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…

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 ⟨p. 60⟩published it, & then, to prove it, you insert an Extract of that Part of the Boston Gazette that was referred to, whereby it appears that only some Parts of the Letter were published, with Interspersed Reflections, publicly to ridicule it: But is not this a miserable Foundation to cry out of Untruth upon? 'Tis true you did not till now publish the whole Letter, but han't you exposed the Letter, and abused the Author in Public in a greater Degree, than if you had merely done that? You have picked out some particular Parts of the Letter, that you supposed most for your Purpose of rendering the Author ridiculous in the Eye of the World, and have not only published, but in a fleering insulting Manner, derided and descanted on those Passages: The Fact that you have been guilty of, is the same in Kind and Denomination with what we have charged you with; those of that Party han't only intercepted and broke open, but also published in the Gazette.

We used the Word Party here, and not Council, for that very End that it might take in, both the Intercepter 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 meer 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