§ 2. The next passage is concerning Praetendit scire.

Dr. W. Fourthly, you say, (i. e. Mr. Hobs) that you think. I did mistake (pra • tend •• scire) for an Angl • cisms. Your words were these at first, (as that Paragraph was first printed, pag. 176.) tamen quia • u id nesci • , nec pr •• tendi • scire 〈◊〉 auditu, &c. as appears in the torn papers. And then (after you had • modelled the whole paragraph, as it now is pag. 174.) tamen quia id nescit, nec pra • tendit scire, &c. This I did, and do still take (not mistake) for an Anglicisme. And you cannot deny but that it is so. Where is the mistake then? You say it is a fault in the Impression; yes that it is, and that twice, for failing. But was it not a fault in the copy 〈◊〉 ? You say it should have been, pr • etendit S • scire. That I confess helps the matter a little But why was it not so? The printer left cu • se (yes; at both places!) And why? But because the Author had not put it in?

L. L • . His next reflection is upon pr • tendit scire; this he • aith is an Anglicisme. If this be all his accusation, we shall lose upon this score many expressions that are used by the best Authors, which I take to be good Latin • mes, though they be also Anglicismes, the latter being but an imitation of the former. The Doctor therefore was too fierce to condemn upon to general an account, that which was not to have been censured for being an Anglicisme, unless it also had been no Lati • isme. Mr. Hobs replies, that the Printer had omitted se. He saith this mends the m • tter a little. It is very likely, for then it is just such another Anglicisme as that of Quintilian; Cum l • ricatus in foro ambularet, praetendebat se id meru fa • ere. The Doctor certainly was very negligent, • relse he could not have missed this in Robert Stephen. O • haply, he was resolved to condemn Quintilian for this and that other Anglicisme, Ignoranti •• p ••• tendi non potest; as also all those that have used praetende, which are many, and as good Authors as Dr. Wallis who makes his own E •• omi • st (not an English man) amongst them to write Anglicismes.

Dr. W. repl. The next is praetendit scire, which I took to be no great elegancy. You suppose that 〈◊〉 it for an Anglicisme; and I confessed I did. Your defence was, that it should have been praetendit se scire, (thereby confessing, I suppose, th • t without se it was not good,) but that se was omitted in the impression (twice for failing.) Your Advocates defence is, that praetendo is a good Latin word (as though any had questioned it) why did he not bring the same for Cum in the former place? For doubtless that is a good Latin word too. The easiest defence had been, in both places, as well as one, to put it upon the Printer; (in the one place he put in cum, which were better out; in the other he left out se, which should have been in:) or else, that it was but the stumbling of an hastypen, which had been excuse enough, and would have passed without any more ado.

What the Doctor said in his Elen •• us I have not the book to see; yet I fear he mistakes the terms no great elegancy, and an Anglicisme! An Anglicisme may be a very great elegancy: and I think the Doctor did not do well in a Philosophical discourse to condemn phrases for not being great elegancies: but surely he took it for a Barbarisme; uppon the former account he must seem impertinent, and on the latter score, ignorant. In the construction of these two words, I imag • ned that his quarrel lay against the verb praetendo, to pretend, (and he I think must confess it, for the infinitive mood without an Accusative case before it, as here Se was omitted, is frequent in Latin Authors, even in Tully) hereupon I said praetendo was a good word in that sense, and proved it. But that I said simply that pr •• tend • was a good Latin word, without any relation to its English signification, is a thing imposed upon me by the Doctor, that so he might seem to reply something, though he said nothing. What the printer might leave out, the Doctor will tell us anon in his own case; if he expect any favour, he must learn to allow more. You have had enough concerning Cum, and it is as easie for a printer to leave 〈◊〉 se, (in my poor conceit) as He would have us credit him concerning the gr •• ver. If he had acknowledged it the stumbling of an hasty pen, the Doctor would hardly have let it pass, who will not let alone other passages that are not such. Let any body compare both, and see to what the Doctor answers. The mention of his Encomia •• es, who is a publick Professour of Mathematicks, of known abili • ies, and beyond exception, obliges me to present the reader with some part of his Latin letter: I am very charitable to think the Doctor did alter some of his Solaecismes, yet as it is after it hath passed both their hands, I here tender it.

Cum a • state praeteritá in m • nus inciderit Thomae Hobs elementorum philosophiae Sectio pri ••• abstinere non petui quin tractatum istum leviter evolverim. Instigabat me ad hoc, tum Authoris hujus celebritas, • um • tiam quod plura in eodem tractatu offendebam Geometrica, quae si Philosophiam non excolerent, saltem ut quàm maximè illustratura f • rent, opinabar. Sed me illum perlustrante, cum talia ibi invenerim ejus de Algebrâ five Analysi judicia, • quibus mihi facile fuit colligere, quod Author hic in • adem arte parum debere • esse versa • us: (quandequidem hac illa Ars existit, u • si liber su • s in Geometriâ egregii ac ardui quid con •• neret, qualia se passim invenisse PRAETENDERE mihi videbatur, id ipsum huic arti, judicio meo, in tetum deberet;) C • mque adhuc in perlustrando dum pergebam, nonnulla de rectae ac curvae aequalitate, aliaque complura animadvertebam quorum cognitionem nunquam mihi pollicebar ac inter seponenda notabam, ve ••• è si spes aliquâ inveniendi illa mihi superesset, quin Algebram in partes vocarem non dubitabam: Aliam excude de ipso opinionem concept, credens quod ill • quaeillum ante è proprio penu deprompsisse autumabam, non nisi altorum inventa esse, sed i • alium sensum ab eo traducta aut correpta: Ideoque siquid boni in es comprehende • etur, id quàm maxime esse ventilandum ac ex • u ••• ndum.

Here is such a premulsis out of Dutch-land, as I have not the patience to transcribe any more: If the Doctor will excuse him, he must • lie to Tullies Epistol, nostrae debent hallucinari. He that had exhibited to us such a letter, might have spared the stumblings of a contemplative minde in a large treatise. This man the Doctor fayes needs not Mr. Hob's praise: If he did, I believe he would not obtain it: he gives not praises to them that stand in need, but which deserve them. If he have no better ornaments then we see here, (that I may use the Scarlet Doctors phrase) the ragged regiment will scarce allow him the benefit of a muster •• . Mr. Hobs called him Dun • 〈◊〉 the Doctor hints us out an Apology for him, (p. 10.) viz. that Duns should not be writen with an S. well now that I have exhibited the letter, do as you see fit. Minshew (from whence I may as well say you have plundered the Etymology of Hob-gobbing, as you charge me with Nizolius, &c.) saith it comes from densus: and then it may be Duns; (with an S.) thee being wanting is a Dugardisine. When I read it I think there may be an allusion to his name, which having some affinity with Scotus, he sirnamed him Duns. But I go on.

§ 3.

Dr. W. In like manner Page 222. Tractatus hujus partis tertiae, in quâ mo • us et • magnitudo per se et abstractè confideravimus, terminum hic statuo. This was the Printers fault too, was it not? Or at least a fault in the impression?

L Lr. Here I must confess the exception is colourable, yet I can parallel it with the like objection made by Erasmus against Tully, out of whom Erasmus quotes this passage: Di • ti • s commorans Athenis; quoniam venti negabant solvendi facultatem, • rat ani •• s ad te scribere: and excuses it thus, that Tully might have had at first in his thoughts volebam, or statuebam, which he afterwards relinquished for erat animus, and did not remember what he had antecedently written, which did not vary from his suceeding thoughts, but words. And this excuse may pass with any who knows that Mr. Heb • values not the study of words, but as it serves to express his thoughts, which were the same whither he wrot, in qud mo • us & magnitu • o per se et astra ••• consideati sunt, or consideratimus. If the Doctor will make this so Capital, he must prove it voluntary, and also shew that it is greater then what is legible in the • uny letter of his Encemiast, whom he would have to be beyond exception.

Dr. W. repl. And the same defence (viz. that they were the stumblings of an hasty pen) should have been made for the third and fise place; m •• us et magnitu •• considera •• nus: and mulia ejusm •• i (propositi • nes) for to defend such mistakes, is worse then to commit them. And the like of many other elegancies, of which I gave you a taste the last time, which now are passed over in silence. And it would not have hurt you to have said as little of these. Such slips are no great blemish till they come to be defended. And I should not have thought it worth while, so much as to note them, if you had not • • manner challenged me so to do.

De • . That these were not the stumblings of an hasty pen in Mr. H • bs, I cannot say: if he had acknowledged it; how the Doctor would have passed over his faults, whereas he maketh such adoe concerning the printers Errats, any one may conjecture, what I wrote in the letter, I wrote not as if it had been the rule he proceeded by, but excuse. And what more might have been said, for those that I passed by, let the reader judge by what I have said, and shall say for these. I cannot allow the Doctor that TO DEFEND SVCH MISTAKES IS WORSE THEN TO COMMIT THEM, greater men then I • re concerned in this: the reader sees that Tully and Mr. Hebs are in the same condition, whatever then hath been said for the one, may justifie the other ( •• tatis •• tandis) and what the Doctor objects against the Apologist for Mr. H • bs, will interest the Advocates of Tully in the controversie. It is not one, but several Solecismes that E • asirus carpeth at in Tully. I shall set down Ial. Sca • gers defence (though it be long, it cannot be tedio as to the diligent reader) in gross, not omitting things remote from the present controversie, because the Oration is hard to be got, and contains very remarkable things. Thus then Iulius Scaliger speaketh to his supposed auditors, concerning E • asmus.

〈◊〉 in Ciceronis scriptis deprehensos tradit etiámne id nebulo? Quis tibi dixit ita scriptum esse? Nihil enim est quod à maledicentissimo, • odemque mendace non imponi poss • t. Quasi verò non aequè invidi atque inepti sit, ita • eriptum suspicari reliquisse, et candidi ingenii in libratiorum culpam rejicere. Quanto facilius mihi sidem •• bebunt omnes temporum injuriam accusanti, cujus tractibus atque an ••• ctibus, multa latent, multa invertantur. plu • ima depravantur, alia intereunt. Nolo enim hic tractare hunc locum, quasi communem, deplorareque saeculorum acerbitatem; neque si • elim, sciam, sed tu • ipse qui hasce Tragaedias movere soles, qui nequaquam integro nobis Cicerone per tempestatum injurias frui licere clamitas, qui supposititios atque adultetino • libros sub ejus nomine falso circumfer •• indig • aris; quid hoc est negotii, ut calumniam istam de uno verbo, immò verò de unius ver • i syllab • mutueris? Quid inquies, si contendam aliter à Cicerone scriptum fu ••• e, quid ii unde ea desumpsisti? Quid •••• m d • rmitantis manum Tyronis accusem? Sed ut haec omnia omittam, qu •• ro de • e num in Ciceronem prima Grammaticae • udimenta nescisse dicas? Id verò est, quod à veteribus dici solet, nihil esse perniciosius arr • gante homine, cum • i semel ansapraebita est ad calumniam. Ageita sit, in libris Ciceronis vel illius ipsu • s manuscriptis Solaecismos deprehensus est. Hic verò scire pervelim, ubi gentium tam impurus veterat •• vitam vivat, qui illi id adscribere andeat. Sed non mirum est te id improbare quod tibi incompertum est, cum multo majore impudentiâ recepta quoque retractare s • udea • . In potestatem esse à Cicerone dictum, 〈…〉 desendit in problematis Gelli • rus. inquis, atque id minus Latinum quibusdam visum esse. At scin quibus? Barbaris aliquot, aure rudi atque agresti, judicio corrupto, quorum ineptiae • eque abs te primò • es • runtur, neque à me prin ò •••• lluntur: sed sunt nobis authores multo qu • m Cicero antiq •• ores, quibus à Graecis fontibus ea •• ta deducere placuit, Quam rem qu • ci iam à p • litishmo autho • e Gellio 〈◊〉 tractatur, diflusius non occupabo. Sed qu •• •• modem Q. Claudius in mediton relinquere dixit, quemadmodum in rem esse Latine di •• mus, in re esse pro eo quod est utile esse▪ non dicimus, sed •• e esse • ▪ atque alia 〈◊〉 in m • dum apud alios infinita: ita esse in potestatem. ALIUD enim est 〈◊〉 esse, qualis tu, c •• us in angustias sordésque nos detrudere vis; al • ud populi con •• tudini, doctorum auctoritati, numeris orationis, purgatis auribus inservire. 〈…〉 Gellio qui hoc te docuit ex calumniatoribus, si tam candidus elles in, quàm ille vir bonus fuit ac doctus, defensionem quoque mutuari de • ui •• es.

§ 4

I shall leav • the order of the Letter at present, and pursue the Doctors method, according to which, the next passage to be debated is Tanquam d • cer • mus.

Dr. Wallis. I might adde that of tanq ••• m dicerem • s, (as if we sh • uld say) and 〈◊〉 , and elsewhere, instead of a •• t, quasi, (or some such word) or 〈◊〉 , which is Tullies phrase, ( 〈◊〉 si • ua res aga • ur, tanquam si 〈◊〉 esset, 〈…〉 Asia for tanquam without • r, signifies but a • , not as if • but because I know you are not the first that have so used it, of modern writers, and that even of the 〈◊〉 • , some of them do sometimes leave out si, I shall allow you the same liberty, and pass this by without bl •• e (as passable, not accurate)

L • r. Now he disallowes tanquam 〈◊〉 , as if we should say. But why is that less • tolerable them anq ••• secerts, as if you had done. It should be 〈◊〉 (forsooth!) or 〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉 , which is Tullies own word, (what is tanquam si become but one word?) Tanqu • m 〈◊〉 agatur, &c. Good Doctor leave out Tully and all 〈◊〉 , or you will for ever suffer for this, and your add • cis 〈◊〉 . Is not this to put your self on their verdict, when you oppose Mr. Hobs with Tully? but the Doctor gives his reason. And though he had the l • ck in his 〈◊〉 to follow the first part of the s •• ing 〈…〉 yet now it is senti •• dum cum 〈◊〉 . For 〈◊〉 without • i signifies but as not as if. It is pitty the Doctor could not argue in Symbols too, that so we might not understand him, but supp • se all his papers to carry evidence with them, because they are Mathematically scratched. How does he construe this, Pl ••• e, 〈◊〉 al • o Drus •• um sanguine, taxquam F ••••• is ipse aliquid propter quod •• bilis esses. So Gaelius, one much esteemed by Gicere, who hath inserted his Epistles into his works, saith (Tull. •• m. ep. lib. 8. • p. 5.) omnia desiderantur ab 〈◊〉 , tanquam • i • il denegatum sit ei quo min •• pa etissimus esset, qui publico neg ••• praepositus est. But it was not possible the Doctor should know this, it not being in Stephen, where his examples for 〈◊〉 si are.

But the Doctor having pitched upon this criticisme, and penned it, some body, I believe, put him in minde of the absurditu thereof: yet the generous professour presumed no body else could be more intelligent then he, who had perused Stephen. He would not retract any thing, but subjo • n • , that he will allow it as passable, because other modern writers, and some of the antients, have so used it, as Mr. Hobs hath done. I know not what Authors the Doctor meant, for, if I am not mistaken, I do not finde any in Stephen. His citation of Celumella is not right l. s. c. 5. (not can I deduce any thing thence till I have read the passage) but if he take Iuvenal and Caesius for modern Authors, I hope he will admit of Accius, N •• vius, and Garma • ta for the only antients. Let him think upon this Criticisme, and never hope pardon for his adducis mall • um, which is not half so well justified, and yet none but mad-men or feels reject it. I have here exhibed the letter without any variation, no not of that place out of Columella, which the Doctor might well presume I had looked into, and found to be 〈◊〉 (as many else are, and are observed by Franciseus Floridus) though either the transcriber or printer did me that wrong to alter the figures: for which I am no more responsible, then for that verse out of Dienys: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . which is v. 725. and not v. 21. • s it is printed: if the Doctor had consulted the place, he would not have spared me, there, as he doth not in his ensuing discourse.

Dr Wallis. That of tanquaem, is but a mee • cavil, as well as the rest. Ianquaem dicerem •• s, and tanquaem pessent, I said were Ellyptical. And are they not? That tanquaem signifies only 〈◊〉 and not as if; and doth it signifie any more? That Tully's word is tanquaem si (which is proper enough ad hominem, to you that will needs be Ci erenians, forsooth!) And it is not so? (That is, and is it not so?) [yes and O ••• 's too. Met. 7. tanquaem si parvae dedisses Den • ,] hath not your journey-man made search in Rob. Stephanu's Thes. ling. lat. Thes. Cicerentanus (or Nizolius) and cannot finde any one example of Tully to the contrary? But he saith, tanquam si is not Tully's word, 'tis two words; (a pretty exception, let it then be Tully's phrase) but why not if need be, one word, as et-si, ac-si, etiam. si, &c. If et iam-si, why not as well tam quam si, one word? Or quam ab rem? But I said further, that though elliptical, yet I would allow Mr. Hobs so to speak without blame; because some modern writers, and some of the antients, do so speak. Well; was this the fault? Yes that's the fault. He would have had me condemned it absolutely, that he might have had some what to cavil at.

I shall omit what follows, this being all that is material: yet all that the pevish Doctour saith, shall be answered in its proper place. The intelligent reader will easily perceive who playes the Caviller: for if this be not a cavil, I do not know what is; to condemn a thing as absolutely bad. TANQVAM without si signifies but 〈◊〉 , not 〈◊〉 if. And yet to allow it now so far as to confess it to be in Caelius, Iuvenal and other authors? Ought not that plea to be sufficient with you, which is all you alledge for adducis malleum? Custome and popular use being the rule of elegancy, it should have sufficed you, that so much favoured Mr. Hobs: we would have added that the vulgar know little what belongeth to Ellipsis, they are not governed by Grammar. It is considerable how the Doctor varies his phrase, he said before tanquaem without si, signified as, and not as if, now he saith, that it was an Elliptical expression. The difference is this, an Elliptical expression may be good (such are all ablatives of cause, instrument, or manner, as Vossius proves, and others,) but the use of a word for what it signifies not, cannot be. Of the signification of words use must be the judge. All that I say of Stephen, is that I did not remember any example in him: the Doctor findeth three, a least three examples; which if he knew before, every body can judge, what a petulant caevil it was for him to engage in, and how much he hath amended this matter. Stephen's having examples was but accidental, and if the Doctor do prove he have, he overthrowes his cause, and only puts me in minde of what I professed I did not remember. If I said it was not possible for the Dr. to know more then Rob. Stephen would tell him; I had not only for the ground of my assertion, his being taken 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; but I also knew that being asked by a Gentleman (a familiar acquaintance of his) not much younger then my self, (if so young) how he might attain to the knowledge of the accurateness of the Latin tongue, he put him over to the reading of Rob. Stephen. the same Gentleman told me that he wondered how he pretended to the world so much Philolegy, since in a long time of converse with him, he could not perceive any excellency of his that way. He tells me he findes my quotations in Charles Stephens Thesaurus Ciceronianus: might not I as well tell him the texes he citeth in his Latin or English sermons, are to be 〈…〉

§ 5.

I Am at last arrived at the main controvesse, Adducis malleum here is a tolerable case so 〈◊〉 , that it is spoiled. A heavy work (this is the Doctors 〈◊〉 ) about 〈◊〉 is mall •• m! And the Doctor in the management of it so deporteth himself, as 〈◊〉 once did in a quarrel about the learned men the A ••• pagi, the defence whereof found work not only for the Gentlemen of the Assembly, but that excellent pen of Mr. Mil •• n! The Grammar quarrel was carried on with as much animosity, as if the rise or downfal of 〈◊〉 -presbytery depended upon that Sol • cisme: nay, some have said that the 〈◊〉 are justly expulsed Ox • n. for being so absurd as to think that those divines (of which our Doctor was a Scribe) which could make rules of faith, could break those of Grammar. The Doctor being de •• ended from these infallible 〈◊〉 , it is not to be wondered that he will not acknowledge, but defend himself (and which is more) as 〈◊〉 did Althou • h I need no more th • n to transcribe or 〈…〉 the reader to the letter for his satisfaction, wherein all the question is so stated that any person of intellectual beyond D • cto Willis may receive a •• account of the case, and of the rule of 〈◊〉 grace ( 〈…〉 He that reads a book 〈…〉 not his Author the rule of elegance, but himself, and follows not the other but his own ph • nsy, and of the validity of Mr. Heb's exception: yet because I perceive our Mathematician not to be so perspicacious as others are, I must crave leave to accommodate my self to his capacity, the letter being not intended for satisfying him, but one of more ingenuitie. The preliminaries are all couched in the letter, which yet I shall now more largely set down, and then subjoyn the text itself.

