A Praefatory ANSWER TO Mr. Henry Stubbe, The Doctor of Warwick. WHEREIN 

The Malignity of his Temper,  
The Hypocrisy of his Pretences,  
The Falsehood of his Reports,   AND THE Impertinency of his Arguings & Quotations In his ANIMADVERSIONS ON PLUS VLTRA, Are discovered.  
By JOS. GLANVILL.  
— A Rod for the Fools back.  Sol. 
London, Printed by A. Clark, for I Collins, at the King's Arms in Ludgate-street, near the West-end of S. Paul's; and at the King's Head in Westminster-hall. 1671.   

PREFACE.  
WHen I am asked the reason of M. Stubbe's fierceness against the ROYAL SOCIETY, and the favourers of that Institution; my usual answer is, There are creatures that will bark against those who never hurt or provoked them, and 'tin vain to ask● Why? 'Tis the nature of those Animals, and that's the only account can be given.  
M. Stubbe hath kept a noise ever since he could open, against all men, except M. Hobbs, and the Republicans; and all things, but Quakerism and Democracy. He hath fallen with a vehemence suitable to his nature upon Monarchy, Ministry, Universities, and Humane Learning; provoking all men to whom those interests were dear. But perceiving he had the fate of old Alexander Ross, to be despised by those, he had affronted; and seeing that no one thought him worthy of Confutation, he turns about and confutes himself: he pu●s on a mighty zeal for those things, which he had endeavoured to w●rrey; and there being nothing of note left which he had not assaulted before, he falls at last upon the R. S. with his usual noise and vehemence: He clamours, that this Institution is destructive to Monarchy, Church of England, Universities, and all ancient Literature; and follows his confident accusations with loud outcries, and restless importunities, and numerous reproaches; persecuting that illustrious Company with such wild rave, and impetuous eagerness, as if it were an Army of Painims that had invaded us, and he the only man that saw the danger, and was concerned for the common safety.  
By his earnest noise, he frights some that know not the nature of the Creature; and hath possessed divers, who are not well informed concerning the Institution of the ROYAL SOCIETY, with terrible apprehensions of it. This is all M. Stubbe ha●h or c●n do: his main force is in the boldness and vehemence of his accusations; his pretences of proof are contemptible and ridiculous, and can persuade none but those he hath scared into an incapacity of right judgement.  
For this reason I have thought it requisite to begin my answer in an account of his temper and genius out of his own Writings; and when that is known, his greatest force is disabled: for his impudent censures will be no longer heeded, in which his chief power lies. And therefore it is not here, as in ordinary cases, when reflections that expose the person, signify little to the cause. But on the contrary, the Representation I have made of this Adversary, is one of the most proper services can be done it; and if I should say nothing else, it were an Answer. For he that proves an Accuser to have been a continual P●st to his Neighbours, a constant Slanderer, and malicious Teller of untruths, doth enough to assert his Vindication against his enemies unproved accusations. I say, I thought ●it to endeavour this fi●st, since by it I shall break that part of his strength which consists in those slanders and contempts which he pours upon the Experimental Philosophers; and after that, his Other Arguments ● will prove like Swords of Flags and Spears of Bulrush, as will appear in that part where I make trial of their strength.  
This my design, of which I have now given the reason, might, 'tis like, be some occasion of the figment over which he so courageously insults, viz [That the Uirtuosis intended to write his life;] when I dare say, there was never more thought of ●o this purpose, than some such collection out of his Writings and I have made; and therefore he might have forborn the Compliments of mean spirits, and pitiful, ridiculous Mechanics, which he bestows on them on this occasion: For there are none of those Gentlemen but scorn to be so dirty, impertinent, and so like M. Stubbe, as to meddle with any passages of his Life, which do not tend to the weakening him in that unworthy cause in which his pride and spite have engaged him.  
But he is resolved, he saith, to prevent the Virtuosos, and to write his Life himself; and 'tis like the Comical Wits will thank him for a story that would ou● do Guzman and Don Quixot. But, alas! they are not to expect it; he is too modest to do himself right. What he hath done as to his Life, is a De●ence of those passages that he apprehended most ●bnoxious, and I shall here animadvert upon his Apology, by which he thinks he hath prevented that part of my account which relates to his egregious exploits in the late times. Let us consider that a little, and see what his defence signifies.  
IT might have been expected from one, that hath trampled on the ashes of his Martyred Sovereign, defended and adored his Murderers, styled all our Kings a Succession of Usurpers, endeavoured the extirpation of Monarchy, and the planting a Democracy of Independents, Anabaptists, Fi●th Monarchy men, and Quakers, in its room: That hath represented the meekest, justest, and best of Kings, as an hateful Tyrant, and called our now Sovereign an Usurper; that hath written maliciously against Ministry, Universities, Churches, and Humane Learning; and vindicated the Quakers, and the rest of the wildest and most dangerous fanatics. I say, it might have been expected that such a man as this, when he would be thought a Convert, should renounce those horrid villainies, and humble himself by deep professions of repentance, and declare his shame for those abominable treasons and impieties, and beg pardon of God and good men for those detestable enormities. But these were below the gallantry of M. Stubbe's spirit; he hath another method to express his repentance: he falls with his old rage upon his Majesty's Institution, out of a pretended concern for Monarchy and Religion. The King, he fancies, hath erected a Society that will undermine Monarchy; and those Bishops and Divines that are embodied in it, are managing a design to overthrow Religion: therefore M. Stubbe stands up in a mighty zeal, and defends Monarchy against the KING, and Religion against the DIVINES; no doubt with a purpose to do a mischief to both. This is ONE way of his repentance, to act as much as he dares, for the same ends he served before.  
And ANOTHER is to justify himself in all that he hath done; which in a swaggering, insulting way he impudently attempts in the Preface to his Book against the History of the Royal Society: and he hath done it so, that 'tis hard to say which is the greater crime, his confessed wickedness, or his Apology. The sum of it is this:  
He served his Patron Sir Hen. Vane, by whom he was transcendently obliged, and he is ashamed that he hath done so little, rather than that he hath done so much for him. He confesses himself a Uassal and a Slave, and such he saith are exempt from ignominy, though their masters might be accounted traitors. He pleads the example of the friend of Gracchus, who justified his treason by his friendship, and said he should have burnt the Capitol if Gracchus had bid him. Thus he tells us he hath Apologized for himself a thousand times.  
And having said this, he is whole, the Virtuosos are prevented in the design of writing his life, and none of his former pranks must be mentioned, though in another way he is doing the same things again. How little ado will serve to wipe off the foulest guilt from M. Stubbe? and how easily can he translate it upon the clearest innocence? But, by his leave, I shall a little reflect on his Apology, though he is pleased to say that the Virtuosos understand not the grounds of his actions, nor have they Learning enough, or skill in Casuistical Divinity to condemn them. [Pref. to his Legends.] For however ignorant they were of his grounds before, he hath now enlightened them with that knowledge, though his Casuistical Divinity is yet in the dark to them.  
The ground of all is, [He served a Patron:] and doth this justify him according to the rules of his Casuistical Divinity? Could the favours of any particular Benefactor null his obligations to his SOVEREIGN, his RELIGION, his COUNTRY? Might not the most hellish villainies be excused this way? And might not such an Apology be made for Fau●, Ravi●●a●, and the Stubbe's that were hanged for treason in former Reigns? Could not the Black Executioner of the blessed K. Charles the Martyr, have justified his accursed Parricide by the same Apology? And if judas had been transcendently obliged by any of the Scribes and Pharisees, he was blameless, according to this Apologists Casuistical Divinity. Such a Divinity as this indeed, 'tis to be hoped the Virtuosos do not understand; 'Tis a sort very fit for such a conscience as he hath that pleads it: and what a Divinity must that be, that will justify judas and M. Stubbe? Let him propagate it as fast as he is able, he will need no other engine to effect the bravest of his purposes. If the remaining Regicides have any projects to equal their former, M. Stubbe will furnish any man with an Apology, that dare● venture upon the execution of them: he shall be exempt from infamy, though he outdo the Powder Treason, as long as he served a Patron: and thus even Witches are justified for serving the Devil, while he gratifies and obligeth them. Come hither then, O ye Sons of Rebellion and Mischief: Here's a Casuist for your purpose: your outrages and treasons are gallantries, if you served a Patron: M. Stubbe hath a Divinity that will defend and absolve you; a Divinity, in which there is no such thing as conscience towards God; 'tis all gratitude to Patrons and Benefactors; and though they were Traitors and Regicides, you are exempt from ignominy or blame.  
Is not this man now very penitent for his vile practices, when he bailds his glory upon them, giveth them in as proofs of his gallantry, and calls them Brave Acknowledgements? Doth he not deserve favour and forgiveness, when, after his blaspheming the best of Kings, and libelling the most excellent of Governments; after his endeavours to bring in eternal Anarchy and confusion into his native Country, and vile attempts to overthrow all Learning, Order and Religion to gratify Parricides and Usurpers; he hath the confidence to tell the world, that He is ashamed he hath done so little? When those Patrons have occasion for him again, he'll do the rest, if any thing more be possible. What a Penitent is this, who is sorry that his crimes (which were highly capital) had not been more and greater, and that lays a foundation for the defence of the blackest villainies, in his very Repentance and Recantations?  
But he hath a precedent to warrant him: BLESSIUS pleaded his friendship to GRACCHUS to justify his seditions, and would have burnt the Capitol if Gracchus had bid him: Thus M. Stubbe saith, he hath apologized for himself a thousand times: he served Sir H. Vane, and was (as he owns himself) his Slave, and so he is cleared from all imputations: Yea, if his Patron had bid him, he would have killed his Father, and murdered his Sovereign. This is the sense of his Apology. What poor, easy fools doth he suppose his Readers, when he endeavours to reconcile himself to their good opinion by such silly and such vile excuses?  
These are some of the expressions of M. Stubbe's repentance. And yet farther to show what a friend he is to MONARCHY, notwithstanding the former practices, in the same Preface against the History of the Royal Society, p 3. he tells his Reader, That 'tis Prudence in every particular person to contribute all he can to the support of the Monarchy against all Anarchical projects, and Democratical contrivances, whereof a debauched and ungenerous Nation is not capable. 'Tis Prudence to endeavour the support of the MONARCHY now as things are, not Duty. The want of virtue and generosity, makes the Nation incapable of Democracy for the present: but when 'tis reclaimed from its debauches, and grown generous, (as it was in the times of M. Stubbe●● former Patrons) than Democracy will be the only proper Government. Monarchy may serve for a debauched and ungenerous Nation; but Democracy is the Government of the virtuous and generous. This is the Interpretation of the quoted period; and thus M. Stubbe cunningly recommends himself to his Democratical friends, even when he is pretending friendship to Monarchy: so that should his old Patrons return again to their insolent Reign, (which Heaven forbid) there is no doubt but this Paragraph would be pleaded to prove, that he never deserted their principles; and there is a Quotation in the Margin of the same page, to assure his kindness to Democracy, even when 'twas prudent to make a show for Monarchy;— Ut verissime dixerit Cosinus Medici's Cardinali Salviato, In tanta opum i●●qualitate, morumque corruptione Florentinam Rempublicam non esse amplius Libertatis Capacem, quae optati potius, quam spera●i debeat.  
You see, O ye Patriots of the Good Old Cause, M. Stubbe is constant to you; Democracy is the only Liberty, 'tis the Government to be desired, though little to be hoped for in such a corruption of manners: your Slave doth but jest with Monarchy, and show his prudence in flattering it a little, till a good occasion shall serve for him to return again to you, his Patrons and Benefactors: yea, he intimates what he could do for you in the words that immediately follow his Apology, [I think this defence the most proper and seasonable that I can now make:] in a ●itter time he could justify his obsequiousness to Sir H. Vane and the Cause, after another manner than by this come off, that He served a Patron: He could lay all things that have the name of Royal, as fla● as the Royal Society: But he prudently tells you, [ib. Prae. p. 12.] I will not suffer myself to be engaged in any disputes that may contribute to the dissetlement of this Nation, and Monarchy.] If he wou●d dispute, he could shake our Monarchy and Setlemen●s: But the Nation is not yet virtuous and generous enough to deserve his favours: other Justifications would be better than this of a Patron, but they would not be seasonable nor proper for this time.  
Was ever Villainy so impudent when it sought pardon? Did ever confidence flout a Government so, when it pretended to plead its Cause? Can we desire greater proof of M. Stubbe's hypocrisy and disloyal inclination, than he gives in this Preface? And will he not despise the silly easiness of those, that shall accept of his Apology? Certainly he must needs swell with venom, that cannot forbear spitting in the face of that Government which 'tis his present interest to ●latter. This 'tis evident enough he hath done in the recited periods, and it would have appeared farther, if those who had his Book to Licence had not expunged some more impudent passages. M. Stubbe made a great stir in the Country with his complaints that the Royal Society had castrated his Book, and deprived it of its strength. I was lately told by a Licenser, one of my Lord of London's Chaplains, that it was well for him that those things were blotted out, for he assured me they were such as deserved the Gaol, and a Pillory at least. For he impudently upbraided the King with the example of Queen Elizabeth in forbidding the King of France to build ships; jeered the Illustrious Duke of York about his Sea-Engagement with the Dutch: and twitted his Majesty with the management of that war. These were the things that were put out, but not by the Royal Society, (as M. Stubbe fabled) but by other Licensers to whom he owes thanks for the present possession of his ears.  
This is the zealous Defender of the Government against the Virtuosos; let him now put his malicious, cavilling wit upon the Tenters; let him improve every dream of a shadow, and fetch what consequences he can from every little appearance; and if after all, he can show that the Royal Society have ever said or done any thing so ●adutiful, or disrespectful to the Government, as any one of these passages, which he vents in his greatest fit of kindness to it, I'll for ever renounce the Virtuosos, and become his humble proselyte.  
Upon the whole carriage, for my part I am persuaded that M. Stubbe intends no more in his present pretences for Monarchy, than to jeer it, and to try whether the friends of the Government are such pitiful Ignoramus's as to be satisfied with his ridiculous and almost treasonable excuses. If there be any he can content so, there is no doubt but he will laugh with his Democratical friends at the good nature of those tender-headed people that will be so easily carolled. And those others that are less soft and facile, must needs laugh at him, when they see how ridiculously the pretence of Loyalty sits upon him, and how he over-acts in his zeal.  
In testimony of his great love and devotion to the King, he thus subscribe● the Title of his rare Book of Chocolata, By Hen. Stubbe Physician for his Majesty in the Island of jamaica; Now (no doubt) he is Physician for his Majesty too in the Town of Warwick; and he intends to be Physician for his Majesty in the City of London, when he hath run down the Royal Society: for then, he saith, he will remove thither, and get all the practice. But further, in testimony of his Loyalty, he calls one sort of his Chocolet, Chocolata Royal; this was that Chocolata that was the universal Medicine which cured all diseases in jamaica, when he made and sold it there; and he thinks fit to honour Monarchy by calling it ROYAL. I have an hundred very pleasant things to say of this Chocoletman of jamaica; as of his spitting fire in a fever, and reading by the light of his spittle, and other such wonders, which he did and saw: but they are not for my present purpose.  
And now when I reflect upon the impudence, and weakness, malignity and impiety of M. Stubbe's Apology for his former vile writings, I cannot but wonder much at the strange incogitancy of some, that take the excuse of his serving a Patron, and go away contented with it; when this plea is pregnant with infinite villainies and mischiefs, and is one of the most shameless Apologies that ever was offered in the world. This I suppose I have proved: but if any have so much favour for M. Stubbe, upon the account of his present undertake, as to swallow such a morsel, I shall no further oppose their kindness, but only to desire them, to look a little forward into my Book, and to see there what the things are for which he needs their candour and pardon; and if, after they are informed, they shall take the excuse of serving a Patron for a justification of his crimes, let them but consider too, whether it be not probable he is serving some Patron now, and whether any heed be to be given to the ranting vehemencies and clamours of a confessed mercenary Scribbler.  
And thus I think I have sufficiently chastised his APOLOGY, by which he thought he had secured himself against all designs to represent him: this I have undertaken, for caution to those that might otherwise be in some danger of heeding him, and of being misled by his pretended zeal for Monarchy and Religion, into an ill opinion of the Royal Institution, which he maliciously slinders; and having done this, my following Representation of his pestilent spirit and temper will bear, and I hope signify to the purpose for which I intent it. 'Tis true, personal matters in Controversies should, as much as is possible, be avoided, and I dislike them much; but M. Stubbe hath made them necessary in this; and the account of him which I am to give, will not be without its pleasure, since 'tis a description of a very strange Animal, and such a one as is seldom seen out of Africa, or the Country of Cannibals.  
Having thus defeated M. Stubbe's excuses, it may be thought fit that I make one for myself: For the bare recital of the abominable things he hath disgorged, cannot but raise a stench that is loathsome and offensive; but, I hope, it will be considered, that I could not have given sufficient caution against the malignity of this troubler of men, without opening those Ulcers, and letting the world see what filth and venom there is under the fairness of his pretences.  
