AS dutiful and loving Children, who can patiently and wisely be­hold the changes and decays of their aged Parents, (the common fate of all earthly things) can neither with patience nor silence see violent hands laid on them, hastening them to ruine; no more could I, being naturally English, and a lover of English, without much trouble of mind, begetting at length this necessary Vindication, behold our Mother Tongue so presumptuously handled by you, to her ruine, under co­lour of kindness to it.

I will not deny but you might, in these your attempts, have as honest an end, as had the daughters of Pelias towards him their aged Father; intending nothing worse, than the renewing and advancing it; as if that were true of you also, which Ovid hath, of them, Metam. l. 4.

In manibus vestris vita est, aetásque parentis. and the life and flourishing of our Language depended wholly on your Art, your Mercy, and Justice. Though I confess, in one of the London Gazets, sometime since printed, I find your, or some of the same Combination, to be so modest as to take great London into the Plot too, and offer it there to the world, as it is spoken, and (as I remember) written in London and Oxford: coupling London and Oxford together, as Duck and Mallard by the Bills: or as they are wont to joyn Rabbits together, a fat one, and a lean one, that the one may put off the other the better. And yet this pretty piece of arrogation contrived so neatly by the Factors of the Glory of Oxford, I find to have succeeded so unhappily already, that a late Comedian in his Wits, forbeareth not to censure such Projectors, as such who take apride in writing of false English: where­as it was supposed and intended men should believe it was true, because they writ it so. And if you would know why London and Oxford must be the on­ly Rule of writing and speaking pure, reformed English, it is (as was intima­ted) that Oxford alone might give Law in this case, and London look on and admire that University, in comparison of which, (as your publick Orator D.S. once solemnly said) Cambridge was no better than a Country School. But if that had been all, something had remained good to her; but now, of late, it is in danger to loose that little reputation, as not being able to teach true English, for want of a Theatre.

But how great accrument of glory is due to you, for your late Emendations of our Language, I shall endeavour briefly to declare, if not prove, as well from some general Observations of other Languages, against which you of­fend; as also more particularly against the most certain constitution of our English Tongue. For I think, I may here cry out with Drusius in Genesis first, v. 5. O divina Grammatica, quam saepe ineptiunt, qui te negligunt, & contem­nunt! And so again, Deut. 26.6. O divina Crisis, quam mulia saepe ignorant qui te ignorant! O divine Grammatical learning, how do they often trifle, who neglect and contemn thee? O heavenly Critical learning, how many things do not they know, who are ignorant of thee!

I might begin from the Tower of Babel to shew what affronts you put upon the 75 Languages into which the once united Mass of Tongues mouldred, as Clemens Alexandrinus Stromat. p. 338. noteth: but S. Hierome upon S. Mat­thew's Gospel, chap. 26. says into 72, according to the number of Nations di­stinguished, over which (say the same Authors) so many Angels do preside; to [Page 2]which he supposed Christs words to relate, when he mentioned the 12 Legions of Angels ready to assist him at his call: But chiefly I forbear, because I am, in truth, no such Antiquarie, nor Linguist, as to be able to discourse of them, and because both Mr. Selden de Synedriis, l. 3. c. 9. n. 3. and Buxtorf de Linguae Hebraeae Origine, Thes. 10, 11, 12. have learnedly discoursed on that Subject. But if we will give any credit to Goropius Becanus in his Hermathema, or our own Verstegan, we shall find that the Saxon-Dutch Language, (of which ours is a principal Dialect) is a Mother Tongue, and most ancient, and consequent­ly, so venerable, as to be valued for that, and to be served by Moderner Tongues, and not, contrary to its Genius, to be modelled and corrected by some which inferiour in age, would pretend to be superiour in perfection, whereas in truth, it is the most significant in it self, most elegant in its compositions, and concisest of all Languages under Heaven; and therefore well might have ser­ved our turn still, without the corrupt mixtures (which some call Graces) of other Languages.

