I Was just upon the Close of a short Treatise of the Reli­gious Temper and Tendencies of the Modern Philosophy, when M. Stubb's Book against me came to my hands. I was glad to see that this Adversary at last appeared in the open Light. For I love not Sculking and base Assaults in the Dark. I had much rather be call'd to an Account for any thing I have written, before the Learn­ed and Judicious, than to be confuted in Corners, among those, whose Judg­ments are either prepossest or incompe­tent; This latter hath for some time been my hard Fate.

[Page 2]For after M. Crosse's Fardel against me, was rejected by the Licensers both at Oxford and London for its incompa­rable Railing, and impertinence; He en­deavour'd to expose me among his Cronies and Confederates by the Manu­script Libel. He carrried it about from place to place, and like a Scotch Mer­chant, opened his Pack at each House in his Circuit: He told his Tales to every Country-Farmer, and acquainted every Mechanick with his mighty Deeds and Purposes: So that for a time, there was no other Subject handled on Ale­benches, and in Coffee-Houses, in all this Neighbourhood. Besides which Practi­ces, He pelted me with Doggerel Rhimes innumerable; and a pretended Answer to the Chuè Gazett was read privately to those that had a mind to hear such Stuff, and so I was confuted: But great Care was taken that I should not know in what, for fear I should spoil the Tri­umphs, and write a second part of the Legends of the Disputer.

Much after the same manner M. Stubb [Page 3] for a year and upwards dealt with me, and divers excellent Persons, with whom I am not worthy to be menti­on'd. He travelled up and down to tell his Stories of the Royal Society, and to vent his spite against that Honourable Assembly. He took care to inform every Tapster of the Danger of their Designs; and would scarce take his Horse out of an Hostler's hands, till he had first let him know how he had confuted the Vir­tuosi. He set his everlasting Tongue at work in every Coffee-House, and drew the Apron-men about him, as Ballad-singers do the Rout in [...]airs and Markets: They admir'd the man, and wondred what the strange thing call'd the Royal Society should be; till at last being in­formed by this zealous Patriot of Religi­on, they saw clearly that They were a Committee of Projectors to bring in Pope­ry: He assured them that the first Design was laid by a Iesuite, and discovered the whole Plot upon Religion, which he declared his pious Resolutions to vindicate against this Dangerous Com­bination.

[Page 4]All this Time while he fought (like his Masters of the Good Old Cause) with vulgar Rumours, which he raised, he was impregnable. There's no contend­ing with Spectres and Apparitions. But at last he renders himself more palpable and consistent, so that now he may be dealt with: And since he hath made me the first Object of his fierce Wrath, in this Quarrel with the Royal Society, I shall endeavour to make my Defence, and to disarm the Fury of this Guy of Warwick: By which, I hope, I shall let the World see that this Hector is so far from being a competent Adversary for that Illustrious Company; that all the Force his Rage and Malice can raise, is not able to oppress, or as much as hurt the least considerable Member of that Body.

This I intend in a full and particular ANSWER to his Book against my PLVS VLTRA, and shall let this Man of Battels (who is used to triumph before he strikes a blow) see, that he hath nonplus'd me no where, but in his [Page 5] Title. But my Affairs will not permit me to fall on that work, so soon as I am willing you should have an Account of this Undertaker; and therefore I shall now send you a few general Remarques concerning the Author and his Work: By which you will perceive, that it is not at all to be wondred at, that he treats so many excellent Persons with such Insolence and Scorn, so many Taunts of Ignorance, Illiterateness, and what comes next; since I shall shew, that this is his constant, natural Style, and hath always been his use in his early Oppositions of some of the most famous men of our Nation: So that you are to reckon that the reproachful Characters he gives, import only, that the man is angry; and ignorant and illiterate in his Mouth and Pen signifie but one that is not of his mind, or at least not of that mind, which he hath a present Humour and Interest to oppose. And yet I must confess that after I heard of M. Stubb's Intentions of falling on my Book, I ex­pected more Railing and greater Vehe­mence, [Page 6] more opprobrious Names, and spightful Sayings; because I knew the man and his Genius: And though some perhaps can scarce apprehend a greater excess in these good Qualities, then are to be met in this Piece, yet I can very well conceive such, as are incomparably greater, having so lately been made ac­quainted with the Civilities of M. Cross, in comparison to whom, This Adver­sary writes like a Christian and a Gentle­man; and that you may see how much there is of these, in this Author, and judge of the other by Him, I shall now immediately give you the Account of M. Stubb, reserving that of M. Cross to another season.

That I may proceed distinctly, I shall represent Him in (1.) His TEMPER, (2.) DESIGNS, and (3.) MA­NAGEMENT of them in his last Book. In describing these I shall not have recourse to such base Artifices, as He, and his Friend M. Cross have used against me, viz. idle Legends and Ficti­ons of their own Brains: Nor shall I [Page 7] reflect upon those infinite Discourses he hath had in very publick places often, and sometimes in my hearing, from which a Character full enough might be drawn of him, (for I think it not ge­nerous or handsome to make them more publick than he hath done himself, ex­cept I am unavoidably forced upon it) But I shall take all my Accounts of the Undertaker out of his publisht Wri­tings, and give you him in his own Words, nakedly as they are, quoted to a Page. In order to which, I think fit to present you with a List of those Books he hath written, with a short touch of the Subjects that are handled in them.

ONE of the First of his Essays, while he was yet but a Youngster in Ox­ford, was a DEFENCE of M. HOBBS against the Reverend Dr. Wallis, the learn­ed and famous Geometry-Professor of that University. The Subject we have in the Account he gives of his Performance, [p. 18. of the second Alphabet] where [Page 8] he saith he hath Proved irrefragably, that Cum is the proper Preposition of the Ablative of the manner: That praetendit scire is no Anglicism: That he hath De­monstrated, that Motus & Magnitudo —Consideravimus is good Latin: as also, that Propositiones falsae sunt —& multa ejusmodi is elegant: That he hath evinced Tanquam to signify As if; and that Tan­quam si is not one word: That he hath said so much about adduco, that nothing is wanting but Pantagruel's Hug: That the Professour may learn of him to put [...] together in Composition: That N may come before a Labial, and particularly be­fore P: That [...] is a visible Point, and used for a Mark with a hot iron.

These Exploits he hath done, and these, he saith, are the Points he under­took to maintain. Weighty matter for a publick Quarrel; and so weighty, it seems, the Undertaker accounted it, as to be worthy his Passion, which broke out upon the Doctor in these Expres­sions of Civility, [...], Pigmy, Quack­salver, and Mountebank; Critical Bravo, [Page 9] Witty-poll, of no Credit, lost to all Persons of Learning, and a contemptible Adver­sary, ignorant, intolerably ignorant; and a world more to the same purpose, of which in its due place, with the referen­ces to the particular Page. How fit a man is this to undertake the Vindication of M. Cross? But I must go on with the Catalogue of his Works. The next is

An ESSAY in DEFENCE of the good old Cause] The most glorious Cause in the World, accompanied with no less Suc­cess, p. 2. of the second Alphabet. [And a VINDICATION of the Honourable Sir Hen. Uane] whom not to honour and admire is to be an Enemy to all that is good and vertuous, p. 7. second Alpha­bet [from the false Aspersions of M. BAXTER] A Philistim, Shimei, Rabsha­keh, p. 11. 2d. Alph.

A LETTER to an Officer of the Army concerning a select Senate; which is to consist, according to His Model, of Independents, Anabaptists, Fifth Monarchy-men and Quakers; ex­cluding [Page 10] all PAPISTS, PRELATICAL, and PRESBYTERIAN Persons. p. 61.

A LIGHT SHINING OVT OF DARKNESS, a Book against Ministry, p. 1, 2, 3, 4, &c. Vniversities, p. 92, 93. and 139, 140. School-Divinity, and Knowledge of Tongues, 94, 95, 96. Hu­mane Learning, p. 101, 102. Aristotles Philosophy, p. 105. Publick Churches, 106. Church-yards, 110. Division into Parishes and Tiths, p. 112, 113. Bells, 138. Vni­versity Habits, and Degrees, p. 14.2.143. Black Coats, p. 147. Gowns, 148. Respect of Persons, Complemental Addres­ses, and your Servant, p. 163. Swear­ing before a Magistrate, p. 165, 166. Containing also an express Apology for the Quakers, p. 55.56. I quote from the second Edition.

An ACCOVNT OF CHOCOLATA, by which he wholly obligeth Manking. [Pref. p. last.]

An ACCOVNT of M. GREATARICK, who wrought real Miracles, p. 8.10. And did things that never man did, ex­cept Christ and the Apostles, p. 27. These [Page 11] miraculous things he wrought by the Temperament and Composure of his Body, p. 11. And antient Miracles and modern ones have been wrought by the efficacy of a corporal Touch, p. 11. This of M. Great­arick did not indeed always succeed, and there were some Diseases, as well as some Devils, which even the Apostles could not cast out, p. 5.

A CENSVRE upon certain Passages contain'd in the History of the Royal Society, which he saith are impious and pernicious, p. 1. contrary to the Analogy of Faith and Scripture, p. 36. a Congeries of gross Vn­truths, tending to the Dishonour of God, and the Destruction of the Protestant Reli­gion, introducing a Popish Implicit Faith, or something that in effect is the same, but attended with more ridiculous Circumstan­ces, p. 40. directly contrary to the Con­stitutions of our Church, and better be­coming a Socinian from Poland and Am­sterdam, than a Divine of our Church, p. 53.

Hath not Religion and the Church of England, think you, an excellent Cham­pion, [Page 12] in this DEFENDER of M. Hobbs, Sir Hen. Uane, and the Quakers?

But lastly, He hath writ a SPECIMEN of SOME ANIMADVERSIONS VPON THE PLUS ULTRA OF M. GLAN­VILL; in which he proves, That the Antients were able to cure cut fin­gers; as particularly Podalirius and Machaon in Homer; and Galen com­pounded several Medicines to that pur­pose, as Diapalma, Tripharmacon, and another hard word, p. 3. and again 159. That 'tis a very difficult Iourney to the Moon, and a great way, p. 175. and many other things, that are as much to his purpose, as these, as will be shewn in the Sequel. For the present I only say, concerning this Piece in general, That with a great deal of Noise and Labour, the Animadverter hath proved nothing; For all his Force is imployed either against Castles in the Air of his own rai­sing, or incidental passages that are little or nothing to the Cause I under­took, and of no concern to the main body of my Book.

[Page 13]And yet I must confess that when I compare this Adversary with my other Antagonist M. Cross, I think there are acknowledgments due to him, for the Reading, and shew of Learning, that I find in his Discourse; and I may say of it, as one did of an impertinent Disputer, that was very brisk and fluent in his Argument, Bene disputat, sed nihil ad rem. But the Papers of my other As­sailant deserve not as much as this; For they contain nothing, but opprobrious Names, gross Falshoods, and contemp­tible Puerilities; no Learning, nor any shew of any, but such, as a Boy of 18 would despise.

Thus briefly, and in general of the Writings of this Aggressor: out of Them I now come to give you some more par­ticular Accounts of his Spirit and Tem­per. And because I resolve to abstain from all Expressions that look like the Rhetorick and Civility of M. Cross, and his Champion M. Stubb, I shall not give those hard Names to the Qualifica­tions I discover, that every man else will [Page 14] think they deserve: But only make a kind and sober Enquiry after some of the remarkable Virtues he discloseth in his Works. I shall only insist here on two.

And because he tells his Reader in the first Page of the Preface to his Light shining out of Darkness, [Edi­tion the first] That HE IS ONE THAT DESIRES TO LIE LOW IN HIS OWN EYES, I shall begin these Enquiries by taking notice,

(1.) OF his singular Modesty; This is exceeding eminent in every Leaf of his Writings: In his Attempts, while but a Boy, upon the Reverend Dr. Wallis, and M. Baxter; and now he hath made it more remarkable by his Assault upon the Royal Society His Majesties Institution, and an Assembly, consisting of Persons of the greatest Honour, Gra­vity, and Learning, while he is yet but a young Country Physician; as he styles himself in his Preface against my Book, Plus ultra: And above all, it is noto­rious, [Page 15] what a modest man this is, in his early Oppositions of MONARCHY, and Proposals of a MODEL for the GOVERN­MENT of three Nations, and Extirpa­tion of those Antient Laws, which had had been made and confirmed by the Wisdom of so many Kings, and successive Parliaments, in his Impugnations of MINISTRY, VNIVERSITIES, CHVR­CHES, HVMANE LEARNING, and all ORDERS, and CONSTITVTIONS whatsoever, as Popish and Antichri­stian.

But let us take a view of his singular Humility and Lowness in his own Eyes, in some Expressions in his Wri­tings; I shall recite a few Instances among numerous others, which for Brevity I must omit, by which you may judge, how he excels in this Virtue.

In the first Page of his Book against Dr. Wallis in Defence of M. Hobbs, He expresseth himself to his Friend in these words, I have pen'd a further Discourse upon that Subject, which you may suppress [Page 16] from going any further, if you find that my early Repute abroad doth not call for the Publication, nor the Applause of the Ingenious, whose Praises were the more to be regarded, because they were directed to the Piece which was pub­lick, not the Author that was concealed. It seems he had writ an Anonymous Book, which, he tells the World, rai­sed him an early Repute, and the Applau­ses and Praises of the Ingenious. Very modest! And as lowly is that other Say­ing, p. 5. If I find the Doctor produce more Grammars against us, I will allow him two to one, and venture my Repu­tation against his no Credit: Great Odds! M. Stubb's Reputation, that early Reputation abroad against the no Credit of Dr. Wallis! He must needs be certain, that would lay such a Wager. Well! The Geometry-Professor of Oxford is a Person of no Credit, and the Young man of Christ-church attaqu'd and weakned it: This he tells us he had done, in his Preface, p. 3. He valiantly attaqu'd no­thing, and made it as weak, as Water: [Page 17] And sooner he had done it, but for a good Reason; 'Twas long, saith he, ere my Laughter upon the reading of Dr. W. would permit me to use a Pen, ibid. And what should the man do, while the Fit of Laughter was upon him? As soon as he could for Laughing, he assures us, he pre­pared for Triumph. And being then rather to proclaim my Victory, than to gain one, I supposed I might have a greater time to prepare for Triumph, than had been other­wise necessary to the Dispute, ibid. p. 3. Well! But what need of so much Triumph, and such Preparations for it, if this Adversary were so ridiculous? He tells us in the words that follow, Nor do I now go about to Triumph over the single Doctor, (The Conquest is too mean) no doubt modest Harry! But over all those whose Interest or Igno­rance may lead them to approve his Wri­tings, who are numerous at least; and since the Vogue of the People will have them deserving too, I have thought them worthy the Passion of thy affectionate Friend and Servant. So he concludes [Page 18] to the understanding Reader: But that Friend of his may ask, that since the Approvers of the Doctors Writings are numerous, and they have the Vogue of the People for deserving too; How should it come to pass that He is a Person of no Credit, as p. 5. and a con­temptible Adversary? as [p. 8. second Part.] If he had made his Address to the Courteous instead of the Vnderstand­ing Reader, some of that sort probably might not have observed this Fit of For­getfulness: And he that doth, must pass such slips over, or he'l find work enough for his Patience on this Account, as well as others, in the Writings of the Vndertaker. But 'tis not my business to note any of these here; His Modesty and the Lowliness of his Mind, (for which he would have recommend­ed himself to those meek ones of the Earth, Lambert's Army, and the Committee of Safety) are my pre­sent Subject: of these but an Instance o [...] two more.

He tells us in his Preface to his Ani­madversions [Page 19] on my Book, p. 5. That The Comical Wits, (so he pleaseth to call the Fellows of the Royal Society) were so alarm'd at the Specimen of his Animadversions on Dr. Sprat and M. Glanvill, that They imployed all their Artifices to divert him: Great Sir GVY! how that Host trembles before Thee! How do their Spirits fail, and their Courage sink at thy Summons! How They weakly fly to Artifices to put by thy formidable Force, when they have not strength to stand before it! Well may They fear that redoubted Arm that hath slain so many Monsters; Antichrist, and all his Limbs, Monarchy, Churches, Vniversities, Ministry, and the rest: This Pigmy Troop cannot stand under one Blow of thy more than Herculean Club.

Therefore the Cowards, mean Spirits, pitiful Mechaniciens, (as with valiant Despight he calls them) endeavour to wave the Combat by disin­genious Proceedings, ibid. contrary (it seems) to all generous Laws of Chivalry; [Page 20] They treacherously design (he tells us) not only upon his Fortunes, but Life: They cannot be secure while He is above ground. Well! But he knows his Ad­vantages, and assures us that They are at his Mercy; The Obligation (as he saith) would be lost in sparing them, He resolves therefore to take the daring Counsel; and though they should op­press him by treacherous power, it would be said, That he fell their Uictor and their Martyr, [ib. p. 5.] Thus dy­ing Samson pluck'd the House upon the Philistims. And no doubt M. Stubb is as much a Victor, as he is like to be a Martyr. For, what a Conquerour is He in Title-Pages and Prefaces? With what ease doth he get Victories? Vidi, Vici; He only laught at Dr. Wallis, and pre­pares for Triumph, as soon as the Merri­ment was over: He dispatch'd a Speci­men of Animadversions against Dr. Sprat, and M. Glanvill, and presently the Royal Society are at his mercy; and I, for my part, am reduced to a Non-plus in his first Sentence, and designed for a Sacri­fice [Page 21] to publick Obloquy, in the second leaf of his Preface. It seems he hath the Wind of publick Fame in a Bag, and can direct Reputation or Reproach as he pleaseth. The general Sense of Mankind depends upon his Pen, which is none of the common ones, to which from hence­forth I am to be given up, as he threa­tens, p. 2. Now I see with how much reason he saith, That the Expectation of all men was impatient to see his Animad­versions, [Pref. p. 7.] No doubt 'twas that they might know what they were to judge of the Virtuosi. He hath at last obliged Mankind with them, as he promiseth to do by his Observations about Chocolata, [Disc. of Choc. Pref. p. last.] and now he expects without Question, that the Comical Wits should be odious to the Kingdom, as he tells us he designed to make them. [Non-plus, Pref. p. 4.] The Kingdom, 'tis like, will love and hate as he would have it. He gives the Stamp of odious or amiable, and the Character is indelible.

This, Sir, is a short Description of [Page 22] the modest man, that was so low in his own Eyes, when he stood before his Patrons of the GOOD OLD CAVSE. And from this remarkable Virtue of his we may pass to an Enquiry about another as eminent, viz.

(II.) HIS Civility and dutiful De­meanour towards his Betters: of this He gives great Instances in his Expressions towards all sorts of Supe­riours. Concerning our KINGS he saith, That Their whole Succession was a conti­nued Usurpation, [Pref. to the Good old Cause, p. 2.] Of the Glorious KING CHARLES the MARTYR; That All his evil Council did ride upon one Horse, ibid. And adds, That the Patriots of the Long Parliament and Ar­my executed Iustice upon Him. [Vind. against M. Baxter, p. 59.] Our present SOVERAIGN he styles an Usurper, and mates him with Cromwel in the infamy of that Title; For speaking of the Day of the Tyrants Death, He saith, It was famous for the Vanquishing of one, [Page 23] and the Death of an other Usurper. [against M. Baxt. p. 53.] And every one knows That was the third of September, the Day also of the Kings Final Over­throw at Worcester. And in his Letter to an Officer of the Army, p. 14. speak­ing of a Cloud out of the North, which (he saith) was more dreadful to tender Consciences, than the Romish Inquisition; He adds, That in comparison thereof, the Return of Charles Stuart and his Bishops would prove a moderate Desire: In which Expression he thought, no doubt, he had rais'd the Dreadfulness of that Cloud to the most Hyperbolical Height possible, and much beyond the Comparison with the Inquisition. And whether that may not go for a Civility to his Majesty, (since He is return'd by happy and miraculous Providence with his Bishops) which he prates of [p. 21. of his late Book against me] let the Reader judge. To set off the Advan­tages Aristotle had for the compiling of his History of Animals; he speaks of the greatness of Alexander, his Impa­tience [Page 24] to effect his Purposes, his Gene­rosity in acknowledging Services, his Vnderstanding what was done and omit­ted; And then our Author intimates That the Royal Society have not such a PATRON in the KING, as ARISTOTLE had in ALEXANDER: How much Re­spect and Affection to his Majesty was meant by this Comparison, let those think, that consider the approved Loy­alty of this Defender of the Good old Cause.

