I Thank you for the Pam­phlet you sent me the o­ther Day; and, because you was pleas'd to make it the Condition of your Gift, that I [Page 2]should return my Thoughts upon it, I have here sent them by the first Post, and I be­lieve much sooner than you expected. You have them in the very Order they at first oc­curred to me, without any manner of Correction; for truly I did not think it worth my while to make any.

First then, It is obvious to remark, that the Author, who­ever he is, has given his Essay a wrong Title. If he had had a mind to deal honestly with his Reader, it should have run thus: An Essay, &c. in which are contained several False and Scandalous Reflections on Christ-Church in Oxon. But to turn over the Title Page. In his Preamble (where, I as­sure you, he pretends abun­dance [Page 3]of Modesty) he cannot forbear making open Procla­mation, that he, and his Friend, to whom he addresses this Piece, have resolv'd to censure and damn all Books that shall be hereafter pub­lished; to which purpose they have established a Critical Cor­respondence between them. Wo be to all poor Writers for the Fu­ture! But he has given the World no reason to hope well of this grand Design. For in the present Case (which it seems is the first he has med­dled in) he is far from being so fair and equitable a Modera­tor as he ought, or indeed as he himself would pretend to be. For he has every where shewed that Dogmatical Humour and Arro­gance he blames in others, and [Page 4]has taken a most intolerable Freedom where he ought not to have done it. I have but two Reasons to think that Dr. Bentley himself did not write this Treatise. One is, that the Matter is infinitely too polite, and the Stile too smooth and flowing for him: The other, that I hardly believe his Self-Love and Pride would have suffer'd him to have dealt so freely and justly with his own and his Friend's Character, tho' it was the most likely way to do him a real Service at the bottom. For these Reasons I must acquit the Doctor, and tell you, that I rather believe the Author to be an Esquire, as he calls himself, and one of those mighty Wits amongst you in Town, that set up for the [Page 5]Overthrow of Religion; who, the better to gain their Ends, lay hold on all Occasions of traducing the Universities, and undermining the Dignity and Character of the Clergy. And tho' I have said this of him, yet it is no wonder that he is Dr. Bentley's Friend and Acquain­tance.

But I would gladly know what there is in this Piece, that should make it gain so mighty a Reputation, as you say it has; and, particularly, how it comes to deserve your Esteem, notwithstanding the Aversion you are pleas'd to say you have to the Satyrical Stuff in it. It is indeed called (I should say miscalled) An Essay concerning Critical and Curious Learning; which, I must own, is a very [Page 6]promising Title, and one might reasonably expect something new and delicate upon so nice an Argument. It came to my Hands with an extraordinary Advantage, in that it had your Recommendation. I durst not, upon the first Reading, pass any Censure upon it. I sus­pended my Judgment, and read it over again and again; but I lik'd it worse every time I did so. I cannot indeed but acknow­ledge I had some Reason to be biass'd, when I found the Worthy and Reverend Dean of Christ-Church so undecently treated, and the Reputation of his whole Society arraign'd in a most imperious and inso­lent manner.

The serious part of this Piece is nothing but a Farrago of common Notions, put indeed into tolerable good Language. But the Author talks so very abruptly, and has so cramp'd himself upon every Head, that what he says of his Performance in Jest, may very well be ap­ply'd to it in good earnest; viz. that by endeavouring to say a great deal in so narrow a compass, and short a time, he has scarce said any thing. But why did not our Essayer take a wider compass and a longer time for this mighty Undertaking of his? What Provocation had he to speak to any Subject, unless he would have done it to pur­pose? Was it a Task imposed upon him, which he was wil­ling [Page 8]to get off his Hands as soon as he could; and was he at the same time obliged to print it? When he delivers his own Opinion, and gives the finish­ing Turn to any Argument, he does it in as positive, decisive a manner, as if Dr. Bentley him­self had done it. He bears down all before him; and, when he is going to prove some ordinary known thing, puts himself into as great a Sweat and Tumult, as if he was a­bout some of the knottiest Pro­blems in all Mathematicks, and was doing no less than squa­ring the Circle. To make a Shew of much Learning (a Qualification not very common amongst the Wits) he runs through all the Sciences, but [Page 9]after a very odd manner. For when the Reader expects some handsome Account of them, he baulks him with lame and im­perfect Definitions. He pre­tends to have pressed his Mat­ter very close; but it is still so spungy, that it may be squeezed much closer, and fairly reduc'd into nothing. I have often heard honest Will P— talk as roundly over a Glass of Wine of all kinds of Learning and Languages, as our Author, without ever suspecting him to have any clear or full Notions of what he was about. There is a sort of Common-place, which any Man, that keeps good Company, may be easi­ly furnished with, and yet at the same time be no more a [Page 10]Scholar, than the Pope's Par­rot, that could repeat the Creed, by keeping much Company with his Holiness, was a Chri­stian.