There is a common Fate which pursuing all sublunary things to decay and confusion, seizes on Tongues and Languages too, as Horace, de Arte Poetica, hath taught us, thus.

And not only do the Languages vary so, as out of one common Root of He­brew, (as most say) or Chaldee (as some think) the vast diversity of words do rise (though no doubt but many words after the division of Tongues were by the separated Societies of People invented, having no dependence at all upon the most Original Tongue) but diversity of pronunciation also, of the same Language will prevail, and create subdivisions thereof. The Oriental Tongues, as Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriack and Arabick, are generally Guttural in their speech: but those of Asia the Less, with the European Greeks are most Pala­tine; using the palate of the mouth, in speaking: as also do the Italian and Spa­nards, as Hispalensis Isidore, (himself a Spaniard) testifieth. Yet if he had lived in these days, his judgment might have been question'd, should he so speak. For at this day, Italy alone differs much according to the principal Instruments of speech. For the Florentines, now a days, are almost as much Guttural as the Arabians, or our Welsh. The Venetians use the Palate of their mouth most: The Neopolitans pronounce most from their teeth, and the Genoese in the lips: the Romans retaining the best decorum in pronunciation. All which I mention, not out of any vain pretence to Criticalness in those Languages, but to draw from thence this conclusion directly apposite to the very late humour stirring: For though these Tongues thus vary, none that I have heard of, (be­ing especially no better Judges than we by and by shall shew you to be) have presumed to alter the Language in writing, as they have involuntarily in pro­nunciation: but this is a Spirit of Arrogance worthy of Oxford only.

But I doubt not you will waft me over into France, to learn new fashions there, or bring them over to England, for grand Presidents of mending Lan­guages here: but I must crave leave to deny both the Authentickness of such a Precedent, and the prudence of the writers after such Copies: both because it is a vain and phantastical Nation, light, and variable, and can never see when they are in a good condition; and because the Ape is always more ridiculous in his imitations, than is he whose actions are so natural, (as daily change is to the French) as to become him well enough: and also because I find that hu­mour of theirs lately taken up, of writing as they speak (which surely you aim at in some measure) condemned by one of their own Nation, when it scarce peeped out of its shell, a fitter judge of Language than they who advanced [Page 3]that vain design. For of it thus writeth Seigneur Des Accords, in his Ba­narures; or Collections Recreative, fol. 3. ‘De nostre temps quelques un se sont volu [...]fforcer de innover in l'escriture Francoise: l'autorite des quelles est trop petit, & les raisons trop foibles pour se fair croir. Et quand cela se pou­roit (se que je n'accorderay jamais) si est ce que pour insterest du poublick, il ne devoit souffrir. Car il adviendroit, que d'icy a cent ans, il ne ce trouvoit plus persones qui peut lire toutes nous escritures; ny protocoles de Notairs: & per un pernicieux consequence, feroit accroyer, quils auroient escrire de mots ou jamais n'avoient pense.’ Which I presume thus to English: Every one now a days takes upon him to innovate our writing: whose Authority is too small, and their reasons too weak to give them credit. And if this should take effect, which I will never believe; if it were only for the publick interest, it were not to be endured. For it may happen hereby, that an hundered years hence, we should scarce find one, who should be able to read all our writings, no not the first draughts of our Registers: and so by pernicious consequence, men shall be made to believe, that they wrote such things as they never imagined. And if it be said yet, That it be comes us to conform our Language nearer to transma­rine compositions of words: I shall presume to tell you, I cannot agree to them in such counsels: and that upon the same reason Scotus gave, why water is cold, and fire hot, quia hoc est hoc, & illud est illud; i. e. water is water, and fire is fire: and French is French; and Italian is Italian; and English is Eng­lish: and so let it be for me; whatever it may be for you.