And having spoken of his Civility to our KINGS, (if you do not like that sort) I may here acquaint you, that he had another kind for Sir Hen. Uane, and his Accomplices in the Cause, which in M. Stubb's Opinion, was the most glorious in the World. [p. 2. against M. Baxt.] These conducted us in our Way to Freedom, p. 3. and a glori­ous Freedom they led us to, for by their Help we were delivered from the Norman Yoke. [Pref. to Good old Cause, p. 10.] And how heavy and intolerable that was, he expresseth [ibid.] in these words, [Page 25] I often communing with mine own Soul in private, use to parallel our Bondage under the Norman Yoke, and our Deliverance therefrom, to the Continuance of the Chil­dren of Israel in Aegypt, and their Escape at last from that slavish Condition. This put him in mind to compare our Deli­verers (forsooth) to MOSES, and 'twas not, he saith, One Moses, But many il­lustrious Personages, whose Memory (he prophesies) shall live, when that of Thrasybulus, Timoleon, Epaminondas, Brutus, Valerius, or any Worthies Greece or old Rome could ever boast of, shall cease to be mention'd. [against M. B. p. 3.] What a Seer was M. Stubb! Their Memories live, and will, no doubt, con­tinue as long as the Records of Tybourn: And till all Trading fail there, Those Patriots of the long Parliament and Army, who executed Iustice upon the late KING, shall never cease to be mention'd. Thus he celebrates the Illustrious Regi­cides.

And of Sir H. Uane he saith, That not to have heard of him is to be a Stranger [Page 26] in this Land; and not to honour and admire him, is to be an Enemy to all that is good and virtuous, [Vind. of Sir H. V. against M. B. p. 7.] and adds further, that he is one, whose Integrity, whose Vprightness in the greatest Imployments hath secured him from the Effects of their Hatred, in whom his sincere Piety, Zeal for the Publick, and singular Wisdom may have raised Envy and Dread. [ibid.] And in the following Page he assures us, That Sir H. hath discovered the most glori­ous Truths that have been witness'd unto these 1500 Years and more, in a man­ner as extraordinary; I mean (saith he) not in the persuasive words of Humane Wisdom, not in the Sophistry of School-Learning, not as the Scribes and Pha­risees, but as one having Authority, and in the Evidence and Demonstration of the Spirit, viz. like Christ Iesus, and the Apostles working Miracles for the Evidence and Demonstration of their Do­ctrines; So that here Sir Harry is ad­vanc'd to a kind of Equality with Christ and the Apostles, as They elsewhere are [Page 27] brought down by him to a Level with M. Greatarick. [in his Miraculous Con­formist] And now Sir H. Uane being a Person of such a Character, we need not wonder, That Respect should be due to him from all the World, as he tells us it is, in the Preface to his Vindication.

And little less in his Opinion is due to M. Harrington for the Commonwealth-Model in his Oceana, of which, he saith, in the Preface to his Good old Cause, p. 16. I admire his Model, and am ready to cry out, as if it were the Pattern in the Mount. And [p. 26.] he declares his Judgment for the promoting M. Har­rington's Model, In the Praises whereof (saith he) I would enlarge, did I not think my self too inconsiderable (an humble Fit) to add any thing to those applauds, which the understanding Part of the World must bestow upon him, (They must and can not chuse, since M. Stubb hath profest to admire it) and which, as he goes on, though Eloquence it self should turn Pane­gyrist, he not only merits, but transcends. 'Tis pity but M. Stubb had made some [Page 28] Provision in his Elogy for the Change of times, as no doubt he would, could he have foreseen, That his Eloquence might have had an occasion to turn Panegyrist for Monarchy. The wary Modesty of M. P. had been worth his Imitation here; who concludes some of his im­mortal Poetry with this excellent Distich,

This was the Opinion of William P. in the Year of our Lord one thousand six hundred thirty three.

But who could have thought that a Nation delivered from the Vassallage of the Norman Yoke, would again have chosen a Linsy Woolsy Monarchy, [Vind. of Sir H. V. p. 42.] rather than the Pattern in the Mount? Who would have dreamt that we should have pre­ferr'd Charles Stuart and his Bi­shops [ut supr.] to the PATRIOTS of the LONG PARLIAMENT and AR­MY that executed Iustice upon the late King? [Vind. of Sir H. V. p. 59.] That the same should befal us as did the Chil­dren [Page 29] of Israel after they had cast off Pha­raoh's Yoke, [Vind. of Sir H. V. p. 3.] Yea, that at last, we should return not to Goshen, but the most dismal parts of Aegypt, rather than proceed to our Feli­city. [p. 5.] These things were so far from being likely, that notwithstanding all the Discouragements the Good old Cause met with, which are parallel'd to those befel the Israelites in their Iourney, p. 4. yet our Prophetick Rumper heartens himself in these Words, I assure my self that these are but the Pangs of that Birth, in which we shall at last cry out, a Man-Child is born, [p. 4, 5.] For Confirma­tion of which he adds, that God will not lose his own Mercies, and all is but as the wandring Iews in the Desert, or as the going back of the Sun upon the Dial of Ahaz ten Degrees, which was a sign of Recovery to disconsolate and lan­guishing Hezechias, p. 5. and so he grows confident of the final issue of things, and the Prisoners of Hope shall receive double Satisfaction, and the ransomed of the Lord shall return, ib. This is the man, Sir, [Page 30] that cries out in Astonishment at my Puritanism and Fanaticism [p. 11. of his Book against me] because I call some of the Aristotelian Doctrines, Hea­then Notions.

But I have not yet done with his Courtships of his Friends of the Cause; Those I have mention'd concern the GRANDEES and PATRIOTS: The Peo­ple in common have their share also of his Favours, These he calls the good People, the Salt of this Land, [Pref. to Good old Cause, p. 32.] The faithful Ones, Pref. p. 30. The Honest Party, p. 31. The true Anointed Ones of the Lord, [Vind. of Sir H. V. p. 2.] Honest and faithful Souls, [Pref. to Good old Cause, p. 16.] and infinite more of such Elogies he bestows upon them. But nothing of all this is Fanaticism, nothing like my Canting in calling some of Ari­stotle's Dictates, Heathen Notions. This brief Specimen I have given you of M. Stubb's best kind of Civilities.

I shall now offer you some further Account of those of the First Sort. Dr. [Page 31] WALLIS you know, is a Person of great and deserved Fame for Learning both at home and abroad: upon that excellent man M. Stubb first fastned in a Defence of M. Hobbs against him; I had occasion before to touch some instances of his Courtships bestowed on this learned Doctor; then I promised more, and with the particular Quotations of those; This I intend now briefly.

In the Preface He tells his Reader, That the Doctor is one, who hath so merited by his Scurrility and Obscenity, that his English Writings may become Ap­pendixes to Pasquil's Iests, or the merry Tales of Mother Bunch, p. 1. The Do­ctor is one of his Comical Wits, no doubt. And p. 2. he saith, one of us two is grosly ignorant, viz. either Dr. Wallis, the man of no Credit, p. 5. or M. Stubb one of early Reputation abroad. p. 2. Let the understanding Reader judge which it is; and that he may not mistake, our Author kindly directs his Judgment, [p. 6.49. and second Part, p. 1.3.5.8.] In which and other places, he chargeth the Doctor with [Page 32] Ignorance, Want of Learning, intolerable Ignorance, and Ignorance in the Principles of his Profession: So that the Reader, if he be not grosly blind, must needs see which of them two it is that M. Stubb thinks to be grosly ignorant. And further to express his Civility and favourable Opinion of the Doctor, he saith, He hath afforded us nothing hitherto, but Falsities and Falsifications, p. 5. calls him peevish Doctor, p. 15. [...] Pig­my, p. 20. Witty-poll, p. 24. Quacksalver, and Mountebank, p. 25. Critical Bravo, p. 49. Tender-fronted Theologue, [p. 5. of the second Part] Contemptible Adversary, p. 8. Scribe among the Pharisees, Iourny­man to Adoniram, p. 9. Full of Imper­tinencies, Paralogisms, and Gibberish in Divinity; So notorious a Falsificatour and Teller of Vntruths, so void of Humanity in this Contest, and ordinary Civility, That I can scarce hold (saith he) from tel­ling you, You are of your Father the Devil, ib. And he goes on to mind the Doctor of his Pride, Ambition, and Disgraceful Speeches against the Godly Party, and [Page 33] that Remnant the Army, which under the Conduct of the Lord of Hosts upheld the Cause, ibid.

Thus briefly of some Civilities to­wards Dr. Wallis, the First of those Co­mical Wits, whom M. Stubb undertook to make ridiculous and odious to the King­dom, (to speak in his Phrase.)

Let us see next with what Ingenuity and Fairness he carried himself towards M. BAXTER in his Defence of Sir H. V. against Him. This Reverend Divine was another of those he resolved to sacrifice to publick Obloquy, as he hath done me, [Pref. of N. P.] But let us see what way he takes to do it; his old Method no doubt, and so we find it. Let us hear him Rhetoricate then; One that is no Scholar at all, not skilled in Latin, Greek, or Hebrew, not versed in Ecclesiastical History, or Philosophy, &c. But a meer Glow-Worm in Literature, who borrowed his Light from the Darkness of the Night, and the Ignorance of those he converseth with. [p. 32, 33. of the Pref. to Good old Cause,] Whifler in Theology, p. 33. [Page 34] one that transcribed Aulicus, and the Grub-street Pamphlets to frame a Legend for the Catholicks of Kederminster, p. 32. A Philistim, or Shimei, or Rabsha [...]h, [Vind. of Sir H. V. p. 11.] whose Language against the Vanists may justly deserve that Reply of Michael to the Devil, THE LORD REBUKE THEE, ibid. Tedious, impertinent, p. 13. State-Tinker, p. 37. Retailer of other mens Readings, and Quoter of Quotations, p. 43. His Discretion cannot be so little, but his Abi­lities are less, ibid. He chargeth him with Ignorance, in the Preface to the Good old Cause; and (which is very plea­sant) he saith, he remits it to others to demonstrate the Charge. And before I have done with him, I shall make him wish, he had taken the same Course, in reference to the Virtuosi. He saith, [p. 18. of his Vindication of Sir H. V.] That he may suppose M. Baxter is totally igno­rant of Syriack and Arabick, and that his Skill in Hebrew is as little, which he referrs to M. Robertson to prove, and thereupon he takes it for granted, insul­ting [Page 35] in these following Words, Dare He boast unto the World, what time he spent in Impertinencies, viz. Reading the Fathers and Schoolmen, p. 13. and yet be ignorant of that, which is almost the Unum Necessarium in his Function? viz. Hebrew. But why M. Harry must that be the almost Vnum Necessarium to M. Baxter's Function, which not one of the Fathers in the Nicene Council (whose Creed is so famous) understood? as you tell us in your Apology for the Qua­kers, [p. 85. of Light out of Darkness.] But Hebrew and other Langu [...]ges shall be necessary or not, as the saying this, or the Contrary will serve his turn. And 'tis pretty to see how he chargeth M. Baxter with Ignorance in Syriack and Arabick, which, he saith, are of great Vse for the Vnderstanding the Scripture, [ibid. p. 18.] and yet implicitely affirms, [Quer. 13. of his Light out of Dark­ness,] That the Knowledge of Tongues leads us to many Senses of Scripture, and to put our Trust in Man: and again, [Qu. 18.] That the first Christians were igno­rant [Page 36] of Humane Learning, and Heathen­ish Authors, and that it was not only the Effect of Julian the Apostates Malice, but Christian Prudence, that went about to keep the People of God from reading Hea­then Writers: And yet these two Books, speaking such contradictory things, bear date the same Year; onely indeed, the Designs were very different, and M. Stubb was to serve a divers Interest in them; in the one to recommend himself to the Quakers and other wild Fanaticks; and in the other to vent his Malice against M. Baxter: And things in his Divinity must be affirmed or denied, as there is occasion. He is still consistent with one Principle, Self; But never was yet steady to any other.

Besides the Civilities mention'd, I might recite innumerable others; but I must hasten from this head: There­fore of some few more briefly. He calls Sir K. DIGBY, That eminent Virtuoso, the Pliny of our Age for Lying, [p. 161. of his Animad. upon Plus Vltra.] and yet p. 20. he lays much stress upon the [Page 37] Authority of Pliny. He styles the excellent History of the R. S. a nonsensical and illite­rate History, p. 173. And Pr. p. 4. He saith, he observed the Tendency of it to be so per­nicious, that, if the first Provocation (viz. that which he had from my Book.) had made him angry, he was now become ob­stinate, and he goes on, In that famed Work I encountred with so many illiterate Passages, that the Credit of our Nation seemed concern'd in the Refuting it; Yea, he adds, that the Interest of the present Monarchy, the Protestant Religion, and the Emolument of each private Person was concerned; And when these were at stake, was it fit for M. Stubb to be silent? His Zeal for the Credit of the Nation, Monarchy and Religion would have destroyed him, if it had not had vent; He must speak or burst; And all this Zeal was kindled by a sense of Duty, (as we may believe) for he tells us, He ought not to be silent; and those that know him may think, 'twere impossible [...]e should.

But for an Instance or two more, DES-CARTES his Book De Homine is [Page 38] ridiculous, p. 18. And the MATHE­MATICIANS in a Cluster are reckon'd with the Illiterate, p. 115. Let illi­terate Persons and Mathematicians be swayed against plain Proof, by these Argu­ments. Any Arguments will sway Ma­thematicians; For They seldom if ever prove Metaphysicians, Religieuse, or otherwise of tolerable Ratiocina­tion; p. 17. For the Geometricians either reject as false, frivolous, and inde­monstrable those Reasonings and Studies according to which Humane Affairs are re­gulated; or else ignorantly run into Whimsies and phantastical ways of arguing, ibid. And therefore the Mathematicks in general are concluded less necessary, and inutile, ibid. What pity 'tis now that Aristotle should be a Geometrician? as p. 18. And how come the Mathema­ticks to be so inutile, as they were just now, p. 17. when in this 18th. 'tis said, That Aristotle supposeth his Scho­lars not ignorant in Geometry, since with­out that Knowledge they could not under­stand his Analyticks, nor that part of his [Page 39] Ethicks, where he illustrates Iustice by Arithmetical and Geometrical Proportions. Well! The Methods of Ratiocination laid down by Aristotle are general, as to publick and private use, p. 17. Those Methods cannot be known without Geome­try according to Aristotle himself, p. 18. and yet Mathematicks are inutile, p. 17.

For M. Stubb to rail at that in one Book, which he cries up and defends in another, we must allow him; He affirms and denies what comes into his head next to serve his present Spight and Interest; and we are not to look for any more Consistency in his Books, than in his Dreams: But some would expect that the same Treatise, or at least the same Leaf should be consistent with it self: This may chance to happen, but he hath good Luck when it doth; For he tells us in his Prefaces, that he sends away some sheets before others are written, and a man may judge by his Writings that he no more remembers what he pen'd last Week, than what he dreamt last Night was Twelve-Month.

[Page 40]But the most pleasant Complement of all is behind. In the Preface to his Book against me, p. 3. He calls the Virtuosi, Prattle-boxes, and p. 1. mentions one, who, as 'tis usual (saith he) with that sort of Virtuosi, instantly usurp'd all the Discourse, and, no doubt, he made hast; But where did that wonderful Virtuoso dwell, that could usurp the Discourse, when M. Stubb was present? Certainly 'twas one of the most nimble among the Prattle-boxes, there cannot be such ano­ther in the whole Set: One would won­der what M. Stubb should be doing, when the Virtuoso usurp'd the Discourse? He tells us this was done at a Person of Honour's Table, and that it was at the very Beginning of Dinner, it ap­pears, in that the Gentleman usurp'd the Discourse instantly; So that we may judge that M. Stubb's Teeth would not give his Tongue leave; But as soon as that was at Liberty, he paid the bar­barous Opiniatour, p. 3. for usurping his Province. If M. Stubb had hated all Vsurpers, as he doth the Vsurpers of [Page 41] Discourse, we had never had a Defence of the Good old Cause. But why should he be so much concerned about this sort of Usurpers? Their Discourse can no more be heard in the lurry of his, than a soft Voice can, amidst the Clutter and Noise of a Mill; So that he hath no need of the Wax and Wooll he prescribes against the buzze of the Prattle-boxes; his Tongue will better defend his Ears from that danger; (though I cannot pro­mise that it will never expose them to other and worse Hazards) And he is never like to meet such an Vsurper of Discourse, as the Virtuoso at the Person of Honours Table did; except the Doctor of Warwick could meet Harry Stubb of Christ-church.

Thus I have given some Account of the rare Civilities of the Courtly Anti-Virtuoso, and upon review of them, I cannot but wonder, that this man, who had so early a Reputation abroad, as he told us, and was so applauded by the ingenious, should sully his Fame by the Choice of such pitiful Adversaries: Dr. Wallis was ignorant, grosly ignorant, [Page 42] intolerably ignorant, ignorant in his own Profession: M. Baxter, no Scholar at all, not skill'd in Latin, Greek, or Hebrew, Ecclesiastical History, or Philosophy, a Whiffler in Theology, and Glow-Worm in Literature: Dr. Sprat's History, Illi­terate and Nonsensical; The Virtuosi, Prattle-boxes, and Ignoramus's; and I, ignorant of every thing.

What means this Man of Renown to choose out such despicable Adversaries? Why doth he disparage his Puissance by imploying it against such feeble Foes? what poor Quarry are these for such a Noble Bird of Prey? He told us, here­tofore, that it was Zeal for the Cause; and now 'tis the Interest of Monarchy, Protestant Religion, the Church of Eng­land and Vniversities, that have engaged this publick-spirited man to so great Condescensions; and how much reason we have to believe, that these were the true Motives to his Assaults, we shall see by and by.

I shall now shut up this Head by ta­king notice, what a fit Second this is [Page 43] for M. Cross: They are nobile par, and extremely alike in sundry particulars of their Genius and Performances; only it must be confess'd, that M. Stubb hath as much the more Learning, as he is guilty of the less Scurrility; And indeed the Civilities of this kind, which the Physician of Warwick hath bestowed up­on all his Adversaries, are not equal to those my other Antagonist hath libe­rally given me singly. And though I pass immediately from looking over the Col­lection of Complements I have presented you from M. Stubb, yet when I cast my eyes from it upon M. Crosses Papers, (a Transcript of which I have) I cannot choose but bless my self, and cry out in astonishment. For there is scarce a word of Reproach in the Dictionary, but he hath found it for me; yea he hath made divers that are span-new, to serve his purpose, and ventured upon Barba­risms to miscall me by, when all the usual Names of Disparagement and In­famy were spent. But I shall have a fitter place to reckon with that Billings­gate [Page 44] Oratour. I return to his Patron M. Stubb; and having given you a short Representation of his Spirit and Genius, out of his own publish'd Writings, I come next to

(II.) HIS Designs; of these I shall briefly give his own Account out of his latest Books. They were (if we may believe him) the securing and promoting the Interest of the present Monarchy. [Pref. against Plus Vltra, p. 4.] Protestant Religion [ibid.] and the Church of England, [Title, Pref. &c. against Dr. Sprat.] School-Divinity, [p. 1. against Plus Vltra.] Universities. [p. 1.2.13.] In order to the carrying on these great Intend­ments, He design'd further to make the Virtuosi really ridiculous and odious to the Kingdom, [Pref. p. 4.] to avenge his Faculty upon M. Glanvill, and by Sacrificing that Virtuoso to publick Obloquy to establish general Repose and Tranquillity. [Pref. p. 3.] Smile not ô Tres-haute & tres-agreeable Comediants. [Page 45] [Pref. 6.] M. Marchamont Stubb is the PILLAR of MONARCHY, and the PATRIOT of PROTESTANT Religion; But you must not ask how long he hath been of this Loyal and Religious Inclina­tion? He hath no longer a Concern for Sir H. Vane, [Disc. of Choc.] You may choose whether you'l admire Him now, and yet be no Enemy to all that is good and virtuous; nor is he concerned for the other Patriots of the long Parliament and Ar­my, that were to be so famous, when the Worthies of Greece and old Rome should cease to be mention'd: ut supra, Tower-Hill and Tybourn have alter'd the Case. The Good old Cause ceaseth to be the most glorious in the World; and Monarchy to be the Norman Yoke, more intolerable than the Aegyptian Bondage: Our Kings are not now a Succession of Usurpers; nor is Their Government the most dismal Part of Egypt: We hear no more of Charles Stuart and his Bishops compared to the Inquisition; nor of executing Iustice upon the late KING. No, the [Page 46] Interest of the present Monarchy, and the Church of England are now the Cause, the glorious Cause, (and next to the Good old one) no doubt the most glorious that ever was. M. Politicus is better inform­ed, his Eyes are opened, and now Mo­narchy may be as good a Government as M. Harrington's Model, that was so like the Pattern in the Mount; and General MONK may be as good a Pa­triot as Sir H. Vane, and the Rumpers. Thus we hear Sir Hudibras is turn'd zealous Royalist; and our Sir. Marcha­mont will pay the Comical Wits for the Prejudice They do the present Monar­chy and the Church of England.

HOW like it is (1.) that the Inte­rest of Monarchy should be one ground of M. Stubb's Quarrel with the Virtuosi we have seen already; or if it do not yet fully appear from what hath been recited before, give me leave to propose to your further Consideration a Paragraph of his in the Beginning of his Vindication of Sir H. V. p. 1.2.

