This he has used with the utmost virulence through the whole of his publication, artfully supposing, that if he could bring Mr._Ramsay's_ reputation into dispute, his work would fall of course, as of no authenticity.

I submit this simple question to the reader.

When a writer, in attempting to silence a publication, attacks the character of its author, rather than the principles of the work itself, is it not a proof that the work itself is unquestionable, and that this writer is at a loss to find an argument against it?
But there is something so very ungenerous in this mode of replication, as to require farther notice.

For if this is the mode to be adopted in literary disputes, what writer can be safe?
Or who is there, that will not be deterred from taking up his pen in the cause of virtue?
There are circumstances in every person's life, which, if given to the publick in a malevolent manner, and without explanation, might essentially injure him in the eyes of the world; though, were they explained, they would be even reputable.

The _cursory remarker_ has adopted this method of dispute; but Mr._Ramsay_ has explained himself to the satisfaction of all parties, and has refuted him in every point.