-Moon was the only Person in fault, that Mr. boil was disappointed of the use of the MS. Witness. Mr. boil's Letter, Mr. Gibson's Certificate.  
Here's a Letter from Mr. boil to his Solicitor, requiring the Affair of the MS. to be expedited for him with the utmost Dispatch; I must have it, if at all, very quickly. Who'd have expected now upon the receipt of this Letter but that Mr. Bennet should forthwith, the first thing he did, have posted away to Westminster, to have acquainted the Dr. with Mr. boil's occasions? But no such thing was done. 
P. 103.  The Dr. lived at a Distance from Paul's Church-Tard; and 'twas not (as he himself hath told us) Mr. Bennets way of Soliciting to take Journeys, or run on other Body's Errands. His way of Soliciting was only to speak to the Dr. now and then about the MS. occasionally, and as he met him by chance Nor could the pressing Instances of this Letter of Mr. boil's, of May the 1st. put him out of his Pace. He is still content to wait till the Dr. should chance, to come that way, and either step into his Shop, or pass by the Door, and he should chance to be in the way to speak to him. And yet, all this while Mr. boil in haste for the M● I must have it, if at all, very quickly. 〈◊〉 but as Mr. boil's Letter was luckily dated just about that particular nick of time, that the Dr. was entering upon the full Possession of his Office, it being now in his Power to lend the MS. accordingly, not many days after the receipt of this letter, the Dr. comes to Mr. Bennet, Order him to send his Apprentice 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 employed 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. limited him in his time.  
Mr. B. No, For Dr. Bentley had not in That matter so limited me. I mean, 
P. 127.  not tied me up to days or hours; or given me any notice of the time fixed, 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 yourselves upon as equal Terms as you can; though, I think, you have fairly discharged Mr. Gibson. That Dr. Bentley should bear the blame, is altogether unreasonable. But 'twas not Mr. boil's business to see Faults in their right places.  
We have seen here one Instance of Mr. Bennets Talon 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. boil'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 carried down to him at Westminster [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 publicly.  
And is not this denying a thing very positively? Now must I crave Mr. Bennets 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 expressly 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. itself 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. Boil of the use of it. He only ordered 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 stroke 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 Daylight, to have devoted to the Service of Mr. boil. 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 minute's 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. boil's Solicitor would have taken no more Care of Mr. boil'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 than 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 aver, and that so very positively as Mr. Bennet here doth, for Certainties, not only Uncertainties, but Impossibilities, argues as great a want of common Sense as of Conscience.  
Ay but, faith Mr. Bennet, here the Dr's Memory hath failed 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 ordered 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. boil's Book, and with the Certificate of your Collator. And how comes the. That day of your first Account to be in your second shortened 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 'twas 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 Denies nothing that is in it? Or, must I believe the Dr. to be so grievous a Liar, because Somebody hath lent Mr. Bennet a Figure in Rhetoric, 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 answered in the Dr's Preface, saving that new Circumstance in your second Account, quite forgot to be remembered 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 dazzle the Eyes of your Thoughtless Readers, by making a show 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. Bennets 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 'tis patched 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 Untruth; 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, cou●● not but know what is Disappointment his refining to let us keep it any longer would be to Mr. boil'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. Boil of the use of it; and whether or no his refusing at that time to leave it in your hands any longer, aught 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,  you will be able to justify the Clamours you have raised upon the Dr. for his refusing you at that time the farther use of the MS. Mr. Boil 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 Country, and gave that for his Reason, why he could allow him no more time to collate it in. And a very good Reason, I think, it was. 
Ibid.  But what saith Mr. Boil himself to it▪ It was a mighty Treasure, it seems; the Credit of the King's Library depended upon the Alexandrian MS. and That; and therefore he would not Trust it out of those Walls one day longer. And here's a Flourish for you, and that's all. One day longer! No, Sir; not one day longer, but some Months longer; passing from hand to hand, and not without Danger of miscarriage. I would seriously ask Mr. boil, and let his own Thoughts make the Answer; ought the Dr. to have left the Library for so many Months together, without seeing the MS. returned into it before he went? Would he himself, had he been in the Dr's place, have ran such a risk? Why then, doth he fall so foul upon the Dr. for doing That which in the Dr's place, no Man would not have done? The Trusting the MS. out of those Walls at all, was somewhat adventurously done of the Dr. and ought not to have been received for so Common a Favour; the calling it in again upon the occasion he did, would not, I dare say, have been resented by any Man in England, save Mr. boil, as an Affront; nor, to deal plainly with him, by him neither, but that he was resolved to pick a Quarrel with the Dr. and wanted a better Pretence.  
