A letter to the author of the pamphlet called An answer [sic] to the…A letter to the author of the pamphlet called An answeer [sic] to the…

Whereas we speak of it, in our Defence, as a Thing that shows the Prejudice and Violence of the Gentlemen of that Party, that they intercepted, broke open, and published in the Gazette, a private Letter of a Person of Distinction to his Friend (meaning a Letter of the Rev. Rector of Yale College to Mr. W—ms of Long Meadow) you say that this needs want, as many of our Stories unhappily do, the needful Circumstances of Truth because none of you of the Council ever intercepted it, or broke it open; but if it be so, is that an Evidence that none of the Party did it.

Whereas we speak of it, in our Defence, as a Thing that shews the Prejudice and Violence of the Gentlemen of that Party, that they intercepted, broke open, and published in the Gazette, a private Letter of a Person of Distinction to his Friend (meaning a Letter of the Rev. Rector of Yale College to Mr. W—ms of Long Meadow) you say that this needs want, as many of our Stories unhappily do, the needful Circumstances of Truth because none of you of the Council ever intercepted it, or broke it open; but if it be so, is that an Evidence that none of the Party did it.

We used the Word Party here, and not Council, for that very End that it might take in, both the Interceptor and the Publisher. You say you had not the least Thought of its being intercepted or broken open, till the Narrative told you of it: If it be so, 'tis very strange; you were long before that told of it in the Boston Gazette of Decemb. I. wherein the Injuriousness of exposing a Letter so stolen, was insisted on. But if it was so, and was as you solemnly declare, that not one of you knew from whom nor by whom it came, certainly then you ought not to have exposed it as the Rector's, to his Reproach; for if the Case was so, you knew not but that it was a mere Forgery. Why would you suffer your Hands to touch Goods that were brought to you after such a Manner, that you knew were none of your own, but saw that they came with another Man's Mark upon them, as the original Owner, and knew not how they were gotten from him? Was it worthy of a Minister of the Gospel, under such Circumstances, before ever he knew, or had made any Enquiry, to take them into his House, and into his own Possession, and improve them to his own Purposes, and to the Prejudice of the original Owner? Is this, Rev. Sir, becoming of your Office and Character? But you say that you never