[Page 47] The Age (saith he) wherein we live, hath been all Miracles; and the coming forth of the Woman out of the Wilderness hath been attended with so many Wonders, that a pious Heart can never want im­ployment in its Contemplation. We have seen, and our Eyes bear witness of the Actings of our God, the overturning of a Monarchy setled upon the Foundation and Vsage of many hundreds of Years, streng­thened by what Humane Policy could con­tribute to its Establishments, and what of Buttress a complying Clergy could assist it with out of the Pulpit; Yet have we seen a Change so brought about by our Iehovah, that he may in extraordinary Acknowledgments be proclaimed wonder­ful Counsellour, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, Prince of Peace: We have seen the most glorious Cause in the World, accompanied with no less Success, and the Lord in his Mercy to us, and Iustice to them, hath bound our Kings in Chains, and Nobles in Fetters of Iron, such as wherewith they had formerly op­prest the good People of this Land. This [Page 48] Honour have all his Saints, (Psal. 149.9.) Vengeance hath he returned upon their heads, and their own Shame hath cover­ed them. The true anointed ones of the Lord have appeared, for their sakes hath he rebuked Monarchs, and the former have repeated the Fruits of that Holiness, and Sacriety, whereunto the latter vainly pretended.

In this Strain he goes on, in imitation of the reformed Style of those Times, which is not Canting, but the holy Language of the anointed ones, for whose sake our King was bound in Chains, and our Nobles in Fetters of Iron. And are we not to believe that this Anointed Rumper is a Zealot for the Interest of the present Monarchy? We have his word for't, and he hath told me, that he can say more for Monarchy than all the Virtuosi: No doubt! It would be very much, if M. Stubb could not say more for any thing than the Ignoramus's. He knows the man, that useth to brag, what he can say for MAHOMET, and what an Inclination he hath to write the [Page 49] Life of that Brave Fellow; And if Tur­cism were among us, I know where the Alcoran would have a Defender, and one that can say as much for it, as for Monarchy, or the Church of England, if he may be credited himself; but of that no more now.

We have seen some things whereby we may judge, how dear the Interest of Monarchy is to our Anti-Virtuoso; and how much Reason we have to be­lieve that to be one ground of his Quar­rel with the Royal Society.

LET us inquire next, (2.) how pro­bable it is, that he should be kind­led against them by the Consideration of the Church of England and Re­ligion.

There was a time, you know, when the Church of England was in a worse Condi [...]ion, than it is in now; and Reli­gion in a more ruinous Posture. Inde­pendents, Anabaptists, Fifth Monarchy­men, and Quakers were as formidable People to both, as the Virtuosi; and all [Page 50] things were fallen under their destru­ctive Power. What did this pious Vin­dicatour of the Church of England and Religion in that unhappy season? No doubt, his Zeal burnt like fire; and he was sensible then, as he is now, [Pref. p. 4.] that he ought not to be silent. Then it was that his Light broke out of Darkness, that disclosed Truths little less admirable than those Sir H. Vane dis­cover'd, that were the most glorious that have been witness'd to these 1500 Years, and more, [ut sup.] They are proposed modestly in Queries, for he tells us, They are from one who desires to lie low in his own eyes. But the Testimonies and Proof are all for the Heterodox Part, for which he declares he had the most esteem [...] and that he had a tender Regard to those, who made the Subject of those Queries their Assertions; These passages make part of the Preface to the first; but are in the Conclusion of the second Edition, which I now use. We shall see in these Queries, how he shewed his Friend­ship to Religion, and the Church of Eng­land [Page 51] in the Time of their greatest Ex­tremity.

The first Query is this,

Q. 1. Whether there be any certain or peculiar Name in the New Testament, that signifies a Minister? or any Name whence an Office may be convincingly in­ferr'd? If there be not, (as there is just Cause to doubt) whether the present Mi­nisters are not to blame, while they pre­tend to an Office and Function grounded upon Divine Right, which hath no other Foundation, than the Hay and Stubble of Humane Invention. p. 12.

In the second Query thus, (they are too large for me to transcribe all)

Q. 2. Is it not an Act of Arrogance in them, who would be the Apostles Suc­cessors in ordinary, —ordinary Ambassadors from the most High, to assume a Name of greater Latitude than that of Apostle, or Ambassador extraordinary? or at least is it not as absurd, as if the Ant should assume the single Name of Animal; and the Lacquey that of Servant. p. 3, 4.

[Page 52] Query 5. Thus.

Q. 5. Whether the present Ministry, (supposing them generally Presbyterians, or Episcoparians) do not pretend to be Ministers of the Church Catholick? whether there be any mention of such a Church in Scripture, or in any antient Creed of the first Ages? and whether Luther did not place in stead thereof in his Creed the Christian Church? whether any body can tell what is the determinate meaning of that Word? whether the Ordainers and Ordained now-adays deal conscientiously in giving, or receiving, and acting re­ally by Virtue of a Power from and over the Catholick Church, whilst the Existence and Signification thereof is so controverted amongst themselves and others? p. 19.

Q. 6. Whether Ecclesia (which is a Word signifying a Church) be not a Law-Term deduced from Free-States, in which Common-wealths, the supreme Popular Assembly acted organized by the Archon and Proedri (as a Church formed and presbyterated by a Minister and Elders) which did not rule but preside, p. 27.

[Page 53]Q. 7. Whether such a Sense of the Word Ecclesia, or Church doth not un­church all the Parochial Churches in Eng­land, and unminister all their Ministers? ibid.

Q. 8. Whether the Ministers do well to derive their Succession unto Christ by the means of Antichrist? p. 29.

Q. 9. Whether the Arguments of the first [...] Reformers about their Vocation do not justifie any, that shall take upon them to preach? p. 52.

Q. 20. Whether the first Christians had any Churches, or did not assemble only in Private Houses? whether their Want hereof can be attributed to their being un­der Persecution, since they never made that Excuse for themselves to the Pagans, who objected it to them? p. 106, 107.

Q. 21. Whether Christianity it self be not termed Heresie in Scripture? Whe­ther Tertullian do not frequently call the Christians a Sect? and whether the Chri­stian Emperours do not so likewise in their Constitutions even against Hereticks? whe­ther the Meeting-Places of the first Chri­stians [Page 54] were not termed Conventicles? p. 107.

Q. 22. Whether if there were Heresies in the Apostles days and Schisms, it doth follow that there are any Hereticks and Schismaticks now, when there are n [...] Apostles?— p. 108.

Q. 23. Whether they used in the Pri­mitive times to bury in Places such as we now call Church-Yards? and whether the introducing of such a Custom had not a superstitious Original? p. 110.

Q. 24. —Whether, if to preach pub­lickly be to teach, as it is now practis'd, the Apostles did ever teach publickly? p. 112.

Q. 25. Whether the Division into Pa­rishes was not introduced by the Pope Dionysius? and whether the Antient Christians payed Tithes? if they did, whether they did not pay them as Alms? ibid.

Q. 29. Whether the Predecessors of the Protestants, and those who have so ho­nourable a mention in our Books of Mar­tyrs, and other Writings for witnessing [Page 55] against Popish and other Antichristian Abuses, did allow of Tithes, and their Divine Right? p. 120.

Q. 30. Whether they had the Vse of Bells in the Primitive Times? and whether the Bells in England that remain ever since the Reformation, have not been popishly and superstitiously Christned? p. 138.

Q. 31. Whether it were not an Act of Superstition in former times to build Churches and Chappels in the Form or Fa­shion of a Cross? whether it were not a Sin of the like Nature in Antient Times to build their Churches East and West, that so the People might bow and pray towards the East? — And whether both these Superstitions have not been renew­ed, and practised lately in one of the Re­formed Colleges of Oxford, viz. Brasen-Nose College, as in the Margin. p. 139.

Q. 42. Whether the Ministers do well to go in black, or the Vniversities to com­mand it? p. 147.

Q. 43. Whether there were not of old [Page 56] amongst the Iews a sort of men called Cheramims, or black Coats? whether those were the People of God? and whether the Translatours of the Bible did well to conceal the true meaning of this Word by put­ting another for it, or the very Word it self in English Letters? p. 148.

Q. 47. Whether those things which had a good Original and Vse (if they be not still necessary or commanded by God) when once they have been abused to Idolatry, and Superstition, are not quite to be abo­lished? p. 149.

Q. 48. Whether the Singing of Da­vid's Psalms be a part of Divine Worship? whether that Practice was introduced in England for a spiritual End, or only to preserve the Estimation and Knowledge of the laudable Science of Musick? p. 151. elsewhere called Fidling. Q. 41.

Q. 50. Whether it be not a very great Abuse put upon the Independents, to say that they or their Tenents came from Amsterdam? Do not the Doctors that are got among them, their Stickling for the upholding the present formalized Uni­versity, [Page 57] and a Tithe-receiving Ministry, (whom yet not long ago they stiled abomi­nable) and Parish Priests, and their De­meanour toward the Quakers in Oxon (agreeable to a persecuting rather than a persecuted Spirit) sufficiently acquit them from having any Affinity with those other Pretious Souls? p. 156.

Q. 53. Whether it be a peculiar Pra­ctice of our modern Anabaptists and Qua­kers, that they will not swear, no, not before a Magistrate? or whether it were not an Opinion of the Waldenses Ante­cessors of the Protestants? p. 166.

What sort of Persons these Queries were intended to gratifie, 'tis very easie to apprehend. But lest those Friends he had a mind to make, should be so dull as not to perceive it; He writes an express Apology for the Quakers beginning at p. 55. continued to p. 92. In which he tells us, that he durst not condemn the Quakers, whether they re­prove openly or walk naked through the Streets, denouncing Woes and Menaces, p. 91. and he goes on; It is a sufficient [Page 58] Argument for me, that what God bids is not undecent, nor do they any thing for which they have not a like Example, and (possibly) resembling Commands. Did not the Protestant Martyrs so disturb the Popish Priests, as the present Ministers are disturbed? and that when the Laws were against them? Yea many of the first Christians dealt so with the Heathens and their Priests. ib. And again, p. 92. If Bal­zac or Rutgersius had written his Cha­racter of the Antient Christian, the Quaker would not have stood in need of an Apology.

Whether these Passages, and the Dis­course were more intended to recom­mend the Quakers, or to make the first Christians, Protestants, and Martyrs, contemptible and ridiculous by the Com­parison; Let those that know M. Stubb, and have ever heard him discourse about Religion, judge. For my part I am sa­tisfied. 'Tis a pleasant Passage and to the same purpose, which I meet in his Vindication of Sir Hen. Vane, p. 36. He tells M. Baxter that it was ignorantly [Page 59] said of Him, That the Quakers had no being in the World till a few Years ago: and in contradiction to it, he saith, As to the Generality of their Opinions and Deportment I DO AVOW it out of as sure and good Records, as any can be pro­duced, that they can plead more for them­selves for the first 270 Years, then M. Baxter for the present Orthodox Religion laid down in the SAINTS EVERLAST­ING REST, or the CONFESSION of the Assembly.

You may please to mark that he speaks not of any particular Opinions of M. Baxter and the Assembly, which have less to be said for them out of primitive Antiquity, than the Quakers, but of their Religion. And when M. Stubb hath proved what he hath here Avowed, men are like to have as good an Opinion of Christianity, as he can wish: And how good a one that is, I am loth to call in the Vouchee he cites for M. Cross, viz. general Fame, to te­stifie. He declares it too frequently in the whole Contexture of his Light out [Page 60] of Darkness; and since, in his Account of Greatarick, he gives hint enough of the Degree of his Faith. Christ Iesus, and his Apostles appeal continually to their Works, those miraculous ones they performed, as evidencing the Divine­ness of their Commission, and the Truth of their Doctrines; and M. Stubb tells us, [p. 10.] That all Religions have had their real Miracles; and so let them dis­pute, or fight it out as they can, Mi­racles must be tried by Truth, not Truth by Miracles, [ibid.] But how the Truth shall be tried, viz. that of a Divine Commission, or Authority: 'tis not for the Interest of one of his Principles, or rather of his no Principles, to tell us. And when he hath taken away the Testimony of the Spirit in Miracles, he knows well enough what will become of Chri­stianity: This he endeavours here, by many very odd Suggestions. M. Great­arick did things miraculous, [p. 8.] and these he performed by the Temperament and Composure of his Body, [p. 11.] So that Healing Miracles are the Effects of [Page 61] the Effluvia of a particular Ferment, [p. 11.] And so Christ Jesus shewed no­thing of Divinity in curing Diseases by his Touch. Yea, M. Greatarick is mated with Him, and the Apostles, [p. 26.] He did the things that never man did, but Christ and his Apostles; He cured Diseases by the Temperament and Com­posure of his Body, [ut sup.] but no man ever did so besides; only the Son of God, and his Disciples had the Priviledge. And yet [p. 10.] this in express Words is plainly contradicted; for we hear there of others that did the same things with Christ Iesus, and M. Greata­rick, The Alexicaci, Salutatores, or Bensedevios, that cure by anointing with Spittle, and by breathing and stroaking of the Patient. [p. 10.] And in Turky also and Africk they have Persons of the like Qualifications, [ibid.] But 'tis nothing for M. Stubb to affirm Contradictions, and I wish that were the worst could be justly laid to his Charge; I have a great deal more to say of his Friend­ship to Religion, which I keep for a [Page 62] Reserve. He tells us, p. 15. of his Book against my Plus Vltra, That Ma­homet taking advantage of the Brutal Lives, and Ignorance of the Catholicks depending upon the Patriarch of Constan­tinople, did advance the Sect of Christi­ans called Mahometans: I wish some do not think that a certain Defen­der of Religion and the Church of Eng­land, is a Christian by the same Figure as are those Disciples of Mahomet. If a man of Learning, and tolerably in his Wits endeavour to make the first Chri­stians, Martyrs, and Reformers like the Quakers in their Opinions and Deportment, He cannot be supposed primarily to de­sign the Crediting those distracted En­thusiasts, but to vilifie all Christians, ex­cept some of M. Stubb's sort called Ma­hometans; and our Defender of Reli­gion knows well enough that the Testi­monies he alledgeth to prove those sick­brain'd People to be like all the best Christians, will prove as much, that the best Christians were like Them; and so a more desperate Enemy than the [Page 63] Quakers is gratified: How far he in­tended this, let those conjecture, who have heard of his Kindness and Concern for M. Hobbs: And how far he designs the promoting the Interest of Religion, and the Church of England, let the most charitable man alive judge upon the whole.

I, but (3.) he tells us how much he is for School-Divinity, and how far some great matters of Faith are con­cerned in it; we derive great Benefits from Controversal Divinity, for the Quieting the Conscience, and Convincing our Adversaries; and whoever hath any sense of these must detest the Enter­prise of M. Glanvill, [Non Plus, p. 1.] This He did because he had a Value for the Peace of his Conscience, which is to be setled by School-Divinity.

But how different from this was his Opinion of it, when he writ against M. Baxter, Then School-Divinity was apt to create everlasting Disputes rather than Rest, and made no part of the Rest [Page 64] of the Primitive, whether Christians, or Antichristians; these are his Words, [p. 18.] M. Stubb had another way to quiet his Conscience at that time, but now School-Divinity is the only Expe­dient.

And whereas in the same first Page of his Book against me, he tells us, The Distinction of the Trinity, of Essence, and Personality, the Hypostatical Vnion of the two Natures in our Saviour, and the meritoriousness of his Death (which depends thereupon) are undermined with School-Divinity. In that he writ against M. Baxter, he saith of it, That it is an upstart Study, unknown to the purer times, model'd and profess'd by that Or­der, which now manageth the Inquisition, and was at first erected for the suppressing the Truth in the Albigenses; [p. 13.] M. Stubb in his last Book greatly ap­plauds Metaphysicks, if he can find any Distinctions in that Learning to solve his own Contradictions, he shall have my Vote for the greatest Metaphysician in the World. He doth so directly and [Page 65] in terms every where almost affront himself, that I cannot possibly write more point-blank against him, than Harry doth against Stubb; and some think, that if he be let alone, the next time he scribbles he'l reduce even his last Book to a Non-plus, and confute this also, as he hath already done by most of his other Writings. The Truth is, M. Stubb hath wanted an Adversary to appear publickly against him, and there­fore he hath challeng'd, and provoked all men that came in his way; but those he hath assaulted have been of Opinion, it seems, that 'tis no good fighting with Dray-men in a Puddle, and therefore have received his Dirt and pass'd by: This, no doubt, hath troubled him much, and that he might not want Exercise, and Imployment for his Hu­mour, when no body else would under­take him, he hath faln upon himself, and tried his Fists one against another. But these Remarques are only [...]n passant. To return.

School-Divinity creates Everlasting [Page 66] Disputes, rather than Rest, and is an up­start Study model'd by those that manag'd the Inquisition, and erected for the Sup­pression of Truth; when M. Baxter lays any Claim to it; and presently it sup­ports Christianity, and affords the Benefits of quieting the Conscience, and convin­cing Adversaries; when the Virtuosi shew less inclination for that sort of Learning. We may judge by this what a Zealot M. Stubb is for School-Divi­nity.

And yet, that we may see a little fur­ther, How probable it is that the Inte­rest of this sort of Knowledge did con­tribute to inflame him against me, and the rest whom he calls the Comical Wits; Let us cast our eyes into his Light out of Darkness; He there recites several Testimonies out of Luther and Melanct­hon against it, [p. 93, 94, 95, 96, &c.] viz. Melancthon saying, As for Vniver­sities we need not trouble our selves at them, the very School-Divinity, which they uphold, shews that all such Schools are Heretical. p. 93, 94. and M. Stubb [Page 67] adds, [may not one upon the like Con­viction speak as irreverently of Oxford or Cambridge?] He cites Melancthon further calling the Vniversities the Dwel­lings of Lies, Priests, Monks and School­men; Pharisees and Sadducees, and gi­ving the Epithete of wicked to School-Divinity, [ibid.] And as the Articles of Martin Luther, he gives us these, 1. That Scholastical Divinity is a mis­understanding the Holy Scripture and Sa­craments, and hath exiled us from the sincere and true Divinity. (2.) When the School or mock-Divinity began, then was the Divinity of the Cross of Christ rendred of no effect, and all things became perverted. (3.) It is now almost 300 Years since the School-Divines have cor­rupted the Scriptures, to the incomparable Detriment of the Church. [p. 95.] To this he annexeth Melancthon's Apology for Luther in Opposition to the Censure of the Sorbonists against those Articles, containing much to the same purpose, spoken with all Contempt and Vehe­mence imaginable against that Divinity; [Page 68] In which he saith, that if once it be ad­mitted, there is nothing safe, nothing sound in the Church of God, The Gospel is obscured, Faith extinguish'd, Free Will and good Works introduced, and instead of professing Christianity we become not Fol­lowers of the Law, but Adherents of Ari­stotle.— [p. 96.] M. Stubb concludes their Testimonies thus, Believe it, Read­er, if thou art of this judgment, thou hast the most glorious Martyrs, the most renowned Christians, and as Learned Men as any to defend thee, [ibid.] And there­fore his Query is, p. 95. Whether School-Divinity be not a novel thing, slighted and condemned by Learned and Godly men in all Ages since it was first intro­duced? If it were not, in M. Stubb's Opinion it deserved to be so, for he calls it the Iargon of the Schoolmen in his Preface against Dr. Wallis, p. 2. where also he tells us of the Burles (que) of the Fathers, and the Gallimaufrey of Critical Learning.

Thus we see how serious also we may believe him to have been in his Designs for School-Divinity.

[Page 69]BUT (4.) the Universities and their Learning are much behol­den to him; and he writes against the new-fashion'd Philosophers, because it was a work necessary to the Vniversities and all Learning. [Non plus, p. 2.]

Now because M. Stubb pretends him­self a Defender of the Vniversities, as well as of Monarchy and Religion; and would fain expose the Royal Society, and the Favourers of that Institution, as Enemies to those antient Nurseries of Knowledge, I shall enquire briefly, what Reason there is to think, that the Vir­tuosi have any Enmity to the Vniversities, or that M. Stubb hath any Friendship for Them.