If any man think I have handled this Adversary with too much bitterness and severity, he seems to forget that I have to do with M. Stubbe; Russians and swaggering Hector's are not to be treated with gentleness and soft words; and, I know, should I deal with this Antagonist in a way of lenity and smoothness, it would encourage his insolence, and make him fancy that he is feared. I have therefore thought sit to express myself here with more smartness, than I do allow of towards men of common civility and good manners; and 'tis not my passion, but judgement prompted me to it.  
And now, lest it should be suspected that my dealing so much with M. Stubbe hath infected me with the spirit of detraction, I shall next give him those acknowledgements that I think may be his due. I confess therefore that he is a man that hath READ; he was for some years Sub-librarian at Oxford, and so by his employment was chained among the Books: from thence he got great knowledge of Titles and Indices; and by that can, upon any occasion, let out a great apparatus of Authors, and fill his margin with Quotations: this must be acknowledged, and it is no small advantage for show and vainglory; and by this means he will seem to have the better of any man he shall oppose, among such as are not able, or not concerned to examine how he useth his Authors, and how he applies them. But whoever doth this, will find, that notwithstanding his pretence to great Reading, he reads by Indices, and only collects those passages from Authors which he can suborn to serve his mischievous purposes: That he understands not, or wilfully perverts the Writers he citys: That after he hath swaggered with their names, and recited several scraps out of their works, his Quotations prove nothing but that M. Stubbe is malicious and impertinent, and makes the sayings and opinions he fights against: of all this, I have given specimen of proof in divers of the ensuing sheets; by which it will appear, that this confident man is one of the most notorious Impertinents that ever writ a Book.  
And whoever attentively considers his Writings, and observes the way of his Discourse, must needs see, that whatever he pretends to reading, he is extremely defective in judgement, and understands not the way of close, coherent reasoning: Nor indeed can it be expected from one of his temper of brain; his head is red-hot, and consequently his thoughts are desultory and flirting; so that he affirms suddenly whatever comes into his fancy, not considering how it agrees with what he said before; what it makes for his purpose, or how it may be well proved. He hath not the patience to ponder any thing deeply, nor the judgement and staidness to weigh consequences; and therefore writes and speaks in a vein of infinite impertinence and inconsistency. This I may be permitted to say here, because I have proved it in the following Papers. And now what can such a man's pretended Learning signify? It may make him proud and troublesome, captious and censorious, but will never enable him to serve the world with any useful informations: Nor is any man's reading any further to be valued, than as it improves and assists his reason; where it doth not this, 'tis either a feather in a Fool's cap, or a sword in a madman's hand; a vain glorious impertinence, or an instrument of mischief.  
But I perceive my Preface begins to swell, and therefore I only add further, That whereas M. Stubbe reports in several places of his Books, that the Virtuosos contributed to my PLUS ULTRA, I will acquit those Gentlemen from being concerned in the composure of a Discourse against which the impertinent Animadverter raiseth such a clamour; and assure the Reader, that this his report is false. And whereas in his Book against Doctor Sp●att, he saith, That some some saw my Papers remitted to me blotted and altered, this affirmation is a gross untruth also, or a contemptible impertinence. If he means (as he designed to insinuate) that the Virtu●s● remitted them to me blotted and altered by them, or any other person, 'tis a loud falsehood. No man, except my Transcriber, ever saw my Book till it was printed, nor did I alter any one word upon any man● suggestion; so that his report in that sense, which would have signified to his purpose, is a shameless Legend: in an other sense indeed 'tis true, but impertinent; my Papers were sent home to me blotted and altered; but they were remitted by my Aman●ensis, as I sent them to h●m blotted and altered by my own hand, without any other● knowledge or direction; and what can malice make of this?  
'Tis a pretty artifice I observe in M. Stubbe, to entitle every thing any man doth in favour of the Royal Society, to that whole Body, or at least to a Club of the Virtuosos; that so, if he gain any advantages over any private member, it may redound to the disparagement of the Society, and raise the glory of his performances; and therefore I must expect that much of this following Account shall be imputed to the assistance and contributions that he will say I had from the Virtuosos: But to prevent his belying those Gentlemen in this, and the concerning them in any of my failures, I declare I consulted none of them for any of these Reflections; I did not submit my Copy to their alterations, nor did they, or any other person, ever see these Papers till they were printed: so that whatever wrath they kindle in him, it ought all to be directed against me; and I assure him I despise both his displeasure and his favour.  
I had other things to have added here, but I cast them into the Postscript; and I advertise but this more, That there is a late printed Letter of the Learned Doctor Meric Causabons, written to Doctor Peter du Moulin, upon the occasion of my Plus Ultra, and containing some Reflections on it: I have answered the Strictures of that Reverend man in a particular Discourse, which I think to publish when I next reckon with M. Stubbe.   

TO MY Much Honoured Friend Francis Godolphin, Esq;  
SIR,  
I Was just upon the Close of a short Treatise of the Religious Temper and Tendencies of the Modern Philosophy, when M. Stubb's Book against me came to my hands. I was glad to see that this Adversary at last appeared in the open Light. For I love not Skulking and base Assaults in the Dark. I had much rather be called to an Account for any thing I have written, before the Learned and Judicious, than to be confuted in Corners, among those, whose Judgements are either prepossessed or incompetent; This latter hath for some time been my hard Fate.  
For after M. Crosse's Fardel against me, was rejected by the Licensers both at Oxford and London for its incomparable Railing, and impertinence; He endeavoured to expose me among his Cronies and Confederates by the Manuscript Libel. He carrried it about from place to place, and like a Scotch Merchant, opened his Pack at each House in his Circuit: He told his Tales to every Country-Farmer, and acquainted every Mechanic with his mighty Deeds and Purposes: So that for a time, there was no other Subject handled on Alebenches, and in Coffeehouses, in all this Neighbourhood. Besides which Practices, He pelted me with Doggerel Rhimes innumerable; and a pretended Answer to the Chuè Gazett was read privately to those that had a mind to hear such Stuff, and so I was confuted: But great Care was taken that I should not know in what, for fear I should spoil the Triumphs, and write a second part of the Legends of the Disputer.  
Much after the same manner M. Stubb for a year and upwards dealt with me, and divers excellent Persons, with whom I am not worthy to be mentioned. He traveled up and down to tell his Stories of the Royal Society, and to vent his spite against that Honourable Assembly. He took care to inform every Tapster of the Danger of their Designs; and would scarce take his Horse out of an Hostler's hands, till he had first let him know how he had confuted the Virtuosos. He set his everlasting Tongue at work in every Coffeehouse, and drew the Apron-men about him, as Ballad-singers do the Rout in ●airs and Markets: They admired the man, and wondered what the strange thing called the Royal Society should be; till at last being informed by this zealous Patriot of Religion, they saw clearly that They were a Committee of Projectors to bring in Popery: He assured them that the first Design was laid by a jesuit, and discovered the whole Plot upon Religion, which he declared his pious Resolutions to vindicate against this Dangerous Combination.  
All this Time while he fought (like his Masters of the Good Old Cause) with vulgar Rumours, which he raised, he was impregnable. There's no contending with Spectres and Apparitions. But at last he renders himself more palpable and consistent, so that now he may be dealt with: And since he hath made me the first Object of his fierce Wrath, in this Quarrel with the Royal Society, I shall endeavour to make my Defence, and to disarm the Fury of this Guy of Warwick: By which, I hope, I shall let the World see that this Hector is so far from being a competent Adversary for that Illustrious Company; that all the Force his Rage and Malice can raise, is not able to oppress, or as much as hurt the least considerable Member of that Body.  
This I intent in a full and particular ANSWER to his Book against my PLUS VLTRA, and shall let this Man of Battles (who is used to triumph before he strikes a blow) see, that he hath nonplused me no where, but in his Title. But my Affairs will not permit me to fall on that work, so soon as I am willing you should have an Account of this Undertaker; and therefore I shall now send you a few general remarks concerning the Author and his Work: By which you will perceive, that it is not at all to be wondered at, that he treats so many excellent Persons with such Insolence and Scorn, so many Taunts of Ignorance, Illiterateness, and what comes next; since I shall show, that this is his constant, natural Style, and hath always been his use in his early Oppositions of some of the most famous men of our Nation: So that you are to reckon that the reproachful Characters he gives, import only, that the man is angry; and ignorant and illiterate in his Mouth and Pen signify but one that is not of his mind, or at least not of that mind, which he hath a present Humour and Interest to oppose. And yet I must confess that after I heard of M. Stubb's Intentions of falling on my Book, I expected more Railing and greater Vehemence, more opprobrious Names, and spiteful Sayings; because I knew the man and his Genius: And though some perhaps can scarce apprehend a greater excess in these good Qualities, then are to be met in this Piece, yet I can very well conceive such, as are incomparably greater, having so lately been made acquainted with the Civilities of M. Cross, in comparison to whom, This Adversary writes like a Christian and a Gentleman; and that you may see how much there is of these, in this Author, and judge of the other by Him, I shall now immediately give you the Account of M. Stubb, reserving that of M. Cross to another season.  
That I may proceed distinctly, I shall represent Him in (1.) His TEMPER, (2.) DESIGNS, and (3.) MANAGEMENT of them in his last Book. In describing these I shall not have recourse to such base Artifices, as He, and his Friend M. Cross have used against me, viz. idle Legends and Fictions of their own Brains: Nor shall I reflect upon those infinite Discourses he hath had in very public places often, and sometimes in my hearing, from which a Character full enough might be drawn of him, (for I think it not generous or handsome to make them more public than he hath done himself, except I am unavoidably forced upon it) But I shall take all my Accounts of the Undertaker out of his published Writings, and give you him in his own Words, nakedly as they are, quoted to a Page. In order to which, I think fit to present you with a List of those Books he hath written, with a short touch of the Subjects that are handled in them.  
ONE of the First of his Essays, while he was yet but a Youngster in Oxford, was a DEFENCE of M. HOBBS against the Reverend Dr. Wallis, the learned and famous Geometry-Professor of that University. The Subject we have in the Account he gives of his Performance, [p. 18. of the second Alphabet] where he saith he hath Proved irrefragably, that Cum is the proper Preposition of the Ablative of the manner: That praetendit scire is no Anglicism: That he hath Demonstrated, that Motus & Magnitudo— Consideravimus is good Latin: as also, that Propositiones falsae sunt— & multa ejusmodi is elegant: That he hath evinced Tanquam to signify As if; and that Tanquam si is not one word: That he hath said so much about adduco, that nothing is wanting but Pantagruel ' s Hug: That the Professor may learn of him to put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 together in Composition: That N may come before a Labial, and particularly before P: That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a visible Point, and used for a Mark with a hot iron.  
These Exploits he hath done, and these, he saith, are the Points he undertook to maintain. Weighty matter for a public Quarrel; and so weighty, it seems, the Undertaker accounted it, as to be worthy his Passion, which broke out upon the Doctor in these Expressions of Civility, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Pigmy, Quacksalver, and Mountebank; Critical Bravo, Witty-poll, of no Credit, lost to all Persons of Learning, and a contemptible Adversary, ignorant, intolerably ignorant; and a world more to the same purpose, of which in its due place, with the references to the particular Page. How fit a man is this to undertake the Vindication of M. Cross? But I must go on with the Catalogue of his Works. The next is  
An ESSAY in DEFENCE of the good old Cause] The most glorious Cause in the World, accompanied with no less Success, p. 2. of the second Alphabet. [And a VINDICATION of the Honourable Sir Hen. Uane] whom not to honour and admire is to be an Enemy to all that is good and virtuous, p. 7. second Alphabet [from the false Aspersions of M. BAXTER] A Philistim, Shimei, Rabshakeh, p. 11. 2d. Alph.  
A LETTER to an Officer of the Army concerning a select Senate; which is to consist, according to His Model, of Independents, Anabaptists, Fifth Monarchy-men and Quakers; excluding all PAPISTS, PRELATICAL, and PRESBYTERIAN Persons. p. 61.  
A LIGHT SHINING OUT OF DARKNESS, a Book against Ministry, p. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. Universities, p. 92, 93. and 139, 140. School-Divinity, and Knowledge of Tongues, 94, 95, 96. Humane Learning, p. 101, 102. Aristotle's Philosophy, p. 105. Public Churches, 106. Churchyards, 110. Division into Parishes and Tithes, p. 112, 113. Bells, 138. University Habits, and Degrees, p. 14.2.143. Black Coats, p. 147. Gowns, 148. Respect of Persons, Complimental Addresses, and your Servant, p. 163. Swearing before a Magistrate, p. 165, 166. Containing also an express Apology for the Quakers, p. 55.56. I quote from the second Edition.  
An ACCOUNT OF CHOCOLATA, by which he wholly obligeth Manking. [Pref. p. last.]  
An ACCOUNT of M. GREATARICK, who wrought real Miracles, p. 8.10. And did things that never man did, except Christ and the Apostles, p. 27. These miraculous things he wrought by the Temperament and Composure of his Body, p. 11. And ancient Miracles and modern ones have been wrought by the efficacy of a corporal Touch, p. 11. This of M. Greatarick did not indeed always succeed, and there were some Diseases, as well as some Devils, which even the Apostles could not cast out, p. 5.  
A CENSURE upon certain Passages contained in the History of the Royal Society, which he saith are impious and pernicious, p. 1. contrary to the Analogy of Faith and Scripture, p. 36. a Congeries of gross Untruths, tending to the Dishonour of God, and the Destruction of the Protestant Religion, introducing a Popish Implicit Faith, or something that in effect is the same, but attended with more ridiculous Circumstances, p. 40. directly contrary to the Constitutions of our Church, and better becoming a Socinian from Poland and Amsterdam, than a Divine of our Church, p. 53.  
Hath not Religion and the Church of England, think you, an excellent Champion, in this DEFENDER of M. Hobbs, Sir Hen. Uane, and the Quakers?  
But lastly, He hath writ a SPECIMEN of SOME ANIMADVERSIONS UPON THE PLUS ULTRA OF M. GLANVILL; in which he proves, That the Ancients were able to cure cut fingers; as particularly Podalirius and Machaon in Homer; and Galen compounded several Medicines to that purpose, as Diapalma, Tripharmacon, and another hard word, p. 3. and again 159. That 'tis a very difficult journey to the Moon, and a great way, p. 175. and many other things, that are as much to his purpose, as these, as will be shown in the Sequel. For the present I only say, concerning this Piece in general, That with a great deal of Noise and Labour, the Animadverter hath proved nothing; For all his Force is employed either against Castles in the Air of his own raising, or incidental passages that are little or nothing to the Cause I undertook, and of no concern to the main body of my Book.  
And yet I must confess that when I compare this Adversary with my other Antagonist M. Cross, I think there are acknowledgements due to him, for the Reading, and show of Learning, that I find in his Discourse; and I may say of it, as one did of an impertinent Disputer, that was very brisk and fluent in his Argument, Bene disputat, sed nihil ad rem. But the Papers of my other Assailant deserve not as much as this; For they contain nothing, but opprobrious Names, gross Falsehoods, and contemptible Puerilities; no Learning, nor any show of any, but such, as a Boy of 18 would despise.  
Thus briefly, and in general of the Writings of this Aggressor: out of Them I now come to give you some more particular Accounts of his Spirit and Temper. And because I resolve to abstain from all Expressions that look like the Rhetoric and Civility of M. Cross, and his Champion M. Stubb, I shall not give those hard Names to the Qualifications I discover, that every man else will think they deserve: But only make a kind and sober Enquiry after some of the remarkable Virtues he discloseth in his Works. I shall only insist here on two.  
And because he tells his Reader in the first Page of the Preface to his Light shining out of Darkness, [Edition the first] That HE IS ONE THAT DESIRES TO LIE LOW IN HIS OWN EYES, I shall begin these Inquiries by taking notice,  
(1.) OF his singular Modesty; This is exceeding eminent in every Leaf of his Writings: In his Attempts, while but a Boy, upon the Reverend Dr. Wallis, and M. Baxter; and now he hath made it more remarkable by his Assault upon the Royal Society His Majesty's Institution, and an Assembly, consisting of Persons of the greatest Honour, Gravity, and Learning, while he is yet but a young Country Physician; as he styles himself in his Preface against my Book, Plus ultra: And above all, it is notorious, what a modest man this is, in his early Oppositions of MONARCHY, and Proposals of a MODEL for the GOVERNMENT of three Nations, and Extirpation of those Ancient Laws, which had had been made and confirmed by the Wisdom of so many Kings, and successive Parliaments, in his Impugnations of MINISTRY, UNIVERSITIES, CHURCHES, HUMAN LEARNING, and all ORDERS, and CONSTITUTIONS whatsoever, as Popish and Antichristian.  
But let us take a view of his singular Humility and Lowness in his own Eyes, in some Expressions in his Writings; I shall recite a few Instances among numerous others, which for Brevity I must omit, by which you may judge, how he excels in this Virtue.  