But, methinks I hear that phanatical reason from you, used by Sectaries for the reforming our Religion, contrary to Law and Reason, viz. What needs so many supersluous letters cumber our words, and make our Language too hard and burdensorne to many well meaning Subjects of his Majesty, who are wil­ling to live in peace? And why should we be troubled with so many Letters which profit nothing, but hinder good people, who would gladly Write true En­glish, but they cannot command their spirits to conforme to so many ceremo­nies of spelling? And therefore surely, it were far better, for the better uniting his Majesties good Subjects in one plain and easie way of writing true English, to lay a side these dividing, innecessary formes of spelling words. And besides all this, there was an excellent Act of Parliament drawn up by (then) Mr. Birch: in his Ingenious Catalogue of Books under the Rebellious Government, which seems to be very necessary now; and put in practice in Oxford, without the consent of the King, or either House of Parliament, the Theatre giving autho­rity enough to it: and it is this, as it there stands, Classis the S [...]cond, Act. 36. word for word. An Act in behalf of all Clerks and Notaries, whereby they have libertie, to Shorten, dash, or contract any words, for avoiding of fals? English, as heretofore in Latine. To this so great authority, (the best vindi­cation of you) I confess I want an answer, unless I may say it hath been of late years, antiquated. And for your tender, scrupulous, and aggrieved spirits with the superfluous rites of spelling English, I leave you to be eased by the many, large, and elaborate Disputations published for the use of Weak Dis­senters; such as I take you to be, as will competently appear from what now follows.

First that you seem not to have considered, your liberty of reforming, is repugnant to the general customes of all known Languages to me, and I be­lieve to you also, though much more a Linguist than am I as Dissenters de­mands are to all known Religions: For First, All Languages have ever allowed some Consonants and some vowels in words to stand idle, and Quid fient (as they speak) unlesse perhaps serving for Euphonie, or gracefullness of pronun­ciation, or to direct us to the fountain from which they spring? And who, that hath but tasted of the Oriental Tongues, can be ignorant of Sheva Quiescant in the beginning, middle, and end of words very oft? but I do not mean as if [Page 4]ever it began a word, but as the first syllable of a word. But this is one quarrel which you pick with the English tongue, that it hath e often, and sometime [...] other letters, not sounded and therefore not to be suffered: denying it the com­mon law or libertie of all languages, most unreasonably, and by consequence, unlearnedly: And thus you (for example) you also strike out p in the midle of a word at your pleasure; and contrarie to your own rule of conforming En­glish to other Languages: and for temptation, you will have temtation; and for redemption, redemtion: that you may alienate them the farther from the Latine Tongue, from whence they spring: to which sometimes you would reconcile us.

Next, you shew your self a great enemie to our English Dipthongs; in which our tongue exceeds most, if not all Languages; which you therefore judge as unbecoming it, as Dionysius the Tyrant did the golden beard of Aesculapius, which he sacrilegiously took away, because his Father Apollo had no beard at all: as Tully tells us De natura deorum. So surely very undecent do you e­steem it, that we, (as Learned Mr. Butler in his English Grammar hath noted before me) should have eleven Dipthongs, and other Languages have not above half so many. For in truth I see no reason but we should allow 12 Dip­thongs in our Tongue, and why io in words derived from the Latine Tongue, should not be so accounted. Examples of all which these may be: ai, as faith, aid, maid: ea, as lead, read, fear, heaven: ie, as field, friend, liev, signifying choice; as when we say I had as liev, and I had liever, which vulgarly is cor­rupted into, I had lether, or in stead of that, is used, I had rather, which is quite another word descended from the Saxon word rath, signifying, soon. But to proceed, eo, as people; ei, as heir, their, eu, Feud, Eunuch: oa, Oak, choak, coast: ou, loud, south, thou, and most, or all our words derived from Latine Sub­stantives; as Doctour, Amour, Ardour: which it hath pleased you to change very arbitrarily into, or. In oi, moist, soil: ui, as guilt, quilt: io; as mention, nation, vision, where the four last letters make but one syllable pronounced in Prose, or Verse, unless when the Verse requires a diaeresis, or seperation; as the La­tines do; sometimes, writing pictaei for pictae. The French Grammars tell us, that Tongue hath one Tripthongs as beautè, which also our Tongue hath, writing beautie.