As for the First, whatever may be suggested by those that are prompted to think amiss of Them either by Malice, or Vnacquaintance with their Designs, There is certainly no good Pretence for the Censure. For They have done no­thing to the Vniversities Prejudice, nor spoken any thing to their Disparagement; [Page 70] They declare upon all occasions their Esteem for those learned Foundations, and endeavour to vindicate their own Institution from being any ways preju­dicial or offensive to Those; The greatest part of them have been Members of the Vniversities, and some at this time have eminent Relations to Them. The very way of Knowledge They are in, cannot well be improved to any great purposes, without the preparative Academical Stu­dies; And these Philosophers acknow­ledge general Notions necessary for the regulating and using particular Observa­tions and Enquiries; Upon which ac­counts I must pronounce, That 'tis ei­ther Spight or Ignorance, that creates and foments Iealousies in the Vniver­sities, of an Innocent as well as Honou­rable Assembly, that loves and respects them heartily, and no way interferes with Them or their Concerns, but I dare say would be most ready to serve Them in any of their publick Interests. Of this Inclination (If I may not mention the glorious Gift of our most munificent and [Page 71] Learned ARCHBISHOP, an Illustrious Member of the Royal Society, to the Vniversity of Oxford) yet I may give the Instance of the most Noble the Lord HENRY HOWARD's Favour to the same Vniversity, in bestowing upon It those rare and celebrated Pieces of An­tiquity the Marmora Arundeliana, with which the Area of the Theatre is adorned, and the affectionate Kindness of that learned and excellent Person M. Evelyn in his effectual Solicitations to procure them: And you know, Sir, that both that Illustrious Lord, and this ingenious and accomplish'd Gentleman, are Members of the Royal Society, zealously concerned for its Interests.

I might mention further, what Care is taken in the History of the Society to clear It and Its Designs from all thoughts of Its being hurtful to the Vniversities, and their useful Learning: He that hath a mind to know, may see there himself; and he that is resolved he will not be informed, is not like to be convinced, though I should transcribe that ingenious and satisfactory Apology.

[Page 72]As to what concerns my self, M. Stubb and his Admirer M. Cross are resolved that I shall go for an Enemy to the Vni­versities, say what I will; They both know, what frequent and publick Pro­fessions I have made of the great Ho­nour I have for those famous Schools of Piety and Knowledge; particularly in the Entrance of the Letter concerning Aristotle (which M. Stubb saith he hath answered) They may find the highest Expressions of Love and Zeal towards the Vniversities, which were within the Compass of my poor and narrow In­vention, and my solicitous Endeavours to defend my self from the vile Suspi­cion of my being guilty of so base an Ingratitude, as these ingenuous Adver­saries would fain fasten on me. 'Tis true indeed, I have opposed the Peripatetick Physiology, and made some Remarques on Aristotle; But when I have done thi [...], I have declared also, that I intended only to persuade men off from implicit Adherences to Aristotle's bare Word, and Authority, not to discourage the [Page 73] Reading of his Works, or receiving any useful Informations from Him: To dis­suade capable and ingenious Spirits from fixing upon the Peripatetick Notions, as the immoveable Foundations of Truth and Certainty, without enquiring into God's Works, or any other of the Methods of Natural Knowledge, not to dishearten the Youth from studying those Hypotheseis, the uses of which in the Vniversities I have acknowledged. So that the Academical Education is not at all con­cerned in what I have said, and intend­ed only for men, who were past those preliminary Studies. To this purpose I have spoken in my Defence against the Learned White, in my Letter con­cerning Aristotle, and also in my Plus Vltra: If, for all this, I must be rec­kon'd as an Enemy to the Vniversities, who can help it? But let M. Stubb, and his Confederate M. Cross think what they please, I care as little what they think, as they do what they say; and as little for what they say, as for the Hoo, Hoo, of the next broad-faced Bird, that [Page 74] sits in an Ivy-bush: And, I believe, most that understand them value their Thoughts and Sayings at the same rate, as I do. But because there are those that do not know this rare pair of Au­thors, and so may be in danger of be­lieving them; I solemnly protest that I have a just and most sincere Esteem for those Venerable Seats, and Fountains of Learning, The Vniversities; and do most cheerfully own, and am ready to celebrate the great Advantages they af­ford for all sorts of Knowledge, and I verily believe that the other Members of the Royal Society have like Sentiments of them.

But now whether Their Defender M. Stubb be so much their Friend, as those their pretended Enemies and Vnder­miners, is to be our next Enquiry; In the Management of it I assure you (as I did once before) that I shall not fly to Fictions and bold Slanders after the manner of this Antagonist and Legendary M. Cross, but (as I have done all along) take accounts from his publick Writings. Let us [Page 75] consult then his Light out of Darkness; and in that we shall see his Affection to the Vniversities, in a season when They needed no Enemies, viz. in the short Reign of the Medley-Iunto, that con­sisted of those whom M. Stubb would have had our perpetual Senators, In­dependents, Anabaptists, Fifth-Monarchy-Men and Quakers, [ut supra.]

His 32d. Query in that Book is, Whe­ther the Primitive Christians had any Universities, or other Schools of Learn­ing, than such as Origen did catechise in at Alexandria? And he concludes his Citations thus, Nor indeed have I ever heard of an University of the Albigenses, or Waldenses, and Bohemians, p. 139. Again,

Qu. 33. Whether Antient Times, (and those not very antient neither) record any more than that of Bologna, Paris, and Salamanca? and whether Christianity at that time were not of farther Extent, than the Kingdoms those stood in? p. 140. And

[Page 76]Qu. 34. Whether it were not the De­sign of the Reformers in King Edward the sixth's days to put down Universities? whether the Dean of Christ-church had not a Design to reduce Oxford to one or very few Colleges? p. 140.

Well! If the Primitive Christians, and the Predecessors of the Protestants had no Vniversities; Antient Times, since them, had but four; And the first Reformers among us designed to put them down; What must we think our Friend of Vniversities would have his Patriots conclude? The Answer to this Question will be clear enough in the fol­lowing Queries.

Qu. 35. Whether the Rise of our pre­sent fashion'd Universities and University Habits was not from Dominicans; an Order instituted by the Pope to suppress the Waldenses those Predecessors of the Protestants? whether this be the Spot and Attire of God's Children? and whether they have not the Spirit, as well as Garb of Persecutors, and man of Sin? [p. 142.] His Masters answer, No doubt; and so [Page 77] down with this Limb of Antichrist.

Qu. 36. Whether the Institution of Doctoral Degrees be not novel and account­ed Antichristian by the Reformed Churches in Scotland, France, Holland, Switzer­land, and the Calvinists in High Germa­ny? And whether they have any in those Countries, or any constant peculiar Habits in their Vniversities? p. 143.

He answers, That Forein Divines have told him, That the Reformed Churches esteem them as Antichri­stian, ibid. and adds, That the Degree is as Popish as the Divinity whereunto it referrs: A Divinity erected in 1220, and which is acknowledged to have been the Subversion of Christianity. A Doctor that is no Teacher, he is a dumb Dog, an insignificant Piece of Formality in the Vniversity, reserved by the Reformers (as it were) upon such grounds as Con­stantine in the demolishing of Statues, pre­served some Heathen Idols, that Posterity might know what Beasts their Fathers had worshipped. [p. 143, 144.] O excel­lent Patron of Universities! How did [Page 78] his anointed ones, those pretious People of the Cause, hug him for this goodly Language?

Well! but if this be not enough, he is resolved he will have their Favour; Therefore have at Antichrist again.

Qu. 37. Whether there are not in our, as well as other Antichristian Univer­sities beyond Sea, the same or rather more popish, idolatrous and superstitious Habits, Ceremonies and Customes? Nay, whether they do not rather exceed them in Pomp, as well as Number? His Answer to the Queries follows thus;

Here I am ready to cry out, Come and see! Come and see! Not John the Baptist in the Wilderness, nor John the Divine in Pathmos; but our Theologues in their Pontificals at Oxon, view their Habits, their Ceremonies, their Processions, the Respect due to them by Statute, and you will find that PETITION from the well-affected in Oxon, was not ground­less, which desired the Abrogation of them. [p. 145.] We must give the Lie to general Fame, [as he speaks, Non [Page 79] Plus p. 20.] or believe that M. Stubb was the Author of that Petition: I re­member there is as rare stuff in it as any here, but I have not that Paper by me, nor do I need it; I have more than enough, if I were to write a Volume of this Proteus. But he goes on [ibid.] Come and see the Scarlet-Whore represent­ed in a Glass multiplying Doctors: Come and see the Difference between Presby­tery and Popery; since they apply that Expression to Democracy, so often, let me style them in comparison of the Romish Antichrist, the more many-headed Beast; if the other strive to make the Kings of the Earth drunk with the Cup of Forni­cation; These catch at Crowns and half-Crowns. Make good Sense of this Piece of Wit, who can: I cannot guess, except this be it. Presbytery is worse than Popery, because Rome only makes the Kings drunk; Presbytery makes Them pay their Forfeit, which it uncon­scionably raiseth from Groats to Crowns and half-Crowns. But let that go, he proceeds, As for the lost Sheep of Israel, [Page 80] the poor and the weak whom God hath cho­sen, unless the Salary be good, they seem to be under as great a Prohibition from Preaching to them, as the Apostles from going to Bithynia, [p. 145, 146.] But he hath not yet done with the Popery and Antichristianism of our Vniversi­ties, and their Fashions; Therefore it follows.

Qu. 38. Whether the University Hood be not the Product of the old Monkish Me­lote spoken of by Cassian de Institutione Monachorum, and grounded upon the su­perstitious Exposition of that place in Heb. 11. They wandred about [...], in Sheep-skins? whether it were not a Reli­gious Habit, it being a Badg of Monkery according to Cassian and Hierome, ibid.

Qu. 39. Whether it be not a supersti­tious and detestable Exposition of that Scripture, Stand fast having your Loins girt, &c. To accommodate it to the Epi­scoparian Girdles, with which they tie in their Canonical Coats? ibid.

Qu. 40. Whether it be not a pretty Foundation for the Oxford Doctors to stand [Page 81] booted and spurred in the Act; because there is mention made in Scripture of being sh [...]d with the Preparation of the Gospel? p. 146.

Q. 41. Whether the Vniversity of Oxford do well to give for their Arms the Book with seven Seals? Is not that a gross Abuse of what is laid down in the Revelations: as if the seven liberal Arts (two whereof are Grammar and Fidling) were typified by those Seals, which none were worthy to open, but the Lamb? [p. 146, 147.]

Q. 46. Whether any of the Ceremonies and Habits now used in the Vniversities had a very good Original, or have been imployed to a good Vse since? p. 149.

Q. 47. Whether those things which had a good Original and Vse (if they be not still necessary or commanded by God) when once they have been used to Idolatry, and Superstition, are not quite to be abo­lished? ibid.

Here is the Upshot and Conclusion of the Matter: YOV know and own this glorious Truth, O ye our Deliverers [Page 82] from AEGYPT, and from BABYLON, from all Soul-Oppression and Conscience-distressing Persecution. [Vind. of Sir H. V. p. 57.] And you know that Vniversi­ties are some of the Hay and Stubble of Humane Invention, and not commanded by God; Nor are they necessary, The Primitive Christians and first Protestants had them not; Soul-saving Truths are not taught by the Words of Mans Wisdom; Christ chose illiterate men for Disciples; The Gospel of St. John is as bad Greek as the Quakers English; [Light out of Darkness, p. 87.] God hath chosen the Foolishness of this World to con­found the Wise. [ibid.] You see, O ye PATRIOTS those Schools of Humane Learning are not necessary, Yea, they were erected by Popery, and are Anti­christian, Popish, Superstitious; Down with them therefore, down with them to the Ground; Destroy Baby­lon, and the Garments of the Whore, away with the Idols, dumb Dogs, and Beasts, that our Fathers have worship­ped

[Page 83]This is the Sense of the whole, and a grand Expression of M. Stubb's Friend­ship to the Vniversities.

BUT he is a Zealot, no doubt, for the Learning that is taught there, so he pretends by his eager Oppositions of what he calls the mechanical Educa­tion, [Non Plus, p. 13.] now contra­distinguish'd, as he tells us, from the Vniversity-Learning, this he here recom­mends and celebrates; and would fain persuade his Reader, That the Royal Society have a desire to triumph over the antient Education of the Kingdom. [Pref. p. 6.] All which are mere Chy­m [...]ra's and malicious or proud Devices, to effect his purpose of rendring the Virtuosi odious, as he declares it, [Pref. p. 4.] or the other Design of dignifying Himself as the great Patron of antient Learning. For the Royal Society doth no way disturb or meddle with Vni­versity-Learning and Education: The Art of Reasoning, the Validity of Conse­quences, The unfolding of Critical Syllo­gisms [Page 84] and Fallacies, the general Doctrine of Topicks, the Moral Philosophy and Foun­dations of civil Prudence, Civil and Ec­clesiastical History and Languages, which M. Stubb himself reckons up as the Learn­ing of the Vniversities, [p. 17.] will pro­ceed all in the same way, notwithstand­ing the Study of Experimental Philoso­phy; which though it may use some of them, as they are already taught, yet it contradicts none. And by the same Reason, that M. Stubb suggests the Me­chanical way to be prejudicial and con­trary to the Vniversity-Learning, he might say, that All Practical Arts, as Chirurgery, Architecture, Limning, and the rest, have an Antipathy to those Aca­demical Studies also: such a Logician is M. Stubb as not to distinguish between contrary and divers: What an imperti­nent thing is proud Malice?

But let us see how much M. Stubb hath declared himself a Friend to Vni­versity-Learning, and all sorts of Lite­rature, in the time when they were de­spised, and their utter Extirpation zeal­ously [Page 85] attempted. Concerning the first Sort, Languages, he Queries thus,

Q. 13. L. D. Whether the Knowledge of Tongues leads us to one Sense of Scri­pture or many? Whether all such dealings lead us not to put our Trust in Man? Can any matter of Faith be built upon the Strength of a Criticism? [p. 97.] and Critical Learning is call'd a Gallimau­frey, [Pref. against Dr. Wallis.]

Q. 18. Whether the first Christians were not against Humane Learning, and Heathenish Authors? And whether it was more an Effect of Julian the Apo­state's Malice, or Christian Prudence, that went about to keep the People of God from Reading Heathen Writers? [p. 101.] For the Affirmative of the Query he al­ledgeth divers Testimonies; and con­cludes, The Greek Church is owned for a true Christian Church, and highly mag­nified by Protestants in Opposition to the Pope, yet neither They nor the Picards, or Waldenses in Bohemia did value Learning, so far were they from esteem­ing of it, as a Prop of true Religion, p. 105.

[Page 86] This was the way to recommend Learning to the Religieuse of those times, whose Favour our Anti-Virtuoso then courted. And even in this last Book, he hath given proof of his Kindness to one sort of Vniversity-Learning, Ma­thematicks; They are less necessary and inutile, [p. 17.] and a little before Geometricians seldom, if ever, prove Metaphysicians, Religieuse, or othe [...]wise of tolerable Ratiocination; but are said ignorantly to run into Whimsies, and Phantastical Ways of Arguing. This is the great Friend and Patron of Learn­ing.

BUT what doth he think of Ari­stotle, who M. Cross tells us in his Book, was Artium Partium (que) Uir, Fundator Artium, Maximus Homi­num? His Credit our Author kindly undertakes in part to readvance. [Title p. to Non Plus.] And he did it, when he Q [...]eried in his Light out of Darkness, p. 105.

Q. 19. Whose Sepulchres do our Vni­versity-men [Page 87] build up, whilst they uphold ARISTOTLE's PHILOSOPHY, which hath been so generally condemn'd of late, and heretofore by Popish Assemblies, and particular men of that way; as also by the FIRST CHRISTIANS, AND HO­NEST MEN OF ALL AGES? In his Discourse upon this Query He tells us, That whatever it be now adays to urge Philosophy among them, viz. the Primi­tive Christians, was either to be an He­retick or Gentile. He goes on, But I re­fer my Reader to La [...]noy's Discourse, — there he will find Aristotle not only condemned by the Fathers, but burnt by after-Ages, — And in the following words he extends the Apostle's Prohibi­tion to the condemning of all Philosophy whatsoever; If any shall say, That the Apostle by prohibiting Philosophy and vain Deceit, doth rather establish than preju­dice what is true, I shall not only desire that Person to ascertain me of what is true in Philosophy; but further de­mand, whether this dealing in making that distinctive, which is exaggerative, [Page 88] be not like to what Gregory de Valentia alledgeth in the behalf of that Worship that is paid to the Host in the Mass, That the Apostle in condemning of abominable Idolatries, doth not prejudice Idolatries which are not abominable, ibid. p. 106. And so farewell this Sort of Vniversity-Learning with the rest.

FOR this Query and its Appurte­nances M. Stubb falls under the Corrections of his Friend M. Cross. His Book I told you, could not be Li­cens'd, and therefore I should not have publish'd any passages of those Papers, but that he hath endeavour'd to do it himself in all Places, and will, no doubt, take it very kindly to be quoted, especi­ally on an occasion, in which his Zeal for Aristotle may appear: I shall therefore gratifie him, and shew how M. Stubb's Insolence against the Vir Artium and Partium may be chastis'd with M. Crosses Rod, with which he [...]irks me and the rest of the Hogs of Epicurus's Stie (as he calls the Dissenters from Aristotle.)

[Page 89] Quantum sudatum è quot Uini Am­phorae epotae nocturnis Comessatio­nibus ab hoc Spermologo [me scilicet] (ne dicam reliquis ab Epicuri Harâ Por­cellis) in Aristotele exterminando, ex­sufflando, epotando, exsibilando? — And again a little after Quantum suda­tum, epotatum, eructatum, ut Vir hic, Semo potiùs & Heros, Philosophiae, tempo­ribus longè doctioribus, facilè Princeps; Stipes, Stultus, nihil audiat? you may perceive how much this man knows me, or how little he cares what he saith, by his telling me so much of Fudling; If I had been any ways guilty of this Fault, M. Cross, of all men, should have taken care how he had accused me.

But he goes on, and enquires by whom it is that Aristotle is so hiss'd at, drunk down and exploded; Nam & hoc Sola­tium est & Augurium, à Fungis Combi­bonibus, severae Eruditionis Osoribus acer­rimis summis; Such are all the Deserters of Aristotle: and hence the good man prophesies a happy issue to that Philo­sopher: [Page 90] Ergo Senex hic, aevi sui Decor, sequentium Stupor, reviviscet, nam re­vixit multoties: Erit tandem rumpente se Epicuro, Democrito, Gassendo, Cartesio, erit quod fuit, summorum & eruditissimorum Virorum Iudicio, Philosophiae rursus facilè Princeps: Artium Partium (que) Vir, Ar­tium quotquot ingenuarum Liberarium Fundator, de Naturâ & Philosophiâ opti­mè meritus, & quo minor est quisquis maximus est Hominum, — Hey for Ari­stotle! Here 'tis like M. Stubb would have asked, how all this was to be proved; But that is no sit Question to be put to M. Cross, he never useth to give himself that trouble. M. Stubb charged M. Baxter with Ignorance, and tells us, he would leave it to others to prove it; and M. Cross makes Aristotle a Demi-god, and the Anti-Aristotelians more than Demi-brutes, let him prove either that can; Proof is a thing out of this Dis­puters way, he hath a Maxim ready to stop you, if you expect it, Contra Ne­gantem Principia — But let us hear him talk on in his Dream.

[Page 91] An tamen unquam disputabitur, ut me Iuvene a [...]xiè disputatum est Oxonii, nempe, An Aristoteles plus debuerit Naturae, an Natura Aristoteli? Did ever any man else hear of such a non­sensical and impious Question, than which nothing can be phansied more ridiculous, except it be the second, which follows, Vt & An quispiam sit scripturus Librum de Salute aeterna Aristo­telis, ut olim Colonienses? Are not these worshipful Enquiries, and much beyond those of the Virtuosi? What would a man give to be inform­ed, Whether Aristotle owes more to Na­ture, or Nature (which indeed is God) to him? or whether any one will write a Book to prove his eternal Salvation? The Questions are deep, and the modest man will not undertake to determine them, but adds, in Catalogo Rerum Curiosarum repono. I wish we could see a Cata­logue of the rest of the things, which he thinks most worthy our Enquiries; Hitherto the World have troubled themselves about Trifles, 'tis great pity [Page 92] but M. Cross should be the general Pro­poser of Matters fit for Philosophical Disquisition.

But he proceeds in his Zeal, and saith of me, That I arrived to that degree of Madness, as to write contra Aristote­lem, quem nemo unquam vituperavit, nisi cui pro Corde Pepo est, nemo contra scripsit sobrius, nisi forte insanus; Very good! no sober man, except he were mad; such sober mad-men were several of the first Fathers, and divers great Moderns; His Friend will tell him honest men in all Ages condemned that Philosopher, and some burnt his Writings; How bedlam m [...]d were that sort of sober men? But he hath not done vindicating Aristotle in his way, viz. cal­ling all those Names that dissent from him, he sputters on against me.