In the first Page of his Book against Dr. Wallis in Defence of M. Hobbs, He expresseth himself to his Friend in these words, I have penned a further Discourse upon that Subject, which you may suppress from going any further, if you find that my early Repute abroad doth not call for the Publication, nor the Applause of the Ingenious, whose Praises were the more to be regarded, because they were directed to the Piece which was public, not the Author that was concealed. It seems he had writ an Anonymous Book, which, he tells the World, raised him an early Repute, and the Applauses and Praises of the Ingenious. Very modest! And as lowly is that other Saying, p. 5. If I find the Doctor produce more Grammars against us, I will allow him two to one, and venture my Reputation against his no Credit: Great Odds! M. Stubb' s Reputation, that early Reputation abroad against the no Credit of Dr. Wallis! He must needs be certain, that would lay such a Wager. Well! The Geometry-Professor of Oxford is a Person of no Credit, and the Young man of Christ-church attaqu'd and weakened it: This he tells us he had done, in his Preface, p. 3. He valiantly attaqu'd nothing, and made it as weak, as Water: And sooner he had done it, but for a good Reason; 'Twas long, saith he, ere my Laughter upon the reading of Dr. W. would permit me to use a Pen, ibid. And what should the man do, while the Fit of Laughter was upon him? As soon as he could for Laughing, he assures us, he prepared for Triumph. And being then rather to proclaim my Victory, than to gain one, I supposed I might have a greater time to prepare for Triumph, than had been otherwise necessary to the Dispute, ibid. p. 3. Well! But what need of so much Triumph, and such Preparations for it, if this Adversary were so ridiculous? He tells us in the words that follow, Nor do I now go about to Triumph over the single Doctor, (The Conquest is too mean) no doubt modest Harry! But over all those whose Interest or Ignorance may lead them to approve his Writings, who are numerous at least; and since the Vogue of the People will have them deserving too, I have thought them worthy the Passion of thy affectionate Friend and Servant. So he concludes to the understanding Reader: But that Friend of his may ask, that since the Approvers of the Doctors Writings are numerous, and they have the Vogue of the People for deserving too; How should it come to pass that He is a Person of no Credit, as p. 5. and a contemptible Adversary? as [p. 8. second Part.] If he had made his Address to the Courteous instead of the Understanding Reader, some of that sort probably might not have observed this Fit of Forgetfulness: And he that doth, must pass such slips over, or he'll find work enough for his Patience on this Account, as well as others, in the Writings of the Undertaker. But 'tis not my business to note any of these here; His Modesty and the Lowliness of his Mind, (for which he would have recommended himself to those meek ones of the Earth, Lambert's Army, and the Committee of Safety) are my present Subject: of these but an Instance o● two more.  
He tells us in his Preface to his Animadversions on my Book, p. 5. That The Comical Wits, (so he pleaseth to call the Fellows of the Royal Society) were so alarmed at the Specimen of his Animadversions on Dr. Sprat and M. Glanvill, that They employed all their Artifices to divert him: Great Sir GVY! how that Host trembles before Thee! How do their Spirits fail, and their Courage sink at thy Summons! How They weakly fly to Artifices to put by thy formidable Force, when they have not strength to stand before it! Well may They fear that redoubted Arm that hath slain so many Monsters; Antichrist, and all his Limbs, Monarchy, Churches, Universities, Ministry, and the rest: This Pigmy Troop cannot stand under one Blow of thy more than Herculean Club.  
Therefore the Cowards, mean Spirits, pitiful Mechaniciens, (as with valiant Despite he calls them) endeavour to wave the Combat by disingenuous Proceedings, ibid. contrary (it seems) to all generous Laws of Chivalry; They treacherously design (he tells us) not only upon his Fortunes, but Life: They cannot be secure while He is above ground. Well! But he knows his Advantages, and assures us that They are at his Mercy; The Obligation (as he saith) would be lost in sparing them, He resolves therefore to take the daring Counsel; and though they should oppress him by treacherous power, it would be said, That he fell their Victor and their Martyr, [ib. p. 5.] Thus dying Samson plucked the House upon the Philistims. And no doubt M. Stubb is as much a Victor, as he is like to be a Martyr. For, what a Conqueror is He in Title-Pages and Prefaces? With what ease doth he get Victories? Vidi, Vici; He only laughed at Dr. Wallis, and prepares for Triumph, as soon as the Merriment was over: He dispatched a Specimen of Animadversions against Dr. Sprat, and M. Glanvill, and presently the Royal Society are at his mercy; and I, for my part, am reduced to a Nonplus in his first Sentence, and designed for a Sacrifice to public Obloquy, in the second leaf of his Preface. It seems he hath the Wind of public Fame in a Bag, and can direct Reputation or Reproach as he pleaseth. The general Sense of Mankind depends upon his Pen, which is none of the common ones, to which from henceforth I am to be given up, as he threatens, p. 2. Now I see with how much reason he saith, That the Expectation of all men was impatient to see his Animadversions, [Pref. p. 7.] No doubt 'twas that they might know what they were to judge of the Virtuosos. He hath at last obliged Mankind with them, as he promiseth to do by his Observations about Chocolata, [Disc. of Choc. Pref. p. last.] and now he expects without Question, that the Comical Wits should be odious to the Kingdom, as he tells us he designed to make them. [Nonplus, Pref. p. 4.] The Kingdom, 'tis like, will love and hate as he would have it. He gives the Stamp of odious or amiable, and the Character is indelible.  
This, Sir, is a short Description of the modest man, that was so low in his own Eyes, when he stood before his Patrons of the GOOD OLD CAUSE. And from this remarkable Virtue of his we may pass to an Enquiry about another as eminent, viz.  
(II.) HIS Civility and dutiful Demeanour towards his Betters: of this He gives great Instances in his Expressions towards all sorts of Superiors. Concerning our KINGS he saith, That Their whole Succession was a continued Usurpation, [Pref. to the Good old Cause, p. 2.] Of the Glorious KING CHARLES' the MARTYR; That All his evil Council did ride upon one Horse, ibid. And adds, That the Patriots of the Long Parliament and Army executed justice upon Him. [Vind. against M. Baxter, p. 59] Our present SOVEREIGN he styles an Usurper, and mates him with Cromwell in the infamy of that Title; For speaking of the Day of the Tyrant's Death, He saith, It was famous for the Vanquishing of one, and the Death of an other Usurper. [against M. Baxt. p. 53.] And every one knows That was the third of September, the Day also of the King's Final Overthrow at Worcester. And in his Letter to an Officer of the Army, p. 14. speaking of a Cloud out of the North, which (he saith) was more dreadful to tender Consciences, than the Romish Inquisition; He adds, That in comparison thereof, the Return of Charles Stuart and his Bishops would prove a moderate Desire: In which Expression he thought, no doubt, he had raised the Dreadfulness of that Cloud to the most Hyperbolical Height possible, and much beyond the Comparison with the Inquisition. And whether that may not go for a Civility to his Majesty, (since He is returned by happy and miraculous Providence with his Bishops) which he prates of [p. 21. of his late Book against me] let the Reader judge. To set off the Advantages Aristotle had for the compiling of his History of Animals; he speaks of the greatness of Alexander, his Impatience to effect his Purposes, his Generosity in acknowledging Services, his Understanding what was done and omitted; And than our Author intimates That the Royal Society have not such a PATRON in the KING, as ARISTOTLE had in ALEXANDER: How much Respect and Affection to his Majesty was meant by this Comparison, let those think, that consider the approved Loyalty of this Defender of the Good old Cause.  
And having spoken of his Civility to our KINGS, (if you do not like that sort) I may here acquaint you, that he had another kind for Sir Hen. Uane, and his Accomplices in the Cause, which in M. Stubb's Opinion, was the most glorious in the World. [p. 2. against M. Baxt.] These conducted us in our Way to Freedom, p. 3. and a glorious Freedom they led us to, for by their Help we were delivered from the Norman Yoke. [Pref. to Good old Cause, p. 10.] And how heavy and intolerable that was, he expresseth [ibid.] in these words, I often communing with mine own Soul in private, use to parallel our Bondage under the Norman Yoke, and our Deliverance therefrom, to the Continuance of the Children of Israel in Egypt, and their Escape at last from that slavish Condition. This put him in mind to compare our Deliverers (forsooth) to MOSES, and 'twas not, he saith, One Moses, But many illustrious Personages, whose Memory (he prophesies) shall live, when that of Thrasybulus, Timoleon, Epaminondas, Brutus, Valerius, or any Worthies Greece or old Rome could ever boast of, shall cease to be mentioned. [against M. B. p. 3.] What a Seer was M. Stubb! Their Memories live, and will, no doubt, continue as long as the Records of Tyburn: And till all Trading fail there, Those Patriots of the long Parliament and Army, who executed justice upon the late KING, shall never cease to be mentioned. Thus he celebrates the Illustrious Regicides.  
And of Sir H. Uane he saith, That not to have heard of him is to be a Stranger in this Land; and not to honour and admire him, is to be an Enemy to all that is good and virtuous, [Vind. of Sir H. V. against M. B. p. 7.] and adds further, that he is one, whose Integrity, whose Uprightness in the greatest Employments hath secured him from the Effects of their Hatred, in whom his sincere Piety, Zeal for the Public, and singular Wisdom may have raised Envy and Dread. [ibid.] And in the following Page he assures us, That Sir H. hath discovered the most glorious Truths that have been witnessed unto these 1500 Years and more, in a manner as extraordinary; I mean (saith he) not in the persuasive words of Humane Wisdom, not in the Sophistry of School-Learning, not as the Scribes and Pharisees, but as one having Authority, and in the Evidence and Demonstration of the Spirit, viz. like Christ jesus, and the Apostles working Miracles for the Evidence and Demonstration of their Doctrines; So that here Sir Harry is advanced to a kind of Equality with Christ and the Apostles, as They elsewhere are brought down by him to a Level with M. Greatarick. [in his Miraculous Conformist] And now Sir H. Uane being a Person of such a Character, we need not wonder, That Respect should be due to him from all the World, as he tells us it is, in the Preface to his Vindication.  
And little less in his Opinion is due to M. Harrington for the Commonwealth-Model in his Oceana, of which, he saith, in the Preface to his Good old Cause, p. 16. I admire his Model, and am ready to cry out, as if it were the Pattern in the Mount. And [p. 26.] he declares his Judgement for the promoting M. Harrington's Model, In the Praises whereof (saith he) I would enlarge, did I not think myself too inconsiderable (an humble Fit) to add any thing to those applauds, which the understanding Part of the World must bestow upon him, (They must and can not choose, since M. Stubb hath professed to admire it) and which, as he goes on, though Eloquence itself should turn Panegyrist, he not only merits, but transcends. 'Tis pity but M. Stubb had made some Provision in his Elegy for the Change of times, as no doubt he would, could he have foreseen, That his Eloquence might have had an occasion to turn Panegyrist for Monarchy. The wary Modesty of M. P. had been worth his Imitation here; who concludes some of his immortal Poetry with this excellent Distich,  
This was the Opinion of William P. in the Year of our Lord one thousand six hundred thirty three.  
But who could have thought that a Nation delivered from the Vassalage of the Norman Yoke, would again have chosen a Linsy Woolsy Monarchy, [Vind. of Sir H. V. p. 42.] rather than the Pattern in the Mount? Who would have dreamt that we should have preferred Charles Stuart and his Bishops [ut supr.] to the PATRIOTS of the LONG PARLIAMENT and ARMY that executed justice upon the late King? [Vind. of Sir H. V. p. 59] That the same should befall us as did the Children of Israel after they had cast off Pharaoh ' s Yoke, [Vind. of Sir H. V. p. 3.] Yea, that at last, we should return not to Goshen, but the most dismal parts of Egypt, rather than proceed to our Felicity. [p. 5.] These things were so far from being likely, that notwithstanding all the Discouragements the Good old Cause met with, which are paralleled to those befell the Israelites in their journey, p. 4. yet our Prophetic Rumper heartens himself in these Words, I assure myself that these are but the Pangs of that Birth, in which we shall at last cry out, a Manchild is born, [p. 4, 5.] For Confirmation of which he adds, that God will not lose his own Mercies, and all is but as the wand'ring jews in the Desert, or as the going back of the Sun upon the Dial of Ahaz ten Degrees, which was a sign of Recovery to disconsolate and languishing Hezechias, p. 5. and so he grows confident of the final issue of things, and the Prisoners of Hope shall receive double Satisfaction, and the ransomed of the Lord shall return, ib. This is the man, Sir, that cries out in Astonishment at my Puritanism and Fanaticism [p. 11. of his Book against me] because I call some of the Aristotelian Doctrines, Heathen Notions.  
But I have not yet done with his Courtships of his Friends of the Cause; Those I have mentioned concern the GRANDEES and PATRIOTS: The People in common have their share also of his Favours, These he calls the good People, the Salt of this Land, [Pref. to Good old Cause, p. 32.] The faithful Ones, Pref. p. 30. The Honest Party, p. 31. The true Anointed Ones of the Lord, [Vind. of Sir H. V. p. 2.] Honest and faithful Souls, [Pref. to Good old Cause, p. 16.] and infinite more of such Eulogies he bestows upon them. But nothing of all this is Fanaticism, nothing like my Canting in calling some of Aristotle's Dictates, Heathen Notions. This brief Specimen I have given you of M. Stubb's best kind of Civilities.  
I shall now offer you some further Account of those of the First Sort. Dr. WALLIS you know, is a Person of great and deserved Fame for Learning both at home and abroad: upon that excellent man M. Stubb first fastened in a Defence of M. Hobbs against him; I had occasion before to touch some instances of his Courtships bestowed on this learned Doctor; then I promised more, and with the particular Quotations of those; This I intent now briefly.  
In the Preface He tells his Reader, That the Doctor is one, who hath so merited by his Scurrility and Obscenity, that his English Writings may become Appendices to Pasquil ' s jests, or the merry Tales of Mother Bunch, p. 1. The Doctor is one of his Comical Wits, no doubt. And p. 2. he saith, one of us two is grossly ignorant, viz. either Dr. Wallis, the man of no Credit, p. 5. or M. Stubb one of early Reputation abroad. p. 2. Let the understanding Reader judge which it is; and that he may not mistake, our Author kindly directs his Judgement, [p. 6.49. and second Part, p. 1.3.5.8.] In which and other places, he chargeth the Doctor with Ignorance, Want of Learning, intolerable Ignorance, and Ignorance in the Principles of his Profession: So that the Reader, if he be not grossly blind, must needs see which of them two it is that M. Stubb thinks to be grossly ignorant. And further to express his Civility and favourable Opinion of the Doctor, he saith, He hath afforded us nothing hitherto, but Falsities and Falsifications, p. 5. calls him peevish Doctor, p. 15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pigmy, p. 20. Witty-poll, p. 24. Quacksalver, and Mountebank, p. 25. Critical Bravo, p. 49. Tender-fronted Theologue, [p. 5. of the second Part] Contemptible Adversary, p. 8. Scribe among the Pharisees, journy-man to Adoniram, p. 9 Full of Impertinencies, Paralogisms, and Gibberish in Divinity; So notorious a Falsificatour and Teller of Untruths, so void of Humanity in this Contest, and ordinary Civility, That I can scarce hold (saith he) from telling you, You are of your Father the Devil, ib. And he goes on to mind the Doctor of his Pride, Ambition, and Disgraceful Speeches against the Godly Party, and that Remnant the Army, which under the Conduct of the Lord of Hosts upheld the Cause, ibid.  
Thus briefly of some Civilities towards Dr. Wallis, the First of those Comical Wits, whom M. Stubb undertook to make ridiculous and odious to the Kingdom, (to speak in his Phrase.)  