There was no need therefore of the Dr's inventing that Story, That when the MS. was delivered to him, he had not the least Suspicion, but that the Collation was finished. His Reply to Mr. boil, had been sufficient without it. That as soon as it was in his Power, he voluntarily supplied them with the use of it; that they had it in their hands, more days than the collating of it required hours; that when at near a Weeks end (and the whole was not the work of half a day) he called upon them to have it restored, he could not have expected to have found the Collation unfinished; that he was not then at the Liberty of sparing it them any longer; but that they might have had it again for ask. This had been Answer enough of all Conscience to the Passage in Mr. boil's Preface. There was no need therefore of the Dr's having recourse to Fiction, when he had Truth enough to have served his turn. But though there was no necessity of the Dr's feigning this Story, if it had been really true; yet Mr. boil being resolved to stand to what he had done, there was a necessity of his denying it, and that as Authentically as possible. And the Dr. having in his Preface shown, that Mr. boil's Evidences were nothing to the purpose, a necessity also there was for Mr. Bennets, in his Appendix, betaking himself to his Recollecting Faculty, and starting up that new Circumstance. Upon which, I shall only make this short Reflection; that if the Dr. feigned this Story, he is one of those Men who delight to tell Lies to no manner of purpose: But upon Mr. Bennet, as to this particular, I cannot pass the same Censure. If this after Story of just after. Dinner be a Lie, as I verily believe it is; I can not say as the Dr. upon alike occasion did; that 'tis a Silly one: No, 'twas a Necessary one, and the only Refuge he had left him.  
Well, saith the Dr. and suppose the Collation was not finished, when the MS. was delivered to me, could they not upon my Return to the Library, which was several Months before Mr. boil's Book was Printed, have asked me for it again?  
To this by way of Answer they return a parcel of words; and nothing but words.  
The Dr. saith Mr. Bennet, 
P. 98.  gave me not the least Hopes, that if applied to him upon his Return out of the Country, I should have leave to get the Collation finished.  
That is, the Dr. did not bid you borrow the Book of him again. As why should he, when he thought you had done your whole work with it?  
And besides, 
P. 131.  Mr. boil had given me no Order to make a fresh Application to him.  
But why not?  
Because I had given him an Account of the Dr's parting Civilities.  
Very well; we shall see by and by, who set the Christ-Church Men upon Dr. Bentley.  
But what saith Mr. Boil himself to it? 
P. 3●.  Yes, I could (have asked for it again) and have been denied it again, which I was not very willing to venture. I neither thought myself so little, nor Dr. Bentley so Great, nor the MS. so considerable. That I should make a Second Application for it, after such a Repulse; no, not though I had been sure of obtaining it; much less could I ever think of ask it again, when, by what Mr. Bennet had told me, I had all the Reason in the world to believe I should be again denied it.  
Handsome English, I confess, and Majestically delivered; but false Suggestion all over. If you thought yourself too Great to ask the Favour, with what Conscience can you complain of a Denial? Your second Application (if an Application so widely made may be called yours) was altogether as necessary as your first; and as you received not Repulse in the one, you might have promised yourself the like Success in the other. Your not vouchsafing to renew your Request, nay, or so much as to signify your Desire, and yet proclaiming yourself in Print denied the farther use of it, is an Action which all the Phrase in the world cannot excuse from being unjust.  
Nay, and after all suppose the Dr. had absolutely refused to lend them the MS. at all: Suppose (as a Man less obliging than himself would have done) he had cut off Mr. Bennet with this short Answer: Mr. boil is a Peron known to me only by the name of his Family, a Name for which I have the greatest Veneration; but I wonder that Mr. boil should understand things no better, than to think, that it lies in my Power to part with a MS. out of the King's Library without some better Warrant for it, than barely a young Oxford Scholar's sending his Bookseller to demand it of me. Suppose, I say, the Dr. had given such an Answer, and thereupon Mr. Bennet had sent his Letter of Complaint to Christ-Church: Mr. boil might indeed have interpreted it as a kind of Reprimand to himself, for his being a little too uncourtly in his Applications: but durst he thereupon have printed a Book upon the Dr.? Durst he have Libelled and Posted his Majesty's Library-Keeper, for keeping to the Rules of his Office, and refusing to be at the Command, I will not say of Mr. Bryle himself, but of Mr. boil's Bookseller? Or could the bare Denial of a Favour, have justified such a kind of Retaliation: a Favour, according to the methods Mr. bail took of obtaining it, so unreasonable to be expected? A Favour so carelessly, so coldly, so superficially asked, that the not receiving it could scarce deserve the Name of a Denial. I shall not scruple therefore to say, how much soever a Paradox it may seem to those who have been so artificially possessed with the contrary Story, That Dr. Bentley was obliging even to an Excess to a Person, who neither knew how to request a Favour like a Gentleman, not (as the Event hath proved) to requite it but with Injuries. I had not allowed myself this Freedom of Speech with a person of his Quality, had not he himself been pleased to accumulate his first Act of Unjustice, by a greater one of defending it; not only by suffering his Popular Name to stand in the Frontispiece of so wretched a Libel as is that I have been considering, but also by persisting to patronise this Lazy, Saucy Bookseller of his, who begun that unhappy Quarrel, with which neither of the Parties have much cause to be satisfied, but which, without the Spirit of Prophecy, I dare adventure to foretell them, when they have done their worst, will end little to the advantage of the Aggressor.  
And what doth Mr. boil mean by his so common a Favour? Are therefore MSS. so Common Ware? Is the Loan of a MS. out of any Library; out of the King's Library, so common a Favour? 