Hic est ille, qui scripsit prius contra Aristotelem; quid Impudentiae & Stul­titiae ausurus non est, qui jamdudum per­fricuit frontem, & scripsit contra Ari­stotelem? What a rare Defender of Aristotle is this? O brave Aristotle! [Page 93] Aristotle a Demi-god, a Hero, Prince of Philosophy, a Man of Arts and Parts, Founder of Arts, Greatest of Men! O the Hogs, Drunkards, Vain Eablers, Dolts, Pot-Companions, Haters of Learn­ing that explode and throw off Aristotle! O the Madness of one that writ against Aristotle, against whom no sober Person ever writ, except he were a mad-man! Here is one that writ against Aristotle, what Impudence and Folly will he stick at that writ against Aristotle? Are not these, Sir, strong Arguments, and is not Aristotle well defended? This I assure you is the Sum of what M. Cross saith for him, and the Reasonings of his Book throughout are of the same sort. I have not pick'd these Passages, as an Instance of ridiculousness to expose him, but took them up in my way, for a little Mirth sake, and to give you a taste of this Authors way of arguing, which is every where the same. And I have done it the rather, because the Learned Dr. Casaubon in his Letter to Dr. du Moulin about my PLVS VLTRA, [Page 94] accuseth me [p. 7.] of reproaching my Adversary for his Love to, and Esteem of Aristotle; By this I would let that Re­verend man see, that it is not my Ad­versaries Love and Respect to Aristotle I deride; but the ridiculous Expressi­ons of his fond Admiration, which he sufficiently discovered in that Confe­rence, that was the Occasion of my Book.

But enough of M. Stubb and M. Cross as to this particular; 'Tis evident enough that the former hath not that Kindness for Aristotle he pretends, to serve his Designs against the modern Philosophers; and the other can say nothing on his be­half, more than what Freshmen use to talk of that new great Name they are taught to admire; whatever Love he hath for Him.

And now as to what concerns the modern EXPERIMENTAL PHILO­SOPHERS, I dare say they are slan­dered much by those their Adversaries, that represent them as such Enemies to Aristotle; For I know They have a [Page 95] due Esteem of him, and allow Him an eminent place among the wise Men of Antient times; They acknowledge the helps he hath afforded us, and pay Re­spects to his Writings, as they do to those of other venerable Authors; They refuse not, nor discourage the reading of his Books, nor do they reject any of his Discoveries, that may aid us in the Uses of Knowledge or Life; yea, they embrace them cheerfully, and are glad when any useful Truth hath such an Authority to recommend it. Thus much I dare undertake for all the Philosophers of the Practical way, of whom I have any Knowledge. But to make Aristotle a Dictator in Philosophy, and to give him an absolute Empire over our minds; to admire him, as if in him were hid all the Treasures of Natural Wisdom and Knowledge, and to be scrupulous in acknowledging that he was ignorant of any thing in Nature, as Dr. Casaubon saith Fabricius was, [in his Reflections on my Plus Vltra.] such Fondnesses as these, those Philosophers by no means [Page 96] approve, but look on them as extreme­ly prejudicial to the Advance of Know­ledge, and the Respect that is due to other excellent Authors both of elder and later times.

And I think by their modest Judg­ment of that Philosopher, they rather secure the just Praise and Regard to Aristotle's Authority that is his due, than any way diminish it. For those that raise the Commendations of any man much beyond the Proportion of his Merit, and lay more Stress upon his Authority, than it will bear, do indeed give an occasion to the Contempt of such an over-valued Person, and the degrading him below that Respect, which his worth might claim: So that in earnest those doting men that talk such childish, incredible things of Aristotle, as I lately quoted from M. Cross, are his real Enemies, and expose him to Scorn and Opposi­tion; whereas the modern Philosophers, who give him just, but less excessive and flaunting Applauses, do more really serve the Interest of his Name; And [Page 97] what I particularly, have writ against Him, hath been designed chiefly, to lessen the Hyperbolical Admirations of the little enslaved Sectators; not to discourage any from the Study of Aristotle, or a modest va­lue of his Authority. And that my Sense of Him and his Writings was the same then, that I declared but now, to be the experimental Philosophers Inclina­tion in reference to that Philosopher, may be largely seen in my Defence of the Va­nity of Dogmatizing against that famous Adversary the Learned Albius, especi­ally, p. 7. I have spoken there to the same purpose; but 'tis too much for my Laziness to transcribe.

AND now, Sir, methinks, upon the Review of the whole it seems to me very pretty, that one, who labour'd so industriously, and inveighed so bit­terly against Monarchy, Ministry, Churches, Universities, Aristotle, and all Humane Learning, when some of these were actually overthrown; and All in imminent Danger of Ruine; that [Page 98] put on the Fanatical Vsurpers (that need­ed no Spur) by gross, canting Flatteries of Them; and deadly, malicious Reproach­es and Oppositions of those great concerns of the Kingdom, to complete the Destru­ction They had begun; That this man, I say, should talk, as if he were the only zealous Person for the Interest of Monarchy, Religion, Vniversities, and old Learning, and the only Patriot that could defend them, is a Confidence more than usual; and such, as very well be­comes M. Stubb. And on the other hand, 'Tis as pleasant to hear this Writer representing a Society, that is a Royal Institution, and consists of a great Num­ber of the most loyal Nobility and Gentry; and several of the most venerable Fa­thers of the Church, Archbishops, Bishops, and divers other Ecclesiastical Governours, and men of Eminence among the Clergy; I say, 'tis very fine, to hear M. Stubb setting out such an Assembly as an Enemy to Monarchy, Religion, Vniversities, and Learning: And we must believe upon the word of the Anti-Virtuoso, That a [Page 99] great part of that Body are driving on Designs destructive to the Interests of Religion and the Kingdom; and that the Loyal and Religious men of the ROYAL SOCIETY are so dull as not to perceive it, while the more sagacious Doctor of Warwick sees those dreadful Projects clearly, and therefore cannot be silent, but must warn the Nation of the Danger.

Upon the Consideration of the whole Procedure, one would think that M. Stubb had so great an Ambition to gain the Applauses of the envious and ignorant (who are glad to see any thing that is worthy railed at and opposed) that for their sake, he is resolved (yet further) to expose himself to the Scorns of the sober and judicious. And really he writes at that rate, as if he were to defie the intelligent part of Mankind; and de­sign'd only to be read by those that would believe any thing he said at a venture, because he writes against the Virtuosi. The Truth of this Censure will appear, when I come to my particular Remarques upon his Book; which I [Page 100] shall presently do, when I have taken a little notice of His other Designs, which are yet behind, viz.

TO represent the Uirtuosi as ri­diculous and odious to the Kingdom; and to sacrifice me to pub­lick Obloquy.

To effect the former, He clapt his own Cap on the Virtuosi, and calls them Prattle-boxes, and then without any more ado, They are ridiculous: He de­scribes them by the other part of his own Character, as Persons of irreligious and dangerous Inclination, and then they must be odious. And when the Virtuoso-Mastix hath proved that these are not Complements, but that his Comical Wits are so really like Himself; all men, no doubt, will say, that They are as he designed to represent them.

But if M. Stubb be no better at ma­king Characters, than he is at giving Names, the Virtuosi, I doubt, will leave him without their Company, to enjoy the Honours he projects for them: [Page 101] For why of all things, must they be cal­led the Comical Wits, I trow? How came this to ramble into the mans head? Of all the Names that courtly M. Cross bestowed on me, there is scarce any that suits less; And yet now I remem­ber, 'tis not improbable but that M. Stubb might borrow this from that great Repository of Titles; For that Master of Ceremonies calls me, and all things I do, at every turn, Romantick; And when he had studied a long time to know what I was good for, at last he finds this; that I might be capable of serving a Stage; Hence 'tis like his Friend took the hint, and the Virtuosi are presently dub'd the Comical Wits; and the Tres-haute and tres-agreeable Comediants.

But it may be too this was intended for a Figure, Lucus à non lucendo: For there are no men more averse to the profess'd Drolls; none that value their Wit less, than those that are most con­cerned for the Institution and Designs of the Royal Society; nor hath any sort [Page 102] of Enemies been more injurious to those generous undertakings of the experi­mental Philosophers, than the Buffoons and Comical Wits that have still endea­vour'd by their malicious Flouts to ren­der them contemptible in Coffee-Houses and Taverns; and have filled the Land with ridiculous Stories of their Designs and Performances.

Yea, These are the men, that M. Stubb gratifies by his Book, which (to give him his own Language) will please none, but shallow-brain'd and Comical Wits. [p. 115.] How shallow-brain'd, I think those of the common Drolling sort, and how prejudicial to Religion, Govern­ment, and Knowledge, I have sufficient­ly declared in a short Discourse at the end of my CONSIDERATIONS about WITCH-CRAFT, called A WHIP FOR THE DROLL, FIDLER TO THE ATHEIST. If M. Stubb think fit to look into that Appendix, he will see reason there to take me out of the Number of the Comical People; And if I some­times make a little merry with him in [Page 103] these Papers, 'tis because I would try, whether I have any of the Comical Fa­culty in me or no; If I have, 'tis fit that he who first let me know it, should have it first imployed in his Service. And indeed M. Stubb is such a pleasant Object, as would make a man Comical, though his Genius be never so little disposed to that Iollity of Humour. The sick man that was dying of an Impostume, broke into a loud Laughter, when he saw the Ape set the grave, gold-laced Night-Cap upon his Head; And 'tis very hard for one to contain, that sees M. Stubb puts on a Pretence for Monarchy and Religion. If he thinks there is any thing of Rudeness in the Application of that ridiculous Passage, let him thank his Friend M. Cross who gave occasion to the Comparison; That renowned Author spends a great deal of serious pains to prove that I was an Ape, or very like one, and made such Philosophi­cal Observations upon the Nature of that Animal, that I could not choose, when I lately read it, but think of [Page 104] a certain Anti-Virtuoso; and that Thought run into my Pen before I was aware.

But I have done with this Design of our Projector also, to make the Comical Wits ridiculous and odious: How far he hath effected it, he will see when Time and Experience have acquainted him, what he hath made himself.

THE last of his great Intendments that I took notice of was, To sa­crifice me to publick Obloquy to settle the general Repose and Tranquillity. Pref. p. 3.

I think I have generosity enough, or at least I desire so much, as to be content to be so sacrificed upon such an Occa­sion: But will that do it? will the Sa­crificing me, is he sure, establish the ge­neral Repose? I fear there are other Comical Wits will be left, when I am gone, to disquiet such peaceable men, as this: and except M. Stubb will assure me, that all the World will be quiet when I am faln, I will not be sacrific'd [Page 105] by him; Yea, though he should Non-plus me in ten Title-pages more, yet, I doubt, I shall disturb him, if he goes on to settle our Tranquillity in the way he hath begun. Well! but publick Oblo­quy is hungry, and must have a Sacrifice to feed it: M. Stubb takes hold of me, and resolves I shall be the Offering, He spits at me, and scratches me with his Nails, and I fall a Victim without any more ado; But let him look to it, and make sure of that, or else publick Oblo­quy will catch him by the back, and make this her Priest, himself the Sa­crifice.

But without Allegory, M. Stubb de­signs to expose me to publick Reproach, and to make the Virtuosi odious and ridi­culous, and so one would think that reads his Book. How he hath demeaned him­self in it for the effecting of these, and his other mighty purposes, I come to consider next, and it was the Third general Head of which I proposed to treat. I cannot now fall upon the par­ticular Examination of all things in his [Page 106] Work, but shall only give you those sudden Observations I made upon a cur­sory Reading, the more large and punctu­al Confutation shall follow.

(III.) THEN as to the MANAGE­MENT of his DESIGNS, I take notice,

I. That the pretended Reason of his falling on my Book, is very idle and impertinent. Forsooth, a Gentleman at a Person of Honour's Table avowed, that all the Antient Methods of Science were vain and useless to a Physician, and did not as much as contribute to the Cure of a cut Finger, [Pref. p. 1.] This the Gentleman avowed to be the positive and dogmatical Averment even to a Syl­lable of M. Glanvill and other Virtuosi, p. 1, 2.

M. Stubb's Beginning brings to my mind what I heard last Year at Oxford; Being there with a learned and ingeni­ous Knight at the House of a Doctor of Divinity of great note, upon the occa­sion of some Discourse concerning our [Page 107] Author, The Doctor, who knew him very well, spoke to me to this purpose, M. Stubb, said he, is so great a — That if he tell you he was at such a Gentleman's Table where this or that Discourse hapned; you are not to believe as much as that he knows that Gentleman, or ever saw him. I should not have mention'd this Passage, but that it fell so pat in my way; whe­ther we have the more reason to believe the Doctor concerning M. Stubb, or M. Stubb concerning the Gentlemans Dis­course at the Person of Honours Table, I shall not here dispute: But for Peace sake I shall be so courteous at present, as to suppose that there was such a Ren­counter, and that M. Stubb ought to take as an instance of Candour, and a ve­ry large Charity. Be it so then for once, There was an Admirer of the Institution of the Royal Society that talked so in the Anti-Virtuoso's Company: but he paid him for his Insolence, and shewed as he tells us, That the Antient Philo­sophy had not been so sterile in reference to Physick, but that it had been the Foun­dation [Page 108] of the Healing of cut Fingers, and green Wounds. [Pref. p. 2.] And thus he sacrificed that Virtuoso to the Obloquy of the Table: But yet his Wrath was not appeas'd so, he goes on;

I still retained a Sense of the Injury I supposed done to me, and all rational Physicians by this barbarous Opiniatour; I determined to avenge my Faculty on M. Glanvill for this, [p. 3.] and so I am to be made a Sacrifice as well as the Chymaerical Gentleman. Here was the Provocation I gave M. Stubb, and this Book his Revenge.

One of the First things h [...] falls upon in it, is to make it appear by demonstra­tive Proof that the Antients could cure cut Fingers, [Book p. 3.] for here he receiv'd the Injury, for which he determined to avenge his Faculty. He proves this mighty Truth by many Te­stimonies and great Instances, Podalirius and Machaon in Homer could do it; Hippocrates writ about Wounds and Vl­cers, and therefore, no doubt, he could [Page 109] cure cut Fingers; Yea, Aristotle was descended of the Line of Aesculapius, and 'tis not to be question'd, but he could prescribe a Plaister for such an occasion. And how little the Antients stood in need of Modern Discoveries and Aids to cure cut Fingers, any man may judge that knows, what Scribonius and Galen have written, and how this last Author compounds several Medicaments to that purpose, [ibid.] Those Galenical Medicaments for cut Fingers he there also names. And he assures us farther [p. 159.] That he that shall proceed accor­ding to the Notions of Elements, &c. in Compliance with the Antients, shall not stand in need of any novel Method from the Virtuosi to salve a cut Finger. For­sooth!

This, Sir, is one of the first Blows he gives the Victim, which must needs fall under such fatal Strokes. But what a serious impertinent is this?

The man, no doubt, can prove by force Of Argument, a Man's no Horse. Hudib.

[Page 110]He puts me in mind of a certain Preacher, that I once saw, who, at a Funeral, very largely undertook to prove, That All men must die, This he did in M. Stubb's Method, by Instances and Authorities: Adam died and Eve too, as did Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, Iacob and Rachel, the good men and the good Women; so it befel Moses and Aaron, David and Solomon, Cyrus and Nebuchadnezzar; and so he went on to reckon up who had died, till his Glass hasten'd him to his Authorities; where he shewed his Learning, and proved his Proposition by the Testimo­ny of Poets, Philosophers, and Fathers; and by that time he had done with Vir­gil and Ovid, Aristotle and Plato, St. Ber­nard and St. Ambrose, 'twas time to make an end. M. Stubb writes at the rate that the Reverend Man preach'd. For can he think in earnest that either I, or any body else ever believed or said, That None of the Antients could cure a cut Finger? or, if I had, was such an Assertion fit to be learnedly disproved? If [Page 111] one should affirm, that the moon is a green Cheese, or that M. Stubb is sound in his Head; would a wise man argue seriously against such an absurd Asserter.

'Tis true indeed these words are mine, The Vnfruitfulness of those Methods of Science, which in so many Centuries ne­ver brought the World so much practical beneficial Knowledge, as would help to­wards the Cure of a cut Finger, is a pal­pable Argument that they were funda­mental Mistakes, and that the Way was not right, [Plus Ultra, p. 7, 8.] But what? Do I speak of the Methods of Physick, Chirurgery, or any practical Art? If I had done so, M. Stubb had had reason: But it was nothing thus, I had not to do with any thing of that Nature, but was discoursing of the Infertility of the Way of Notion and Dispute, concerning which, I affirmed, that it produced no practical useful Knowledge, viz. by its own proper native Virtue; and my Sense was the same here, as it was in that Ex­pression of my Vanity of Dogmatizing, [p. 132. of Edit [...] second.] 'Twould puzzle [Page 112] the Schools to point at any considerable Discovery made by the direct sole Manu­duction of Peripatetick Principles. So that I never dreamt of denying, That those Philosophers of elder times, that went that way, had practical beneficial Know­ledge; Yea, or that they were Discover­ers of many excellent and useful things; But that they learnt that Knowledge from the disputing Methods of Physiology, or made their Discoveries by them; These were the things I denied; and I have the excellent Lord Bacon with me in my Negative, as I may have another occasion to shew. I grant therefore to M. Stubb (since he is so zealous to se­cure this Honour to them) That Ma­chaon and Podalirius in Homer could cure cut Fingers, and that Galen might make Diapalma and other Medicaments for that purpose; but unless he can prove they did it by the direct Help and Conduct of the Notional disputing Phy­siology, he will not sacrifice me to pub­lick Obloquy here, nor say any thing in which I am at all concern'd.

[Page 113]You see, Sir, we are like to have great matters from an Undertaker that begins with a ridiculous Cavil; and the general Repose and Tranquillity, you may think, will be well establish'd by one, that maliciously perverts an inno­cent Sentence, to make it an occasion of a Quarrel.

Thus he enters hopefully; and if I might pass a general Censure on his Work, as he doth upon my Letter concerning Aristotle, [p. 11.] It should be this, That 'tis an elaborate, spight­ful Impertinence: This I now say, and if I do not prove it, let me be in your Esteem, the same that my Adversary is in the Opinion of all sober men. It will I suppose sufficiently appear to you in the following Observations, and par­ticularly in this next, viz.

II. HE doth not at all by any thing he hath said, prejudice the main Design of my Book, which was, to shew, That Knowledge hath been high­ly advanced in these later Ages, beyond [Page 114] its Pitch in more Antient Times, and consequently, that there is no reason we should acquiesce and sit down in the Dictates of Aristotle, or any other of the [...]lder Philosophers; but being en­couraged by many excellent Helps and Advancements, we should endeavour its further improvement. I gave instances of the Increase of Knowledge in Chy­mistry, Anatomy, Arithmetick, Geometry, Astronomy, Opticks, Geography, and Na­tural History; and shewed what Advan­tages we have from modern Philosophick Instruments, and from the Institution of the Royal Society; of all these I dis­cours'd as far as I thought necessary to my purpose, without arrogating to my self great ma [...]ers in any of those sorts of Knowledge, or designing Ostentation of Learning, as M. Stubb accuseth me, [p. 2.] But my aim only was to prove, and to illustrate my Subject by such of the main Instances of modern Improve­ments as I could collect; and of these I gave an Account in the way of an Historian from Authors of note, though [Page 115] I seldom name them, but shall here­after in my Answer in those particulars, where M. Stubb attaques me; and I hope, give you to see, that I affirm no­thing from mine own head in reciting matters of Fact, in which Fiction would be impudent and ridiculous.

Thus I have told you the Design of my Book, and the chief things treated of in it. And now one would think, that nothing less should be worthy the Courage of such a valiant Wight as M. Stubb, than the main Subject. You will expect, no doubt, he should attempt to prove, that the Antients had greater Advantages for Knowledge, than latter times; that the things I mention as Modern Improvements were known to remote Antiquity; or that they are not Helps for the Increase of Knowledge. This should have been the Work of one that promiseth such mighty things; that was resolved to readvance the Aristote­lians, and to make the Virtuosi odious. But he hath not thought fit to attaque the Comical Wits this way; He designed [Page 116] to make them ridiculous, and for that he thought something less would serve, than confuting them.

He falls upon the Errata of the Press, and then crows over the Author of Plus Vltra; He carps at some little things about the Philosophical Instru­ments, Chymistry, and Anatomy, and in his Phansie breaks them to pieces, and then forsooth, all the other parts of my Book, which he hath not touch'd, like Glass-Bubbles fall to Dust: He cavils at some by-passages that relate not to the main Business, and instantly Plus Vltra is reduced to a Non-Plus: He confutes his own Imaginations, and then wonders at my Ignorance: He takes the Credit of the Inventions I mention from the Authors to whom I ascribe them, and gives it to others of the same Age, or not far from it; and so the An­tients are readvanced, and the Virtuosi undone.