Let us see next with what Ingenuity and Fairness he carried himself towards M. BAXTER in his Defence of Sir H. V. against Him. This Reverend Divine was another of those he resolved to sacrifice to public Obloquy, as he hath done me, [Pref. of N. P.] But let us see what way he takes to do it; his old Method no doubt, and so we find it. Let us hear him Rhetoricate then; One that is no Scholar at all, not skilled in Latin, Greek, or Hebrew, not versed in Ecclesiastical History, or Philosophy, etc. But a mere Glow-Worm in Literature, who borrowed his Light from the Darkness of the Night, and the Ignorance of those he converseth with. [p. 32, 33. of the Pref. to Good old Cause,] Whiffler in Theology, p. 33. one that transcribed Aulicus, and the Grub-street Pamphlets to frame a Legend for the Catholics of Kederminster, p. 32. A Philistim, or Shimei, or Rabsha●●h, [Vind. of Sir H. V. p. 11.] whose Language against the Vanists may justly deserve that Reply of Michael to the Devil, THE LORD REBUKE THEE, ibid. Tedious, impertinent, p. 13. State-Tinker, p. 37. Retailer of other men's Readins, and Quoter of Quotations, p. 43. His Discretion cannot be so little, but his Abilities are less, ibid. He chargeth him with Ignorance, in the Preface to the Good old Cause; and (which is very pleasant) he saith, he remits it to others to demonstrate the Charge. And before I have done with him, I shall make him wish, he had taken the same Course, in reference to the Virtuosos. He saith, [p. 18. of his Vindication of Sir H. V.] That he may suppose M. Baxter is totally ignorant of Syriack and Arabic, and that his Skill in Hebrew is as little, which he refers to M. Robertson to prove, and thereupon he takes it for granted, insulting in these following Words, Dare He boast unto the World, what time he spent in Impertinencies, viz. Reading the Fathers and Schoolmen, p. 13. and yet be ignorant of that, which is almost the Unum Necessarium in his Function? viz. Hebrew. But why M. Harry must that be the almost Vnum Necessarium to M. Baxter's Function, which not one of the Fathers in the Nicene Council (whose Creed is so famous) understood? as you tell us in your Apology for the Quakers, [p. 85. of Light out of Darkness.] But Hebrew and other Language's shall be necessary or not, as the saying this, or the Contrary will serve his turn. And 'tis pretty to see how he chargeth M. Baxter with Ignorance in Syriack and Arabic, which, he saith, are of great Use for the Understanding the Scripture, [ibid. p. 18.] and yet implicitly affirms, [Quer. 13. of his Light out of Darkness,] That the Knowledge of Tongues leads us to many Senses of Scripture, and to put our Trust in Man: and again, [Qu. 18.] That the first Christians were ignorant of Humane Learning, and Heathenish Authors, and that it was not only the Effect of Julian the Apostates Malice, but Christian Prudence, that went about to keep the People of God from reading Heathen Writers: And yet these two Books, speaking such contradictory things, bear date the same Year; only indeed, the Designs were very different, and M. Stubb was to serve a divers Interest in them; in the one to recommend himself to the Quakers and other wild fanatics; and in the other to vent his Malice against M. Baxter: And things in his Divinity must be affirmed or denied, as there is occasion. He is still consistent with one Principle, Self; But never was yet steady to any other.  
Besides the Civilities mentioned, I might recite innumerable others; but I must hasten from this head: Therefore of some few more briefly. He calls Sir K. DIGBY, That eminent Virtuoso, the Pliny of our Age for Lying, [p. 161. of his Animad. upon Plus Vltra.] and yet p. 20. he lays much stress upon the Authority of Pliny. He styles the excellent History of the R. S. a nonsensical and illiterate History, p. 173. And Pr. p. 4. He saith, he observed the Tendency of it to be so pernicious, that, if the first Provocation (viz. that which he had from my Book.) had made him angry, he was now become obstinate, and he goes on, In that famed Work I encountered with so many illiterate Passages, that the Credit of our Nation seemed concerned in the Refuting it; Yea, he adds, that the Interest of the present Monarchy, the Protestant Religion, and the Emolument of each private Person was concerned; And when these were at stake, was it fit for M. Stubb to be silent? His Zeal for the Credit of the Nation, Monarchy and Religion would have destroyed him, if it had not had vent; He must speak or burst; And all this Zeal was kindled by a sense of Duty, (as we may believe) for he tells us, He ought not to be silent; and those that know him may think, 'twere impossible ●e should.  
But for an Instance or two more, DESCARTES his Book De Homine is ridiculous, p. 18. And the MATHEMATICIANS in a Cluster are reckoned with the Illiterate, p. 115. Let illiterate Persons and Mathematicians be swayed against plain Proof, by these Arguments. Any Arguments will sway Mathematicians; For They seldom if ever prove Metaphysicians, Religieuse, or otherwise of tolerable Ratiocination; p. 17. For the Geometricians either reject as false, frivolous, and indemonstrable those Reasonings and Studies according to which Humane Affairs are regulated; or else ignorantly run into Whimsies and fantastical ways of arguing, ibid. And therefore the Mathematics in general are concluded less necessary, and inutile, ibid. What pity 'tis now that Aristotle should be a Geometrician? as p. 18. And how come the Mathematics to be so inutile, as they were just now, p. 17. when in this 18th. 'tis said, That Aristotle supposeth his Scholars not ignorant in Geometry, since without that Knowledge they could not understand his Analytics, nor that part of his Ethics, where he illustrates justice by Arithmetical and Geometrical Proportions. Well! The Methods of Ratiocination laid down by Aristotle are general, as to public and private use, p. 17. Those Methods cannot be known without Geometry according to Aristotle himself, p. 18. and yet Mathematics are inutile, p. 17.  
For M. Stubb to rail at that in one Book, which he cries up and defends in another, we must allow him; He affirms and denies what comes into his head next to serve his present Spite and Interest; and we are not to look for any more Consistency in his Books, than in his Dreams: But some would expect that the same Treatise, or at least the same Leaf should be consistent with itself: This may chance to happen, but he hath good Luck when it doth; For he tells us in his Prefaces, that he sends away some sheets before others are written, and a man may judge by his Writings that he no more remembers what he penned last Week, than what he dreamt last Night was Twelvemonth.  
But the most pleasant Compliment of all is behind. In the Preface to his Book against me, p. 3. He calls the Virtuosos, Prattle-boxes, and p. 1. mentions one, who, as 'tis usual (saith he) with that sort of Virtuosos, instantly usurped all the Discourse, and, no doubt, he made haste; But where did that wonderful Virtuoso dwell, that could usurp the Discourse, when M. Stubb was present? Certainly 'twas one of the most nimble among the Prattle-boxes, there cannot be such another in the whole Set: One would wonder what M. Stubb should be doing, when the Virtuoso usurped the Discourse? He tells us this was done at a Person of Honour's Table, and that it was at the very Beginning of Dinner, it appears, in that the Gentleman usurped the Discourse instantly; So that we may judge that M. Stubb's Teeth would not give his Tongue leave; But as soon as that was at Liberty, he paid the barbarous Opinionator, p. 3. for usurping his Province. If M. Stubb had hated all Usurpers, as he doth the Usurpers of Discourse, we had never had a Defence of the Good old Cause. But why should he be so much concerned about this sort of Usurpers? Their Discourse can no more be heard in the lurry of his, than a soft Voice can, amidst the Clutter and Noise of a Mill; So that he hath no need of the Wax and Wool he prescribes against the buzz of the Prattle-boxes; his Tongue will better defend his Ears from that danger; (though I cannot promise that it will never expose them to other and worse Hazards) And he is never like to meet such an Usurper of Discourse, as the Virtuoso at the Person of Honour's Table did; except the Doctor of Warwick could meet Harry Stubb of Christ-church.  
Thus I have given some Account of the rare Civilities of the Courtly Anti-Virtuoso, and upon review of them, I cannot but wonder, that this man, who had so early a Reputation abroad, as he told us, and was so applauded by the ingenious, should sully his Fame by the Choice of such pitiful Adversaries: Dr. Wallis was ignorant, grossly ignorant, intolerably ignorant, ignorant in his own Profession: M. Baxter, no Scholar at all, not skilled in Latin, Greek, or Hebrew, Ecclesiastical History, or Philosophy, a Whiffler in Theology, and Glow-Worm in Literature: Dr. Sprat's History, Illiterate and Nonsensical; The Virtuosos, Prattle-boxes, and Ignoramus's; and I, ignorant of every thing.  
What means this Man of Renown to choose out such despicable Adversaries? Why doth he disparage his Puissance by employing it against such feeble Foes? what poor Quarry are these for such a Noble Bird of Prey? He told us, heretofore, that it was Zeal for the Cause; and now 'tis the Interest of Monarchy, Protestant Religion, the Church of England and Universities, that have engaged this public-spirited man to so great Condescensions; and how much reason we have to believe, that these were the true Motives to his Assaults, we shall see by and by.  
I shall now shut up this Head by taking notice, what a fit Second this is for M. Cross: They are nobile par, and extremely alike in sundry particulars of their Genius and Performances; only it must be confessed, that M. Stubb hath as much the more Learning, as he is guilty of the less Scurrility; And indeed the Civilities of this kind, which the Physician of Warwick hath bestowed upon all his Adversaries, are not equal to those my other Antagonist hath liberally given me singly. And though I pass immediately from looking over the Collection of Compliments I have presented you from M. Stubb, yet when I cast my eyes from it upon M. Crosses Papers, (a Transcript of which I have) I cannot choose but bless myself, and cry out in astonishment. For there is scarce a word of Reproach in the Dictionary, but he hath found it for me; yea he hath made divers that are span-new, to serve his purpose, and ventured upon Barbarisms to miscall me by, when all the usual Names of Disparagement and Infamy were spent. But I shall have a fitter place to reckon with that Billingsgate Orator. I return to his Patron M. Stubb; and having given you a short Representation of his Spirit and Genius, out of his own published Writings, I come next to  
(II.) HIS Designs; of these I shall briefly give his own Account out of his latest Books. They were (if we may believe him) the securing and promoting the Interest of the present Monarchy. [Pref. against Plus Vltra, p. 4.] Protestant Religion [ibid.] and the Church of England, [Title, Pref. etc. against Dr. Sprat.] School-Divinity, [p. 1. against Plus Vltra.] Universities. [p. 1.2.13.] In order to the carrying on these great Intendments, He designed further to make the Virtuosos really ridiculous and odious to the Kingdom, [Pref. p. 4.] to avenge his Faculty upon M. Glanvill, and by Sacrificing that Virtuoso to public Obloquy to establish general Repose and Tranquillity. [Pref. p. 3.] Smile not o Tres-haute & tres-agreeable Comediants. [Pref. 6.] M. Marchamont Stubb is the PILLAR of MONARCHY, and the PATRIOT of PROTESTANT Religion; But you must not ask how long he hath been of this Loyal and Religious Inclination? He hath no longer a Concern for Sir H. Vane, [Disc. of Choc.] You may choose whether you'll admire Him now, and yet be no Enemy to all that is good and virtuous; nor is he concerned for the other Patriots of the long Parliament and Army, that were to be so famous, when the Worthies of Greece and old Rome should cease to be mentioned: ut supra, Tower-Hill and Tyburn have altered the Case. The Good old Cause ceaseth to be the most glorious in the World; and Monarchy to be the Norman Yoke, more intolerable than the Egyptian Bondage: Our Kings are not now a Succession of Usurpers; nor is Their Government the most dismal Part of Egypt: We hear no more of Charles Stuart and his Bishops compared to the Inquisition; nor of executing justice upon the late KING. No, the Interest of the present Monarchy, and the Church of England are now the Cause, the glorious Cause, (and next to the Good old one) no doubt the most glorious that ever was. M. Politicus is better informed, his Eyes are opened, and now Monarchy may be as good a Government as M. Harrington's Model, that was so like the Pattern in the Mount; and General MONK may be as good a Patriot as Sir H. Vane, and the Rumpers. Thus we hear Sir Hudibras is turned zealous Royalist; and our Sir. Marchamont will pay the Comical Wits for the Prejudice They do the present Monarchy and the Church of England.  
HOW like it is (1.) that the Interest of Monarchy should be one ground of M. Stubb's Quarrel with the Virtuosos we have seen already; or if it do not yet fully appear from what hath been recited before, give me leave to propose to your further Consideration a Paragraph of his in the Beginning of his Vindication of Sir H. V. p. 1.2.  
The Age (saith he) wherein we live, hath been all Miracles; and the coming forth of the Woman out of the Wilderness hath been attended with so many Wonders, that a pious Heart can never want employment in its Contemplation. We have seen, and our Eyes bear witness of the Actings of our God, the overturning of a Monarchy settled upon the Foundation and Usage of many hundreds of Years, strengthened by what Humane Policy could contribute to its Establishments, and what of Buttress a complying Clergy could assist it with out of the Pulpit; Yet have we seen a Change so brought about by our jehovah, that he may in extraordinary Acknowledgements be proclaimed wonderful Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, Prince of Peace: We have seen the most glorious Cause in the World, accompanied with no less Success, and the Lord in his Mercy to us, and justice to them, hath bound our Kings in Chains, and Nobles in Fetters of Iron, such as wherewith they had formerly oppressed the good People of this Land. This Honour have all his Saints, (Psal. 149.9.) Vengeance hath he returned upon their heads, and their own Shame hath covered them. The true anointed ones of the Lord have appeared, for their sakes hath he rebuked Monarches, and the former have repeated the Fruits of that Holiness, and Sacriety, whereunto the latter vainly pretended.  
In this Strain he goes on, in imitation of the reformed Style of those Times, which is not Canting, but the holy Language of the anointed ones, for whose sake our King was bound in Chains, and our Nobles in Fetters of Iron. And are we not to believe that this Anointed Rumper is a Zealot for the Interest of the present Monarchy? We have his word for't, and he hath told me, that he can say more for Monarchy than all the Virtuosos: No doubt! It would be very much, if M. Stubb could not say more for any thing than the Ignoramus's. He knows the man, that useth to brag, what he can say for MAHOMET, and what an Inclination he hath to write the Life of that Brave Fellow; And if Turcism were among us, I know where the Alcoran would have a Defender, and one that can say as much for it, as for Monarchy, or the Church of England, if he may be credited himself; but of that no more now.  
We have seen some things whereby we may judge, how dear the Interest of Monarchy is to our Anti-Virtuoso; and how much Reason we have to believe that to be one ground of his Quarrel with the Royal Society.  
LET us inquire next, (2.) how probable it is, that he should be kindled against them by the Consideration of the Church of England and Religion.  
There was a time, you know, when the Church of England was in a worse Condi●ion, than it is in now; and Religion in a more ruinous Posture. Independents, Anabaptists, Fifth Monarchy-men, and Quakers were as formidable People to both, as the Virtuosos; and all things were fallen under their destructive Power. What did this pious Vindicatour of the Church of England and Religion in that unhappy season? No doubt, his Zeal burnt like fire; and he was sensible then, as he is now, [Pref. p. 4.] that he ought not to be silent. Then it was that his Light broke out of Darkness, that disclosed Truths little less admirable than those Sir H. Vane discovered, that were the most glorious that have been witnessed to these 1500 Years, and more, [ut sup.] They are proposed modestly in Queries, for he tells us, They are from one who desires to lie low in his own eyes. But the Testimonies and Proof are all for the Heterodox Part, for which he declares he had the most esteems ● and that he had a tender Regard to those, who made the Subject of those Queries their Assertions; These passages make part of the Preface to the first; but are in the Conclusion of the second Edition, which I now use. We shall see in these Queries, how he showed his Friendship to Religion, and the Church of England in the Time of their greatest Extremity.  
The first Query is this,  
Q. 1. Whether there be any certain or peculiar Name in the New Testament, that signifies a Minister? or any Name whence an Office may be convincingly inferred? If there be not, (as there is just Cause to doubt) whether the present Ministers are not to blame, while they pretend to an Office and Function grounded upon Divine Right, which hath no other Foundation, than the Hay and Stubble of Humane Invention. p. 12.  
In the second Query thus, (they are too large for me to transcribe all)  
Q. 2. Is it not an Act of Arrogance in them, who would be the Apostles Successors in ordinary,— ordinary Ambassadors from the most High, to assume a Name of greater Latitude than that of Apostle, or Ambassador extraordinary? or at least is it not as absurd, as if the Ant should assume the single Name of Animal; and the Lackey that of Servant. p. 3, 4.  
Query 5. Thus.  
Q. 5. Whether the present Ministry, (supposing them generally Presbyterians, or Episcoparians) do not pretend to be Ministers of the Church Catholic? whether there be any mention of such a Church in Scripture, or in any ancient Creed of the first Ages? and whether Luther did not place in stead thereof in his Creed the Christian Church? whether any body can tell what is the determinate meaning of that Word? whether the Ordainers and Ordained now-adays deal conscientiously in giving, or receiving, and acting really by Virtue of a Power from and over the Catholic Church, whilst the Existence and Signification thereof is so controverted amongst themselves and others? p. 19  
Q. 6. Whether Ecclesia (which is a Word signifying a Church) be not a Law-Term deduced from Free-States, in which Commonwealths, the supreme Popular Assembly acted organised by the Archon and Proedri (as a Church form and presbyterated by a Minister and Elders) which did not rule but preside, p. 27.  
Q. 7. Whether such a Sense of the Word Ecclesia, or Church doth not unchurch all the Parochial Churches in England, and unminister all their Ministers? ibid.  
Q. 8. Whether the Ministers do well to derive their Succession unto Christ by the means of Antichrist? p. 29.  
Q. 9 Whether the Arguments of the first● Reformers about their Vocation do not justify any, that shall take upon them to preach? p. 52.  
Q. 20. Whether the first Christians had any Churches, or did not assemble only in Private Houses? whether their Want hereof can be attributed to their being under Persecution, since they never made that Excuse for themselves to the Pagans, who objected it to them? p. 106, 107.  
Q. 21. Whether Christianity itself be not termed Heresy in Scripture? Whether Tertullian do not frequently call the Christians a Sect? and whether the Christian Emperors do not so likewise in their Constitutions even against Heretics? whether the Meeting-Places of the first Christians were not termed Conventicles? p. 107.  