Dr. B's pr●●f. ●.  The Learned and Reverend Dr. Mill found it otherwise in the time of Dr. Bentley's Predecessor; the great Selden found it otherwise, 
Dr. Burnet's jafe of Sir Matthew 〈◊〉  when he wanted the use of a MS. out of the Bodleian Library: And otherwise, I presume, would Mr. Boil himself have found it, had a person less obliging than Dr. Bentley been in possession of the Key; and otherwise, perhaps, would another person than Mr. boil have found it even from Dr. Bentley himself. But the Dr. was resolved to trespass even a little beyond his Line, rather than not oblige a person of that honourable Name; for which the requital he hath received will perhaps for the future make such Favours less common, and render it a greater Difficulty to obtain a MS. out of the Royal Library, than just sending one's Bookseller to the Library Keeper, to tell him, that such a one wants such a Book out of the Library, which upon pain of being Lampooned in Print, he must forthwith deliver to the Bearer. Either the Library-Keeper must be less obliging than Mr. boil would have him, or what between Mr. boil's Learned Foreigners, 
Mr. B. p. 14.  and the Christ-Church Editors, the Library will soon be naked of its Manuscripts.  
And now I cannot but by way of Recapitulation observe to the Reader, how often they are forced to double tell their Stories.  
The Library-Keeper of St. James', uncivil Man as he was! 'Twas not till after nine months' Solicitation that we could procure so common a Favour as the Loan of a MS. out of the King's Library. (Mr. boil's Book, and Mr. Bennets first Account.)  
How can that be, saith the Dr. That Library-Keeper you speak of was not so much as one Month, no, not half a Month Library-Keeper, before he voluntarily came and offered it (Dr. B's Preface.)  
Who says he was Library-Keeper all that while? But he lived near the Royal Library, he was acquainted with those worthy Gentlemen that then had the keeping of the Key, and bore them Company sometimes when they went into the Library. (Mr. Bennets second Acount.)  
The Library Keeper at St. James' denied a person of Mr. Bayles Quality so common a Favour as the use of one of the King's MS. (Their first Account.)  
How could I lend them the MS. before it was in my Power to lend it them? (The Dr's Preface)  
Who says, you could have lent it us much sooner than you did? But you might have got it to be lent to us. (Mr. Bennets second Account.)  
'Twas not without great Difficulties, that we at last procured the MS. nor till after a long Solicitation. (Mr. bennets first Account)  
What doth this Man mean by his great Difficulties? The greatest Difficulty that even I put him too was that of sending his Man to fetch it. Solicitation! One would imagine that he had worn out the Streets with frequent Journeys to solicit for the MS. I don't remember that either he or his Apprentice came once to my Lodgings, or to the Library for it, till the time that he sent for't by my Appointment, and received it. (Dr. B's Preface.)  
Who says, I did? That was not my way of Soliciting, to take Journeys. But I spoke to you of it I know not how many times as you came in my way, not either stepped into my Shop, or passed by the Door. Twenty times at least. (Mr. Bennets second Account)  
He took the MS. out of our hands before the Collation was finished, and though he was told as much, yet he utterly refused to leave it with us any longer, but demanded to have it sent to his Lodgings that very day (Mr. Bennets first Account.)  
True: For I was obliged to see it returned into the Library that very day. But 'twas according to your own Account at Noon, that I called upon you for the MS. and was told that Collation was not then finished. I had not the least Suspicion, but that when it was delivered to me, the whole was then collated (Dr. B Preface.)  
Oh! This Liar! Not the least Suspicion! He most certainly knew the contrary? My Collator expressly sent him word, that he had not finished the Collation.  
Ay, but that was Noon, I did not (even according to your own Account) forthwith and immediately take it away with me; I left it in your hands, only ordering you to send it after me some time that Afternoon without fail; and the whole might have been collated twice over in half a day.  
Oh abominable!  
Why that's all you yourself say, in your first Account. That I refused to spare it you any longer, that is, any longer than that day: which is true; for that Evening is part of that Day.  
That Evening! Oh this wicked Man? Well; God forgive him. He commanded me to send it to his Lodgings forthwith, out of hand, immediately, just after Dinner; I protest. And he says, not till the close of the Evening. God forgive him this untruth.  
Why, Sir, time was when you yourself said no more. (Mr. Bennets first Account.)  
Ay, but when I saw the Dr's Preface, I presently recollected the matter a little better. 'Twas just after Dinner, I sincerely declare. (Mr. Benner's second Account.)  
But doth not a Cause look very suspiciously, that is always changing its Colours thus? Hath Sincerity so mutable a Face?  
And thus much for this tedious Story of the MS. that Matter of Fact with their Flourishes upon which the Terraef filius of the Half-Moon have raised such Huzza's upon the Liorary-kerper at St. Jomes'. There is not, I think, any material Circumstance in the whole, upon which I have not bestowed as much (and I fear more) Consideration as it deserves. And as for the Siliy Suggestions with which Mr. Bennet hath stulled out every Page of his Appendix, to have answered them more particularly, had been an Impertinence almost as inexcusable as that of writing them. I have endeavoured to set things in a clear Light, and disrobe them of those false Colours, with which Mr. Bennet, and his honourable Friend have extremely disguised them. As I go all along only upon the bottom of their own Prints, and as I have not where represented the matter otherwise, than exactly according to my own Apprehension concerning it: So I cannot but persuade myself, that any Man who shall give himself the trouble of comparing their Accounts will fall in with me in the same Opinion; that throughout this whole Phalaridan Controversy, the Learning, the Civility, 
Vindie,  and the Ueracity are all on a side.  