In short, he is sometimes a proud supercilious Critick, some­times a dry and starched Com­mon-placer, and always im­pertinent to his Reader, and inconsistent with himself. If it was worth while, I would undertake to refute every thing material out of the Essay it self. One Sentence contradicts another. He is not of the same Opinion two Leaves toge­ther. Here you have him cry­ing up experimental Philosophy, but with abundance of Limi­tation, as the most pleasant Study in the World, and which [Page 11]a Man ought to spend all his Time in. — Presently he for­gets this, and talks as loudly for all the other Sciences one after another; only Mathema­ticks and Metaphysicks have the hard hap not to be of the num­ber of his Favourites, when he comes to talk of his beloved Argument, of Critical Learning in the Modern Acception, as it is taken for a thorough understanding of Classick Authors, and an exact knowledge of all those Rules, by which Men judge and determine nicely of all the finer Parts and Branches of Humane Literature; he displays all his Force, and is most wonderfully instructive. He informs his Reader, that Aristotle was the first that drew up these Rules into compass, [Page 12]made Criticism an Art; That Horace, Longinus, and all the Criticks, both Ancient and Modern, drained most of their Knowledge from him. This is just as much, and no more, than has been said an hundred times in Dedications and Pre­faces to Plays. Not only Mr. Congreve, Dennis, &c. but even Settle and D'urfey have often said it before him; and most of them in their present Controversie with Mr. Collier, make nothing of talking of A­ristotle, as familiarly as this Gentleman, without ever ha­ving read one Word of him. But he goes on victoriously, and says Criticism is without all doubt a very good thing, notwithstanding what some [Page 13]People say of it: And hath a pretty Similitude about Alexan­der and Caesar nothing to the purpose, from whence howe­ver he inferrs, as fast as Hops, the great Advantage of Criti­cal Knowledge. Such Dedu­ctions are of the same Stamp with his Friend's Dr. Bentley's. But I am sure I argue more logically, when I say that be­cause Dr. Bentley writes false Latin and false English, that therefore, by way of contra­ry he is in the right of it; for a good Cause may be, and of­ten is, ill defended. After ha­ving muster'd up all this, he leaves his Argument for a while, and makes a digression upon the Use of Frequent Composi­tions. Here he crowds his fine [Page 14]Notions very thick upon us; and, to single out one from a­mongst many, he tells us, that all the Faculties of the Mind, whether Active or Passive, are mightily heightened and improved by Exer­cise. This Proposition is cer­tainly true; and so it will hold, if I should affirm it of the Fa­culties of the Body, and illu­strate my Position with the Fa­mous Story of Milo, who first try'd his Strength in carrying a Calf, and by constant Applica­tion was at last able to do as much for an Ox. But who could I hope to inform by it? Is any body, that had Com­mon Sense or Learning before, made ever a-whit the wiser for this? If I say, critically speak­ing, that Virgil is a better Poet [Page 15]than Martial, and Heroick Poe­try nobler than Anagram, I talk upon safe Grounds, and no Body can contradict me with­out palpably contradicting the Truth; but what then? When a Man will needs be an Author, especially of Essays, it is expe­cted he should produce ardens aliquid, something new and en­tertaining: Montaign and St. Ev­remont are remarkable for it. There is yet another notable Piece of Criticism; and it is, That Tully was a better Poet than an Orator: This is true too, and I have nothing to say in answer to it. But to return with him from this digression: The next thing he presents us with, is a terrible Description of the Modern Criticks; viz. [Page 16]That they are biass'd by Partiality, and, in spite of all their specious Pretences, a strong Tincture of ill Nature and Virulence unhappily ap­pears in every Line. They tell us indeed in their Prefaces, that they have dealt very handsomly and can­didly with the Authors they com­ment upon. But when we come to the Remarks themselves, we are entertained with nothing but conti­nual Snarling and Insolence. This will prove as true as the rest of his Axioms and wise Sayings, if rightly applied, that is, to himself.

