Stigmai ageōmetrias, agroichias, antipoliteas, amatheias, or, Markes of the absurd geometry, rural language, Scottish church-politicks, and barbarismes of John Wallis professor of geometry and doctor of divinity by Thomas Hobbes.
         Hobbes, Thomas, 1588-1679.
      
       
         This text is an enriched version of the TCP digital transcription A44015 of text R28097 in the  English Short Title Catalog (Wing H2261). Textual changes  and metadata enrichments aim at making the text more  computationally tractable, easier to read, and suitable for network-based collaborative curation by amateur and professional end users from many walks of life.  The text has been tokenized and linguistically annotated with  MorphAdorner. The annotation includes standard spellings that support the display of a text in a standardized format that preserves archaic forms ('loveth', 'seekest'). Textual changes aim at restoring the text the author or stationer meant to publish.  This text has not been fully proofread 
       Approx. 117 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 18 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images.
       
         EarlyPrint Project
         Evanston,IL, Notre Dame, IN, St. Louis, MO
         2017
         A44015
         Wing H2261
         ESTC R28097
         10409648
         ocm 10409648
         44957
         
           
            This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of
             Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal
            . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.
          
        
      
       
         Early English books online.
      
       
         (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A44015)
         Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 44957)
         Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1386:2)
      
       
         
           
             Stigmai ageōmetrias, agroichias, antipoliteas, amatheias, or, Markes of the absurd geometry, rural language, Scottish church-politicks, and barbarismes of John Wallis professor of geometry and doctor of divinity by Thomas Hobbes.
             Hobbes, Thomas, 1588-1679.
          
           [2], 31 p.
           
             Printed for Andrew Crooke,
             London :
             1657.
          
           
             Reproduction of original in the Trinity College Library, Cambridge University.
          
        
      
    
     
       
         eng
      
       
         
           Wallis, John, 1616-1703. -- Due correction for Mr. Hobbes.
           Mathematics -- Early works to 1800.
        
      
    
       A44015  R28097  (Wing H2261).  civilwar no Stigmai ageōmetrias, agroichias, antipoliteas, amatheias or Markes of the absurd geometry rural language Scottish church-politicks and barb Hobbes, Thomas 1657    22722 625 795 19 0 0 0 633 F  The  rate of 633 defects per 10,000 words puts this text in the F category of texts with  100 or more defects per 10,000 words. 
        2004-09 TCP
        Assigned for keying and markup
      
        2004-11 Apex CoVantage
        Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images
      
        2005-01 Emma (Leeson) Huber
        Sampled and proofread
      
        2005-01 Emma (Leeson) Huber
        Text and markup reviewed and edited
      
        2005-04 pfs
        Batch review (QC) and XML conversion
      
    
  
   
     
       
       
         
         
           ΣΤΙΓΜΑΙ
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           OR
           MARKES
           Of
           the
           
             
               Absurd
               Geometry
            
             
               Rural
               Language
            
             
               Scottish
               Church-Politicks
            
             
               And
               Barbarismes
            
          
           OF
           JOHN
           WALLIS
           Professor
           of
           Geometry
           and
           Doctor
           of
           Divinity
           .
           By
           THOMAS
           HOBBES
           of
           MALMESBURY
           .
        
         
           
             LONDON
             ,
          
           Printed
           for
           
             Andrew
             Crocke
             ,
          
           at
           the
           Green
           
             Dragon
          
           in
           
             Pauls
          
           Church-yard
           ,
           1657.
           
        
      
       
       
       
         
           To
           the
           Right
           honourable
           
             Henry
          
           Lord
           
             Pierrepont
          
           Vicount
           
             Newarke
             ,
          
           Earle
           of
           
             Kingston
             ,
          
           and
           Marquis
           of
           
             Dorchester
             .
          
        
         
           
             My
             most
             Noble
             Lord
             ,
          
        
         
           I
           Did
           not
           intend
           to
           trouble
           your
           Lordship
           twice
           with
           this
           Contention
           between
           me
           and
           Doctor
           
             Wallis
             .
          
           But
           your
           Lordship
           sees
           how
           I
           am
           constrained
           to
           it
           ;
           which
           (
           whatsoever
           reply
           the
           Doctor
           makes
           )
           I
           shall
           be
           constrained
           to
           no
           more
           .
           That
           which
           I
           have
           now
           said
           of
           his
           Geometry
           ,
           Manners
           ,
           Divinity
           ,
           and
           G●ammar
           all
           together
           is
           not
           much
           ,
           though
           enough
           .
           As
           for
           that
           which
           I
           here
           have
           written
           concerning
           his
           Geometry
           ,
           which
           you
           will
           look
           for
           first
           ,
           is
           so
           clear
           ,
           that
           not
           only
           your
           Lordship
           and
           such
           as
           have
           proceeded
           far
           in
           that
           Sicence
           ,
           but
           also
           any
           man
           else
           that
           doth
           but
           know
           how
           to
           adde
           and
           substract
           Proportions
           (
           which
           is
           taught
           at
           the
           twentieth
           third
           Proposition
           of
           ●the
           sixth
           of
           Euclide
           )
           may
           see
           the
           Doctor
           is
           in
           the
           wrong
           .
           That
           which
           I
           say
           of
           his
           ill
           Language
           and
           Politicks
           is
           yet
           shorter
           .
           The
           rest
           (
           which
           concerneth
           Grammar
           )
           is
           almost
           all
           another
           mans
           ,
           but
           so
           full
           of
           Learning
           of
           that
           kinde
           ,
           as
           no
           man
           that
           taketh
           delight
           in
           knowing
           the
           proprieties
           of
           the
           Greek
           and
           Latine
           Tongues
           ,
           will
           think
           his
           time
           ill
           bestowed
           in
           the
           reading
           
           
             it
             .
             I
             give
             the
             Doctor
             no
             more
             ill
             words
             ;
             but
             am
             returned
             from
             his
             manners
             to
             my
             own
             .
             Your
             Lordship
             may
             perhaps
             say
             my
             Complement
             in
             my
             Tittle
             page
             is
             somewhat
             course
             ;
             And
             't
             is
             true
             .
             But
             ,
             my
             Lord
             ,
             it
             is
             since
             the
             writing
             of
             the
             Title
             page
             ,
             that
             I
             am
             returned
             from
             the
             Doctors
             manners
             to
             my
             own
             ;
             which
             are
             such
             as
             I
             hope
             you
             will
             not
             be
             ashamed
             to
             own
             me
             ,
             my
             Lord
             ,
             for
             one
             of
          
        
         
           
             Your
             Lordships
             most
             humble
             and
             obedient
             Servants
             Thomas
             Hobbes
             .
          
        
      
    
     
       
       
         
           TO
           
             DOCTOR
             WALLIS
          
           In
           answer
           to
           his
           SCHOOLE
           DISCIPLINE
           .
        
         
           
             SIR
             ,
          
        
         
           WHen
           ●nprovok'd
           you
           addressed
           unto
           me
           in
           your
           
             Elenchus
          
           your
           ha●sh
           complement
           with
           great
           security
           ,
           wantonly
           to
           shew
           your
           wit
           ,
           I
           confesse
           you
           made
           me
           angry
           ,
           and
           willing
           to
           put
           you
           into
           a
           better
           way
           of
           considering
           your
           own
           forces
           ,
           and
           to
           move
           you
           a
           little
           as
           you
           had
           ●moved
           me
           ;
           which
           I
           perceive
           my
           Lessons
           to
           you
           have
           in
           some
           measure
           done
           ;
           But
           here
           you
           shall
           see
           how
           easily
           I
           can
           bear
           your
           reproaches
           ,
           now
           they
           proceed
           from
           anger
           ,
           and
           how
           calmly
           I
           can
           argue
           with
           you
           about
           your
           Geometry
           ,
           and
           other
           parts
           of
           Learning
           .
        
         
           I
           shall
           in
           the
           first
           part
           confer
           with
           you
           about
           your
           
             Arit●metica
             Infinitorum
             ,
          
           and
           afterwards
           compare
           our
           manner
           of
           Elocution
           ;
           then
           your
           Politicks
           ;
           and
           last
           of
           all
           your
           Grammar
           and
           Criticks
           .
           Your
           spirall
           line
           is
           condemned
           by
           him
           whose
           Authority
           you
           use
           to
           prove
           me
           a
           Plagiary
           ,
           (
           that
           is
           ,
           a
           man
           that
           st●aleth
           other
           mens
           inventions
           ,
           and
           arrogates
           them
           to
           himself
           )
           whether
           it
           be
           
             Roberval
          
           or
           not
           that
           w●it
           that
           paper
           ,
           I
           am
           not
           certain
           .
           But
           I
           think
           I
           shall
           be
           shortly
           ,
           but
           whosoever
           it
           be
           ,
           his
           authority
           will
           serve
           no
           lesse
           to
           shew
           that
           your
           Doctrine
           of
           the
           sp●rall
           line
           from
           the
           fi●th
           to
           the
           eighteenth
           proposition
           of
           your
           
             Arithmetica
             Infinitorum
             ,
          
           is
           all
           false
           ;
           and
           that
           the
           principal
           fault
           therein
           (
           if
           all
           faults
           be
           not
           principal
           in
           Geometry
           ,
           when
           they
           proceed
           from
           ignorance
           of
           the
           Science
           )
           is
           the
           same
           that
           I
           objected
           to
           you
           in
           my
           Lessons
           .
           And
           for
           the
           Author
           of
           that
           paper
           ,
           when
           I
           am
           certain
           who
           it
           is
           ,
           it
           will
           be
           then
           time
           enough
           to
           vindicate
           my self
           concerning
           that
           name
           of
           Plagiary
           ;
           And
           whereas
           he
           challenges
           the
           invention
           of
           your
           Method
           delivered
           in
           your
           
             Arithmetica
             Infinitorum
          
           to
           have
           been
           his
           before
           it
           was
           yours
           ,
           I
           shall
           (
           I
           think
           )
           by
           and
           by
           say
           that
           which
           shall
           make
           him
           a
           shamed
           to
           own
           it
           ;
           and
           those
           that
           writ
           those
           Encomiastick
           Epistles
           to
           you
           ashamed
           of
           the
           Honour
           they
           meant
           to
           you
           :
           I
           passe
           therefore
           to
           the
           ninteenth
           proposition
           ,
           which
           in
           L●tine
           is
           this
           .
           
             
               
                 
                 
                   
                     Your
                     
                       Geometry
                       .
                    
                  
                   
                     
                       Si
                       proponatur
                       series
                       Quantitatum
                       in
                       duplicata
                       ratione
                       Arithmetice
                       .
                       proportionalium
                       (
                       sive
                       juxta
                       seriem
                       numerorum
                       Quadraticorum
                       )
                       continu●
                       crescentium
                       ,
                       à
                       puncto
                       vel
                       o
                       inchoa●arum
                       ,
                       (
                       puta
                       ut
                       0.
                       1.
                       4.
                       9.
                       16.
                       &c.
                       )
                       propositum
                       sit
                       ,
                       inquirere
                       quam
                       habeat
                       illa
                       rat●onem
                       ad
                       seriem
                       totid●m
                       maximae
                       aequalium
                       .
                    
                  
                   
                     
                       Fiat
                       Investigatio
                       per
                       modum
                       inductioni●
                       ut
                       (
                       in
                       prop.
                       1.
                       )
                    
                  
                   
                     Eritque
                     
                       
                         
                      
                       
                         
                      
                       
                         
                         &
                         sic
                         dein●eps
                         .
                      
                    
                  
                   
                     
                       Ratio
                       proveniens
                       est
                       ubique
                       major
                       quam
                       subtripla
                       seu
                       ⅓
                       ▪
                       ;
                       Excessus
                       autem
                       perpetuo
                       decresci●
                       prout
                       ▪
                       numerus
                       terminorum
                       augetur
                       (
                       puta
                       1
                       /
                       6
                       1
                       /
                       12
                       1
                       /
                       18
                       1
                       /
                       30
                       &c.
                       )
                       aucto
                       nimirum
                       fractionis
                       denominatore
                       sive
                       consequente
                       rationis
                       in
                       singulis
                       locis
                       numero
                       senario
                       (
                       ut
                       pa●et
                       )
                       ut
                       ●it
                       rationis
                       provenientis
                       excessus
                       supra
                       subtriplam
                       ,
                       Ea
                       quam
                       habet
                       unitas
                       ad
                       sextuplum
                       numeri
                       terminorum
                       posto
                       ;
                       adeoque
                       .
                    
                  
                
              
            
          
        
         
           That
           is
           ,
           if
           there
           be
           propounded
           a
           row
           of
           quantities
           in
           duplicate
           proportion
           of
           the
           quantities
           Arithmetically
           proportional
           (
           or
           proceeding
           in
           the
           order
           of
           the
           square
           numbers
           )
           continually
           increasing
           ;
           and
           beginning
           at
           a
           point
           or
           0
           ;
           let
           it
           be
           propounded
           to
           finde
           what
           proportion
           the
           row
           hath
           ;
           to
           as
           many
           quantities
           equal
           to
           the
           greatest
           ;
        
         
           Let
           it
           be
           sought
           by
           induction
           (
           as
           in
           the
           first
           proposition
           )
        
         
           The
           proportion
           arising
           is
           every where
           greater
           then
           subtriple
           ,
           or
           ⅓
           ,
           And
           the
           excesse
           perpetually
           decreaseth
           as
           the
           number
           of
           termes
           is
           augmented
           ,
           as
           here
           ,
           1
           /
           6
           1
           /
           12
           1
           /
           18
           1
           /
           24
           1
           /
           30
           &c.
           the
           denominator
           of
           the
           fraction
           being
           in
           every
           place
           augmented
           by
           the
           number
           six
           (
           as
           is
           manifest
           )
           so
           that
           the
           excesse
           of
           the
           rising
           proportion
           above
           subtriple
           is
           the
           same
           which
           unity
           hath
           to
           six
           times
           the
           number
           of
           termes
           after
           0
           ;
           and
           so
           .
        
         
           Sir
           ,
           In
           these
           your
           Characters
           I
           understand
           by
           the
           crosse
           +
           that
           the
           quantities
           on
           each
           side
           of
           it
           are
           to
           be
           added
           together
           and
           make
           one
           Aggregate
           ;
           and
           I
           understand
           by
           the
           two
           parallel
           lines
           =
           that
           the
           quantities
           betwen
           which
           they
           are
           placed
           are
           one
           to
           another
           equall
           ;
           This
           is
           your
           meaning
           ,
           or
           you
           should
           have
           told
           us
           what
           you
           meant
           else
           :
           I
           understand
           also
           ,
           that
           in
           the
           first
           row
           0
           +
           1
           is
           equal
           to
           1
           ,
           and
           1
           +
           1
           equal
           to
           2
           ;
           And
           that
           in
           the
           second
           row
           0
           +
           1
           +
           4
           is
           equal
           to
           5
           ;
           and
           4
           +
           4
           +
           4
           equal
           to
           12
           ;
           But
           (
           which
           you
           are
           too
           apt
           to
           grant
           )
           I
           understand
           your
           Symboles
           no
           further
           ;
           but
           must
           confer
           with
           your self
           about
           the
           rest
           .
        
         
           And
           first
           I
           ask
           you
           (
           because
           fractions
           are
           commonly
           written
           in
           that
           manner
           )
           whether
           in
           the
           uppermost
           row
           (
           which
           is
           
           )
           0
           /
           1
           be
           a
           fraction
           ,
           1
           /
           1
           be
           a
           fraction
           ,
           
           ½
           be
           a
           fraction
           ,
           that
           is
           to
           say
           ,
           a
           part
           of
           an
           unite
           ,
           and
           if
           you
           will
           (
           for
           the
           cyphers
           sake
           )
           whether
           0
           /
           1
           ,
           be
           an
           infinitely
           little
           part
           of
           1
           ;
           and
           whether
           1
           /
           1
           ,
           or
           1
           divided
           by
           1
           signifie
           an
           unity
           ;
           if
           that
           be
           your
           meaning
           ,
           then
           the
           fractio●
           0
           /
           1
           added
           to
           the
           fraction
           1
           /
           1
           is
           equal
           to
           the
           fraction
           ½
           :
           But
           the
           fraction
           0
           /
           1
           is
           equal
           to
           0
           ;
           therefore
           the
           fraction
           0
           /
           1
           +
           1
           /
           1
           is
           equal
           to
           the
           fraction
           1
           /
           1
           ;
           and
           1
           /
           1
           equal
           to
           ½
           which
           you
           will
           ▪
           confesse
           to
           be
           an
           absurd
           conclusion
           ,
           and
           cannot
           own
           that
           meaning
           .
        
         
           I
           ask
           you
           therefore
           again
           if
           by
           0
           /
           1
           you
           mean
           the
           proportion
           of
           0
           to
           1
           ;
           and
           consequently
           by
           1
           /
           1
           the
           proportion
           of
           1
           to
           1
           ,
           and
           by
           ½
           the
           proportion
           of
           1
           to
           2
           :
           if
           so
           ,
           then
           it
           will
           follow
           ,
           that
           if
           the
           proportions
           of
           0
           to
           1
           and
           of
           1
           to
           1
           ●e
           compounded
           by
           addition
           ,
           the
           proportion
           arising
           will
           be
           the
           proportion
           of
           1
           to
           2.
           
           But
           the
           proportion
           of
           0
           to
           1
           is
           infinitely
           little
           ,
           that
           is
           ,
           none
           .
           Therefore
           the
           proportion
           arising
           by
           composition
           will
           be
           that
           of
           1
           ,
           to
           1
           ,
           and
           equall
           (
           because
           of
           the
           symbol
           =
           )
           to
           the
           proportion
           of
           1
           to
           2
           and
           so
           1
           =
           2
           :
           This
           also
           is
           so
           absurd
           that
           I
           dare
           say
           that
           you
           will
           not
           own
           it
           .
        
         
           There
           may
           be
           another
           meaning
           yet
           :
           perhaps
           you
           mean
           that
           the
           uppermost
           quantitie
           0
           +
           1
           is
           equal
           to
           the
           uppermost
           q●antity
           1
           ;
           and
           the
           lowermost
           quantity
           1
           +
           1
           equal
           to
           the
           lowermost
           quantity
           2
           :
           Which
           is
           true
           :
           but
           how
           then
           in
           this
           equation
           ½
           =
           ⅓
           +
           ⅙
           is
           the
           uppermost
           quantity
           1
           equal
           to
           the
           uppermost
           quantity
           1
           +
           1
           ;
           or
           the
           lower
           most
           quantity
           〈◊〉
           equal
           to
           the
           lowermost
           quantity
           3
           +
           6
           ?
           Therefore
           neither
           can
           this
           be
           your
           meaning
           ;
           unlesse
           you
           make
           your
           symbols
           more
           significant
           ,
           you
           must
           not
           blame
           me
           for
           want
           of
           understanding
           them
           .
        
         
           Let
           us
           now
           try
           what
           better
           successe
           we
           s●all
           have
           where
           the
           places
           are
           three
           ,
           as
           here
           
           :
           If
           your
           Symbols
           be
           fractions
           ,
           the
           compound
           of
           them
           by
           addition
           is
           5
           /
           4
           ;
           For
           0
           ,
           ¼
           and
           4
           /
           4
           make
           5
           /
           4
           ;
           and
           consequently
           (
           because
           of
           the
           Symbole
           =
           )
           5
           /
           4
           equal
           to
           5
           /
           12
           which
           is
           not
           to
           be
           allowed
           ,
           and
           therefore
           that
           was
           not
           your
           meaning
           .
           If
           you
           meant
           that
           the
           proportions
           of
           0
           to
           4
           &
           of
           1
           to
           4
           &
           of
           4
           to
           4
           compounded
           is
           equal
           to
           the
           proportion
           of
           5.
           to
           12.
           you
           will
           fall
           again
           into
           no
           less
           an
           inconvenience
           .
           For
           the
           proportion
           arising
           out
           of
           that
           Composition
           will
           be
           the
           proportion
           of
           1.
           to
           4.
           
           For
           the
           proportion
           of
           0.
           to
           4.
           is
           infinitely
           little
           .
           Then
           to
           compound
           the
           other
           two
           ,
           set
           them
           in
           this
           order
           1.
           4.
           4.
           and
           you
           have
           a
           proportion
           compounded
           of
           1.
           to
           4.
           and
           of
           4.
           to
           4.
           namely
           ,
           the
           proportion
           of
           the
           first
           to
           the
           last
           ,
           which
           is
           of
           1.
           to
           4.
           which
           must
           be
           equal
           (
           by
           this
           your
           meaning
           )
           to
           the
           proportion
           of
           5.
           to
           12.
           and
           consequently
           as
           5.
           to
           12.
           so
           is
           1.
           to
           4.
           which
           you
           must
           not
           own
           .
           Lastly
           ,
           if
           you
           mean
           that
           the
           uppermost
           quantities
           to
           the
           uppermost
           ,
           and
           the
           lowermost
           to
           the
           lowermost
           in
           the
           first
           Equation
           are
           equal
           ,
           t
           is
           granted
           ,
           but
           then
           again
           in
           the
           second
           Equation
           it
           is
           false
           .
           It
           concerns
           your
           fame
           in
           the
           Mathematicks
           to
           look
           about
           how
           to
           justifie
           these
           Equations
           which
           are
           the
           premises
           to
           your
           conclusion
           following
           ,
           namely
           ,
           that
           the
           proportion
           arising
           is
           every where
           greater
           then
           subtriple
           ,
           or
           a
           third
           ;
           and
           that
           the
           excess
           (
           that
           is
           ,
           the
           excess
           above
           subtriple
           )
           perpetually
           decreaseth
           as
           the
           number
           of
           terms
           is
           augmented
           ,
           as
           here
           
           1
           /
           6
           1
           /
           12
           1
           /
           18
           1
           /
           24
           1
           /
           30
           &c.
           which
           I
           will
           shew
           you
           plainly
           is
           false
           .
        
         
           But
           first
           I
           wonder
           why
           you
           were
           so
           angry
           with
           me
           for
           saying
           you
           made
           proportion
           to
           consist
           in
           the
           Quotient
           ,
           as
           to
           tell
           me
           it
           was
           abominably
           false
           ,
           and
           to
           justifie
           it
           ,
           cite
           your
           own
           words
           
             Penes
             Quotientem
             ,
          
           do
           not
           you
           say
           here
           ,
           the
           proportion
           is
           every where
           greater
           then
           subtriple
           ,
           or
           ⅓
           ?
           And
           is
           not
           ⅓
           the
           quotient
           of
           1.
           divided
           by
           3
           ?
           You
           cannot
           say
           in
           this
           place
           that
           
             Penes
          
           is
           understood
           ;
           for
           if
           it
           were
           expressed
           you
           would
           ●ot
           be
           able
           to
           proceed
           .
        
         
           But
           I
           return
           to
           your
           conclusion
           ,
           that
           the
           ex●ess
           of
           the
           proportion
           of
           the
           increasing
           quantities
           above
           the
           third
           part
           of
           so
           many
           t●mes
           the
           greatest
           ,
           decreaseth
           as
           1
           /
           6
           1
           /
           12
           1
           /
           18
           1
           /
           24
           1
           /
           30
           &c.
           
           For
           by
           this
           accompt
           in
           this
           row
           
           where
           the
           quantitie
           above
           exceeds
           the
           third
           part
           of
           the
           quantities
           below
           by
           ⅓
           '
           you
           make
           ⅓
           equal
           to
           ⅙
           '
           which
           you
           do
           not
           mean
           .
           It
           may
           be
           said
           your
           meaning
           is
           that
           the
           proportion
           of
           〈◊〉
           .
           to
           the
           subtriple
           of
           2.
           which
           is
           ⅔
           exceedeth
           what
           ?
           I
           cannot
           imagine
           what
           ,
           nor
           proceed
           further
           where
           the
           ter●s
           be
           but
           two
           .
           Let
           us
           therefore
           take
           the
           second
           row
           ,
           that
           is
           ,
           
           The
           summe
           above
           is
           5.
           the
           summe
           below
           is
           12.
           the
           third
           part
           whereof
           is
           4.
           if
           you
           mean
           ,
           that
           the
           proportion
           of
           5.
           to
           4.
           exceeds
           the
           proportion
           of
           4
           ▪
           to
           12.
           (
           which
           is
           subtriple
           )
           by
           1
           /
           12
           '
           you
           are
           out
           again
           .
           For
           5.
           exceeds
           4.
           by
           unitie
           ,
           which
           is
           12
           /
           12
           I
           do
           not
           think
           you
           will
           own
           such
           an
           equation
           as
           
           .
           Therefore
           I
           believe
           you
           mean
           (
           and
           your
           next
           proposition
           assures
           me
           of
           it
           )
           that
           the
           proportion
           of
           5.
           to
           4.
           exceeds
           subtriple
           proportion
           by
           the
           proportion
           of
           1.
           to
           12.
           if
           you
           do
           so
           ,
           you
           are
           yet
           deceived
           .
        
         
           For
           if
           the
           proportion
           of
           5.
           to
           4.
           exceeds
           subtriple
           proportion
           by
           the
           proportion
           of
           1.
           to
           12.
           then
           subtriple
           proportion
           ,
           that
           is
           ,
           of
           4.
           to
           12.
           added
           to
           the
           proportion
           of
           1.
           to
           12.
           must
           make
           the
           proportion
           of
           5.
           to
           4.
           
           But
           if
           you
           look
           on
           these
           quantities
           4.
           12.
           144.
           you
           will
           ●ee
           and
           must
           not
           dissemble
           that
           the
           proportion
           of
           4.
           to
           12.
           is
           subtriple
           ,
           and
           the
           proportion
           of
           12.
           to
           144.
           is
           the
           same
           with
           that
           of
           1
           ▪
           to
           12.
           