It is to be noted that I make Tully the sole rule of Latin elegance, and other Authors no further useful (as to language) then they speak conformably to him. Vnus Cicero omnium elegantissimè est locutus: pure quidem 〈◊〉 quod est in maxima laudis parte poncudum; presse alii, ac prope 〈◊〉 in brevitate divini extit crunt. Sed unus Cicero laudem omium ac virtutes in se transl ••• omnes, pure hic in loco, nec mulus cùm res postulat, agit; in uno au • em illo illustrande orationis genere DEUS est, verborum delectum eloquenciae originem Caesar esse di • ebat: atqui alii SEMPER aliquid habent, quod aut prorsus damnetur, aut saltem aequè non probetur, vetustatem alii nimis deditâ operâ consectantur, in agrestibus ac parùm cultis sese alii magis oblectant, alii alio vitio laborant, UNUS Cicero tantùm abest ut tate quicquam in se admiseret, ut messem illam nobis, atque verborum omnium copiam omnem perpurgarit, qui NIHIL in sermonem, quod non Romanum oleret, quod ab aetatis suae 〈◊〉 atque dignitate quicquam abhorreret, quod omni derique splendore non elucesceret, prorsus intertextuit.

I shall not engage at present in a defence of the imitation of Tully: that the Latin tongue is to be gained by imitation and converse with Authors, is confessed: that not the imitation of any single author, nor the framing of a new stile out of the reading of many, or all, promiscuously, is to be preferred before the bare imitation of Cicero (quod non tam hominis quàm eloquentiae nomen est!) This hath been asserted with sufficient advantage to the cause by Cortesius against Politian, Bembus against Picus M • andula; Riccius, Doletus, &c. against Erasmus, whose dialogue entitled Ciceromanus did so disgust the learned of that age, that he was more declaimed against for that insolent and malicious piece, then any other work of his; he found that it was more facile to decry the Popa • y, then Tully; he found his reputation as to all manner of learning so lost thorough the publishing of that Pamphlet, that there was no possibility to regain his esteem but by a recantation, which he did, professing himself redresse in gratiam cum Cicerone.

Now for what is conformable to Tully's stile, I do not leave to the Umpirage of LILLIES Grammar, nor yet to the determination of Nizolius or Charles Stephen's Ciceronian dictionaries, nor Doletus commentaries, or Schorus, or Riccius, nor any other of that kinde. He that would be a competent judge of elegance, must be thorough-paced in Tully, and have weighed attentively his words, phrases, periods, the 〈◊〉 of the one, the choice and use of the other: In order to the latter, I expect either that the same phrase be produced, or some other of the same nature and kinde, which may be equivalent. But the Doctor must pardon me, that School (whither he removed the case:) very wisely! For he knew nothing of the customes there, for that is the true construction of those his words, what belong; to the 〈…〉 Westminster School I do not so well know, as perhaps this 〈◊〉 ) and in his Prosopopaeia hath been as happy as the Scotch painter, who being requested to paint London, drew Edenborough; which did not tend to the disgrace of the 〈◊〉 , but painter:) that School never permitted me to argue à genere ad genus, from the Metaphorical use of the word, to the proper use of the same. Nor to conclude from the use of the Simple verb, the use of the compound: nor from the use of one or more compounds in a certain sense, to the using of another in the same manner. It being a way of reasoning from possibilities to reali • ies, from the imaginary use of the word at some time, to the real use of it in the best and 〈◊〉 times: in which manner of arguings though the divines of late have much pleased themselves, and especially the Doctor in his thesis; yet I cannot approve it in them, or allow it in him. These things being premised, (which any body might have observed in the extract, which was sent to a person of understanding, however it came into Doctor Wallis's hands!) It is evident that whatever the Doctor hath produced of Adducere febrem, sitim, fastidium, rem in iudicium, discrimen, periculum • controversiam, 〈◊〉 angustiam, locum, statum, ordin • m, ad manus, ad concordiam; vitam 〈◊〉 extremum. (Which are all or most of what he hath alledged in adduco) are impertinent: the question being concerning local transportation. Again, it is clear, that whatever he hath alledged out of deduco, reduco, educo, perduce, produco, traduce, abduco, obduco, duco, amount not to a full proofe of the case in hand, were they as significant as the Doctor would have the credulous reader to believe him in verbo sacerdotis!

Another thing the Doctor should have considered, that I having fixed my rule of elegance otherwise, I am not to be refuted out of Pliny, Farro, Columell • , &c. If I alledge any author of that stamp, it is a valid argument ad 〈◊〉 , where Doctor Wa • lis is concerned; because he makes use of them as the rule of speech: but against me the procedure is as foolish, as if I should measure by the • ard, and the Doctor mete with an Ell. The difference is about principles, not inferences, and therefore the Doctor should either have disputed what I took for a principle, and he did not; or else not have entermed • ed. But the Doctor is a professor of Mathematicks, and not Logick; I would fain know whether this be any part of Logistica Speciosa? Or the new Analysis? If I were to write of Physick, Husbandry, &c. I should not doubt to supply Tully's defect of terms out of those kinde of Authors, yet I should not make use of their expressions further then they are vocabula • rtis. If the Doctor had considered his quotations, he must either fall into a gross paralogisme ex particularibus, or tell us that whatsoever the drag-net of Authors (antient and antick, Poets and prosaick writers) hath drawn down, and tendered to us in gross, prawn, Crabfish and Lobster, Seaweed, shells, shrubs, unpicked, ungarbled, this is the RVLE of Elegance. Otherwise his reason is no more then this, There are some expressions in Varro, Colnmella, Pliny, &c. which are passably elegant: Therefore this of mine is such. Though it be not in terminis, nor by any thing equivalent, to be found there, for ought either he, or I know.

What esteem is to be attributed to Terence, Scaliger telleth concerneth facere contumelians: decere vobis: in his defence of Tully: and as for 〈◊〉 who fitteth his Latin to his persons, I shall never account his virnil •• er dicta (eduxi • erum, abduxi clavens) for elegancies when any body hereafter shall use them, but Dr. Wallis. His argument from them, must be ex particularibus. I desire my allegations out of Scaliger and Doletus above-mentioned may be considered in this place.

As for the Poets, if he mean they shall stand for any thing, he must argue out of them, as he did out of the others, or else every man will be apt to throw dirt in his face; for, can any man defend all that ever Virgil, Horace, Ovid, &c. have said, I will not say to be good inprose (though that allone is to the question,) but in modern verse something in order to this hath been said afore out of Stephen, and it is infinite that might be objected against the three. I profess I am not disposed to converse in Meter; yet I shall then do it, when our judicious professour, shall versifie in Tullye's prose; or that he may better it▪ in Tully's poetry. Ovid is said to be such a master of elegancies, that he hath been charactered as one in quo nullus est verborum de • ectus, nulla ad solutam or ationem accomodata locutio. I shall not disparage Virgil, nor Horace (whose non benè pro multo li • ertas venditur auro, may vie with cum impet • percurrere, I think) they are all Canendi non loquendi exempla. As for his urging passages out of Mr. Hobs against him it is vain, as if he had urged them against me. Mr. Hobs intended to inform our judgements, not to write what either should be an example or rule of elegance: he desired to be understood, to be read for improvement of knowledge, not the advancement of the Latin language: I believe the Doctor doth think better of his own English, then Mr. Hobs of his Latin; yet I hope neither he, nor any else, will write thereby. The Doctor therefore did herein, (as in other things) mistake himself, when he used that for his defence of elegance, which the other never intended for such, yet Mr. Hobs might justly. (upon contest) except against the Doctors 〈◊〉 , though he had used them himselfe, because he did not pretend to, nor aver them to be imbells, • ments of speech, however significant enough.

Having entertained you with these preliminaties, I see no reason yet why I should transcribe all that the Doctor hath said in his due correction p. 15, 16 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. I desire to give my thoughts as little diversion as may be, from other studies: and yet I would not omit any thing unanswered that this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Pygmy hath objected. I shall therefore next subjoyn the letter, and then survey his scattered exceptions, as they fall in: And (which is more) show in the close that I can allow of the Doctors conclusion, however he hath wrang • ed about the premises.

Now follows his ridiculous Apology for adducis malleum, ut • ccidas muscam, the occasion why he made use of that proverb (of his own phrasing) was this. Mr. Hobs had taken a great deal of pains to demonstrate what Doctor Wallis thought he could have proved in short: upon this occasion he objects, add • cis malleum, ut • ccidas muscam, which I shall suppose he intended to English thus, you bring a beetle to kill a •• re. Mr. Hobs retorted, that add • co was not used in that sense. The Doctor vindicates himself thus, duco, deduco, reduco perduco, preduco, &c. signifie strange things, erg • , adduco may be used in that sense: which is a most ridiculous kinde of arguing, where we are but to take up our language from others, and not to coyn new phrases. It is not the Grammer that shall secure the Doctor, nor wea • Analogies, where elegance comes in con • est. To justifie his expression he must have shewed it usu tritum, or alledged the Authority of some Author of great note for it. I have not the leasure to examine his impertinent citations about those other compounds, nor yet of the simple verb duco; nay, to justifie his saying he hath not brought one parallel example. He talks indeed very high, that duco (with its compounds) is a word of a large signification, and amongst the rest to bring, fetch, carry, &c. is so exceeding frequent in all Authors (Plantus, Terence, Tully, Cas •• , Tacitus, Pliny, Seneca, Virgil, Herace, Ovid, Clandia • , &c. that he must needs be either maliciously blinde, or a very stranger to the Latin tongue that doth not know it, or can have the face to deny it. I read what will be my doom for not allowing his Latin; yet I must profess I dare secure the Doctor for having read all Authors, notwithstanding his assertion, and I hope he will do the like for me. And for those which he hath read, had he brought no better proofes then these, he had, I am sure, been whipped soundly in Westminster School for his impudence, as well as ignorance by the learned master thereof at present. But I dare further affirm, that the Doctor hath not read in this point any, but only consulted with Robert Stephen's thesa •• us linguae Latinae, whence he hath borrowed his allegations in adduco; and for the other I had not so much idle time, as to compare them. And left the fact might be discovered he hath sophisticated those Authors whence Stephen cites the expressions, and imposed upon them others. If it be not so, or that the Doctor could not write it right when the copy was right before him; let him tell me where he did ever read in Plautus, adducta res in fastidium. I finde the whole sentence in Plinye's preface to Vespasian (out of whom in the precedent paragraph he cites it) about the middle: 〈◊〉 verò it • •• ltis prodita; ut in fastidium sint adducta, which is the very example Stephanus useth, although he doth premise his adducta res in fastidium. Let the Doctor tell where he ever did read in Horace Ov • 〈◊〉 &c. adducunt taedium vini. Did he (or any else, with the interposition of an, &c.) make Trochaicks? I say, and Stephanus sayes so too, that is in Pliny lib. 13. c. 15. near the end; the whole sentence runs thus, Ebriosis Ova noctuae per triduum data in vino, tadium ejus adducunt. I doubt not but these are • the places he aimed at, although he disguised and minced the Quotations: if they be not, I should be glad to a • gment my Stephanus with his additions.

These things premised, I come to consider the Doctors proofes: Res e • adducta est: adducta vita in extremum: adductares in fastidium: rem ad mucrones et manus adducere: contracta res et adducta in angustum: res ad concordiam adduci po • est: in ordinem adducere: adducere febres, filim, taedium vini: (all in Robert Stephen) betwixt which and adducere malleum, what a vast difference there is, I leave them to umpier qui teretes et retigioso • nacti sunt aures, who are the competent judges of elegancy, and only cast in the verdict of one or two, who are in any place (where the purity of the Latin tongue flourisheth) of great esteem. Loosaeus in his Scopae linguae Latinae, ad purgendum li • guam à barba • ie, &c. (would any think that the Doctors elegant expression, frequent in all Authors, which none but the malicious or ignorant can deny, should suffer so contumelious an expurgation?) Loosaeus (I say) hath these words: Adferre plerique minùs attenti utuntur pro adducere. Quod Plautus, in Pseudole, insigni exemple notat. C. Attulihunc. P. Quid attulisti? C. Adduxi volui dicere. P. Quis iftic est? C. C • arinus. Satisigitur admonet discriminis inter ducere, reducere, ad • ucere, et abducere, quae de personâ; et ferre, adferre, &c. quae de re dicuntur. Idem. Dometium, quem ego novi, adduce; argentum non moror quin feres. Cavendum igitur est ne vulgi more, (let the Doctor mark this, and know that this author is authentick amongst the Cicerenians) adserre de personâ dicamus, sed adducere; licet et hoc de certis quibusdam rebus non ineptè dicatur. In this last clause he saith as much as Mr. Hobs saith, and what the Doctor proves: but that ever the Doctor brought any example which might resemble adducis mallcum, is denyed: for I have mentioned already his allegations every one of adduco. Another Author (a • it Antagonist for the elegant Doctor) is the farrag • so didorum verborum, joyned with the Epitome of L. Valla's elegancies. He saith, Accerse, adduc Pet • um, latinè dicitur pro eo quod pueri dicunt, adfer Petrum. And this may suffice to justifie Mr. Hobs's exception, who proceeded no further then this Author, to tell the Doctor that adduco was used of animals. But the Doctor replies, this signification is true, but so may the other be also. I answer, if it never have been used so, it cannot be so, for we cannot coyn new Latin words, no more then French, or Spanish, that are forreigners. A man may lawfully adde some words to a language that is in vogue, because use may in time naturalize them: but we must leave a dead language such as we finde it in the monuments of antiquity, and it is sacriledge to meddle with it. Mr. Hobs was upon the Negative, and not to disprove the contrary opinion. If the Doctor would be believed, he must prove it by some example (which is all the proo • e of elegancy) and till he do so, not to believe him, it is sufficient not to have cause. But Doctor Wallis, why • ot adduco for a hammer, as well as a tree? I answer yes, equally for either, and yet for neither: did ever any body go about to mock his Readers thus solemnly? I do not finde (to my best remembrance) any example of it in Stephen, and the Doctor is not wiser then his book; if there be, it is strange the Doctor should omit the only pertinent example, and trouble us with such impertinencies for three or four pages. In Stephen there are adducere habenas, and adducere lorum, but in a different sense. It is not impossible I may guess at the Doctors aime: In Tully de net d • or. (as I remember) there is this passage: Quum a • tem ille 〈◊〉 , in agro 〈…〉 adductum, ut remissus esset, in or • lum suum recidisse, where it signifies nothing else but to be • ent, bowed, or pulled back, and in that sense the 〈◊〉 of a clock, 〈◊〉 that of a smith when he fetcheth his str • ak, may be said 〈◊〉 . And this I conceive the Doctor would have us in the close think to have been his meaning; else what doth he drive at in these words? When you have done the best you can, you will not be able to finde better words then adducere malleum and reducere, to signifie the two contrary motions of the hammer, the one when you strike with it, (excellently 〈◊〉 !) the other when you take it back (better and better • ) What to do? To fetch another 〈◊〉 . If any can believe that this was his meaning, I shall justifie his Latin, but must leave it to him to prove it sense. If he intended no more, why did he go about to defend the other meaning, and never meddle with this? Wh • ch yet might have been proved by this one example of mine? May not therefore his own saying be justly retorted upon him in this case; Adducts malleum, uteccidas mus • em?

The Doctor deals very intricately in his reply, and seems therefore to have been more confused, that so he might make the better flourish, and that might pass for a sufficient answer, which was not in the least manner applicable to the case in hand. Once for all I shall acquaint the reader with a piece of the Doctors Rhetorick▪ wherein he doth much please himself: It is a bad imitation of what was excellently used by H • rte ••• , whose custome it was Accusarienis membra divider • , et in digitis suit singulas partes causae constituere; et deinde unumquodque transige • e, expedire, absolvere. In imitation of him the Doctor seems not to have we • ghed the whole context of what I had said, but (divine like) takes all the frame into pieces, and then examines each parcel and fragment, as if it were a sentence integrate, absolute, independent of what precedes or follows. As for example, the Pantomine thus flourisheth it. Enter Mr. Hobs's second, what sayes he? He sayes it is ridiculous. That is easie said: but saying so doth not make it so. This is his reflexion upon that passage of mine: Now follows his ridiculous Apology for adducis malleum. It is true I wrote an Epistle, not a treatise, to a person of ingenuity, not to the Doctor, and therefore I did rather hint then urge the proofes of my assertion: But any body now may see the vanity of his exception, that shall but read these prelimma • ies which I have here inserted, not as a •• w addition, but by way of explanation of what was evidently contained in the text before. I did as little dream the Doctor should have ever been a judge of that letter, as he prophesie by his argumentum ad h • minem, that some Ciceronian should attacque him▪ If I had thought so I should have accommodated my self to him. If the Doctor when be u • locked the Kings cabinet of letters, did use him as he hath abused me, both in gloss and text, it is very possible that he may have done that cause to which I was still a friend, good service, but I cannot commend the means.

Such another reflexion is that of his p. 21. To say there is a vast difference, and not to tell us where that difference lies, are but empty words. This is his an • ma •• ersion upon that saying of mine, these things premised (which are now explained in the preliminaries) I come to consider the Doctors proofes. Res eò adducta est: addecta vita in ext • emum, &c. betwixt which and adducere malleum▪ wh •• a vast difference there is, I leave then to umpier qui teretes et religiosus nacti su •• oures, who are the competent judges of elegancie. I suppose by this time the difference in clear, and the 〈◊〉 from the use of the figurative significa ion to the proper one evin • ed: which they to whose arhitrement • referred my self could not miss 〈…〉 our little man (but great Critick) could not perceive it. I did not mean by 〈◊〉 aures, a 〈◊〉 head, (which name I take to suit with those that engaged in an holy war, for my part I adhered to the Parliament and the liberty of the subject) nor did I ever intend that any should construe Aures religiosas for Presbyterians. This kinde of elocution discovers it self in all the Doctors controversal writing, but yet with a different success then did attend Horte • sius, who where he could not decei • e, he did delight: our Doctor I believe ha ••• been as far from pleasing as he hath been from imposing upon them. In his • xamen of Locsaeus and C • ecius, in his discourse of 〈◊〉 and else where he doth lie at this open ward: but that I shall consider in its peculiar place.

I must now invert the order of what the Doctor hath delivered, and so applie them to the parts of the letter: his first exception is.

Dr. W. repl. He observes further that in some of the allegations we have not the word add ••• , but the simple verb duco, or some other compound: And therefore that all these are impertinent: because (forsooth) it is not Granmar, or Analogy that will secure us. But we are still besides the business. The original charge is against duco; and against adduco but as one of the train, not as a stragler from the rest of his company. And therefore the allegations are all pertinent: and that Analogy is ag ••• d argument in the case, we shall hear from his own witness by and by.

To this there needs no further reply, then that the reader consider my preliminary positions only that the Doctor may learn hereafter to read with more attention I shall here give him so much light out of the text of the letter as may be requisite for to rectifie him, though it may be impertinent as to others. The question is concerning elegance; proof of elegance is to be deduced from the use in such ages as Latin eloquence did most flourish in: since that age cannot be recalled, our recourse must be to such authors as wrote then: many of those are lost, others corrupted, if therefore we would determine any thing of Elegancy we must apply our selves to those whom the general vogue of all ages hath represented unto us as the most pure and eloquent writers; and such are only Cesar and Tully: whose expressions we may acqui • sce in and safely conclude it good, because found in their wooks. If we finde ought in any other author, (whose authority is suspected) we can only say possibly it may have been used, but neither their using it, nor any conformity with Grammar can secure us, so that I did justly say that where we are but to take up our language from others, the Doctors arguing was ridiculous: neither could Grammar, or Analogies secure him, where elegance comes in contest. That the original charge lies against Duco is false; for the ground of contest was adduco: and that the case of the simple & compound verb may be different, is a preliminary hypothesis: so that his allegations are not pertinent, if they were significative: my witnesses lay not that Analogy in any case is a good argument: and how any argument can be good in one case and not in another (caeteris paribus) I understand not.

His second exception runs thus.

Dr. W. He takes notice (for so he was told in the Catalogue of Errata) that page 19. l. 23. Horace is put for Pliny, (that you may see how quick sighted he is, to spi • a fault when it is shewed him) and that line 7. there is Plau. for Plin. (which had I discovered it in time, had been put amongst the Errata with the rest) which was the printer's mistake, &c. Then he observes, that these allegations are to be found in Robert Stephen's Thesaurus linguae Latinae: that is, some of them, (or else 'twere a wonder) but I hope he will not undertake so all. If he finde those of page 20. 21. (and those are a competent number) in Robert Stephen, he hath good luck. And 'tis more then I know if all the rest be there. But he supposeth that I consulted with Stephen. It is very like so, if I had had him at hand, (hee'd have thought me a fool if I had not) and did not he consult with him also for cum, and tanquam, (yes and with Charles Stephen too) and with Henry Stephen for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nay he dares affirm, he sayes, that I have not read in this point any, but only consulted with him. He's a valiant man, you see. He dares affirm, what I durst not, who have best reason to know. Perhaps he means, I did not read over all those Authors to make that collection. (No truly: I would not have him think I was such a fool.) Or that for what places I sound in Stephen, I did not consult the original authors. (For some, I did; for some I did not: for I did not think it worth the while, the controversie did not deserve it. Much less to examine all the C • iticks and Commentators upon them, as it seems Mr. Hobs would have had me • but what is all this to the purpose? I never took Robert Stephen to be a wee • er of the Latin tongue, as if all that he had gathered were but to be thrown away; or that a phrase were ever the worse for being found in him. We have so much of the flourish, that I am affraid we shall have little substance.