Now when a Language is thus setled by consent, for private heads to break the Rule, under pretence of meliorating the same is to bring in confusion: and to make our writing as different as our pronunciation, which will be no small inconvenience, and is such a violence, void of prudence, that none of those we call the Learned Languages, would ever endure, though subject to the like discrepancie in speaking and writing as ours is: and no learned men, before this Age, (and it is well if they of this Age be learneder then other men) did ever attempt to reforme a Language in this manner: so that it may seem ra­ther an emptie affectation to seem some bodie; than really to be so. But if that humour be prevalent in them, it were a great deal better they should remove their Press from Oxford, to Smolensko, or some noted Citie between the Mo­s [...]ovites and Polacks, whose Slavonian or Sarmatian Language is so crouded thick with consonants, which cannot all be heard, they seem extremely to need and call for such a Procustes, as Oxford hath; who may lengthen or shor­ten words, as they agree best with his Cratch. But the truth is, that a funda­mental errour against the Analogy of all Tongues, hath mightily abused you, to conceive that Pronounciation should be any certain Rule of Orthographie, when as it self is very uncertain: and your reformations many of them do not answer the true pronunciation: so that I scarce know where to have you, in such inconstancies; who sometime would have pronuciation a Rule of spelling; and sometimes your (not the common) spelling a Rule of true pronunciation. But possibly you had before you for a Precedent, Augustus Cesar, (For surely you [Page 5]must imagine your self above the condition of a subject, who undertake to give us Laws of writing and speaking our own tongue) of whom Suetònius in his Life writes, Videtur potius corum sequi opimonem qui perinde scriben­dum, ac loquendum existiment. He seemed to be of their opinion, who conceive we ought to write as we speake. And therefore Suetonius himself (as it fol­lows) wonders very much, at what others wrote of him, that he was such a severe and punctual observer of Orthographie, that Legato Consulari succes­sorem dederit, ut rudi & indocto, cujus manu Ixi, pro Ipsi scriptum ani­madvertit: i. e. He turned a Deputy-Consul out of his Office, and put ano­ther into his room, because, under his own hand, he wrote Ixi for Ipsi, as an ignorant illiterate Fellow. From hence it may be most probably gathered, that, in those days, Ixi was vulgarly pronounced for Ipsi, and yet Augustus, (as well learned, as wise) would not suffer such emendations, upon such grounds. And the difficulty of reconciling Augustus his opposite practises, is not so great as it seemed to Suetonius. For either we are to understand the Emperour of Phrase, rather then Words or Orthographie, as if he avoided the finery or gallantry of Language, unbecoming the Majesty of so great a Prince, and chose to write plainly (but yet truly) as he spake; or else, he might look upon the correction of a Language, as a matter above the capacity of persons, who are as subject to the Laws of speaking, as they are of living, under their Sovereign Tiberius Cesar, desired and endeavoured to add but one Letter more to the Roman Alphabet, but common consent and custome would not allow it him: Brave, but certainly not grave spirits are they, who, at their private pleasures should ambitiously become the Authors of adding or taking away a letter from a word: as will appear now we come to a more particular examination of your alterations made in our Mother Tongue, in some few, of many instances to be given.