Having dispatched this grand Affair, the Matter of Fact, I might now think my work at an end with Mr. Bennet and his Appendix. Some few straggling Calumnies however there are here and there intermixed with his faithful Relations, which to pass over altogether unobserved might still leave the Reader under the Opinion, that there are in this Appendix of Mr. Bennets at least one or two Truths: Especially when he finds them not only so confidently averred, but some of them also, to appearance, so firmly attested.  
For this is one of the methods by which the Gentlemen of the Half-Moon so successfully carry on their Controversy with the Dr. They procure a number of Hands, and Depositions against him. This serves to set a Gloss upon the Cause, and put's off the most false and foolish Suggestions with an appearance of Certainty. Mr. boil is somewhat merciful in this kind, and contents himself with the Testimonies of three Witnesses; 
P. 9  but those Persons of Probity and Worth, he tells us, (as much as to say, not like Dr. Bentley and such whose word he doubts not will be much sooner credited than the Dr's. Thomas Bennet, Bookseller, at the Sign of the Half-Moon in S. Paul's Churchyard; GEO. Gibson, Thomas Bennets Collator; and William King, J. C. D. of the Commons. But Mr. Bennt himself is more plentiful in his Evidences.  
Two Letters from the Honourable Charles Boil, 
P. 101; 107. 124.128.119; 134.  Esq; two Certificates of CEO. Gibson, Collator; another from Nich. Hooper, Beadle to the Comany of Stationers; another from John Crook, Bookseller; a Letter from the Learned and Honourable Sir Edw. Sherburue; another from the aforesaid Will. King, of the Commons; and another (Soldierlike, the strongest in the Rear) from Sir. 
P. 120;  W. Temple; nay, and amongst the rest something out of a Letter of the Dr's own Handwriting given in in Evidence against himself.  
And these are Mr. Bennets Evidences; a formidable appearance, and, by a Name or two, too many; whom I an hearty sorry to see joined in so foul a Cause, and so unequally matched. But as we are upon a Trial of Fact, I may, I hope, without trespassing upon the Respects due to their Persons examine into the Validity of their Testimonies, and inquire how far they will serve the Ends for which Mr. Bennet produces them. For who will think the Cause determined, unless the Witnesses are heard?  
To begin with the two Letters of Mr. boil, in the first of which he Charges the Dr. with Falsehood, in the other with Rudeness.  
Mr. boil's first Letter, p. 101.  
Mr. Bennet,  
I am glad you had the good Fortune to preserve any of my Letters relating to the Manuscript Phalaris in St. James' Library.— I am as fully satisfied of the Truth of what You have said upon that Occasion, as I am of the Falsehood of what Dr. Bentley hath said upon That, and several others.  
It may be counted an Uncivil thing in me, to disturb Mr. boil's Satisfactions; but since he is for so plain English, I must as plainly tell him, That what Dr. Bentley hath said upon that Occasion is most undoubtedly True. For the Occasion Mr. boil is here speaking of, is that false Account of Mr. Bennets, Printed in Mr. boil's admired Phrase-Book upon the Library Keeper at St. James', concerning the nine months' Solicitation. In answer to which Dr. Bentley in his Preface hath said (nor hath he said it only, but proved it also) that that uncivil Library-Keeper Mr. boil's whole Book runs so hard upon, was not so much as one Month Keeper of the Library at St. James' before he supplied Mr. Bennet with the MS. for the use of Mr. boil: And that as for that Solicitation Mr. Bennet speaks of, with all his Soliciting, he never so much as once gave himself the trouble of going or sending to the Dr's Lodgings upon Mr. boil's Concerns, saving that one time, when by the Dr's own Appointment, he sent his Man to the Library for the Book, and received it. This is all the Dr. hath said upon that Occasion; and both these things are most certain, confessed, and undeniable Truths As for that after Distinction of Mr. Bennets in his Appendix between the Library-Keeper at St. James', and a Nigh-dweller to the Library, and that after Explication of the word Solicitation, that he did not mean giving himself the labour of taking Journeys, or any other trouble whatsoever, but barely the speaking to the Dr. of it Occasionally, and as he chanced to fall in his way: these after Emendations of the Story, I say, in Mr. Bennets second Account the Dr. could not answer before Mr. Bennet had conceived them. I again therefore, after the Dr. affirm it; that Mr. Bennets first Account, in Justification of which Mr. Boil here appears, is (at least as 'tis managed in Mr. boil's Book) a false Account, at least, a foul, partial, and disguised Account; and being so contrived on purpose to misled the Reader, 
Ap. p. 133.  and that not in a Trifling, but in the very Principal Circumstances of the Fact, to which it belongs; it may very justly be called a false Account, as directly designing to create in the Rader a false Opinion. And such most plainly and undeniably it is. I might also observe, that could Mr. boil have produced a Copy of any Letter of his own, written to the Dr. himself upon the Occasion of the Manuscript Phalaris at St. James 's, it had been much more to the purpose than his referring us to Mr. Bennets File. I might also Query, how early doth the name of Dr. Bentley appear upon Mr. Bennets File? What? nine months' before they had the MS. But all this we have had over before Sup. p. 147.151. And thus much for the Evidence of Mr. boil's first Letter. No, Sir; what Dr. Bentley hath said upon that Occasion is not a Falsehood, but an undeniable Truth. But I cannot leave this first Letter without one Remark upon Mr. boil's very cautious way of expressing himself. I am as fully satisfied, says he, of the Truth of Mr. Bennets Account, as I am of the Falsehood of Dr. Bentley's. Now, with the Gentleman's good leave, I would ask him, what this amounts to? I myself and every Man in England, are as fully satisfied of the one, as of the other; and yet Mr. boil must not infer from hence, that we are at all satisfied of either of them: I am as fully satisfied, that Mr. Boil 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. boil's second Letter, p. 107.  