I answer, that in the Catalogue of Errata Plin. is substituted for Hor. But that I was any more told that, then that Plau. was put for Plin. I hope the reader will believe me: I neither read his thoughts, nor his table of Errata: I thought he could not commit any, who will not allow any in another: it was but a lesson of his own teaching, that I did then read him: it will require some grains of allowance, for him to verifie that ever I was shewed that catalogue: and if it were not shewed me, I am as quick-sighted as another, notwithstanding that I might have seen it, if I had looked in the latter end. But henceforth I shall look for Synod-man's Errata, and if I do not finde all at the end of their books, I will imagine they have some mental reserves, which they did intend to put in, but that they did not discover them timely enough. But have not I as good reason, to judge of him, as he of Mr. H • bs, that the printer did print it so, why? Because the Author had written it so. Thus much for that, where I must take his word, for his thoughts; as he must mine, for not having seen his Errata. As for his having plundered Stephen, I never saw such a justification in my life, as our Ambi s ••• ister Hortensius mak • s. I said he had borrowed h • s quotations in adduco, out of Robert Stephen: and for the rest, I had not time to compare them. He makes me to speak as if they were only found there: whereas I saw him transcribe them, he hopes I will not undertake for all: I never said I would; I told you I had compared only adduco▪ he saith I have good lu • k, if I finde those of p • g. 20. 21. (and those are a competent number) in Rob • rt Stephen. I am of the wi • ty-pos • s minde: for the quotations of those pages, are all out of Mr. Hebs him •• lf, and I may then hope to finde them in Stephen, when he fi • des the universal Church and it's Catholick ministers (distinct from those called by the people,) in Scripture. He saith, that I suppose he consulted with Stephen: It is no groundless supp • sal, both as to the quotations in this first, and second pamphlet: I SAW HIM: The sentence following is somewhat dubious, by reason of a parenthesiss 〈◊〉 in wrong: I think he sayes, It is very likely so (that he had consulted with him) if he had had him at hand. It is very probable the Doctor hath not one of his own, and that made him repa • r to the publick library to transcribe him. But doth not this carry an import as if he had never looked in him? It is a pretty piece of 〈◊〉 ! I pr •• ess I had never I • ked there, had he not reminded me thereof, and so I resolved to see the bottome of his dea •• ng, which now I see depends not upon converse with good books, but with 〈◊〉 , ordinary dictionaries and Grammers, as his div • nity 〈◊〉 no higher then the 〈◊〉 Catechisme. As for what follows, I never intended to put him to 〈◊〉 into the several authors on purpose for this controversie, but I hoped he would no • allege that place, of the import and se • se, whereof he was not asce • tained by au • cy • ▪ Some places he did examine, some he did not. It is an easie thing for to reply, that h •• had done well not to have alledged such places as he could not be certain they made for him, because he had not considered them i • their relation to foregoing or ensuing passages. He had also done well to have pitched upon those he was sure of, and for the credit of the rest have referred us to Stephen. But then the reputation of having read so many Authors, with such acc • rateness as not to understand them (which was all Mr. Hobs I suppose did require of him; whether he were beholden to a commentatour or his own invention for the intelligence, it mattered not) this had been Cost, and we had not known what a Brav • in Criticks two universities and the assembly of divines had produced. But he further excepts, that my exception is not to the purpose. If he mean that it doth not prejudice the allegations, I grant it: but my purpose then was to expose the Paracritick, and I believe he will not doubt that what I said did conduce to this purpose. He never took Stephen for a weeder of the Latin tongue. No indeed, not I neither; he gives a good account of words and phrases poetical, oratorical, historical, &c. so that the book is a good book, and of good use, when the reader doth not so far mistake as to seek for the defence of oratory amongst his Poeticks: so that I allow Stephen, as I would approve of the Physick garden, wherein there are simples applicable to several uses; but I look upon the Doctor as a Quack salver or Mounte bank in his defence.

And now I leave any body to compare what of flourish hath been produced, I come now to examine his little substance.

I shall herein desire that my preliminary positions be not forgotten: And that it may be remembred how in the conduct of the letter, I had two things in hand, one thing to consider the controversie as stated betwixt the two combatants, Mr. Hobs and Dr. Wallis: and another to consider it in it self, and according to the truth. You heard my judgement in the preliminaries; to excuse Mr. Hobs I cited Loosae •• s and Cro • ius, (I might have cited others, but that I thought them the most fit counterpose to the Doctor) who say as much as he: and if that they be impertinent, you see Mr. Hobs hath company: though for my part I doubt not but that they intended to restrain adduco to persons, and affero to things: Neither would they have been put off by the opposition he makes: no more then Laurentius Valla, whose elegancies have still a great esteem, though Mancinellus hath endeavoured to disgrace them by better quotations then our Doctor brings: against all which it is a sufficient defence, that Valla did make only Quintilian (for he he made Tully truckle under him) for his rule, and by that rule he did condemn those barbarismes, which others had made use of. But I shall tell you more! Amongst those Authors that say duco is used of animals, and affero of inanimates, there is one Henry Stephen (my name • sake) in his Thes. Gr. L. having observed how 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was used of inanimates 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. concludes, at LATINI dona aut vestes aut au • um Adducere NON dicerent, sed adferre, aut advehere. But he is a School-Author, and there I read him all over, but Loosaeus at the 〈◊〉 He saith they both are two School-books: It may be so, but I do not know what Schools in England use them. That they are in request in the Iesui • s-Schools, that Iacobus • ontanus and others have commended them, I know: But is it an exception against Loosaeus and Crocius, that they are School-books? And shall it not be against Lilly? Are Stephen, Calepine, Tho • asius, Rider, I • nius Nomen • lator, the less School-books, because they are in a bigger •• lume? Or are not those books that are taught in Schools, the best? I thought so; but it may be the Doctor hath been educated otherwise. He charges me over and over •• in for reading Animals instead of bodies animate: and then substituting as equivalent to both, that of persons. To the first I answer, that if it be a slip, it was occasioned through hast: and not voluntary, with an intention of stating the question otherwise: Again, the discourse being concerning language, which hath had alwayes it's rise from • ulgar conceptions, I am not to be blamed for using their thoughts, who were to justifie • e in the use of the word: Now I doubt not but that the most of men understand Ani • als and bodies • animate as Synonyma: and what they are in my philosophy, I shall tell him when he tells us his opinion of rare-faction, or of those in whose power it shall be to call those vice-pastores, vice-domini, vicars of Christ which he speaks of in his thesis. As for my substituting of persons instead of both, I think I do not do it, but do truly cite Loosaeus. I suppose that the dispute is not to be ended in Metaphysicks; I take persona in this vulgar sense, id est persona, quantum ad ipsam actionem, quod in se habet quod possit agere, vel non agere. And so there will not be any great difference: whether you call them bodies animate, animals, or persons. In the place, Loosaeus doth not say, that Analogy is a good argument, which the Doctor said he did. His example is of adduce, and what he infers, sa • is igitur admonet discriminis inter ducere, Reducere, adducere, abducere, quae de persona; et Ferre, Adferre, &c. quae de re dicuntur. Are as full proofe as was required for Mr. Hobs, and as much as needed to be inferred: and I was not to maintain my own opinion there, as is expresly said in the Letter: which if it did not reach the controversie as now stated, yet it was full proofe as to what was intended. And for my judgement it stands irrefragably ballanced upon those preliminary suppositions. But the Doctor saith how he doth argue by way of Analogy from one particular compound (which is adduco) to the rest: but he doth not say, that the arguing is good, as my preliminaries evince it not to be: and therefore the Doctor was out, in arguing from the fact to the equitableness or validity of the thing. I am not to defend him, I did not alledge him to that purpose: and the Doctors Hortensian discourse about adsere, is nothing to the matter, but that he would be silent. I say my observation reaches no further then that adduco is used of persons, or of things considered as persons; and affero of things, and even of persons if they be not considered 〈◊〉 such: thus lecti •• ferri, adferri, referri, is sometimes good of men: but then, they are not considered as any way contributing to their local transportation. And thus may be solved all the Doctors allegations out of Tully, and Loosaeus be never concerned in it; who meant I doubt not the same that I do now say: of figurative motions I give no rule, but regulate my self by use. Loosaeus, Crocius, &c. will be no more moved at his quotations of Virgil, (for horses and such animals are considered as persons) then I, unless it had been to laughter. And that Epiphonema of his, Now would any think that Virgils elegant expression should suffer so contumelious an expurgation, hath little of weight in it, for the question is about elegance, and he doth but beg the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which in citing Tully I do no • . What validity the citations of Poets have, I have already discussed, and more may be collected out of the passages of Scaliger and Dole • : and that Broom sweeps clean, if the other do not. And thus I have done with that tedious discourse about Loosaeus, and have given a just account of every thing relating thereto, (as I think) yet amongst such an hotch-potch of talk, something may have passed not as unanswerable, but as unanswered. It is false that I oblige to the Pedantry of proving each phrase to a syllable; how far I require the testimony of old authors, I have so far explicated as is necessary. He saith some that are no fools take a greater latitude, and would rather forfeit that title of Ciceronianus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (tis Erasmus his Echo; who you see could jumble languages to make a clinch) then be so confined. He doth not tell us that in so doing they did wisely: and therefore notwithstanding this; other that are no fools, may have committed folly. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 would as well Echo to Presbyterianus, Walli • ianus, Puteanus, Salernitanus, as Ciceronianus. And for the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 clinch in the Echo it is more excusable, then otherwise, 〈◊〉 the Doctor useth it: and Ianus Deusa hath pestered us with a poem operosè nug • x, 〈◊〉 the same quality: it is well that all mens actions are not examples. But to proceed that adduco to bring, in reference to local physical transportation, it is to be used of men I deny: but in reference to a moral transportation it may. That adduco to bend, o • how, (wherein there is not a local transportation of the whole) may be used of any thing capable of such a motion, I do grant. Thus adducere ramum may be good: adducere cortin • m, adducere ostium, adducere nervum: all pass. And so doth the Doctors piece of Latin, ad incudem adducendo m •• lleum, (et abducendo, is without example) ite • umque reducendo, cum labore operoso et molesto admodum, & iteratis ictibus, si muscam fo • te feriant, occident proculdubio. Thus you see I can allow him adducere ramos, to bend, but not to bring boughes, nor yet trees: It is a pretty allegation out of Ovid, Metam. l. 8. near the end. —adductáque funibus arbor. Which doth not at all satisfie me as to a tree, and I wonder how he could ever hope it. The case is this: Erisichthon had been long in hewing down an old oake, which being now ready to fall, he tyed ropes to the top of it, and so pulled it down. Persequitur scelus ille suum, labefactáque tandem Ictibus innumeris, adductáque funibus arb • r Corruit, et multam prostravit pondere sylvam. This doth not convince me for a local transportation at all: And now I have done with his proofes of Adduco, which are all impertinently pertinent: The other proofes are taken off by my preliminaries, and were so by the letter before, but the Doctor would not see that: yet that it may be observable how secure the Doctor is in his quotations; I desire not only that adductáque funibus arbor, be taken notice of; but also Atque satas aliò vidi traducere messes. Virg. Eclog. 8.

This allegation occurs no less then twice, and then the second time it hath this annotation, i. e. transferre. But these are plants only, not trees! I know not where to hope that the Doctor hath weighed his citations, if not here: yet I cannot think he understood it, for it signifies no more here then doth Ducite ab urbe domum mea carmina, ducite Daphnim.

The antients did imagine corn might be conveyed by Magick out of one field into another: a case whereof we have in Plin. l. 18. c. 6. and in the twelve tables the Law was, Nè pelliciunto alienas segetes excantando: Pellicere and excantare being the Pontifical words, (which make it clear that the messes were considered personally,) how can any one wonder if Virgil made use of traducere, to express the same act? Seeing he doth very frequently either retain or allude to those vocabula artis: as in porricere exta, oss •• gere, &c. Another place out of Tully near the end of his oration for Quinctius, is; Quod ibidem recte custodire poterunt, id ibidem e • stodiant: quod non poterunt, id A • ferre et Abducere licebit. These words though twice inculcated by the Doctor are not Tullies, but the Praetor's, whose edicts are of no more validity for Latin, then our own law-discourses are for English. The case, again, is this: by this edict all the goods, chattels, &c. were consigned over to Quinctiu's adversary, together with the rest of his estate: with this proviso, that what they could not keep safe upon the place, that they might carry away: from whence if any will argue that adduco is used of things, it is as gross a paralogisme, as if because the Greeks did express the depopulation and despoiling of a countrey by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the Latins by agere & ferre: therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was used of pots and pipkins, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of cattel.

But I have now done with this point, there being no disagreement betwixt us as to the using of the hammer, but fetching it: Adduco when it signifies to fetch, or bring signifies it in a Moral sense, and so is appropriated to persons, or things considered personally; and therefore the Doctor was out (notwithstanding his question whether an hammer be a person? Where the sense is different,) when he used Adduci • milleum for to bring by a local transportation an hammer. As for the signification of duc • , which he sayes Mr. Hobs and I were ignorant of; and with a rela • ion and proofe whereof he troubles us for some pages: I would have him know I was not ignorant of it, but declined it as impertinent, since I did not regulate my • atin by reason, but custome: and had long since concluded with Tully, usum l • quendi populo relinquere, scienti • m mihi reservare. I knew of the promiscuous use of words, and how the significations of words were altered and changed in popular discourses, it is no wonder then if we did not miss of what we should have blushed to object. I wish him more discretion in his choice and use of Authors hereafter: and not to bring nullities.

I observe that he doth several times correct Stephen in this piece, and in this discourse; yet I noted above, that he seemed to disown him (if I had had him) the truth is Robert Stephen doth often erre in his citation of Authors, and sometimes in the thing it self that is cited. And in this case I cannot think of the Doctor but I remember what Fran • is • us Floridus Sabinus relates of D • letu • , that having stolen his commentaries de lingu • Latinâ out of Robert Stephen and others, he braved it as if they h • d been his own collections: but in the controversie betwixt him and Bayfius (or Charles Stephen) he defends his mistake in Remul • us, thus: At Robertus Stephanus antea • rat reprehendendus, qui in dictionario sus Remulum pro Scaphâ posuerat. Recte quidem, (sayes Floridus) sed tu quum ad ejusmodi defensionem cenfugis, et te furti alligas, (ut est res) et cum Roberte Stephan • e • rare pulcherrimum putas. And afterwards he shows how Doletus had followed Stephen in his miscit • tion of Pliny for Vlpian. Hircius for Cesar. &c.

And now let the Reader judge of that clause wherewith the Doctor shuts up his whole discourse concerning adduco.

The reader may hereby easily discern, how little these scriblers do understand either of the agreement or difference of fero and duco, or the true Emphasis of either.

I hope we know that duco and fero were not written with the same letters; and as for the true Emphasis, (not that which was in use formerly) it is to be sought for in Tully, and Cesar, in which who are the better versed, or who hath approved himself the scribler, let the reader judge.

§ 6.

AFter so long a discourse concerning nothing, and so much Latin, to little purpose, we come to Greek, wherein the Doctor hath gained this repute that having outdone all others that pretend to Criticismes in Latin, he hath in his Greek gone beyond himself: So of that all the Criticks known in Lumber-story none hath surpassed Doctor Wallis for Latin, except Doctor Wallis in Greek. The Epistoler having done Doctor Wallis no wrong, I shall abbreviate the controversie, by falling immediately upon the text of the Letter, which runs thus.

LL. I am now come to the main controversie about Empusa: the Doctor saith nothing in defense of h • s qui • ble, nor gives any reason why he jumbled languages to make a silly clinch, which will not pass for wit either at Oxford, or at Cambridge, no, no • at Westminster.

It seems he had derived Empusa from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . and said it was a kinde of Hobgobling that h • pped upon one leg: and hence it was that the boy's play (fox come out of thy hole) now adayes in use, came to be called Empusa. I suppose he means Ludus Empusa. This derivation he would have to be good, and that we may know his reading (though he hath scarce consulted any of the Authors) he saith Mr. Hobs did laugh at it, until some body told him it was in the Scholiast of Aristophanes, (as good a Critick as Mr. Hobs) Eustathius, Erasinus, Caelius Rhodiginus, Stephanus, Scapula and Calepine. But sure he doth not think to scape so. To begin with the last, Calepine doth indeed say, uno incedit pede, unde et nomen. But he is Modern, and I do not see why his Authority should out-weigh mine, if his Authors reasons do not. He re • ers to Erasu us and Rh • diginus. Erasi • us in the adage Proteo mutabilior, hath these word of Empusa. Narrant autem uno videri pede, (this is not to hop) unde et nomen inditum putant, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He doth not testifie his approbation of the derivat on at all, only lets you know what conject • ral Etymologies (unde nomen inditum putant) some have given before him. And doth any body think that Doctor Harmar was the first which began to shew his wit (or solly) in Etymologizing words? Caelius Rhodiginus doth not own the derivation, only saith, Nominis ratio est, ut placet Eustathio, quia uno incedit pede; (is this to hop?) Sed nec desunt qui alterum interpreten • ur habere aeneum pedem, & inde appellatam Empusam: quod in Batrachis Aristophanes expressit. And then he recites the interpretation that • ristophanes's Scholiast doth give upon the text, of which by and by. If any credit be to be attributed to this allegation, his last thoughts are opposite to Dr. Wallis; and Empusa must be so called, not because she h • pped upon one leg, but because she had but one, the other being br • ss. But for the former derivation he refers to Eustathius.

As to Eustathius, I do easily conjecture that the reader doth believe, that the Dr. (for Rhodiginus was an understanding and well-read man) doth mean Eustathius upon Homer, for that is the book of most repute, his other pieces being no way considerable either for bulk or esteem. But it is not that book, nor yet his History of Ismenias, but his notes upon the 725. verse of Dionysius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Poet had said of the stone I • spis, that it was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

Upon which Eustathius thus remarks: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (forte 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Steph.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . This testimony doth not prove any thing of hopping, and as to the derivation, I cannot but say that Eustathius had too much of the Grammarian in him, and this is not the first time, neither in this book, nor elsewhere, wherein he hath trifled. It is observable out of the place that there were more Empusa's then one, as indeed the name is applyed by several men to any kinde of frightful phantasme, and so it is used by several Authors; and for so much as phantasmes are various, according as the persons affrighted have been severally educated, &c. every man did impose this name upon his own apprehensions; and so Empusa came to be so diversified in the phantasies of men, as they were fearful of different apparitions, for who will believe that she was not apprehended as having four legs when she appeared in the form of a Cow, dog, &c. in which shapes she was at that time phansied by Bacchus and his man, as well as that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ? I do not finde that she appeared in any shape but such as made use of legs in going, whence I imagine that Empusa might be opposite to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which appellation was antiently fixed upon the Gods (propitious) upon a twofold account. First, for that they were usually affigiated as having no feet: which leads me on to a discourse, which however digressive, is neither impertinent now, nor will be otherwise disuseful.