I confess I am not much versed in the English Prints at Oxford. I have only seen a Bible in Quarto there printed; but never read one Page in it, as being unwilling to read so sacred a Volumne, when I should be sure to meet with ma­ny errours, though but Grammatical. But I have been told by a principal Bookseller in London, that men would not buy that Impression, for your. Hete­rodox spelling, found therein. I am better acquainted with two other Books printed at Oxford; the one named, The Ladies Calling, the other The Go­vernment of the Tongue: in which I do not pretend to instance in half the Ca­cographies there found, but such few as the entrance into them offers to every eye: And lest you should loose time in teaching us new words, the very first word, and that of the Preface, gives us a notable instance of your extraordina­ry faculty of divising words, never heard of before in our Language: where you say, The Editor to the Reader. And surely it was your modesty so to write; for had you said, The Editor to the Lector, it would have made a great­er noise, and procured you greater admiration amongst women, to whom you write. And yet again you went so far, that if (as it often happens) bad Latire words make good English ones; the Ladies, to whom you write, might scar you had greater mind to eat them, than instruckt them. But if you had pleas­ed to have suffered it to smell of the English Tongue, so far as to have written Editour, a small glimse had been given to a good guesser, to know your mean­ing: but writing Editor, none unlearned above the English Tongue, [...]an tell whether the word be Hebrew, Arabick, or Ethiopick, for it comes as near them as English. I dare say, never an English man in London ever spake or wrote such a word, though you once promised such a form of the English Tongue; was spoken in London and Oxford. I pray be pleased to turn to your Dr. Hei­lin's Animadversions on that Ingenious and Learned Gentleman, Mr. Ham­mond Lestrange his History of King Charles the First, and not fa [...] from the be­ginning, you shall find a few Verses against such boisterous wor [...]s, which will [Page 6]fit your foot exactly: but I think not requisite here to repeat them. But the truth is, that ever since Mr. Holliday set your stile at Oxford, a Gog, (who in his latter days both distasted and detested his own strains) you have but too commonly and justly deserved the censure of Augustus Cesar: of whom Sue­tonius in his Life, chap. 86. thus writes; M. Antonium quidem, ut insanum in­crepat, quasi ea scribentem, quae mirentur potius homines, quam intelligant. He reproved Mark Antony as sensless, for so writing as if he would have men rather admire, than understand him. It may be, you will set Tully against Augustus, of whom Quintilian, or Cornelius Tacitus, or (as others lately think) M [...]ssala de Claris Oratoribus, thus writes, Satis constat, nec Ciceroni quidem detrectatores defuisse, quibus inflatus & tumens, necsatis pressus, supra mo­dum exultans, & superfluens, & parum antiquus videretur. 'Tis true, Cicero might seem to some detractours, flatuous, and swollen, and not sufficiently compact, but flaunting, superfluous, and modern: but we cannot say he devi­sed new words, or, as great a Master of the Latine Tongue as he was, that he took upon him to add, and leave out Letters in writing, as he listed: or that he stuffed every page with Metaphores, Hyperboles, Synecdoches, and such like, as not to say according to the common Proverb, A man cannot see wood for trees, but a man cannot see trees for leaves: nor what stuff the garment is made of, for colours. But Aristotle in his Rhetorick gave us no such ad­vice, but on the contrary rather, that ornament of Speech should be rather [...] than [...]: sawce, than meat; but I see forrein Cookery is crept into the English Tongue, as well as set on our Tables: by vertue of which, we find in an egregious Sermon published by a bold Divine very near Oxford, to have dressed up luckie Treason, so handsomely, that it may make a man in love with it, and hate only the Oratour.

But I am not now to meddle with those offences; but with the petty Trea­sons of clipping the Kings English, and adulterating his Language; which so­ber men were not wont to do formerly. Very few (I confess) are the corrup­tions you make instead of corrections, by additions, yet one I shall name in your Government of the Tongue, as Sciencies for Sciences, generally received; because surely it was not neer enough the Latine Tongue before: and there­fore, hereafter by the same reason we must also write Instancies, and experi­encies, and ignorancies, for our usual, Instances, experiences, and ignorances: Nay, we must go through the work of reforming, and in the singular number also, write Sciencie for Science, and instancie for instance, and experiencie for experience. For our Language (as I shall shew by and by) requires nothing more, generally to the making a Noun Substantive plural, of a singular, but the addition of a single s.