           Therefore
           by
           your
           assertion
           it
           must
           be
           as
           5.
           to
           4.
           so
           4.
           to
           144.
           which
           you
           must
           not
           own
           .
        
         
           And
           yet
           this
           is
           manifestly
           your
           meaning
           as
           apppeareth
           in
           th●se
           words
           ;
           
             u●
             〈◊〉
             rationis
             pr●venien●is
             excessus
             supra
             subtriplam
             ●a
             quam
             ●abet
             unitas
             ad
             sextuplum
             numeri
             terminorum
             post
          
           0
           ,
           
             adeoque
             ,
          
           which
           cannot
           be
           rendered
           in
           English
           ,
           nor
           need
           to
           be
           .
           For
           you
           express
           your self
           in
           the
           20th
           .
           pr●position
           very
           clearly
           ;
           I
           noted
           it
           only
           that
           you
           may
           be
           more
           merciful
           hereafter
           to
           the
           stumblings
           of
           a
           hasty
           Pen
           .
           For
           
             excessus
             ea
             quam
          
           does
           not
           well
           ,
           nor
           is
           to
           be
           well
           excused
           by
           
             subauditur
             ratio
             .
          
           Your
           20th
           .
           proposition
           is
           this
           ▪
        
         
           
             Siprop●natur
             serie●
             quantitatum
             in
             duplicata
             ratione
             Arithmeticè
             proportionalium
             (
             sive
             jux●a
             seriem
             Numerorum
             Quadraticorum
             )
             continuè
             crescentium
             ,
             a
             puncto
             vel
             O
             in
             choatarum
             ,
             ratio
             quam
             habet
             illa
             ad
             seriem
             to●idem
             maximae
             aequalium
             subtriplam
             superabit
             ;
             eritque
             excessus
             ea
             ratio
             qua●
             habet
             unitas
             ad
             sex●uplum
             n●meri
             terminorum
             post
             0
             ,
             sive
             quam
             habet
             radix
             Quadraticae
             termini
             primi
             post
             0
             ad
             sextuplum
             radicis
             Quadraticae
             termini
             maximi
             .
          
        
         
           That
           is
           ,
           if
           there
           be
           propounded
           a
           row
           of
           quantities
           in
           duplicate
           proportion
           of
           Arithmetically-proportionals
           (
           or
           according
           to
           the
           row
           of
           square
           numbers
           )
           continually
           increasing
           ,
           and
           beginnin
           gwith
           a
           point
           or
           0.
           
           The
           proportion
           of
           that
           row
           to
           a
           row
           of
           so
           
           many
           equals
           to
           the
           greatest
           ,
           shall
           be
           greater
           then
           subtriple
           proportion
           ,
           and
           the
           excesse
           s●all
           be
           that
           proportion
           which
           unity
           hath
           to
           the
           sextuple
           of
           the
           number
           of
           termes
           after
           0
           ,
           or
           the
           same
           which
           the
           square
           roo●
           of
           the
           first
           number
           after
           0
           ,
           hath
           to
           the
           sextuple
           of
           the
           square
           root
           of
           the
           greatest
           .
        
         
           For
           proof
           whereof
           you
           have
           no
           more
           here
           ,
           then
           
             pa●e●
             ex
             praeceden●●bus
             ;
          
           and
           no
           more
           before
           but
           
             adeoque
             .
          
           You
           do
           not
           we●l
           to
           passe
           over
           such
           curious
           propositions
           so
           slightly
           ;
           none
           of
           the
           Antients
           did
           so
           ;
           nor
           ,
           that
           I
           remember
           ,
           any
           man
           before
           your self
           .
           The
           proposition
           is
           false
           ,
           as
           you
           shall
           presently
           see
           .
        
         
           Take
           for
           example
           any
           one
           of
           your
           rows
           ;
           as
           
           .
           By
           this
           proportion
           of
           yours
           1
           +
           4
           which
           makes
           5
           is
           to
           12
           in
           more
           then
           subtriple
           proportion
           ;
           by
           the
           proportion
           of
           1
           to
           the
           sextuple
           of
           2
           which
           is
           12.
           
           Put
           in
           order
           these
           three
           quantities
           5.
           4.
           12.
           
           And
           you
           must
           see
           that
           the
           proportion
           of
           5
           to
           12
           is
           greater
           then
           the
           proportion
           of
           4
           to
           12
           ,
           that
           is
           ,
           subtriple
           proportion
           ,
           by
           the
           proprtion
           of
           5
           to
           4.
           
           But
           by
           your
           account
           the
           proportion
           of
           5
           to
           4
           is
           greater
           then
           that
           of
           4
           to
           12
           by
           the
           proportion
           of
           1
           to
           12.
           
           Therefore
           as
           5
           to
           4
           so
           is
           1
           to
           1●
           .
           which
           is
           a
           very
           strang
           Parodox
           .
        
         
           After
           this
           you
           bring
           in
           this
           Consectary
           .
        
         
           
             Cum
             autem
             cresente
             numero
             terminorum
             excessus
             ille
             supra
             rationem
             sub●riplam
             conninuò
             minuatur
             ,
             ut
             tandem
             quovis
             assignabili
             minor
             eva●●t
             (
             un
             p●tet
             )
             si
             in
             in●ini●um
             producatur
             prorsus
             evaniturus
             est
             .
             Adeoque
             .
          
        
         
           That
           is
           ,
           seeing
           as
           the
           number
           of
           tearms
           encreaseth
           ,
           that
           excesse
           above
           subtriple
           proportion
           continually
           decre●seth
           ,
           so
           as
           at
           length
           it
           be●omes
           lesse
           then
           any
           assignable
           (
           as
           is
           manifes●
           )
           if
           it
           be
           produced
           infinitely
           ,
           it
           shall
           utterly
           vanish
           ,
           and
           so
           .
           And
           so
           what
           ?
        
         
           Sir
           ,
           This
           consequence
           of
           yours
           is
           false
           .
           For
           two
           quantities
           being
           given
           ,
           and
           the
           excesse
           of
           the
           greater
           above
           the
           lesse
           ,
           that
           excesse
           may
           continually
           be
           decreased
           ,
           and
           ye●
           never
           quite
           vanish
           .
           Suppose
           any
           two
           unequal
           quantities
           differing
           by
           more
           then
           an
           unite
           ,
           as
           3
           and
           6
           ,
           the
           excesse
           3
           ,
           let
           three
           be
           diminished
           ,
           fi●st
           by
           an
           unite
           ,
           and
           the
           ezcesse
           will
           be
           2
           and
           the
           quantities
           will
           be
           3
           and
           5.
           5
           is
           greater
           then
           4
           ;
           the
           excesse
           1.
           
           Again
           ,
           let
           1
           be
           diminished
           and
           made
           ½
           .
           the
           excesse
           ½
           and
           the
           quantities
           3
           and
           4½
           .
           4½
           is
           yet
           greater
           then
           4.
           
           Again
           diminish
           the
           excesse
           to
           ¼
           ,
           the
           quantities
           will
           be
           3
           and
           4¼
           yet
           still
           4¼
           is
           greater
           then
           4.
           
           In
           the
           same
           manner
           you
           may
           proceed
           to
           ⅛
           ,
           1
           /
           16
           ,
           1
           /
           32
           ,
           &c.
           
           Infinitely
           ;
           and
           yet
           you
           shall
           never
           come
           within
           an
           unite
           (
           though
           your
           unite
           stand
           for
           100
           mile
           )
           of
           the
           lesser
           quantity
           propounded
           3
           ,
           if
           that
           3
           stand
           for
           300
           Mile
           .
           The
           exce●ses
           above
           subtriple
           proportion
           do
           not
           d●creas●
           in
           the
           manner
           you
           say
           it
           does
           ,
           but
           in
           the
           manner
           which
           I
           shall
           now
           shew
           you
           .
        
         
           In
           this
           first
           row
           
           a
           third
           of
           the
           quantities
           below
           is
           ⅔
           .
           set
           in
           order
           these
           thre3
           quantities
           1.
           2
           
           /
           9.
           
           ⅔
           .
           The
           first
           is
           1
           equal
           to
           the
           sum
           above
           ,
           the
           last
           is
           ⅔
           equal
           to
           the
           subtriple
           of
           the
           sum
           below
           .
           The
           middlemost
           is
           2
           /
           9
           subtriple
           to
           the
           last
           quantity
           ⅔
           .
           
           The
           excesse
           of
           the
           proportion
           of
           1
           to
           ⅔
           above
           the
           subtriple
           proportion
           of2
           /
           9
           to
           ⅔
           is
           the
           proportion
           of
           1
           to
           2
           /
           9
           ,
           that
           is
           ,
           of
           9
           to
           2
           ,
           that
           is
           of
           18
           to
           4.
           
        
         
           Secondly
           in
           the
           second
           row
           which
           is
           
           a
           third
           of
           the
           sum
           below
           is
           4
           the
           sum
           above
           is
           5.
           
           Set
           in
           order
           these
           quantities
           15.
           4.
           12.
           
           There
           the
           proportion
           of
           15
           to
           12
           is
           the
           proportion
           of
           5
           to
           4.
           
           The
           proportion
           of
           4
           to
           12
           is
           subtriple
           ;
           the
           excesse
           is
           the
           proportion
           of
           15
           to
           4
           ,
           which
           is
           lesse
           then
           the
           proportion
           of
           18
           to
           4.
           as
           it
           ought
           to
           be
           ;
           b●t
           not
           lesse
           by
           the
           proportion
           of
           ⅙
           to
           1
           /
           12
           ,
           as
           you
           would
           have
           it
           .
        
         
           Thirdly
           ,
           in
           the
           third
           row
           ,
           which
           is
           
           .
           A
           third
           of
           the
           sum
           below
           is
           12
           ,
           the
           su●
           above
           is
           14.
           
           Set
           in
           order
           these
           quantities
           4
           〈◊〉
           .
           4.
           12.
           
           There
           the
           proportion
           of
           42
           to
           12.
           is
           the
           same
           ,
           with
           that
           of
           14
           to
           4.
           
           And
           the
           p●oportion
           of
           4
           to
           12
           subtriple
           ,
           lesse
           then
           the
           former
           excesse
           of
           15
           to
           4.
           
           And
           so
           it
           goes
           on
           deceasing
           all
           the
           way
           in
           this
           manner
           ,
           18
           to
           4.
           15
           to
           4.
           14
           to
           4
           &c.
           which
           differs
           very
           much
           from
           your
           1
           to
           6.
           1
           to
           12.
           1
           to
           18
           &c.
           and
           the
           cause
           of
           your
           mistake
           is
           this
           ;
           you
           call
           the
           twelfth
           part
           of
           twelve
           1
           /
           12
           ,
           and
           the
           eighteenth
           part
           of
           thirty
           ●ix
           ,
           you
           call
           1
           /
           18
           ,
           and
           so
           of
           the
           rest
           .
           But
           what
           need
           all
           those
           equations
           in
           Symbols
           ,
           to
           shew
           that
           the
           proportion
           decreases
           ;
           is
           there
           any
           man
           can
           doubt
           ,
           but
           th●t
           the
           propartion
           of
           1
           to
           2
           is
           greater
           then
           that
           of
           5
           to
           12
           ,
           or
           that
           of
           5
           to
           12
           greater
           then
           that
           of
           14
           to
           36
           ,
           and
           so
           continually
           forwards
           ;
           or
           could
           you
           have
           fallen
           into
           this
           errour
           ,
           unlesse
           you
           had
           taken
           ,
           as
           you
           have
           done
           in
           very
           many
           places
           of
           your
           
             Elenchus
             ,
          
           the
           Fra
           ▪
           ctions
           ⅙
           and
           1
           /
           12
           ,
           &c.
           which
           are
           the
           quotients
           of
           1
           divided
           by
           6
           and
           12.
           for
           the
           very
           proportions
           of
           1
           to
           6
           ,
           and
           1
           to
           12.
           
           But
           notwithstanding
           the
           excesse
           of
           the
           proportions
           of
           the
           encreasing
           quanti●ies
           ,
           to
           subtriple
           proportion
           decrease
           stil
           ,
           as
           the
           number
           of
           tearms
           increaseth
           ,
           and
           that
           what
           proportions
           soever
           I
           shall
           assigne
           ,
           the
           decrement
           will
           in
           time
           (
           in
           time
           I
           say
           without
           proceeding
           
             in
             in●initum
             )
          
           produce
           a
           lesse
           ,
           yet
           it
           does
           not
           follow
           that
           the
           row
           of
           the
           increasing
           qu●ntities
           shall
           ever
           be
           equall
           to
           the
           third
           part
           of
           the
           row
           of
           so
           many
           equalls
           to
           the
           last
           or
           greatest
           .
           For
           it
           is
           not
           ,
           I
           hope
           ,
           a
           Paradox
           to
           you
           ,
           that
           in
           two
           rows
           of
           quantities
           the
           proportion
           of
           the
           excesses
           may
           decrease
           ,
           and
           yet
           the
           excesses
           them selves
           encrease
           ,
           and
           do
           perpetually
           .
        
         
           For
           in
           the
           second
           and
           third
           rows
           ,
           which
           are
           
           and
           
           5
           exceeds
           the
           third
           part
           of
           12
           ,
           by
           a
           quarter
           of
           the
           square
           of
           fo●r
           ,
           and
           14
           exceedes
           the
           third
           part
           of
           36
           by
           2
           quarters
           of
           the
           square
           of
           4
           ,
           and
           proceeding
           on
           ,
           the
           sum
           of
           the
           increasing
           quantities
           where
           the
           termes
           are
           5
           (
           which
           sum
           is
           30
           )
           exceedeth
           the
           third
           part
           of
           those
           below
           (
           those
           below
           are
           80
           and
           their
           third
           part
           26⅔
           by
           3
           quarters
           and
           ½
           a
           quarter
           of
           the
           square
           of
           4.
           and
           when
           the
           tearms
           are
           6
           the
           quantities
           above
           will
           exceed
           the
           third
           part
           of
           them
           below
           by
           5
           quarte●s
           of
           the
           square
           of
           four
           .
           Would
           you
           have
           ●en
           beleeve
           ,
           that
           the
           forther
           you
           go
           ,
           the
           excesse
           of
           the
           increasing
           quantities
           above
           the
           third
           p●r●
           of
           those
           below
           shall
           be
           so
           much
           the
           lesse
           ?
           And
           yet
           the
           proportions
           of
           those
           above
           ,
           to
           the
           the
           thirds
           of
           those
           below
           ,
           shall
           decrease
           eternally
           ;
           and
           therefore
           your
           〈◊〉
           proposit●on
           is
           ●alse
           ,
           namely
           this
           .
        
         
         
           
             Siproponatur
             series
             Infinita
             quantitatum
             in
             duplic●t●
             ratione
             Arithmeticè
             proportionalium
             (
             sive
             juxta
             seriem
             numerorum
             quadraticorum
             )
             continué
             crescentium
             〈◊〉
             puncto
             ●ive
             O
             inchoata●um
             ;
             eri●
             illa
             ad
             seriem
             to●idem
             maximae
             aequalium
             ,
             ut
             1
             ad
          
           3.
           
        
         
           That
           i●
           ,
           if
           an
           infinite
           row
           of
           quantities
           be
           propounded
           in
           duplicate
           proportion
           of
           Arithmetically
           proportio●alls
           (
           or
           ●ccording
           to
           the
           row
           of
           quadratick
           numbers
           )
           continually
           increasing
           and
           beginning
           from
           a
           point
           or
           0
           ;
           that
           row
           shall
           be
           to
           the
           row
           of
           as
           many
           equalls
           to
           the
           greatest
           ,
           as
           1
           to
           3.
           
           This
           is
           false
           ,
           
             ut
             patet
             ex
             praecedentibus
             ,
          
           and
           consequently
           all
           that
           yo●
           say
           in
           proof
           ●f
           the
           proportion
           of
           your
           
             Parabola
          
           to
           a
           
             parallelogram
             ,
          
           or
           of
           the
           
             spiral
          
           (
           he
           true
           
             spiral
             )
          
           to
           a
           
             circle
          
           is
           in
           vain
           .
        
         
           But
           your
           spiral
           puts
           me
           in
           mind
           of
           what
           you
           h●ve
           underwritten
           to
           the
           diagramme
           of
           your
           prop
           5.
           
           
             The
             spirall
             in
             both
             f●gures
             was
             to
             be
             continued
             whole
             to
             the
             middle
             ,
             but
             by
             the
             carelessnesse
             of
             the
             Graver
             it
             is
             in
             one
             figure
          
           manca
           ,
           
             in
             the
             other
          
           intercis●
           .
        
         
           T●uly
           Sir
           ,
           you
           will
           hardly
           make
           your
           Reader
           beleeve
           that
           a
           Graver
           could
           ●ommit
           those
           faults
           without
           the
           help
           of
           your
           own
           Coppy
           ,
           nor
           that
           it
           had
           been
           in
           your
           coppy
           ,
           if
           you
           had
           known
           how
           to
           describe
           a
           spiral
           line
           then
           as
           now
           .
           This
           I
           had
           not
           said
           ,
           though
           truth
           ,
           but
           that
           you
           are
           pleased
           to
           say
           ,
           though
           not
           truth
           ,
           that
           I
           attributed
           to
           the
           Printer
           some
           f●ults
           of
           mine
           ;
        
         
           I
           come
           now
           to
           the
           thirty
           ninth
           proposition
           which
           is
           this
        
         
           
             Si
             proponatur
             series
             quantitatum
             in
             triplicata
             ratione
             Arithmeticè
             proportionalium
             (
             sive
             juxta
             seriem
             numerorum
             cubicorum
             )
             continuè
             cresentium
             a
             puncto
             sive
             O
             inc●oata●um
             ,
             (
             puta
             ut
             O.
             1.
             8.
             27.
             &c.
             )
             propositum
             sit
             inquirere
             quam
             habeat
             series
             illa
             rationem
             ad
             seriem
             totidem
             maximae
             ●qualium
             .
          
        
         
           
             Fiat
             investigatio
             per
             modum
             Inductionis
             (
             ut
             in
             prop.
             1
             &
             prop
          
           19.
           )
        
         
           Eritque
           
             
               
            
             
               
            
             
               
               Et
               sic
               d●inceps
            
          
        
         
           
             Ratio
             proveniens
             est
             ubique
             major
             quam
             subquadrupla
             ,
             sive
             ¼
             .
             Excessus
             autem
             perp●●uo
             decrescit
             ,
             p●o
             ut
             numerus
             terminor●m
             augetur
             ,
             puta
             ¼
             .
             ⅛
             .
             1
             /
             12.
             1
             /
             16
             &c.
             
             Aucto
             nimirum
             fractionis
             denominator●●ive
             cansequente
             rationis
             in
             ●ingulis
             locis
             numero
             quaternatio
             (
             ut
             patet
             )
             ut
             sit
             rati●nis
             provenie●…●xcess●…
             supra
             subquadruplam
             e●
             quam
             habet
             unitas
             ad
             Quadruplum
             numeri
             terminorum
             post
             0.
             
             Adeoque
             .
          
        
         
         
           
             That
             is
             ,
          
           if
           a
           row
           of
           quantities
           be
           propounded
           in
           triplicate
           proportion
           of
           Arithmetically
           proportionalls
           (
           or
           according
           the
           row
           of
           cubiqūe
           numbers
           )
           continually
           encreasing
           ,
           and
           beginning
           from
           a
           point
           or
           o
           (
           as
           0.
           1.
           8.
           27.
           64.
           &c.
           )
           let
           it
           be
           propounded
           to
           enquire
           what
           proportion
           that
           row
           hath
           to
           a
           row
           of
           as
           many
           equalls
           to
           the
           greatest●
        
         
           Be
           it
           sought
           by
           way
           of
           induction
           ,
           (
           as
           in
           prop.
           1.
           19
           )
           .
        
         
           The
           proportion
           arising
           is
           every where
           greater
           then
           subquadruple
           ,
           or
           ¼
           ,
           and
           the
           excesse
           perpetually
           decreaseth
           as
           the
           number
           of
           tearms
           increaseth
           as
           ¼
           ,
           ⅛
           ,
           1
           /
           12
           ,
           1
           /
           16
           ,
           1
           /
           20
           ,
           &c.
           
           The
           denominator
           of
           the
           fraction
           ,
           or
           consequent
           of
           the
           proportion
           being
           in
           every
           place
           augmented
           by
           the
           number
           4
           (
           as
           is
           manifest
           )
           so
           that
           the
           excesse
           of
           the
           arising
           proportion
           above
           subquadruple
           is
           the
           same
           with
           that
           which
           an
           unite
           hath
           to
           the
           quadruple
           of
           the
           number
           of
           the
           tearms
           after
           0.
           
           And
           so
           .
           Here
           are
           just
           the
           same
           faults
           which
           are
           in
           prop.
           19.
           
        
         
           For
           if
           0
           /
           1
           be
           a
           fraction
           ,
           and
           1
           /
           1
           be
           a
           fraction
           and
           ½
           be
           another
           fraction
           ,
           then
           this
           equation
           
           is
           false
           .
           For
           this
           fraction
           0
           /
           1
           is
           equal
           ,
           to
           0
           ▪
           and
           therefore
           we
           have
           1
           /
           1
           =
           ½
           ,
           that
           is
           the
           whole
           equal
           to
           half
           .
           But
           perhaps
           you
           do
           not
           mean
           them
           fractions
           ,
           but
           proportions
           ;
           and
           consequently
           that
           the
           proportion
           of
           0
           to
           1
           ,
           and
           of
           1
           to
           1
           compounded
           by
           addition
           (
           I
           say
           by
           addition
           ;
           not
           that
           I
           ,
           but
           that
           you
           think
           there
           is
           a
           composition
           of
           proportions
           by
           multiplication
           ,
           which
           I
           shall
           shew
           you
           anon
           is
           f●lse
           )
           must
           be
           equal
           to
           the
           proportion
           of
           1
           to
           2.
           which
           cannot
           be
           ,
           For
           the
           proportion
           of
           0
           to
           1
           is
           infinitely
           little
           ,
           that
           is
           ,
           none
           at
           all
           ;
           and
           consequently
           the
           proportion
           of
           1
           to
           1
           is
           equall
           to
           the
           proportion
           of
           1
           to
           2
           ▪
           which
           is
           again
           absurd
           ,
           There
           is
           no
           doubt
           ,
           but
           the
           whole
           number
           of
           0
           +
           1
           is
           equal
           to
           1
           ,
           and
           the
           whole
           number
           1
           +
           1
           equal
           to
           2.
           
           But
           reckoning
           them
           as
           you
           do
           ,
           not
           for
           whole
           numbers
           ,
           but
           for
           fractions
           ,
           or
           proportions
           ,
           the
           equations
           are
           false
           .
        
         
           Again
           your
           second
           equation
           2
           /
           4
           =
           ¼
           +
           ¼
           though
           meant
           of
           fractions
           ,
           that
           is
           of
           quotients
           it
           be
           true
           ,
           and
           serve
           nothing
           to
           your
           purpose
           ,
           yet
           if
           it
           be
           meant
           of
           proportions
           ,
           it
           is
           false
           .
           For
           the
           proportion
           of
           1
           to
           4
           and
           of
           1
           to
           4
           being
           compounded
           are
           equal
           to
           the
           proportion
           of
           1
           to
           16
           ,
           and
           so
           you
           make
           the
           proportion
           of
           2
           to
           4
           equal
           to
           the
           proportion
           of
           1
           to
           16
           ,
           where
           as
           it
           is
           but
           subquaduplicate
           ,
           as
           you
           call
           it
           ,
           or
           the
           quarter
           of
           it
           as
           I
           call
           it
           .
           And
           in
           the
           same
           manner
           you
           may
           demonstrate
           to
           yourself
           ,
           the
           same
           fault
           in
           all
           the
           other
           rows
           of
           how
           many
           tearms
           soever
           they
           consist
           ,
           Therefore
           you
           may
           give
           for
           lost
           this
           39.
           prop.
           as
           well
           as
           all
           the
           other
           38
           that
           went
           before
           .
           As
           for
           the
           conclusion
           of
           it
           ,
           which
           is
           ,
           
             that
             the
             excesse
             of
             the
             arising
             proportion
             &c.
             
          
           They
           are
           the
           words
           of
           your
           40
           ▪
           proposition
           ,
           where
           you
           ▪
           e●presse
           your self
           better
           ,
           and
           make
           your
           errour
           more
           easie
           to
           be
           detected
           .
        
         
           The
           proposition
           is
           this
           .
        
         
           
             Si
             proponatur
             series
             quantitatum
             in
             triplicata
             ratione
             Arithmeticè
             proportionalium
             (
             sive
             juxta
             seriem
             numerorum
             cubicorum
             )
             continue
             crescentium
             à
             puncto
             velo
             inchoa●arum
             ,
             ratio
             quam
             habet
             illa
             ad
             seriem
             totidem
             maximae
             aqualiùm
             subquadruplam
             superabit
             ;
             eritque
             excessus
             ea
             ratio
             quam
             habet
             unitas
             ad
             quadruplum
             numeri
             terminorum
             post
             0
             ;
             sive
             quam
             habet
             radix
             cubica
             termini
             primi
             post
             0
             ad
             quadruplum
             radicis
             cubicae
             te●mini
             maximi
             .
             Pat●●
             ex
             praecedente
             .
          
        
         
           
             Quum
             autem
             crescente
             numero
             terminorum
             excessus
             ille
             supra
             rationem
             subquadruplam
             i●a
             continuo
             
             minuatur
             ,
             ut
             tandem
             qu●libet
             assignabili
             minor
             evadat
             ,
             (
             u●
             pa●et
             )
             si
             in
             Infinitum
             procedatur
             ,
             prorsus
             evaniturus
             est
             .
             Ade●que
             .
          