This is the man of great Deeds, that will set up, and pluck down what, and whom he pleaseth; that will erect the [Page 117] Credit of those Authors, who are so happy as to have his Favour, and lay the Royal Society (as he elegantly and modestly useth to express himself) as flat as a Pancake. But that those mention'd are all the Exploits he hath done, not­withstanding his Boasts, I shall shew under the next head, to which I shall pass presently, after I have taken no­tice,

That the other Anti-Virtuoso M. Cross, durst not attempt as much as this. No, He found an easier way, he betook him to his Dunghil, and charged me stoutly from thence, he pick'd little critical Quarrels with the Latin of a single sheet of mine, written for a private purpose, and containing nothing of the main Con­troversie; He endeavours to shew largely that I am like an Ape; and that I have not the knack of writing solemn Epistles; For my Plus Vltra, he saves himself from the Trouble of answering it, by telling his Reader in short, that the modern Improvements I mention in Chy­mistry, Anatomy, Arithmetick, Geometry, [Page 118] Algebra, Geography, Astronomy, Opticks, and Natural History, are no more, than what every Bookseller knows, and so it is not fit for a man of his Learning, to spend his time so impertinently, as to say any thing about them. This, Sir, is the most pleasant Antagonist that ever any man had: But we shall have an oc­casion of saying somewhat more of him anon, therefore I now pass forward with M. Stubb, and come to prove concerning his Animadversions, That

III. THey are mere Cavils, and that he affirms groundlesly and falsly, and talks impertinently, and rea­sons weakly: These I shall prove by In­stances, and there is scarce any thing in his Book, but falls under one or other of those Censures.

But first I crave your leave to mark how my Adversaries are disagreed a­mong themselves, about my Account of modern Improvements; Dr. Meric Casaubon in his Reflections on my Book, [p. 35.] saith, That it is an exact Ac­count [Page 119] of late Discoveries: M. Cross makes them such known things that every Book­seller is acquainted with them, where­as M. Stubb reckons them false and ficti­tious.

For the Censure of the sober, learned man, I can with no Modesty own it; I intended no exact Account; nor am I able to give such a one, as can pretend to be accurate; I only collected such Instances, as I thought sufficient for my Design to encourage Philosophical Hope and Endeavours. For M. Crosses Judg­ment of them; Either every Bookseller knows them to be true or false; If this latter, why had he not got some Bookseller to have informed him, that he might have proved it, and confuted me? But if every Bookseller knew them to be true, what becomes of his Friend M. Stubb? and how will he answer my In­ference of the great Advantage the later times have from those Improvements, above the Helps that were enjoyed by Aristotle and high Antiquity? But I must leave M. Cross to reconcile him­self [Page 120] to his Champion, and the Interest of his own Assertion, as well as he can, and descend to the Proof of what I have affirmed concerning M. Stubb's Perfor­mance.

This, it is true, makes a formidable shew of invincible Strength, and he marches in the Van of an Host of Authors, but with them he fights Chimaera's, and takes Castles in the Air, that his Ima­gination built. He directs his force against things that I never said or meant, and most of his Authors shoot besides me; So that with mighty Stroaks he cuts the Air; and hurts his own Arm by his Strength, but doth prejudice to no other Adversary with his mightiness. This will appear by the particulars, which I come now to represent, and I observe,

(1.) That in the Entrance of his Re­flections, he affirms confidently a thing which he doth not know, whether it be so or not; and which would be im­pertinent to his purpose, though it should be granted. It is in these words, [Page 121] [p. 2.] The Authors he mentions he never saw. Roundly affirmed! Certainly, he hath dealt with some Spirit; or with his Familiar M. Cross, for this; How else should he know what Authors I have seen? who can tell this but my Attendant Genius? or the Seer of Chuè, who knows all things belonging to me by Dreams, and an occult Quality. This divining man indeed affirms in his Libel, That I have no Books in my Study, but Plays and Romances; whenas he never saw my Study, nor any man else of his Acquaintance, that could inform him; and as luck would have it, I have not one (in English) of either sort; This 'tis like was M. Stubb's Intelligencer, for M. Cross writes of me with as much Con­fidence, as if he had been at my Christ­ning, and stood by me ever since; and with as much Truth, as if he had ne­ver seen me or known more concerning me, than he doth of the Man in the Moon.

Well! but if it be so, That I never saw the Authors I mention, what is [Page 122] that to M. Stubb's purpose? I was gi­ving an Historical Account of the Impro­vers of several sorts of Knowledge; And might I not from other good and approved Writers name the Inventers or Advancers of this or that Discovery, except I had seen it in the original Au­thor? Is there no Credit to be given to the Testimony of learned men? May not one write an History of Things and Actions that he never saw? and have not most of the Historians that ever were, done thus? May not I say that Columbus discover'd the new western World; or that Fust or Gothenberg found out the Mystery of Printing, or Flavius Goia the Compass, except they had told me so themselves? And if it be usual among the most unexceptionable Relaters to collect their Accounts from other Testi­fiers, what can M. Stubb make of it, if he could prove that I never saw most of the Authors I mention? How much he himself is acquainted with the Books he quotes, we shall anon find some things whereby to pass a Judgment.

[Page 123]Thus M. Stubb begins with a perem­ptory Assertion of a thing which is false in the Latitude of his Affirmation; and which he could not possibly know, whe­ther in any more restrain'd sense it were true or not.

And his immediate next words con­tain another most gross and confident Falshood, [And all his Discourse about the Mathematicks and Mathematicians pro­cured him no other Acknowledgments from a Learned and Reverend Prelate (to whom he sent one of his Books) than a Reprimand for intermedling with what he understood not. ibid.] I have heard from credible Persons, that M. Ieanes the Polemick Writer (who was well acquainted with M. Cross) was wont to call any lusty — by a name, which for the sake of some worthy Persons, I shall not mention on this occasion. M. Stubb's Friend of Chuè knows what I mean. He may do well to advise him to take care of such broad, unconscionable Falshoods; though I con­fess a man of his Practices is the most improper Person in the World for such [Page 124] a Service. The Period I last quoted from M. Stubb is a gross Vntruth; I sent my Plus Vltra but to one Bishop, besides that Reverend Father to whom it was dedicated; and that learned and excel­lent Person was so far from sending me a Reprimand, (to use M. Stubb's word) that he was pleased to write me a most obliging Letter of Thanks; And my own venerable Diocesan accepted of that Book, and the Direction of it to him, with a great deal of Candour and Kind­ness, and never signified the least Dislike to me of it. So that I should have won­dred much at this Clause, and divers others of like kind, If I had not heard a Character of M. Stubb at Oxford, and did not know Him, and his Familiarity with M. Cross; but now I shall not be surprised though every Sentence were a Legend.

But (2.) he offers something for proof of his first Saying, viz. that I never saw the Authors I mention, as it follows, [ib. p. 2.] who ever heard of such men as Maximus Palanudes, Achazen, and Oren­tius? [Page 125] And who ever heard of such things as Errata of the Press? If I had a mind to play at this little Sport, and would retort, I might ask him, who ever heard of such People as the Abbigenses spoken of in his Vind. of Sir H. V. [p. 13.] or of such a man as I [...]lice, mention'd p. 113. of this Book; No doubt he'l lay the fault at the Printers doors; And why did he not see that the Names he quotes from me are like Errours? Doth he not know there were such Persons as Maxi­mus Planudes, Alhazen, and Orontius? and there is not one of these that differs more, then a Letter from the Names, over which he so much insults. The latter he charitably supposeth to be a Mistake, because he thought he could make the man ridiculous, and disable him from signifying to my purpose; but of that by and by: If he could have found that the other two had been piti­ful Fellows also (as he pretends this was) then Palanudes should have been corrected by Planudes, and Achazen by Alhazen. And 'tis very strange that [Page 126] M. Stubb could not see that Achazen was a Mistake of the Press, when as Alhazen stands within five Lines of him in my Book; whar a blind thing is Malice, when it hath no mind to see? Well, There were such men as Planu­des, Orontius, and Alhazen; and Vossius saith enough of the least considerable of them to justifie my transient mention of their Names. Anno 870. eluxit Maxi­mus Planudes, qui Diaphanti Arithme­ticen Commentariis illustravit. Voss. de Scient. Mathem. p. 311. And even of Orontius he speaks thus, celebre Nomen fuit Orontii Finei Delphatis, qui Arith­meticae practicae publicavit Libros quatuor. p. 316. But M. Stubb saith of him in Scorn, He was so famous a Geometrician, that when Sir H. Savil (as I remember) was to seek of an Instance of a pitiful Fellow, this was the man he fixed on. [ib. p. 2.] Would not any one from these Words, and their Relation to those that go be­fore, conclude that I had reckoned Orontius among the Improvers of Geo­metry? To what purpose else doth the [Page 127] Animadverter speak of him as a contem­ptible Geometrician? But if he will look again into my Book, he will see, that I mention not Orontius under that head, but name him (and only so) among the Authors in Arithmetick: And have not I as much reason to say, That M. Stubb never reads the Books he writes against; as He to affirm, that I never saw the Authors I mention? But M. Stubb could not give his Studies so much Diversion as to consider what he said. Well, I name Orontius among the Arithmetical Writers, and 'tis an evident Argument I never saw him, because he is a pitiful Fellow at Geometry; Is this Logick old or new? 'Tis a sort M. Stubb useth often, but I believe he can shew us nothing more pitiful in Orontius. But if Vossius may be believ'd, Orontius did not need so much of M. Stubb's Pity, even in Geometry. He tells us, Anno 1525. ac 30 proximis claruit Orontius Fineus qui de Geometriâ scripsit Libros duos, item Demonstrationes in sex Libros priores Euclidis. Ad haec de Quadraturâ Circuli [Page 128] inventâ & demonstratâ; de Circuli Men­surâ, & ratione Circumferentiae ad Dia­metrum, de multangularum omnium, & regularium Figurarum Descriptione, aliá (que) de Sc. Math. p. 65. And that his Per­formances in these, were not altogether so contemptible as the Anti-Virtuoso would insinuate, we may see a Reason to think, from the Place he held among the Mathematicians of his time, accor­ding to the same Author, Primus hic Matheseos regius in Galliis Professor fuit. [ibid.] But let Orontius be what he will in Geometry, M. Stubb is impertinent in what he saith about him, and I am not concerned. For the other Author (Acha­zen in one Line, but Alhazen within five Lines before) Confidence it self hath not the face to deny that there was such a man, or that he was a great Author in Opticks, for which I mention his Name there, where M. Stubb found Achazen to make a Wonder of.

You see, Sir, what an Adversary I have, that will not suffer the misprinting of a Letter to escape him; excellent [Page 129] Corrector of the Press! What pity 'tis that M. Cross had not found out these three Errata, that he might have had something to say!

Thus I am to be sacrific'd to publick Obloquy. The pertinent Discourse about curing cut Fingers follows, but of that I have given an Account before.

I proceed to remark (3.) upon that Note of his, [p. 3, 4.] But as for the Telescope, he confesseth that to have been invented by Metius, and Galilaeo, which Confession of his though it take from the Society all Pretences to the Invention thereof, yet it is unbecoming an inquisitive Person, who might have had better Intel­ligence from Borellus. Here the Anti-Vir­tuoso carps again at a meer accidental Pas­sage; and though we should grant him what he saith about the Inventers of Telescopes, it would be nothing contrary to my Design, since the Persons he men­tions were late men. My Words were, [So that these Glasses are exceedingly bet­tered since their Invention by Metius, and Application to the Heavens by Gali­laeo, [Page 130] Plus Vltra, p. 55.] Whatsoever M. Stubb finds in his Borellus, I am sure I have Authority enough to justifie me in this passing Glance at the Inventer of Telescopes. The excellent Renatus Des-Cartes ascribes the Invention to Metius in the first Page of his Dioptricks, and is particular in the Account of the occasion of his finding it. Hujus summa Voluptas erat Specula & Vitra ustoria formare; nonnulla etiam Hyeme componens ex Gla­cie; — quum igitur hâc occasione multa, [...]á (que) variae formae Vitra ad manum habe­ret, prospero quodam fato duo [...]imul Ocul [...] objecit; quorum alterum medium paulò crassius habebat quàm extremitates, alte­rum vice versâ extremitates quàm medium multò tumidiores; & adeò feliciter illa duabus Tubi extremitatibus applicuit, ut primum de quo loquitur Telescopium indè extiterit. Des-Cartes Dioptr. p. 1. And the learned Gerard Vossius ascribes this Invention to the same Metius, [Adria­ni hujus Frater Iacobus Metius fuit, qui Tubum opticum, sive Telescopium invenit. Hujus ope in Siderum Doctrinâ plus scitur [Page 131] hodie quàm omnis novit Antiquitas. De Scient. Math. p. 201.] The same Au­thor justifies my other hint of their Ap­plication to the Heavens by Galilaeo: For thus, [p. 112.] Ac postremò de Tubi [...], sive Telescopiis inventis ab Hollandis, ad [...]idera verò applicatis à Galilaeo de Galilaeis. But this even M. Stubb confesseth to be generally written; and if so, pray why might not I mention it so lightly without any further Enquiry, it being a thing that was incidental, and of no importance to my Design? Yea, if it had, I was upon sure ground, for I say no more then what M. Stubb and all men will grant, viz. That Telescopes were applied to the Heavens by Galilaeo; I did not say first, and so his Pretence from Borel­lus is impertinent, and opposeth only the Shadow of his own Imagination: Ga­lilaeo's Application of Telescopes to the Heavens was first famously taken notice of, and those Tubes upon that account have been call'd his Glasses; and there­fore I might well enough express my self in such a passage as that, saying, [Page 132] That those Glasses were bettered since their Application to the Heavens by Gali­laeo, though M. Stubb's Author must be believed before Des-Cartes, Vossius, and most others that have written about this matter; If any one besides the Animadverter be of that mind, I shall not trouble his Opinion; For M. Stubb, I must see a reason ere I can believe him before any man, but M. Cross; and for Borellus, when I know what he saith, I may perhaps tell this Antagonist what I think.

Thus, Sir, you see something of this mans notorious Cavilling and Imperti­nence; and I might have taken notice further, that he misquotes me too in the recited Period, For I say not that the Telescope was invented by Galilaeo: But M. Stubb makes me say what he thinks fit, and when he hath confuted his own Mistake, he phansieth he hath reduced me to a Non-Plus.

The Passage likewise that follows may be justly censured, viz. That my Confessi­on takes from the Society all Pretensions [Page 133] to the Invention of the Telescope.] This supposeth that the Society assumes this Credit, or at least that it is like to do so; which Supposition is a mere Chi­mara, or be it what it will, his Refu­tation of it is an Impertinence. For if it were so, that the Royal Society did or were like to challenge this Invention as theirs, one might ask the logical man, how my Confession that it was found out by Metius and Galilaeo, should take from the Society all Pretences to it? What an Author doth he make me, or what a Reasoner doth he make himself? either my Authority must be infallible, or his Reason will be contemptible. If I say Me­tius or Galilaeo is the Inventer of Tele­scopes, your Pretensions, O ye Virtuosi, are ruined, such a careless Scribbler is our confident Bravo.

(4.) He next cavils at some passages of mine concerning the Barometer, I introduce my Discourse about that Phi­losophical Instrument thus, [That there is Gravity even in the Air it self; and that that Element is only comparatively [Page 134] light, is now made evident and palpable by experience, though Aristotle and his Schools held a different Theory: And by the help of Quicksilver in a Tube —] In opposition to this he saith, That there is Gravity even in the Air it self; and that that Element is only comparatively light, was of old made evident by the man of Stagyra. [p. 7.] But how did Ari­stotle make that evident? It was by the Experiment of a blown Bladder; as [p. 4.] Let us remember this, and ob­serve how he goes on: M. Glanvill nei­ther understands what he opposeth, nor what he asserts; But why so I pray? enter the Reason: For in the Beginning he speaks of the Gravitation of the Element of Air, whereas the Instrument called the Barometer proposeth only a Way to measure the Degrees of Compression in the Atmo­sphere, in which Region I believe no man ever denied, but that the aqueous and ter­restrial Corpuscles interspers'd had their Weight and Pressure, [p. 7.] Now I look back, and return the Complement; M. Stubb neither understands what he [Page 135] opposeth, nor what he asserts, This I prove by his own Argument; For he saith Aristotle proved the Gravitation of the Element of Air, and that by the Experi­ment of a blown Bladder, in which I be­lieve no man ever denied, but that the aqueous and terrestrial particles intersperst had their Weight and Pressure. In short, I propose this Dilemma to M. Stubb to be consider'd; when he affirms, in my words, concerning Aristotle, That he proved the Element of Air to be only comparatively light, He meant either the supposed, pure, or the mixed Air; If the former, let him shew how the man of Stagyra proved that to ponderate by the Bladder; If the latter, why might not I mean the same? There is no reason but this, M. Stubb would be in­terpreted as he means; and I shall be understood, as is fit for his Design. Yea, The Caviller might easily have known, (and no doubt he did so) that by Ele­ment of Air I meant that of the Atmo­sphere, since he cannot suppose, that one of his Virtuosi should hold a pure peripa­tetical [Page 136] Element of Air, except he will call the Aether by that Name: So that here the Animadverter wilfully mistakes me, to make an occasion to vent his impotent spight. 'Tis M. Hooks Opinion of the Air, That it is a kind of Tincture and Solution of terrestrial and aqueous Par­ticles dissolv'd in the Aether, and agita­ted by it; Micr. p. 13. I am of the same mind, and never dream'd of such a thing in what I said, as an unmixed, peripa­tetical Element. And thus his Malice here also is nonsensical and impertinent, For he saith, I begun with the Gravity of the Element of Air, whereas the Baro­meter is an Instrument to weigh the De­grees of Compression in the Atmosphere; and hence he would have it clear, that I know neither what I oppose, or what I assert: And it is evident on the other hand, that the Caviller either knows not what he saith, or saith what he knows to be idle and inconsequent.

Yea, in the words that follow a little after he represents Aristotle alike imper­tinent as himself, for he proves the Air [Page 137] to ponderate, p. 4. and this is a body which no man in his Wits ever denied to be pon­derous, p. 8. And yet p. 5. in the Mar­gin he tells us, that many Peripateticks (naming only one, Claramontius) held that the impure Air of our Atmosphere doth gra­vitate, it seems others of them did not hold s [...]. But I ask again, what Air, good M. Stubb did Aristotle weigh? The impure Air of the Atmosphere, no doubt, for sure he did not catch the pure Element in a Bladder; That Air no man in his wits ever denied to be ponde­rous; And was not Aristotle as well imployed as M. Stubb, when he proved, that the Antients could cure cut fingers? But what must become of all the Peri­pateticks that held not the Air to be ponderous? Claramontius, p. 5. and Aver­roi [...], p. 7. are excepted, and many other Peripateticks, he saith, held the impure Air to gravitate; but who those many were he tells us not, nor how much the rest were in their wits that belonged not to that Number. What Feats would this man do against the Virtuosi, if he [Page 138] had any real Advantage, when he ven­tures every where to make himself ridi­culous and absurd, rather then he will let the least passage go against which he can form the appearance of an Obje­ction?

(5.) I take notice next, that he falls upon me [p. 10.] for the Epithete of Heathen given to some of Aristotles Notions: my words are these, [And the Zeal I have for the Glory of the Almighty discover'd in his Creatures, hath inspired me with some Smartness and Severity against those heathen Notions, which have so unhappily diverted learned men from the Study of Gods great Book, Universal Nature. —[Pref. to Plus Vlt.]

If I had chanced to have left out that Epithete, or to have put another in its place (either of which might have been done, and my Discourse, yea that very Period had not been concerned) The Caviller had lost an opportunity of very learned Animadversions; and a minute verbal Alteration of about a dozen other Sentences in my Book, would make all [Page 139] he hath said against me useless and in­signi [...]icant; so little hath he touch'd the main Parts and Design of my Discourse. But I must let that pass, the general Impertinence is notorious every where, and this is one of the least of M. Stubb's Imperfections; I note a worse Fault here, His Stricture is a Falshood, the words are [He inveighs bitterly against Aristotle for his Heathen Notions, p. 10.] I reci­ted my Period, from whence the Caviller takes this occasion, before, let any man judge whether I inveigh against Ari­stotle for his Heathen Notions, or whe­ther the word Heathen bears any great stress in that Sentence. But M. Stubb makes what he confutes. He implies p. 11. that this was the Motive that swayed me to Anti-Aristotelism, viz. the Heathenism of his Notions, which is a mere Invention of his own Brain, and such a one as he knows to be a gross Vntruth, for he pretends to have con­futed my Letter concerning Aristotle, which contains several of my Motives, but makes this none; and my Scepsis [Page 140] S [...]ientifica, and even this last Book gives an other account of my withdrawing from the Peripatetick Doctrines.

But he hath not done persecuting the poor Epithete; [Alas! He is troubled at his Heathen Notions! Oh! rare Pu­ritanism! and afterwards it follows, Nothing hath more of the Presbyterian and Fanatick than this Topick, ib. p. 11.] Say you so M. Harry! Suppose one should call Vniversities, Churches, Church-Yards, Bells, — Antichristian, Idolatrous, Popish, Superstitious, as one M. Stubb did in his Light out of Darkness; would there not be more of the Fanatick in that? Or should he speak against all Humane Learning and Heathenish Wri­ters, as the same Author, would there not be as much of Fanaticism in such talk? 'Tis Puritanical and Presbyterian, it seems to inveigh against Heathen Notions, but not so to decry Hea­thenish Authors and Heathen Wri­ters. L. D. [p. 101.] But however it is, I am not at all concerned, For I no where inveigh against Heathen Notions, [Page 141] but in M. Stubb's Book, (not I mean because they are Heathen) though I speak against those of them, which I judge either false, uncertain, or useless. So that the Questions that follow about Atoms, Corpuscles, Mathematical Terms, Languages, &c. are impertinent, and the man only disputes with himself in his Dream.