I am almost ashamed 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 Compliment 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. Boil 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. boil's was dated, Oxford, May 1st. when the Dr. was not yet actually entered 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. boil, 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. 'Twas not you say till after nine months' Solicitation, that you at last obtained the use of the MS. Nor till after at least twenty times ask for it. But why did you not after your having been one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight Months delayed 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 Controversy in its Original. And a little Enquiry would have informed you, where the Key of the Library was lodged 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. boil's Concerns. If you did know it, and yet wrote such a Letter to Mr. boil 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 'twas an easier thing to sit still behind the Counter and write Letters to Mr. boil, than to take Journeys, and run from Paul's- Churchyard to Westminster a borrowing the Book for him yourself. Your Letter, to which this of Mr. boil'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 faithful promised to help me to it: But his Patent hath not yet passed all its Formalities, so that he is not as yet possessed 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 buy, 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. 'Tis 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. boil have justly taken offence at it: And if he wrote more than this, I very confidently presume he was a false Informer. For,  
Secondly, what can we reasonable suppose to have been these disobliging Expressions the Dr. used concerning Mr. bail. The Dr. was at that time a perfect Stranger to Mr. boil and his Qualities, and Mr. Boil 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 passed upon not Mr. boil'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. boil) and the Work he was about: and, the Reflections the Dr. made from time to time, when I spoke to him from Mr. boil 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. boil 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 Judgement, 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. boil, but where 'twas 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 Streets is of the Sword.  
And thus much for Mr. Bennets two first Tesimonies against the Dr, these two Letters from Mr. boil, the Falsehood charged upon him in the former, and the Rudeness in the latter. I might indeed have spared myself the Labour of answering them so particularly: it had been sufficient to have excepted against Mr. boil, as too much a Party in this Cause to be admitted for an Evidence. I might withal take occasion to remind the Reader of what is somewhere before hinted to him; that we are not now any longer to seek, who 'twas that began this unhappy Contest, and first set the Christ-Church Men upon Dr. Bentley. For I cannot yet see, what necessity there was for Mr. Bennets informing Mr. Boil of the Dr's disobliging Expressions, whatever they were, as well as his disobliging Delays. Let Mr. Bennet writ it over his Door, Quid de quoque viro, & cui dicas, supe caveto, Sup. p. 144.  
The two Certificates of the Collator, 
Sup. p.  I very very well remember, and, I do declare, That— another considerable part of Mr. Bennets Evidence against the Dr. have been already considered.  
Here follows another Certificate against the Dr.  
This is to Certify, That Phalaris 's Epistles, in Greek and Latin, put out by the Honourable Charles Boil, Esquire, were Printed by me at my own Cost and Charges; and neither Mr. Bennet, nor any other Bookseller was any ways concerned in it. As soon as the Book was Printed, I sold near the whole Impression to Mr. Crossly Bookseller in Oxon. Witness my Hand  
JOHN CROOK.  
This Certificate of Mr. Crook is produced to prove another Untruth upon the Dr. upon Account of a certain passage in his Preface given in these words. 
P. 36.  The Bookseller once asked me privately, that I would do him the Favour to tell my Opinion, if the new Edition of Phalaris then in the Press would be a vendible Book, telling me that he was concerned in the Impression, and hoped it would sell well. To which the Dr. replied, That as for the Sale of the Book, he need not question it; the great names of those that recommended it would get it many Buyers. But however, under the Rose, the Book was a spurious piece, and deserved not to be spread in the World by another Impression. This private Discourse Mr. Bennet betrays to the Christ-Church Editors: And what follows upon that every Body knows. And good reason for it; must the methods of a Learned Society be reflected upon? Mun Booksellers be whispered in the Ear, That— puts his young Men upon Printing, spurious Books? Hine illae Lachryma! And this the Dr. declares is all the Reflection he made to the disadvantage of Mr. boil.  
This Discourse between himself and Mr. Bennet the Dr. very well remembers. But here again Mr. Bennet is very positive to the contrary. 