        
         
           
             Paret
             ex
             prop.
             praecedent
             .
          
        
         
           That
           is
           ;
           If
           a
           row
           of
           quantlties
           be
           propounded
           in
           triplicate
           proportion
           of
           Arithmetically
           proportionalls
           (
           or
           according
           to
           the
           row
           of
           cubick
           numbers
           )
           continually
           encreasing
           ;
           and
           beginning
           at
           a
           point
           or
           0
           ;
           The
           proportion
           which
           that
           row
           ●ath
           to
           a
           row
           of
           as
           many
           equals
           to
           the
           greatest
           is
           greater
           then
           subquadruple
           proportion
           ;
           and
           the
           excesse
           is
           that
           proportion
           which
           one
           unite
           hath
           to
           the
           Quadruple
           of
           the
           number
           of
           termes
           after
           0.
           
           Or
           which
           the
           cubick
           root
           of
           the
           first
           term
           after
           0
           hath
           to
           the
           quadruple
           of
           the
           root
           of
           the
           greatest
           tearm
           .
        
         
           It
           is
           manifest
           by
           the
           precedent
           propositions
           .
        
         
           And
           seeing
           ,
           the
           number
           of
           tearmes
           increasing
           ,
           that
           excesse
           above
           quadruple
           proportion
           doth
           so
           continually
           decrease
           ,
           as
           that
           at
           length
           it
           becomes
           lesse
           then
           any
           proportion
           that
           can
           be
           assigned
           (
           as
           is
           manifest
           )
           if
           the
           proceeding
           be
           infinite
           ,
           it
           shall
           quite
           vanish
           ;
           And
           so
           .
        
         
           This
           conclusion
           was
           annexed
           to
           the
           end
           of
           your
           39
           proposition
           ;
           as
           there
           prooved
           .
           What
           cause
           you
           had
           to
           make
           a
           new
           proposition
           of
           it
           ,
           without
           other
           proof
           then
           
             pate●
             ex
             praecedente
             ,
          
           I
           cannot
           imagine
           .
           But
           howsoever
           the
           proposition
           is
           false
           .
        
         
           For
           example
           ,
           set
           forth
           any
           of
           your
           rowes
           ,
           as
           this
           of
           fower
           termes
           .
           
        
         
           The
           row
           above
           is
           36
           ▪
           the
           fourth
           part
           of
           the
           row
           below
           is
           27.
           
           The
           quadruple
           of
           the
           number
           of
           termes
           after
           0
           is
           12
           ▪
           then
           by
           your
           accompt
           ,
           the
           proportion
           of
           36
           to
           108
           is
           greater
           then
           subquadruple
           proportion
           by
           the
           proportion
           of
           1
           to
           12.
           
           For
           trial
           whereof
           set
           in
           order
           these
           three
           quantities
           36.
           27.
           108.
           
           The
           proportion
           of
           36
           (
           the
           uppermost
           row
           )
           to
           108
           (
           the
           lowermost
           row
           )
           is
           compounded
           by
           addition
           of
           the
           proportion●
           36
           to
           27
           ,
           and
           27
           to
           108.
           
           And
           the
           proportion
           of
           36
           to
           108
           exceedeth
           the
           proportion
           of
           27
           to
           108
           by
           the
           proportion
           of
           36
           to
           27.
           
           But
           the
           proportion
           of
           27
           to
           108
           is
           subquadruple
           proportion
           .
           Therefore
           the
           proportion
           of
           36
           to
           108
           exceedeth
           subquadruple
           proportion
           ,
           by
           the
           proportion
           of
           36
           to
           27.
           
           And
           by
           your
           account
           by
           the
           proportion
           of
           1
           to
           12
           ;
           and
           consequently
           as
           36
           to
           27
           so
           is
           1
           to
           12.
           
           Did
           you
           think
           such
           demonstrations
           as
           these
           ,
           should
           alwayes
           passe
           ?
        
         
           Then
           for
           your
           inference
           from
           the
           decrease
           of
           the
           proportions
           of
           the
           excesse
           to
           the
           vanishing
           of
           the
           excesse
           it self
           ,
           I
           have
           already
           shewed
           it
           to
           be
           false
           ;
           and
           by
           consequence
           that
           your
           next
           Proposition
           ,
           namely
           ,
           the
           40
           is
           also
           false
           .
        
         
           The
           proposition
           is
           this
           .
        
         
           
             Si
             pr●ponatur
             series
             infinita
             quantitatum
             in
             triplicata
             ratione
             Arithmeticé
             proportionalium
             (
             sive
             juxta
             seriem
             numerorum
             cubicorum
             )
             continuè
             crescentium
             à
             puncto
             sive
             0
             inchoatarum
             ,
             erit
             illa
             ad
             seriem
             totidem
             maximae
             aequalium
             ,
             ut
             1
             ad
             4.
             pa●et
             ex
             praecedente
             .
          
        
         
         
           
             That
             is
             ,
          
           If
           there
           be
           propounded
           an
           infinite
           row
           of
           quantities
           in
           triplicate
           proportion
           of
           Arithmetically
           proportionalls
           (
           or
           according
           to
           the
           row
           of
           cubick
           numbers
           )
           continually
           increasing
           ,
           and
           beginning
           at
           a
           point
           or
           0
           ;
           it
           shall
           be
           to
           the
           row
           of
           as
           many
           equalls
           to
           the
           greatest
           as
           1
           to
           4.
           
           Manifest
           out
           of
           the
           precedent
           proposition
           .
        
         
           Even
           as
           manifest
           as
           that
           36.
           27.
           1.
           12.
           
           Are
           proportionalls
           :
           seeing
           therefore
           your
           Doctrine
           of
           the
           spiral
           lines
           and
           spaces
           is
           given
           by
           your self
           for
           lost
           ,
           and
           a
           vaine
           attempt
           ,
           your
           first
           41
           propositions
           are
           undemonstrated
           ,
           and
           the
           grounds
           of
           your
           demonstrations
           all
           false
           .
           The
           cause
           whereof
           is
           partly
           your
           taking
           quotient
           for
           proportion
           ,
           and
           a
           point
           for
           0
           ,
           as
           you
           do
           in
           the
           1.
           16
           and
           40.
           propositions
           and
           in
           other
           places
           where
           you
           say
           
             beginning
             at
             a
             point
             or
          
           0
           ;
           though
           now
           you
           denie
           you
           ever
           said
           either
           .
           There
           be
           very
           manay
           places
           in
           your
           
             Elenchus
             ,
          
           where
           you
           say
           both
           ;
           and
           have
           no
           excuse
           for
           it
           ,
           but
           that
           in
           one
           of
           the
           places
           ,
           you
           say
           the
           proportion
           is
           
             p●nes
             quotientem
             ,
          
           which
           is
           to
           the
           same
           or
           no
           sense
           .
        
         
           Your
           42
           proportion
           is
           grounded
           on
           the
           40
           ;
           and
           therefore
           though
           true
           ,
           and
           demonstrated
           by
           others
           ,
           is
           not
           demonstrated
           by
           you
           .
        
         
           Your
           43
           is
           this
           .
        
         
           
             Pari
             methodo
             invenietur
             ratio
             seriei
             infinitae
             quantitatum
             Arithmeticè
             proportionalium
             in
             ratione
             quadruplicata
             ,
             quintuplicata
             ,
             sextuplicata
             ,
             etc
             Arithmeticè
             proportionalium
             à
             puncto
             seu
             0
             in
             choatarum
             ,
             ad
             seriem
             totidem
             maximae
             aequalium
             .
             Nempe
             in
             quadruplicata
             ●●it
             ,
             ut
             1
             ad
             5
             ;
             in
             quintuplicata
             ut
             1
             ad
             6
             ;
             in
             sextuplicata
             ut
             1
             ad
             7.
             
          
        
         
           
             Et
             sic
             d●inceps
             .
          
        
         
           
             That
             is
             ,
          
           By
           the
           same
           method
           will
           be
           found
           the
           proportion
           of
           an
           infinite
           row
           of
           Arithmetically
           proportionalls
           in
           proportion
           quadruplicate
           ,
           quintuplicate
           ,
           sextuplicate
           &c.
           of
           Arithmetically
           proportionalls
           beginning
           at
           a
           point
           or
           0
           ,
           to
           the
           row
           of
           as
           many
           equalls
           to
           the
           greatest
           ;
           Namely
           ,
           in
           quadruplicate
           ,
           it
           shall
           be
           as
           1
           to
           5
           ,
           in
           quintuplicate
           as
           1
           to
           6
           ;
           in
           sextuplicat●
           as
           1
           to
           7
           ;
           and
           so
           forth
           .
        
         
           But
           by
           the
           same
           method
           that
           I
           have
           demonstrated
           that
           the
           19.
           20.
           21.
           39.
           40.
           41.
           
           Propositions
           are
           false
           ,
           any
           man
           else
           that
           will
           examine
           the
           43
           may
           finde
           it
           false
           also
           .
           And
           because
           all
           the
           rest
           of
           the
           propositions
           of
           your
           
             Arithmetica
             infinitorum
          
           depend
           on
           these
           ,
           they
           may
           safely
           conclude
           that
           there
           is
           nothing
           demonstrated
           in
           all
           that
           Book
           ,
           though
           it
           consist
           of
           194
           propositions
           .
           The
           proportions
           of
           your
           Parabolo●ides
           to
           their
           Parallellogrammes
           are
           true
           ,
           but
           the
           demonstrations
           false
           ,
           and
           infer
           the
           contrary
           .
           Nor
           were
           they
           ever
           demonstrated
           (
           at
           least
           the
           demonstrations
           are
           not
           extant
           )
           but
           by
           me
           ;
           nor
           can
           they
           be
           demonstrated
           ,
           but
           upon
           the
           same
           grounds
           concerning
           the
           nature
           of
           proportion
           ,
           which
           I
           have
           clearly
           laid
           ,
           and
           you
           not
           understood
           .
           For
           if
           you
           had
           ,
           you
           could
           never
           have
           fallen
           into
           so
           grosse
           an
           errour
           as
           is
           this
           your
           Book
           of
           
             Arithmetica
             Infinitorum
             ,
          
           or
           that
           of
           the
           Angle
           of
           Contact
           .
           You
           may
           see
           by
           this
           that
           your
           symbolick
           Method
           is
           not
           onely
           ,
           not
           at
           all
           inventive
           of
           new
           Theormes
           ,
           but
           also
           dangerous
           in
           expressing
           the
           old
           .
           If
           the
           best
           Masters
           of
           Symbolicks
           think
           for
           all
           this
           you
           are
           in
           the
           right
           ,
           let
           them
           declare
           it
           .
           I
           know
           how
           far
           the
           Analysis
           by
           the
           powers
           of
           the
           lines
           extendeth
           ,
           as
           well
           as
           the
           best
           of
           your
           half-learn't
           Epistlers
           ,
           that
           approve
           so
           easily
           of
           such
           An●logismes
           as
           those
           .
           5.
           4.
           1
           12
           ,
           and
           36.
           27
           
           ▪
           1.
           12
           ▪
           &c.
           
        
         
           It
           is
           well
           for
           you
           that
           they
           who
           have
           the
           disposing
           of
           the
           professors
           places
           take
           not
           upon
           them
           to
           be
           Judges
           of
           Geometry
           ,
           For
           if
           they
           did
           ,
           seeing
           you
           confesse
           you
           have
           
           read
           these
           Doctrines
           in
           your
           School●
           you
           had
           been
           in
           danger
           of
           being
           put
           out
           of
           your
           place
           .
        
         
           When
           the
           Author
           of
           the
           paper
           wherein
           I
           am
           called
           Plagiary
           ,
           and
           wherein
           the
           honor
           is
           taken
           from
           you
           of
           being
           the
           first
           inventor
           of
           these
           fine
           Theoremes
           ,
           shall
           read
           this
           that
           I
           have
           here
           written
           ,
           he
           will
           look
           to
           get
           no
           credit
           by
           it
           ;
           especially
           if
           it
           be
           
             Roberval
             ,
          
           which
           me
           thinkes
           it
           should
           not
           be
           .
           For
           he
           understands
           what
           proportion
           is
           ,
           better
           then
           to
           make
           5
           to
           4
           the
           same
           with
           1
           to
           12.
           
           Or
           to
           make
           again
           ,
           the
           proportion
           of
           36
           to
           27
           the
           same
           with
           that
           of
           1
           to
           12
           ;
           and
           innumerable
           
             disproportionalites
          
           that
           may
           be
           inferred
           from
           the
           grounds
           you
           go
           on
           .
           But
           if
           it
           be
           
             Robeval
          
           indeed
           ,
           that
           snatches
           this
           invention
           from
           you
           ,
           when
           he
           shall
           see
           this
           burning
           coal
           hanging
           at
           it
           ,
           he
           will
           let
           it
           fall
           again
           ,
           for
           fear
           of
           spoiling
           his
           reputation
           .
        
         
           But
           what
           shall
           I
           answer
           to
           the
           Authority
           of
           the
           three
           great
           Mathemiticians
           that
           sent
           you
           those
           Encomiastick
           letters
           .
           For
           the
           first
           ,
           whom
           you
           say
           I
           use
           to
           praise
           ,
           I
           shall
           take
           better
           ●eed
           hereafter
           of
           praising
           any
           man
           for
           his
           Learning
           whilst
           he
           is
           young
           ,
           further
           then
           that
           he
           is
           in
           a
           good
           way
           .
           But
           it
           seemes
           he
           was
           in
           too
           ready
           a
           way
           of
           thinking
           very
           well
           of
           himself
           ,
           as
           you
           do
           of
           your self
           .
           For
           the
           muddinesse
           of
           my
           brain
           ,
           I
           must
           confesse
           it
           .
           But
           ●r
           ,
           Ought
           not
           you
           to
           confesse
           the
           same
           of
           yours
           ?
           No
           ,
           men
           of
           your
           tenets
           use
           not
           to
           do
           so
           .
           He
           wonders
           ,
           (
           say
           you
           )
           you
           thought
           it
           worth
           the
           while
           to
           ●o●●l
           your
           fingers
           about
           such
           a
           piece
           .
           T
           is
           well
           ;
           Every
           man
           abounds
           in
           his
           own
           sense
           .
           If
           you
           and
           I
           were
           to
           be
           compared
           by
           the
           complements
           that
           are
           given
           us
           in
           p●ivate
           letters
           ,
           both
           you
           and
           your
           Complementors
           would
           be
           out
           of
           Countenance
           ;
           which
           ●omplements
           ,
           besides
           that
           which
           has
           been
           printed
           and
           published
           in
           the
           Commendations
           of
           my
           writings
           ,
           if
           it
           were
           put
           together
           would
           make
           a
           greater
           volume
           then
           either
           of
           your
           Libels
           .
           And
           truely
           Sir
           ,
           I
           had
           never
           answered
           your
           Elenchus
           as
           proceeding
           from
           Dr.
           
             Walli●
             ▪
          
           if
           I
           had
           not
           considered
           you
           also
           as
           the
           Minister
           to
           execute
           the
           malice
           of
           that
           sort
           of
           people
           that
           are
           offended
           with
           my
           
             L●viathan
             .
          
        
         
           As
           for
           the
           judgement
           of
           that
           Publick
           Professor
           that
           makes
           himself
           a
           witnesse
           of
           the
           goodnesse
           of
           your
           Geometry
           ,
           a
           man
           may
           easily
           see
           by
           the
           letter
           it selfe
           that
           he
           is
           a
           dun●
           .
           And
           for
           the
           English
           person
           of
           quality
           whom
           I
           know
           not
           ,
           I
           can
           say
           no
           more
           yet
           ,
           then
           I
           can
           say
           of
           all
           three
           ,
           that
           he
           is
           so
           ill
           a
           Geometrician
           ,
           as
           not
           to
           detect
           those
           grosse
           Paralogismes
           as
           in●er
           that
           5
           to
           4
           and
           1
           to
           12
           are
           the
           same
           proportion
           .
           He
           came
           into
           the
           cry
           of
           those
           whom
           your
           title
           had
           deceived
           .
        
         
           And
           now
           I
           shall
           let
           you
           see
           that
           the
           composition
           of
           proportion
           by
           multiplication
           as
           it
           is
           in
           the
           5
           d●f
           .
           of
           the
           6
           Element
           ,
           is
           but
           another
           way
           of
           adding
           proportions
           one
           to
           another
           .
           Let
           the
           proportions
           be
           of
           2
           to
           3
           ,
           and
           of
           4
           to
           5.
           
           Multiply
           2
           into
           4
           and
           3
           into
           5
           the
           proportion
           arising
           is
           of
           8
           to
           15.
           
           Put
           in
           order
           these
           three
           quantities
           8.
           12.
           15.
           
           The
           proportion
           therefore
           of
           8
           to
           15
           compounded
           of
           the
           proportions
           of
           8
           to
           12
           (
           that
           is
           ,
           of
           2
           to
           3
           )
           and
           of
           12
           to
           15.
           that
           is
           ,
           of
           4
           to
           5
           by
           addition
           .
           Again
           ,
           let
           the
           proportion
           be
           of
           2
           to
           3
           and
           &
           4
           to
           5
           multiply
           2
           into
           5
           and
           3
           into
           4
           the
           proportion
           arising
           is
           of
           10
           to
           12.
           
           Put
           in
           order
           these
           3
           numbers
           10
           ▪
           8.
           12.
           
           The
           proportion
           10
           to
           12
           is
           compounded
           of
           the
           proportions
           of
           10
           to
           8
           that
           is
           of
           5
           to
           4
           ,
           and
           of
           8
           to
           12
           ,
           that
           is
           of
           2
           to
           3
           by
           addition
           ▪
           I
           wonder
           you
           know
           not
           this
           .
        
         
           I
           finde
           not
           any
           more
           clamour
           against
           me
           for
           saying
           the
           proportion
           of
           1
           to
           2
           is
           doublé
           to
           that
           of
           1
           to
           4.
           
        
         
           Your
           Book
           you
           speak
           of
           concerning
           proportion
           against
           
             Maybonius
          
           is
           like
           to
           be
           very
           useful
           when
           neither
           of
           you
           both
           do
           understand
           what
           proportion
           is
           .
        
         
           You
           take
           e●ceptions
           at
           that
           I
           say
           ,
           that
           
             Eucilde
          
           has
           but
           one
           word
           for
           
             double
          
           and
           
             duplicate
             ;
          
           which
           neverthelesse
           was
           said
           very
           truely
           ,
           and
           that
           word
           is
           sometimes
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           and
           sometimes
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ▪
           And
           you
           think
           you
           come
           of
           handsomly
           with
           asking
           me
           whether
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           and
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           be
           one
           word
           .
        
         
         
           Nor
           are
           you
           now
           of
           the
           minde
           you
           were
           ,
           that
           a
           point
           is
           not
           
             quantity
             unconsidered
             ;
          
           but
           that
           in
           an
           infinite
           series
           it
           may
           be
           safely
           neglected
           .
           What
           is
           
             neglected
          
           but
           unconsidered
           ?
        
         
           Nor
           do
           you
           any
           more
           stand
           to
           it
           ,
           that
           the
           
             quotient
          
           is
           the
           
             proportion
             .
          
           And
           yet
           were
           these
           the
           main
           grounds
           of
           your
           
             Elenchus
             .
          
        
         
           But
           you
           will
           say
           perhaps
           I
           do
           not
           answer
           to
           the
           defence
           you
           have
           now
           made
           in
           this
           your
           
             School
             Discipline
             ,
          
           T
           is
           true
           .
           But
           't
           is
           not
           because
           you
           answer
           never
           a
           word
           to
           my
           former
           objection
           against
           these
           prop.
           19
           ▪
           39.
           
           But
           because
           you
           do
           so
           shift
           and
           wriggle
           and
           throw
           out
           ink
           ,
           that
           I
           cannot
           perceive
           which
           way
           you
           go
           ;
           nor
           need
           I
           ,
           especially
           in
           your
           vindication
           of
           your
           
             Arithmetica
             Infinitorum
             .
          
           Onely
           I
           must
           take
           notice
           that
           in
           the
           end
           of
           it
           ,
           you
           have
           these
           words
           ,
           
             well
             ,
             Arithmetica
             Infinitorum
             is
             come
             off
             clear
             .
          
           You
           see
           the
           contrary
           .
           For
           sprawling
           is
           no
           defence
           .
        
         
           It
           is
           enough
           to
           me
           ,
           that
           I
           have
           clearly
           demonstrated
           both
           ,
           before
           sufficienly
           ,
           and
           now
           again
           abundantly
           ,
           that
           your
           Book
           of
           
             Arithmetica
             In●●ni●orum
          
           is
           all
           nought
           from
           the
           beginning
           to
           the
           end
           ,
           and
           that
           thereby
           I
           have
           effected
           that
           your
           Authority
           shall
           never
           hereafter
           be
           taken
           for
           a
           prejudice
           .
           And
           therefore
           they
           that
           have
           a
           desire
           to
           know
           the
           truth
           in
           the
           questions
           between
           us
           ,
           will
           henceforth
           ,
           if
           they
           be
           wise
           ,
           examine
           my
           Geometry
           by
           attentive
           reading
           me
           in
           my
           own
           writings
           ,
           and
           then
           examine
           ,
           whether
           this
           writing
           of
           yours
           confute
           or
           enervate
           mine
           .
        
         
           There
           is
           in
           my
           5
           lesson
           a
           proposition
           ,
           with
           a
           diagramme
           to
           it
           to
           make
           good
           ,
           (
           I
           dare
           say
           ,
           )
           at
           least
           against
           you
           ,
           my
           20.
           
           Chapter
           concerning
           the
           dimension
           of
           a
           Circle
           .
           If
           that
           demonstration
           be
           not
           shewn
           to
           be
           false
           ,
           your
           objections
           to
           that
           Chapter
           (
           though
           by
           me
           rejected
           )
           come
           to
           nothing
           .
           I
           wonder
           why
           you
           passe
           it
           over
           in
           silence
           .
           But
           you
           are
           not
           ,
           you
           say
           ,
           bound
           to
           answer
           it
           .
           True
           ,
           nor
           yet
           to
           defend
           what
           your
           have
           written
           against
           me
           .
        
         
           Before
           I
           give
           over
           the
           examination
           of
           your
           Geometry
           ,
           I
           must
           tell
           you
           that
           your
           words
           (
           pag.
           〈◊〉
           of
           this
           your
           
             Schoole
             Discipline
             )
          
           again
           the
           first
           Corollary
           are
           untrue
           .
        
         
           Your
           words
           are
           these
           ,
           
             you
             aff●…n
             that
             the
             proportion
             of
             the
             parabola
             A
             B
             I
             to
             the
             parabola
             A
             F
             K
             is
             triplicate
             to
             the
             proportion
             of
             the
             time
             A
             B
             to
             A
             F
             ,
             as
             it
             is
             in
             the
             English
             .
          
           This
           is
           not
           so
           .
           Let
           the
           Reader
           turn
           to
           the
           place
           and
           judge
           .
           And
           going
           on
           you
           say
           ,
           
             or
             of
             the
             imp●…
             B
             I
             to
             F
             K
             ,
             as
             it
             is
             in
             the
             Latine
             .
          
           Nay
           ,
           as
           it
           is
           in
           the
           English
           ,
           and
           the
           other
           in
           the
           Latine
           .
           T
           is
           but
           your
           mistake
           ;
           but
           a
           mistake
           is
           not
           easily
           excused
           in
           a
           false
           accusation
           .
        
         
           Your
           exception
           to
           my
           saying
           ,
           
             That
             the
             differences
             of
             two
             quantities
             is
             their
             proportion
          
           (
           when
           they
           differ
           ,
           as
           the
           no
           difference
           ,
           when
           they
           be
           equal
           )
           might
           have
           been
           put
           in
           amongst
           other
           marks
           of
           your
           not
           sufficiently
           understanding
           the
           Latine
           tongue
           .
           
             Differre
          
           and
           
             Differentia
          
           differ
           no
           more
           then
           
             vivere
          
           and
           
             vita
             ,
          
           which
           is
           nothing
           at
           all
           ,
           but
           as
           the
           other
           words
           require
           that
           go
           with
           them
           ,
           which
           other
           words
           you
           do
           not
           much
           use
           to
           consider
           .
           But
           
             differre
          
           and
           the
           
             quantity
             by
             which
             they
             differ
             ,
          
           are
           quite
           of
           another
           kinde
           .
           
             Di●ferre
          
           (
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           )
           
             differing
             ,
             exceeding
             ,
          
           is
           not
           quantity
           ,
           but
           relation
           .
           But
           the
           quantity
           by
           which
           they
           differ
           is
           alwayes
           a
           certain
           and
           determined
           quantity
           ,
           yet
           the
           word
           
             differrentia
          
           serves
           for
           both
           ,
           and
           is
           to
           be
           understood
           by
           the
           coherence
           with
           that
           which
           went
           before
           .
           But
           I
           had
           said
           before
           ,
           and
           expressly
           to
           prevent
           cavil
           ,
           that
           relation
           is
           nothing
           but
           a
           comparison
           ,
           and
           that
           proportion
           is
           nothing
           but
           relation
           of
           quantities
           and
           so
           defined
           them
           ,
           and
           therefore
           ▪
           I
           did
           there
           use
           the
           word
           
             differentia
          
           for
           
             differing
             ,
          
           and
           not
           for
           the
           quantity
           which
           was
           le●t
           by
           substraction
           .
           For
           a
           quantity
           is
           not
           a
           
             differing
             .
          