Q. 22. Whether if there were Heresies in the Apostles days and Schisms, it doth follow that there are any Heretics and Schismatics now, when there are n● Apostles?— p. 108.  
Q. 23. Whether they used in the Primitive times to bury in Places such as we now call Church-Yards? and whether the introducing of such a Custom had not a superstitious Original? p. 110.  
Q. 24.— Whether, if to preach publicly be to teach, as it is now practised, the Apostles did ever teach publicly? p. 112.  
Q. 25. Whether the Division into Parishes was not introduced by the Pope Dionysius? and whether the Ancient Christians paid Tithes? if they did, whether they did not pay them as Alms? ibid.  
Q. 29. Whether the Predecessors of the Protestants, and those who have so honourable a mention in our Books of Martyrs, and other Writings for witnessing against Popish and other Antichristian Abuses, did allow of Tithes, and their Divine Right? p. 120.  
Q. 30. Whether they had the Use of Bells in the Primitive Times? and whether the Bells in England that remain ever since the Reformation, have not been popishly and superstitiously Christened? p. 138.  
Q. 31. Whether it were not an Act of Superstition in former times to build Churches and Chapels in the Form or Fashion of a Cross? whether it were not a Sin of the like Nature in Ancient Times to build their Church's East and West, that so the People might bow and pray towards the East?— And whether both these Superstitions have not been renewed, and practised lately in one of the Reformed Colleges of Oxford, viz. Brasennose College, as in the Margin. p. 139.  
Q. 42. Whether the Ministers do well to go in black, or the Universities to command it? p. 147.  
Q. 43. Whether there were not of old amongst the jews a sort of men called Cheramims, or black Coats? whether those were the People of God? and whether the Translatours of the Bible did well to conceal the true meaning of this Word by putting another for it, or the very Word itself in English Letters? p. 148.  
Q. 47. Whether those things which had a good Original and Use (if they be not still necessary or commanded by God) when once they have been abused to Idolatry, and Superstition, are not quite to be abolished? p. 149.  
Q. 48. Whether the Singing of David ' s Psalms be a part of Divine Worship? whether that Practice was introduced in England for a spiritual End, or only to preserve the Estimation and Knowledge of the laudable Science of Music? p. 151. elsewhere called Fiddling. Q. 41.  
Q. 50. Whether it be not a very great Abuse put upon the Independents, to say that they or their Tenants came from Amsterdam? Do not the Doctors that are got among them, their Stickling for the upholding the present formalized University, and a Tithe-receiving Ministry, (whom yet not long ago they styled abominable) and Parish Priests, and their Demeanour toward the Quakers in Oxon (agreeable to a persecuting rather than a persecuted Spirit) sufficiently acquit them from having any Affinity with those other Precious Souls? p. 156.  
Q. 53. Whether it be a peculiar Practice of our modern Anabaptists and Quakers, that they will not swear, no, not before a Magistrate? or whether it were not an Opinion of the Waldenses Antecessors of the Protestants? p. 166.  
What sort of Persons these Queries were intended to gratify, 'tis very easy to apprehend. But lest those Friends he had a mind to make, should be so dull as not to perceive it; He writes an express Apology for the Quakers beginning at p. 55. continued to p. 92. In which he tells us, that he durst not condemn the Quakers, whether they reprove openly or walk naked through the Streets, denouncing Woes and Menaces, p. 91. and he goes on; It is a sufficient Argument for me, that what God bids is not undecent, nor do they any thing for which they have not a like Example, and (possibly) resembling Commands. Did not the Protestant Martyrs so disturb the Popish Priests, as the present Ministers are disturbed? and that when the Laws were against them? Yea many of the first Christians dealt so with the Heathens and their Priests. ib. And again, p. 92. If Balzac or Rutgersius had written his Character of the Ancient Christian, the Quaker would not have stood in need of an Apology.  
Whether these Passages, and the Discourse were more intended to recommend the Quakers, or to make the first Christians, Protestants, and Martyrs, contemptible and ridiculous by the Comparison; Let those that know M. Stubb, and have ever heard him discourse about Religion, judge. For my part I am satisfied. 'Tis a pleasant Passage and to the same purpose, which I meet in his Vindication of Sir Hen. Vane, p. 36. He tells M. Baxter that it was ignorantly said of Him, That the Quakers had no being in the World till a few Years ago: and in contradiction to it, he saith, As to the Generality of their Opinions and Deportment I DO AVOW it out of as sure and good Records, as any can be produced, that they can plead more for themselves for the first 270 Years, than M. Baxter for the present Orthodox Religion laid down in the SAINTS EVERLASTING REST, or the CONFESSION of the Assembly.  
You may please to mark that he speaks not of any particular Opinions of M. Baxter and the Assembly, which have less to be said for them out of primitive Antiquity, than the Quakers, but of their Religion. And when M. Stubb hath proved what he hath here Avowed, men are like to have as good an Opinion of Christianity, as he can wish: And how good a one that is, I am loath to call in the Vouchee he citys for M. Cross, viz. general Fame, to testify. He declares it too frequently in the whole Contexture of his Light out of Darkness; and since, in his Account of Greatarick, he gives hint enough of the Degree of his Faith. Christ jesus, and his Apostles appeal continually to their Works, those miraculous ones they performed, as evidencing the Divineness of their Commission, and the Truth of their Doctrines; and M. Stubb tells us, [p. 10.] That all Religions have had their real Miracles; and so let them dispute, or fight it out as they can, Miracles must be tried by Truth, not Truth by Miracles, [ibid.] But how the Truth shall be tried, viz. that of a Divine Commission, or Authority: 'tis not for the Interest of one of his Principles, or rather of his no Principles, to tell us. And when he hath taken away the Testimony of the Spirit in Miracles, he knows well enough what will become of Christianity: This he endeavours here, by many very odd Suggestions. M. Greatarick did things miraculous, [p. 8.] and these he performed by the Temperament and Composure of his Body, [p. 11.] So that Healing Miracles are the Effects of the Effluvia of a particular Ferment, [p. 11.] And so Christ Jesus showed nothing of Divinity in curing Diseases by his Touch. Yea, M. Greatarick is mated with Him, and the Apostles, [p. 26.] He did the things that never man did, but Christ and his Apostles; He cured Diseases by the Temperament and Composure of his Body, [ut sup.] but no man ever did so besides; only the Son of God, and his Disciples had the Privilege. And yet [p. 10.] this in express Words is plainly contradicted; for we hear there of others that did the same things with Christ jesus, and M. Greatarick, The Alexicaci, Salutatores, or Bensedevios', that cure by anointing with spital, and by breathing and stroking of the Patient. [p. 10.] And in Turkey also and afric they have Persons of the like Qualifications, [ibid.] But 'tis nothing for M. Stubb to affirm Contradictions, and I wish that were the worst could be justly laid to his Charge; I have a great deal more to say of his Friendship to Religion, which I keep for a Reserve. He tells us, p. 15. of his Book against my Plus Vltra, That Mahomet taking advantage of the Brutal Lives, and Ignorance of the Catholics depending upon the Patriarch of Constantinople, did advance the Sect of Christians called Mahometans: I wish some do not think that a certain Defender of Religion and the Church of England, is a Christian by the same Figure as are those Disciples of Mahomet. If a man of Learning, and tolerably in his Wits endeavour to make the first Christians, Martyrs, and Reformers like the Quakers in their Opinions and Deportment, He cannot be supposed primarily to design the Crediting those distracted Enthusiasts, but to vilify all Christians, except some of M. Stubb's sort called Mahometans; and our Defender of Religion knows well enough that the Testimonies he allegeth to prove those sick-brained People to be like all the best Christians, will prove as much, that the best Christians were like Them; and so a more desperate Enemy than the Quakers is gratified: How far he intended this, let those conjecture, who have heard of his Kindness and Concern for M. Hobbs: And how far he designs the promoting the Interest of Religion, and the Church of England, let the most charitable man alive judge upon the whole.  
ay, but (3.) he tells us how much he is for School-Divinity, and how far some great matters of Faith are concerned in it; we derive great Benefits from Controversal Divinity, for the Quieting the Conscience, and Convincing our Adversaries; and whoever hath any sense of these must detest the Enterprise of M. Glanvill, [Non Plus, p. 1.] This He did because he had a Value for the Peace of his Conscience, which is to be settled by School-Divinity.  
But how different from this was his Opinion of it, when he writ against M. Baxter, Then School-Divinity was apt to create everlasting Disputes rather than Rest, and made no part of the Rest of the Primitive, whether Christians, or Antichristians; these are his Words, [p. 18.] M. Stubb had another way to quiet his Conscience at that time, but now School-Divinity is the only Expedient.  
And whereas in the same first Page of his Book against me, he tells us, The Distinction of the Trinity, of Essence, and Personality, the Hypostatical Union of the two Natures in our Saviour, and the meritoriousness of his Death (which depends thereupon) are undermined with School-Divinity. In that he writ against M. Baxter, he saith of it, That it is an upstart Study, unknown to the purer times, modelled and professed by that Order, which now manageth the Inquisition, and was at first erected for the suppressing the Truth in the Albigenses; [p. 13.] M. Stubb in his last Book greatly applauds Metaphysics, if he can find any Distinctions in that Learning to solve his own Contradictions, he shall have my Vote for the greatest Metaphysician in the World. He doth so directly and in terms every where almost affront himself, that I cannot possibly write more point-blank against him, than Harry doth against Stubb; and some think, that if he be let alone, the next time he scribbles he'll reduce even his last Book to a Nonplus, and confute this also, as he hath already done by most of his other Writings. The Truth is, M. Stubb hath wanted an Adversary to appear publicly against him, and therefore he hath challenged, and provoked all men that came in his way; but those he hath assaulted have been of Opinion, it seems, that 'tis no good fight with Dray-men in a Puddle, and therefore have received his Dirt and passed by: This, no doubt, hath troubled him much, and that he might not want Exercise, and Employment for his Humour, when no body else would undertake him, he hath fallen upon himself, and tried his Fists one against another. But these Remarks are only ●n passant. To return.  
School-Divinity creates Everlasting Disputes, rather than Rest, and is an upstart Study modelled by those that managed the Inquisition, and erected for the Suppression of Truth; when M. Baxter lays any Claim to it; and presently it supports Christianity, and affords the Benefits of quieting the Conscience, and convincing Adversaries; when the Virtuosos show less inclination for that sort of Learning. We may judge by this what a Zealot M. Stubb is for School-Divinity.  
And yet, that we may see a little further, How probable it is that the Interest of this sort of Knowledge did contribute to inflame him against me, and the rest whom he calls the Comical Wits; Let us cast our eyes into his Light out of Darkness; He there recites several Testimonies out of Luther and Melancthon against it, [p. 93, 94, 95, 96, etc.] viz. Melancthon saying, As for Universities we need not trouble ourselves at them, the very School-Divinity, which they uphold, shows that all such Schools are Heretical. p. 93, 94. and M. Stubb adds, [may not one upon the like Conviction speak as irreverently of Oxford or Cambridge?] He citys Melancthon further calling the Universities the Dwellings of Lies, Priests, Monks and Schoolmen; Pharisees and Sadducees, and giving the Epithet of wicked to School-Divinity, [ibid.] And as the Articles of Martin Luther, he gives us these, 1. That Scholastical Divinity is a misunderstanding the Holy Scripture and Sacraments, and hath exiled us from the sincere and true Divinity. (2.) When the School or mock-Divinity began, then was the Divinity of the Cross of Christ rendered of no effect, and all things became perverted. (3.) It is now almost 300 Years since the School-Divines have corrupted the Scriptures, to the incomparable Detriment of the Church. [p. 95.] To this he annexeth Melancthon's Apology for Luther in Opposition to the Censure of the Sorbonists against those Articles, containing much to the same purpose, spoken with all Contempt and Vehemence imaginable against that Divinity; In which he saith, that if once it be admitted, there is nothing safe, nothing sound in the Church of God, The Gospel is obscured, Faith extinguished, Free Will and good Works introduced, and instead of professing Christianity we become not Followers of the Law, but Adherents of Aristotle.— [p. 96.] M. Stubb concludes their Testimonies thus, Believe it, Reader, if thou art of this judgement, thou hast the most glorious Martyrs, the most renowned Christians, and as Learned Men as any to defend thee, [ibid.] And therefore his Query is, p. 95. Whether School-Divinity be not a novel thing, slighted and condemned by Learned and Godly men in all Ages since it was first introduced? If it were not, in M. Stubb's Opinion it deserved to be so, for he calls it the jargon of the Schoolmen in his Preface against Dr. Wallis, p. 2. where also he tells us of the Burlesque of the Fathers, and the Gallimaufry of Critical Learning.  
Thus we see how serious also we may believe him to have been in his Designs for School-Divinity.  
BUT (4.) the Universities and their Learning are much beholden to him; and he writes against the new-fashioned Philosophers, because it was a work necessary to the Universities and all Learning. [Non plus, p. 2.]  
Now because M. Stubb pretends himself a Defender of the Universities, as well as of Monarchy and Religion; and would fain expose the Royal Society, and the Favourers of that Institution, as Enemies to those ancient Nurseries of Knowledge, I shall inquire briefly, what Reason there is to think, that the Virtuosos have any Enmity to the Universities, or that M. Stubb hath any Friendship for Them.  
As for the First, whatever may be suggested by those that are prompted to think amiss of Them either by Malice, or Vnacquaintance with their Designs, There is certainly no good Pretence for the Censure. For They have done nothing to the Universities Prejudice, nor spoken any thing to their Disparagement; They declare upon all occasions their Esteem for those learned Foundations, and endeavour to vindicate their own Institution from being any ways prejudicial or offensive to Those; The greatest part of them have been Members of the Universities, and some at this time have eminent Relations to Them. The very way of Knowledge They are in, cannot well be improved to any great purposes, without the preparative Academical Studies; And these Philosophers acknowledge general Notions necessary for the regulating and using particular Observations and Inquiries; Upon which accounts I must pronounce, That 'tis either Spite or Ignorance, that creates and foments jealousies in the Universities, of an Innocent as well as Honourable Assembly, that loves and respects them heartily, and no way interferes with Them or their Concerns, but I dare say would be most ready to serve Them in any of their public Interests. Of this Inclination (If I may not mention the glorious Gift of our most munificent and Learned ARCHBISHOP, an Illustrious Member of the Royal Society, to the University of Oxford) yet I may give the Instance of the most Noble the Lord HENRY HOWARD's Favour to the same University, in bestowing upon It those rare and celebrated Pieces of Antiquity the Marmora Arundeliana, with which the Area of the Theatre is adorned, and the affectionate Kindness of that learned and excellent Person M. Evelyn in his effectual Solicitations to procure them: And you know, Sir, that both that Illustrious Lord, and this ingenious and accomplished Gentleman, are Members of the Royal Society, zealously concerned for its Interests.  
I might mention further, what Care is taken in the History of the Society to clear It and Its Designs from all thoughts of Its being hurtful to the Universities, and their useful Learning: He that hath a mind to know, may see there himself; and he that is resolved he will not be informed, is not like to be convinced, though I should transcribe that ingenious and satisfactory Apology.  
As to what concerns myself, M. Stubb and his Admirer M. Cross are resolved that I shall go for an Enemy to the Universities, say what I will; They both know, what frequent and public Professions I have made of the great Honour I have for those famous Schools of Piety and Knowledge; particularly in the Entrance of the Letter concerning Aristotle (which M. Stubb saith he hath answered) They may find the highest Expressions of Love and Zeal towards the Universities, which were within the Compass of my poor and narrow Invention, and my solicitous Endeavours to defend myself from the vile Suspicion of my being guilty of so base an Ingratitude, as these ingenuous Adversaries would fain fasten on me. 'Tis true indeed, I have opposed the Peripatetic Physiology, and made some remarks on Aristotle; But when I have done thi●, I have declared also, that I intended only to persuade men off from implicit Adherences to Aristotle's bare Word, and Authority, not to discourage the Reading of his Works, or receiving any useful Informations from Him: To dissuade capable and ingenious Spirits from fixing upon the Peripatetic Notions, as the immovable Foundations of Truth and Certainty, without enquiring into God's Works, or any other of the Methods of Natural Knowledge, not to dishearten the Youth from studying those Hypotheseis, the uses of which in the Universities I have acknowledged. So that the Academical Education is not at all concerned in what I have said, and intended only for men, who were past those preliminary Studies. To this purpose I have spoken in my Defence against the Learned White, in my Letter concerning Aristotle, and also in my Plus Vltra: If, for all this, I must be reckoned as an Enemy to the Universities, who can help it? But let M. Stubb, and his Confederate M. Cross think what they please, I care as little what they think, as they do what they say; and as little for what they say, as for the Ho, Ho, of the next broad-faced Bird, that sits in an Ivy-bush: And, I believe, most that understand them value their Thoughts and Sayings at the same rate, as I do. But because there are those that do not know this rare pair of Authors, and so may be in danger of believing them; I solemnly protest that I have a just and most sincere Esteem for those Venerable Seats, and Fountains of Learning, The Universities; and do most cheerfully own, and am ready to celebrate the great Advantages they afford for all sorts of Knowledge, and I verily believe that the other Members of the Royal Society have like Sentiments of them.  