Now I am to touch your alteration by way of defect: and first, in the mid­dle of words, where first I note your great spite, or skill against Dipthongs, generally turning words derived from the Latine, into the Latine Tongue a­gain: as Editor, (intended for an English word, but spoil'd in the making) for Editour; and writing color for colour; and humor for humour. And the vein being on you, you could not stop there, but venture to do the like to words properly English; as Neighbor for Neighbour; and mold for mould. And no better deal you with ea, dipthong; writing lesur for leasure, and me­sur for measure; contrary to the French, whom sometimes you pretend to fol­low; who write measure, as we do. And what can be the reason hereof, we know not, besides your, Sic volo, sic jubeo. And I wonder also we must have in your Government of the Tongue, Inveihing for inveighing; unless your al­teration le [...]ns more to the Latine: And for the same reason surely, you print, exemt for exempt; and presumtion for presumption; and redemtion for redemp­tion; do you not? No surely: here the Latine Orthographie is not good e­nough, but you fear you should make Ladies mouths stand awry, if they should [Page 7]pronounce true English. And with greater confidence yet, you desert the La­tine, in writing Supercede for Supersede. But perhaps you first said in the Latine Tongue, concerning that word, to be there, Supercedo, and not Su­persedeo, by which presumptuous acts of yours, the true Etymologie of words may soon suffer much: as it hath in the very name Oxford, which is most generally supposed to take its derivation and denomination from an Ox and a Ford; but falsely: though the very Armes of that Place would prove so much; and a more modern writing of that name, by interposing one syllable in the middle, would strengthen the vulgar errour; for the greater glory of it; as Oxenford: that so, as they say, that ascribe much to the power of numbers, Achilles overcame Hector (otherwise as good a man as he) because Achilles his name consisted of three syllables, and Hectors, but of two; so Oxford, becom­ing Oxcuford, with three syllables, should so far overpower Cambridge, that of a Famous University, it should become a Countrie School. But the Rebus or Hieroglyphick seems quite to be spoild, by the more true Etymologie given us by Mr. William Slater, an ingenious Antiquarie, in his Marginal note, on his Votum, before his Palae-albion, thus writing Ousford, the true interpreta­tion of Oxford; so called of the river Ouse running by it. So that whoever will have an Ox for the Armes of Oxford, must rather fetch it from the fa­mous University of Athens, to which it anciently belonged: but that falling into decay, the Beast left that place, (and travailing I know not which way) till it came to Calice, did wade or ford over to Dover, and from thence passed strait to Ousford and made it Oxford, afterward Oxenford; the same year that the Virgin Maryes house was carried from Ierusalem to Loretto: making it the famousest University in Europe, where I leave it.

I come next to shew how you have injuriously and shamefully docked En­glish words, by taking from the latter end of them. And here first, whereas it was most usual to leave the vowel e at the end of a word, as Quiescent, accor­ding to many ancient and modern Languages, but especially for the great use, informing and declining words, besides the foresaid Euphonie; now a dayes, with lesse judgment than boldness, that must be removed. First all our Substan­tives ending in double ss, never wanting e after them, must now stand without: because (forsooth) pronunciation is secure without it: And therefore now blessedness, and wickedness, and guess and bless must want e which they had formerly; and upon much better reason than it is denied them now: And so the verbs love, have, live, and such like, must content themselves with threee letters now as lov, hav, liv, to the overthrow of that general rule in for­ming our English verbes, whose Tenses and Persons were generally carried on with the addition of s or th, or st, or d only joyned to the First person Singular: as I love, I have, I knowe, I live, beget the second person thou lov­est, thou havest or contractedly, hast; thou knowest, and thou livest. And so the third person; He loveth, he liveth, he knoweth: And so in the Preterim­perfect Tense, I loved, I lived, I Followed, thou lovest and know being here Anomalous. Thus may a man observe, that most English words are formed by the addition of the said two letters, and sometimes, three to the original verb: but now upon this new device, we must be constrained to make an e on purpose to diversifie our persons: which also must be done in nowns substantive, when we would of singular, make them plural. Formerly, and more compendi­ously and simply, we made all Plurals by onely s added: as bonds, words, lights, &c. and therefore ever after a double ss in the last syllable, was added an e standing, not (as many imagined) alltogether useless; but in readiness to receive another s when there was an occasion to use the plural number: as wickednesse, made the plural, wickednesses: and Excesse, Excesses, and di­stresse, distresses. But if a man shall write in the singular, wickedness and ex­cess and distress; he cannot make of them the plural number, by adding ano­ther [Page 8] s, but must be forced to take a whole syllable so to do, contrary to the common grounds of our English Tongue, against which yet, it seems some­what of the latest to speak, fashion having so far prevailed ever since, and scarce before the late Rebellion, under Charles the first, when some men struck at the ancient established Lawes of Church and State, others busying them­selves in murthering or mutulating English words, which they also called Re­formation. I do remember in the Rebellious times to have met with a Parlia­mentarie Primer, which would take off the unnecessarie ceremonies from words; and taught Children to read and write trubl, and battl, and duble, for trouble, and battle, or battel, and double very learnedly; and a fit precedent for Oxford Presse to follow.