           This
           I
           thought
           the
           intelligent
           Reader
           would
           of
           himself
           understand
           without
           putting
           me
           ,
           instead
           of
           
             differentia
          
           to
           use
           (
           as
           ●ome
           do
           ,
           and
           
             I
          
           shall
           never
           do
           )
           the
           mongrell
           word
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           
             differre
             .
          
           And
           whereas
           in
           one
           onely
           place
           for
           
             differre
             ternario
          
           I
           have
           writ
           
             ternarius
             ,
          
           If
           you
           had
           understood
           what
           was
           clearly
           exprest
           before
           ,
           you●
           might
           have
           been
           sure
           ,
           it
           was
           not
           my
           
           meaning
           ,
           and
           therefore
           the
           excepting
           against
           it
           ,
           was
           either
           want
           of
           understanding
           ,
           or
           want
           of
           Candou●
           ;
           chuse
           which
           you
           will
           .
        
         
           You
           do
           not
           yet
           clear
           your
           Doctrine
           of
           
             Condensation
          
           and
           
             Rarefa●lion
             .
          
           But
           I
           beleev●
           you
           will
           be
           degrees
           become
           satisfied
           that
           they
           who
           say
           the
           same
           Numerical
           Body
           may
           ●e
           sometimes
           greater
           ,
           sometimes
           lesse
           ,
           speak
           absurdly
           ,
           and
           that
           
             Condensation
          
           and
           
             Rarefaction
          
           here
           ,
           and
           
             definitive
          
           and
           
             ci●cumscriptive
          
           and
           some
           other
           of
           your
           distinctions
           elsewhere
           are
           but
           ●nares
           ,
           such
           as
           School-Divines
           have
           invented
           
             
               —
               
                 {non-Roman}
                 {non-Roman}
                 {non-Roman}
                 {non-Roman}
                 {non-Roman}
              
               ,
            
             
               
                 {non-Roman}
                 {non-Roman}
                 {non-Roman}
                 {non-Roman}
                 {non-Roman}
              
            
          
           to
           intangle
           shallow
           wits
           .
        
         
           And
           that
           that
           distinction
           which
           you
           bring
           here
           ,
           
             that
             it
             is
             of
             the
             same
             quantity
             ,
             while
             it
             is
             in
             the
             same
             place
             ,
             but
             it
             may
             be
             of
             a
             different
             quantity
             ,
             when
             it
             goes
             out
             of
             its
             place
             ,
          
           (
           as
           if
           the
           place
           added
           to
           ,
           or
           took
           any
           quantity
           from
           the
           body
           placed
           )
           is
           nothing
           but
           mee●
           words
           .
           T
           is
           true
           that
           the
           Body
           which
           swells
           changeth
           place
           ;
           but
           it
           is
           not
           by
           becoming
           it self
           a
           greater
           body
           ,
           but
           by
           admixtion
           of
           Aire
           or
           other
           body
           ;
           as
           when
           water
           riseth
           up
           in
           boyling
           ,
           it
           taketh
           in
           some
           parts
           of
           Aire
           .
           But
           seeing
           the
           first
           place
           of
           the
           body
           is
           to
           the
           body
           equal
           ,
           and
           the
           second
           place
           equal
           to
           the
           same
           body
           ,
           the
           places
           must
           also
           be
           equal
           to
           one
           another
           ,
           and
           consequently
           the
           dimensions
           of
           the
           body
           remain
           equal
           in
           both
           places
           .
        
         
           Sir
           ,
           When
           I
           said
           that
           such
           Doctrine
           was
           taught
           in
           the
           Universities
           ,
           I
           did
           not
           speak
           against
           the
           Universities
           ,
           but
           against
           such
           as
           you
           .
           I
           have
           done
           with
           your
           Geometry
           ,
           which
           is
           one
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
        
      
       
         
           As
           for
           your
           El●quence
           let
           the
           Reader
           judge
           ,
           whether
           your●
           or
           mine
           be
           the
           more
           
             muddy
             ,
          
           though
           I
           in
           plain
           s●olding
           should
           have
           out
           done
           you
           ,
           yet
           I
           have
           this
           excuse
           which
           you
           have
           not
           ,
           that
           I
           did
           but
           answer
           your
           challenge
           at
           that
           weapon
           which
           you
           thou●ht
           fit
           to
           choose
           .
           The
           Catalogue
           of
           the
           hard
           language
           which
           you
           put
           in
           at
           the
           3.
           and
           4.
           pages
           of
           your
           
             School-discipline
             ,
          
           I
           acknowledge
           to
           be
           mine
           ,
           and
           would
           have
           been
           content
           you
           had
           put
           in
           all
           .
           The
           titles
           you
           say
           I
           give
           you
           of
           
             Fooles
             ,
             Beasts
             ,
             and
             Asses
          
           I
           do
           not
           give
           you
           ,
           but
           drive
           back
           upon
           you
           ;
           which
           is
           no
           more
           then
           not
           to
           own
           them
           ;
           ●or
           the
           rest
           of
           the
           Catalogue
           I
           like
           it
           so
           well
           as
           you
           could
           not
           have
           pleased
           me
           better
           ,
           then
           by
           setting
           those
           passages
           together
           to
           make
           them
           more
           conspicuous
           ,
           that
           's
           all
           the
           de●ence
           I
           will
           make
           to
           your
           accusations
           of
           that
           kinde
           .
        
         
           And
           now
           I
           would
           have
           you
           to
           consider
           whether
           you
           will
           make
           the
           like
           de●ence
           against
           the
           ●aults
           that
           I
           shall
           ●inde
           in
           the
           Language
           of
           your
           
             School-Discipline
             .
          
        
         
           I
           observe
           first
           the
           facetiousnesse
           of
           your
           Title
           page
           .
           
             Due
             Correction
             for
             Mr.
             
             H●●bs
             ,
             or
             Schoole
             Discipline
             ,
             for
             not
             saying
             his
             lessons
             right
             ,
          
           what
           a
           quibble
           is
           this
           upon
           the
           word
           Lesson
           ;
           Besides
           ,
           you
           know
           it
           has
           taken
           winde
           ;
           for
           you
           vented
           it
           amongst
           your
           ac
           quaintance
           at
           
             Oxford
          
           then
           when
           my
           Lessons
           were
           but
           upon
           the
           Presse
           .
           Do
           you
           think
           if
           you
           had
           pretermitted
           that
           peece
           of
           wit
           ,
           the
           opinion
           of
           your
           judgement
           would
           have
           been
           ●re
           the
           lesse
           .
           But
           you
           were
           ●ot
           content
           with
           this
           but
           must
           make
           this
           Metaphor
           from
           the
           rod
           ,
           to
           take
           up
           a
           considerable
           part
           of
           your
           book
           ;
           in
           which
           there
           is
           scarce
           any
           thing
           that
           your self
           can
           think
           wittily
           said
           besides
           it
           .
           Consider
           also
           these
           words
           of
           yours
           ;
           
             It
             is
             to
             be
             hoped
             that
             in
             time
             you
             may
             come
             to
             learn
             the
             Language
             ,
             for
             you
             be
             come
             to
             great
             A
             already
             .
          
           And
           presently
           after
           ,
           
             were
             I
             great
             A
             before
             I
             would
             be
             willing
             to
             be
             so
             used
             ,
             I
             should
             wish
             my self
             little
             a
             ,
             a
             hundred
             times
             .
          
           Sir
           ,
           you
           are
           a
           Doctor
           of
           Divinity
           ,
           and
           a
           professor
           of
           Geometry
           ,
           but
           do
           not
           deceive
           your self
           ;
           this
           does
           not
           passe
           for
           witt
           in
           these
           parts
           ;
           no
           
           nor
           generally
           at
           
             Oxford
             .
          
           I
           have
           acquaintance
           there
           that
           will
           blush
           at
           the
           reading
           it
           .
        
         
           Again
           ,
           in
           another
           place
           you
           have
           these
           words
           ,
           
             Then
             you
             catechize
             ut
             ,
             what
             's
             your
             name
             .
             Are
             you
             Geometricians
             ?
             who
             gave
             you
             that
             name
             &c.
             
          
           Besides
           in
           other
           places
           such
           abundance
           of
           the
           like
           insipid
           conc●ipts
           as
           would
           make
           men
           think
           ,
           if
           they
           were
           no
           otherwis●
           acquainted
           with
           the
           Universitv
           but
           by
           reading
           your
           Books
           ,
           that
           the
           dearth
           there
           of
           salt
           were
           very
           great
           .
           If
           you
           have
           any
           passage
           more
           like
           to
           salt
           then
           these
           are
           (
           excepting
           
             now
             and
             anon
             )
          
           you
           may
           do
           wel
           to
           shew
           it
           your
           acquaintance
           ,
           lest
           they
           despise
           you
           ;
           For
           (
           since
           the
           detection
           of
           your
           Geometry
           )
           you
           have
           nothing
           left
           you
           else
           to
           defend
           you
           from
           contempt
           .
           But
           I
           passe
           over
           this
           kinde
           of
           eloquence
           ;
           and
           come
           to
           somewhat
           yet
           more
           rurall
           .
        
         
           Page
           27.
           line
           1.
           
           You
           say
           I
           have
           given
           
             Euclide
          
           his
           
             Lurry
             .
          
           And
           again
           pag.
           129.
           l.
           11.
           
           A●d
           
             And
             now
             he
             is
             lest
             to
             learn
             his
             Lurry
             .
          
           I
           understand
           not
           the
           word
           
             Lurry
             .
          
           I
           never
           read
           it
           before
           ,
           nor
           heard
           it
           ,
           as
           I
           remember
           ,
           but
           once
           ,
           and
           that
           was
           when
           a
           Clown
           threatning
           another
           Clown
           said
           he
           would
           give
           him
           
             such
             a
             Lurry
             come
             poope
             &c.
             
          
           Such
           words
           as
           these
           do
           not
           become
           a
           learned
           mouth
           ,
           much
           lesse
           are
           fit
           to
           be
           Registred
           in
           the
           publick
           writings
           of
           a
           Doctor
           of
           Divinity
           .
           In
           another
           place
           you
           have
           these
           words
           ,
           
             just
             the
             same
             to
             a
             Cows
             thumb
             ,
          
           a
           pretty
           Adage
           .
        
         
           Page
           2.
           
           
             But
             pree-thee
             tell
             me
             .
          
           And
           again
           page
           95.
           
             pree-thee
             tell
             me
             ,
             why
             doest
             thou
             ask
             me
             such
             a
             question
             ,
          
           and
           the
           like
           in
           many
           other
           places
           .
           You
           cannot
           but
           know
           how
           casy
           it
           is
           and
           was
           for
           me
           ;
           to
           have
           spoken
           to
           you
           in
           the
           same
           language
           .
           Why
           did
           I
           not
           ?
           Because
           I
           thought
           that
           amongst
           men
           that
           were
           civilly
           bred
           it
           would
           have
           redounded
           to
           my
           shame
           ,
           as
           you
           have
           cause
           to
           fear
           that
           this
           will
           redound
           to
           yours
           .
           But
           what
           moved
           you
           to
           speak
           in
           that
           manner
           ?
           were
           you
           angry
           ?
           If
           I
           thought
           that
           the
           cause
           ,
           
             I
          
           could
           pardon
           it
           the
           sooner
           ,
           but
           it
           must
           be
           very
           great
           anger
           that
           can
           put
           a
           man
           that
           pro●esseth
           to
           teach
           good
           manners
           ,
           so
           much
           out
           of
           his
           wits
           as
           to
           ●all
           into
           such
           a
           language
           as
           this
           of
           yours
           ;
           It
           was
           perhaps
           an
           imagination
           that
           you
           were
           talking
           to
           your
           inferiour
           ,
           which
           I
           will
           not
           gran●
           you
           ,
           nor
           will
           the
           Heralds
           I
           beleeve
           trouble
           themselves
           to
           decide
           the
           question
           .
           But
           howsoever
           I
           do
           not
           finde
           that
           civil
           men
           use
           to
           speak
           so
           to
           their
           inferious
           .
           If
           you
           grant
           my
           learning
           but
           to
           be
           equal
           to
           yours
           (
           which
           you
           may
           certainly
           do
           without
           very
           much
           disparageing
           of
           your self
           abroad
           in
           the
           world
           )
           you
           may
           think
           it
           lesse
           insolence
           in
           me
           to
           speak
           so
           to
           you
           in
           respect
           of
           my
           age
           ,
           then
           for
           you
           to
           speak
           so
           to
           me
           In
           respect
           of
           your
           young
           Doctor-ship
           .
           You
           will
           finde
           that
           for
           all
           your
           Doctor-ship
           ,
           your
           elders
           ,
           if
           otherwise
           of
           as
           go●d
           repute
           as
           yo●
           ,
           will
           be
           respected
           before
           you
           .
           But
           I
           am
           not
           sure
           that
           this
           language
           of
           yours
           proceeded
           from
           th●t
           cause
           ;
           I
           am
           rather
           inclined
           to
           think
           you
           have
           not
           been
           enough
           in
           good
           company
           ,
           and
           that
           there
           is
           still
           somewhat
           le●t
           in
           your
           manners
           for
           which
           the
           honest
           youths
           ●of
           
             Hedington
          
           and
           
             Nincsey
          
           may
           compare
           with
           you
           ●or
           good
           Language
           as
           great
           a
           Doctor
           as
           you
           ar●
           .
        
         
           For
           my
           verses
           of
           the
           Peak
           ,
           though
           they
           be
           as
           ill
           in
           my
           opinion
           as
           I
           bel●eve
           they
           are
           in
           yours
           ,
           and
           made
           long
           since
           ,
           yet
           are
           they
           not
           so
           obscene
           ,
           as
           that
           they
           ought
           to
           be
           blamed
           by
           
             Dr.
             Wallis
             .
          
           I
           pray
           you
           Sir
           ,
           whereas
           you
           have
           these
           words
           in
           your
           
             Schoole-Discipline
          
           page
           
             96.
             unlesse
             you
             will
             say
             that
             one
             and
             the
             same
             motion
             may
             be
             now
             ,
             and
             anon
             too
             ;
          
           what
           was
           the
           reason
           you
           put
           these
           words
           
             now
             and
             anon
             too
          
           in
           a
           different
           Character
           ,
           that
           makes
           them
           to
           be
           the
           more
           taken
           notice
           of
           ;
           Do
           you
           think
           that
           the
           story
           of
           the
           Minister
           that
           uttered
           his
           affection
           (
           if
           it
           be
           not
           a
           sl●nder
           )
           not
           unlawfully
           but
           unseasonably
           ,
           is
           not
           known
           to
           others
           as
           well
           as
           to
           you
           ?
           what
           needed
           you
           then
           (
           when
           there
           was
           nothing
           that
           I
           had
           said
           could
           give
           the
           occasion
           )
           to
           use
           those
           words
           ;
           there
           is
           nothing
           in
           my
           verses
           that
           do
           
             olerehircum
             ,
          
           so
           much
           a●
           this
           of
           yours
           ,
           I
           know
           what
           good
           you
           can
           receive
           by
           ruminating
           on
           such
           Ideas
           ,
           or
           cherishing
           of
           such
           thoughts
           .
           But
           I
           go
           on
           to
           other
           words
           of
           〈◊〉
           by
           you
           reproached
           ,
           
             you
             may
             as
             wel
             se●k
             the
             Focu●
             of
             the
             Parabola
             of
             Dives
             and
             Lazarus
             ,
          
           
           which
           you
           say
           is
           mocking
           of
           the
           Scripture
           .
           To
           which
           I
           answer
           onely
           ,
           that
           I
           intended
           not
           to
           mock
           the
           Scripture
           ,
           but
           you
           ;
           and
           that
           which
           was
           not
           meant
           for
           mocking
           was
           none
           .
           And
           thus
           you
           have
           a
           second
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
        
      
       
         
           Grammar
           
             and
          
           Critickes
           .
        
         
           I
           come
           now
           to
           the
           comparison
           of
           our
           Grammar
           and
           Criticks
           .
           You
           object
           first
           against
           the
           signification
           I
           give
           of
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ,
           &
           say
           thus
           ,
           
             what
             should
             come
             into
             your
             cap
          
           (
           that
           if
           you
           markit
           in
           a
           man
           that
           wears
           a
           square
           cap
           ,
           to
           one
           that
           wears
           a
           Hatt
           is
           very
           witty
           )
           
             To
             make
             you
             think
             that
          
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           
             signifies
             a
             mark
             or
             brand
             with
             a
             hot
             iron
             ,
             I
             perceive
             where
             the
             businesse
             lies
             .
             T
             was
          
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           
             run
             in
             your
             minde
             when
             you
             talked
             of
          
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ;
           
             and
             because
             the
             words
             are
             somewhat
             alike
             you
             jumble
             them
             both
             together
             .
          
           Sir
           ,
           I
           tould
           you
           once
           before
           ,
           you
           presume
           too
           much
           upon
           your
           first
           cogitations
           .
           Aristophanes
           ,
           in
           R●nis
           .
           Act.
           5.
           
           Scen.
           5.
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           &c.
           The
           old
           Commentator
           upon
           the
           word
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           saith
           thus
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
           That
           is
           ,
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           for
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           for
           he
           (
           Adimantus
           )
           was
           not
           a
           Citizen
           .
           I
           hope
           the
           Commentator
           does
           not
           here
           mock
           
             Aristophanes
          
           for
           jumbling
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           and
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           together
           for
           want
           of
           understanding
           Greek
           .
           No
           ,
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           and
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           signifie
           the
           same
           ,
           save
           that
           for
           branding
           I
           seldom
           read
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           but
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
           For
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           does
           no
           more
           signifie
           a
           brand
           with
           a
           hot
           iron
           then
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           a
           point
           made
           also
           with
           a
           hot
           iron
           .
           They
           have
           both
           one
           common
           theam
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ,
           which
           does
           not
           signifie
           
             pungo
             ,
          
           nor
           
             interpungo
          
           nor
           
             inuro
          
           (
           for
           all
           you
           Lexicon
           )
           but
           
             notam
             inprimere
             ,
          
           or
           
             pungendo
             notare
             ,
          
           without
           any
           restriction
           to
           burning
           or
           punching
           .
           It
           is
           therefore
           no
           lesse
           proper
           to
           say
           that
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           is
           a
           mark
           with
           a
           hot
           iron
           ,
           then
           to
           say
           the
           same
           of
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
           The
           difference
           is
           onely
           this
           ,
           that
           when
           they
           marked
           a
           slave
           ,
           or
           a
           rascal
           as
           you
           are
           not
           ignorant
           is
           usually
           done
           here
           at
           the
           Assizes
           in
           the
           hand
           or
           shoulder
           with
           a
           hot
           iron
           they
           called
           that
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ,
           not
           for
           the
           burning
           but
           for
           the
           mark
           .
           And
           as
           it
           would
           have
           been
           called
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           that
           was
           imprinted
           on
           a
           slave
           ,
           though
           made
           by
           st●yning
           or
           incision
           ,
           so
           it
           is
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           though
           done
           with
           a
           hot
           iron
           ▪
           And
           therefore
           there
           was
           no
           jumbling
           of
           those
           two
           words
           together
           as
           for
           want
           of
           reading
           Greek
           Authors
           ,
           and
           by
           trusting
           too
           much
           to
           your
           Dictionaries
           (
           which
           you
           say
           are
           proofes
           good
           enough
           for
           such
           a
           businesse
           )
           you
           were
           made
           to
           imagine
           .
           The
           use
           I
           have
           made
           thereof
           was
           to
           shew
           that
           a
           point
           (
           both
           by
           the
           word
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           in
           Euclide
           ,
           and
           by
           the
           word
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           in
           some
           others
           )
           was
           not
           
             nothing
             ,
          
           but
           a
           
             visible
          
           mark
           ;
           the
           ignorance
           where
           of
           hath
           thrown
           you
           into
           so
           many
           Paralogismes
           in
           Geometry
           .
        
         
           But
           do
           you
           think
           you
           can
           defend
           your
           
             Adducis
             Malleum
          
           aswel
           as
           I
           have
           now
           defended
           my
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ?
           You
           have
           brought
           ,
           I
           confess
           ,
           above
           a
           hundred
           places
           of
           Authors
           where
           there
           is
           the
           word
           
             Duco
             ,
          
           or
           some
           of
           its
           compounds
           ;
           but
           none
           of
           them
           will
           justifie
           
             Adducis
             Malleum
          
           and
           (
           excepting
           two
           of
           those
           places
           )
           you
           your self
           seem
           to
           condemn
           them
           all
           ,
           comparing
           yours
           ,
           with
           none
           of
           the
           rest
           but
           with
           these
           two
           only
           ;
           both
           out
           of
           
             Plautus
             ,
          
           by
           you
           ,
           not
           well
           understood
           .
           The
           first
           is
           in
           
             Casina
             Act.
             5.
             
             Scen.
             2.
             ubi
             intro
             hanc
             Novam
             Nuptam
             deduxi
             ,
             via
             recta
             ,
             Clavem
             abduxi
             .
          
           Which
           you
           presently
           presuming
           of
           your
           first
           thoughts
           (
           a
           peculiar
           fault
           to
           men
           of
           your
           principles
           )
           assure
           your self
           is
           right
           .
           But
           if
           you
           look
           on
           the
           place
           as
           
             Scaliger
          
           reads
           it
           cited
           by
           the
           commentator
           ,
           you
           will
           finde
           it
           should
           be
           
             obduxi
             ,
          
           and
           that
           
             Clavis
          
           is
           there
           used
           for
           the
           bolt
           of
           the
           lock
           .
           Besides
           he
           bolted
           it
           within
           .
           Whither
           then
           could
           he
           carry
           away
           the
           key
           ?
           The
           place
           is
           to
           be
           rendered
           thus
           ,
           
             when
             I
             had
             brought
             in
             this
             new
             bride
             I
             presently
             lockt
             the
             door
             ,
          
           and
           is
           this
           
             as
             bad
             every
             whit
          
           as
           
             Adducis
             Malleum
             .
          
           The
           second
           place
           is
           it
           
             Amphytryo
             Act.
             1.
             Scen.
             1.
             
             Eam
             (
             Cirneam
             )
             ut
             à
             matre
             ●uerat
             natum
             plenum
             vini
             Eduxi
             me●i
             .
          
           Which
           you
           interpret
           
           
             I
             brought
             out
             a
             flag●n
             of
             Wine
             .
          
           Unlearnedly
           .
           They
           are
           the
           words
           of
           
             Mercury
          
           transformed
           into
           
             Sofia
             .
          
           And
           to
           try
           whether
           
             Mercury
          
           were
           
             So●ia
          
           or
           not
           ,
           
             So●ia
          
           asked
           him
           where
           he
           was
           and
           what
           he
           did
           during
           the
           Battle
           ;
           to
           which
           
             Mercury
          
           answered
           ,
           (
           who
           knew
           where
           
             Sofia
          
           then
           was
           and
           what
           he
           did
           )
           
             I
             was
             in
             the
             Cellar
             where
             I
             filled
             a
             Cirnea
             ,
             and
             brought
             it
             up
             full
             of
             Wine
             ,
             pure
             as
             it
             came
             from
             its
             mother
             .
          
           By
           the
           mother
           of
           the
           Wine
           meaning
           the
           Vine
           ,
           and
           alluding
           to
           the
           Education
           of
           Children
           ,
           for
           
             Ebibi
          
           said
           
             Eduxi
             ,
          
           and
           with
           an
           
             Emphasis
          
           in
           
             meri
             ,
          
           because
           
             Cirnea
          
           (
           from
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ,
           
             Misceo
             )
          
           was
           a
           vessel
           wherein
           they
           put
           water
           to
           temper
           to
           their
           Wine
           .
           Intimating
           that
           th●ugh
           the
           vessel
           were
           
             Cirnea
             ,
          
           yet
           the
           Wine
           was
           
             meru●…
             .
          
           This
           is
           the
           true
           sense
           of
           the
           place
           ;
           but
           you
           will
           have
           
             Eduxi
          
           to
           be
           I
           brought
           out
           ,
           though
           he
           came
           not
           out
           himself
           .
           You
           see
           Sir
           ,
           that
           nei●her
           this
           is
           so
           ●ad
           as
           
             Addu●●s
             Malleum
             .
          
        
         
           But
           suppose
           out
           of
           some
           one
           place
           in
           some
           one
           blind
           Author
           you
           ●ad
           pa●ralled
           your
           
             Addu●is
             M●ll●um
             ,
          
           do
           you
           think
           it
           must
           therefore
           presently
           be
           held
           for
           good
           Latin
           ,
           why
           more
           then
           
             learn
             his
             lurry
          
           must
           be
           therefore
           thought
           good
           English
           a
           thousand
           years
           hence
           ,
           because
           it
           will
           be
           read
           in
           
             Dr.
             Wallis
          
           long
           ▪
           liv'd
           works
           .
           But
           how
           do
           you
           construe
           this
           passage
           of
           the
           Greek
           Testament
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
           You
           construeit
           thus
           :
           
             she
             shall
             be
             saved
             notwithstanding
             Child
             bearing
             ,
             if
          
           (
           the
           w●men
           )
           
             remain
             in
             the
             faith
             .
          
           Is
           child-bearing
           any
           obstacle
           to
           the
           salvation
           of
           women
           ?
           You
           might
           aswel
           have
           translated
           the
           first
           verse
           of
           Rom.
           5.
           in
           this
           manner
           ,
           
             Being
             then
             justified
             by
             fait●
             ,
             ●e
             have
             pea●e
             with
             God
             notwithstanding
             our
             Lord
             Jesus
             Christ
             .
          