But now whether Their Defender M. Stubb be so much their Friend, as those their pretended Enemies and underminers, is to be our next Enquiry; In the Management of it I assure you (as I did once before) that I shall not fly to Fictions and bold Slanders after the manner of this Antagonist and Legendary M. Cross, but (as I have done all along) take accounts from his public Writings. Let us consult then his Light out of Darkness; and in that we shall see his Affection to the Universities, in a season when They needed no Enemies, viz. in the short Reign of the Medley-Iunto, that consisted of those whom M. Stubb would have had our perpetual Senators, Independents, Anabaptists, Fifth-Monarchy-Men and Quakers, [ut supra.]  
His 32d. Query in that Book is, Whether the Primitive Christians had any Universities, or other Schools of Learning, than such as Origen did catechise in at Alexandria? And he concludes his Citations thus, Nor indeed have I ever heard of an University of the Albigenses, or Waldenses, and Bohemians, p. 139. Again,  
Qu. 33. Whether Ancient Times, (and those not very ancient neither) record any more than that of Bologna, Paris, and Salamanca? and whether Christianity at that time were not of farther Extent, than the Kingdoms those stood in? p. 140. And  
Qu. 34. Whether it were not the Design of the Reformers in King Edward the sixth's days to put down Universities? whether the Dean of Christ-church had not a Design to reduce Oxford to one or very few Colleges? p. 140.  
Well! If the Primitive Christians, and the Predecessors of the Protestants had no Universities; Ancient Times, since them, had but four; And the first Reformers among us designed to put them down; What must we think our Friend of Universities would have his Patriots conclude? The Answer to this Question will be clear enough in the following Queries.  
Qu. 35. Whether the Rise of our present fashioned Universities and University Habits was not from Dominicans; an Order instituted by the Pope to suppress the Waldenses those Predecessors of the Protestants? whether this be the Spot and Attire of God's Children? and whether they have not the Spirit, as well as Garb of Persecutors, and man of Sin? [p. 142.] His Master's answer, No doubt; and so down with this Limb of Antichrist.  
Qu. 36. Whether the Institution of Doctoral Degrees be not novel and accounted Antichristian by the Reformed Churches in Scotland, France, Holland, Switzerland, and the Calvinists in High Germany? And whether they have any in those Countries, or any constant peculiar Habits in their Universities? p. 143.  
He answers, That Foreign Divines have told him, That the Reformed Churches esteem them as Antichristian, ibid. and adds, That the Degree is as Popish as the Divinity whereunto it refers: A Divinity erected in 1220, and which is acknowledged to have been the Subversion of Christianity. A Doctor that is no Teacher, he is a dumb Dog, an insignificant Piece of Formality in the University, reserved by the Reformers (as it were) upon such grounds as Constantine in the demolishing of Statues, preserved some Heathen Idols, that Posterity might know what Beasts their Fathers had worshipped. [p. 143, 144.] O excellent Patron of Universities! How did his anointed ones, those precious People of the Cause, hug him for this goodly Language?  
Well! but if this be not enough, he is resolved he will have their Favour; Therefore have at Antichrist again.  
Qu. 37. Whether there are not in our, as well as other Antichristian Universities beyond Sea, the same or rather more popish, idolatrous and superstitious Habits, Ceremonies and Customs? Nay, whether they do not rather exceed them in Pomp, as well as Number? His Answer to the Queries follows thus;  
Here I am ready to cry out, Come and see! Come and see! Not John the Baptist in the Wilderness, nor John the Divine in Pathmos; but our Theologues in their Pontificals at Oxon, view their Habits, their Ceremonies, their Processions, the Respect due to them by Statute, and you will find that PETITION from the well-affected in Oxon, was not groundless, which desired the Abrogation of them. [p. 145.] We must give the Lie to general Fame, [as he speaks, Non Plus p. 20.] or believe that M. Stubb was the Author of that Petition: I remember there is as rare stuff in it as any here, but I have not that Paper by me, nor do I need it; I have more than enough, if I were to write a Volume of this Proteus. But he goes on [ibid.] Come and see the Scarlet-Whore represented in a Glass multiplying Doctors: Come and see the Difference between Presbytery and Popery; since they apply that Expression to Democracy, so often, let me style them in comparison of the Romish Antichrist, the more many-headed Beast; if the other strive to make the Kings of the Earth drunk with the Cup of Fornication; These catch at Crowns and half-Crowns. Make good Sense of this Piece of Wit, who can: I cannot guests, except this be it. Presbytery is worse than Popery, because Rome only makes the Kings drunk; Presbytery makes Them pay their Forfeit, which it unconscionably raiseth from Groats to Crowns and half-Crowns. But let that go, he proceeds, As for the lost Sheep of Israel, the poor and the weak whom God hath chosen, unless the Salary be good, they seem to be under as great a Prohibition from Preaching to them, as the Apostles from going to Bythinia, [p. 145, 146.] But he hath not yet done with the Popery and Antichristianism of our Universities, and their Fashions; Therefore it follows.  
Qu. 38. Whether the University Hood be not the Product of the old Monkish Melote spoken of by Cassian de Institutione Monachorum, and grounded upon the superstitious Exposition of that place in Heb. 11. They wandered about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Sheepskins? whether it were not a Religious Habit, it being a Badge of Monkery according to Cassian and Hierome, ibid.  
Qu. 39 Whether it be not a superstitious and detestable Exposition of that Scripture, Stand fast having your Loins girt, etc. To accommodate it to the Episcoparian Girdles, with which they tie in their Canonical Coats? ibid.  
Qu. 40. Whether it be not a pretty Foundation for the Oxford Doctors to stand booted and spurred in the Act; because there is mention made in Scripture of being sh●d with the Preparation of the Gospel? p. 146.  
Q. 41. Whether the University of Oxford do well to give for their Arms the Book with seven Seals? Is not that a gross Abuse of what is laid down in the Revelations: as if the seven liberal Arts (two whereof are Grammar and Fiddling) were typified by those Seals, which none were worthy to open, but the Lamb? [p. 146, 147.]  
Q. 46. Whether any of the Ceremonies and Habits now used in the Universities had a very good Original, or have been employed to a good Use since? p. 149.  
Q. 47. Whether those things which had a good Original and Use (if they be not still necessary or commanded by God) when once they have been used to Idolatry, and Superstition, are not quite to be abolished? ibid.  
Here is the Upshot and Conclusion of the Matter: YOU know and own this glorious Truth, O ye our Deliverers from EGYPT, and from BABYLON, from all Soul-Oppression and Conscience-distressing Persecution. [Vind. of Sir H. V. p. 57] And you know that Universities are some of the Hay and Stubble of Humane Invention, and not commanded by God; Nor are they necessary, The Primitive Christians and first Protestants had them not; Soulsaving Truths are not taught by the Words of Man's Wisdom; Christ chose illiterate men for Disciples; The Gospel of St. John is as bad Greek as the Quakers English; [Light out of Darkness, p. 87.] God hath chosen the Foolishness of this World to confound the Wise. [ibid.] You see, O ye PATRIOTS those Schools of Humane Learning are not necessary, Yea, they were erected by Popery, and are Antichristian, Popish, Superstitious; Down with them therefore, down with them to the Ground; Destroy Babylon, and the Garments of the Whore, away with the Idols, dumb Dogs, and Beasts, that our Fathers have worshipped  
This is the Sense of the whole, and a grand Expression of M. Stubb's Friendship to the Universities.  
BUT he is a Zealot, no doubt, for the Learning that is taught there, so he pretends by his eager Oppositions of what he calls the mechanical Education, [Non Plus, p. 13.] now contradistinguished, as he tells us, from the university-learning, this he here recommends and celebrates; and would fain persuade his Reader, That the Royal Society have a desire to triumph over the ancient Education of the Kingdom. [Pref. p. 6.] All which are mere Chimaeras and malicious or proud Devices, to effect his purpose of rendering the Virtuosos odious, as he declares it, [Pref. p. 4.] or the other Design of dignifying Himself as the great Patron of ancient Learning. For the Royal Society doth no way disturb or meddle with university-learning and Education: The Art of Reasoning, the Validity of Consequences, The unfolding of Critical Syllogisms and Fallacies, the general Doctrine of Topics, the Moral Philosophy and Foundations of civil Prudence, Civil and Ecclesiastical History and Languages, which M. Stubb himself reckons up as the Learning of the Universities, [p. 17.] will proceed all in the same way, notwithstanding the Study of Experimental Philosophy; which though it may use some of them, as they are already taught, yet it contradicts none. And by the same Reason, that M. Stubb suggests the Mechanical way to be prejudicial and contrary to the university-learning, he might say, that All Practical Arts, as Chirurgery, Architecture, Limning, and the rest, have an Antipathy to those Academical Studies also: such a Logician is M. Stubb as not to distinguish between contrary and divers: What an impertinent thing is proud Malice?  
But let us see how much M. Stubb hath declared himself a Friend to university-learning, and all sorts of Literature, in the time when they were despised, and their utter Extirpation zealously attempted. Concerning the first Sort, Languages, he Queries thus,  
Q. 13. L. D. Whether the Knowledge of Tongues leads us to one Sense of Scripture or many? Whether all such dealings lead us not to put our Trust in Man? Can any matter of Faith be built upon the Strength of a Criticism? [p. 97.] and Critical Learning is called a Gallimaufry, [Pref. against Dr. Wallis.]  
Q. 18. Whether the first Christians were not against Humane Learning, and Heathenish Authors? And whether it was more an Effect of Julian the Apostate ' s Malice, or Christian Prudence, that went about to keep the People of God from Reading Heathen Writers? [p. 101.] For the Affirmative of the Query he allegeth divers Testimonies; and concludes, The Greek Church is owned for a true Christian Church, and highly magnified by Protestants in Opposition to the Pope, yet neither They nor the Picards, or Waldenses in Bohemia did value Learning, so far were they from esteeming of it, as a Prop of true Religion, p. 105.  
This was the way to recommend Learning to the Religieuse of those times, whose Favour our Anti-Virtuoso then courted. And even in this last Book, he hath given proof of his Kindness to one sort of university-learning, Mathematics; They are less necessary and inutile, [p. 17.] and a little before Geometricians seldom, if ever, prove Metaphysicians, Religieuse, or otherwise of tolerable Ratiocination; but are said ignorantly to run into Whimsies, and Fantastical Ways of Arguing. This is the great Friend and Patron of Learning.  
BUT what doth he think of Aristotle, who M. Cross tells us in his Book, was Artium Partiumque Uir, Fundator Artium, Maximus Hominum? His Credit our Author kindly undertakes in part to readvance. [Title p. to Non Plus.] And he did it, when he Queried in his Light out of Darkness, p. 105.  
Q. 19 Whose Sepulchers do our Vniversitymen build up, whilst they uphold ARISTOTLE's PHILOSOPHY, which hath been so generally condemned of late, and heretofore by Popish Assemblies, and particular men of that way; as also by the FIRST CHRISTIANS, AND HONEST MEN OF ALL AGES? In his Discourse upon this Query He tells us, That whatever it be now adays to urge Philosophy among them, viz. the Primitive Christians, was either to be an Heretic or Gentile. He goes on, But I refer my Reader to La●noy's Discourse,— there he will find Aristotle not only condemned by the Fathers, but burnt by after-Ages,— And in the following words he extends the Apostle's Prohibition to the condemning of all Philosophy whatsoever; If any shall say, That the Apostle by prohibiting Philosophy and vain Deceit, doth rather establish than prejudice what is true, I shall not only desire that Person to ascertain me of what is true in Philosophy; but further demand, whether this dealing in making that distinctive, which is exaggerative, be not like to what Gregory de Valentia allegeth in the behalf of that Worship that is paid to the Host in the Mass, That the Apostle in condemning of abominable Idolatries, doth not prejudice Idolatries which are not abominable, ibid. p. 106. And so farewell this Sort of university-learning with the rest.  
FOR this Query and its Appurtenances M. Stubb falls under the Corrections of his Friend M. Cross. His Book I told you, could not be Licenced, and therefore I should not have published any passages of those Papers, but that he hath endeavoured to do it himself in all Places, and will, no doubt, take it very kindly to be quoted, especially on an occasion, in which his Zeal for Aristotle may appear: I shall therefore gratify him, and show how M. Stubb's Insolence against the Vir Artium and Partium may be chastised with M. Crosses Rod, with which he ●irks me and the rest of the Hogs of Epicurus' s Sty (as he calls the Dissenters from Aristotle.)  
Quantum sudatum è quot Uini Amphorae epotae nocturnis Comessationibus ab hoc Spermologo [me scilicet] (ne dicam reliquis ab Epicuri Harâ Porcellis) in Aristotele exterminando, exsufflando, epotando, exsibilando?— And again a little after Quantum sudatum, epotatum, eructatum, ut Vir hic, Semo potius & Heros, Philosophiae, temporibus longè doctioribus, facilè Princeps; Stipes, Stultus, nihil audiat? you may perceive how much this man knows me, or how little he cares what he saith, by his telling me so much of Fuddling; If I had been any ways guilty of this Fault, M. Cross, of all men, should have taken care how he had accused me.  
But he goes on, and inquires by whom it is that Aristotle is so hissed at, drunk down and exploded; Nam & hoc Solatium est & Augurium, à Fungis Combibonibus, severae Eruditionis Osoribus acerrimis summis; Such are all the Deserters of Aristotle: and hence the good man prophesies a happy issue to that Philosopher: Ergo Senex hic, aevi sui Decor, sequentium Stupor, reviviscet, nam revixit multoties: Erit tandem rumpente se Epicuro, Democrito, Gassendo, Cartesio, erit quod fuit, summorum & eruditissimorum Virorum judicio, Philosophiae rursus facilè Princeps: Artium Partiumque Vir, Artium quotquot ingenuarum Liberarium Fundator, de Naturâ & Philosophiâ optimè meritus, & quo minor est quisquis maximus est Hominum,— hay for Aristotle! Here 'tis like M. Stubb would have asked, how all this was to be proved; But that is no sit Question to be put to M. Cross, he never useth to give himself that trouble. M. Stubb charged M. Baxter with Ignorance, and tells us, he would leave it to others to prove it; and M. Cross makes Aristotle a Demigod, and the Anti-Aristotelians more than Demi-brutes, let him prove either that can; Proof is a thing out of this Disputers way, he hath a Maxim ready to stop you, if you expect it, Contra Negantem Principia— But let us hear him talk on in his Dream.  
An tamen unquam disputabitur, ut me juvene a●xiè disputatum est Oxonii, nempe, An Aristoteles plus debuerit Naturae, an Natura Aristoteli? Did ever any man else hear of such a nonsensical and impious Question, than which nothing can be fancied more ridiculous, except it be the second, which follows, Vt & An quispiam sit scripturus Librum de Salute aeterna Aristotelis, ut olim Colonienses? Are not these worshipful Inquiries, and much beyond those of the Virtuosos? What would a man give to be informed, Whether Aristotle owes more to Nature, or Nature (which indeed is God) to him? or whether any one will write a Book to prove his eternal Salvation? The Questions are deep, and the modest man will not undertake to determine them, but adds, in Catalogo Rerum Curiosarum repono. I wish we could see a Catalogue of the rest of the things, which he thinks most worthy our Inquiries; Hitherto the World have troubled themselves about Trifles, 'tis great pity but M. Cross should be the general Proposer of Matters fit for Philosophical Disquisition.  
But he proceeds in his Zeal, and saith of me, That I arrived to that degree of Madness, as to write contra Aristotelem, quem nemo unquam vituperavit, nisi cui pro Cord Pepo est, nemo contra scripsit sobrius, nisi forte insanus; Very good! no sober man, except he were mad; such sober madmen were several of the first Fathers, and divers great Moderns; His Friend will tell him honest men in all Ages condemned that Philosopher, and some burned his Writings; How bedlam m●d were that sort of sober men? But he hath not done vindicating Aristotle in his way, viz. calling all those Names that descent from him, he sputters on against me.  