(6.) In the same Paragraph my Let­ter about Aristotle is confuted in short, For those Exceptions against him are nothing but Lies, [ibid. p. 11.] what ill luck hath M. Stubb to have controversie with none but Liers? Dr. Wallis was a notorious Falsifier; M. Baxter a great Calumniator and Lier; the Royal Soci­ety have yet invented nothing but a LIE; [ubi sup.] Dr. Sprat is a Legendary Hi­storian, and my Animadversions on Ari­stotle are all Lies. It seems as soon as M. Stubb makes any man his Adversary, he commenceth Lier, ipso facto; And this I think, that (as he said to Dr. Wallis) one of us two is grosly ignorant, he may to every other Antagonist, one [Page 142] of us two is a gross teller of Lies; this I have proved in part already, and it will appear further in some of the fol­lowing Notes. But as to my Reflections on Aristotle, if they are Lies, they are none of mine, the matters of Fact are reported from Patricius, Picus, Gassen­dus, Lord Bacon, Laertius, Suidas, Aeli­an, Arrian, Plutarch, Eusebius, and such like Authors; If these are all Liers too, there are no Tell-troths but M. Stubb.

But 'tis a rare Protestation that fol­lows; I protest in the Presence of Al­mighty God, that if there be not great Care taken, we may be in a little time reduced to that pass as to believe the Story of Tom Thumb,— p. 11.] Doth M. Stubb seriously think this, or doth he not? If so, he is more ridiculous than one that believes Tom Thumb already; If he be not serious in what he saith, he is impious in it; And if it were an other man, one might ask him, how he durst in that manner use the Name of God and protest a known and ridiculous Falshood in his Presence. [Page 143] But who can tell what M. Stubb thinks of God? He saith enough sometimes to give occasion to conjecture; who knows but that all Religion is with a certain Anti-Virtuoso like the Story of Tom Thumb? And he might do well to inform us how far he extends his Ex­pression of the Legends and Falsifications of History. I shall not here to tell you what I have heard him say.

But he goes on [This Philosophy fairly disposeth us thereunto.] viz. to believe Tom Thumb and the Legends. If so, I hope he will excuse it from the so often objected Guilt of Scepticism? But these Philosophers one while dispose men to believe every thing; and at the next turn to believe nothing. And yet one would wonder, how the Philosophy of the Virtuosi should incline men either to the one or the other. It deals in the plain Objects of Sense, in which, if any where, there is Certainty; and teacheth suspen [...]ion of Assent till what is proposed, is well proved; and so is equal­ly an Adversary to Scepticism and Credu­lity. [Page 144] But M. Stubb tells us, [ibid.] that it makes men so credulous by taking them off from the Pedantism of Philology and antient reading, — It takes men off indeed, as Philology takes them off from Philosophy, and one sort of Studies takes men off from an other, which they are not able to pursue at the same time with it: But this is no more discredit to the Modern Philosophy, then 'tis to all other sorts of Learning, and indeed none to any. If M. Stubb means more than this, and would insinuate that experi­mental Disquisitions into Nature, have any direct Antipathy to Philology or an­tient Reading, he speaks what is false and groundless; and is not able to say any thing to purpose, to make such a Censure good. He tells us indeed he is resolved to charge the Enemy home, and he doth it by confident Falshoods and bold Affirmations without proof: His whole Force is in Noise and Clamour; and did he not keep a great Stir, and raise the Dust about him, he would scarce engage any to look towards [Page 145] him, or to take notice what he doth or saith.

(7.) He proceeds to animadvert up­on me thus, [He tells us that the Ari­stotelian Philosophy aims at no more than the instructing men in Notion and Dispute, that its Design was mean, — p. 12.] He quotes not the place whence this is taken, and 'tis well he doth not, for he mis-reports my Words, and affirms that which is false, for I was not speak­ing there of the Aristotelian Philosophy, but of the Modern Peripatetick Way, which I affirm in that very Page to be now quite another thing from the Philo­sophy which Aristotles Books contain, and have frequently spoke to the same pur­pose elsewhere: Now let any one look into the voluminous Physicks of Ariaga, Hurtado, Pontius, Oviedo, Carlton, and the rest of the late Peripatetick Wri­ters, and let him then tell me what they aim at more, than the instructing men in Notion and Dispute. To talk here as the Caviller doth, of Aristotle's Books of Animals, and Theophrastus about [Page 146] Plants, and such like things, is toyish, impertinent, and like M. Stubb; And all the rest of the chat that comes in upon this occasion turns to wind and insignificant Prattle. This is the man that would charge the Enemy home; we are like to have good doings in his Quotations of other Authors, when he perverts even the words of his Anta­gonist.

He is at the same sport again, [p. 14.] If Notions might be rejected for being first proposed, and used by Heathens, then is not Aristotle in a worse Condition than Epicurus, Democritus, Plato, or Py­thagoras, — p. 15. He desires me to acquit Paracelsus from being impious in his Life. At this rate, there will be no end of Animadversions, and 'twill be impossible to escape the Anti-Virtuoso; Who said that Notions might be reje­cted for being first proposed, and used by Heathens? or what hath M. Glanvill to do with Paracelsus?

But further [ibid. p. 15. He saith, Ari­stotle was of no such superlative Esteem [Page 147] in the wisest Times; But he tells us not what those most wise Times were, when he was in Disesteem] What need I? I said not that he was in Disesteem in the most wise Times; but of no such super­lative Account, as he himself quotes my words in one Line, and makes quite another thing of them in the next. For is there no Difference, doth he think, between not being of superlative Account, and being in Disesteem? Such gross Slips as these in a Virtuoso would have afford­ed matter for endless Insultings, and Charges of Ignorance. He proceeds to prove that Aristotle was in Esteem in wise Times; and what then? It follows clearly, that M. Stubb can demonstrate, what no body denies. But was he in the most superlative account then? He doth not say so, for that had been to his pur­pose: or were those times when his Esteem was superlative, the wisest? He shifts from this too; he had not read of more wise People, than Greece, Rome, and the Mahometans, — and all these admired him at several times; but was [Page 148] their Admiration superlative, when the times were wisest? otherwise what he saith is not to purpose. He confesseth [ibid.] that he was much opposed and slighted by the first Fathers; and in his Light out of Darkness, p. 105. he saith, That Aristotle was condemned by the first Christians, and Honest men of all Ages. And I think the times of the first Fathers during the Glory of the Roman Empire, were some of the wisest times; and I mention in my Letter concerning Ari­stotle, the Observation of Gassendus, that in the flourishing times of Rome, and Athens, the Academicks and Stoicks were more in Esteem, than the Sectators of Aristotle; and instance in Cicero, Pliny, and Quintilian, who though they had a great Esteem of Aristotle, did yet pre­fer Plato before him. So that in those most wise Times, and among those wise men, Aristotle's Account was not superlative, if Gassendus, or M. Stubb himself be to be believed.

And methinks it proves much, that the wisest men and times had the most [Page 149] superlative Account of Aristotle; be­cause They divided into Platonists and Aristotelians, as they did into Catholicks and Arrians, and the Arrians were Ari­stotelians, ibid. Aristotle was of best Account, because the Catholicks follow­ed Plato, and the Arrians were Aristotle's Followers. Doth not this tend to the re-advancing the Credit of Aristotle? If this will not do it, Aristotle shall be re-advanc'd by and by; it follows, [p. 15, 16.] Mahomet's Successors the Caliphs did wholly imploy themselves to improve the Doctrines of Aristotle, and the Peripateticks: So that Aristotelism, Arrianism, and Mahometanism issued out of the same Parts of the World, viz. Alex­andria, and the adjacent Countries.— This the Virtuoso could not see, because so much History was above his reach, p. 16. and the Reasoning is as much above it as the History.

He next quotes another passage of mine, relating to the same business, viz. That since the minds of Christians are enlightned with the Raies of the glo­rious [Page 150] Gospel, they have less reason to bow down to the Dictates of an Idolater and an Heathen.] Hence M. Impertinent concludes, that we must bid farewel to the Rhetorick, and other Works of Aristotle, which I had afore recommend­ed; and he adds that we must shake hands with Seneca, Epictetus, and Plato, p. 16. This follows like the rest, be­cause we may not bow down, and give an implicit Veneration to an Heathen Authority; Therefore we must bid farewel to all the Works of those Au­thors; As if there were no Difference between using their Works, and servilely adoring them.

(8.) He perstringeth a passage cited out of Plato, [...]; and what I add, viz. That [The Universe must be known by the Art, by which it was made.] Here I am sent to answer Dr. More's Dialogues, where he explodes the Mechanism of Nature. ibid. p. 16.]

Before I descend to the particular Answer to this, I take notice, that [Page 151] M. Stubb runs up and down, and flirts from some things to others, which have no Coherence among themselves, or in my Book. He falls upon my Dis­course about Philosophical Instruments; and then, without any occasion given, suddenly steps back against a passage in my Preface, that hath no relation in the world to his Discourse, as p. 10. In the same Paragraph he leaps forward again to the 124. page of my Plus Vltra, and largely confu [...]es a Sentence or two there. The next Motion is back to a passage, p. 25. that had nothing to do with what he was saying; and so every where he writes, as he dreams. But to omit other Instances of this here, I come to shew the Impertinence of this last Cavil.

By Plato's Saying, I understood no no more, than that God made all things in Number, Weight, and Measure; and I suppose that Mechanism may be used, as far as it will go. Now Geometry assists men in mechanical Disquisitions, which are helps for the Knowledge of [Page 152] Nature and Causes: This was all I intended, for I do not believe that all the Phaenomena are merely Mechanical: So that Dr. More's Dialogues do no way oppose my Sense; He explodes not the Mechanism of Nature, (as M. Stubb tells us) but such a Mechanism, as is supposed to suffice for all the Effects of Nature, without help from any imma­terial Agent. This may be seen easily by those, that read the Book, and endeavour to understand it; But M. Stubb reads by Indexes and Catches, which is enough for the purposes of a Caviller.

Having thus explained my meaning, I need not be concerned in what he adds in his Review, p. 170. &c. For all his Arguments are impertinent in reference to my sense, and I may take occasion, ex abundanti, hereafter to prove that they are trivial and childish in reference to any other. For they can do no execu­tion even upon the mere Mechanical Hypo­thesis.

But (9.) to let that alone now, I can­not [Page 153] forbear noting here the intolerable Impudence and Lying of this man, p. 173. where he goes on with the Impertinence he begun, p. 16. He tells us there, That his Opinion had been amply maintain'd of late by Dr. Hen. More in opposition to what the Royal Society lays down in their History, viz. That Generation, Cor­ruption, Alteration, and all the Vicissi­tudes of Nature are nothing else, but the Effects arising from the meeting of little Bodies of differing Figures, Magnitudes, and Velocities. Than which Opinions, saith he, there can be nothing more pesti­lent and pernicious; and Dr. More albeit a Member of this Society heretofore, (for be allows nothing to it now) yet a pious one, professeth that this Mecha­nical Philosophy inclines to Atheism: neither would he approve of those Dedu­ctions as necessary but ridiculous, when I upbraided him lately with that nonsen­sical and illiterate History.

Upon my reading of this Paragraph I resolved to write to Dr. More, to know whether he had deserted the Soci­ety, [Page 154] or whether those other passages were true; I writ accordingly, and that learned Doctor was pleased to re­turn me the following Answer, in which you may see the insufferable Impudence of this Prodigious Romancer.

This Letter I publish, because my Reverend and Learned Friend hath given me leave to print it, and he writes that he is much offended, that M. Stubb should pick him up as a sensless Clod in the High-way, to pelt so honourable a Society with, of which he is a Member.

You may judge by this, Sir, how far we are to believe M. Stubb, when he tells us how many have deserted the Roy­al Society, when the very first Person that he names, disproves the impudent Falshood. What a man is this that dares bely so Reverend a Person in the face of the World? and what am I to [Page 159] expect from him; if one, of whom he pretends to speak well, be thus used? By this you may see what Mechanism of Nature it is, that Dr. More explodes, and how impertinently and maliciously the Animadverter urgeth this learned man against the Mechanick Philosophy of the Royal Society, and that which I have recommended. And there is no doubt but were the other Authors, which he quotes, alive, and able to do themselves right, they would most of them disclaim the senses, which this Perverter of their meaning puts upon them, to serve him­self in his Cavilling.

(10.) But I am charged with this very fault, [p. 19.] and M. Stubb will have it, that I have mis-reported the first Discourse between M. Cross and my self; He prefaceth to what he saith in the be­half of the Disputer thus, Nor will I engage particularly in the Dispute between him and M. Cross; and as soon as he had told us he would not do it, he begins in the immediate next words, and proceeds to do it, in several of the following Pages.

[Page 160] I am informed, saith he, that the Re­lation is very false; and 'tis like he was so informed; His Friend M. Cross told him so. But I would have both these Adversaries know, that I scorn to report any matter of Fact publickly, which I cannot sufficiently, and substantially prove. I have two good Witnesses to attest the Truth of the Relation I made in my Plus Vltra, of the Discourse between M. Cross and me: They are both Masters of Art, and both of the same College to which the grave man formerly belong'd; and that They may see I am not such a Le­gendary Reporter of things, as I have in part already, and shall yet further prove Them, I here produce the Attestation.

[Page 161]These same Witnesses have attested the Falshood of M. Crosses Relation of the Discourse, in all the material, yea, even in most of the minute particulars also; And have proved him guilty of sixteen gross Untruths in that account he gives in his Book which was rejected the Press. But their Attestation here, is too large to insert; I have it in a Latin Answer to M. C. which lies by me, and any man that hath a mind shall see it.

Thus I have proved my Relation for M. Stubb's Satisfaction; and there is no other matter I have related concerning either of them, but I shall make it good, whenever I am call'd upon to do it; yea, if they please, I am ready to lay the issue of all here; If I cannot prove every matter of fact, that I have printed about them; I shall humbly lay my neck at their feet: And if on the other hand, either of these Adversaries can prove one of those reproachful things they have alledg'd against me, I'll be their Uassal and their Uictim. Before I have done, you will see, that this is no dangerous Offer. But I must pass these things over briefly.

[Page 162]He is so kind to M. Cross, [p. 20.] that he is willing to venture the being found in an errour with him; For he saith, I profess my self in an Errour, as well as M. Cross, if it be not true that Aristotle had sundry Advantages to pen his History of Animals, which our Virtuosi want. But the mischief is, this Kindness will not signifie to his Friend; for he doth not say, that Aristotle had more Advan­tages to pen his History of Animals than the Virtuosi only; but more Advantages for Knowledge, than the later Ages: If M. Stubb will undertake his Cause here, he may do him a favour, other­wise, his Kindness is as impertinent, as his Reasonings use to be. In the next words he attempts to prove the Advan­tages Aristotle had for his History of Ani­mals, and he doth it by the Authority of Pliny, which Author he makes a Lier to an Instance, [p. 161.] where he saith of Sir Kenelm Digby, that he was the Pliny of our Age for Lying: but any Authority shall be heard against the Virtuosi.

[Page 163]I am perstringed [p. 21.] for not knowing what Authors writ well upon the several Subjects, in which I pretend the Moderns have outdone the Antients: This he proves, because I mention Sava­ [...]orol [...] among the Improvers of the History of Baths; and a man that knew Authors as well as M. Stubb, hath named him among those Natural Historians, the Person is Dr. Hackwel in his Apology, p. 283. But the Animadverter discovers my Ignorance further, for he never heard any man commend Blanchellus on that Subject, viz. concerning Baths, [p. 22.] But I can tell him, that the just menti­on'd learned Doctor commends him on that Subject. [ibid.] For he reckons Him and Savanorola among those, who had written parts of Natural History more exactly: I speak of no more Improvers of this sort, than those he mentions, because I was only to give some few Instances, and was not obliged to an exact and full Account. I omit Dr. Iordan, because he pretends not to improve the History of Baths, and the [Page 164] Animadverter is malicious in urging this as a Defect, and Argument of my not knowing him; If I had named him on this occasion, I had been besides my Sub­ject; And if I had troubled my self to collect and recite the Names of all Improvers, I must have been tedious and impertinent; for I had not obliged my self to any such task, nor did my Design require it.

But he mentions another great Omis­sion of mine, with which, he saith, he is surprised, viz. Because I do not make the Moderns to surpass the Antients in Architecture, Sculpture, Picture, and several other Arts of ingenious Luxury. [p. 24.] But why should he expect that? I proposed only to discourse such things as were Helps and Advantages for the Advance of Vseful Knowledge; as he might have seen, [p. 9.] and in other places of my Plus Vltra. Nor was I bound to mention every thing; I in­tended no perfect History, and the Instan­ces I alledged were enough to carry my Cause, and to encourage Philosophical [Page 165] Endeavours, though a great many others that might have been very pertinent, were omitted; and several that M. Stubb would have had there, designedly left out, because they were not proper for my purpose: and I do not believe, that the Moderns surpass the Antients in Archi­tecture, Sculpture, Picture, or the Arts of ingenious Luxury; so that M. Stubb need not have been surprised at my Omission.

(11.) But to shew how unsupport­able such kind of men, as the Virtuosi, are in all judicious and intelligent Com­pany, he sets down my Discourse with M. Cross about Dioptrick Tubes. [ibid. p. 2.4, &c.] And the first Remark he makes upon it [p. 27.] is, That I have little or no insight into Opticks; This he remarks roundly, but doth not shew us how he inferrs it from my Discourse, but adds immediately, The Solution of M. Crosses Fallacy, if it were his, by that Interrogatory, why cannot he write better with two Pens than with a single one? is ridiculous, since there is no Uis [Page 166] unita there.— But who told M. Stubb that my instance of the two Pens, was a Solution of M. Crosses Fallacy about the two Spectacles? Let him but look back upon the words that he had newly recited, and he will see, that I alledge this to shew the Ridiculousness of M. Crosses Argument; I do not say there is a Vis unita in the two Pens; But this I do, that there is as much of it there, as in the two Spectacles, and consequent­ly, we may as well inferr, That a man can write with two Pens better than with one singly, because Uis unita fortior; as, that one can see better with two pair of Spectacles, than with one, for that reason; which was M. Crosses Argu­ment; that is, there is no Consequence in either. So that I first shew the Absur­dity of my Antagonists Reasoning by the instance of the Pens, and then solve his Fallacy by denying there is any Vi [...] unita in the two pair of Spectacles, as it fol­lows immediately in the words that M. Stubb cites from my Book, The Reason he [M. C.] gave, why one would [Page 167] expect it should be so, viz. that a man should see better with two pair, than one, is the Reason why 'tis not, namely, because there is no Vis unita in the two, as I had intimated before, and do again in the words immediately following. So that M. Stubb here either wanted Spectacles, or saw what I said through the double ones of his Pride and Ma­lice, that mis-represented my Discourse to him.

But that which follows in the same Period is yet more marvellous, my Solu­tion of the Fallacy by the two Pens he had said is ridiculous, since there is no Vis unita there, to which he adds in the immediate next words, And in one sort of Tubes, though the Rays be united in the first convex Glass, and brought to a Convergency, yet must the sphaerical Ca­vity of the next dilate it again, and dis­pose them fittingly to effect the expected vision in the Retina. How doth this prove that my solution of M. Crosses Fallacy by the two Pens is ridiculous? What distant things ramble together [Page 168] into this mans wild Phansie? But per­haps he had reference to something I had said before; I will charitably sup­pose this, to try if I can make any sense of his arguing; I had said that we see better through the two Glasses in Perspe­ctives, than any single one, because they are so fashion'd and order'd that the visive Rays are better gather'd and united by them for the Advantage of Sight: If this be not the thing he mutters against, I cannot imagine what he means; or if it be, I cannot understand how it comes in here. But I need not wonder at the incoherence of M. Stubb's Reason­ings; This must be allow'd him, or we shall never have done remarking: Let it be so then, In a sort of Tubes the Rays are brought to a Convergency in the first Glass, and again dilated in the second; Therefore the two Glasses are not so order'd in Perspectives that the visive Rays are better gather'd and uni­ted for the Advantage of Sight. This is the Argument in it's best Prospect, and let him make the most of it. I [Page 169] suppose, I need not tell the intelligent Reader how absurd it is, and how im­pertinent; nor inform him, that by the Vnion of the visive Rays I do not mean their Coincidency, but such an Order among them as is fit for Vision. But I may further animadvert on these things hereafter, if upon second Thoughts I think them worthy of a further mention.