           I
           let
           pass
           your
           n●t
           ●●nding
           in
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ▪
           as
           good
           a
           Gra●arian
           as
           you
           are
           ,
           a
           Nominative
           case
           to
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
           If
           you
           had
           remembred
           the
           place
           .
           1.
           Pet.
           Chap.
           3.
           verse
           20.
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ,
           that
           is
           ,
           
             They
             were
             saved
             in
             the
             wa●●rs
             ,
          
           you
           would
           have
           thought
           your
           construstion
           justified
           then
           very
           well
           ;
           but
           you
           h●d
           been
           deceived
           ,
           for
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           does
           not
           there
           signifie
           
             causam
             ,
          
           nor
           
             ablationem
             impedimenti
          
           but
           
             tran●…m
             ;
          
           not
           
             cause
             or
             removing
             an
             impediment
          
           but
           
             passage
             .
          
           Being
           come
           thu●●●r
           I
           found
           a
           friend
           that
           hath
           eased
           me
           of
           this
           dispute
           ;
           for
           he
           shewed
           me
           a
           letter
           written
           to
           himself
           from
           a
           learned
           man
           ,
           that
           hath
           out
           of
           very
           good
           Authors
           collected
           enough
           to
           decide
           all
           the
           Grammatical
           questions
           betwen
           you
           and
           me
           both
           Greek
           and
           Latin
           .
           He
           would
           not
           let
           me
           know
           his
           na●e
           ,
           nor
           any
           thing
           of
           him
           but
           only
           this
           ,
           that
           he
           had
           better
           ornaments
           then
           to
           be
           willing
           to
           go
           clad
           abroad
           in
           the
           habit
           of
           a
           Grammarian
           .
           But
           he
           gave
           me
           leave
           to
           make
           use
           of
           so
           much
           of
           the
           letter
           as
           I
           thought
           fit
           in
           this
           dispute
           .
           Which
           I
           have
           done
           and
           have
           added
           it
           to
           the
           end
           of
           this
           writing
           .
           But
           before
           I
           come
           to
           that
           ,
           you
           must
           not
           take
           it
           ill
           (
           though
           I
           have
           done
           with
           your
           School
           Discipline
           )
           if
           I
           ex●mine
           a
           little
           some
           other
           of
           your
           printed
           writings
           as
           you
           have
           examined
           mine
           ;
           for
           neither
           you
           in
           Geometry
           nor
           such
           as
           you
           in
           Church
           politicks
           can
           not
           expect
           to
           publish
           any
           unholesome
           doctrine
           without
           some
           Antidotes
           from
           me
           ,
           as
           long
           as
           I
           can
           hold
           a
           pen
           .
           But
           why
           did
           you
           answer
           nothing
           to
           my
           sixth
           Lesson
           ?
           because
           (
           you
           say
           )
           it
           concerned
           your
           Colle●gue
           onely
           ;
           No
           Sir
           ,
           It
           concerned
           you
           also
           ,
           and
           chiefly
           .
           For
           I
           have
           not
           heard
           that
           your
           Colleague
           holdeth
           those
           dangerous
           principies
           which
           I
           take
           notice
           of
           in
           you
           .
           In
           my
           sixth
           Lesson
           page
           62.
           upon
           the
           occasion
           of
           these
           words
           ,
           not
           his
           but
           yours
           .
           
             Perhaps
             you
             t●ke
             the
             whol●
             History
             of
             the
             fall
             of
             Adam
             for
             a
             fable
             ,
             which
             is
             no
             wonder
             ,
             seeing
             you
             say
             the
             rules
             of
             honouring
             and
             worshiping
             of
             God
             are
             to
             be
             taken
             form
             the
             laws
             .
          
           In
           answer
           to
           which
           I
           said
           thus
           .
           
             You
             that
             take
             so
             hainously
             ,
             tha●
             I
             would
             have
             the
             rule
             of
             Gods
             worship
             in
             a
             Christian
             Common-wealth
             to
             be
             taken
             from
             the
             Laws
             ,
             tell
             me
             from
             whom
             you
             would
             have
             th●m
             taken
             .
             From
             your selfe
             ?
             Why
             so
             ,
             more
             then
             from
             me
             ?
             From
             the
             Bishops
             ?
             Right
             ,
             if
             the
             Supreme
             power
             of
             the
             Common-wealth
             will
             have
             it
             so
             ;
             if
             not
             ,
             why
             from
             them
             rather
             then
             from
             me
             ?
             From
             a
             Consistory
             of
             Pres●yt●rs
             ▪
             themselves
             or
             joyned
             with
             Lay-Elders
             ,
             whom
             they
             may
             sway
             as
             they
             please
             ?
             Good
             ,
             If
             the
             supream
             Governour
             of
             the
             Common-wealth
             will
             have
             it
             so
             .
             If
             not
             ,
             why
             fr●m
             them
             rather
             then
             from
             me
             ,
             or
             from
             any
             man
             else
             ?
             They
             are
             wiser
             and
             learneder
             then
             I
             ▪
             It
             may
             be
             so
             ;
             but
             it
             ha●
             
             n●t
             yet
             appeared
             .
             Howsoever
             ,
             let
             that
             be
             granted
             .
             Is
             ●h●re
             any
             man
             so
             very
             a
             fool
             a●
             to
             subje●●
             himself
             to
             the
             rules
             of
             other
             men
             in
             those
             things
             which
             do
             so
             neerly
             concern
             himself
             ,
             for
             the
             title
             they
             assume
             of
             being
             wise
             and
             learne●
             ,
             unlesse
             they
             also
             have
             the
             sword
             which
             must
             portect
             them
             .
             But
             it
             seems
             you
             understand
             the
             sword
             as
             comprehended
             .
             If
             so
             ,
             Do
             not
             you
             then
             r●ceive
             the
             rules
             of
             Gods
             worship
             from
             the
             Civil
             Power
             ?
             Yes
             doubtlesse
             ;
             and
             you
             would
             expect
             ,
             if
             your
             Consistory
             had
             that
             sword
             ,
             that
             no
             man
             should
             dare
             to
             ex●rcise
             or
             teach
             any
             rules
             concerning
             Gods
             worship
             which
             were
             not
             by
             you
             allowed
             .
          
        
         
           This
           will
           be
           thought
           strong
           arguing
           ,
           if
           you
           do
           not
           answer
           it
           .
           But
           the
           truth
           is
           ,
           you
           could
           say
           nothing
           against
           it
           without
           too
           plainly
           discove●ing
           your
           disaffection
           to
           the
           Goverme●t
           .
           And
           yet
           you
           have
           discovered
           it
           pretty
           well
           in
           your
           second
           
             Thesis
          
           maintained
           in
           the
           Act
           at
           
             Oxford
          
           1654
           ,
           and
           since
           by
           your self
           published
           .
           This
           
             Thesis
          
           I
           shall
           speak
           briefly
           to
           .
        
      
       
         
           Scotch-Church
           Politicks
           .
        
         
           
             You
             define
             Ministers
             of
             the
             Gospel
          
           to
           be
           those
           
             to
             whom
             the
             preaching
             of
             the
             Gospel
             by
             their
             o●fice
             is
             injoyned
             by
             Christ
             .
          
           Pray
           you
           ,
           first
           ,
           what
           do
           you
           mean
           by
           saying
           preaching
           
             ex
             Offici●
             is
             enjoyned
             by
             Christ
             .
          
           Are
           they
           Preachers
           
             ●x
             Officio
             ,
          
           and
           afterwards
           enjoyned
           to
           Preach
           ?
           
             Ex
             Officio
          
           adds
           nothing
           to
           the
           definition
           ;
           but
           a
           man
           may
           ●asily
           see
           your
           purpose
           to
           disjoyn
           your self
           from
           the
           State
           by
           inserting
           i●
           .
        
         
           Secondly
           ,
           I
           desire
           to
           know
           in
           what
           manner
           you
           will
           be
           able
           out
           of
           this
           d●●inition
           to
           prove
           your self
           a
           Minister
           ?
           Did
           Christ
           hi●self
           immediately
           enjoyn
           you
           to
           preach
           ,
           or
           give
           you
           orders
           ?
           No
           .
           Who
           then
           ,
           some
           Bishop
           ,
           or
           Minister
           or
           Ministers
           ?
           Yes
           ;
           by
           what
           Authority
           ?
           Are
           you
           sure
           they
           had
           Authority
           immediately
           from
           Christ
           ?
           no
           .
           How
           then
           ar●
           you
           sure
           but
           that
           they
           might
           have
           none
           ?
           At
           least
           ,
           some
           of
           them
           through
           whom
           your
           Authority
           is
           derived
           might
           have
           none
           .
           And
           therefore
           if
           you
           run
           b●ck
           for
           your
           Authority
           towards
           the
           Apostles
           times
           but
           a
           matter
           of
           sixscore
           years
           ,
           you
           will
           ●inde
           your
           Authority
           derived
           from
           the
           
             Pope
             ;
          
           which
           words
           have
           a
           ●ound
           very
           unlike
           to
           the
           voice
           of
           the
           Laws
           of
           England
           .
           And
           yet
           the
           Pope
           will
           not
           own
           you
           .
           There
           's
           no
           man
           doubts
           but
           that
           you
           hold
           that
           your
           
             Office
          
           comes
           to
           you
           by
           successive
           impo●ition
           o●
           hands
           ●rom
           the
           time
           of
           the
           Apostles
           .
           Which
           opinion
           in
           those
           gentle
           terms
           passeth
           well
           enough
           ;
           But
           to
           say
           you
           derive
           your
           Authority
           from
           thence
           ,
           not
           through
           the
           Authority
           of
           the
           Soveraign
           power
           civill
           ,
           is
           too
           rude
           to
           be
           endured
           in
           a
           state
           that
           would
           live
           in
           peace
           .
           In
           a
           word
           you
           can
           never
           prove
           you
           are
           a
           Minister
           ,
           but
           by
           the
           Supream
           Autho●ity
           of
           the
           Common-wealth
           .
           Why
           then
           do
           you
           not
           put
           some
           such
           clause
           into
           your
           definition
           ?
           As
           thus
           ,
           
             Ministers
             of
             the
             Gospel
             are
             those
             to
             whom
             the
             preaching
             of
             the
             Gospel
             is
             enjoyned
             by
             the
             Soveraign
             power
             in
             the
             name
             of
             Christ
             .
          
           What
           harm
           is
           there
           in
           this
           definition
           ,
           saving
           onely
           it
           crosses
           the
           ambition
           of
           many
           men
           that
           hold
           your
           p●inciples
           ?
           Then
           you
           d●●ine
           the
           power
           of
           a
           Minister
           thus
           ;
           
             The
             power
             of
             a
             Minister
             is
             that
             which
             belongeth
             to
             a
             Minister
             of
             the
             Gospel
             in
             vertue
             of
             the
             Office
             he
             holds
             ;
             in
             as
             much
             as
             he
             holds
             a
             publick
             Station
             ,
             and
             is
             distinguished
             from
             private
             Christians
             .
             Such
             as
             is
             the
             power
             of
             preaching
             the
             Gospel
             ;
             administring
             the
             Sacrament
             ;
             the
             use
             of
             Eccles●astical
             censure●
             ;
             and
             Ord●ining
             of
             Ministers
             &c.
             
          
        
         
           Again
           ;
           how
           wil
           you
           prove
           out
           of
           this
           definition
           that
           you
           or
           any
           man
           ●lse
           hath
           the
           power
           of
           a
           Minister
           ,
           i●
           it
           be
           not
           given
           him
           ,
           by
           him
           that
           is
           the
           Soveraign
           o●
           the
           Common-wealth
           ▪
           For
           seeing
           (
           as
           I
           have
           now
           proved
           )
           it
           is
           from
           him
           that
           you
           must
           d●rive
           your
           Ministery
           ,
           you
           can
           have
           no
           oth●r
           power
           then
           that
           which
           is
           limited
           in
           y●ur
           Orders
           ,
           ●or
           ●ha●
           neithe●
           
           longer
           then
           he
           thinks
           fit
           .
           For
           if
           he
           give
           it
           you
           for
           the
           instruction
           of
           his
           subjects
           in
           their
           duty
           ,
           he
           may
           take
           it
           from
           you
           again
           whensoever
           he
           shal
           see
           you
           instruct
           them
           wi●h
           undutiful
           and
           seditious
           principles
           .
           And
           if
           the
           Sogeraign
           power
           give
           me
           command
           (
           though
           without
           the
           ceremony
           of
           imposition
           of
           hands
           )
           to
           teach
           the
           Doctrine
           of
           my
           
             Leviathan
          
           in
           the
           Pulpit
           ,
           why
           am
           not
           I
           if
           my
           Doctrine
           and
           life
           be
           as
           good
           as
           yours
           ,
           a
           Minister
           as
           well
           as
           you
           ,
           and
           as
           publick
           a
           person
           as
           you
           are
           ?
           For
           
             publick
             person
          
           primarily
           is
           none
           but
           the
           civil
           Soveraign
           ,
           and
           so
           seconda●ily
           all
           that
           are
           imployed
           in
           the
           execution
           of
           any
           part
           of
           the
           publick
           Charge
           .
           For
           all
           are
           his
           Ministers
           ,
           and
           therefore
           also
           Christs
           Ministers
           because
           he
           is
           ●o
           ;
           and
           other
           Ministers
           are
           but
           his
           Vicars
           ,
           and
           ought
           not
           to
           do
           or
           say
           any
           thing
           to
           his
           people
           contrary
           to
           the
           intention
           of
           the
           Soveraign
           in
           giving
           them
           their
           Commission
           ,
        
         
           Again
           ,
           if
           you
           have
           in
           your
           Commission
           a
           power
           to
           Ex●ommunicate
           ,
           how
           can
           you
           think
           that
           your
           Soveraig●
           who
           gave
           you
           that
           Commission
           intended
           it
           for
           a
           commission
           to
           Excommunicate
           himself
           ,
           that
           is
           ,
           (
           as
           long
           as
           he
           stands
           Excommunicate
           ;
           to
           deprive
           him
           of
           his
           Kingdom
           )
           If
           all
           Subjects
           were
           of
           your
           minde
           ,
           as
           I
           hope
           ▪
           they
           will
           never
           be
           ,
           they
           will
           have
           a
           very
           unquiet
           life
           .
           And
           yet
           this
           has
           (
           as
           I
           have
           often
           heard
           )
           been
           practised
           in
           
             Scotland
             ,
          
           when
           Ministers
           holding
           your
           principles
           had
           power
           enough
           (
           though
           no
           right
           )
           to
           do
           it
           .
        
         
           And
           for
           Administration
           of
           the
           Sacraments
           ,
           if
           by
           the
           Supream
           power
           of
           the
           Common-wealth
           it
           were
           commited
           to
           such
           of
           the
           Laity
           as
           know
           how
           it
           ought
           to
           be
           done
           as
           well
           as
           you
           ,
           they
           would
           
             ips●
             facto
          
           be
           Ministers
           as
           good
           as
           you
           .
           Likewise
           the
           right
           of
           Ordination
           of
           Ministers
           depends
           not
           now
           on
           the
           Imposition
           of
           hands
           of
           a
           Minister
           or
           Presbytery
           ,
           but
           on
           the
           authority
           of
           the
           Christian
           Soveraign
           Christs
           immedi●t
           Vicar
           and
           supream
           Governour
           of
           all
           Persons
           and
           Judge
           of
           all
           causes
           both
           spiritual
           and
           temporal
           in
           his
           own
           Dominions
           ,
           which
           I
           beleeve
           you
           will
           not
           denie
           .
        
         
           This
           being
           evident
           ,
           what
           Acts
           are
           those
           of
           yours
           which
           you
           call
           
             Authoritative
             ,
          
           and
           receive
           not
           from
           the
           Authority
           of
           the
           civil
           power
           ?
           A
           Constable
           does
           the
           acts
           of
           a
           Constable
           
             authoritatively
          
           in
           that
           sense
           .
           There●ore
           you
           can
           no
           otherwayes
           claime
           your
           power
           then
           a
           Constable
           claimeth
           his
           ,
           who
           does
           not
           exercise
           his
           Office
           in
           the
           Con●●ablery
           of
           another
           .
           But
           you
           ●orget
           that
           the
           Scribes
           and
           the
           Pharisees
           ●it
           no
           more
           in
           
             Moses
          
           Chaire
           .
        
         
           You
           would
           have
           every
           Minister
           to
           be
           a
           Minister
           of
           the
           Universal
           Church
           ,
           and
           that
           it
           be
           lawful
           for
           you
           to
           preach
           your
           Doctrine
           at
           
             Rome
             ;
          
           if
           you
           would
           be
           pleased
           to
           try
           ,
           you
           would
           finde
           the
           Contrary
           .
           You
           bring
           no
           argument
           for
           it
           that
           looks
           like
           reas●n
           .
           Examples
           prove
           nothing
           ,
           where
           persons
           ,
           times
           ,
           and
           other
           circumstances
           differ
           ;
           as
           they
           differ
           very
           much
           now
           when
           Kings
           are
           Christians
           ,
           from
           what
           they
           were
           then
           when
           Kings
           per●ecuted
           Christians
           .
           It
           is
           ea●ie
           to
           perceive
           what
           you
           aime
           at
           .
        
         
           You
           woul
           fain
           have
           Market-day
           Lectures
           set
           up
           by
           authority
           (
           not
           by
           the
           authority
           of
           the
           Civil
           power
           but
           by
           the
           authority
           of
           example
           of
           the
           Apostles
           in
           the
           Emission
           of
           Preachers
           to
           〈◊〉
           I●fidels
           )
           not
           knowing
           that
           any
           Christian
           may
           lawfully
           preach
           to
           the
           Infidels
           .
           that
           is
           to
           say
           ,
           proclaime
           unto
           them
           that
           
             Jesus
          
           is
           the
           
             Mesiah
          
           without
           need
           of
           being
           other
           wayes
           made
           a
           Minister
           ;
           as
           the
           Deacons
           did
           in
           the
           Apostles
           time
           ;
           nor
           that
           many
           teachers
           unlesse
           they
           can
           agree
           better
           ,
           do
           any
           thing
           else
           but
           prepare
           men
           for
           faction
           ,
           nay
           ,
           rather
           you
           know
           it
           well
           enough
           ;
           but
           it
           conduces
           to
           your
           end
           upon
           the
           Market-dayes
           to
           dispose
           at
           once
           both
           Town
           and
           Country
           ,
           under
           a
           false
           pretence
           of
           obedience
           to
           God
           ,
           to
           a
           Neglecting
           of
           the
           Commandments
           of
           the
           Civil
           Soveraign
           ,
           and
           make
           the
           Subject
           to
           be
           wholly
           ruled
           by
           your selves
           ;
           wherein
           you
           have
           already
           found
           your selves
           deceived
           .
           You
           know
           how
           to
           trouble
           and
           sometimes
           und●e
           a
           ●lack
           Government
           ,
           and
           had
           need
           to
           be
           warily
           lookt
           to
           ,
           but
           are
           not
           fit
           to
           hold
           the
           rei●es
           .
           And
           how
           should
           you
           ,
           being
           men
           of
           so
           little
           judgement
           as
           not
           to
           see
           the
           Necessity
           of
           unity
           in
           the
           Governour
           ,
           and
           of
           Absolute
           obedience
           
           in
           the
           Governed
           ,
           as
           is
           manifest
           out
           of
           the
           place
           of
           your
           
             Elenchus
          
           above
           recited
           .
           The
           Doctrine
           of
           the
           duty
           of
           private
           men
           in
           a
           Common-wealth
           is
           much
           more
           difficult
           ,
           not
           onely
           then
           the
           knowledge
           of
           your
           symbols
           ,
           but
           also
           then
           the
           knowledge
           of
           G●ometry
           it self
           ▪
           How
           then
           do
           you
           think
           ,
           when
           you
           erre
           so
           grosly
           in
           a
           few
           Equations
           ,
           and
           in
           the
           use
           of
           most
           common
           words
           ,
           you
           should
           be
           fit
           to
           Govern
           so
           great
           Nations
           as
           
             England
             ,
             Ireland
             ,
          
           and
           
             Scotland
             ,
          
           or
           so
           much
           as
           to
           teach
           them
           .
           For
           it
           is
           not
           reading
           but
           judgement
           that
           enables
           one
           man
           to
           teach
           another
           .
        
         
           I
           have
           one
           thing
           more
           to
           adde
           ,
           and
           that
           is
           the
           disaffection
           I
           am
           charged
           with
           all
           to
           the
           Universities
           .
           Concerning
           the
           Universities
           of
           
             Oxford
          
           and
           
             Cambridge
             ,
             I
          
           ever
           held
           them
           for
           the
           greatest
           and
           Noblest
           means
           of
           advancing
           learning
           of
           all
           kinds
           ,
           where
           they
           should
           be
           therein
           imployed
           ,
           as
           being
           ●urnished
           with
           large
           endowments
           ,
           and
           other
           helps
           of
           Study
           ,
           and
           frequent
           ▪
           with
           abundance
           of
           young
           Gentlemen
           of
           good
           families
           ●●d
           good
           breeding
           from
           their
           childe
           hood
           .
           On
           the
           other
           side
           ,
           in
           case
           the
           same
           means
           and
           the
           same
           wits
           should
           be
           imployed
           in
           the
           advancing
           of
           the
           Doctrines
           that
           tend
           to
           the
           weakning
           of
           the
           publick
           ,
           and
           strengthning
           of
           the
           power
           of
           any
           private
           ambitious
           party
           ,
           they
           would
           also
           be
           very
           effectual
           for
           that
           ;
           And
           consequently
           that
           if
           any
           Doctri●e
           tending
           ●o
           the
           diminishing
           of
           the
           civil
           power
           were
           taught
           there
           ,
           not
           that
           the
           Universities
           were
           to
           blame
           ,
           but
           onely
           those
           men
           that
           in
           the
           Universities
           either
           in
           Lectures
           ,
           Sermons
           ,
           printed
           Books
           ,
           or
           Thesis
           did
           teach
           such
           Doctrine
           to
           their
           hear●rs
           or
           readers
           .
           Now
           yo●
           know
           very
           well
           that
           in
           the
           time
           of
           the
           Roman
           Religion
           ,
           the
           power
           of
           the
           Pope
           in
           
             England
          
           was
           upheld
           principally
           by
           such
           teachers
           in
           the
           Universities
           .
           You
           k●ow
           also
           how
           much
           the
           Divines
           that
           held
           the
           ●ame
           princi●les
           in
           Church
           Government
           with
           you
           ,
           have
           contributed
           to
           our
           late
           troubles
           .
           Can
           I
           therefore
           be
           justly
           taxed
           with
           disaffection
           to
           the
           Universities
           for
           wishing
           this
           to
           be
           reformed
           .
           And
           it
           hath
           pleased
           God
           of
           late
           to
           reform
           it
           in
           a
           great
           measure
           ,
           and
           indeed
           as
           I
           thought
           totally
           ,
           when
           out
           comes
           this
           your
           Thesis
           boldly
           maintained
           to
           shew
           the
           contrary
           ;
           Nor
           can
           I
           yet
           cal
           this
           your
           Doctrine
           the
           Doctrine
           of
           the
           Vniver●ity
           ,
           b●t
           surely
           it
           wil
           not
           be
           unr●asonable
           to
           think
           so
           ,
           if
           by
           publick
           act
           of
           the
           Vniversity
           it
           be
           not
           disavowed
           ,
           which
           done
           ,
           and
           that
           as
           often
           as
           there
           shall
           be
           need
           ,
           there
           can
           be
           no
           longer
           doubt
           but
           that
           the
           Vniversities
           of
           
             England
          
           are
           not
           onely
           the
           Noblest
           of
           all
           Christian
           Vniversities
           ,
           ●ut
           also
           absolutly
           ,
           &
           of
           the
           greatst
           benefit
           to
           this
           Common
           wealth
           that
           can
           be
           imagined
           ,
           except
           that
           benefit
           of
           the
           head
           it self
           that
           uniteth
           and
           ruleth
           all
           .
           I
           have
           not
           here
           perticularized
           at
           length
           all
           the
           ill
           consequences
           that
           may
           be
           deduced
           fromthis
           Thesis
           of
           yours
           ,
           because
           I
           may
           ,
           when
           further
           provoked
           ,
           have
           somewhat
           to
           say
           that
           is
           new
           .
        
         
           So
           much
           for
           the
           3.
           
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
        
      
       
       
         
           An
           extract
           of
           a
           Letter
           concerning
           the
           Grammaticall
           part
           of
           the
           Controversie
           between
           
             Mr.
             HOBBES
             and
             Dr.
             WALLIS
             .
          
           Mr.
           Hobbes
           
             hath
             these
             words
          
        
         
           
             LOngi●udinem
             percu●sam
             motu
             uniformi
             ,
             cum
             impetu
             ubique
             ipsi
             B
             D
             ●quali
             .
             Dr.
             Wallis
          
           saith
           
             cum
          
           were
           better
           out
           ,
           unlesse
           you
           would
           have
           
             impe●us
          
           to
           be
           onely
           a
           companion
           ,
           not
           a
           
             cause
             .
          
           Mr.
           
             Hobbes
          
           answered
           it
           was
           th●Abla●ive
           
             case
             of
             the
             manner
             .
          
           The
           truth
           is
           the
           Ablatives
           case
           of
           the
           
             manner
             ,
          
           and
           
             cause
          
           both
           ,
           may
           be
           used
           with
           the
           conjunction
           
             cum
             ,
          
           as
           may
           be
           justified
           .
           
             Cicero
          
           in
           the
           2.
           
             de
             Nat.
             
             Deor.
             moliri
             aliquid
             cum
             labore
             operoso
             ac
             molesto
             ;
          
           and
           in
           his
           Oration
           for
           
             C●cinn●
             .
             De
             se
             autem
             hoc
             praedicat
             ,
             Antiocho
             Ebul●j
             se●vo
             imperâsse
             ut
             in
             Caecinā
             advenien●em
             cum
             serro
             invaderet
             .
          