I have now run through the Essay, and should next in or­der examine his Reflections on Mr. Wotton and Dr. Bentley; but I doubt he plays Booty with [Page 17]them, especially with the lat­ter; or, perhaps, I may be mistaken, and this invisible Hero, Almanzor-like, kills all before him; spares neither Friend nor Foe. Let the Case be how it will, I have no­thing to say to him upon their score. What I have else to add, shall only be a Word or two in Answer to his Com­plements and Civilities to Christ-Church. And truly one would be apt to fancy he was never of any University himself, by his being so great a Stranger to the Respect that is due to the Learned Societies in them. His ill Breeding would make one suspect too he had never been any where else neither, nor had had the Education [Page 18]which young Squires usually have.

In his first Attack upon the Colledge, he takes Dr. Bent­ley's Method, and says perem­ptorily Mr. Boyle's Name is fal­sly set to the late Answer to the Dissertation against Phalaris's Epistle, &c. and that he is sure he had no hand at all in it. This he does out of pure Complaisance to Mr. Boyle as a Gentleman, that there may be no Quarrel between them two; for he is resolv'd to cut and slash the Book to Pieces, and without any more to do, says it is full of nothing but little Witticisms and School-Boys Jests. He begs leave of his Reader (being a very Civil [Page 19]Person) to suggest his own Opinion. And truly his Opi­nion is, that it was made (as most Compositions in thta Colledge are) by a Select Club: Every Man seems to have thrown in a Repartee, or so, in his Turn; and the most ingenenious Dr. Al­drich, no doubt, was at the Head of them, and smoked, and pun­ned plentifully on this Occasion. A pretty Conceipt this! What a Dutch Image of Wit and Composition is here! There is just as much Wit and Sence, as Probability and good Man­ners in it. For when a Gen­tleman has affixed his Name to a Book, and owned it, shall any one that dares do neither, give him the Lie, and pretend Civility at the same time? It [Page 20]was a Clownish bold Piece of Freedom at first in Dr. Bent­ley, and is now the same in this Ambuscado-Writer. Such rude Treatment would have been abominable to any one of Mr. Boyle's Quality, had he been a Man of no Note, had he never given any Proofs of his extraordinary Genius and great Learning to the World; and as the Case is quite other­wise, you and the Author must pardon me, if I say it is down­right impudent. But this is on­ly a Sample of some more Be­haviour of the same kind. He has plenty of such Civilities in store for the Dean and Students of Christ-Church, who he takes to be the true Authors of the Book. But he does not troulbe himself [Page 21]to answer them in any thing ma­terial; but, without the least Provocation, takes their man­ners most severely to Task, puts a mark upon them, and assures his Friend, that they distinguish themselves from the rest of the Uni­versity, not by their extraordinary Learning, but their abominable Ar­rogance. He wonders how they can have the Confidence to con­demn Pride in another, when they have so great a Share of it themselves. He would very fain know, why it is not as excusa­ble in Dr. Bentley, who is a scho­lar, as in some young Men, who cannot reasonably be suppos'd to be so. He is very angry with the Dean, and admonishes him for encouraging this haughty proud Temper of theirs by his own Example; and [Page 22]as a strong Conviction that he does so, he calls a small Compen­dium of Logick to witness, in which the Dean weas so unfortunate as to censure the Author of the Art of Thinking. I know not what Civilities T. R. Esq; thinks are due to Foreigners; he is not ve­ry courtly, I am sure, to his own Country-men. But farther; he ventures to affirm, that the Com­pendium of Logick is one of the worst that he ever read. The reason is, because it is written in good Latin. A most unpardo­nable Fault indeed! Well, but this is not all: He has something more to quarrel with them a­bout, and that is