I Know not what to make of the Letter to Mr. G. On the one side it charges him with Disingenuity, for giving out false and imper­fect Copies of a late Conference; and on the other confesses, That Mr. M. pretends the D. gave out false Copies too. And Mr. M. I am told, is a Man of Learning and Integrity, as well as the D's Copist, and was present at the whole Conference, and very well understood the whole Matter. Mr. G. is one with whom I have my self some Ac­quaintance, and whom I know not to be so weak as the slighting Hints of the Letter would make him, tho' I do not think him strong enough to make an Argument Scorn-proof: For to laugh off an Argument which becomes importunate, and will not take a civil Answer, is a sure way, and which I have known practis'd. Those who know him better, think there is not an honester Man in the Nation; and that if he have wrong'd the D. 'tis the first Wrong he did in his Life. The D. is a Man in Dignity, and than whom no body knows better what 'tis to defame his Neighbor, and post him up in Print for a Fool and a Knave: For that's the plain, tho' not the blunt English of Weak and Disingenuous. What must I think of this mat­ter? Has the D. forgot himself? Or is Mr. G. in so short a time become another Man, one who went into the Conference Honest and Able, and came out a disingenuous Dunce?

This matter might, in my Opinion, have been better carry'd. Mr. G's Copies were given out, and came, I suppose, to the D's Hands while he was yet in Town, and might have been told what was false or imperfect in them, and made Satisfaction, if he had done any body Wrong. And I cannot comprehend why he was let alone, as long as he might have Answer'd for himself, and Posted as soon as he was got a Hundred and fifty Miles off. Again, the Original Paper, which the Letter says was Read aloud and approv'd by both Parties, might have been publish'd, and all farther trouble sav'd. A Copy agreed by both Sides would have put the Matter of Fact past Fending and Proving. By the way, in whose Hands do's this Original Paper re­main? I suppose not in Mr. G's, because the Letter, instead of talk­ing of the Unauthentic Papers of his Writer, would in likelihood have complain'd of corrupting the Original. If it remain with the D. certainly Disingenuity is a thing with which Mr. G. is unacquainted: For those who are given to play Tricks, are suspicious, and stand upon their Guard, and provide before-hand not to be caught. We may be sure Mr. G. never dreamt of playing the D. foul, if he left in the D's Hands wherewith to be convinc'd of foul Play.

But yet the Letter will needs have him Disingenuous, because when the Papers of the Gentleman who writ for him, were neither Read, nor Compar'd, nor Sign'd as they ought to have been, with what Ingenuity can these be dispersed through so many Hands for true and authentic Copies? Pray where is the Disingenuity of dispersing them for true, if they be true, and why are they the less true for not being formally Authentic? I for my part think, that no Reading, nor Comparing, nor Signing will make a thing true which is not, nor hinder a thing from being true which is. Yes; but they must be of very easie Faith and Ʋnderstanding, who would take his Word in this Matter, without so much as any Motive of Credibility. That is to say, he is a Fool who believes a Catholic upon his Word; a Complement which if Catho­lics should return, we should have comfortable living together. But the D. mistakes his Man, and knows not how great a Motive of Credibility Mr. G's Word is, and how many Protestant Fools there are, if they be so who take his Word, than which no body, I believe, who knows him, will desire more Assurance in any Matter of Fact.

But Mr. G. makes the D. barely put a Question about the Greek Church, but mentions not the inference he drew from it, which is set down in the Original Paper approved by both Parties. And if it were no other, than that, which is set down in the Letter, viz. Then a Church holding to Tradition as its Rule, may err in matters of Faith, I for [Page 3]my part do not see what necessity there was at all of setting it down, the Inference being so evident from the Premises, that every one that runs, might read it.

So that upon the whole, methinks here is much ado about nothing. And then for the two things which the D. desires Mr. G. to make out, commend me to him for a man who loves to spare his own pains. 'Tis as much as to say, do you do all the work, and I will sit by, and tell you whether it be well done or no, must Mr. G. prove that Prote­stants have no absolute certainty? I thought it had concern'd them to be satisfied that they have. For some security sure would not be a­miss for Souls, as well as for Mony. I thought it had concern'd the D. as well as his Neighbors, to have an account of the hope which is in him, ready for all who ask it. He teaches Protestant Doctrin, and (if I mistake him not) owns an absolute certainty. Has he then nothing to do with making it appear that he is sure of what he teaches, and what he owns; But desire not to be troubled for that matter, and bid Mr. G. prove the contrary? I take no notice that the Question is veered from certainty of Protestant Doctrin to cer­tainty of Scripture, as if it were all one to be certain of the Book, and certain of every thing for which 'tis quoted. Such matters I leave to those who are or will be concern'd; but I think it not equal by any means that one side should make all the Play.

I take the Second Proposal for the fairer of the two, and wish they would share it between them; Mr. G. answer the D's objection, and the D. Mr. G's Argument. The D. is too much a Scholar not to know he has not answer'd it yet, because he knows an Argument is not answered, till some Proposition in it be found false; some Term taken in a double sense, or ill coupled with his fellow; in fine, till some fault be discovered. He meddles with nothing of this, but lets the Premises alone, and brings an objection against the Conclusion; a thing which may be done, and very speciously, and very crosly a­gainst as undeniable Truths as any in the World. For when will there want something to say, and more than can easily be answered, against the division of an Inch into as many parts, as an Ell? Or the moving of two Points towards one another perpetually, which notwithstand­ing shall never meet? And yet both are palpably demonstrable. Now as the D. says to Mr. G. answer my Objection, or else your Argument must be faulty; Mr. G. may say to the D. answer my Argument or else there must be a fault in your Objection: And as this is equally forcible on both sides, they are debtors to one another. I suppose they will come to account, and let us, who stand by, know at last [Page 4]where to venture our Souls; with the Protestant Certainty, or Catho­lic Infallibility.

For the rest, because I should be sorry to wrong either the D. or Mr. G. by my judgment, I pray you to get me information of the matter of fact, such as I may relie upon. Particularly what the great care was which Mr. G. took in the Conference it self, to keep the D. from expecting any great ingenuity from him after it: What there is false, or imperfect in his Copies: How it hapned that the Gentleman who writ for him, never read his Papers at the Conclusion: How the Copies given out by Mr. G. come to omit what is set down in the Ori­ginal Paper read aloud and approved by both Parties: What Arts have been used to get Mr. T. to approve his Copy: And above all, why the D. did not Print the Original Paper, which he says, was read aloud, and approved by both Parties, and which remained only in his own hands, that so the World, without more ado might have been satisfied of the mighty difference between it and Mr. G's Copy? In fine, to say all in a word, procure me, if you can, a true account of the late Conference at the D. of P. For thô the title of the Letter promise one, I find no performance in the body, and remain as ignorant of what past, as before I read it.