           Let
           us
           see
           then
           what
           Dr.
           
             Wallis
          
           objects
           against
           
             Tully
             ;
          
           where
           a
           Causality
           is
           imported
           ;
           Though
           we
           may
           use
           
             with
          
           in
           English
           ,
           yet
           not
           
             cum
          
           in
           Latine
           ,
           to
           
             kill
             with
             a
             sword
             (
             importing
             this
             to
             have
             an
             instrumental
             or
             causal
             in●luence
             ,
             and
             not
             onely
             that
             it
             h●ngs
             by
             the
             mans
             side
             whilest
             some
             other
             weapon
             is
             made
             ●se
             of
             )
          
           is
           not
           in
           Latine
           ,
           
             occidere
             cum
             gladio
             ,
          
           but
           
             gladio
             occidere
             .
          
           This
           shews
           that
           the
           Dr.
           hath
           not
           forgot
           his
           
             Grammer
             ,
          
           for
           the
           subsequent
           examples
           as
           well
           as
           this
           rule
           are
           borrowed
           thence
           .
           But
           yet
           he
           might
           have
           known
           that
           great
           Personages
           have
           never
           confined
           themselves
           to
           this
           
             Pedantry
             ,
          
           but
           have
           chosen
           to
           walk
           in
           a
           greater
           latitude
           .
           Most
           of
           the
           Elegancies
           and
           Idioms
           of
           every
           Language
           are
           exceptions
           to
           his
           Grammar
           .
           But
           since
           Mr.
           
             Hobbes
          
           saith
           it
           is
           the
           Ablative
           case
           of
           the
           
             manner
             ,
          
           there
           is
           no
           doubt
           it
           may
           be
           expressed
           with
           
             cum
             .
          
           The
           Doctor
           in
           the
           mean
           time
           knew
           no
           more
           then
           what
           
             Lilly
          
           had
           taught
           him
           ;
           
             Alvarez
          
           would
           have
           taught
           him
           more
           .
           And
           
             Voss●us
          
           in
           his
           Book
           
             de
             constructione
          
           Cap.
           47.
           expressly
           teacheth
           ,
           
             Ablativ●s
             causae
             ,
             instrument●
             ,
             vel
             modi
             ,
             non
             à
             verbo
             regised
             à
             praepositione
             omiss●
             ,
             à
             vel
             ab
             ,
             de
             ,
             è
             ,
             vel
             ex
             ,
             prae
             ,
             aut
             cum
             ,
             ac
             praepositiones
             eas
             quandoque
             exprimi
             nisi
             quòd
             cum
             ablativis
             inst●umenti
             haud
             ●emerè
             inve●ias
             ;
          
           and
           afterwards
           he
           sath
           
             non
             timerè
             imitandum
             .
          
           If
           this
           be
           so
           ,
           then
           did
           Mr.
           
             Hobbes
          
           speak
           
             Grammatically
             ,
          
           and
           with
           
             Tully
             ,
          
           but
           not
           
             usually
             .
          
           And
           might
           not
           one
           retort
           ●pon
           the
           Doctor
           ,
           that
           
             Vossius
          
           is
           as
           great
           a
           
             Critick
          
           a●●ie
           .
        
         
           His
           next
           reflection
           is
           upon
           
             praetendi●
             scire
             ,
          
           this
           he
           saith
           is
           an
           
             Angli●isme
             .
          
           If
           this
           be
           all
           his
           Accusation
           ,
           upon
           this
           score
           ,
           we
           shall
           lose
           ma●y
           expres●ions
           that
           are
           used
           by
           the
           best
           Authors
           ,
           which
           I
           take
           to
           be
           good
           Lati●…smes
           ,
           though
           they
           be
           also
           
             Anglicismes
             ,
          
           the
           latter
           being
           but
           an
           imitation
           of
           the
           former
           .
           The
           Do●tor
           therefore
           was
           too
           fierce
           to
           condemn
           upon
           so
           general
           an
           account
           ,
           that
           which
           was
           not
           to
           have
           been
           censured
           for
           being
           an
           
             Anglicisme
             ,
          
           unlesse
           also
           it
           had
           been
           no
           
             Latinisme
             .
          
           Mr.
           
             Hobbes
          
           replies
           ,
           that
           the
           Printer
           had
           omitted
           
             se
             .
          
           He
           saith
           ,
           this
           mends
           the
           matter
           a
           little
           It
           is
           very
           likely
           ,
           for
           then
           it
           is
           just
           such
           another
           
             Anglicisme
          
           as
           that
           of
           
             Quintilian
             ;
             Cùm
             loricatus
             in
             foro
             ambularet
             ,
             praetendebat
             se
             id
             metu
             facere
             .
          
           The
           Doctor
           certanily
           was
           very
           negligent
           ,
           or
           else
           he
           could
           not
           have
           missed
           this
           in
           
             Robert
             Stephen
             .
          
           Or
           h●ply
           he
           was
           resolved
           to
           condemn
           
             Quintilian
          
           for
           this
           and
           that
           other
           
             Anglicisme
             ,
             Ignorantia
             p●●tendi
             non
             potest
             ,
          
           as
           all
           those
           
           that
           have
           used
           
             praetendo
             ,
          
           which
           are
           many
           and
           as
           good
           Authors
           as
           Doc●●r
           
             Wallis
          
           that
           makes
           his
           own
           Encomiasts
           (
           not
           an
           English
           ma●
           )
           amongst
           them
           to
           w●●te
           
             A●glicismes
             .
          
        
         
           Then
           ●e
           bl●mes
           
             Tractatus
             ●●jus
             partis
             t●rtiae
             ,
             in
             q●â
             mo●us
             &
             magnitudo
             per
             se
             &
             abstract●
             consideravimus
             ,
             te●minum
             hic
             statuo
             .
          
           Here
           I
           ●●st
           con●esse
           the
           exception
           is
           colonrable
           ,
           yet
           I
           can
           parallel
           it
           with
           the
           like
           objection
           made
           by
           
             Erasm●s
          
           aga●●st
           
             Tully
             ,
          
           out
           of
           whom
           
             Erasmus
          
           q●otes
           this
           passage
           ;
           
             D●ut
             ùs
             comm●tans
             Athents
             ;
             quo●●am
             ven●…
             negabant
             solvendi
             facultatem
             ,
             e●at
             ani●us
             ad
             ●e
             scr●bere
             :
          
           and
           excuses
           it
           hu●
           ,
           that
           
             Tully
          
           might
           have
           had
           at
           fir●t
           in
           his
           thoughts
           
             v●…bam
          
           or
           
             statuebam
             ,
          
           which
           he
           afterwards
           relinquished
           for
           
             erat
             animus
             ,
          
           and
           did
           not
           remember
           what
           he
           had
           antecedently
           w●itt●n
           ,
           which
           did
           not
           vary
           fr●m
           his
           succeeding
           ,
           though●●
           ,
           but
           words
           .
           A●d
           this
           excuse
           may
           passe
           with
           any
           who
           knows
           that
           Mr.
           
             Hobbes
          
           values
           not
           the
           study
           of
           word●
           ,
           but
           as
           it
           s●rves
           to
           expresse
           his
           thoughts
           ,
           which
           were
           the
           same
           whe●her
           he
           wrot●
           ;
           
             in
             quâ
             metus
             &
             m●g●i●udo
             per
             se
             a●
             abstractè
             considerati
             sunt
             ,
          
           or
           
             consideravimus
             .
          
           And
           if
           the
           Dr
           ▪
           will
           make
           this
           so
           capital
           ;
           he
           must
           prove
           it
           
             volunta●y
             ,
          
           and
           shew
           that
           it
           is
           greater
           then
           what
           is
           legible
           in
           the
           p●ny
           Letter
           of
           his
           
             Encomiast
             ,
          
           whom
           he
           would
           have
           to
           be
           beyond
           except●●n
           .
        
         
           Now
           ●ollowes
           his
           r●diculous
           apol●gi●
           for
           
             adducis
             malleum
             ,
             ut
             occidas
             muscam
             ▪
          
           The
           cause
           why
           he
           did
           use
           that
           prov●rb
           (
           of
           his
           own
           phrasing
           )
           was
           this
           .
           Mr.
           
             Hobbes
          
           had
           taken
           a
           great
           deal
           of
           paines
           to
           demonstrate
           what
           Dr.
           
             Wallis
          
           thought
           he
           could
           have
           prov'd
           in
           shor●
           ;
           upon
           this
           occasion
           he
           objects
           ,
           
             ad
             ducis
             malleum
             ut
             occidas
             muscam
             ,
          
           which
           I
           shall
           suppose
           he
           intended
           to
           English
           thus
           ,
           
             you
             bring
             a
             beetle
             to
             kill
             a
             ●●y
             .
          
           Mr.
           
             Hobbes
          
           retor●ed
           that
           
             adduco
          
           was
           not
           used
           in
           that
           sense
           .
           The
           Dr.
           vindicates
           himself
           thu●
           ;
           
             duco
             ,
             dedu●●
             ,
             reduco
             ,
             perduco
             ,
             produco
             ,
          
           &c.
           signifie
           s●range
           things
           ,
           ergo
           ,
           
             adduco
          
           may
           be
           used
           in
           that
           sense
           ;
           whi●h
           is
           〈◊〉
           most
           ridic●lo●●
           kinde
           of
           arguing
           ,
           where
           we
           are
           but
           to
           take
           up
           our
           Language
           from
           others
           ,
           and
           not
           to
           coyue
           new
           phr●ses
           .
           It
           is
           not
           the
           
             Grammar
          
           that
           shall
           secure
           the
           Dr.
           nor
           weak
           Analogies
           ,
           where
           Elegance
           comes
           in
           contest
           .
           To
           jus●i●ie
           his
           expression
           he
           must
           have
           shewed
           it
           
             usu
             tritum
             ,
          
           or
           alledged
           the
           Authori●y
           of
           some
           Author
           of
           great
           note
           for
           i●
           .
           I
           have
           not
           the
           leasure
           to
           exam●…e
           his
           impertinent
           citations
           about
           those
           other
           compounds
           ,
           nor
           yet
           of
           that
           simple
           verb
           
             duco
             ;
          
           nay
           ,
           to
           justifie
           his
           saying
           he
           hath
           not
           brought
           one
           parallel
           example
           .
           He
           talkes
           indeed
           very
           high
           ,
           that
           
             duco
          
           (
           ●ith
           its
           compounds
           )
           i●
           a
           word
           of
           a
           large
           signification
           ,
           &
           amongst
           the
           rest
           to
           
             Bring
             ,
             fetch
             ,
             carry
          
           &c.
           i●
           so
           exceeding
           frequent
           ●n
           all
           Authors
           
             (
             Plautus
             ,
             Terence
             ,
             Tully
             Ca●ar
             ,
             Tacitus
             ,
             Pliny
             ,
             Seneca
             ,
             Virgil
             ,
             Horace
             ,
             Ovid
             ,
             Claudian
             ,
          
           &c
           that
           he
           must
           needs
           be
           either
           maliciously
           blind
           ,
           or
           a
           very
           stranger
           to
           the
           Latine
           tongue
           that
           doth
           not
           know
           it
           ,
           or
           c●n
           have
           the
           face
           to
           denie
           it
           .
           〈◊〉
           ●ead
           what
           will
           ●e
           my
           doom
           for
           not
           allowing
           his
           Latine
           ;
           yet
           〈◊〉
           must
           professe
           I
           dare
           secure
           the
           Dr
           ,
           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
           hi●
           impudence
           as
           well
           as
           ig●or●nce
           ,
           by
           the
           learned
           M●ster
           therof
           a●
           present
           .
           But
           I
           da●e
           f●●ther
           a●…m
           ,
           the
           Dr.
           hath
           no●
           read
           in
           this
           point
           any
           ,
           ▪
           but
           onely
           consulted
           with
           
             Robe●t
             S●ephen's
             Thesaurus
             Li●guae
             La●inae
             ,
          
           whence
           he
           hath
           borrowed
           his
           allegations
           in
           
             adduco
             ;
          
           and
           for
           the
           other
           I
           had
           not
           so
           much
           Idle
           ●ime
           as
           to
           compare
           them
           .
           And
           lest
           the
           fact
           might
           be
           discovered
           he
           hath
           sophi●●icated
           those
           Authors
           whence
           
             Stephen
          
           cites
           the
           expressions
           ,
           and
           imposed
           upon
           th●m
           others
           .
           If
           it
           be
           not
           so
           ,
           o●
           that
           the
           Dr.
           could
           not
           write
           it
           right
           wh●n
           the
           c●py
           was
           right
           before
           him
           ,
           let
           him
           ●ell
           me
           where
           he
           did
           ever
           read
           in
           
             Plautus
             ,
             adducta
             res
             in
             fastidium
             .
          
           I
           fin●e
           the
           whole
           se●tence
           in
           
             Plinie's
          
           preface
           to
           
             Vespas●an
          
           (
           out
           of
           whom
           in
           t●e
           precedent
           Paragraph
           he
           cites
           it
           )
           about
           the
           ●iddle
           :
           
             alia
             verò
             ita
             multis
             prodita
             ,
             ut
             in
             factidium
             sint
             adducta
             ,
          
           which
           is
           the
           very
           example
           
             Stephanus
          
           
           useth
           ,
           although
           he
           doth
           p●emise
           his
           
             adducta
             res
             in
             fastidium
             .
          
           Let
           the
           Dr.
           tell
           where
           he
           ever
           did
           read
           〈◊〉
           
             Horace
             Ova
             noctuae
          
           &c.
           
             ●aedium
             vini
             adducunt
             ▪
          
           Did
           he
           (
           or
           any
           else
           )
           with
           the
           interposition
           of
           an
           &c
           )
           make
           Trochaicks
           ?
           I
           say
           ,
           and
           
             Step●anus
          
           saies
           so
           too
           ,
           that
           it
           is
           in
           
             Pliny
          
           lib.
           13.
           cap.
           15.
           neer
           the
           end
           ;
           the
           whole
           sentence
           runs
           thus
           ;
           
             Ebriosis
             Ova
             noctuae
             per
             ●●id●um
             data
             in
             vino
             ,
             ●aedium
             ejus
             adducunt
             .
          
           I
           doubt
           not
           but
           these
           are
           the
           places
           he
           aimed
           at
           ,
           although
           he
           disguised
           and
           min●
           ▪
           d
           the
           Quotatio●s
           ;
           if
           they
           be
           not
           ,
           I
           should
           b●
           glad
           to
           augment
           my
           
             Stephanus
          
           with
           his
           Additions
           .
        
         
           These
           things
           pr●mis●d
           ,
           I
           come
           to
           consider
           the
           Doctors
           proofes
           :
           
             Res
             eò
             adducta
             est
             :
             adducta
             vita
             in
             ex●remum
             :
             adducta
             res
             in
             fas●idium
             :
             rem
             ad
             muc●ones
             &
             ●…s
             adducere
             :
             contracta
             res
             &
             adducta
             in
             a●gus●um
             :
             ●es
             ad
             concordiam
             adduci
             potest
             :
             in
             ordinem
             adducere
             :
             adducere
             febres
             ,
             s●●im
             ,
             taedium
             vini
          
           (
           all
           in
           
             Robert
             Stephen
             )
          
           betwixt
           which
           and
           
             adducere
             malleum
             ,
          
           what
           a
           vast
           difference
           there
           is
           ,
           I
           leave
           them
           to
           umpier
           
             ●…iteretes
             &
             religiosas
             nacti
             sunt
             aures
             ▪
          
           who
           are
           the
           competent
           Judges
           of
           Elegancy
           ,
           and
           onely
           cast
           in
           the
           verdict
           of
           one
           or
           two
           ,
           who
           are
           in
           any
           place
           (
           where
           the
           purity
           of
           the
           L●tin
           ●ongue
           flourisheth
           )
           of
           great
           esteeme
           ▪
           
             L●saeus
          
           in
           his
           
             Scop●
             Linguae
             Latinae
             ,
             ad
             purgandam
             Linguam
             à
             barbarie
             ,
          
           &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
           ?
           )
           
             Losaeus
          
           (
           I
           say
           )
           hath
           these
           words
           ,
           
             Adferre
             plerique
             minus
             attentiutuntur
             pro
             adducere
             .
             Quod
             Plautus
             ,
             in
             Pseudolo
             ,
             insigni
             exem●lo
             notat
             .
             C.
             Attu●i
             hunc
             .
          
           P.
           
             Quid
             attulisti
             ?
             T.
             Adduxi
             volui
             dic●re
             P
             ▪
             Quis
             istic
             est
             ?
             C.
             Charinus
             .
             Satis
             igitur
             admonet
             discriminis
             inter
             ducere
             ,
             reducere
             ,
             adducere
             &
             abducere
             ,
             quae
             de
             pers●nâ
             ;
             et
             ●erre
             ,
             adferre
          
           &c.
           
             quae
             de
             re
             dicuntur
             .
          
           Idem
           .
           
             Demetrium
             ,
             quem
             ego
             novi
             ,
             adduce
             ;
             argentum
             non
             mo●or
             qu●…
             feras
             Cavendum
             igitur
             est
             ne
             vulgi
             more
             ,
          
           (
           let
           the
           Dr.
           mark
           this
           ▪
           and
           know
           that
           
             this
             Author
             is
             authentick
             amongst
             the
             Ciceronians
             )
             adferre
             de
             personâ
             dicamus
             ,
             s
             ●●adducere
             ;
             licet
             et
             hoc
             de
             certis
             quibus●am
             rebus
             non
             ineptè
             dicatur
             .
          
           In
           this
           last
           clause
           he
           ●aith
           as
           ●uch
           as
           Mr.
           
             Hobbes
          
           saith
           ,
           and
           what
           the
           Dr.
           proves
           ;
           but
           th●t
           ever
           the
           Dr.
           brought
           an
           example
           which
           might
           resemble
           
             adducis
             malleum
             ,
          
           is
           denied
           ;
           for
           I
           have
           mentioned
           alre●dy
           his
           allegations
           every
           one
           ,
           of
           
             adduco
             .
          
           Another
           Author
           (
           a
           fit
           Antagonist
           for
           the
           elegant
           Dr.
           )
           is
           the
           
             ●arrago
             ●ordidorum
             Verborum
             ,
          
           ●oyned
           with
           the
           Epitome
           of
           L.
           
             Valla's
             elegancies
             .
          
           He
           saith
           ,
           
             Acce●se
             ,
             adduc
             Petrum
             ,
             latinè
             dicitur
             pro
             eo
             quod
             pueri
             dicunt
             ▪
             adfer
             Petrum
             .
          
           And
           this
           may
           suffice
           to
           justifie
           
             Mr.
             
             Hobbes's
          
           exception
           ,
           who
           proceeded
           no
           further
           th●n
           this
           Author
           to
           tell
           the
           Doctor
           that
           
             adduco
          
           was
           used
           of
           Animals
           .
           But
           the
           Dr.
           replies
           ,
           
             this
             signification
             is
             true
             ,
             but
             so
             may
             the
             other
             be
             also
             ▪
          
           I
           s●y
           ,
           if
           it
           never
           have
           been
           used
           so
           ,
           it
           cannot
           be
           so
           ,
           for
           we
           cannot
           coine
           new
           Latine
           words
           ,
           no
           more
           then
           French
           or
           Spanish
           who
           are
           Forreign●rs
           .
           
             Mr.
             Hobbes
          
           was
           upon
           the
           negative
           ,
           and
           not
           to
           disprove
           the
           contrary
           ●p●nion
           .
           If
           the
           Dr.
           would
           be
           believed
           ,
           he
           must
           prove
           it
           by
           some
           example
           (
           which
           is
           all
           the
           proofe
           of
           elegancy
           )
           and
           till
           he
           do
           so
           ,
           not
           to
           beleev●
           him
           ,
           it
           is
           sufficient
           not
           to
           h●ve
           cause
           .
           But
           Dr
           
             Wallis
             ,
             why
             not
             adduco
             for
             a
             ●ammer
             as
             well
             as
             a
             tree
             ?
          
           I
           answer
           ,
           yes
           ,
           equally
           for
           either
           ,
           and
           yet
           for
           neither
           ;
           Did
           ever
           any body
           go
           about
           to
           mo●k
           his
           Reade●s
           thus
           solemnly
           ?
           I
           do
           not
           finde
           ,
           (
           to
           my
           best
           remembrance
           )
           any
           example
           of
           it
           in
           
             S●ephen
             ,
          
           and
           the
           Dr.
           is
           not
           wiser
           then
           his
           Book
           ;
           if
           there
           be
           ,
           it
           is
           strange
           the
           Dr.
           should
           omit
           the
           onely
           pertinent
           example
           ,
           and
           trouble
           us
           with
           such
           impertinences
           for
           three
           or
           four
           pages
           .
           In
           
             Stephen
          
           there
           are
           
             adducer●
             habenas
          
           and
           
             adducere
             lorum
             ,
          
           but
           in
           a
           different
           sense
           .
           It
           is
           not
           impossible
           I
           may
           guesse
           〈◊〉
           the
           Doctors
           aime
           .
           In
           
             Tully
             de
             Nat
             ▪
             D●or
          
           (
           as
           I
           remember
           )
           there
           is
           this
           passage
           ;
           
             Quum
             autem
             ille
             respondisset
             ,
             in
             agro
             ambu●anti
             ra●…ulum
             adductum
             ,
             ut
             remissu●
             esset
             ,
             in
             oculum
             suum
             recidisse
             ,
          
           where
           it
           signifies
           nothing
           else
           but
           to
           be
           
             bent
             ,
             bowed
             ,
             pulled
             back
             ,
          
           and
           in
           that
           sense
           ,
           
             the
             hammer
             of
             a
             Clock
             ▪
          
           or
           ,
           that
           
             of
             a
             Smith
             ,
             when
             he
             fetcheth
             his
             strok●
             ▪
          
           may
           be
           said
           
             addu●i
             .
          
           And
           this
           I
           conceive
           the
           Doctor
           would
           have
           us
           in
           the
           close
           think
           to
           have
           been
           his
           me●ning
           ;
           else
           wh●t
           doth
           he
           
           drive
           at
           in
           these
           words
           ?
           
             Wh●n
             you
             have
             done
             the
             best
             you
             can
             ,
             you
             will
             not
             be
             able
             to
             find
             better
             words
             then
             
               adducere
               mall●um
            
             and
             
               reduce●…
               ▪
            
             to
             signifie
             the
             two
             contrary
             motions
             of
             the
             
               Hammer
               ,
            
             the
             one
             when
             you
             strike
             with
             it
             ,
             
               (
               excellently
               trivial
               !
               )
            
             The
             other
             when
             you
             take
             it
             back
             
               (
               better
               and
               better
               )
               What
               to
               do
               ?
            
             to
             fetch
             another
             stroak
             .
          
           If
           any
           can
           believe
           that
           this
           was
           his
           meaning
           ,
           I
           shall
           justifie
           his
           Latine
           ,
           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
           ?
           Which
           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
           ,
           
             Adducis
             malleum
             ,
             us
             occidas
             muscam
             ?
          
        
         
           Another
           exception
           is
           ▪
           
             Falsae
             sunt
             et
             mult●
             istiusmodi
             (
             propositiones
             )
          
           I
           wish
           the
           Doctor
           could
           bring
           so
           good
           Parallels
           ,
           and
           so
           many
           ,
           out
           of
           any
           Author
           ,
           for
           his
           
             Adducis
             malleum
             ,
          
           as
           
             Tully
          
           affords
           in
           this
           case
           .
           Take
           one
           for
           all
           out
           of
           the
           beginning
           of
           his
           
             Paradoxes
             ;
             Animadverti
             saepe
             Catonem
             ,
             ●um
             in
             senatu
             sententiam
             diceret
             ,
             Locos
             graves
             ex
             Philosophia
             tractare
             ,
             abhorrentes
             ab
             hoc
             usu
             forensi
             et
             publico
             ,
             sed
             dicendo
             consequi
             tamen
             ,
             ut
             illa
             etiam
             populo
             pro●abilia
             viderentur
             .
          
           This
           is
           but
           a
           
             Solaecophanes
             ,
          
           and
           h●th
           ▪
           many
           p●●sidents
           mo●e
           ,
           as
           in
           the
           second
           ●ook
           of
           his
           
             Academical
             questions
             ,
          
           &c.
           
        
         
           I
           cannot
           now
           stay
           upon
           each
           particular
           p●ssage
           ;
           I
           do
           not
           see
           any
           necessitie
           of
           tracing
           the
           Dr.
           in
           all
           hi●
           figaries
           .
           Now
           he
           dis●llows
           
             tanquam
             diceremus
             ,
             a●
             if
             we
             should
             say
             .
          
           But
           why
           is
           that
           l●ss
           tolerable
           then
           
             tanquam
             feceris
             ,
             as
             if
             you
             had
             done
             ?
          
           
             It
             should
             be
             
               quasi
            
             (
             forsooth
             !
             )
             Or
             
               ac
               si
               ,
            
             or
             
               tanquam
               si
               ,
            
             which
             is
             
               Tulli's
            
             own
             word
             .
             (
             What
             is
             
               tanquam
               si
            
             become
             but
             one
             word
             ?
             )
             
               tanquam
               si
               tua
               res
               agatur
               &c.
               
            
          
           Good
           Dr.
           leave
           out
           
             Tully
          
           and
           all
           
             Ciceronians
             ,
          
           or
           you
           will
           for
           ever
           suffer
           for
           this
           ,
           and
           your
           
             Adducis
             malleum
             .
          
           Is
           not
           this
           to
           put
           your self
           on
           their
           verdict
           ,
           when
           you
           oppose
           Mr.
           