The antients, being sensible how the deity was not to be comprehended, and so not to be effigiated; and yet withall finding how prone men were to entertain themselves with corporeal thoughts of God, they did at first erect not statues to him, but Symbolical Columns, which might have that use as to reminde them that there was a God, and yet take them off from those low apprehensions of h • s A • thropomorphisme, or other such like sh • pe. And hence the Herma had their original. Materia illis lign • a, v • l 〈◊〉 : f • rma ta • is, faciem Mercurii praefer • bant, desin • bant non in pedes, sed epis • ytium 〈…〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Vnde et Pa • sen • as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Thus Dr. 〈◊〉 in his excellent notes upon Longinu • . They raised their Hermae in form of a square pillar, pilae quadratae, cui caput imp • nebant: quo niminum 〈◊〉 • mnes emnem human arum firmitatem, quam quadrqngulas figura not • t. à capite cert • pendere. These heads were of various and different forms, according to the different intent of the designer. Cùm enim perfectam dei 〈…〉 . Hinostatus Veneris in hortis, 〈◊〉 , in 〈…〉 Venerem Uraniam, 〈…〉 convenientibus ad 〈…〉 This is the observation of G • r • pius 〈◊〉 : and may be illust • ted from those passages (amongst others) out of 〈◊〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Messen • and in his description of Megalopolis, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Such were the statues of Pallas E • gane, Hercules, Lucina, &c. as any body may inform himself out of 〈◊〉 his Arcadica. Clement Alexan frinus in h • s Paraenesis adgent. saith that the antients had no statue-Gods, but the Scythians did worship their Acina ••• , and the Persians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The same writer saith in his 〈◊〉 l. 2. That the Israelites were lead by a pillar of fire, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And that Thras • bulus when he went to restore the exiles had a pillar of fire that did conduct him thorough waves [otherwise] impassable▪ in a dark winters night, and disappeared there where • ood the altar 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whence he infers 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Upon which Hervetus doth thus co • ment. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 apud Graecos pro Statu • et pro column • dici • ur Genes. 1. 19. uxor Lothi dicitur versa in statuam salis, ita enim habet nostra [ • ulgaris] versio; sed Septuaginta ve • terunt, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Quod iter nostra habet, lapis iste quem erexi in titulum, vocabitur domus dei. Genes. c. 28. in Gra •• apud 70. est, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. id est, lapis quem erexi in statuam, &c. est autem utrobique idem v • cabulum, & in Hebraeo, et in Graeco: illic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Latinè titulus, id quod in alicujus honorem erigitur. And then concludes, Lapis ergò qui erige • atur in dei honorem, et quo significabatur Deus, et Latinè erat titulus, et Graecè 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , et Latinà Columna. But to return to what I was speaking of at first. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was not the name of a particular deity at first, but of such a compages, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which represented God symbolically, according to this or that attribute with accessional distinctions and diversifications: all were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but tho Greeks in process of time added the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which were not used (that I know) by the Aegyptians, from whom these kinde of statutes had their original: I shall not go about to prove that they gave the same shame of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to them: yet they had their Hermes Trismegistus, which was such a column (with several inscriptions of note: which was usual in old time; neither did they only serve to acquaint people with the way, but to instruct them in morality, and actions of dayly concernment, and also in natural philosophy) the ignorance whereof hath begot several discourses concerning the life and books of that imaginary Trismegistus, who should give rise to the Hertnetick philosophy. Of the same nature were the Roman Gods until the time of Tarquinius superbus: such was their Terminus, Ianus, Vertumnus: (which whether they were several I shall not dispute now:) and though Ianus had two faces, (and sometimes four, as at Falisci) yet it was but one Column. Delubra sic dicta, qued ligna essent delibrata, id est decorticata, more veterum in simulacris deorum: some such thing is either expresly delivered, or hinted by Asconius Padianus in Verrina.

Secondly they were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for that they did not walk, but rather swim, if I may so express that non gradiuntur, sed fluunt; which is the assertion of all the commentatours I have ever seen upon that verse of Virgil,

Et vera incessu patuit dea.—

This whole discourse may be much illustrated from a passage in Heliodor. Aethiop. l. 3. Sect. 12, 13. Calasiris told C •• non that the Gods Apollo and Diana did appear unto him, 〈◊〉 replyed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; upon this the old priest answered, that both Gods and Demons, when they appear to men may be discovered by the curious observer, both in that they never shut their eyes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Fa • naby upon the place in Virgil observes that Deo • um incessus est contin •• s et aequalis, non dim • tis pedibus, neque transpositis, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Cornelius S •• revelius in the new Leyden notes, saith, Antiquissim • quaeque 〈◊〉 sim • la • hra, quod observant viri magni, erant 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , • iique ipsi non gradiuntur, sed fluunt. How their most antient statues were ef •• giated, hath been above explained at large: those that were afterwards erected became more polished, being not only faced, but so carved as to represent the upper parts of a man compleat, (if they were made after that way) but without hands; their nether parts were not divided into legs, but one continued piece, lessening continu • lly, 〈◊〉 it came to the base, which carried a little of the representation of a foot in some; in others, not at all. Thus I have seen 〈◊〉 represented, and Orus in antient sculpture; and others are said to have been expressed in the same shape. The Gyants contrarywise were represented with the nether parts as of a serpents tail wound up in circles; whence they were called angripetes: The symbolical meaning of the one and other being, that the Gods did what they pleased directly, and by way of absolute power, but the wicked by crooked and indirect means. To this way of picturing the Gods, did that heathen Emperour allude, who meeting with a man impotent and bed-rid, cut off his feet by the ankles, and pared off the flesh on the inside of his legs, saying, that since he was not able to walk like a man, be would make him stand like a God. Yet after that they came to be represented in the • ull shape of creatures.

These things being prem • sed, I suppose it easie for the intelligent Reader to finde out the true Etymology of Emp • sa, quasi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , from going on her feet, whereas the other Gods and Demons had a different gate. If any can dislike this deduction, and think her so named from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , whereas she alwayes went upon two legs (if her shape permitted it) though she might draw the other after her, as a man doth a wooden leg: I say if any, notwithstanding what hath been said, can joyn issue with the Doctor, my reply shall be, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Now as to the words of Aristophanes upon which the Scholiast descants, they are these: speaking of an Appartion strangely shaped, sometimes like a Camel, sometimes like an 〈◊〉 , a beautiful woman, a d • g, &c. Bacchus tells his man, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Scholiast hereupon tells us that Empusa was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And this is all that is material in the Scholiast, except that he adds by the by, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is all one with the leg of an Asse.

This text and Scholiast is that to which all the Authors he names, and more, do refer; and is all the ground can be alledged for that derivation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quasi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

I come now to Stephen, who in his Index, and in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , gives us the derivation of 〈◊〉 . 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 gradior, incedo, (not to 〈◊〉 ) sic Suid • 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dictam 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , quod uno incedat pede, quas • 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , alterum enim pedem 〈◊〉 nabet. But neither Stephen, not any else (except Sui ••• whom the Hypercritical Doctor had not seen, who hath a multitude of abs • rd deductions, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a can • le, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. and Eustathius, whose authority is alleviated before) no not the Scholiast of Aristophanes (that better Critick then Mr. Hobs!) doth relate the Etymology as their own. Nay, there is not one saith that Emp • sa HOPPED upon one leg, which is to be proved out of them. The great Etymological dictionary deriveth it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to hinder, let, &c. Its apparition being a token of ill luck. But as to the Doctors deduction, it saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . It doth only se • m so: And it is strange that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should not alter only its aspiration, but change its 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which I can hardly believe admittable in Greek, lest there should be no difference betwixt its Derivatives and those of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the proposition.

When I consider the Gods, their Herm • , in Greece, how they stand in the streets at every turning, being only capitati obelisci, how they were placed in their highways, fields, &c. I can think that the origin of this name may have been thus. Some fearful person going out in the dark, phantafied to himself an Apparition, which his companion might tell him was nothing but one of the several Herm • , that stood upon every turn; against this the other might reply, that they were nothing but squared Columns with head • set upon them, but this new phari • sme 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , this is none of those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , those trunci Hermae, this hath feet. Or it may have had its name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , sive 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because that after they had attributed compleat shapes, and feet to their Gods, yet they did not then suppose them to go accordingly as w • go, moving first one foot, and then another. This is the observation of Dionys. Petavius in his notes upon the second oration of Iulian. Apost. referring to that verse in Homer, speaking of Neptune, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Crediderunt veteres Deos non 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , ac promovendo pedes ingredi, sed continuo velut impetu fluere. But they did imagin then to move 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; and therefore our Night-walker being surprized with an unexpected phantasme, cries out in a different expression from that of Aeneas in Virgil, incessu patuit Cacodamon: it goeth upon feet after the usual manner, and so is no good, propitious Apollo, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but ill-aboding 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for which apprehension of his some body might fitly coyn this name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . It may also possibly have been deduced from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , so that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be reduced in time to the single term of Empusa. Nor do I much doubt, but that those who are conversant in languages, and know how that several expressions are often jumbled together to make up one word upon such like cases, will think this a very probable origination. I believe then that Mr. Hob's friend did never tell him that that absurd derivation was to be found in the Authors alledged by the Doctor. But that the Doctor took this occasion to let us know how many books there are to which he pretends, but will not certainly profess that he hath read or looked upon in this case. Empusa was no hopping phantasme; it had two legs and went upon both, as a man may upon a wooden leg. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was also a name for La •• e, and such was that which Ma • ippus should have married, which I suppose did neither hop, nor go upon one leg, for then he might easily have discovered it. Philost. l. 4. de • it. Apollon. Vx •• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a • e Synonyma, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seems to me not a partiti •• of species but individuals.

But Mr. Hobs did not except against the derivation (although he might justly; derivations made after the imposition of names carry more of phansie then truth; and the Doctor is not excused for asserting what others barely rel • te, none approve.) But asked him where, that is, in what Authors, he read that Boy's play to be so called? To which question the Doctor (to shew his reading, and the good Authors he is conversant in) replies, In Iunius's Nomenclator, Rider, and Thomas's Dictionaries, sufficient Authors in such a business. It is to be remembred that the tryal now is in Westminster School, and amongst Ciceronians, neither whereof will allow those to be sufficient Authors of any Latin word. Alas! They are but vo • abularies: and if they bring no Author for their allegation, all that may be allowed them is, that by way of allusion our modern play may be called Ludus Empusae: but that it is so called, we must expect till some Author do give it that name. These are so good Authors, that I have not either of them in my library; but I have taken the pains to seek out and consult, first Rider; I looked in him, who was only Author of the English dictionary, and I could finde no such thing. 'Tis true, in the Latin dictionary which is joyned with Rider, but made by Holyoke; (O that the Doctor would but mark!) In the appendix of obsolete words, there is Empusae ludus, vid. Ascoliasmus: and there I finde Ascoliasmus, Ludus Empusae, fox to thy hole. The same is in Thomasius, who refers to Iunius in like manner. But could the Doctor think the word obsolete, when the play is still in fashion? Or doth he think this play so antient, as to have had a name that thorough length of time should grow obsolete? As for Iunius's interpretation of Empusa, it is this, Empusa, spectrum quod se infalicibus ingerit, uno pede ingrediens. Had the Doctor ever read him, he would have quoted him for his derivation of Empusa, I suppose. In Ascholiasmus he saith, Ascoliasmus, Ludus Empusae, fit ubi altero pede in aero librato, unico subsiliunt, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Pollux. Almanicè, Hinctelen. Belgicè, Op cen been springhen. Hinctepincten Flandris. But what it is in English, he doth not tell, although he doth in other places often. What the Doctor can pick out of the Dutch I know not: but if that do not justifie him, as I think it doth not, he hath wronged Iunius, and grosly imposed upon his Readers.

But to clear up this controversie further, I cannot be perswaded the Doctor ever looked upon Iunius, for if he had, I am confident according to his wonted accurateness, he would have cited Pollux's onomasticon into the bargain, for Iunius refers to him, and I shall set down his words, that so the reader may see what Ascoliasmus was, and all the Doctors Authors say Ludus Empusae and Ascoliasmus were one and the same thing. Iul Pollux lib. 9. c. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (old editions read it as doth Iunius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So that Ascoliasmus, and consequently their Ludus Empusae, was a certain sport which consisted in hopping, whether it were by striving who could hop furthest, or whether only one did pursue the rest hopping, and they fled before him on both legs, which game he was to continue till he had caught one of his fellows; or whether it did consist in the boyes striving who could hop longest; or lastly whether it did consist in hopping upon a certain bladder, which being blown up and well oyled over, was placed upon the ground for them to hop upon, that so the unctuous bladder might slip from under them, and give them a fall. And this is all that Pollux holds forth. Now of all these wayes there is none that hath any thing of resemblance with our Fex to thy hole; but the second: and yet in its description of his issuing out of a certain kennel, nor of his having a glove tied at the end of a string wherewith to reach the play fellows, nor of their being accommodated with the like habiliments, &c. wherein the play consists as well as in hopping. Any of them notwithstanding might be called Ludus Empusae, but not in any sort fox to thy hole. So that the Doctor and his Authors are out; imposing that upon Iunius, (and Pollux) which he never said. And thus much may suffice as to this point: I shall only adde out of M • urfius's Ludi Graeci, that Ascolia were (not Ludus Empusae, but) Bacchi Sacra, and he quotes Aristophanes's Scholiasts in Pluto. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . As also Hesychius; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

But I could have told the Doctor where he might have read of Empusa as being the name of a certain sport or game, and that is, in Turnebus adv. lib. 27. c. 33. There he speaks of several games mentioned by Iastinian in his Code, at the latter end of the third book; one of which he takes to be named Empusa. Adding withal, that the other are games it is indisputable: only Empusa in lite et caus • erit, quod nemo nobis facil • assensurus sit Ludum esse, cùm constet spectrum quoddam fuisse formas variè mutans. Sed quid vetat eo nomine Ludum fuisse? Ce • tè ad vestigia vitiatae scripturae quàm proximè accedit. Yet he only is satisfied in this conjecture, till some body else shall produce a better. And now what shall I say? Was not Turnebus as good a Critick and of as great reading as Doctor Wallis? Who had read over Pollux, and yet is afraid that no body will believe Empusa to have been a game; and all he alledgeth for it is Quid vetat? Truly all I shall say, and to conclude this business, is, that he had read over an infinity of books, yet had not had the happiness which our Doctor had, to consult with Iunius's Nomenclator, Thomasius and Rider's dictionary, Authors sufficient in such a case.

Thus I have put my self to the pains of transcribing the whole text of the letter, that so the question as stated by me, and impugned by him, might be more fully represented to the readers eye. I have altered some things in it, besides the digressive addition, which my haste caused me either to quit, or express otherwise then I should have done upon meditation: they are such passages to which the Doctor hath excepted nothing; I come now to examine what he hath said against my discourse. It is confessed on both sides that there were more Empusa's then one: that the name 〈◊〉 applyed by several men to any kinde of frightful phantasme; every man (according as they had been severally educated imposing this name upon his own apprehensions. That the word Hobgoblin is of the like use and extent, I do not know; I have not read in the Chronicles of King Oberon, no the annals of Fairy Knights, that ever our Hob-goblins did hop on one leg, or had the one foot of an Asse, the other of brass. And therefore my assertion must he contradictory to the Doctors (who having made up some general concessions of mine, in • ers) And therefore by ALL signs and tokens, Empusa was an Hob-goblin. I say not by All signs, for ought that I know, or the Doctor informs us. As for the Clinch it is not for me to determin what was in the Doctors intentions: he that considers the Doctors humour, and way of writing, will think it probable he intended one: you heard how he defended it by the example of Erasmus: take the whole passage as it is in the Elenchus, and judge as you please of it.

Erat Empusa—pedibus altero aeneo, altero asinino, sed utut (uti videtur) duos pede • habuerit, non tamen nisi uno incedebat, ut aliunde si opus sit discas (unde LIQVET ex eorum lemurum numero fuisse quas nos Anglicè dicimus Hob-goblins) nempe ab 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 et 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 factum est nomen illud: unde et puerorum ludus ille, Empusae ludus dictus (Anglicè Foxe, foxe, come out of your hole, hoc est, heus vulpes de foveâ prodi) 〈◊〉 sortitur, 〈◊〉 paer ille qui vulpes audit, altero suspenso pede, altero sulsult ••• iu •• dit, (quod est Auglic • to hop) à reliquis flagellandus s • ut • oqu • terram tetigerit.

Mr. Hobs in his lessons could not but take notice of this passage, and reflect upon it to this purpose. When a stranger shall read this, and hoping to finde therein some witty conceit, shall with much ado have gotten it interpreted and explained to him, what will he think of our Doctors of Divinity at Oxford, that will take so much pains, as to go out of the language they set forth in, for so ridiculous a purpose? You will say it is a pretty Paronom • sia. How you call it there I know not, but it is commonly called here a Clinch; and such a one, as is to insipid for a boy of twelve years old, and very unfit for the sanctity of a Minister, and the gravity of a Doctor of Divinity.

Because I have to do with a Divine, I shall branch out the Doctors text into these following propositions: First, then Empusa had two feet. Secondly, though she had two 〈…〉 nisi uno incedebat, that is, she bepped upon one: for he wonders in his last reply how the Epistoler can understand it otherwise then of hopping: and that it comes from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Thirdly, Inde liquet, it is therefore (viz. because she hopped) clear that El •• sa was such a spectre as we in English call an Hob-goblin. Fifthly, that by Analogy to this hopping El •• , the boys play of fox to thy hole hath its name of Ludus Empusa. His last reply furnisheth me with some other additional observations. As that, of any affinity betwixt Hob-goblin and Mr. Hobs, he spake not a word: and therefore is not responsible for any jest, or clinch. Very good! Doth any man that maketh clinches, write in the margin, this is a clinch: I allude to this, or that? Doth he not suppose his reader so intelligent as to know the other name, (viz. Hobs) upon which ariseth a jingle? If it be not certain, it is very suspicious that he intended that way; for otherwise I do not see how pertinent that discourse is to the matter, if it be not a reflexion of the person against whom he writ. Another thing is, that he doth nor say that Hobs, or Hob goblin came from Hop.) This is such another equiv • cation as the former. He doth not say it! But it seems to be implyed. Yet who said he did? Who charged him with being out in his English deduction? Not Mr. Hobs! Not the Epistoler! They quarrelled with him for making Empusa to come from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not for deriving Hob-goblin from hop. But this would give occasion for a digression that might seem extraordinary to the vulgar; and instruct the Richardsons, Dicksons, &c. with a new answer to that old 〈◊〉 , Who gave you that name? The whole is a pretty impertinency: I am not so far his adversary as to deny him commendations where he does well. This hath something of ordinary reading in it, (if he had penned nothing but this and his English Grammar, I should have reserved a civil esteem for him, as to the study of our native language, how mean thoughts soever I might have had of his Latin and Greek) It is an account of what Minshew told us long agoe, with an inconsiderable addition out of Vers • egan. He (Minshew) told us, that Hob-goblin was quasi Rob-goblin, &c. and that Goblin in English was G. Gobelin: which our linguist explained (to shew how good he is at dec • phering characters, especially having the key in Minshew, that G. stood for Gallicè) Gobelin is a French word, used in the same sense (I suppose: for Minshew doth not speak clear!) with them, that Hob-goblin is with us, for any frightful phantasme. His illustrations are obvious; and the case had been more clear, if he had only said that Rob hath been used for Robert, and likewise Ob and Hob (the which are now used in the North) wherein the change is no greater then is that of H • dge for Roger. I mean as to sound. So in the Latin tongue he who is called by Tully Rab •• ius, is by Priscian called Habonius, where he cites the same passage out of the Verrin • , as Gra • er observes. He might have said, much more for the instruction of h • s edversary in his right name: and that name-sake of his Hob-goblin. He might have shewed how Gob hath been used for God, and then the diminutive Goblin or Gobling, had been as easily found out as Goslin, or Gosling, &c. He might have shewed that it hath been used to affright children therewith, as if it would devoure them, to goble and to eat hastily, being all one. Or he might have made it Greek as well as French, and deduced it from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that wanton Devil, for such sometimes is the merry Hob; or from Ops, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the goddess of the woods, Diana. Thomasius (his all-sufficient Author!) thinks it came from the Guibellines. But it may be it had become the late Scribe to the Sanbedrin, to have resolved the case by the Assemblies annotations; and derived the English from the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ob, which with them was the name of a Python, or Damon that spake with a shril voice out of sepulchres and subterraneous Cavernes. So Saal saith, 1 Sam. 28. 7. seek out a woman that hath an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ob. And there was a woman at Endor that had an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ob, or familiar spirit. So isa. 19. 3. They shall seek to them that have familiar spirits, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Obs; and a Kings 21. 6. Manasseb restored 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Obs, and wizzards. The Greek, as Selden and others cite it, hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . That is, he did neglect the true God, and would not attribute effects to him, that is, glorifie him in his actings, but ascribed them to Obs, and found out such persons as did not only attest from hearsay, but pretend a knowledge and familiarity with those Obs: this may be intimated in the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , though perhaps the Hebrew be not so significant. Yea, the Doctor might have argued out of Scripture, that it was not lawful to converse with Mr. Hobs, since Obs were prohibited of old: such reasonings are found in his thesis. There may also have been some allusion to that incessus deorum of which I spake afore: and our Country-men may have attributed to their Gods one gate, and to their Goblins another made up of going and hopping, which is to Hoble along, and thence might have come Hob-goblins, i. e. Hoble-goblins.

In the second place, the Doctor observes that though Empusa had many shapes, yes Mr. Hobs (viz. in that excellent Epistle to the Earl of Devon-shire prefixed to his natural philosophy) confines himself to one, which had indeed two legs, the one of brass, the other of an Asse, (as not only Mr. Hobs but Aristophanes informs us) Mr. Hobs had no reason to mention any more at the present, and I do not see why he should have been impertinent, to instruct the Doctor the better.

But the Doctor saith, Empusa went but upon one leg, as appears by the places (though I should have cited more:) from whence, as most agree, it took the name.