P. 118.  I utterly deny, saith he, That ever I spoke a Syllable to him tending that way, and 'tis improbable to the highest degree that every I should. And so comes in Mr. Crooke's Certificate, to show, That the Book was Printed altogether at another Man's Cost and Charges, and near the whole Impression, when finished, Sold to Mr. Crossley Bookseller in Oxford; from him had Mr. Bennet fifty Books at first; and a few more, some years afterwards, from another hand; but in the whole a far less number than he commonly uses of any Oxford Impression: Therefore there can have been no such Discourse between him and the Dr. as that, He should have asked the Dr's Opinion concerning the Book, whether he thought it would be a vendible piece, and that he should tell the Dr. That he had a Concern in the Impression, and hoped it would Sell well. I utterly deny, that ever I spoke a Syllable to him tending this way, and 'tis improbable to the highest degree that ever I should.  
But in the first place, that Mr. Bennet should have had so very frequent occasions to Discourse with the Dr. about the Episties of Phalaris when they were in the Press, and yet never have asked him his Opinion concerning them; that Mr. Bennet, I say, during his nine months' Solicitation for the manuscript-Phalaris, and in all the at least twenty times ask him for it; yet all this while should never so much as once speak one Syllable to him tending towards the learning his Opinion concerning the Book: This, to my Apprehension, is improbable, even to the highest Degree. The Dr. was pleased to consult Mr. Bennet some times in his way of a Bookseller: And is it not somewhat strange that Mr. Bennet should never have taken his turn of consulting the Dr. sometimes in his way of a Scholar. This was an Omission scarce any Bookseller in England, besides Mr. Bennet, would have been guilty of. And this is the Circumstance upon which the very stress of the Dr's Relation depends, Mr. Bennets ask him his Opinion concerning the Book; for 'twas that part of the Discourse occasioned the Dr's passing that Reflection upon Mr. boil's undertaking. Whether Mr. Bennet told the Dr. that he was concerned in the Impression or not, and that therefore he hoped, ti would Sell well, is little material. Upon which I must take the Liberty of repeating Mr. Bennets own words upon this very occasion. 
P. 120;  If the Dr. invented these little Unnecessary Circumstances, we must believe him to be out of his Wits, and that he loves to tell Lies to no manner of purpose, and when 'tis in every Body's Power to trace him.  
But Secondly, was Mr. Bennet never concerned in the Sale of a Book, and interested to wish it might prove a vendible Commodity, which was altegether Printed at the Cost and Charges of another man? The Book was Printed at the sole Cost of Mr. Crook, and yet Mr. Crossley ventured to take off near the whole Impression. And may not Mr. Bennet himself have had some such Design in his Head? And may not that have been the meaning of his ask the Dr's Opinion concerning the Book? And may he not thereupon have mentioned his Hopes of its proving a Saleable piece? And may not that indifferent Character the Dr. gave him of the Book have made him more wary how he overloaded himself with Copies of it, and have proved the occasion of his using a fewer number of them than he commonly doth of other Oxford Impressions? And what signifies it, whether he said in express and direct Terms, I am concerned in the Impression, or, I think I shall be concerned in it, or, I would be concerned in it, if I had but good Hopes, it would prove a vendible Book? May not Mr. Bennet as well have expressed himself loosely in any tone or other of these, or such like Terms, as the Dr. hath related it in one of them? And what difference doth this make as to the substance of the thing, and the occasion for which the Dr. produces it? I can only Query Mr. Bennet upon this Head. There is not, I think, in any of these things an utter Improbability. But that Mr. Bennet should never have spoken one Syllable tending towards his ask 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. Bennets 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. boil, and the Work he was about.  
Next after this Certificate of Mr. Crook, Mr. 
P. 128.  Bennet gives in the date of a certain Letter of the Dr's own Handwriting 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 Liar in: nay, and desires the Reader, who is not capable of examining the Learned part of the Controversy, 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. boil '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. boil 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 altered 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 o● Mr. boil'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 Miss representations of his Bookseller, and might have stopped 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 Falsehood 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. boil notice timely enough, to have altered that passage, and stopped 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. boil's Book was certainly Published, and publicly 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. boil might have stopped the Books in the Printing-bouse.  
I answer: The Dr. did know, that a good quantity of them were dispersed in Christ-Church, and 'twas 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 publicly Sold in the Shops till some time after the Date of this Letter. If otherwise, the Dr. must have been not only a Liar, but a Fool; to desire the Books to be stopped 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 public Prints was the Publication of Phalaris' 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. boil, had he been minded to do Justice, might not have printed one Page anew, and altered that passage in the Preface? If not, than Mr. boil 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. boil 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 publicly given, and was past recall.  
Monsters! The Dr. writes a Letter to Mr. boil, 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 publicly in Oxford, London, and other places before Jan. 26. Which till I shall see in what public Prints the Publication of it was advertized, I shall not be able to believe. Is it to be imagined, 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 yourself upon this Article, either you have not proved the Dr. to be a Liar, or you have proved him to be an Idiot.  
Another of Mr. Bennets Evidences.  
Being ordered, 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 Universities, 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. 30●  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 Man's Property. The Company of Stationers were a Body, had a common Purse, and he hoped they would stand it out at Law, etc.  
'Tis 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. Bennets 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 Surprise we find that none of these things were intended by Mr. Bennet.  