And what should I here mention the innumerable insolences of that Presse in leaving out e the termination of words, as in Calm, Som, Sarcasm, Press, with which the foresaid books abound. I adde to these sort of changes, another absurdity, in taking away consonants too; as for example, writing there Dia­bolic, Topic, Stomac, Dublick, in stead of the known words Diabolick, Topick, publick: or, as sometimes they were written Diabolique, Topique, Publique: but never, but from Oxford with a c terminating them: unless from France, where I find them so spelt; but what have we to do to conforme our English to their Language? And yet I suppose as one of Fashion, rather than substance, followed them, when you also wrot, vertu and valu, for vertue and value, as the English Tongue requires.

But being almost as much tired in writing, as I may suppose you may be in reading this, I shall only mention your Masterpiec of refining or reforming our Language, in constant writing Tho for though, and thro for through in The Government of the Tongue thus, printing the words Psalm 139. v. 9 Their Tongues go thro the world; which if it doth appear to be done with any good judgment and reason, besides your old Sic volo Sic jubeo, I am content to set down under the severe censure of a troublesome quarreller: but if not, I hope you will please (to prevent a Schisme in our Language) to return to true Or­thographie. I cannot imagine what put you upon such a faileur, besides a vain designe of softning our Language, and so to confound the rules of spelling, that the weake and ignorant may justifie their involuntarie slips from such volun­tarie errours as you commit: or from a more generall ground whereby now of late dayes, Libertie of writing is become as reasonable, as libertie of beleiv­ing and worship: And so there should remain no such thing as true and false spelling in the English Tongue. Or perhaps you considering that the vowel and two letters g, h, which you rob the foresaid words of partaking of the nature of aspirations, you thought it advisable, to spare us our breath, the better to cool our porrage; as I may so write, in imitation of you, teaching us to regu­late our Pens by our Tongues.

But I might argue first against your tho, and thro, because being but parts, of words, they can signify nothing at all, standing by themselves: as the very first page almost, of some Logicks tell us, so that the syllables in domus, being sepe­rated, signifie just nothing: though both do and must, as entire words, doe. But what ever you may ordain that relique of a word for, you can give us no reason why it should retain the same force in pronunciation, as when it enjoy­ed all its letters. For in our Language, Initial letters do varie their value ac­cording to their terminations. For instance, Tho in though, is not to be pro­nounced as Tho in Thought. For it is manifest to any ordinarie observer of the English speech, that th hath a double force, ever since we lost the use of the Saxon ð, of which you may read so much spoken by Mr. Gill in his Logono­mia, and Mr. Butler in his English Grammar. For there remains still so great affinity between the Saxon, or Teutonick (as Verstegan pleases to call our Lan­guage) ð, and our th, that we sometimes write some words with the one, and [Page 9]sometimes with the other, without any exception: as murther or murder: and I know some countries in England, where the common people wer wont to say It is very thark or ðark, in stead of dark; which I once took to be a greater corruption than in truth it is: therefore you writing only Tho, we cannot tell, whether we should pronounce it as o, or as tho, in thought and thorow, untill we have taken our horses and rod to the Oxonian Oracle. For if you should (and upon your own grounds you ought to) write, thi for thigh, we could not tell whether we should pronounce it as thie, or as thigh, without recourse had to the said Oracle. But it should seem, the authour of this rare and civillzed way of writing never considerd the force of ugh cut off by him; which is not so aspirate as he might imagine for some countries (and that adjacent to Oxford shire) pronounce though, as we generally do cough and rough, and laugh and enough, as if they were written Thoff, coff ruff, enuff. Now would I fain know, whether your Tho come, or ought to be so pronoun­ced: And if so, why we may not write Co, and Ra and La, for all that belongs to them. I must ingenuously confess; I being but a simple Davus, and no Oedi­pus, cannot understand, nor unriddle this; and you being but an Editor and not Cadmus i.e. a Master of Letters or maker of Languages, I am not bound to be­liev you, though you should tell me your meaning. But there remains one reason more against tho for though, which I hope you will believe to be valid, when your senses shall convince you: and that is, that in our ancienter En­glish Tongue, tho signifies quite another thing from what you intend it: as may appear from Chauncer; who uses it two wayes, But neither of them in your sense. For with him it signifies Then, and not Though; as in those verses quoted out of him, by his Publishers, (I should have said Editors) before his works, which are these.