It is very considerable that the Doctor is never so far exhausted, but that there are more allegations (equally pertinent!) which he could have cited. So he told us in tanquam; so in adduco: though the same motives that made him blot his copy, so much as he did before it was printed, might have induced him to omit a number of passages which he suffered to remain. Again I would fain know, what those places are, from whence most agree, it took the name. I told him in the letter, that all depended upon that one place of Aristophanes. I would he had been so willing, as I presume he is able (for he knew of more) to inform me: for all the Authors he named refer to this one; but as I must condole the loss Philology received when the Doctor silenced his pen as to those additional quotations, (viz. out of Doctor Davis, Thomas, Iunius and Holyoke, from whence, that is, from the passages in whom Empusa took her name) so I fear the reader will question my candour, that will not trust the Doctor in those places which he had particularly consulted, and sound them to express or imply the same derivation. The first place he here insists on is at large set down in the letter: but that the Doctor may learn how it is not enough to consult a place, unless he understand it, I shall put my self and the reader to the trouble of a review— 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . I do not finde that the Doctor sees more in the text then I do; but his notes infer more. What? That she went upon one leg only, though she had two. I have wiped my eyes, and yet I cannot discover so much in the words: and what appears to him, appears not to me, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Who could construe this, she went upon one leg? She did but seem (so that the Doctors appear, must be favourably expounded,) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to stradle with the ene leg: it is such an expression, that if I were to character a person that went upon a wooden leg, I should not deliver my self in other words whereby to express his ga • e: for it is not possible, that he who hath • o use of his joynts so, as to bend his knee, should go otherwise then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the walking of one on stilts, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here to me imports intervallum. But this exposition of the verb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being new, and it may be no example of it (not only in this sense, but v • i • e) I account it a veni • l slip of the Doctors, whose videtur quod sic, is easily put off with a videtur quod non, and that not only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the description of Empusa in Aristophaces, but according to Eustathius: of his reading of whom I a little a doubt; for that hand which blamed me for misciting Columella, which was but a slip of the transcriber at London, (for I had compared the place) could not have pardoned the misallegation of the verse in Dio • ysius. But I had furnished the Doctor cut of Stephen with a different reading, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which though it be but a conjectural reading of Stephens, and not the text (nor received into the text) of Eustathius, whose minde is controverted, yet I shall give him leave to help himself therewith if he can. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to t • ead firm and sure with one foot: which she must do with her asse's foot, that other of brass being no more capable of sure footing, then a treen or wooden leg is; and any body will grant me that it is easier to throw such cripples down, then those that have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . I cannot raise up Stephen to ask his meaning, but the whole text suits excellently well with what I have said. Empusa did seem to tread firmly upon the one leg, (but limped, or halied, downright on the other) whence she had the name of Empusa, as if we should say • ne-leg, that is, having the one leg of an animal, the other being of brass, nempe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .Thus the Doctors words and mine do not differ, but our meanings vary, when they come to be explained in English; I do not think that Eustathius intended to say Empusa, id est, one-leg, was so called because she had two: I do not think that she laid her brass-leg over the left shoulder when she walked. I do take that to be the reason why she did 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because she was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and if the Geometry professour will not grant me this, I believe the natural philosopher will. The next place is that of the Scholiast of Aristophanes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . I would the Doctor had Englished this passage, I profess I do not finde the Doctors assertion couched in these words: It had been but fairly done, if after my excepting against this Scholiastical inference in the letter, he had informed me in his rejoynder, of somewhat more then I had expressed therein, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , what is the English of that? Some say, but what is that to the Scholiast of Aristophanes? Doth he say it? Doth he allow of it? He neither approvers, nor disallows, but relates it. If then his allegation amount to any proofe of what the Doctor sayes, he must lay down this maxime, whatsoever any man reports as from another man, (without the least interposition of his own judgement) that he allows of, and asserts. But so doth this Scholiast in the derivation of Empusa: Ergo. Doctor Wallis was scribe to the Assembly. But further I am of the minde that the Sholiast doth disallow it: for he doth not say that it is so, but that some say so, which is tantamount to a disallowa • ce thereof, at least to a doubting of the veritableness thereof. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and derive it quasi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , one leg, because it did once, whilome, so appear, as to have the one leg of an asle, and the other of brass, which is to have the use of one leg; as he whose nerve is cut, may have lost the use of an arm, yet not so totally, as not to be able to lean on it, or upon some occasions to benefit himself thereby. Thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , do not infer the total disuse of any servant, and H • ratius is said to have been troubled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which was but a debility in them, yet such as rendred him unserviceable in war, or active employments in peace. I could almost divine, that he (the Scholiast) seems to expose the Etymologists for their whimsies in derivations, that should offer to deduce Empusa from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , because she went once upon one leg, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whereas there are as many inducements for my Etymology, as there are shapes she appeared in, (which is fair odds against the Doctor) and one more which is the analogy with the antient statues of the Gods, and the solving of the Authors sense, which cannot be justified if the Doctors minde hold; for to what use should that other leg seem? It is further dubitable, whether that same brasen leg were continuous with the body of Empusa, or no? If not, then she had but one leg, and so was (when in that shape) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , yet went upon two, viz. the additional one of brass also. Now that it was, or could be continuous, is a question to be disputed in another place: there being natural philosophers that assert, that when a bough withers upon the tree, it ceaseth to be a part, and to be continuous therewith. But take it either way, it is but aequivocè membrum, and thefore t • ough I should grant that she were called Empusa from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , yet it would not follow that she went upon one only, or hopped. As for his additional of what he could have cited, I shall tell him of better; that is of Favorinus, who transcribed the Scholiast, and Hesychius: (besides Suides and Etymologus, whom I advised him of in the letter) Hesychius sayes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which makes as much for him as doth the Scholiast of Aristophanes, who bringing neither reason to confirm the others saying, nor avouching it himself, ought not to be any way entitled to the owning of it.

Then follows a digression about Riders dictionary: it was a matter of no great moment at first, but now I shall consider what our Divine sayes about it. I might have added another book, which I do not know how to call; should I call it Rider's dictionary? you would tell me Holyoke made part of it; should I call it Holyoke's, others would say Doctor Gray, if I mistake not, and some others with him, have added almost as much to Holyoke, as he had done to Rider, and digested the whole anew, and the book so digested is that I mean: whether what I cited out of it were in Holyoke's edition or not, I do not know, otherwise then that I am now told, it is in an appendix of obsolete words; the book that I intended to cite, hath it in the body of the dictionarium Etymologicum: yet I was loath to call it Dr. Grays dictionary, for fear it should not be understood what book I meant. I cited it then by the name of Rider, because the first title-page intitles the book to him, and the rest as an appendix.

He knows not how to call it! Why does not he? Is not the name prefixed HOLYOKES dictionary? Will he not allow it the benefit that other books have, to be called by the names they bear? Did any, at least did ever the vogue of the people ascribe that piece to Dr. Gray? Was it ever printed under his, or any other name? Because I censured you for calling it by a wrong name, should I therefore have quarrelled with you if you had named it aright? I did not charge you for citing Scapule, where the work was Stephens? I did not. I let Calepine pass, though his be all stollen, and hath received now as great an accessional, as ever Holyokes did. Doletus ex Marii Nizolii, Bartholomei Riccii, Roberti Stephani lucubrationibus, tam pulchros Latinae linguae commentarios, panè Ambrosio Calepino par, insulsissimè compilavit. Yet if he had cited the one, as he did the other, I should not have found fault with him. And so in the citing of any book I allow it what title the frontispice gives it: for then I know and so may others, know where to look, and not blunder as I did betwixt Rider and Holyoke: and at last I met with a different edition from what the Doctor used. Mine had the obsolete words by themselves, his had received them all into the body of the book, but with an Asterisme or obeliske, thus. • Empusa Ludus Iun. vide Ascoliasmus; and there it is Ascoliasmus Iun. Grec. Empusae ludus, fox to thy hole. What the meaning of that obeliske is I desire to shew out of Holyokes advice to the reader. Cuncta vocabula quo in probatis authoribus neutiquam sunt reperta, et à flexione Latinâ aliena, obelo in fronte notavi. Itidemque ea barbara quibus ob purorum defectum, necessitate coacti, utimur, eâdem noâ insignivi. You see what the Doctor hath gotten by pleading variety of editions; as also, how I let Thomas and Holyoke (though it to be confessed, that where they both agree, the latter did but transcribe the former) pass for two, without a censure, so that the Doctor needed not have been so fearful; but that he was sensible of his being out, yet would seem to say something. In the last edition: Rider is but an appendix to Holyoks, so saith the title page of A. Greeks edition: but the binders do often transpose the books, which gave occasion and opportunity to the Doctor to say the greater was added to the lesser, and that Holyoke should perfect Rider, and so make his own work an accessional only, whereas he assumed the other meerly to compleat his own.

Of his many Authorities he instances in on more, though he might have transcribed them out of my letter: only talks idlely.

But all these Authorities are nothing worth with this epistoler. Calepine is but modern, and therefore he sees not why Calepines authority should outweigh his own.

I am very sorry to hear the Doctor relinquish reason for bare Authority; I confess I do not know the validity of man above man further then he must derive from his reason: doth the Doctor think there is Magick in names, so as the most letters or syllables should prevail against the fewer? Or doth he ballance men in the scales, and so take them not for intrinsique value, but weight? If so, I believe he that shall weigh Dr. Wallis by the stone, will not give him that respect which his own opinitivity will assume. I know not why Authority should sway more in Philology, then Divinity: I cannot believe the whole Assembly of Divines, nay all the Divines in Europe can outsway by their authority my single exposition of Ephes. 4. 10. &c. or Mat. 28. 19. &c. I said only this of Galepine. that I did not set why his Authority should out weigh mine, if his Authors reasons did not. The Doctor had something of the Devil in him, when he quoted my text by halfes; and then takes occasion to charge me with self-conceit • dness: whereas I say no more of my self, then I would of Doctor Wallis, or the meerest idiot in the world, viz. that I know no differerence betwixt the fool and the wise, but only reason. Yet that I may acquit my self of Calepine, I shall adde to what I already have brought against Galepine in the case of Doletus, a further testimony of Franciscus Floridus concerning him: Videmus post Nicolaum Perottum, omnium interpretum munus subire voluisse Ambrosium Calepinum, illius laborum ac vigiliarum furem manifestissim •• : in omnibus tamen maxime absurdum, cum insulso suo dictionario, in quo ne gry quidem • se protulit, nist siquos ab infirmis Scriptoribus sordes collegit, qui non minus fidei Apuleio, aut Martiano Capellae, in verborum proprietate, quàm M. Ciceroni, aut Cas • ri tribuit, &c.—Itaque Perotti nomen auxit 〈◊〉 mediocriter, euimulta ab eruditis in reddendà verborum ratione deforuntur, 〈◊〉 Calepino vix credant, quod veterum testimoniis confirmet: et hunc LUDIBRII, illum honoris caus • nominare solent. And thus I free my self from Calepine, who is a School book; and indeed of no authority further then those precincts extend; but I forgive the Doctor for using him here whose education had not permitted him the tryal, or begot in him judgement to discover his imperfections. As for Erasmus, Stephanus, Rhodiginus, I did not any way lessen their esteem, because they did truly alledge their authors, and so shifted off the quarrel from themselves, as you may see at large in the letter: they did not at all clash with me, as the reader may see, unless whatever any man reports as from another, he may justly be impleaded as the author thereof. But that the Doctor may see what weight Antiquity hath with me, had all his Authors without any reason or ground more then that of Aristophanes, asserted what he would have them, I should have preferred my conjectural something, as it is now stated, before their positive nothing: my 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , before their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the one being an impertinent compound, the other a jumble.

A jumble! Doth the Doctor take this for an exception? What is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ? Auchialus in Martial? Are not there a thousand words jumbled together in as ill a manner as Empusa, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ? It is observed by Mr. Selden de diis Syri • prol. c. 2. that the names of Gods in their Etymologies are not subjected to Grammar rules: Caterum tempestivè meminerts Deorum nominum deductiones ubique Grammaticis analogiae apicibus omnino olim solutas esse. Which is evident not only from what the Pedees of Orbilius have taught us, but also from what Plato in his Cratylus hath recorded: it hath been thus in all nations, (if we may believe those who have conversed in languages:) and questionless the strangeness and uncouthness of the word or name, was thought to contribute much to the procuring a reverence and upholding the majesty of the deity. I do but therefore applaud my own sentiments, when I commend that observation of that eminent Antiquary, Fato comparatum est, ut a Grammaticorum imperio dii sint liberi. Which single remark were a sufficient confutation of all the Doctor hath brought against me in this case: against whose derivation I should not have brought Grammatical objections, had he produced such grounds as I have for mine. I objected (having refuted his authors, or nullified them) It is strange that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should not alter only its aspiration, but change its 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which I can hardly believe admittable in Greek, lest there should be no difference betwixt its derivatives and those of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . If the Doctor had read this confiderately, he could not but have observed how timorously I spake: and had I not sufficiently evinced my own deduction, and shewed the invalidity of his grounds, I should never have cast this into the ballance; which I would have looked upon as over-weight, and not as put into the Scales to counterpoise ought of moment on the other side. I said it was strange: I said I could hardly believe it admittable: neither the one, nor the other saying implied a positive denyal. I have been alwayes of that opinion, which afterwards I found to be confirmed by Selden, and the judgement of others not inferiour to him in philology. The Doctor replies, The former of the two (which he slighteth in comparison of the other) I confess hath some appearance of weight; yet not so much as to carry the cause: for the Etymologicus, you see, who takes notice of it, can yet pass it over, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the rest could not be ignorant of it, yet none of them do upon that account reject it: and you know well that the Greek doth in some derivations, compositions, and otherwise change the spirit: as in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c.

I see it is not possible for the Doctor and me to agree, I confess I did slight that objection of the change of the aspiration, not upon those trifling cases alledged by our Pseudo-Caninius, which have nothing of parallel, and the last whereof I do not understand; it is very likely his printer can mistake too, and that may be in the book, which was not in the copy. I knew that even 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it self had altered its spirit in composition; I when a School boy did so construe that allegation out of Menander in Suidas, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . I will be here before you can tell one, two, three. Which is confermable to what Stephen renders it, viz. celeriter, and Suidas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : though neither give the Etymology. This I knew besides many other v • riations in compounds, which it would be tedious to reckon up. But another thing which was most urgent with me, was, that I knew those aspirations were of late addition, and of a much newer standing then the common dialect, being the invention of Grammarians (I mean as to the writing of them) upon the declining of the Grecian learning: as for the pronunciation, it was different in several territories, that which aspirated in one place was tenuated in another: et vice versâ, so that the exception against the non-aspiration could be of no validity, unless it could be proved that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was alwayes aspirated, and (which is more) that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was • ramed in place where that aspiration was so used: which that it was not, nor could be universal in Greece, both natural reasons, and records make impossible, the common dialect was an extract out of all those scattered dialects of Greece, and had so much of Greek in it as to be (for the most part) understood every where: as our ordinary English phrase is apprehended all over England, though the same be differently pronounced not only as to the aspiration and levigation, but sound of letters, and more differently written: and he that goes to make a certain English Grammar, however he may pretend to universality, regulates it by his own ear, use, and custome of such as he approves of, (which is not to approve of them, but himself) and hath been conversant with. Thus I have given an account of the causes why I put no greater stress upon that objection, which the Doctor thought to be of some importance. I come now to his examen of what I secondly objected not as impossible, but dubious and suspicious, and hardly (when joyned with the other change of spirit) to be believed.

Dr. W. repl. But the other upon which he puts the greatest stress, (not only but also) is ridiculous. Could any man believe that the change of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is hardly admittable in Greek? Nay, is it possible to be otherwise, when 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to come immediately before 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ? Did this Paracritick ever see 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to come together in any Greek word whatever? Is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 perpetually so changed when ever any such case shall happen, because the analogy of the Greek tongue will bear it? A very little skill in Greek would have been able to rectifie such a gross mistake. And he can never with any face pretend to be a Critick, who doth not know it. Me thinks that either Mr. Hobs or that third person thorough whose hands this paper it seems came, might have had so much as not to suffer such a childish business as this to pass both their hands uncorrected. And what he addes, lest there should be no difference betwixt its derivatives and those of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , helps it very little, for such a conclusion is much more allowable in Greek, then that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should come next together: nor would this help it at all (if it were allowable) save only where the next letter is a labial: for else there would be no occasion of changing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in either of them. 'Tis well therefore if that be true that we are told, that he hath better ornaments then to be willing to go clad abroad in the habit of a Grammarian: for if he have no better ornaments then these, he may be one of the ragged Regiment for ought I see.

I have set down the Doctors words at large, that so you might see how (upon slender grounds) apt he is to presume upon his puerile thoughts, and how lit • le he hath improved his School-dictates. I have already told you how studious an imitatour he was of that Hortensian way of examining things. I said I could hardly believe it admi • table in Greek, that the derivatives of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should have no characteristical sign or mark, whereby to distinguish those of the one kinde from the other. And I had observed the little force of the aspiration, which had been changed not only in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 descendants of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. but even in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . There remained then that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should be retained in the one, and varied in the other. The Doctor after an Oraison to Laverna.— —Sancta Laverne, Da mihi fallere, da sanct • mque pi • mque videri, Noctem peccatis, et fraudibus objice nubem. brings me in as if I had said simply, the change of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is hardly admittable in Greek. And then asks, is it possible to be otherwise when 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 come together? To this foolish intergatory. I answer that neither He, nor I can determin of what is impossible; there being a multitude of circumstances, the knowledge whereof at present is no less impossible for us, then important, for such a decision, viz. the knowledge of the true sound of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not only in one part but all the Contons of Greece; and that not for one but all those ages that have passed since the rise of that language, to the declining of that Empire, the ruin whereof brought in the knowledge of the Greek • ongue into Europe: yea this is not all, we are to know the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of such men as were of repute, for their mistakes or phansics were authenticated by their followers, and so spred up and down, men endeavouring to fashion their mouthes to the pronunciation, as well as pens to the writing of what they had so great an example for. Yea the several 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (of which you may read at large in Maussacus's dissectatio Critica joyned with his notes upon Harpocration's dictionary) ought to be known thoroughly if you mean to determin of what was possible, and what not, in the Greek tongue. I imagin the common dialect in Greece (wherein the books we have are generally written, and which we call Greek) to have been like our ordinary English in the Souther 〈◊〉 parts: the A • tick dialect to have been answerable to our London or rather Courtphrase: and the other as well dialects, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to have corresponded with the several dialects in the North and West of England, and Idioms of other countries. The ordinary Southern language is a mixture of the several dialects used in England (with the remains of those which are otherwise extinct) besides an accessional of Italian, French, Spanish, W • l • h, &c. according as the inhabitants have conversed one with another, and with foreigners: and even this ordinary language suffers a daily innovation and insensible change, as is evident to the observer, thorough the variation of the ambient, novel manner of education, customes, national and personal alliances, Du-Gardismes in Printing, and the affectation of writers, which new-model us; nor will the Doctors English Grammar be able to stay this imminent alteration. In like manner as the Latin tongue was in continual change, and elegance is nothing but opinion. (I take Latin in a large sense) There was the ordinary Latin received in Rome, Italy, and the Roman colonies: then there was the Roman or more elegant phrase: and besides these two there were other scattered dialects, mixtures of the Tuscan and Oscan, the Greek, &c. there were the Patavinities, Tarentismes, Siculismes, Africanismes, Hispanismes, and as many variations, as regions, (or thus in a more general division, Quadruplex dicendi figura veteribus servata Grammaticis, Prisca, Latina, Romana, miscella.) Hence Tully in his Divinatio contra Verrem, tells Caecilius that he learned Latin not at Rome but in Sicily. And as for the common Latin language, it did suffer dayly change: in so much that Polybius informs us, there was so great an alteration in the Latin tongue from what it had been, that the League betwixt the Romans and Carthaginians upon the close of the first Punick war, (which was made in the first year after the ejectment of Kings, Iunius Brutus and Valerius Poplicola being co • suls) could hardly in his time be interpreted or understood by the best Antiquaries: which saying how true it was, may be collected by what Foliota produceth concerning the column erected to Duillius upon his naval victories: wherein you have no C. but G. as Leciones, Macis • ratos: very seldome V. as pri ••• captom: then Exfociont for essugiunt. Ceset for gessit: the Ablatives singular end in D. as praded, altod, marid: lastly, (besides other archaismes of less note) Triompo for. Triumpbo, which kind of pronunciation I observed to have continued even in Tully's time. The same Author hath a Gen • a table of a less antient date, yet of a different stile from what was used in the dayes of Cicero. These things considered (if we had no testimony of the difference betwixt the old and the common Greek,) we may conclude the variableness of it, which with the consideration of the change it hath undergone since the fall of those Common-wealths makes it certain: (though the multitude of antiquated, and new words, the different pronunciations, changes of the ambient, inroads and conquests of other nations, which might be discoursed on at large,) and consequently no man can determin of what was possible, or impossible in that tongue, but who can give a thorough account of those things, I have named: from which attempt I doubt not but the Doctor is as far from effecting it, though he brave it in Criticks, as I am from professing it. The Doctors question therefore was ridiculous, (this is now not only said, but proved!) Is it possible to be otherwise, when 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is to come immediately before 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Which question implies a Negation; viz. that it is not possible for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to come together, and yet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 remain unexchanged for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Which proposition I have already demonstrated to be rasb, and I shall now prove it defacto false: and refer my self to the Antient inscriptions in Gruterus, wherein 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 p. 1010. p. 1037. p. 313. p. 314. p. 315. p. 316. and in several other places, where because they are inscriptions of lesser note, and of more obscure persons, the more ignorant Artisans might have been suspected to have erred, but that these of greater Authority do justifie their writing. Doth not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 go before 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ? Yet you have p. 810. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Bioroto vitae inculpata: Scaliger upon Euseb. Chron. writeth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : and so doth Hermannus de liter. so that you see a very little skill in Greek would have been able to prevent this gross Intergatory: and the persons thorough whose bands the papers came, are not to be censured, because the Doctors School-learning made him think it a childish business. But I did not say I thought the change of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hardly admittable in Greek. The Doctor no more quotes my words, then the Devil quoted Scripture to our Saviour; by this way of citation, the whole word of God may become the word of the Devil: like as the Censura Symboli Apostolici ad instar censurae Parifiensi • (which •• to be found in Alphonsus de Vargas strateg. Iesuit. and Raynandus de confir. libror.) shews each proposition in that Creed to be either Heretical, Dangerous, or Scandalous. My not only but als • , is this. It is strange, 'that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 should not alter only its aspiration, but change its 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which [viz. change of both aspiration, and letter: for the change of either in a single consideration, is admittable. I bear with the Doctor for not understand • g Greek, you see he is at a loss in plain English.] I can hardly believe admittable in Greek, lest there should be no 'difference betwixt its derivatives and those of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And this conjecture of mine (concerning the Grammatical Greek, from whom we received our punctation and reading) is not very contemptible, if we minde their practice in avoiding confusion. Dr. Waltis upon this consideration, saith it helpeth very little. He dust not say, nothing at all. Though I suppose he will give his words that gloss, which others do to the text in the Gospel, He shall be called the least in the Kingdome of Heaven; that is, He shall never come there. But since the Doctor hath so examined those reasons, upon which I placed no great stretch: since he hath charged me with being wholly unacquainted with the rudiments of the Greek tongue, (for that I am not able to give a rational account of it, I profess without blushing: Incerta haec si tu postules ratione certa facere. nihilo plus agas, quàm si des operam ut cum ratione insani •• ,) that my skill is but to turn over Index's and Dictionaries, (at which work the Doctor was taken tardy; and the latter are good Authors!) I shall 〈◊〉 his reasonings, in which work if I at any time mistake his meaning, he must blame himself for speaking so obscurely. As I understand not that query, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 perpetually so changed, when ever any such case should happen, because the Analogy of the Greek tongue will bear it? So it is possible I may misunderstand his next assertion, and yet be far from forgery or falification. His reason why 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cannot come together without a change, is this. Because the next letter is a LABIAL: for else there would be no occasion of changing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in either of them. (viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) Would any man talk thus, but who had sat three years in the Synod? Can he that decyphers characters, thus puzzle his reader in plain English? 1. Propos. When a Labial follows 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , there is OCCASION for to change it into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 2. Propos. Otherwise there is no OCCASION.