After he had thus remarked my Ig­norance in Opticks, and proved it irre­fragably by the two Arguments I have now recited, He attempts to bring off his Friend M. Cross. He is a generous man, and told a Reverend Person from whom at second hand I had it, That he would rescue the poor Fellow out of my hands; nobly and charitably de­signed! But let us see how he succeeds in this Design of Rescue; His first main Attempt follows here, [p. 28.] As to what M. Cross is said to have argued against Telescopes, that the Addition of one Glass to another must hinder, rather than improve Vision, because that the super adding of one pair of Spectacles to [Page 170] another, rather weakens than amends the Sight. I must say, that whosoever under­stands the Form of an Argument cannot except against the Form of that, nor do the Propositions so ill cohere together, as that one should be for Sense, the other for Convenience: All that Excursion of our Virtuoso shews his Ignorance, not M. Crosses. Thus the Defence begins, and is not M. Cross like to be rescued? The Form of the Argument is not to be ex­cepted against: And pray M. Imperti­nent, who talk'd of the Form of the Argument, or excepted against it? Doth M. Stubb intend this for a Defence, or doth he not? If not, what makes it here? If so, 'tis a rare knack, by which any thing may be defended. For in­stance, M. Stubb calls the Members of the Royal Society, Poor Devils, [Cam­panella revived, p. 16.] And thus, sup­pose he forms his Arguments to prove it; If the Disasters of the late Dutch War, the Plague, and Fire of London were less Inconveniences than the Per­petuity of the Royal Society; Then the [Page 171] Members thereof are Devils; But the Disasters of the late Dutch War, the Plague, and Fire of London were [...] Inconveniences than the perpetuity of the Royal Society, [Camp. rev. p. 21.] Ergo, There is no excepting against the Form of the Argument; conclusum est contra— Again, if They are pitiful Mechanicians, an illiterate Company, Im­postors, mean Spirits, &c. then they are poor Devils; But they are pitiful Mechanicians, [Pref. against Plus Vlt.] an illiterate Company, [Camp. rev. p. 21.] Impostors, [Camp. rev. Pref.] mean Spirits, &c. [Pref. against Plus Vlt.] Ergo, No one that understands the Form of an Argument can except against these; Nor do the Propositions so ill cohere, as that one should be for Sense, the other for Convenience. Whoever excepts against the Arguments shews his Ignorance, not M. Stubb's, as I shewed mine, by excepting against the Reason taken from the Spectacles, not M. Crosses. How easily can M. Stubb prove a man guilty of Ignorance? Well! This is said [Page 172] in M. Crosses Defence, and I believe he could have said as much as this, to de­fend himself. If he be called in question for the matter of his Argument, M. Stubb gives him up, and tells us, [ibid.] There is no Defence to be made for him, if he urged this otherwise than to try the In­tellectuals of M. Glanvill. Thus the Cause is quitted, and M. Cross left defence­less, only this was a sort of Knowledge that was not necessary for a Divine, and he hath other, and better Qualifications than car­nal Reasoning. But since M. Cross can­not be brought off, I must be charged; And that I as little understand the Sub­ject of Knowledge I pretend to, He saith it is manifest from hence, That I might easily have denied the Assertion of the Spectacles, that two pair did not impede, but amend the Sight in some Eyes that are very weak: For there is an old Gentle­woman, and a young Gentlewoman of his acquaintance that use two, [p. 29.] I shall here tell M. Stubb that there are very few things which I pretend to know: But whatever Ignorance I am [Page 173] guilty of, M. Stubb hath never the luck to discover it, nor to prove his charges against me of this kind. He remark'd that I was ignorant of Opticks, because I intimate that the Axiom, Vis unita for­tior, may be as well used to prove a man can write better with two Pens, than with one; as that he can see better with two Spectacles, than a single pair. I am charged with Ignorance for excepting against M. Crosses nonsensical Argument, which at last is given up as defenceless, and here it is manifest, that I understand not the Subject of the Knowledge I pre­tend to, by as good reasons. Forsooth! I might easily have denied the Assertion of the Spectacles, that two pair did not impede, but amend the Sight in some Eyes that are weak. The Assertion was not that two pair did not, but that they did impede; But we must pass by M. Stubb's Improprieties and Nonsense; and this Period is not Sense, as 'tis worded. He means, I might have denied that two pair of Spectacles hinder the Sight, they amend it in Eyes that are weak; Because [Page 174] I did not this I am ignorant in Opticks. But if I had done so, I had been imperti­nent in answering; For it must be grant­ed, that two pair ordinarily hinder the Sight, though in M. Stubb's old Gentle­woman and young, the Case is different, and if I had allowed the Consequence, this had been enough to have carried M. Cross's Cause against the two Glasses in Tele­scopes. Thus I must be ignorant, because I was not impertinent. But doth M. Stubb think that every one is unacquainted with Opticks, who doth not know that double Spectacles mend the Sight in some whose Eyes are weak, or dis-affected? Must all be Ignoramus's that have not met with the old Gentlewoman his Acquaintance, and the young Gentlewo­man that he knows with Cataracts in her Eyes, who use two pair of Spectacles? or must he needs be ignorant that meet­ing two false Propositions in a Syllogism, contents himself to deny one, and that the denial of which most evidently tends to the nulling the Argument, and ren­dring it ridiculous? I propose not these [Page 175] Questions to justifie my own Knowledge, but to represent and shame M. Stubb's childish, trifling, and malicious Imper­tinence.

12. As to the large Discourse that follows concerning Telescopes, I shall treat fully on the Subject, and answer the Animadverter's Cavills, in the Book, where I particularly examine his Au­thorities; and in that all other things which are worth an Answer shall be consider'd. For the present I take notice, that this whole Discourse is an elaborate Impertinence, for he proves not, that Telescopes are no late Invention, nor yet, that they are not Helps for Knowledge; He pretends indeed to shew that their Reports are sometimes uncertain, but yet will not be understood totally to discredit the use of Telescopes in celestial Discoveries, as he cautions, [p. 47.] And so, what he s [...]ys, is impertinent to the main Business, though it may seem to confute some pas­sages of mine concerning those Glasses. But let M. Stubb urge all he can for the f [...]lliciousness of Telescopes, a Sceptick will [Page 176] produce as much to prove the Deceit­fulness of our Eyes, and I'll undertake my self to offer such Arguments against the Certainty of Sense, as M. Stubb with all his Sagacity shall not be able to answer.

But how comes M. Stubb to say in the Entrance of this Discourse, p. 29. That he was sure M. Boyle is in the same errour with M. Cross? Let us see upon what ground he built his Confidence in this first Instance by which he impugns Telescopes: Why, M. Boyle complains that when he went about to examine those appearances in the Sun call'd Maculae & Faculae solares, he could not make the least Discovery of them in many Months, which yet other Observa­tors pretend to see every day, yet doth M. Boyle profess that he neither wanted the conveniency of excellent Telescopes, nor omitted any circumstance requisite to the Enquiry. Thus the Animadverter; and hence he is sure that M. B. is in the same errour with M. C. That Telescopes are fal­lacious. Let this be an Instance how this Swaggerer quotes Authors, and let the Reader look into the place cited from [Page 177] M. Boyle, If he do so, he will see, That that Honourable Person saith nothing there, that tends to the proving the De­ceitfulness of Telescopes, much less, that he believes them fallacious. I have not the La­tin Translation of those Essays, but in the second Edition of the Original English, I find the Discourse to which M. Stubb referrs, p. 103. where the excellent Au­thor imputes it not to the Glasses that he could not for several Months see the Macul [...] and Faculae solares, but seems a little to blame those Astronomers, who have so written of the Spots and more shi­ning parts, — as to make their Readers to presume that at least some of them are al­most always to be seen there, which he con­jectures was occasion'd by their so often meeting such Phaenomena in the Sun, [ib.] But these for many months, our Learned Author could not discover by his Tele­scopes, not because of their Fallaciousness, but for that during many months they ap­peared so much seldomer than it seems they did before. These are the words of that Honourable Gentleman, [ubi sup.] And [Page 178] now how doth it appear hence that M. Boyle is in the same errour about the De­ceitfulness of Telescopes, with M. Cross? Is it sure that he thought those Glasses fallacious, because he could not see the Maculae and Faculae in the Sun, when they were not there? what are we to expect from this man in reference to the other Authors he cites, when he so grosly and impudently mis-reports so known a one of our own, who is yet alive, and sees how maliciously the Caviller perverts him? I shall examine his carriage to other Wri­ters in my next Book; and in that shew that most of the Arguments he brings to argue the Fallaciousness of Telescopes, prove only the Diversity and Changes of the Mediums, and of the celestial Phaenome­na, not the Deceit of those Glasses.

But I am concluded to be altogether unacquainted with Telescopes, as well as ignorant of Opticks, [p. 46.] because I say, That [They alter the Objects in nothing but their Proportions.] by which I meant, that they make no Alterations in the Figures of Bodies, but represent them, as they are, [Page 179] only in larger proportions. And I am ignorant in Telescopes, for saying so, For (1.) Some Telescopes invert all Objects, and (2.) the Dioptrick Tubes represent the Light and Colours more dilute and re­miss, (3.) Some represent some Objects greater, (4.) Some no bigger, or rather less, (5.) Some Objects are magnified, but not so much as others. These are Arguments of my Ignorance, or M. Stubb's Imperti­nence: For my Ignorance, I have told M. Stubb, that I am ready to confess a great deal more, than he can prove me guilty of; And whether he hath shewn it here, as he pretends, let the Reader judg. If some Telescopes invert all things, that's nothing to his purpose, for I spoke of the ordinary Tubes; Nor is there any change of the Figure of Objects, when they are inverted. Though in the largest Tubes the Light and Colours are more remiss; yet that makes no alteration of the Object, and I said the Glasses alter'd the Objects in nothing but their Proportions. Though some Objects in some Tubes are represented no bigger, or rather less, than they other­wise [Page 180] seem; yet that's nothing against what I say, For Telescopes ordinarily mag­nifie, 'Tis their remarkable property, and that for which they are used; and though some Objects are not magnified as much as others, yet they are confess'd to be mag­nified, and that's sufficient; or though some are not, 'twere nothing, as I just now observ'd. I note these obvious things as my eye runs over my Adversaries Book. They are enough to justifie what I said, and to shew M. Stubb's Impertinence; I shall discover it further, when I come to consider these things more deeply. I represent the easiest matters now, that all Readers may see what a pitiful Caviller this man is, that boasts such mighty matters, and counts all men ignorants, and Fools, but himself.

(13.) And 'tis notoriously evident in this next Instance, I had said, [Chymistry hath a Pretence to the great Hermes for its Author, (how truly I will not dispute,) But M. Stubb will make me dispute whe­ther I will or no. For after he had recited these words he saith, he can tell me what [Page 181] he is sure I am ignorant of. The Egyptians did never attribute to Hermes the Inven­tion of Physick or any part of it, — p. 50.] How doth this Scribbler confute his own Dreams? who said that the Egyptians attribute to Hermes the Invention of Phy­sick, or any part of it? How easie is it to pile up Authors against any Writer, if a man may take this Liberty of making him say what he pleaseth? I say, Chy­mistry hath a Pretence to Hermes for its Author; And M. Stubb confutes me by proving the Egyptians did never ascribe the Invention of Physick to Him. And what then? the usual Conclusion follows, M. Stubb is an industrious Impertinent. But will he say, There is no ground for my Affirmation that Chymistry hath a Pretence to Hermes for its Author? He quotes VOSSIVS for the Derivation of the word from the Greek, [p. 51.] If he had read out that leaf in Vossius, he would have found a reason for that passage of mine. That learned man tells us, Transiit Alchymia Disciplina ad nos ab Arabibus, [Page 182] sive Mauris, — Mauros verò ab Aegyptiis accepisse autumant, — Egyptii rursum edocti existimantur ab Hermete seu Mer­curio Trismegisto, [Vos. de Philos. c. 9. p. 68.] This Saying of Vossius had been e­nough to justifie so transient a passage: But again, SENNERTVS is an Author, against whom M. Stubb saith, he hopes there is no Exception, [p. 58.] This Author he quotes in that Page; If he had here either read out the Chapter, which he cites, he would have seen another reason, why I say, Chymistry hath a Pretence to Her­mes for its Author. For thus that ce­lebrated Writer, Post Diluvium à pleris (que) sive Inventio, sive Propagatio Chymiae ad Hermetem Trismegistum refertur, & ab eo Ars Chymica dicitur hodie Ars Hermetica, Vas Hermetis, & Sigillum Hermetis provulgantur, — Omnes Chy­mici hactenus censuerunt, ut scribit Alber­tus Magnus, quòd Hermes fit Radix, su­per quam omnes Philosophi sustentati sunt,— [Sen. de Natura Chym. cap. 3.] This is another instance how well M. Stubb him­self is acquainted with the Authors he [Page 183] quotes, and an evidence that he reads only such Scraps of them, as he thinks make for his turn. And may it not reflect Shame upon a man of his Pretences, that his Adversary should be justified by the very Books he himself cites, and even in the same Chapter and Leaf, whence he takes passages from them; yea, and in a thing too that relates to his own Pro­fession.

And here I cannot but take notice of an other instance of his Knowledg [...] in the Authors, with which he hath the most reason to be acquainted; He tells us, [p. 112.] That Dr. HARVY in his two Answers to Riolanus, and his Book of Ge­neration, no where asserts the Invention (viz. of the Circulation,) so to himself as to deny that he had the Intimation or Notion from Caesalpinus, which Silence (saith he) I take for a tacit Confession, — How true this is, may be seen in the Book he last mentioned, De Generatione Anim. Edit. Amst. p. 309. There Dr. HARVY in ex­press terms assumes the Invention to him­self in these words, CIRCVITUM SAN­GVINIS [Page 184] admirabilem à me jampridem Inventum, video propemodum omnibus placuisse, — M. Stubb tells us, That His Ambition of Glory made him willing to be thought the Author of a Paradox he had so illustrated,—yet such was his Modesty as not to vindicate it to himself by telling a Lie; [ubi sup.] This we see he did if Cesal­pinus was the Author. That this last named Person was the Inventer of the Circulation, M. Stubb labours much to prove, and struts mightily in his supposed performance; I shall not undertake to examine that matter now, only I cannot but take notice, that M. Stubb is imper­tinent in all that Discourse: For if Cae­salpinus be the Author, the Invention is however modern, for he writ his Quaest. Medicae not above eighty years ago, and in them it is pretended he discover'd the Circulation. And I am the less concern'd in all the Animadverters voluminous No­thing about the Author of that Discovery, because I took care before to prevent such Impertinences; but I see M. Stubb will be impertinent, do I what I can to prevent it. [Page 185] I ascribe the Invention to D. Harvy, as al­most all men now do, except the Animad­verter; but take notice withal, that not on­ly divers Antients, but some Moderns have had the Glory fastned on them, among these, I mention this CAESALPINVS, and add, [For these though either of them should be acknowledg'd to be the Author, it will make as much for the Design of my Discourse, as if Harvy have the Credit; and therefore here I am no otherwise concern'd, but to have ju­stice for that excellent man, — Plus Ult. p. 16.] But M. Stubb's malice against Dr. Harvy, and spight against me would not permit him to discern that he had no rea­son here to fall on this Controversie; and 'tis nothing to him whether he have rea­son, or not; He follows the Impetus, and writes on, if it happen to be to purpose, 'tis well, if not, he cannot help it.

AND now, Sir, I am quite weary of discovering the Falshoods, and Follies, and Impertinences of this insulting man. The Instances I have given are enough for my present purpose; They will more abun­dantly appear in the further Animadversi­ons [Page 186] I intend, in those I shall take all things to task, in which I may be thought to be concerned. But for that work I must have time; I have other things enow to do, which 'tis more my Concern and more my Inclination to mind; And that Busi­ness will require me to examine a multi­tude of Authors, which I have reason to be confident M. Stubb hath mis-reported and abus'd; I have given you a taste already of some of his dealings with the Writers he quotes, I shall present the World with a great deal more of the same kind in my next ingagement. But that will be a thing of Labour, and 'tis not so agreeable to my humour neither, and therefore the execu­tion of this my Design will be the slower.

I Thought here to have added an Ac­count of my other Antagonist M. Cross; But that Adversary is to be pitied, all that he can do in the Controversie is but to call Names and invent Sto­ries, and make scurrilous Rhimes; These are the Arms he hath used against me, ever since our Controversie began; I [Page 187] speak not this in a way of contemptuous Abuse, but with all that seriousness, with which I can affirm any thing, which I do most heartily believe. This I say (and I am sorry I can say no better of him) hath been the course he hath taken: I repre­sented the Contents of his Book in a pri­vate Letter to Dr. Ingelo, that afterwards, coming to a Friends hands in London was printed by him, and call'd the Chue Ga­zett, (for M. Cross lives at a place call'd Chue.) It was printed, but there were not an hundred Copies of it, and those all given into private hands, that his shame might not be made publick. In that Let­ter, I presented a Collection of some of the Names he had call'd me, which were as foul and scurrilous, as the most ill-bred Ruffian could have vented in a distemper'd Huff; I recited about sixteen of his gross Falshoods, which were the broadest and sil­liest that ever were framed, for they were so pitifully contrived, that every one that knows me, knew most of them to be false, and he himself could not but know, that they were notoriously untrue; yea, some [Page 188] passages of things he had said, which he publickly denied again in his Book, and with most solemn Invocations of the name of God, have been attested to his face. So that I am as much astonisht at the prodi­gious Indiscretion of this marvellous man, as at his matchless Legends. And in him I see an Instance how far Rage and Malice will carry a proud and intemperate Spirit. He did not know nor care what he said, so he could gratifie his wild Passion against me. If ever you chance to light upon that Paper, you will see that this Censure is sober and true. In the same Letter I dis­covered the contemptible Impertinency of his Book, which doth not as much against mine, as M. Stubb did, when he confuted the Errata of the Press. I give a Specimen also of the Learning he shews in School­scraps, and little ends of Verse, and Chil­drens Phrases, which are all the Reading he discovers. These things are in brief re­presented in the Gazett, and much more largely in a Latin Account of his Perfor­mance, which I have ready by me.

After my Letter was abroad, to divert [Page 189] his Trouble and Disorder, he fell into a fit of Rhiming, and writ scurrilous Bal­lads to abuse me further; upon this occa­sion he was so given to versifying, that he could not write a Note but it must be in Meeter. As for instance, sending to a Neighbour Minister to preach for him, he presents his Request thus,

With such Poetry as this, my Praises, and those of the City of Bath, were celebrated. And so taken he was himself with his vein, that I have heard, he used to vaunt how much he was in a Poetick Dispensation above Hudibras.

But the likeliest course he ever took, was the ingaging M. Stubb in his Quarrel. He hath a Pen that is always ready to be [Page 190] retain'd in pay. M. Cross (as I was told by the Animadverter himself) sent him his Book, which he then despised; and said even to me, that he was an old — that had been asleep these forty years, and knew not what the World had been doing; But 'tis like M. Stubb did not know then, what Advantage might be made of M. Crosses Friendship, by one that would un­dertake his rescue. The Reverend Di­sputer after this caress'd, and courted him highly; treated him at Bath, and enter­tain'd him divers times with dear wel­come at his House, so that at last he was fastned. How like these two are in their Genius's and Performances, I may have an occasion to shew in a parallel. What Assistance M. Cross can afford his Friend in the Cause against the Royal Society, he shall not want: I am told, that he is doing that, which is sutable to his Tem­per and Abilities, viz. collecting the Le­gends, that Himself and his Confede­rates have made and driven about con­cerning one of those, they call the Vir­tuosi, to furnish M. Stubb with them; [Page 191] worthy work for a second Cobler of Glocester! But their Labour will be lost, and worse: That Person despiseth their malicious Figments; and will make some body repent the infamous Project.

And now while I am speaking of Le­gends, I remember one, by which I have been much abused to the GENTRY of WILTS, as if I had spoken rudely and injuriously concerning them. You, Sir, are of that County; and I owe a Iusti­fication of my self to you, and those other ingenious and worthy Persons, who have heard the Fable. The occasion of the the false Report, which 'tis like you have been told, was this, I commended an Honourable Gentleman of your County, and particularly for his Skill in Mathema­ticks, adding, that I knew none other in the parts where I was then, (being not in Wiltshire) so acquainted with those Studies; or to that purpose; This hap­ned to be mistaken and mis-reported, and after coming to the ears of some, whose Tongues are their own, they formed it in­to that abusive Falshood that went about. [Page 192] I know you cannot believe me guilty of any thing so rude, or if I were capable of such Folly or Incivility, I should not have vented it against Persons, by some of which I have been so highly obliged; And when there are not Three Gentlemen, that I know there, for whom I have not a very great Honour and Esteem. And parti­cularly for your self, I have all that Re­spect and Value, which so many and so great Accomplishments both intellectual and moral, as you eminently possess, can claim from one, that is sensible, and obliged by innumerable Civilities to be