             Hobs
          
           with
           
             Tully
             ?
          
           But
           the
           
             Dr.
          
           gives
           his
           reason
           .
           And
           though
           he
           hath
           had
           the
           luck
           in
           his
           
             Adducis
             malleum
             ,
          
           to
           follow
           the
           first
           part
           of
           that
           saying
           ,
           
             Loquendum
             cum
             vulgo
             ,
          
           yet
           now
           it
           is
           ,
           
             sentiendum
             cum
             sapientibus
             .
          
           For
           
             tanquam
          
           without
           
             si
          
           signifies
           but
           ,
           
             a●
             ,
          
           not
           ,
           
             as
             if
             .
          
           It
           is
           pity
           the
           
             Dr.
          
           could
           not
           argue
           in
           Symbols
           too
           ,
           that
           so
           we
           might
           not
           understand
           him
           ,
           but
           suppose
           all
           his
           Papers
           to
           carry
           evidence
           with
           them
           ,
           because
           they
           are
           
             Mathematically
          
           scratch'd
           .
           How
           does
           he
           construe
           this
           ,
           
             
               Plance
               ,
               tu●es
               alto
               Drusorum
               sanguine
               ,
               tanquam
            
             
               Feceris
               ipse
               aliquid
               ,
               propter
               quod
               nobilis
               esses
               .
            
          
           So
           
             Coelius
             ,
          
           one
           much
           esteemed
           by
           
             Cicero
             ,
          
           who
           hath
           inserted
           his
           Epistle●
           into
           his
           works
           ,
           saith
           in
           his
           fifth
           Epistle
           (
           Tul.
           
           Epist.
           sam
           .
           lib.
           8.
           
           Ep
           ▪
           5
           )
           
             Omnia
             desiderantur
             ab
             eo
             tanquam
             nihil
             denegatum
             sit
             ei
             quo
             mi●us
             paratissimus
             esset
             qui
             publico
             negotio
             pr●positus
             est
             .
          
           But
           it
           was
           not
           possible
           the
           
             Dr.
          
           should
           know
           this
           ,
           it
           not
           being
           in
           
             Stephen
             ,
          
           where
           his
           examples
           for
           
             tanquam
             si
          
           are
           .
        
         
           But
           the
           
             Dr.
          
           having
           pitched
           upon
           this
           Criticisme
           ,
           and
           penned
           it
           ,
           some
           body
           ,
           I
           believe
           ,
           put
           him
           in
           mind
           of
           the
           absurditie
           th●reof
           ▪
           and
           yet
           the
           generous
           
             Professour
          
           (
           who
           writes
           running
           hand
           and
           never
           tra●scrib●d
           his
           papers
           ,
           if
           I
           am
           not
           misinformed
           )
           presumed
           no body
           else
           could
           be
           more
           intelligent
           then
           he
           ,
           who
           had
           perused
           
             Stephen
             .
          
           He
           would
           not
           retract
           any
           thing
           ,
           but
           subjoyns
           ,
           
             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
           
             Dr.
          
           meant
           ,
           for
           ,
           if
           I
           am
           not
           much
           mistaken
           ,
           I
           do
           not
           find
           any
           in
           
             Stephen
             .
          
           His
           citation
           of
           
             Colum●lla
          
           is
           not
           right
           
             L.
             5.
             cap.
          
           5.
           (
           nor
           can
           I
           deduce
           any
           thing
           thence
           till
           I
           have
           read
           the
           passage
           )
           but
           if
           he
           take
           
             Juvenal
          
           and
           
             Coelius
          
           for
           modern
           Authors
           ,
           I
           hope
           he
           will
           admit
           of
           
             Accius
             ,
             N●vius
             ,
          
           and
           
             Ca●me●ta
          
           for
           the
           only
           antients
           .
           Let
           him
           think
           upon
           this
           ▪
           Criticisme
           ,
           and
           never
           hope
           pardon
           for
           his
           
             Adducis
             malleum
             ,
          
           which
           is
           not
           half
           so
           well
           justified
           ,
           and
           yet
           none
           but
           
             mad
             men
          
           or
           
             fools
          
           reject
           it
           .
        
         
         
           But
           certainly
           the
           Dr.
           should
           not
           have
           made
           it
           his
           businesse
           to
           object
           
             Anglicisines
             ,
          
           in
           whose
           Elench●s
           I
           doubt
           not
           but
           there
           may
           be
           found
           such
           phrases
           as
           may
           serve
           to
           convince
           him
           that
           he
           is
           an
           English
           man
           .
           However
           Scottified
           in
           his
           principles
           .
           If
           the
           Dr.
           doubt
           of
           it
           ,
           or
           but
           desire
           a
           Catalogue
           ,
           let
           him
           but
           signifie
           his
           minde
           ,
           and
           he
           shall
           be
           furnished
           with
           a
           
             Florilegium
             .
          
           But
           I
           am
           now
           come
           to
           the
           main
           controversie
           about
           
             Empusa
             .
          
           The
           Dr.
           saith
           nothing
           in
           defence
           of
           his
           
             quibble
             ,
          
           nor
           gives
           any
           reason
           why
           he
           jumbled
           Languages
           to
           make
           a
           silly
           clinch
           ,
           which
           will
           not
           passe
           for
           wit
           either
           at
           
             Oxford
             ,
          
           or
           at
           
             Cambridge
             ;
          
           no
           nor
           at
           
             Westmi●ster
             .
          
        
         
           
             It
             seems
             he
             had
             derived
             
               Empusa
            
             from
             
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
            
             and
             
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
            
             ,
             and
             said
             it
             was
             a
             kinde
             of
             
               Hobgoblin
            
             that
             hopped
             upon
             one
             legge
             ;
          
           and
           hence
           it
           was
           that
           the
           boyes
           play
           
             (
             Fox
             come
             out
             of
             thy
             hole
             )
          
           came
           to
           be
           called
           
             Empusa
             .
          
           I
           suppose
           he
           means
           
             Ludus
             Empusae
             .
          
           This
           derivation
           he
           would
           have
           to
           be
           good
           ,
           and
           that
           we
           may
           know
           his
           reading
           (
           though
           he
           hath
           soarce
           consulted
           any
           of
           the
           Authors
           )
           he
           saith
           Mr.
           
             Hobbes
          
           did
           laugh
           at
           it
           ,
           until
           somebody
           told
           him
           that
           it
           was
           in
           the
           Scholiast
           of
           
             Aristophanes
          
           (
           as
           good
           a
           Critick
           as
           Mr.
           
             Hobbes
             )
             Eust●thius
             ,
             Erasmus
             ,
             Coel●…
             Rhodiginus
             ,
             Step●anus
             ,
             Scapula
             ,
          
           and
           
             Calepine
             .
          
           But
           sure
           he
           doth
           not
           think
           to
           seape
           so
           .
           To
           begin
           with
           the
           last
           ,
           
             Calepine
          
           doth
           indeed
           say
           ,
           
             uno
             incedit
             pede
             ,
             unde
             et
             non●●n
             .
          
           But
           he
           is
           a
           
             Moderne
             ,
          
           and
           I
           do
           not
           see
           why
           his
           Authority
           should
           outweigh
           mine
           ,
           if
           his
           Authors
           Reasons
           do
           not
           .
           He
           refers
           to
           
             Erasmus
          
           and
           
             Rhodiginus
             .
             Erasmus
          
           in
           the
           adage
           .
           
             Proteo
             mutabilior
             ,
          
           hath
           these
           words
           of
           
             Empusa
             .
             Narrant
             autem
             uno
             videripedi
          
           (
           this
           is
           not
           to
           hopp
           )
           
             unde
             et
             nomen
             inditum
             putant
             ,
          
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
           He
           doth
           not
           testifie
           his
           approbation
           of
           the
           derivation
           at
           all
           ,
           onely
           lets
           you
           know
           what
           Etymologies
           some
           have
           given
           before
           him
           .
           And
           doth
           any body
           think
           that
           Dr.
           
             Harmar
          
           was
           the
           first
           which
           began
           to
           shew
           his
           wit
           (
           or
           folly
           )
           in
           e●ymologizing
           words
           ?
           
             Coelius
             Rhodiginus
          
           doth
           not
           own
           the
           derivation
           ,
           onely
           ●aith
           
             Nominis
             ratio
             est
             ,
             ut
             placet
             Eustathio
             ,
             quia
             uno
             incedit
             pede
             ;
          
           (
           is
           this
           to
           hopp
           ?
           )
           
             sed
             nec
             desunt
             qui
             alterum
             interpretentur
             habere
             ●neum
             pedem
             ,
             &
             inde
             appella●…
             Empusath
             ;
             quod
             in
             Batrachis
             Aristophanes
             expressit
             .
          
           And
           then
           he
           recites
           the
           interpretation
           that
           
             Aristophanes'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
           hopped
           upon
           one
           legg
           ,
           but
           because
           she
           had
           but
           one
           ,
           the
           other
           ,
           being
           brasse
           .
           But
           for
           the
           former
           derivation
           he
           refers
           to
           
             Eustathius
             .
          
        
         
           As
           to
           
             Eustathius
             ,
          
           I
           do
           easily
           conjecture
           that
           the
           Reader
           doth
           beleeve
           ;
           that
           
             Rodiginus
          
           doth
           mean
           
             Eustathius
          
           upon
           
             Homer
             ,
          
           for
           that
           is
           the
           book
           of
           most
           repute
           and
           fame
           ,
           his
           other
           piece
           being
           no
           way
           considerable
           for
           bulk
           or
           repute
           .
           But
           it
           is
           not
           that
           book
           nor
           yet
           his
           History
           of
           
             Ismenias
             ,
          
           but
           his
           notes
           upon
           the
           23
           verse
           of
           
             Dionysius
          
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
           The
           Poet
           had
           said
           of
           the
           stone
           
             Jaspis
             ,
          
           that
           it
           was
           ,
           
             
               
                 {non-Roman}
                 {non-Roman}
                 {non-Roman}
                 {non-Roman}
                 {non-Roman}
              
               ,
            
          
        
         
           Upon
           which
           
             Eustathius
          
           thus
           remarks
           ;
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           
             (
             fortè
          
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           
             Steph.
             )
          
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
           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
           m●re
           
             Empusa's
          
           then
           one
           ,
           as
           indeed
           the
           name
           is
           applied
           by
           several
           men
           to
           any
           kinde
           of
           ▪
           frightful
           phantasme
           .
           And
           so
           it
           is
           used
           by
           several
           Authors
           ,
           and
           for
           as
           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
           .
           This
           gave
           men
           occasion
           to
           fain
           
             Empusa
          
           
           as
           such
           (
           for
           who
           will
           beleeve
           that
           she
           was
           not
           apprehended
           as
           having
           four
           leggs
           ,
           when
           she
           appeared
           in
           the
           form
           of
           a
           Cow
           ,
           dog
           ,
           &c.
           )
           but
           as
           apprehended
           by
           
             Bacchus
          
           and
           his
           man
           at
           that
           time
           .
           I
           do
           not
           finde
           that
           she
           appeared
           in
           any
           shape
           ,
           but
           such
           as
           made
           use
           of
           legges
           in
           going
           ,
           whence
           I
           imagine
           that
           
             Empusae
          
           might
           be
           opposite
           to
           the
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ,
           which
           appellation
           was
           anciently
           fixed
           upon
           the
           gods
           
             (
             propitious
             )
          
           upon
           a
           twofold
           account
           ,
           first
           for
           that
           they
           were
           usually
           essigiated
           as
           having
           no
           feet
           (
           which
           is
           evident
           from
           ancient
           sculpture
           )
           and
           secondly
           ,
           for
           that
           they
           are
           all
           said
           not
           to
           walk
           ,
           but
           rather
           swim
           ,
           if
           I
           may
           so
           expresse
           that
           
             non
             gradiuntur
             ,
             sed
             fluunt
             ,
          
           which
           is
           the
           assertion
           of
           all
           the
           commentators
           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
           
             Heliodorus
             ,
             Aethiop
             .
          
           L.
           3.
           Sect.
           12
           ,
           13.
           
           
             Calastris
          
           told
           
             Cnemon
          
           that
           the
           gods
           
             Apollo
          
           and
           
             Diana
          
           did
           appear
           unto
           him
           ,
           
             Cnemen
          
           replied
           ,
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ;
           upon
           this
           the
           old
           Priest
           andswered
           ,
           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
           ,
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           
             
               
                 {non-Roman}
                 {non-Roman}
                 {non-Roman}
                 {non-Roman}
                 {non-Roman}
              
            
             
               
                 {non-Roman}
                 {non-Roman}
                 {non-Roman}
                 {non-Roman}
                 {non-Roman}
              
            
          
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
           
             Farnaby
          
           upon
           the
           place
           in
           
             Virgil
          
           observes
           ,
           that
           ,
           
             Deorum
             incessus
             est
             continuus
             &
             aequalis
             ,
             non
             dimotis
             pedibus
             ,
             neque
             transpositis
             ,
          
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
           
             Cernelius
             Schrevelius
          
           in
           the
           new
           
             Leyden
          
           notes
           ,
           saith
           ,
           
             Antiquissima
             quaeque
             Deorum
             simulachra
             ,
             quod
             observarunt
             viri
             magni
             ,
             erant
          
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ,
           
             dijque
             ipsi
             non
             gradiuntur
             sed
             fluunt
             .
          
           Their
           statues
           were
           said
           to
           stand
           rather
           upon
           Columnes
           then
           upon
           legges
           ;
           for
           they
           seeme
           to
           have
           been
           nothing
           but
           columnes
           shaped
           out
           into
           this
           or
           that
           figure
           ,
           the
           base
           whereof
           carrying
           little
           of
           the
           representation
           of
           a
           foot
           .
           These
           things
           being
           premised
           I
           suppose
           it
           easie
           for
           the
           intelligent
           Reader
           to
           finde
           out
           the
           true
           Etymology
           of
           
             Empus●
             ,
             quasi
          
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ,
           or
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           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
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ,
           whereas
           she
           alwaies
           went
           upon
           two
           leggs
           (
           if
           her
           shape
           permitted
           it
           )
           though
           she
           might
           draw
           the
           one
           after
           her
           ,
           as
           a
           man
           doth
           a
           wooden
           legge
           ;
           I
           say
           if
           any
           ,
           notwithstanding
           what
           hath
           been
           said
           ,
           can
           joyn
           issue
           with
           the
           Doctor
           ,
           my
           reply
           shall
           be
           ,
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
        
         
           Now
           as
           to
           the
           words
           of
           
             Aristophanes
          
           upon
           which
           the
           Scholiast
           descants
           ,
           they
           are
           these
           .
           Speaking
           of
           an
           Apparition
           strangely
           shaped
           ,
           sometimes
           like
           a
           Camel
           ,
           sometimes
           like
           an
           oxe
           ,
           a
           beautiful
           woman
           ,
           a
           dog
           &c.
           
           
             Bacchus
          
           replies
           ,
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
           The
           scholiast
           hereupon
           tells
           us
           that
           
             Empusa
          
           was
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           And
           this
           is
           all
           that
           is
           material
           in
           the
           Scholiast
           ,
           except
           that
           he
           addes
           by
           and
           by
           ,
           that
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           is
           all
           one
           with
           the
           leg
           of
           an
           Asse
           ,
           
           And
           this
           very
           text
           and
           Scholiast
           is
           that
           to
           which
           all
           the
           Authors
           he
           names
           ,
           and
           more
           ,
           do
           refer
           .
        
         
           I
           come
           now
           to
           
             Stephen
             ,
          
           who
           in
           his
           Index
           and
           in
           the
           word
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ,
           gives
           the
           derivation
           of
           
             Empusa
             .
          
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ,
           
             gradior
             ,
             inced●
             ,
          
           (
           not
           to
           hop
           )
           
             sic
             Suidas
          
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           
             dictam
             ait
          
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
           In
           the
           Index
           thus
           ;
           
             sunt
             qui
             dictam
             putent
          
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ,
           
             quod
             uno
             incedat
             pede
             ,
             quasi
          
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ,
           
             alterum
             enim
             pedem
             aeneum
             habet
             .
          
           But
           neither
           
             Stephen
             ,
          
           nor
           any
           else
           (
           except
           
             Suida●
             ,
          
           whom
           the
           Hypercritical
           Dr.
           had
           not
           seen
           )
           no
           not
           the
           Scholiast
           of
           
             Aristophanes
          
           (
           a
           better
           Critick
           then
           Mr.
           
             Hobbes
             )
          
           doth
           relate
           the
           etymology
           as
           their
           own
           .
           Nay
           ,
           there
           is
           not
           one
           saith
           ,
           
             Empusa
          
           hopped
           on
           one
           legg
           ,
           which
           is
           to
           be
           proved
           out
           of
           them
           .
           The
           great
           Etymological
           Dictionary
           deriveth
           it
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ,
           to
           
             binder
             ,
             let
          
           &c.
           its
           apparition
           being
           a
           token
           of
           ill
           luck
           .
           But
           as
           to
           the
           Doctors
           deduction
           ,
           it
           saith
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
           It
           doth
           onely
           
             seem
          
           so
           .
           And
           it
           is
           strange
           that
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           should
           not
           alter
           onely
           ▪
           its
           
             aspiration
             ,
          
           but
           change
           its
           ν
           into
           μ
           ,
           which
           I
           can
           hardly
           beleeve
           admittable
           in
           Greek
           ,
           least
           there
           should
           be
           no
           difference
           betwixt
           its
           derivatives
           and
           those
           of
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
           When
           I
           consider
           the
           several
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           which
           the
           Grecians
           had
           ,
           some
           whereof
           did
           fly
           ,
           some
           had
           no
           leggs
           &c.
           
           I
           can
           think
           that
           the
           origine
           of
           this
           name
           may
           have
           been
           thus
           .
           Some
           amazed
           person
           saw
           a
           
             spectrum
             ,
          
           and
           giving
           another
           notice
           of
           it
           ,
           his
           companion
           might
           answer
           ,
           it
           is
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ,
           &c.
           but
           he
           meeting
           with
           a
           new
           phantasme
           ,
           cryes
           ,
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           or
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ,
           for
           which
           apprehension
           of
           his
           some
           body
           coyned
           this
           expression
           of
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
           It
           may
           also
           be
           possibly
           deduc'd
           from
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           might
           afterwards
           be
           reduced
           to
           the
           single
           terme
           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
           probable
           origination
           .
           I
           beleeve
           then
           that
           Mr.
           
           
             Hobbes's
          
           friend
           did
           never
           tell
           him
           it
           was
           in
           
             Eustathius
             ,
          
           or
           that
           
             Empusa
          
           was
           an
           
             hopping
             phantasme
             .
          
           It
           had
           two
           legges
           ,
           and
           went
           upon
           both
           ,
           as
           a
           man
           may
           upon
           a
           wooden
           legge
           .
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           is
           also
           a
           name
           for
           
             Lamia
             ,
          
           and
           such
           was
           that
           which
           
             Menippus
          
           might
           have
           married
           ,
           which
           I
           suppose
           did
           neither
           hop
           nor
           go
           upon
           one
           legge
           ,
           for
           he
           might
           have
           discovered
           it
           .
           But
           Mr.
           
             Hobbes
          
           did
           not
           except
           against
           the
           derivation
           (
           although
           he
           might
           justly
           ,
           derivations
           made
           afterwards
           carrying
           more
           of
           fancy
           then
           of
           truth
           ,
           and
           the
           Dr.
           is
           not
           excused
           for
           asserting
           what
           others
           barely
           relate
           ,
           none
           approve
           )
           but
           asked
           him
           ,
           where
           that
           is
           ,
           in
           what
           Authors
           
             he
             read
             that
             boyes
             play
             to
             be
             so
             called
             .
          
           To
           which
           question
           the
           Dr.
           (
           to
           shew
           his
           reading
           and
           the
           good
           Authors
           he
           is
           conversant
           in
           )
           replies
           ,
           
             In
             Junius's
             Nemenclator
             ,
             Rider
             and
             Thomas's
             Dictionary
             ,
             sufficient
             Authors
             in
             such
             a
             businesss
             ,
          
           which
           me thinks
           no
           man
           should
           say
           that
           were
           neer
           to
           so
           copious
           a
           Library
           .
           It
           is
           to
           be
           remembred
           that
           the
           trial
           now
           is
           in
           
             Westminster
          
           School
           ,
           &
           amongst
           
             Ciceronians
             ,
          
           neither
           whereof
           wil
           allow
           those
           to
           be
           sufficient
           Authors
           of
           any
           Latine
           word
           .
           Alas
           they
           are
           but
           
             Vocabularies
             ;
          
           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
           the
           name
           .
           These
           are
           so
           good
           Authors
           that
           I
           have
           not
           either
           of
           them
           in
           my
           Library
           .
           But
           I
           have
           taken
           the
           paines
           to
           consult
           ,
           first
           
             Rider
             ;
          
           I
           looked
           in
           him
           (
           who
           was
           onely
           Author
           of
           the
           English
           Dictionary
           )
           and
           I
           could
           not
           finde
           any
           such
           thing
           .
           T
           is
           true
           in
           the
           
             Latine
          
           Dictionary
           which
           is
           joyned
           with
           
             Rider
             ,
          
           but
           made
           by
           
             Holyoke
             ;
          
           (
           O
           that
           the
           Doctor
           would
           but
           mark
           !
           )
           in
           the
           Index
           of
           obsolete
           words
           ,
           there
           is
           
             Ascoliasmus
             ,
             Ludus
             Empusae
             ,
             Fox
             to
             thy
             hole
             ,
          
           for
           which
           word
           ,
           not
           signification
           ,
           he
           quoteth
           
             Junius
             .
          
           The
           same
           is
           in
           
             Yhomasius
             ,
          
           who
           refers
           to
           
             Junius
          
           in
           like
           manner
           .
           But
           could
           the
           Dr.
           think
           the
           word
           obsolete
           when
           the
           play
           is
           still
           in
           fashion
           ?
           Or
           doth
           he
           think
           that
           this
           play
           is
           so
           ancient
           ,
           as
           to
           have
           had
           a
           name
           so
           long
           ago
           ,
           that
           it
           should
           now
           be
           grown
           obsolete
           ?
           As
           for
           
             Junius's
          
           interpretation
           of
           
             Empusa
             ,
          
           it
           is
           this
           ,
           
             Empusa
             ,
             spectrum
             quod
             se
             in●elicibus
             ingerit
             ,
             uno
             pede
             ingrediens
             .
          
           Had
           the
           Dr.
           ever
           read
           him
           ,
           he
           would
           have
           quoted
           him
           for
           his
           derivation
           of
           
             Empusa
             ,
          
           
           I
           suppose
           .
           In
           
             Ascoliasmus
          
           he
           saith
           ,
           
             Ascoliasinus
             ,
             Ludus
             Empusae
             fit
             ubi
             ,
             altero
             pede
             in
             aere
             librato
             unico
             sub●●liunt
             pede
             .
          
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ,
           
             Pollux
             .
             Almanicè
             .
             Hinctelen
             .
             Belgi●è
             ,
             Op
             〈◊〉
             been
             springhen
             .
             Hinctepin●●en
          
           Flandris
           .
           But
           what
           is
           it
           in
           English
           he
           doth
           not
           tell●
           ,
           although
           he
           doth
           so
           in
           other
           places
           often
           .
           What
           the
           Dr.
           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
           
             〈◊〉
             ,
          
           and
           grossely
           imposed
           upon
           his
           Readers
           .
        
         
           But
           to
           illustrate
           this
           controversie
           further
           ,
           I
           cannot
           be
           perswaded
           the
           Dr.
           ever
           looked
           into
           
             Junius
             ,
          
           for
           if
           he
           had
           ,
           I
           am
           confident
           ,
           according
           to
           his
           wonted
           accuratnesse
           ,
           he
           would
           have
           cited
           
             Polluxs's
             onomasticon
          
           into
           the
           bargin
           ,
           for
           
             Junius
          
           refers
           to
           him
           ,
           and
           I
           shall
           set
           down
           his
           words
           ,
           that
           so
           the
           Reader
           may
           see
           what
           
             Ascoliasmus
          
           was
           ,
           and
           all
           the
           Drs.
           
           Authors
           say
           
             Ludus
             Empusae
          
           and
           
             Ascoliasmus
          
           were
           one
           and
           the
           same
           thing
           .
           
             Jul.
             Pollux
             ,
          
           Lib.
           9.
           
           Cap.
           7.
           
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
           (
           old
           editions
           read
           it
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           )
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
           
             So
             that
             
               Ascoliasmus
               ,
            
             and
             consequently
             ,
             
               Ludus
               Empusae
               ,
            
             was
             a
             certain
             sport
             which
             consisted
             in
             hopping
             ,
             whether
             it
             were
             by
             striving
             who
             could
             hoppe
             surthest
             ,
             or
             whether
             onely
             one
             did
             pursue
             the
             rest
             hopping
             ,
             and
             they
             fled
             before
             him
             on
             both
             leggs
             ,
             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
           resemblance
           with
           our
           ,
           
             Fox
             to
             thy
             hole
             ;
          
           but
           the
           second
           :
           and
           yet
           in
           its
           description
           there
           is
           no
           mention
           of
           beating
           him
           with
           gloves
           ,
           as
           they
           do
           now
           adayes
           ,
           and
           wherein
           the
           play
           consists
           as
           well
           as
           in
           hopping
           .
           It
           might
           notwithstanding
           be
           called
           
             Ludus
             Empusae
             ,
          
           but
           not
           in
           any
           sort
           our
           
             Fox
             to
             thy
             hole
             ,
          
           So
           that
           the
           Dr.
           and
           his
           Authors
           are
           out
           ;
           imposing
           that
           upon
           
             Junius
          
           and
           
             Pollux
             ,
          
           which
           they
           never
           said
           .
           And
           thus
           much
           may
           suffice
           as
           to
           this
           point
           .
           I
           shall
           onely
           adde
           out
           of
           
             Meu●…'s
             Ludi
             Geaeci
             ,
          
           that
           
             Ascolia
          
           were
           not
           
             Ludus
             Empus●
          
           but
           
             Bacchisacra
             ,
          
           and
           he
           quotes
           
             Aristophanes's
          
           Scholiasts
           in
           
             Plutus
             ,
          
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
           As
           also
           
             Hesychius
             ;
          
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
        
         
           But
           I
           could
           have
           told
           the
           Dr.
           where
           he
           might
           have
           read
           of
           
             Empusa
          
           as
           being
           the
           name
           of
           a
           certain
           sport
           or
           game
           ,
           and
           that
           is
           ,
           
             in
             Tu●nebus
             adve
             sar
             .
          