Would any man of common sense (but I have to do with a Professour!) talk thus, where the Question is, Whether the Greek Pedants would take or omit the OCCASION? Did I deny there was Occasion? Did not I only think, they would neglect the Occasion, and dispense with a facility of pronunciation, (if it were so) where different senses might more trouble the readers brain. then the word would his tongue.

Otherwise there is no Occasion! what then? Did they alwayes take the benefit of profered Occasions? Did they never vary when there was none? Trie your Hearsel Doctor (for I know you make your own phansie, and that pronunciation to which you have been accustomed, the rule of Euphony and Cacophony) and see whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , do not sound as ill as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; I think they sound worse: I know very well that as people have been differently educated, so they vary in their sentiments. Aldus Manutius differs from me about what is Euphonous, and what Cacophonous: he sayes Quidquid. I think quicquid sounds best, &c. Diverse men have diverse opinions concerning a stile; Bembus and Barclay, Milton (that glory of our English nation!) and Salmasius make use of a different sort of writing: yet who doubts but each did acquiesce in his own way as best? When the Doctor speaks Greek (and in writing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , may as well stand as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the word is only Greek, the sound is English: and so for Latin. That the way of writing is not to be regarded, nor upon that any great argument to be built, I think I may well conclude, and that because that the letters may be the same in several nations, yet the sounds different; and the impossibility of one following another lies upon the tongue of the speaker, not the hand of the writer. I shall illustrate this, from what Giphanius layes down in his preface to Lucretius, upon another occasion. Qui contra libros veteres multis locis nihil et nihilum in nil et nilum, ratione, ut ipsi putant, versuum ac numerorum, commutant: nae illi in veterum Scriptis versantur, nec attendunt Synaeresin veteres in metiendo duntaxat multis locis observâsse, in scribendo rarissime. Hinc multae in Plauto, Terentio, aliisque antiquis mutationes malae. The same I say concerning writing, and speaking; but even in writing betwixt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 both according to the old capital, and later smal letter, there was a great affinity in configuration, (which may topically infer an affinity in sound) as any man knows that hath seen an old print in Greek, or antient Marble. And if I did not speak of Labials and Palatines; it was because I had not to do with Hebrew or Welch, &c. but Greek. And how doth he know what modulations they had of their voice, and what sound they gave to their letters? It is clear that they had a different sound for their vowels, then we have: Cheek and Smith were more able to disprove their old pronunciation, then confirm that which they introduced, not as genuine, but convenient. I shall not speak of all the letters of the Greek Alphabet, because it would be a long and perhaps tedious work: I shall only now shew that though N and M do differ very much in the English tone, yet they did not so hereto fore neither in the Latin, nor Greek: and that though it might be written, N, yet it was as variously pronounced as now when we substitute another letter, according as the letter following (of whose sound we have no certainty) did require. The present Greeks do write 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 non 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. In Hesychius I finde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Amongst Gruter's inscriptions. that in the temple of Aes ul • pius hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and elsewhere 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 p. 313, 314. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 p. 315, 316. in a publick decree of the Ag • igentines, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in a Dorick inscription: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in an inscription for Menander: and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and an hundred the like examples might be alledged thence, if any one would range all the words that are found in the several inscriptions: and of these I have alledged some are written at other times otherwise, according as we now write them. In the Marmora Arundeliana I finde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 over and over, &c. In the decree of the Delians Mr. Selden furnishes us with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (though elsewhere it be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) and in another 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In Latin Conlega Conjux Cojux, Conjunxs, and the like, an infinity whereof might be fetched out of Dansqui • s, Manutiu • , Gruterus and Lucretius, &c. This may suffice to shew that the antients did not constantly follow one Orthography. Suetonius expresly tells us of Augustus, c. 88. Orthographiam, id est formulam rationemque scribendi & Grammaticis institutem non ad • o custodiit. In which words you have an account of the Authors of our way of writing, and the esteem they had in that age. In prosecution (possibly) of this humour of Augustus, it was that in the pillar set up for a memorial of his acts, and transcribed by Gruter we have rotiens, quadragien, centun millia, as annum alterun et quadragesimum. Yea, cumlega for collega: and I cannot think but if the Romans had in the same manner pronounced those adverbs to • iens, quotiens, centiens, &c. that they did triens, bidens, &c. as they would not have reduced them to toties, quoties, &c. as they would not have reduced agceps, aggelus, aggustum, agcilla, to anceps, angustum, angelus, ancilla, if they had not there pronounced G. somewhat like N. but that the controversie may receive a further light • I shall give an account of what variation our N. meets with in the Arundel ma • bles (and occasionally speak of some other letters.) They are all in Capitals, the letters not distinguished into words, nor any stop or break made but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The prepositive particle coming before other words beginning with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 changed as following, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Before 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it is changed, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 before 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 often, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Before a word beginning with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it is written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I finde also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . This is the general way of writing in those inscriptions; yet I finde once 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 once; and though those other Syncategorema • ical particles (as it were running into one word) suffer such a change, yet we read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. I finde once 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In the inscriptions of the Delians, the writing is more uncertain: you have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The like change of N in Latin is observed by Giphanius in a letter of his to Murc • us, where out of an old copy of Tully, he cites im memoriam, &c. for in memoriam, &c. from all which I think I may infer that though the Greeks had 16, or 24. letters (that matters not at present) they had more sounds, then letters: and [in Smyrna and Delos] in particular, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 had a different sound according as the letter following (whether in the same, or another word, so it were contained within the same clause, and to be pronounced in the same breath) was different.

Secondly, that where the words were not pronounced in the same breath, but interrupted by an imaginary comma, or the like, (for real stops and pauses they had none) that then the sound and letter were not varied, as appears every where in the marmora Arundeliana, and especially in the two last examples rehearsed, where you have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. And in the latter after 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 follows, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and if that change be not alwayes observed, I suppose it may have happened, because that since neither 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did express the sound, it might indifferently be written either way as participating of the found of both, but rather 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

Thirdly, I infer, that the reason did not concern only composition, but extended to simples: and the reason why 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was not written before 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. In composition, was, because it could not be written or pronounced before 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c in the simple; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the same clause coming before 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did not sound full, as it did before 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but had a middle sound betwixt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; and therefore if the Doctor meant that it was impossible for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to come before 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and retain its full English sound, I do grant it: but so it could not come before 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as well as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , so that he should have said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 no less then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

Fourthly I infer, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 might be written before 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 either in simple or compound (there being the same reason, if they were within the same clause) though not altogether so well as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (because the sound was more like that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) since that the Greeks had no Character whereby to express those mixt sounds upon the concurrence of consonants. In which point also the Latins were to seek: as you may read in Vossius de arte Grammaticâ l. 1. c. 20. Where he cites a passage out of Marius Victorinus (whom he thus characters, Scriptor accuratus et antiquus; ut quem cum Donato, Hieronymi Magistro, vixisse vel ex Eusebio constare possit.) The beginning whereof doth confirm, and is confirmed by what I have said. Clari in studiis viri, qui aliquid de Orthographiâ scripsere, OMNES ferèaiunt, inter M, et N, literas, MEDIAM VOCEM, quae non abhorret ab utr • que literâ, sed neu • ram PROPRIE exprimat, tam nobis [Latinis] deesse, quàm Graecis: cùm illi Sambyx [forte 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] scribant, nec M exprimere, nec N. Sed haec ambiguitas in his fortasse vocabulis, siout in Ampelo Lycambe; (and why not in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ?) in nostris non est, &c.

Although I think I have said enough to refute the Doctors assertion, yet I shall further consider what the Doctor hath said by way of reason: That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 before a Labial hath occasion to be changed into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . In his Grammatico-physical discourse he tells us these are Labials. P. F. B. V. W. M. I would fain know whether he mean that when ever N. comes before any of these in any language it be impossible but that it be changed into M. I gave some account of the antient orthography out of Hesychiu • , who affords a multitude of the like stamp, amongst which there are exceptions against this reason as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . It is the same Author that hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Gruter in his marbles hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 p. 787. and p. 791. and which is more 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 several times, but amongst the inscriptions of mean persons. A Cretan marble hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 p. 505. Another inscription of note hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The other Labials need no instances; and what is said for N before B will make a probability as to P. since there hath been of old so great an affinity betwixt those two letters in sound, that the one is often put for the other, and when the one is written the other is sounded. Hence in the Latin, opses, apsens, &c. for obses, absens. Quintilian l. 1. c. 7. Quarisolet in scribendo praepositiones, sonum, quem juncta efficiant, an quem separate, observare conveniat: ut cum dico obstinuit. Secundam enim B literam ratio proscit: aures magis audiunt P. So Vossius (to whom I ow that citation) saith, Arabs, trabs, urbs, quia sic inter doctssimos obtinuit, per B scribo: sed sor us exigit urps, traps, Araps. This concurrence of consonants gave occasion to mix sounds, and thereupon men came to write promiscuously some that juxta sonum vocis separatae, and others juxta sonum quem juncta efficiebat. But I have made trial in English of N before B, and unless the Doctors whistle differ from my windpipe, I can pronounce Henbane: I say pronounce it, for I can spell it Henbane: nor do I finde any physical impossibility in the sounding of Henp • sa, or Emp • sa, However, the Doctor should not have reminded us of the Labi • l 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But being to give his reason, why 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 before 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is changed into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he should only have said, because it comes before 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But how 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 might have come before 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I have shown: and he must be a great stranger to the rise of languages, that thinks it not only impossible, but improbable that the case was otherwise, but since N and P are by the Doctor allowed the same sound with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that which renders the case of one impossible, must have the like influence upon the other. Yet I finde that the ancients wrote Iuponito, in an old inscription at Naples, the same Authority there is for Quod, ici, inprobarint, inprobum esto, and elsewhere inpeditus. So Faernus upon Terence helps me with Ir • unè, Inprudens, Inperiosus was wrote upon the Roman arch triumphal: and inperi • m in Sigonius's brass table. In the Pandects at Florence, there are, Inpubes, Inpressum, Inperfectum, Inpossibile. Prudentius hath this verse. Inmitis, atrox, asper, inplaca • ilis. And an infinity of the like might be cited out of Dansquius about the old Latin tongue, and others. But left these should be the writings of agreste Latium only, when men wanted our Geometrical phonescues; the Italians have either retained or resumed that pronunciation. Florio furnishes me with store of examples, Inportare, Inpresa, Inpendere, Inpertinente, &c. which are not to be confuted in this case by della Crusca. I have now taken away that physical impossibility of the concurrence of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , N and P: of which what are we that we should determin? Who neither know the sound of the letters, nor the several conformations of parts which regulate that ayre (which also is different here and there) the phantasme of the motion whereof continued to our car is Sound! I now aver that not Euphony but use was regarded in the generation of language: time begets that alteration, which if we call polishing or perfecting, we must build upon the opinions of men: what is Euphonous to one is Cacophonous to another: and what pronunciation is difficult or impossible to one, is not so to another. We see when different nations speak Latin, they give it the sound of their own countries, and retain nothing of the old Roman but the letters and words when written. Thus Aldus thinks one thing Euphonous, and I another; he being an Italian diversly educated, and I an Englishman. There was a time when Tonsrix, Cursrix, Fesrix, sounded well; Charisius the Grammatian (as I am informed) saith they ought to be written so. Sollempius, Sompnus, Hiei • ps, were once very taking. The like may he said of the Greek, of which the Latin is a descendant; I told you before of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. there was a time when they were not only usually so pronounced, but it was reputed elegant. Phrynichus in his Ecloga diction Atticar. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He sayes you must leave out 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Nunnesius in his notes reads it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Etymologic. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But I think I have detained you too long with this discourse, which a little knowledge in the rise and declination of languages, and the Grammatico-physical part thereof, might have prevented. The same letters have different sounds in divers nations, and the Euphony of one nation doth not give laws to another. Terentianus Ma •• us tells us that C • . doth not sound well: but C there must sound like G. yet in Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. beget no disorder: non quod dissimilis res, sed quod is qui dicit. Let an English man trie to sound 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the beginning of a word (as the Latines cared not for Mn. which is frequent in Greek) he will hardly pronounce it; viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : but when he shall have accommodated those letters to the modern Turco-greek sound, he will as easily pronounce 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as Bajazet. The like for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for Doria the famous Genovtse. Be pleased once more to read over the discourse of our Critical Bravo, and judge what ground he had to cast that scorn and contempt not upon me only, but on the Gentleman thorough whose hands my letter passed to Mr. Hobs. The most charitable opinion I can have of the Doctor, and if such charity may extend to a Divine! is, that he engaged into this rant meerly to save his reputation, which being lost as to all persons of learning, he determined to sit down with the applause of Schoolboyes, or such as deserve no better esteem.

But the Doctor upon second thoughts, will assist me with arguments against his Etymology: I shall consider his reasons, and give you an account of them; they must sure be good, for his charge against mine, obliges him to nothing trivial.

Dr. W. But if he have a minde to dispute against the Etymology, I could furnish him with better arguments by much, then that of changing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . For (besides the change of the spirit, which I allow to be considerable, though he put less weight upon it) the termination of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth not regularly descend from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , all its derivatives retaining either the termination 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or, so soon as they depart from it, assume the form of the oblique cases 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . (as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c.) And further the first part of the Composition, if it were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 could not regularly, according to the analogy of other compounds, end in a Consonant but in a Vowel; not as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nor 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And moreover, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth not usually begin a Composition at all. Nor do I at present remember any one word in the whole Greek tongue, where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the first part of the composition: but instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , they use 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 unoculus.] And so it should not have been 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nor 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , nor 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , nor yet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to express that notion, but rather 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the same form with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in the same form with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is Empusa's Epithite. And those arguments would prove indeed that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is no regular grammatical composition, (nor do any that mention it, take it to be so;) but that it may not pass amongst the catalogue of remotiora composita vel derivata [of which we finde in Etymologists a competent number] or may not pass for as good a jumble as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , I see no reason: nor, why that of so long standing, and allowed by so good Authors, should give place to this upstart.

What value is to be put upon the change of spirit I have already declared; as also what stress may be laid upon the variation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . in this case: and though I have invalidated those arguments in a single consideration, yet the change of both in the same word seems to me still a little improbable. But he tells me further that the termination 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth not regularly descend from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . I would he had determined what he meant by regularly: for those rules of Grammar we have (I do no not mean Camden's Grammar) are of a later date then is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and therefore it cannot be counted irregular ex post facto. Nor, if all the other compounds or derivatives have a different termination, will any wise man thereupon infer that there cannot be a Singularity in this? As for that which he further objects: if the first part of the composition were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , it could not regularly according to the Analogy of other compounds, end in a consonant, but in a vowel: I would he had cleared up his thoughts, and told us in what country it was so irregular, and what Analogy of compounds he would oppose us with. I for my part finde in the Etymologicum magnum, that the Atticks in the compounds and descendants from numerals did retain their last letter; that is, they did assume nothing after it; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : these men then (and they a considerable part of Greece, and from whom especially did descend that common dialect of ours) would have said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The assertion is to be found in the said book in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And for the compounds of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Doctor could not think to over • rule us with their Analogy whereas he knew of none, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is no Greek word, no more then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of which it is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quasi 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . That which he further suggests, 〈◊〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth not usually begin a composition at all, is very weak arguing, and I shall not make use of it until the Doctor legitimate that other argument, that because most men •• unlearned, therefore none are learned. The compounds of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 do not usually assume 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . may not we therefore say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ? A very little skill in Greek would have been able to rectifie such an argument: as also to inform his memory better, then to forget that in the whole Greek tongue (and that is a thing of large extent) there should not be one word, where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the first part of the composition: what not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ? Have you so soon forgot your numbers? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 anniculus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , navis uniremis, ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 qua unâ horâ digna sunt, besides 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 univira five univiria, which where I have read I do not remember, but I think it is in Heraldus upon Arnobius. You see Doctor how a mans memory may fail him; but you seem to decay in your judgement also, when you infer, that Because you remember no compound beginning with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , therefore it should not have been 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , nor 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , nor yet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : as I have evinced unto you. It remains now only to consider your conclusion, wherein you say, that your derivation is allowed (as in another place you say it is a received Etymology) by so good Authors: the contrary whereof I have made appear in the letter as it is now augmented: where I have shewed you reason why your old groundless deduction should give way to this upstart. Upstart! doth the Doctor think this an objection? Doth he reject things because new, and not because false? I wonder a Theologue should argue thus. I might as well condemn his writings because he is a lesser man then I. However the Doctor should consider that second thoughts are best, and that a child upon a Gyants shoulder (it is a saying of the reformed Divines; and the Doctor called me Saw • y boy, though I do not think I stand upon a Gyants shoulders when I everlook him) may see further then the Gyant. I do not know whether the Doctor think that I intended to jumble 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 into one word: if he did, he mistakes me as much as he did them he said did deduce 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : for though they said to, they gave you the derivation in sense only, and not in words. All that I insist upon is that it come from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : concerning the termination, perhaps the Greeks may have had a way in old times of adding 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as we in English do A. as Green- 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . perhaps it is only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Feminine: It may come from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being only retained: not is that deduction by such an apocope, wo • se then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . I am not the first that observe in Etymologies the retaining of one letter is sufficient: as Neptunus a nando▪ which is laughed at by Tully. Yet I can further shew of later date then those antiquated times when Empusa had its original, such an Apocope, as is more then literae vel syllabae ablatio. In the Greek Epigrams l. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Here is for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; and which is an exception to your Grammar, they do not varie their gender and become neuters. If this Etymology displease, deduce it from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Laconicè, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. I have read such use of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but I remember not where. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (so Hesych. but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Favorine) signifies al • o 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , safe: so that the person a • righted at the light of a spectre, might cry to his companions, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; here is an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is all well? Or from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is dolentis interjectio: or from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is an interjection of admiration.