This Appendix of Mr. Bennets had not been long out  he gets some inkling, that all the Abuses offered to the Dr. by that Saucy 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 beforehand 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. 116● , etc. 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' at all concerned in this Certificate of the Beadle, but the Treasurer of the Stationer's Company; neither was it the King's Library, the Books were Delivered into, but the Company's Warehouse; 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. Bennets 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 Deal from the Half-Moon in all the rest of this Controversy; 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 proved; for a Friend of mine, of Mr. Bennets Trade, got me this following Certificate from the same Beadle, which I have now by me Signed 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 Delivered to the Reverend Dr. Benthley, than Library-Keeper at St. James ' s, a parcel of Books gathered for the King's Library, and I never delivered 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 delivered the Books at St. James': But he does not tell the Year. The Reason was, That he had entered 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 Controversy had never been started. But however, as to the Year, when the Books were Delivered, 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 authentic Testimonies, that he had no Power, nor Custody of the Library till above half a year after.  
Now to Examine Mr. Bennets 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. Upon this I made Application to the Master of the Stationer's Company, and demanded the Copies. The Effect whereof was, that I procured near a 1000 Volumes of one sort or other, which are now lodged in the Library. Now the Truth of this is confirmed by the Beadle himself: For he Deposes, that he had never Delivered one Book to the Library till after the Dr's Application.  
But than comes Mr. Bennet by Dint of Logic to disprove this Account of the Dr's. The Dr. 
P. 114.  says he, Would be thought, to have first set afoot 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. boil's way of refuting the Dr.; that one would be apt to suspect, the same hand was employed in drawing up both that Examination, and this Appendix. The was is to Charge the Dr. with saying, what he never said; and then to be sure they must have a great measure of Dulness, if they cannot confute what they invented on purpose to be confuted.  
The Bookseller has the Confidence to tell his Readers, That the Dr. would be thought to have First set afoot the Collection. And yet the Dr. in words as full as can be desired, has plainly implied the contrary. For he tells us, The Books had not of late been brought into the Library; which is a manifest Proof, that he believed himself, and would have his Reader suppose, that they had formerly been brought in according to the Act. For the Act commenced soon after the Restauration of K. Charles II. The Books therefore might have been gathered for many years; and yet of late have been neglected.  
We have one plain Falsehood then in the Bookseller's Representation of this matter; and we shall presently have another. For he talks of the Dr's setting afoot the Collection; and his Project of having the Books Collected; for so, says he, the dr. would have us understand him. How the Gentlemen of the Half-Moon are used to understand the Dr's Writings, the World is now pretty well satisfied: But if I may measure other Readers from myself, I durst be bold to affirm, that not one of them could put that Construction upon the Dr's words, unless he either carelessly read him, or wilfully misrepresented him. For the Dr. whose words I have cited above, has not a Syllable about Collecting in all that passage: He only says, The Books had not been brought into the Library; which is true beyong Contradiction. But whether some or all of the Books had been Collected from the several Booksellers, and laid up in the Stationer's Warehouse; that was more than he could pretend to know. He found, they were not in the Royal Library; and like an honest and careful Man, he did the Duty of his place, and took care to see them lodged there. And without such a Care they might have lain long enough, before the King's Library had been the richer for them. But besides all this, it will appear presently, that all the Books which were Printed from June 93, to April 94. might even be uncollected, as well as not brought in till the Dr. demanded them.  
After two such notorious Stretches that the Bookseller has made here in representing the Dr's words, we may easily guests what will become of the rest of what he has brought on this Head. He attempts to prove, That no such Discourse (i.e. when the Dr. says, He asked Mr. Bennet to give his share of Books to the King's Library, and Mr. Bennet refused it) could happen between the Dr. and him; because it appears by the Beadle, that Mr. Bennet complied to give his share without any Dispute whatsoever, July 13th. 1693. which was before the Dr. was nominated to his Office. 
P. 116.  And the Act of Printing expiring about April, or May 1693.; after that time no Body could pretend to demand Arrears from particular Booksellers.  
I must confess, if I had not been pretty well acquainted with the Half-Moon Sincerity, I should have thought this Argument a strong one, and very pinching upon the Dr. But beign fully persuaded from the rest of their management, that this too was all of a piece; I began to cast about, if I could find any flaw in the Proof; and seeing the main of it depended upon the Act of Printing's expiring in May 1693; I fancied the Deceit must needs lie in that Particular. I know, my Reader will think now, that this was a very unlikely Guests of mine; for how is it credible, that they would falsify an act of Parliament, where any Body that had a mind to Examine the matter, might easily discover the Cheat? This I own, was something choking: For I argued so to myself at that time; but however, since it came into my way, I was resolved to consult Keeble upon the Statute for Printing; and there I found, 
Keeble's Statutes, p. 1658.  that the Act of Printing, when it was last revived, commenced from the 13th. of February 169 2/3, and from thence continued to the End of the next Session of Parliament, which was May 1694.  