Hic est ille, qui scripsit prius contra Aristotelem; quid Impudentiae & Stultitiae ausurus non est, qui jamdudum perfricuit frontem, & scripsit contra Aristotelem? What a rare Defender of Aristotle is this? O brave Aristotle! Aristotle a Demigod, a Hero, Prince of Philosophy, a Man of Arts and Parts, Founder of Arts, Greatest of Men! O the Hogs, Drunkards, Vain Eablers, Dolts, Pot-Companions, Haters of Learning that explode and throw off Aristotle! O the Madness of one that writ against Aristotle, against whom no sober Person ever writ, except he were a madman! Here is one that writ against Aristotle, what Impudence and Folly will he stick at that writ against Aristotle? Are not these, Sir, strong Arguments, and is not Aristotle well defended? This I assure you is the Sum of what M. Cross saith for him, and the Reasonings of his Book throughout are of the same sort. I have not picked these Passages, as an Instance of ridiculousness to expose him, but took them up in my way, for a little Mirth sake, and to give you a taste of this Author's way of arguing, which is every where the same. And I have done it the rather, because the Learned Dr. Casaubon in his Letter to Dr. du Moulin about my PLUS VLTRA, accuseth me [p. 7.] of reproaching my Adversary for his Love to, and Esteem of Aristotle; By this I would let that Reverend man see, that it is not my Adversaries Love and Respect to Aristotle I deride; but the ridiculous Expressions of his fond Admiration, which he sufficiently discovered in that Conference, that was the Occasion of my Book.  
But enough of M. Stubb and M. Cross as to this particular; 'Tis evident enough that the former hath not that Kindness for Aristotle he pretends, to serve his Designs against the modern Philosophers; and the other can say nothing on his behalf, more than what Freshmen use to talk of that new great Name they are taught to admire; whatever Love he hath for Him.  
And now as to what concerns the modern EXPERIMENTAL PHILOSOPHERS, I dare say they are slandered much by those their Adversaries, that represent them as such Enemies to Aristotle; For I know They have a due Esteem of him, and allow Him an eminent place among the wise Men of Ancient times; They acknowledge the helps he hath afforded us, and pay Respects to his Writings, as they do to those of other venerable Authors; They refuse not, nor discourage the reading of his Books, nor do they reject any of his Discoveries, that may aid us in the Uses of Knowledge or Life; yea, they embrace them cheerfully, and are glad when any useful Truth hath such an Authority to recommend it. Thus much I dare undertake for all the Philosophers of the Practical way, of whom I have any Knowledge. But to make Aristotle a Dictator in Philosophy, and to give him an absolute Empire over our minds; to admire him, as if in him were hid all the Treasures of Natural Wisdom and Knowledge, and to be scrupulous in acknowledging that he was ignorant of any thing in Nature, as Dr. Casaubon saith Fabricius was, [in his Reflections on my Plus Vltra.] such Fondnesses as these, those Philosophers by no means approve, but look on them as extremely prejudicial to the Advance of Knowledge, and the Respect that is due to other excellent Authors both of elder and later times.  
And I think by their modest Judgement of that Philosopher, they rather secure the just Praise and Regard to Aristotle's Authority that is his due, than any way diminish it. For those that raise the Commendations of any man much beyond the Proportion of his Merit, and lay more Stress upon his Authority, than it will bear, do indeed give an occasion to the Contempt of such an overvalued Person, and the degrading him below that Respect, which his worth might claim: So that in earnest those doting men that talk such childish, incredible things of Aristotle, as I lately quoted from M. Cross, are his real Enemies, and expose him to Scorn and Opposition; whereas the modern Philosophers, who give him just, but less excessive and flaunting Applauses, do more really serve the Interest of his Name; And what I particularly, have writ against Him, hath been designed chiefly, to lessen the Hyperbolical Admirations of the little enslaved Sectators; not to discourage any from the Study of Aristotle, or a modest value of his Authority. And that my Sense of Him and his Writings was the same then, that I declared but now, to be the experimental Philosopher's Inclination in reference to that Philosopher, may be largely seen in my Defence of the Vanity of Dogmatizing against that famous Adversary the Learned Albius, especially, p. 7. I have spoken there to the same purpose; but 'tis too much for my Laziness to transcribe.  
AND now, Sir, methinks, upon the Review of the whole it seems to me very pretty, that one, who laboured so industriously, and inveighed so bitterly against Monarchy, Ministry, Churches, Universities, Aristotle, and all Humane Learning, when some of these were actually overthrown; and All in imminent Danger of Ruin; that put on the Fanatical Usurpers (that needed no Spur) by gross, canting Flatteries of Them; and deadly, malicious Reproaches and Oppositions of those great concerns of the Kingdom, to complete the Destruction They had begun; That this man, I say, should talk, as if he were the only zealous Person for the Interest of Monarchy, Religion, Universities, and old Learning, and the only Patriot that could defend them, is a Confidence more than usual; and such, as very well becomes M. Stubb. And on the other hand, 'Tis as pleasant to hear this Writer representing a Society, that is a Royal Institution, and consists of a great Number of the most loyal Nobility and Gentry; and several of the most venerable Fathers of the Church, Archbishops, Bishops, and divers other Ecclesiastical Governors, and men of Eminence among the Clergy; I say, 'tis very fine, to hear M. Stubb setting out such an Assembly as an Enemy to Monarchy, Religion, Universities, and Learning: And we must believe upon the word of the Anti-Virtuoso, That a great part of that Body are driving on Designs destructive to the Interests of Religion and the Kingdom; and that the Loyal and Religious men of the ROYAL SOCIETY are so dull as not to perceive it, while the more sagacious Doctor of Warwick sees those dreadful Projects clearly, and therefore cannot be silent, but must warn the Nation of the Danger.  
Upon the Consideration of the whole Procedure, one would think that M. Stubb had so great an Ambition to gain the Applauses of the envious and ignorant (who are glad to see any thing that is worthy railed at and opposed) that for their sake, he is resolved (yet further) to expose himself to the Scorns of the sober and judicious. And really he writes at that rate, as if he were to defy the intelligent part of Mankind; and designed only to be read by those that would believe any thing he said at a venture, because he writes against the Virtuosos. The Truth of this Censure will appear, when I come to my particular remarks upon his Book; which I shall presently do, when I have taken a little notice of His other Designs, which are yet behind, viz.  
TO represent the Uirtuosis as ridiculous and odious to the Kingdom; and to sacrifice me to public Obloquy.  
To effect the former, He clapped his own Cap on the Virtuosos, and calls them Prattle-boxes, and then without any more ado, They are ridiculous: He describes them by the other part of his own Character, as Persons of irreligious and dangerous Inclination, and then they must be odious. And when the Virtuoso-Mastix hath proved that these are not Compliments, but that his Comical Wits are so really like Himself; all men, no doubt, will say, that They are as he designed to represent them.  
But if M. Stubb be no better at making Characters, than he is at giving Names, the Virtuosos, I doubt, will leave him without their Company, to enjoy the Honours he projects for them: For why of all things, must they be called the Comical Wits, I trow? How came this to ramble into the man's head? Of all the Names that courtly M. Cross bestowed on me, there is scarce any that suits less; And yet now I remember, 'tis not improbable but that M. Stubb might borrow this from that great Repository of Titles; For that Master of Ceremonies calls me, and all things I do, at every turn, Romantic; And when he had studied a long time to know what I was good for, at last he finds this; that I might be capable of serving a Stage; Hence 'tis like his Friend took the hint, and the Virtuosos are presently dubbed the Comical Wits; and the Tres-haute and tres-agreeable Comediants.  
But it may be too this was intended for a Figure, Lucus à non lucendo: For there are no men more averse to the professed Drolls; none that value their Wit less, than those that are most concerned for the Institution and Designs of the Royal Society; nor hath any sort of Enemies been more injurious to those generous undertake of the experimental Philosophers, than the Buffoons and Comical Wits that have still endeavoured by their malicious Flouts to render them contemptible in Coffeehouses and Taverns; and have filled the Land with ridiculous Stories of their Designs and Performances.  
Yea, These are the men, that M. Stubb gratifies by his Book, which (to give him his own Language) will please none, but shallow-brained and Comical Wits. [p. 115.] How shallow-brained, I think those of the common Drolling sort, and how prejudicial to Religion, Government, and Knowledge, I have sufficiently declared in a short Discourse at the end of my CONSIDERATIONS about WITCHCRAFT, called A WHIP FOR THE DROLL, FIDDLER TO THE ATHEIST. If M. Stubb think fit to look into that Appendix, he will see reason there to take me out of the Number of the Comical People; And if I sometimes make a little merry with him in these Papers, 'tis because I would try, whether I have any of the Comical Faculty in me or no; If I have, 'tis fit that he who first let me know it, should have it first employed in his Service. And indeed M. Stubb is such a pleasant Object, as would make a man Comical, though his Genius be never so little disposed to that jollity of Humour. The sick man that was dying of an Impostume, broke into a loud Laughter, when he saw the Ape set the grave, gold-laced Nightcap upon his Head; And 'tis very hard for one to contain, that sees M. Stubb puts on a Pretence for Monarchy and Religion. If he thinks there is any thing of Rudeness in the Application of that ridiculous Passage, let him thank his Friend M. Cross who gave occasion to the Comparison; That renowned Author spends a great deal of serious pains to prove that I was an Ape, or very like one, and made such Philosophical Observations upon the Nature of that Animal, that I could not choose, when I lately read it, but think of a certain Anti-Virtuoso; and that Thought run into my Pen before I was aware.  
But I have done with this Design of our Projector also, to make the Comical Wits ridiculous and odious: How far he hath effected it, he will see when Time and Experience have acquainted him, what he hath made himself.  
THE last of his great Intendments that I took notice of was, To sacrifice me to public Obloquy to settle the general Repose and Tranquillity. Pref. p. 3.  
I think I have generosity enough, or at least I desire so much, as to be content to be so sacrificed upon such an Occasion: But will that do it? will the Sacrificing me, is he sure, establish the general Repose? I fear there are other Comical Wits will be left, when I am gone, to disquiet such peaceable men, as this: and except M. Stubb will assure me, that all the World will be quiet when I am fallen, I will not be sacrificed by him; Yea, though he should Nonplus me in ten Title-pages more, yet, I doubt, I shall disturb him, if he goes on to settle our Tranquillity in the way he hath begun. Well! but public Obloquy is hungry, and must have a Sacrifice to feed it: M. Stubb takes hold of me, and resolves I shall be the Offering, He spits at me, and scratches me with his Nails, and I fall a Victim without any more ado; But let him look to it, and make sure of that, or else public Obloquy will catch him by the back, and make this her Priest, himself the Sacrifice.  
But without Allegory, M. Stubb designs to expose me to public Reproach, and to make the Virtuosos odious and ridiculous, and so one would think that reads his Book. How he hath demeaned himself in it for the effecting of these, and his other mighty purposes, I come to consider next, and it was the Third general Head of which I proposed to treat. I cannot now fall upon the particular Examination of all things in his Work, but shall only give you those sudden Observations I made upon a cursory Reading, the more large and punctual Confutation shall follow.  
(III.) THAN as to the MANAGEMENT of his DESIGNS, I take notice,  
I. That the pretended Reason of his falling on my Book, is very idle and impertinent. Forsooth, a Gentleman at a Person of Honour's Table avowed, that all the Ancient Methods of Science were vain and useless to a Physician, and did not as much as contribute to the Cure of a cut Finger, [Pref. p. 1.] This the Gentleman avowed to be the positive and dogmatical Averment even to a Syllable of M. Glanvill and other Virtuosos, p. 1, 2.  
M. Stubb's Beginning brings to my mind what I heard last Year at Oxford; Being there with a learned and ingenious Knight at the House of a Doctor of Divinity of great note, upon the occasion of some Discourse concerning our Author, The Doctor, who knew him very well, spoke to me to this purpose, M. Stubb, said he, is so great a— That if he tell you he was at such a Gentleman's Table where this or that Discourse happened; you are not to believe as much as that he knows that Gentleman, or ever saw him. I should not have mentioned this Passage, but that it fell so pat in my way; whether we have the more reason to believe the Doctor concerning M. Stubb, or M. Stubb concerning the Gentleman's Discourse at the Person of Honour's Table, I shall not here dispute: But for Peace sake I shall be so courteous at present, as to suppose that there was such a Rencounter, and that M. Stubb ought to take as an instance of Candour, and a very large Charity. Be it so then for once, There was an Admirer of the Institution of the Royal Society that talked so in the Anti-Virtuoso's Company: but he paid him for his Insolence, and showed as he tells us, That the Ancient Philosophy had not been so sterile in reference to Physic, but that it had been the Foundation of the Healing of cut Fingers, and green Wounds. [Pref. p. 2.] And thus he sacrificed that Virtuoso to the Obloquy of the Table: But yet his Wrath was not appeased so, he goes on;  
I still retained a Sense of the Injury I supposed done to me, and all rational Physicians by this barbarous Opinionator; I determined to avenge my Faculty on M. Glanvill for this, [p. 3.] and so I am to be made a Sacrifice as well as the Chymaerical Gentleman. Here was the Provocation I gave M. Stubb, and this Book his Revenge.  
One of the First things h● falls upon in it, is to make it appear by demonstrative Proof that the Ancients could cure cut Fingers, [Book p. 3.] for here he received the Injury, for which he determined to avenge his Faculty. He proves this mighty Truth by many Testimonies and great Instances, Podalirius and Machaon in Homer could do it; Hypocrates writ about Wounds and Ulcers, and therefore, no doubt, he could cure cut Fingers; Yea, Aristotle was descended of the Line of Aesculapius, and 'tis not to be questioned, but he could prescribe a Plaster for such an occasion. And how little the Ancients stood in need of Modern Discoveries and Aids to cure cut Fingers, any man may judge that knows, what Scribonius and Galen have written, and how this last Author compounds several Medicaments to that purpose, [ibid.] Those Galenical Medicaments for cut Fingers he there also names. And he assures us farther [p. 159.] That he that shall proceed according to the Notions of Elements, etc. in Compliance with the Ancients, shall not stand in need of any novel Method from the Virtuosos to salve a cut Finger. Forsooth!  
This, Sir, is one of the first Blows he gives the Victim, which must needs fall under such fatal Strokes. But what a serious impertinent is this?  
The man, no doubt, can prove by force Of Argument, a Man's no Horse. Hudib.  
He puts me in mind of a certain Preacher, that I once saw, who, at a Funeral, very largely undertook to prove, That All men must die, This he did in M. Stubb's Method, by Instances and Authorities: Adam died and Eve too, as did Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, jacob and Rachel, the good men and the good Women; so it befell Moses and Aaron, David and Solomon, Cyrus and Nabuchadnezzar; and so he went on to reckon up who had died, till his Glass hastened him to his Authorities; where he showed his Learning, and proved his Proposition by the Testimony of Poets, Philosophers, and Fathers; and by that time he had done with Virgil and Ovid, Aristotle and Plato, St. Bernard and St. Ambrose, 'twas time to make an end. M. Stubb writes at the rate that the Reverend Man preached. For can he think in earnest that either I, or any body else ever believed or said, That None of the Ancients could cure a cut Finger? or, if I had, was such an Assertion fit to be learnedly disproved? If one should affirm, that the moon is a green Cheese, or that M. Stubb is sound in his Head; would a wise man argue seriously against such an absurd Asserter.  
'Tis true indeed these words are mine, The unfruitfulness of those Methods of Science, which in so many Centuries never brought the World so much practical beneficial Knowledge, as would help towards the Cure of a cut Finger, is a palpable Argument that they were fundamental Mistakes, and that the Way was not right, [Plus Ultra, p. 7, 8.] But what? Do I speak of the Methods of Physic, Chirurgery, or any practical Art? If I had done so, M. Stubb had had reason: But it was nothing thus, I had not to do with any thing of that Nature, but was discoursing of the Infertility of the Way of Notion and Dispute, concerning which, I affirmed, that it produced no practical useful Knowledge, viz. by its own proper native Virtue; and my Sense was the same here, as it was in that Expression of my Vanity of Dogmatizing, [p. 132. of Edit● second.] 'Twould puzzle the Schools to point at any considerable Discovery made by the direct sole Manuduction of Peripatetic Principles. So that I never dreamt of denying, That those Philosophers of elder times, that went that way, had practical beneficial Knowledge; Yea, or that they were Discoverers of many excellent and useful things; But that they learned that Knowledge from the disputing Methods of Physiology, or made their Discoveries by them; These were the things I denied; and I have the excellent Lord Bacon with me in my Negative, as I may have another occasion to show. I grant therefore to M. Stubb (since he is so zealous to secure this Honour to them) That Machaon and Podalirius in Homer could cure cut Fingers, and that Galen might make Diapalma and other Medicaments for that purpose; but unless he can prove they did it by the direct Help and Conduct of the Notional disputing Physiology, he will not sacrifice me to public Obloquy here, nor say any thing in which I am at all concerned.  
You see, Sir, we are like to have great matters from an Undertaker that begins with a ridiculous Cavil; and the general Repose and Tranquillity, you may think, will be well established by one, that maliciously perverts an innocent Sentence, to make it an occasion of a Quarrel.  
Thus he enters hopefully; and if I might pass a general Censure on his Work, as he doth upon my Letter concerning Aristotle, [p. 11.] It should be this, That 'tis an elaborate, spiteful Impertinence: This I now say, and if I do not prove it, let me be in your Esteem, the same that my Adversary is in the Opinion of all sober men. It will I suppose sufficiently appear to you in the following Observations, and particularly in this next, viz.  