The next passage of the Doctors is a very considerable one; whether what we have disputed of he only a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , whether Mr. Hobs did well to English the Doctors uno pede incedere by hopping? I think he, or any one else that reads the passage which I have cited at large before, will think the Doctor intended it so: for though he said that the boy in the play did uno pede incedere, which is not denied: yet he also said, that that play was called Empusa (or Ludus Empusae) because that that Empusa did uno pede incedere: which reason will be well, if the terms uno pede incedere be equivocal. Mr. Hobs then did him no wrong in Englishing it so; no more then I, who cannot understand that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the context of Aristophanes scholiast should signifie • o hop: or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as the words lie in Eustathius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , is not his quotation, nor uno pede ingrediens in Iunius:) what the meaning of those places may be, I have already told: and the Doctor doth not bring any thing to the contrary. Rhediginus doth but refer to Eustathius, and if he hath ill translated him, am I accountable for his errours? but the mistake was on the Doctors side, for Rhodiginus used a term that might be attributed to the gate of the Gods, as well as the footing of men. Et vera incessu patuit dea. Superûm incedo regina: but the Doctor restrained it to hopping as I have shewed.

Dr. W. But how I should wrong Iunius, in taking these words of his, altero pede in aere librato, unt • o subsiliunt pede, to be understood of hopping, I do not understand, nor am likely to do till he can finde out a possible meaning of those words. And when he hath so done, I will see what I can pick out of the Dutch. For though I do not profess my self a Dutch man, yet so much Dutch I have as to understand that Hincken in high-Dutch, and Op cen been springen, in low-Dutch signifie the same as to hop in English.

Thus the Doctor changeth the controversie: I said he had grosly wronged Iunius, and imposed upon his readers, if he did not finde in the Dutch (for the Latin hath no such thing) that Ludus Empusae was the boyes play of fox to thy hole. I gave an account of Iunius's words, which I desire may be read over again: that both the Latin and Dutch did signifie to hop I know; but whether they signified the play of fox to thy hole, that I knew not, and desired a better expositour then the German I asked. That which Iunius saith will agree to Ascoliasmus, or any play that consists in hopping: and consequently what Iunius said doth no more make for fox to thy hole, then Scotch • hop. I would say more to this paragraph, but that I do not understand well what it is the Doctor requires of me, when he expects that I finde out a possible meaning for those words of Iunius. Either he or the printer are in a fault here; or did not the printer print it thus, because he had so written it?

His Parenthesis ought not here to be left out: He doth not know well how a man can go upon one leg without hopping. The question is concerning the gate of the Demons, and he talks how men go: just as if I should argue, (as I do not, but the Doctor) I do not know well how men can see without eyes, Ergo God sees with eyes. I do not know how Pythagoras went, and yet he is reported to have had 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . I understand not what kinde of motion the Israelitish pillar, or that of Thrasybulus had, (of which I cited Clemens Ale •• an) the motion of that will sute with that of one leg, yet I do not think it hopped. In fables and phantasmes I do not use to exact scrutiny, lest I should finde them as ridiculous that excellent piece of raylery and merriment the Extravagant shepheard doth represent them. I do not understand how Talus the iron-man (not only in the fayry Queen, but Apollonius Rhodius and Plato) did move his limbs: yet I shall not say he went as we do, because I do not know well how a man can go otherwise then by setting one foot before the other. Apollon. Argon. l. 4. — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 — 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . It may be the manner of his motion is implyed in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but if the Doctor should deny it, I could not prove it to him. Many of the like instances might be given: and if I had not been taught, I should as little have known how the Gods did move: which is excellently described by Ronsard in his poem upon Q. Margaret.

Thus he describes Pasithea one of Venus's Graces coming from Heaven. The young and all Divine Pasithea The Skyes abandon'd her command t' obey, The ayre gave place unto her, and the winde Thorough the vast regions blow'd her up behinde. She stoop'd descending in a suddain flight, Cleaving the clouds, as in the silent night Far off there in a shining track is spi'd A falling star betwixt two ayres to glide. And afterwards he describes the Queens dancing at the Ballet Royall. Locking his hand in her's the King did lead The dance, and her who did not seem to tread, But as she had no feet, she in her pace Swimm'd as she mov'd with a celestial grace. Man heavy treads, and by his gate doth show The dull allyance he to earth does owe: But Gods do flie, and unconsin'd to pace Prove their eternal and spiritual race. When the Lavolto was of Provence danc'd, The King with this his sister Grace advanc'd In a grave sweetness, nimbly following She With ayrie motion 'bout the Hall did flee. What remains of this discourse is taken up in a mistake of mine, which being neither voluntary, nor greatly material, I am the less concerned in acknowledging that I did him wrong imposing upon him that he should say Empusa came to be attributed to the boyes play. He said comes to be attributed, &c. As I have represented it now in the text, which my hast did not then permit me to consider so thoroughly. I acknowledged that the boye's play might be so called, but that it was so called I desired proofe. I excepted against Holyoke and Thomas (for Iunius hath no such thing: and the two dictionaries aforesaid deceived the Doctor, for they said Ascoliasmus Ludus Empusa Iun. fox to thy hole: and he presently thought Iunius had said Ludus Empusa was the same game with fox to thy hole.) I excepted against them as no Authors, but vocabularies. I confess they may in some sense be called Authors, as the Doctor may be called the Author of that Phrase adducis mall • um, which term will not make for his advantage, when any man shall bestow it upon him: I took it in that sense which Lancilotus Pasius (to whom I had then regard) did take it in, when he disputes whether Isidorus, Priscian, &c. be to be acknowledged Authors? Lib. 2. c. 34. Authores voc • et vocandos censeo, quorum dicta sequamur ad instituendam eruditionem; and afterwards, Authores propriè Scriptores, ut Homerus, accipiendi; qui fuerunt ante observationem artis Grammaticae, quorum dicta observave • e posteriores aliqui ad artem sermonis, et hoc pertinet ad Grammaticos: aliqui aemulati sunt, ut poetae, atque alii, unde & ipsi authorum nomine gaudent. Ergo cùm dicunt aliqui Authorem Priscianum, (ne alios hoc genus recenseam) animadvertant, an ab eo sit Authoritas quem sequatur eruditorum consensus, qui in its • Grammatied nititur aliorum exemplis: qua causae est, quod ubi caret exemplo iterum at qu • iterium exploditur; Praecipue à Vallà taxatur Nonius, non dicam de Servio & Do • ato quos constat authoritate muniri poetarum, oratorum, historicorum. Quid? quod Plinius in Grammatice, Charisius, Probus, Diomedes, & majoris existimationis Gellius, citant Scriptores: nulla alia profectò de causa, nisi ut dignoscantur ministri à dominis; ii sunt Grammatici, hi verò authores. Which words since they are highly rational, I see no cause why I should recede from my former thoughts: doth any man take the single Authority of Thomas, or Holyoke, for a sufficient proofe in Latin. It seems the Doctor doth; I advise him therefore betimes to sue out a writ of Priviledge, and remove his case from Westminster School to the Vniversity, for there it is so far from being valued, that it is a whipping matter for any in the upper forms to alledge them. You see what a difference there is betwixt Classique and Classical Authors. He asks me what is the difference betwixt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and Vocabularium? This is not so perplexing a Query, as the Doctor took it to be. There is no difference in the name; but there is a great difference in our manner of citing them: I cite Pollux as a Vocabulary, he refers to Thomas and Holyoke as Authors. He would not cite Pollux, because he did not think him to be a prophet: yet I favourably think the Doctor did prophetically bring against Mr. Hobs that argumentum ad hominem. Whether the Authors I have cited all along be to the purpose, I refer to the discreet readers judgement: I doubt not but he will concur with me in this, that the Doctor hath felt the force of them to the purpose: and particularly as to Ascoliasmus I could not but speak of it, for without doing so I could neither have found Ludus Empusae in Iunius, nor fox to thy hole in Rider or Thomos.

Sect. 7.

• . I Now come to the Doctors last and greatest • riumph, at which I cannot but stand 〈◊〉 admiration, when I consider he hath not got the victory. Had the Doctor been pleased to have conversed with some of the Fifth Form in Westminster School (for he needed not to have troubled the Learned Master) he might have been better informed then to have exposed himself thus.

Mr. Hobbes had said, A Ma • k, or of some put instead of it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is a mark with an hot Iron, is visible; if visible, then it hath quantity; and consequently may be divided into parts innumerable. After that the Doctor had reflected upon the wit of the argument (whereas he ought to have replyed to the Antecedent: the reason being valid, It is visible, therefore its divisible) He is pleased to play the Drol thus upon that saying, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a mark without an hot Iron. • Prethee tell me good Tho. before we leave this point (O the wit of a Divinity Doctor!) who it was told thee that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was a mark with an hot Iron? Dr. V • for 'tis a notion I never heard till now, (and do not believe it yet) Never believe him that told thee that lye; for as sure as can be, he did it to abuse thee. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a distinctive point in writing made with a Pen or Quill, not a mark made with an hot Iron, such as they brand Rogues withal; and accordingly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , distinguo, interstinguo, are often so used. It is also used of a Mathematical point, or somewhat else that is very small, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a moment, or the like. What should come in your Cap, to make you think that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a mark or brand with an hot iron? I perceive where the businesse lies; 'twas 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ran in your minde when • you talked of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and because the words are somewhat alike, you jumbled them both together, according to your usual care and accuratenesse, as if they had been the same.

When I read this, I cannot but be astonished at the Doctors confidence, and appla • d him who said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . That the Doctor should never hear that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a mark with an hot iron, is a manifest argument of his ignorance: But that he should advise Mr. Hobbes not to believe his own readings, or any mans else that should tell him it did signifie any such thing, is a piece of notorious impudence. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a distinctive point in writing made with a Pen or Quill, (is a Pen one thing, and a Quill another to write with?) no body denies. But it must be withall acknowledged that it Signifyes many things else. I know the Doctor is a good Historian (else he should not presume to object the want of History to another) let him tell us how long • goe it is, since men have made use of Pens or Quils in writing; for if that invention be of no long standing, this signification must also be such; and so it could not be that from any allusion thereunto the Mathematicians used it for a point. Another thing I would • ain know of this great Historian; how long ago 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 began to signifie interpugno? for if the Mathematicks were studied before the mystery of Pointing was found our (as shall be proved, when ever it shall please the Doctor out of his no-reading to maintaine the contrary.) Then the Mathematical use thereof should have been named before the Grammatical. And if this word be translatitio • s, and that Sciences were the effect of long contemplation, the names used herein ar • borrowed from commons talk; Mr. Hobbes did well to say that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 precedaneous • y▪ to that indivisible signification, which it afterwards had, did signifie a visible mark, made by an hot Iron, or the like. And in this procedure, he did no more then any man would have done, who considers that all our knowledge proceeds from our 〈◊〉 ; as also that words do primarily signifie things obvious to sense and only second • rily, such as men call 〈◊〉 .

This occasion leads me to a further consideration of the word. Hesychi • s (of whom It is said, Legendus est non t • nquam 〈◊〉 , sed tanquam jus • us Author) Interprets 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is a point or prick of a greater of lesser size, made with any thing. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to prick or mark with any thing in any manner, and hath no impropriated signification in it self, but according to the writer that useth it. Thus in a Gr •• mmarian 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to distinguish by pointing often, sometimes, even in them, it is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : sometimes it signifies to • et a mark, that something is wanting in that place, which marks were called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . In matters of policy 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to disallow, because they used to put a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 )▪ before his name who was either disapproved, or to be mulcted. In punishments it signifies to mark or brand, whereof that of an hot Iron in most usual in Authors, because most practised by the Ancients. And the mark which the T • rks and others do imprint without burning may be said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; at likewise in Herodian that term is given to the ancient Britains, of whom he sayes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Thus Horses that were branded with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) were said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : was a term of Law; when any mans land was morgaged the Creditor did erect a Pillar ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) as 〈◊〉 token of the mo • ga • e, so the field became 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as the contrary 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So Pollux. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seems to have been taken for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , hence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Eustathius, Pollux, yea, Hesychi • s, as I have elsewhere cited him. The Sea also is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Eustahitus upon 〈◊〉 . 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . As to the Grammaticall use (supposing punctation not to have been in use in Aristotles time,) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in his Rhetorick torick signifies no more then to point as children do with a Fescu • , where no impression remains. It doth also signifie the making of a real point in wri • ing, hence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or marked with points on every side, was used in the books of Plate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as L • erti • s in his life tels us; it stood for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (whence your 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or collections of sentences) as L. N. in Latine stood for Laudabilis nota. But farther Epiphanius in his book De ponderibus & mensuris, makes use I conceive of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the several punct •• ions in writing, as the notes of Aspiration and Leviga •••• , Apostrophus, Hyphen, &c. with which he saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Nazia • zen in his Letter ad notarium giving him directions how to write, biddeth him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

Thus in its Origine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth signifie a visible mark or brand, with an hot iron, or the like; And that that must be the proper signification to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is proper to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , none but such as D • Wallis can doubt. And in it's descendants it is no lesse evident; for from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 comes Stig •• sus, which signifies branded, or marked: Vit • lli ••• cicatrice stig •• sus, not stigmatosus: so Pliny in his Epistles, as Robert Stephen cites it. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the derivative of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signifies any mark, as well as a brand, even such remain after stripes, being black and blue) was a Nick-name imposed upon the Grammarian Nicanor, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And though we had not any examples of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being used in this sense, yet from thence for any men to argue against it (but he who will know no more then Stephen tels him) is madnesse, unless he will deny that any word hath lost its right signification, and is used only (by the Authors we have, though neither the Doctor nor I have read all them) in its A •• logicall signification.

I have alwayes been of opinion, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signified a single p • i • t, big or little, i • 〈…〉 the letter not, had signified a single point, had such been used. And from the common use of it for a point made any way, (upon severall occasions severally, but a point it became 〈◊〉 used, by Philosophers, Mathematicians, and Grammarians. I could give grounds for this conjecture, and not be so impertinent as the Docter in his Sermon, where he told us that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was not in Ho •• r; that from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 came •• brius; that Subrietas was not bad Latine; that Sabrius was once (as I remember) in Tully. Is this to speake Suitably to the oracles of God, or rather to lash out into idle wordes? Hath the Doctor any ground to thinke these are not impertinencyes? Or are we, poor mortalls, accountable for such idle words as fall from us in private discourses; whilest these Embassadours of heaven droll in the pulpit without any danger of an after-reckoning?

But I procced to a further survey of the Doctors intolerable ignorance. Nis charge in the end of [his] Schoole-Master's rant, is, that he should remember 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are not all one. I complained before that he had not cited Robert Stephen • right: now I must tell him that he hath been negligent in the reading of Henry Shephen; for in him he might have found that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was sometimes all one with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , though there be no example to him wherein 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈◊〉 (as Stephen rightly cireth it) in his Scutum Herculis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So Scholi • stes, Ioannes 〈◊〉 upon the place, a man, who (it I may use the Doctors phrase) was as good a criticke, as the Geometry professors?

Thus much for the Doctor: to the understanding Reader, I say that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , used, for burning with an hot, iron; a Mac • cab. 9. 11. where speaking of Antiochus's lamen •• ble death, his body p • trifying and breeding wormes, he is said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , being pained as if he had been pricked with hot irons. And that this is the meaning of that elegant writer, shall be made good against the Doctor, when he shall please to defend the vulgar interpretation. P •• sanias, in Baeo • icis, speaking of Epaminondas, who had taken a 〈◊〉 belonging to the Sicyonians called Phae ••• , wherein were many B •• otisn fugitives, who ought by law to have been put to death, saith, he dismissed them under other names, giving them onely a brand or mark. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . It is true 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is here put adverbially. but that doth not alter the case. Another example of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 used in this sense is in the collections our of Diodorus Siculus lib. 34. As they are to be found at the end of his workes, and as Photius hath transcribed them into his Biliothaca. He saith that the Romans did buy multitudes of servants and employ them in Sicily; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . These are the words but of 〈◊〉 Author, but ought to pas • e for the Judgèment of two, seeing Photius, by inserting them, hath made them his own. Again Zoneras in the third • ome of his History, in the life of the Emperour Theophi •• s, saith, that when Theophanes and another Monke had reproved the said Emperour for demolishing images, he took and Stigmatized each of them with twelve lambickes, in their faces, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . A place so evident, that I know not what the Doctor can reply; it being 〈◊〉 with what the 〈◊〉 Author saith in the life of Irene, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . If the Doctor object that he is a Moderne Authour, he will never be able to render him so inconsiderable as Adriqnus 〈◊〉 Nomenclator, Thomos •• and Ride • . If any will deny that he writes good Greek, Hieronymus We ••• s will tell them, his onely fault is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , redundancy in words, and not the use of bad ones.

Besides, it is the judgement of a great Master of the Greek tongue, that Stigmata, non tam puncta • psa, quàm 〈◊〉 veriet •• superfici • m Graci vocaveru •• . I need not I suppose name him, so great a Critick as the Doctor cannot be ignorant of him.

Against this all that the Doctor saith is either false or grounded upon such mistakes, as that ungenerous resolution of his never to acknowledge, makes me suspect for voluntary. What Mr. Hobbes's argument was you have seen in the Letter, where he cannot except against the state of the question, it being taken out of himself 〈◊〉 correct. P. 28. All that Mr. Hobbes said, was that for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 some do substitute 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which is a mark with an 〈◊〉 . I did so understand this saying of his as if he had annexed those words with an hot iron, to explain, not to determine and restrain the signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Which favour I allow the Doctor when he saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) is a mark with an hot iron. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not onely any sort of mark, as upon the Dragons in H • • ied afore-cited, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Eus • ath. histor. Ismen. l. 2. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cantic. 1. 10. And in the collections of Theodotus at the end Clem. Alexandr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And Grog • r. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (citane Budaeo) So Arria • s de rebus Iudic. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (I • dis) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And Aristotl • Histor. Animal. l. 7. 976. calls the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , those marks that are born with and hereditary to some Families, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . But also the numeral 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which remark the Doctor did omit in his Arithmatick, because it was not • ound to be in Stephen, of those All • sufficient Authors which he deals in. And thus that Pseudo-Master of Westminster School might as well have shewed the Doctor how 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 might be made without an hot iron, as well as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . I give the same allowance to that saying of his, that it is a brand with 〈◊〉 hot iron, when they mark a Slave or Rascal. Dispunct. p. 43. For else branding is not alwayes dishonourable. Giphanius observ. Ling. Lat. no •• s that 〈◊〉 calls the worst of Servants extrema not a serv • s, whence he collects that they had different marks, and that there were others melioris not • . Nay in its original, whether we deduce it from the Thracians, (as the common opinion doth) or from the Egyptians from whence it was propagated to the Assyrian Priests of Astacte, (whence I would bring it) it was hon • urable, Herodotus l. 3. saith, that amongst the Thracian Dames 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So amongst the Britaines 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was a piece of Gallantry. Of this opinion was Dion Chrysost •• in his first Oration de ser ••• t; Wherein he asserts that one 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , might be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Which when one thought absurd, he asked him if he had ever been in Thrace: he answered, yes. Then he demands again, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , As for the Egyptians it was a part of their Priests Initiation: Of this (I conceive Prudentius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 〈…〉 may have spoken▪ 〈…〉 Ac •• minut • s ing • runt 〈◊〉 , His membra pergant utere; 〈◊〉 igniverint, Quamcun que partem corporis servens nota Stigmirit, hane fic consecratam praedicant. Unto this (I likewise conceive,) was it all • ded in the Old Law Levis. 19. 28. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . They should not stigmatize themselves, or make any such marks upon their bodies, as the Egyptians and Assyrians did. And in the Primitive times there wanted not those who would expound that of Iohn, that Christ should baptize 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of this way of 〈◊〉 : and thereupon in baptism 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Hereunto alludeth Apuleins (or rather expresseth this custome of initiation) in Metam. l. 11. The Goddess told him that one Mithi • s was divino quodam stellarum consortio ipsi conjunctus: now this was the Priest who was to initiate him and carry him through the confines of • eath, & quatour elementa. Martial in another case saith Et 〈◊〉 linunt stella • am splen • a fr •• tem. Thence Pythagoras had it, thence Epimenides of whom Hesychius Milestus tells us that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Whence came the proverb 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as Me •• sius excellantly observes upon the place. So the Priests of Astacte Lucian (de deâ Syrid) saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . This was my apprehension of Mr. Hobs his words at first, which since he hath owned in his last reply (p. 15.) it is no longer • to be doubted. And though his words as they lay in the text at first had been suspicious? (though who could ever suspect a person of such parts and abilities, who had given such a proof of his abilities in Greek by translating Thucydides, and illustrating him with Maps, that neither will the Doctor be able to equal him in the like performance, or bring the Author thereof into dis-repute through his cavils?) yet now there is not any can impose upon him such an intendment without being guilty of for • ery. Which leads me 〈◊〉 to a just censure of what Dr. Wallis (that tender-fronted Theo •• gue!) saith both concerning Mr. Hobs and me.