These Verses are made in commendation of the English Language, even before Chaucer: and therefore his offence against our auncient Tongue, lesse excusa­ble; that, contrary to his own judgment, he should endeavour to improve and imbellish it, by a number of Latine and French words brought into it, to the loss of as many, and as significant Teutonique words, and to the corrup­tion of our Mother tongue; as Verstegan hath observed, and proved against Chau­cer. Yet is this brave Authour more excusable than many of this age, as using that liberty of innovating chiefly in Poetry, where it was evermore allowed. than in Prose, wherein he is much more sparing of forrein words. In The Ro­mant of the Rose, being a translation of the French Authour Clopinel or Meung, he about the beginning, uses tho for then: and in his Testament in Love, fol. 301 of his Workes, sometimes he uses it for then, and sometimes for those: as: I have (qd I tho) y nough: for quoth I then: And presently after, he thus uniteth, I would now (qd I) a little understand sithen all things thus before en not, whether thilking be of tho things. i.e. of those things. Thus he: but you, for tho, or those, please to write thos, keeping neither to old, nor modern Or­thographie, but walking by your self, to the prejudice of the usual pronuncia­tion, which is thereby altered. This you doe in the Preface to The Govern­ment of the Tongue. And with the like liberty, in The Ladies Calling, you write lest for least: as if you understood not the difference between the adverb lest, and the adjective least.

But there I end my defence of our Orthographie offended by you; wherein [Page 10]if I have erred, I hope I shall be better informed ere long from an Oxford [...] ­mer, which we may hope to see suddenly published there, according to t [...] best Copies there only to be found, especially if Subscriptions come in plentiful­ly, answerable to so weighty a work: that so, as according to you, Cam­bridg is but a Countrie School, Oxford may become a Schooldame, to teach us to spell, though in that Art she hath been very unfortunate hitherto.

And thus Sir, end I my weak Advice conceived and declared not so much in opposition to you, as vindication of our ancient birthrights; in which you have committed so many Rasures already, and by the same reason may proceed to more and greater alterations, till some retaining their old Mumpsimus, and others following your New Sumpsimus of writing, a Babel of confusion first, and then of division be introduced, which may reduce us to another Heptar­chie of speaking; others being encouraged by you, to be reforming our Tongue, as well as you: so that in process of time, we, now united, may relapse into that unhappiness of men, which irrationall creatures are not subject too. Who, in all Parts of the earth, understand those of their own kinde; as a Lyon, horse, dogge and hog of Europe or Asia understand their fellowes in Affrica and America, when ever casually they meet, as well as if they had been alwaies bred toge­ther: which mankinde cannot do, no not after the Famous Universal Cha­racter published for their instruction. But all this notwithstanding, when the Legislative power of Language be but halfe so well Proved, as it is ill assumed by you, you shall finde me (to prevent contention) to be not only one of your truest Friends, but best Subjects.