for calling Dr. Bentley Pedant, when he can prove them to be as rank Pedants themselves. For (says he) I take [Page 23]it to be as errant a Sign of Pedantry to publish bad Editions of old Au­thors, and to be highly solicitous about the various Readings of them, which former Editions have only neglected, because they were insignificant as to lard English Writings with Greek and Latin. He is very much in the Right of it; but what is this to Christ-Church? Yes; it is di­rectly levelled at it. For (he continues) Dr. Aldrich is pretty no­torious at present for imploying his young unexperienced Students this way. I know not what he means by employing his young unexperienced Stu­dents: But I know, and, under his Favour, it may be said with­out any Partiality at all, that those Books which have been put forth by this Colledge, both in the late learned Dr. Fell's time, and [Page 24]the present Dean's too, have a very good Reputation, not only here at home, but are likewise much approved by Foreigners a­broad; which, I hope, will re­commend them to Dr. Bentley's Esteem, whatever it may do to this Gentleman's. As for the late Edition of Aesop's Fables; it will be time enough to defend it, when it is accused. Here the Preface is only concerned, for calling Dr. Bentley plain quidam. He would, I suppose, have had his Name ushered in with half a dozen Epithets of respect; not considering how scurvily he is using Dr. Bentley's Betters all this while. But the next Charge bears hard upon them: For it is about no less than two Epigrams and one Verse, in a Poem, intitu­led, [Page 25] Articuli Pacis, whch he has found in a Book lately published, called, Examen Poeticum duplex, &c. He is very solicitous (it being a Matter of vast Conse­quence) to discover the Author of them; and at last ventures to affirm, that either the Dean him­self, or some body else made them. The Conjecture is not much unlike that of the Dutch Commentators about Horace's Mo­ther, who, after all their En­quiry, could not be positive who she was, but they unanimously agreed that he certainly had one. This being sagely premised; he proceeds to give Dr. Bentley some Comfort, and to infuse a Balm into the Wound, the Sting and Venom in the Tale of these wicked Epigrams might possibly [Page 26]have made in his Mind, assuring him en Critique, that these are by no means the best Copies in that Collection. As to this; if there was any need of an Apology (which I do not apprehend there is) it might be alledged as a good one, that that Collection was made privately by some Gentle­men, that did not think fit to own themselves, and the Poems spoken of were inserted without the Author's Leave or Know­ledge; and therefore they are not strictly obliged to account for them. But this is not very much to the Point in hand, and I shall wave it.

Here our Critick had just en­ded his Reflections, but that something came into his Head, [Page 27]that was once said by one Jo­annes in Nudibus, which he could not let go unanswered. The Words are; If the Doctor had had either good Sence or good Manners, he would not have fallen so hastily upon a learned Body, that was so ve­ry able to justifie it self, and to con­found him. It was the most likely way to make a Shipwreck of the little Reputation he had got. But even as he has mangled and qua­lified this Objection, he has not taken it off so clearly as he ima­gines he has done. He would not have had the Doctor begun this Dispute, because the Col­ledge was below so great a Man's Resentments. And he now ad­vises him not to answer any Part of Mr. Boyle's Book, because, that which is abusive is so blunt and ungen­teel, [Page 28]that it cannot affect his Reputa­tion at all; and the Authorities in the other are so falsly cited and misappli­ed, that they answer themselves. For many Reasons of the same Na­ture, I would not have given you so much trouble about this Pamphlet, had not you obliged me to it; and if you find my Stile rugged and unpleasant (as I doubt you will) you must blame you self, and excuse,