Dr. W. I said, among other things, that you mistooke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : it was this, not that, signified a marks with an hot iron. Your reply confesses that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth so signifie; but undertakes to prove that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : are all one: and your journey-man comes in to help you.

What Mr. Hobs said at first I have already declared: It is true, Dr. Wallis did tell him (and that in 〈…〉 ) how he mistook 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; but Mr. Hobs did never acknowledge any such thing: for though 〈◊〉 signifie a mark with an hot iron, yet it doth not follow that they are one and the same thing; because that signification i • general, and they have, besides that general import, a particular distinctive signification, as have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . So that (besides the Doctors ignorance) there was no reason to charge him with that mistak • and jumble, or with want of accuratenesse, whereas he was more subtile and understanding then our Professour. Well! but the Doctor saith Mr. Hobs, in his reply confesses that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth so signifie. Yes! hear his own words! (P. 15.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth no more signifie a brand with an hot iron, then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 made also with an hot iron. They have both one common theme 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which does not signifie 〈◊〉 nor interpungo, nor inur • (for all your Lexicon) but notam impri •• ere, or pungendo not are, WITHOUT any restriction to burning or punching. I hope you are now satisfied what a Conf • sion Mr. Hobs hath made in his last reply: you shall next see what he intanded to prove, but that my Letter did casually intervene, and so saved him that labour. Our Doctor saith he under •• es to prove that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈◊〉 all one. Which is as true, as that I come in to 〈…〉 W ••• I saw that in Italick, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are all one. I supposed it had been the assertion of Mr. Hobs and my self, and that he had therefore put a different character, because the sentence was not his. After a strict enquiry into what Mr. Hobs had delivered, I could not finde any such thing: that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth simply signifie a mark, he confesses, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a point visible (which is a kinde of) mark, he doth likewise grant. He doth further say, that it is No lesse proper to say that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is • mark (a certain mark is a mark; and indefinitum aequivales particulari) with a • hot iron, then to say the same of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (which is also a certain mark.) These are the things he sayes, and if he said any more, or what might contradict these, I am confident I never came in to his help; and the Doctor hath acquitted me in the next page (though he would not in this) p. 44. If I understand him, he was alwayes of opinion that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were not all one.

I have further examined my own Letter, to see what grounds he could have there to •• rge upon me such a proposition; as he had 〈◊〉 reasons from my own positive assertion, to pronounce, that I was alwayes of another judgement. The onely places that might give him occasion to say so, are these two: The first, where I say, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is sometimes all one with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which he might have found in Stephen, although he could not finde in him any example whereby to prove the use of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . This I did there show out of Hesiod: which place I would have so far considered, as that we forge • not how the Scholiast expounding 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 can hardly be understood to construe or explain obscurum per obscurius, the 〈◊〉 acception of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by taking 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in a more unco •• h and improper sense: It seemes therefore highly probable that in the Scholiast's time the use of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for a visible point, was allowable (such as are the Spo • s upon Dragons, in which sense 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are frequently used not onely by Oppian, but also Aeschy •• s, as your picti Aga • hyr •• , picti Geloni, virgati Da • ae in Latine) and the use of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in that sense, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is demonstrated. And consequently as the Master bade the boy remember the difference between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; so I may justly desire the Doctor to finde out the difference in that place of Hesiod's. But all this doth not give him cause to say that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are all one. The next place is where I say (not to the Doctor but reader) that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used for a burning with an hot iron. But from hence he could not infer that I said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were all one; for, I have already shewed how both might be used to signifie a burne with an hot iron, and yet they might retaine their specificall significations still, and so continue differenced. And secondly had I taken there 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ( 〈◊〉 I did) 〈◊〉 a brand with an hot iron, yet it could not from such an use of the word be inferred, that they were simply all one: but that in the places cited they were so: which is but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Now all that I told the reader (to shew there was no such vast irreconcileable difference betwixt the two words) was That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used for a burning with an hot iron. By this time you see not onely what Mr. Hobs, and what I said, but also what credit is to be given to the Do •• r. Now I come to examine what the Doctor hath brought by way of exception against the proofe Mr. Hobs, and I brought for such acceptation of the word.

My argument was this, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was descended from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which signified to marks with an hot iron, or the like: therefore such originally must be the signification of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : (this doth not 〈◊〉 to a confounding it with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) and though we had no examples of such use of the word, yet the reason was not thereupon to be denyed, but by him who could thinke that no word hath lost it's right signification, and is used onely (by the Authours we have, although neither the Doctor nor I have read all them) in it's Analogicall signification. This I shall not now doubt to call (as Sal •• us doth the like upon every occasion) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . This is the same argument which Mr. Hobs doth imply in his defense, when he brings an example out of Aristophan: in Ravis. Act, 5. 〈◊〉 . 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. The old commentator upon the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saith thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for the (Adimantus) was not a Citizen. I hope the Commentator doth not here mock Aristophanes for jumbling 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 together for want of understanding Greek. No, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies the same, save that, for branding I seldome read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , As for my part I never read it, but in Scholiasts, or the like Grammarians.

The Doctor replyes nothing to the argument, only the instance (for proof of what I could have cited sorty Authors more, and did therefore suppose it as granted:) he saith that when he read those words, he took them to prove the contrary. If 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were all one, where was the mistake? What need the Apology, that he (Adimantus, who did not speak pure Greek, but said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) was a forreigner?

Justly did Mr. Hobs complaine that you presumed too much upon your first cogitations, that you wanted reading in Greek Authours, and did too much trust to your dictionaries! He that reades this passage (I have related all the Doctor saith, and in his own words) would think; That the Doctor had READ the place, That ADIMANTUS spake. That he MISTOOK 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that use of the word not being pure Greek. And lastly, That the Scholiast makes an APOLOGY for that mistake of his in these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for he was a forreigner. But I who know that neither did Adimantus speak; neither was there any mistake committed; nor any Apology made by the Scholiast, do think I may conclude the Doctor never READ the place: or else I do not know what to think.

Pluto being to let Aeschy • us return to Athe • s with Becchus, he tells him what he must do when he comes thither; that he should give good advice to the Citizens; and carry that [Rope, or the like] to Cleph • n Myrmex, Nicomachus, and Arche ••••• , and bid them come quickly to him, without stay, adding 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

If they do not come forthwith, he will brand them, and put them in bonds together with Adimantus, and so send them to Mell. Now this punishment of branding being novel at Athens and not inflicted upon any Citizen, but upon the 〈◊〉 after their second revolt, (whence ca •• e the Proverb in Athens 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) and possibly upon some others that were not Natives of Attica. Plato seems to hold forth this in his Book de legib. l. 8. (wherein he doth so give laws, that he hath an eye still upon those of his own countrey.) he supposes no Citizen will commit Sacriledge, and for other 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : the 〈◊〉 lest any should wonder how Cleoph • n and Adimantus & the rest who were in great power at Athens should be stigmatized, he tels us expresly of Adimantus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Now that Cleoph • n was so too, the same Scholiast doth expressely say in his comment upon the following Chorni, and I think the poet doth in • end that not onely he, but the rest were so, when he praye • that the Athenians may have peace, and let Cleoph • n and the rest of these (whom? but them he had spoken of before) 〈…〉 .

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

〈1 page〉

〈1 page〉 〈…〉 did not signifie a visible point. 〈…〉 give him one blow with his wooden Dagger) that what he addeth about Trab • , is no more to the purpose then the Post • And if he understood what he had already said, I wonder how he could finde no better way to illustrate his thoughts.

What he saith, Fifthly: is but an acquitrance of me (as I already observed) that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did differ as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 〈◊〉 in his book de A • . calls D ••• critus's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , of which he thought the soul to consist, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : but those are not visible. Theophrast. de plant. l. 3. c. 15. saith of the bark of the tree, Corylus, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Here it is a visible sp • t. So Aristot. Hist. An. l. 6. c. 7. distinguishing the Birds 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , saith • 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 • Which distinction he is so far from having understood, that it hath cast him into further absurdities. What • e in conclusion after t • , that it is now contended for, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be all one; it is false, as I have shewed.

I have already given an account of his Sixthly: He had well read and considered the place in Stephen: yet Stephen saith not what the Doctor saith; he doth not say that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is sometimes put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He saith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth in Hesiod Puncta five macules quibus aliquid variatum est atque distinctum qu • st panctis. But that it is put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , sometimes, or often, he saith not a word. But St! the Doctor observes! what? that he doth not say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is sometimes used for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (but I have proved it) or is the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Which latter, if it be taken absolutely, no body asserted: but take it secundum quid, and he that quoted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the text of Hesiod, quoted 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Scholiast: that is, he expounded 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the place, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; which is to say, that as Hesiod used 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 • or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , so the Scholiast die use 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but not for a mark with an hot iron.

In the place out of 2 Macat. 9. 11. he saith it is possible that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may imply somewhat of pricking, but not burning, nor with an hot iron. But I would not have him confound 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : the latter imports only action of pricking (as when we we mark somewhat) but the latter doth imply the mark it self. And the sense of the Author requires it (in my judgement) to be expounded by burning (rather then any other way) since Antiochus dyed of an er •• tion of Wormes: and I am sure they who 〈◊〉 troubled with the Worm (which in the North often breeds in their knees under the Pan • tella) complain that their torments are as if they were burnt with hot irons. That of Pans • ni • s doth not mention an hot iron; no more doth any place he shall bring for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : yet the general consent of men hath rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by nota i ••• ta: and however 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in there put for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and the use of any other way of stigmatizing them by hot irons, I do not remember to have read, in these dayes. Appi • n. b • l. civil. saith, that the servant of Restio was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and call the mark 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : Martial saith, he was fro •• notarus, which are generally understood of his being burnt; and the Authours thought they had by that word expressed as much as Velarius Meximms who saith l. 6. c. 8. that he was Inexpiabili liter •••• • old per 〈◊〉 oris cont •• sliam inustus. Or Austi •• (whom I cite, though no Grocian) is reported to say, Pri • s sub Restione 〈…〉 Dion Ca ••• es and his Epitomiser Xiphilin say of the same, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

To Diodorus 〈◊〉 he replyes that it is not said to have been done with an hot iron: which is true, and would have been, if it had been 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . That servile was brake out when 〈◊〉 was ingaged at the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 : and I do not know that men were any other way marked at that time, but by hot irons: And men did therefore speak more negligently, because that another way was not then in use; nor a long time after the decay of the Roman Empire: they did matricula •• Souldiers, and brand them first with Iron, and after infuse with a Stylus or the like, a thick gross sort of Ink: which was thereupon called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Cedren: not that the brand was performed by pricking, but because it was afterwards so pointed with Ink, because that they had learn'd a way of taking them out otherwise.

Stigmata nec vas •• delebis Cian ••• s ar • e.

He addes further, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (in the plural) are used as equipollent to one 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (in the singular.) But this conjecture must not overthrow my opinion, since there were more 〈◊〉 then one imprinted: yea more stigmata,, as upon the Hand, Back, Shoulders, &c. And this was not only the practice of the Assyrian (and Egyptian) Priests, and Thracians, (where it was honourable) but Grecians and Romans: (as every one knowes) and even in that place 〈◊〉 renders it Certe per inustionem corporum notae inprimebantur. But could not the Doctor have found a more easie and obvious interpretation, that they had all but one 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or mark to shew whose servants they were; but they had several 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , upon their bodies. But it is further observable that Isidorus Orig. l. 20. c. 16. speaking de instrumentis equorum, where it was most requisite for him to fix the terms of art upon their right significations, faith 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Character, est ferrum 〈◊〉 , quo nota pecudibus inuruntur. The mark it self is called by Anacreon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Hesychius calls them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

Now follows Zonaras, whose two texts compared together do sufficiently evince, that what he meant by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , he intended by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . In both places he speaks of more then one, and therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is not necessarily restrained to signifie the pricks; and in the same text he seemed to me, (nor to me only, but also to Lips • us) to render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . There is no mark with an hot iron: it is right, but that is presumed, as in Rbodigimus, when he explains stigmatias by notis inustus. But the Doctor can construe Greek! 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [he made points or pricks in their faces] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (and put 〈◊〉 , upon these pricks] 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or characters which consisted of those 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , made so many letters) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which Letters made up these lambicks) After this exposition (you see the Doctor can not only glosse upon 1 Time 2. 15. he can make a Nose of Wax of other Books too) the Doctor asks, What serves all this to prove? I answer, that it still proves that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 might be made without an hot iron (if these marks were so imprinted.) But why doth he render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the pricked them in the face? Is that the signification of the word? can he • hew an example of that use of it? Is there any other term in Greek for to signifie to brand, then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is more usual? is not taken for a Synonyma with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ? Is it not still expounded by the Latins inuro, inscribe • tis compungo? I know not what might occasion him so to render it, unlesse because I had taught him the difference betwize 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , was like that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; he like a bad Scholar imagines the stigmata to have been made up of actual points: (yes! Comma's, and Colons!) just as a Letter (in ordinary speech, for I do not now intend to dispute Philosiphically) is supposed to be made up of actual lines! which is not true of many, and whele it is, that is not the thing begets the appellation, but the conceipt we have thereof. Either it must have been so; or that Latin phrase notis 〈◊〉 hath deceived him! for that expression may be verified of your Sheep or 〈◊〉 . I finde also stigmate p ••• cti in Petr •• ius: from whence I may conclude, In the Doctors way, that stigma was but a point. There remains nothing but that the Author of that interpretation urge that confodio is to run through with a Spade: and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to prick with a Needle, or the like in Appian, and Zosi •• s, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 several times in the Septuagint. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ! The Doctor was not content to give us a new Gloss; he varies the old Text. His 〈◊〉 (forsooth,) tells him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a Verb contract, and therefore it ought to be contractedly read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Surely he read this place too! But the Author is not bound up by those novel rules, but writes with that latitude, which frequent precedents do) justifie unto him, notwithstanding our Critick. But letting the Text stand as it does, why may we not think he did 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as well as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Seeing Cedrenus saith he did 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (notis berbaricis, id est, Thr • iciis, so Austin.) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , if any will construe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , yet will 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 have a relation to that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , with which the same Author saith the Armenians were stigmarized: of which I spake before. Moreover, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 will hear as large a signification as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , for so I read in Epictetus c. 61. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . If in your shoes, you look for more then the securing of your feet from external inconveniences, then you become ob •• xious to fashions, the gilded, the purple, and the party-coloured shoe. So 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Eustath. in Homer. And in another place Theodora that Empress tells one of those same Stigmatical Monks, when she looked upon 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , &c. which 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to engrave as it were with a Chissel. And Step • onus saith out of Ph •• arch; that the Lacedemonians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , but 〈◊〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . I confesse that if the Doctor had shewed that ever the Ancients did so brand people as to make the up letters of actual points placed in such a series as to make up Letters, he had weakned the authority of the place: or if he had shewed how that after Constantine (upon a good reason • because he would not have the image of God defaced in man,) prohibited the stigmatizing of any in the face, that upon the renewing of the punishment they altered the manner, it had been something, but since they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, notis barbaricis inscripta, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , inci • a, (which to interpret as done by pricks, were strange.) Since there is nothing alledged for the abosishing of the old 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and introducing a new way by pricks (for the performance of it by a Pencil or Pen knife is novel, and of it there is not any mention in the Ancients, that I remember, till after men grew more • ender • spirited) let me enjoy the s • anding meaning: and let 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 refer to the two persons stigmatised. I shall not stand to professe that the way of branding is difficult to explain, because that words are capable of different interpretations; and in this c • le it is impossible to make out the manner thereof beyond exception. That it w •• performed by burning of old there is no doubt: Vritur ardenti propter duo lintea ferro. Iuvenal. Signare oportet frontem cali •• forcipa. So No • ius.

And in Greek, Plato calls the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in his T ••• us: Lacian in his Piscator brings in Truth bidding Parre • iades to shave the Pseudo Philosophers beards close, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . I do here conceive that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifie one and the same thing under several words: and that it was performed with a brand, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and I do not see why we should think that mark of an Ape or Fox to have been made up of several points: yet so the Doctor must construe all the places wherem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 occ • rres; and after all that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 will be a mark with an hot iron, though not the same with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , which we did never say; nor were we c • ncerned in the 〈◊〉 of Rog •• es, since all that Mr. Hobs said (and • o the Doctor cites him Dr. Cor. p. 18) was, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was a mark with an hot iron, let it be inflicted vpon whom, or what cause you will. How Rogues were 〈◊〉 , I cannot explain one of any Greek Author further then that place of Lucian, and that other of Zonaras (which hath its like in Petronius) do help me: other places they have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which passages tendred by Latin Authors inscripti, inusti, 〈◊〉 , literati, notis compuncti, catid • forcipe signati. Aris • ophanes in Avibus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Here it is evident that no mention is made of burning, but it is still supplyed by the 〈◊〉 , and no mention is brought in those times of that other way which I mentioned out of Elias Vinetus performed by the incision of a Pen kni • e, in the dayes concerning which I brought the proof of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And as for the other marks honorary the Egyptians seem to have imprinted by fire irons only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , single points: so Prudentius saith it was •• formed acubus minutis stigmendo, not stigmatisando Not do I ever remember that I read of any form those 〈◊〉 marks had: that Stellarum 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 , and those Sphragitides may be solved well enough, if, we suppose the management to have been thus; yet Epimenides was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . As to the number of them, Prudentius and that example of Epimenidet do make it clear they did imp • int many marks▪ yet I do not hear that Pythagoras had more then one, and that on his thi •• which is the conjecture of an ingenio • s but modern writer. The Assyrians 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ; Iamblich. in vit. Pythag.) did 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and were branded but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Yet even there they may have had a multitude of mark • ▪ or • f they had not, yet what is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when considered simply as a point, may be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when considered as figured: And this I say not receding from, but keeping to that distinction which I said was betwixt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as betwixt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Yea, the case was so upon other occasions, so as that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were one and the same thing (under a different notion) as appears from the use of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Theophrastus, &c. and that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Hesiod, Aristotle, &c. I do not think that the pictures of animals which were imprinted on the old Britains ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) will be understood of pointing, or pricking: and if the Doctor should go to any person and bid him write, engrave, carve, cut, &c. his name; I do not think they would so understand the Doctor, as he understands 〈◊〉 . Of▪ the Thracians I can say no more then that they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , so Dion Chrysoft. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , so Eustath▪ upon Homer (the Dabe were Virgati, will any expound that of pricks too?) and though the brand were never so great, and shaped, yet it might be said compungi, to be punched, as I observed before. And now I have said not only more then any before me, but what may satisfie one not resolutely contumacious: I have sufficiently evinced that the Doctor was out, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being a mark with an hot iron: And for what follows, let any man believe that the • udgement of Marcellus, Stigmata non ta •• 〈◊〉 , qu • m punctis • ariatam super • iciem Graci •• caverunt: which I finde seconded by the attestarion of several Authors (de 〈◊〉 vene • icarum;) let any man believe that that same is against me, that can.

And now I have run through this tedious plece of pedantry: I have not omitted any thing unanswered, that I know: not have I ever imposed upon him any thing, wittingly, which might not be his meaning. I have so examined things, as who should seek truth, and not victory: I have not heaped upon him impertinent contumeli • s; and for telling him what he is (which is no abuse) I think he ought rather to thank me then he angry: I hope he will not hereafter look upon himself in the • al • e glasse of Enco •• • tick Letters, but take his length from my measure; and not trouble the world, nor pester his bookes with curiosities in Philology, nor intermeddle with Divinity but confine himself to Symbols, wherein he may do well it is hoped in time, and he will have that happiness to meet with as few Readers as he doth Auditors. I would advise him to call Mr. Hobs his book, Stigma Hobbianum▪ rather then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 since all the several points therein discussed and examined amount but to one Stigma: which I here represent. K. I. K. I. And so dismisse him as one of the LITERATI, though not as a Virtuoso.

Thus Sir you see I have vindicated my self, and you, or rather my self to you: I have dealt so with your enemy, that I dare take up the saying of Petronius, Implevi frontem ingentibus literis, & notum epigr amma per totam faciem liberali manu duxi. I hope you will prove hereafter more cautious, then to publish any thing in Philology, since Mar • anus Capella hath left his Mistresse double-beneficed to the Assembly of Divines: and no one is to pretend to Criticisme or any thing of learning but such as are of that Classe: if any man shall presume to call another so, or have any esteem for them, or make honourable mention of them, there shall be aspersions cast upon him, and an Index expurg • torius, whereby shall be blotted out all those honourable mentions of any dissenter: In like manner as their Predecessour, the Pope (the power is the same whether divided, or united) expunged the titles of doctus, and eruditus out of the Catholick writers where they were bestowed upon the Protestants. I shall now conclude with the diver • i • ement of some Poetry, the Authors whereof I am not bound to declare; and desire you would finde out some other way hereafter, whereby I may shew you how much I am and desire to be

Oxon. Iun. 12. 1657. Sir, your most humble and most affectionate Servant, H. Stubbe.