Let the Reader now reflect a little upon the Impudence of this Bookseller, and those that assisted him; who, rather than say nothing against Dr. Bentley, would tell thus in the Face of the Sun the most palpable Falsehood. The Act of Printing, says he, expired in April or May, 1693. Therefore the Dr. could not demand Books of me after that time (as he says he did) upon that Act of Printing. But the contrary of this, Sir, is most evident from the Act itself; for it did not expire till May 1694. And the Dr. says, that he demanded the Books of you, after be was nominated to the Library-Keeper's Office, and before his Patent was finished, that is, as you yourself calculate it; 
Mr. Ben. p. 113.  sometime between December 23d. (93) and April 18th. (94) so that he demanded the Books of you while the Statute was in force: And I make no doubt, but he did really demand them of you, both because it became one in his place to do so, and because he made the same demand upon some other Booksellers at the same time, and because you do not offer to disprove it, withiout telling such manifest Untruths, as all the World may discover.  
But you think it utterly incredible, that you should deny the Books to the King's Library upon Dr. B's ask, when you had granted them without any Dispute to the Beadle. Why, truly Sir, as you by falsifying an Act of Parliament have stated this matter, there appears some Reason on your side. For you make the Dr. and the Beadle demand them at or near the same time. But as Mr. Keeble has assisted us to put the Case truly, there's nothing at all improbable in the Dr's Account of this Story. For you might deliver some Books in June 1693. to the Beadle; and yet your Opinion, or your Humour might be changed before April 18th. 1694. You say, The Discourse that the Dr. puts in your Mouth, is all over so absurd and senseless, 
P. 118.  that no Body that knows you will think you capable of it. But for me, that do not know you otherwise, than from your share in this Controversy, you'll excuse me, if I think you capable of it, because I find you actually guilty of worse. And I persuade myself, that every Body else, if he take your Character, as I do, from the Papers that carry your Name, will be of my Opinion.  
As for that Honourable Gentleman, Sir Edward Sherburn's Letter, which he sent to Mr. Bennet, 
P. 134.  and ordered to be immediately Communicated to the World; all that I shall presume to say of it is this; that the Reader, who shall give himself the trouble of perusing the Dr's 
Praef. P. 46, etc.  Account of the Matter of Fact, to which that Letter refers, will find it so well attested, that he will scarce know how to Charge the Dr. with Falsehood, without bringing some other very great Names under the same Suspicion.  
And as for the Letter of the aforesaid William King. J. C. D. of the Commons, a part of it transcribed, may serve you for Answer to the whole. 'Tis reputable both to Men and Books to be ill spoken of by him, and a favourable Presumption on their side, that there is something in Both which may chance to recommend them to the rest of the World. Witness, The Journey to London, The Dialogues of the Dead, and this Letter, all supposed to come from the same hand.  
The last of Mr. Bennets Testimonies the Reverence due to the Memory of the Dead, obliges me to forbear meddling with.  
At the Entrance of my Examination of Mr. Bennet, 
Sup. p. 143.  I was observing, that he could not have done the Dr. a greater piece of Service than he hath, by writing this Appendix, Wherein he hath so fairly driven the Matter to an Head, and let such light into the Cause, that it can be no longer a Dispute, where the Quarrel began, and what was that unsufferable Affront, which rendered the Dr. an Enemy unfit to receive Quarter. For if Mr. boil was not affronted by the Dr. or at least, not to that high Degree he pretends, as I hope, by this time sufficiently appears; there must have been some other Cause of this Disturbance; which what it should have been Mr. Bennet, hath been pleased at parting, to give us an enlightening Instance. The Dr. had, 
P. 131.  it seems, Let slip some untoward Reflections upon a certain, very eminent Person, for setting People at work upon, etc. Nay, and that, if we may believe Mr. Bennet, in very homely Language too. Upon which occasion he tells us, what he once heard a very great Man say of the Dr. etc. And were I for telling Tales out of School, as Mr. Bennet is, I also could tell, what I have heard some not very little Men say upon a certain occasion, not hard to be guessed at, concerning a certain very great Man. 'Tis a Strange thing that the ... of ... should so encourage his young Men in their, etc. But great Men may make as free with one another as they please: 
P. 132.  It becomes me to consider my Distance; and so I will; for I shall make no Reflections myself. But if the Gentlemen of the Half-Moon are resolved to go on in their Insults upon the Dr. at the rate they have hitherto done, representing one of the greatest Scholars in the Land for a Dunce, 
Fabular. Aescopic. Delect. p. 128.  a Man that neither understands Books himself, nor knows how to be Civil to them that do; they may perhaps in time, (as I fancy they begin to do already) hear what many very great Men say of Them.  
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 47. l. 47. r. writing against Dr. B. I. 21. r. to a B. p. 48. l. 19 r. Copy. p. 50. l. 10. after number, add, out of Suidas, p. 54. I. 32. after 210. add, as they are in Mr. St. are also marked out in the INDEX to Steph●nus, etc. p. 56. l. 31. r. Fulgentius Planciades. p. 57 l. 13. r. M.S. p. 93. l. 12. for u r. v. p. 99 l. 16. r. Eragment. p. 100 I. 12. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 111. l. 20. r. Acontius. p. 129. l. 6. for Marriage r. Wedding. p. 130. l. 19 r. that, of. p. 131. l. 26. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 138. l. 14. r. Inventione, Hujus.