           Lib.
           27.
           
           Cap.
           33
           There
           he
           speaks
           of
           several
           games
           mentioned
           by
           
             I●stinian
          
           in
           his
           
             C●de
             ,
          
           at
           the
           latter
           end
           of
           the
           third
           book
           ;
           one
           of
           which
           he
           takes
           to
           be
           named
           
             Empusa
             ;
          
           addding
           with
           all
           ,
           
             that
             the
             other
             are
             games
             ,
             it
             is
             indisputable
             ,
          
           onely
           
             Empusa
             ,
             in
             li●e
             &
             causa
             erit
             ,
             quod
             nemo
             nobis
             ●a
             ite
             ass●…
             sit
             Ludum
             esse
             ,
             eùm
             constet
             spectrum
             queddam
             fuisse
             formas
             variè
             mutans
             .
             Sed
             quid
             vetat
             eo
             nomine
             Ludum
             fuisse
             ?
             certè
             ad
             vestigia
             vittatae
             Scri●…
             quàm
             proxin
             è
             accedit
             .
          
           Yet
           ●e
           onely
           is
           satisfied
           in
           this
           conjecture
           ,
           till
           somebody
           else
           shall
           produce
           a
           ●etter
           .
           And
           now
           what
           shall
           I
           say
           ?
           was
           not
           
             Turnebus
          
           as
           good
           a
           Critick
           ,
           and
           of
           as
           great
           Bead●…
           ?
           as
           Dr.
           
             Wall●s
             ?
          
           who
           had
           read
           over
           
             Pollux
             ,
          
           and
           yet
           is
           afraid
           that
           no body
           will
           beleeve
           
             〈◊〉
          
           to
           have
           been
           a
           game
           ,
           and
           all
           he
           alledgeth
           for
           it
           is
           ,
           
             quid
             vetat
             ?
          
           Truely
           all
           I
           shall
           say
           ,
           and
           so
           conclude
           this
           businesse
           ,
           is
           ,
           that
           he
           had
           read
           over
           an
           infinitie
           of
           ●ooks
           ,
           yet
           had
           not
           had
           the
           happinesse
           which
           the
           Dr.
           had
           ,
           to
           consult
           with
           
             Junius's
             Nomenclator
             ,
             Thom●…us
          
           and
           
             Riders
             Dictionary
             ,
             Authors
             sufficient
             in
             such
             a
             case
             .
          
        
         
           I
           now
           come
           to
           the
           Doctors
           last
           and
           greatest
           triumph
           ,
           at
           which
           I
           cannot
           but
           stand
           〈◊〉
           
           admiration
           ,
           when
           I
           consider
           he
           hath
           not
           got
           the
           victory
           .
           Had
           the
           Dr.
           been
           pleased
           to
           have
           conversed
           with
           some
           ,
           of
           the
           fift
           form
           in
           
             Westminster
          
           Schoole
           (
           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
           that
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           signified
           
             a
             mark
             with
             a
             hot
             iron
             ;
          
           upon
           which
           saying
           the
           Dr.
           is
           pleased
           to
           play
           the
           droll
           thus
           ,
           
             Prethee
             tell
             mee
             ,
             good
             
               Tho
               ▪
            
             before
             we
             leave
             this
             point
             .
             (
             O
             the
             wit
             of
             a
             Divinity
             Dr.
             !
             )
             who
             it
             was
             told
             thee
             that
             
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
            
             was
             a
             mark
             with
             an
             hot
             iron
             ?
             for
             t
             is
             a
             notion
             I
             never
             heard
             til
             now
             (
             and
             do
             not
             beleeve
             it
             yet
             .
             )
             Never
             beleeve
             him
             again
             that
             told
             thee
             that
             lye
             ,
             for
             as
             sure
             as
             can
             be
             ,
             he
             did
             it
             to
             abuse
             thee
             ,
             
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
            
             signifies
             a
             distinctive
             point
             in
             writing
             made
             with
             a
             pen
             or
             quill
             ,
             not
             a
             mark
             made
             with
             a
             
               hot
               iron
               ,
            
             such
             as
             they
             brand
             rogues
             withal
             ;
             and
             accordingly
             
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
            
             ,
             
               distinguo
               ,
               interstinguo
               ,
            
             are
             often
             so
             used
             .
             It
             is
             also
             used
             of
             a
             
               Mathematical
            
             point
             ,
             or
             somewhat
             else
             that
             is
             very
             small
             ,
             
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
            
             ,
             a
             moment
             ,
             or
             the
             like
             .
             What
             should
             come
             in
             your
             cap
             ,
             to
             make
             you
             think
             that
             
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
            
             signifies
             a
             mark
             or
             brand
             with
             a
             
               hot
               iron
               ?
            
             I
             perceive
             where
             the
             businesse
             lies
             ;
             't
             was
             
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
            
             ran
             in
             your
             minde
             when
             you
             talked
             of
             
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
               {non-Roman}
            
             ,
             and
             because
             the
             words
             are
             somewhat
             alike
             ,
             you
             jumbled
             them
             both
             together
             ,
             according
             to
             your
             usual
             care
             and
             a●curatenesse
             ,
             as
             if
             they
             had
             been
             the
             same
             .
          
        
         
           When
           I
           read
           this
           ,
           I
           cannot
           but
           be
           astonished
           at
           the
           Doctors
           confidence
           ,
           and
           applaud
           him
           who
           said
           ,
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
           That
           the
           Dr.
           should
           never
           hear
           that
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           signifies
           
             a
             mark
             with
             a
             hot
             iron
             ,
          
           is
           a
           manifest
           argument
           of
           his
           ignorance
           .
           But
           that
           he
           should
           advise
           Mr.
           
           
             H●bbes
          
           not
           to
           beleeve
           his
           own
           Readings
           or
           any
           mans
           else
           that
           should
           tell
           him
           it
           did
           signifie
           any
           such
           thing
           ,
           is
           a
           piece
           of
           notorious
           impudence
           .
           That
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           
             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
           withal
           acknowledged
           it
           signifies
           many
           things
           else
           .
           I
           know
           the
           Dr.
           is
           a
           
             good
             Historian
          
           (
           else
           he
           should
           not
           presume
           to
           object
           the
           want
           of
           History
           to
           another
           )
           let
           him
           tell
           us
           how
           long
           ago
           it
           is
           ,
           since
           men
           have
           made
           use
           of
           pens
           or
           quills
           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
           Mathe
           maticians
           used
           it
           for
           a
           point
           .
           Another
           thing
           I
           would
           fain
           know
           of
           this
           great
           Historian
           ,
           how
           long
           ago
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           and
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           began
           to
           signifie
           
             inter●ungo
             ?
          
           for
           if
           the
           Mathematicks
           were
           studied
           before
           the
           mystery
           of
           Printing
           was
           found
           out
           (
           as
           shall
           be
           proved
           when
           ever
           it
           shall
           please
           the
           Dr.
           out
           of
           his
           no
           reading
           to
           maintain
           the
           contrary
           )
           then
           the
           
             Mathematical
          
           use
           thereof
           should
           have
           been
           named
           before
           the
           
             Grammatical
             .
          
           And
           if
           this
           word
           be
           translatitions
           ,
           and
           that
           Sciences
           were
           the
           effect
           of
           long
           contemplation
           ,
           the
           names
           used
           wherein
           are
           borrowed
           ▪
           from
           talk
           ,
           Mr.
           
             Hobbes
          
           did
           wel
           to
           say
           that
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           precedaneously
           to
           that
           
             indivisible
          
           signification
           ,
           which
           it
           afterwards
           had
           ,
           did
           signifie
           a
           
             visible
             mark
             ,
          
           made
           by
           a
           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
           senses
           ;
           as
           also
           that
           words
           do
           ,
           
             primarily
             ,
          
           signifie
           things
           obvious
           to
           
             sense
             ,
          
           and
           only
           
             secondarily
             ,
          
           such
           as
           men
           call
           
             incorporeal
             .
          
           This
           leads
           me
           to
           a
           further
           consideration
           of
           this
           word
           .
           
             Hesychius
          
           (
           of
           whom
           it
           is
           said
           that
           he
           is
           
             Legendus
             non
             ●anquam
             L●xicographus
             ,
             sed
             tanquam
             justus
             Author
             .
             )
          
           Interprets
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ,
           which
           is
           a
           point
           of
           a
           greater
           or
           lesser
           size
           ,
           made
           with
           any
           thing
           .
           
             So
          
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           signifies
           to
           prick
           or
           marke
           with
           any
           thing
           in
           a●y
           manner
           ,
           and
           hath
           no
           impropriated
           signification
           in
           it self
           ,
           but
           according
           to
           the
           writer
           that
           useth
           it
           .
           Thus
           in
           a
           
             Grammarian
          
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           signifies
           to
           
             distinguish
          
           by
           
             poin●ing
          
           often
           ,
           sometimes
           ,
           even
           in
           them
           ,
           it
           is
           the
           same
           with
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ,
           sometimes
           it
           signifies
           to
           set
           a
           ma●k
           ,
           that
           something
           is
           wanting
           in
           that
           place
           ,
           which
           marks
           were
           called
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
           In
           maters
           of
           policy
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           signifies
           to
           
             disallow
             ,
          
           because
           they
           used
           to
           put
           a
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           (
           not
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           )
           before
           his
           name
           who
           was
           either
           disapproved
           ,
           or
           to
           be
           mulcted
           .
           In
           punishments
           it
           signifies
           to
           
             mark
          
           or
           
             brand
             ,
          
           whereof
           I
           cannot
           at
           present
           remember
           any
           other
           wayes
           then
           that
           of
           
           an
           
             hot
             iron
             ,
          
           which
           is
           most
           us●al
           in
           Authors
           ,
           because
           most
           practised
           by
           the
           Antients
           .
           But
           that
           the
           marke
           which
           the
           
             Turks●nd
          
           others
           do
           imprint
           without
           burning
           may
           be
           said
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ,
           I
           do
           not
           doubt
           ;
           no
           more
           then
           that
           
             H●rodian
          
           did
           to
           give
           that
           term
           to
           the
           antient
           
             Britaines
             ,
          
           of
           whom
           he
           sayes
           ,
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
           Thus
           Horses
           that
           were
           branded
           with
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           and
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           (
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           and
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           )
           were
           said
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
           Thus
           in
           its
           origine
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           doth
           signifi●
           a
           
             b●end
             or
             mark
             with
             an
             hot
             Iron
             ,
          
           ●r
           the
           like
           ,
           and
           that
           must
           be
           the
           proper
           signification
           of
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ,
           which
           is
           proper
           to
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ,
           none
           but
           such
           as
           Dr.
           
             Wallis●an
          
           doubt
           .
           In
           its
           
             descendants
          
           it
           is
           no
           less
           evident
           ,
           for
           from
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           comes
           
             Stigmosus
             ,
          
           which
           signifies
           to
           be
           branded
           ;
           
             Vitellianâ
             cicatrice
             Stig●●sus
          
           not
           
             Stigmatosus
             .
          
           So
           
             Pliny
          
           in
           his
           Epistles
           ,
           as
           Robert
           Stephen
           cites
           it
           .
           And
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           (
           the
           Derivative
           of
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ,
           which
           signifies
           any
           mark
           ,
           as
           well
           as
           a
           brand
           ,
           even
           such
           as
           remain
           after
           
             stripes
             ,
          
           being
           black
           and
           blew
           )
           was
           a
           Nick-name
           imposed
           upon
           the
           Grammarian
           
             Nicanor
             ,
          
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ▪
           And
           though
           we
           had
           not
           any
           examples
           of
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           being
           used
           in
           this
           sense
           ,
           yet
           from
           thence
           for
           any
           man
           to
           argue
           against
           it
           (
           but
           he
           who
           knows
           no
           more
           then
           
             Stephen
          
           tells
           him
           )
           is
           madness
           ,
           unless
           he
           will
           deny
           that
           any
           word
           hath
           lost
           its
           right
           signification
           ,
           and
           is
           used
           only
           (
           by
           the
           Authors
           we
           have
           ,
           although
           neither
           the
           
             Dr.
          
           nor
           I
           have
           read
           all
           them
           )
           in
           its
           analogical
           signification
           .
           I
           have
           alwayes
           been
           of
           opinion
           ,
           that
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           signified
           a
           
             single
             point
             ,
          
           big
           or
           little
           ,
           it
           matters
           not
           ;
           and
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ,
           a
           
             composure
             of
             many
             ;
          
           as
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           signifies
           a
           
             line
             ,
          
           and
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           a
           
             l●tter
             ,
          
           made
           of
           several
           lines
           .
           For
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           signified
           the
           
             Owle
             ,
          
           the
           
             S●mana
             ,
          
           the
           
             letter
          
           K
           ,
           yea
           
             whole
             words
             ,
             lines
             ,
             Epigrams
          
           engraven
           in
           mens
           faces
           ;
           and
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ,
           I
           doubt
           not
           ,
           had
           signified
           a
           
             single
             point
             ,
          
           had
           such
           been
           used
           ,
           and
           so
           it
           became
           translatitiously
           used
           by
           
             Grammarians
          
           and
           
             Mathematicians
             .
          
           I
           could
           give
           grounds
           for
           this
           conjecture
           ,
           and
           not
           be
           so
           impertinent
           as
           the
           Doctor
           in
           his
           
             Sermon
          
           (
           where
           he
           told
           men
           that
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           was
           not
           in
           
             Homer
             ;
          
           that
           from
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           came
           
             Ebrius
             ;
          
           that
           
             Sobrietas
          
           was
           not
           bad
           Latine
           ,
           and
           that
           
             Sobrius
          
           was
           once
           (
           as
           I
           remember
           )
           in
           
             Tully
             .
          
           Is
           this
           to
           speak
           suitably
           to
           the
           oracles
           of
           God
           ,
           or
           rather
           to
           lash
           out
           into
           idle
           words
           ?
           Hath
           the
           
             Dr.
          
           any
           ground
           to
           think
           these
           are
           not
           impertinences
           ?
           Or
           are
           we
           ,
           poor
           mortals
           ,
           accountable
           for
           such
           
             idle
          
           words
           as
           fall
           from
           us
           in
           private
           discourses
           ,
           whilest
           these
           Ambassadours
           of
           Heaven
           
             droll
          
           in
           the
           Pulpit
           without
           any
           danger
           of
           an
           after
           reckoning
           ?
        
         
           But
           I
           proceed
           to
           a
           further
           survey
           of
           the
           Doctors
           intolerable
           ignorance
           .
           His
           charge
           in
           the
           end
           of
           the
           
             School
             ▪
             Masters
          
           Rant
           ,
           is
           ,
           that
           he
           should
           
             remember
          
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           &
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           
             are
             not
             all
             one
             .
          
           I
           complained
           before
           that
           he
           hath
           not
           cited
           
             Robert
             Stephen
          
           aright
           ,
           now
           
             I
          
           must
           tell
           him
           he
           hath
           been
           negligent
           in
           the
           reading
           of
           
             Henry
             Stephen
             ;
          
           for
           in
           him
           he
           might
           have
           found
           that
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           was
           sometimes
           all
           one
           with
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           though
           there
           be
           no
           example
           in
           him
           wherein
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           is
           ●sed
           for
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
           Hath
           not
           
             Hes●od
          
           (
           as
           
             Stephen
          
           rightly
           citeth
           it
           )
           in
           his
           
             S●u●um
             .
          
        
         
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           
             ubi
             Scholiastes
             ;
          
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
           So
           
             Johannes
             Di●conus
          
           upon
           the
           place
           ,
           a
           man
           ,
           who
           (
           if
           I
           may
           use
           the
           
             Drs.
          
           phrase
           )
           was
           
             as
             good
             a
             critick
             ,
             as
          
           the
           Geometry
           Professour
           .
        
         
           Thus
           much
           for
           the
           
             Doctor
             .
          
           To
           the
           understanding
           
             Reader
             ,
          
           I
           say
           ,
           that
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           is
           ●sed
           for
           burning
           with
           a
           hot
           iron
           ;
           〈◊〉
           ▪
           
             Macchab.
          
           9.
           11.
           where
           speaking
           of
           
             Antiochus's
          
           lamentable
           death
           ,
           his
           body
           putrifying
           ,
           and
           breeding
           worms
           ,
           he
           is
           said
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ;
           
             being
             pained
             as
             if
             he
             had
             been
             pricked
             ,
             or
             burned
             with
             hot
             ir●ns
             .
          
           And
           that
           this
           is
           the
           meaning
           of
           that
           elegant
           writer
           ,
           shall
           be
           made
           good
           against
           the
           Doct●r
           ,
           when
           he
           shall
           please
           to
           defend
           the
           vulgar
           Interpretation
           ▪
           
             Pausanias
             ,
             in
             Baeoticis
             ,
          
           speaking
           of
           
             Epaminondas
             ,
          
           who
           had
           taken
           a
           town
           belonging
           to
           the
           
             Sicyonians
          
           called
           
             Phaebia
          
           (
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           )
           wherein
           were
           many
           
             Baeotian
          
           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
          
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
           It
           is
           true
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           is
           here
           put
           
             adverbially
             ,
          
           but
           that
           doth
           not
           alter
           the
           case
           .
           Again
           
             Zonaras
             ,
          
           in
           the
           third
           ●ome
           of
           his
           
             History
             ,
          
           in
           the
           l●fe
           of
           the
           Emperour
           
             Th●ophilus
             ,
          
           saith
           ,
           that
           when
           
             Theophanes
          
           and
           another
           
             Monk
          
           had
           reproved
           the
           said
           Emperour
           for
           demolishing
           images
           ,
           he
           took
           and
           
             s●igmatised
          
           each
           of
           them
           with
           twelve
           
             lambicks
          
           in
           their
           faces
           .
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
           A
           place
           so
           evident
           ,
           that
           I
           know
           not
           what
           the
           Dr.
           can
           reply
           .
           This
           place
           is
           just
           parallel
           to
           what
           the
           same
           Author
           saith
           in
           the
           li●e
           of
           
             Irene
             ,
          
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
           If
           the
           Dr.
           object
           that
           he
           is
           a
           moderne
           Author
           ,
           he
           will
           never
           be
           able
           to
           render
           him
           as
           inconsiderable
           as
           
             Adrianus
             Junius's
             Nomenclator
             ,
             Th●mafius
          
           and
           
             Rider
             .
          
           If
           any
           will
           deny
           that
           he
           writes
           good
           Greek
           ,
           
             Hieronymus
             W●lfius
          
           will
           tell
           them
           ,
           his
           onely
           fault
           is
           ,
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ,
           
             redundancy
          
           in
           words
           ,
           and
           not
           the
           use
           of
           
             bad
          
           ones
           .
        
         
           Another
           example
           of
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           used
           in
           this
           sense
           ,
           is
           in
           the
           Collections
           out
           of
           
             Diodorus
             Siculus
          
           lib.
           34.
           as
           they
           are
           to
           be
           found
           at
           the
           end
           of
           his
           works
           ,
           and
           as
           
             Photius
          
           hath
           transcr●bed
           them
           into
           his
           
             Bibliotheca
             .
          
           He
           ●aith
           that
           the
           Romans
           did
           buy
           multitudes
           of
           servants
           and
           employ
           them
           in
           
             Sicily
             ;
          
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           .
           These
           are
           the
           words
           but
           of
           one
           Author
           ,
           but
           ought
           to
           passe
           for
           the
           judgement
           of
           two
           ,
           seeing
           
             Photius
             ,
          
           by
           inserting
           them
           ,
           hath
           made
           them
           his
           own
           .
        
         
           Besides
           ,
           it
           is
           the
           judgement
           of
           a
           great
           
             Master
          
           of
           the
           Greek
           tongue
           ,
           that
           
             stigmata
             non
             tam
             puncta
             ipsa
             qudm
             punctis
             variatam
             super●●ciem
             Gr●ci
             vocaverun●
             :
          
           I
           need
           not
           I
           suppose
           ,
           name
           him
           ,
           so
           gre●t
           a
           Critick
           as
           the
           Dr.
           cannot
           be
           ignorant
           of
           him
           .
        
         
           Nor
           were
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           commonly
           ,
           but
           upon
           extraordinary
           occasions
           ,
           imprinted
           with
           an
           hot
           iron
           .
           The
           letters
           were
           first
           made
           by
           incision
           ,
           then
           the
           blood
           
             pressed
             ,
          
           and
           the
           place
           filled
           up
           with
           ink
           ,
           the
           composition
           whereof
           is
           to
           be
           seen
           in
           
             Ae●ius
             .
          
           And
           thus
           they
           did
           use
           to
           
             matriculate
          
           Souldiers
           also
           in
           the
           hand
           .
           Thus
           did
           the
           Grecian
           Emperour
           in
           the
           precedent
           example
           of
           
             Zonaras
             .
          
           And
           if
           the
           Dr.
           would
           more
           ,
           let
           him
           repair
           to
           
             Vin●tas's
          
           Comment
           upon
           the
           fifteenth
           Epigram
           of
           
             Ausonius
             .
          
        
         
           And
           now
           I
           conceive
           enough
           hath
           hath
           been
           said
           to
           vindicate
           Mr.
           
             Hobbes
             ,
          
           and
           to
           shew
           the
           insufferable
           ignorance
           of
           the
           puny
           professor
           ,
           and
           unlearned
           Critick
           .
           If
           any
           more
           shall
           be
           though●
           necessary
           ,
           I
           shall
           take
           the
           paines
           to
           collect
           more
           examples
           and
           Authorities
           ,
           though
           I
           confess
           I
           had
           rather
           spend
           time
           otherwise
           then
           in
           matter
           of
           so
           little
           moment
           .
           As
           for
           some
           other
           pssages
           in
           his
           book
           ,
           I
           am
           no
           competent
           judge
           of
           
             Symbolick
             Stenography
             .
          
           The
           Dr.
           (
           Sir
           Reverence
           )
           might
           have
           used
           a
           cleanlier
           expression
           then
           that
           of
           a
           
             s●itten
             piece
             ,
          
           when
           he
           censures
           Mr.
           
           
             Hobbes's
          
           Book
           .
        
         
           Hitherto
           the
           letter
           .
           By
           which
           you
           may
           see
           
             what
             came
             in
             to
             my
             (
             not
             square
             )
             cap
             to
             call
          
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           
             a
             mark
             with
             a
             hot
             iron
             ,
             and
             that
             ,
             they
             who
             told
             me
          
           that
           ,
           did
           no
           more
           tell
           me
           a
           lie
           then
           they
           told
           you
           a
           lie
           that
           said
           the
           same
           of
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ;
           and
           if
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           be
           not
           right
           as
           I
           use
           it
           now
           ,
           ●hen
           call
           these
           notes
           not
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           ,
           but
           
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
             {non-Roman}
          
           I
           will
           not
           contend
           with
           you
           for
           a
           tris●e
           .
           For
           howsoever
           you
           call
           them
           you
           are
           like
           to
           be
           known
           by
           them
           .
           Sir
           ,
           the
           ▪
           calling
           of
           a
           Divine
           hath
           justly
           taken
           from
           you
           some
           time
           that
           might
           have
           been
           imployed
           in
           Geometry
           .
           The
           study
           of
           Algebra
           hath
           taken
           from
           you
           another
           part
           ,
           for
           Algebra
           and
           Geometry
           are
           not
           
           all
           one
           ;
           and
           you
           have
           cast
           away
           much
           time
           in
           practising
           and
           trusting
           to
           Symbolical
           writ
           writings
           ,
           and
           for
           the
           Authors
           of
           Geometry
           you
           have
           read
           ,
           you
           have
           not
           examined
           their
           demonstrations
           to
           the
           bottom
           .
           Therefore
           you
           perhaps
           may
           be
           ,
           but
           are
           not
           yet
           〈◊〉
           Geometrician
           ,
           much
           lesse
           a
           good
           Divine
           .
           I
           would
           you
           had
           but
           so
           much
           Ethicks
           ,
           as
           to
           be
           civil
           .
           But
           you
           are
           a
           notable
           Critick
           So
           fare
           you
           well
           ,
           and
           consider
           what
           honour
           you
           do
           either
           to
           the
           University
           where
           you
           are
           received
           for
           professor
           ,
           or
           to
           the
           Vniversity
           from
           whence
           you
           came
           thither
           ,
           by
           your
           Geometry
           ;
           and
           what
           honour
           you
           do
           to
           Emanuel
           Colledge
           by
           your
           Divinity
           ;
           and
           what
           honour
           you
           do
           to
           the
           degree
           of
           Dr.
           with
           the
           manner
           of
           your
           Language
           .
           And
           take
           the
           counsel
           which
           you
           publish
           out
           of
           your
           Encomiast
           his
           letter
           ;
           think
           me
           no
           more
           worthy
           of
           your
           pains
           ,
           you
           see
           how
           I
           have
           ●ouled
           your
           fingers
           .
        
         
           FINIS
           .