II. HE doth not at all by any thing he hath said, prejudice the main Design of my Book, which was, to show, That Knowledge hath been highly advanced in these later Ages, beyond its Pitch in more Ancient Times, and consequently, that there is no reason we should acquiesce and sit down in the Dictates of Aristotle, or any other of the ●lder Philosophers; but being encouraged by many excellent Helps and Advancements, we should endeavour its further improvement. I gave instances of the Increase of Knowledge in Chemistry, Anatomy, Arithmetic, Geometry, Astronomy, Optics, Geography, and Natural History; and showed what Advantages we have from modern Philosophic Instruments, and from the Institution of the Royal Society; of all these I discoursed as far as I thought necessary to my purpose, without arrogating to myself great ma●●ers in any of those sorts of Knowledge, or designing Ostentation of Learning, as M. Stubb accuseth me, [p. 2.] But my aim only was to prove, and to illustrate my Subject by such of the main Instances of modern Improvements as I could collect; and of these I gave an Account in the way of an Historian from Authors of note, though I seldom name them, but shall hereafter in my Answer in those particulars, where M. Stubb attaques me; and I hope, give you to see, that I affirm nothing from mine own head in reciting matters of Fact, in which Fiction would be impudent and ridiculous.  
Thus I have told you the Design of my Book, and the chief things treated of in it. And now one would think, that nothing less should be worthy the Courage of such a valiant Wight as M. Stubb, than the main Subject. You will expect, no doubt, he should attempt to prove, that the Ancients had greater Advantages for Knowledge, than latter times; that the things I mention as Modern Improvements were known to remote Antiquity; or that they are not Helps for the Increase of Knowledge. This should have been the Work of one that promiseth such mighty things; that was resolved to readvance the Aristotelians, and to make the Virtuosos odious. But he hath not thought fit to attaque the Comical Wits this way; He designed to make them ridiculous, and for that he thought something less would serve, than confuting them.  
He falls upon the Errata of the Press, and then crows over the Author of Plus Vltra; He carps at some little things about the Philosophical Instruments, Chemistry, and Anatomy, and in his Fancy breaks them to pieces, and then forsooth, all the other parts of my Book, which he hath not touched, like Glass-Bubbles fall to Dust: He cavils at some by-passages that relate not to the main Business, and instantly Plus Vltra is reduced to a Nonplus: He confutes his own Imaginations, and then wonders at my Ignorance: He takes the Credit of the Inventions I mention from the Authors to whom I ascribe them, and gives it to others of the same Age, or not far from it; and so the Ancients are readvanced, and the Virtuosos undone.  
This is the man of great Deeds, that will set up, and pluck down what, and whom he pleaseth; that will erect the Credit of those Authors, who are so happy as to have his Favour, and lay the Royal Society (as he elegantly and modestly useth to express himself) as flat as a Pancake. But that those mentioned are all the Exploits he hath done, notwithstanding his Boasts, I shall show under the next head, to which I shall pass presently, after I have taken notice,  
That the other Anti-Virtuoso M. Cross, durst not attempt as much as this. No, He found an easier way, he betook him to his Dunghill, and charged me stoutly from thence, he picked little critical Quarrels with the Latin of a single sheet of mine, written for a private purpose, and containing nothing of the main Controversy; He endeavours to show largely that I am like an Ape; and that I have not the knack of writing solemn Epistles; For my Plus Vltra, he saves himself from the Trouble of answering it, by telling his Reader in short, that the modern Improvements I mention in Chemistry, Anatomy, Arithmetic, Geometry, Algebra, Geography, Astronomy, Optics, and Natural History, are no more, than what every Bookseller knows, and so it is not fit for a man of his Learning, to spend his time so impertinently, as to say any thing about them. This, Sir, is the most pleasant Antagonist that ever any man had: But we shall have an occasion of saying somewhat more of him anon, therefore I now pass forward with M. Stubb, and come to prove concerning his Animadversions, That  
III. THey are mere Cavils, and that he affirms groundlessly and falsely, and talks impertinently, and reasons weakly: These I shall prove by Instances, and there is scarce any thing in his Book, but falls under one or other of those Censures.  
But first I crave your leave to mark how my Adversaries are disagreed among themselves, about my Account of modern Improvements; Dr. Meric Casaubon in his Reflections on my Book, [p. 35.] saith, That it is an exact Account of late Discoveries: M. Cross makes them such known things that every Bookseller is acquainted with them, whereas M. Stubb reckons them false and fictitious.  
For the Censure of the sober, learned man, I can with no Modesty own it; I intended no exact Account; nor am I able to give such a one, as can pretend to be accurate; I only collected such Instances, as I thought sufficient for my Design to encourage Philosophical Hope and Endeavours. For M. Crosses Judgement of them; Either every Bookseller knows them to be true or false; If this latter, why had he not got some Bookseller to have informed him, that he might have proved it, and confuted me? But if every Bookseller knew them to be true, what becomes of his Friend M. Stubb? and how will he answer my Inference of the great Advantage the later times have from those Improvements, above the Helps that were enjoyed by Aristotle and high Antiquity? But I must leave M. Cross to reconcile himself to his Champion, and the Interest of his own Assertion, as well as he can, and descend to the Proof of what I have affirmed concerning M. Stubb's Performance.  
This, it is true, makes a formidable show of invincible Strength, and he marches in the Van of an Host of Authors, but with them he fights Chimaeras, and takes Castles in the Air, that his Imagination built. He directs his force against things that I never said or meant, and most of his Authors shoot besides me; So that with mighty Strokes he cuts the Air; and hurts his own Arm by his Strength, but doth prejudice to no other Adversary with his mightiness. This will appear by the particulars, which I come now to represent, and I observe,  
(1.) That in the Entrance of his Reflections, he affirms confidently a thing which he doth not know, whether it be so or not; and which would be impertinent to his purpose, though it should be granted. It is in these words, [p. 2.] The Authors he mentions he never saw. Roundly affirmed! Certainly, he hath dealt with some Spirit; or with his Familiar M. Cross, for this; How else should he know what Authors I have seen? who can tell this but my Attendant Genius? or the Seer of Chuè, who knows all things belonging to me by Dreams, and an occult Quality. This divining man indeed affirms in his Libel, That I have no Books in my Study, but Plays and Romances; whenas he never saw my Study, nor any man else of his Acquaintance, that could inform him; and as luck would have it, I have not one (in English) of either sort; This 'tis like was M. Stubb's Intelligencer, for M. Cross writes of me with as much Confidence, as if he had been at my Christening, and stood by me ever since; and with as much Truth, as if he had never seen me or known more concerning me, than he doth of the Man in the Moon.  
Well! but if it be so, That I never saw the Authors I mention, what is that to M. Stubb's purpose? I was giving an Historical Account of the Improvers of several sorts of Knowledge; And might I not from other good and approved Writers name the Inventors or Advancers of this or that Discovery, except I had seen it in the original Author? Is there no Credit to be given to the Testimony of learned men? May not one write an History of Things and Actions that he never saw? and have not most of the Historians that ever were, done thus? May not I say that Columbus discovered the new western World; or that Fust or Gothenberg found out the Mystery of Printing, or Flavius Goia the Compass, except they had told me so themselves? And if it be usual among the most unexceptionable Relaters to collect their Accounts from other Testifiers, what can M. Stubb make of it, if he could prove that I never saw most of the Authors I mention? How much he himself is acquainted with the Books he quotes, we shall anon find some things whereby to pass a Judgement.  
Thus M. Stubb begins with a peremptory Assertion of a thing which is false in the Latitude of his Affirmation; and which he could not possibly know, whether in any more restrained sense it were true or not.  
And his immediate next words contain another most gross and confident Falsehood, [And all his Discourse about the Mathematics and Mathematicians procured him no other Acknowledgements from a Learned and Reverend Prelate (to whom he sent one of his Books) than a Reprimand for intermeddling with what he understood not. ibid.] I have heard from credible Persons, that M. jeanes the Polemic Writer (who was well acquainted with M. Cross) was wont to call any lusty— by a name, which for the sake of some worthy Persons, I shall not mention on this occasion. M. Stubb's Friend of Chuè knows what I mean. He may do well to advise him to take care of such broad, unconscionable Falsehoods; though I confess a man of his Practices is the most improper Person in the World for such a Service. The Period I last quoted from M. Stubb is a gross Untruth; I sent my Plus Vltra but to one Bishop, besides that Reverend Father to whom it was dedicated; and that learned and excellent Person was so far from sending me a Reprimand, (to use M. Stubb's word) that he was pleased to write me a most obliging Letter of Thanks; And my own venerable Diocesan accepted of that Book, and the Direction of it to him, with a great deal of Candour and Kindness, and never signified the least Dislike to me of it. So that I should have wondered much at this Clause, and divers others of like kind, If I had not heard a Character of M. Stubb at Oxford, and did not know Him, and his Familiarity with M. Cross; but now I shall not be surprised though every Sentence were a Legend.  
But (2.) he offers something for proof of his first Saying, viz. that I never saw the Authors I mention, as it follows, [ib. p. 2.] who ever heard of such men as Maximus Palanudes, Achazen, and Orentius? And who ever heard of such things as Errata of the Press? If I had a mind to play at this little Sport, and would retort, I might ask him, who ever heard of such People as the Abbigenses spoken of in his Vind. of Sir H. V. [p. 13.] or of such a man as I●lice, mentioned p. 113. of this Book; No doubt he'll lay the fault at the Printers doors; And why did he not see that the Names he quotes from me are like Errors? Doth he not know there were such Persons as Maximus Planudes, Alhazen, and Orontius? and there is not one of these that differs more, than a Letter from the Names, over which he so much insults. The latter he charitably supposeth to be a Mistake, because he thought he could make the man ridiculous, and disable him from signifying to my purpose; but of that by and by: If he could have found that the other two had been pitiful Fellows also (as he pretends this was) than Palanudes should have been corrected by Planudes, and Achazen by Alhazen. And 'tis very strange that M. Stubb could not see that Achazen was a Mistake of the Press, when as Alhazen stands within five Lines of him in my Book; whar a blind thing is Malice, when it hath no mind to see? Well, There were such men as Planudes, Orontius, and Alhazen; and Vossius saith enough of the least considerable of them to justify my transient mention of their Names. Anno 870. eluxit Maximus Planudes, qui Diaphanti Arithmeticen Commentariis illustravit. Voss. de Scient. Mathem. p. 311. And even of Orontius he speaks thus, celebre Nomen fuit Orontii Finei Delphatis, qui Arithmeticae practicae publicavit Libros quatuor. p. 316. But M. Stubb saith of him in Scorn, He was so famous a Geometrician, that when Sir H. Savil (as I remember) was to seek of an Instance of a pitiful Fellow, this was the man he fixed on. [ib. p. 2.] Would not any one from these Words, and their Relation to those that go before, conclude that I had reckoned Orontius among the Improvers of Geometry? To what purpose else doth the Animadverter speak of him as a contemptible Geometrician? But if he will look again into my Book, he will see, that I mention not Orontius under that head, but name him (and only so) among the Authors in Arithmetic: And have not I as much reason to say, That M. Stubb never reads the Books he writes against; as He to affirm, that I never saw the Authors I mention? But M. Stubb could not give his Studies so much Diversion as to consider what he said. Well, I name Orontius among the Arithmetical Writers, and 'tis an evident Argument I never saw him, because he is a pitiful Fellow at Geometry; Is this Logic old or new? 'Tis a sort M. Stubb useth often, but I believe he can show us nothing more pitiful in Orontius. But if Vossius may be believed, Orontius did not need so much of M. Stubb's Pity, even in Geometry. He tells us, Anno 1525. ac 30 proximis claruit Orontius Fineus qui de Geometriâ scripsit Libros duos, item Demonstrationes in sex Libros priores Euclidis. Ad haec de Quadraturâ Circuli inventâ & demonstratâ; de Circuli Mensurâ, & ratione Circumferentiae ad Diametrum, de multangularum omnium, & regularium Figurarum Descriptione, aliáque de Sc. Math. p. 65. And that his Performances in these, were not altogether so contemptible as the Anti-Virtuoso would insinuate, we may see a Reason to think, from the Place he held among the Mathematicians of his time, according to the same Author, Primus hic Matheseos regius in Galliis Professor fuit. [ibid.] But let Orontius be what he will in Geometry, M. Stubb is impertinent in what he saith about him, and I am not concerned. For the other Author (Achazen in one Line, but Alhazen within five Lines before) Confidence itself hath not the face to deny that there was such a man, or that he was a great Author in Optics, for which I mention his Name there, where M. Stubb found Achazen to make a Wonder of.  
You see, Sir, what an Adversary I have, that will not suffer the misprinting of a Letter to escape him; excellent Corrector of the Press! What pity 'tis that M. Cross had not found out these three Errata, that he might have had something to say!  
Thus I am to be sacrificed to public Obloquy. The pertinent Discourse about curing cut Fingers follows, but of that I have given an Account before.  
I proceed to remark (3.) upon that Note of his, [p. 3, 4.] But as for the Telescope, he confesseth that to have been invented by Metius, and Galileo, which Confession of his though it take from the Society all Pretences to the Invention thereof, yet it is unbecoming an inquisitive Person, who might have had better Intelligence from Borellus. Here the Anti-Virtuoso carp again at a mere accidental Passage; and though we should grant him what he saith about the Inventors of Telescopes, it would be nothing contrary to my Design, since the Persons he mentions were late men. My Words were, [So that these Glasses are exceedingly bettered since their Invention by Metius, and Application to the Heavens by Galileo, Plus Vltra, p. 55.] Whatsoever M. Stubb finds in his Borellus, I am sure I have Authority enough to justify me in this passing Glance at the Inventor of Telescopes. The excellent Renatus Des-Cartes ascribes the Invention to Metius in the first Page of his Dioptrics, and is particular in the Account of the occasion of his finding it. Hujus summa Voluptas erat Specula & Vitra ustoria formare; nonnulla etiam Hyeme componens ex Glacie;— quum igitur hâc occasione multa, ●áque variae formae Vitra ad manum haberet, prospero quodam fato duo ●imul Ocul● objecit; quorum alterum medium paulò crassius habebat quam extremitates, alterum vice versâ extremitates quam medium multò tumidiores; & adeò feliciter illa duabus Tubi extremitatibus applicuit, ut primum de quo loquitur Telescopium indè extiterit. Des-Cartes Dioptr. p. 1. And the learned Gerard Vossius ascribes this Invention to the same Metius, [Adriani hujus Frater jacobus Metius fuit, qui Tubum opticum, sive Telescopium invenit. Hujus ope in Siderum Doctrinâ plus scitur hodie quam omnis novit Antiquitas. De Scient. Math. p. 201.] The same Author justifies my other hint of their Application to the Heavens by Galileo: For thus, [p. 112.] Ac postremò de Tubi●, sive Telescopiis inventis ab Hollandis, ad ●idera verò applicatis à Galileo de Galilaeis. But this even M. Stubb confesseth to be generally written; and if so, pray why might not I mention it so lightly without any further Enquiry, it being a thing that was incidental, and of no importance to my Design? Yea, if it had, I was upon sure ground, for I say no more than what M. Stubb and all men will grant, viz. That Telescopes were applied to the Heavens by Galileo; I did not say first, and so his Pretence from Borellus is impertinent, and opposeth only the Shadow of his own Imagination: Galilaeo's Application of Telescopes to the Heavens was first famously taken notice of, and those Tubes upon that account have been called his Glasses; and therefore I might well enough express myself in such a passage as that, saying, That those Glasses were bettered since their Application to the Heavens by Galileo, though M. Stubb's Author must be believed before Des-Cartes, Vossius, and most others that have written about this matter; If any one besides the Animadverter be of that mind, I shall not trouble his Opinion; For M. Stubb, I must see a reason ere I can believe him before any man, but M. Cross; and for Borellus, when I know what he saith, I may perhaps tell this Antagonist what I think.  
Thus, Sir, you see something of this man's notorious Cavilling and Impertinence; and I might have taken notice further, that he misquotes me too in the recited Period, For I say not that the Telescope was invented by Galileo: But M. Stubb makes me say what he thinks fit, and when he hath confuted his own Mistake, he phansieth he hath reduced me to a Nonplus.  
The Passage likewise that follows may be justly censured, viz. That my Confession takes from the Society all Pretensions to the Invention of the Telescope.] This supposeth that the Society assumes this Credit, or at least that it is like to do so; which Supposition is a mere Chimara, or be it what it will, his Refutation of it is an Impertinence. For if it were so, that the Royal Society did or were like to challenge this Invention as theirs, one might ask the logical man, how my Confession that it was found out by Metius and Galileo, should take from the Society all Pretences to it? What an Author doth he make me, or what a Reasoner doth he make himself? either my Authority must be infallible, or his Reason will be contemptible. If I say Metius or Galileo is the Inventor of Telescopes, your Pretensions, O ye Virtuosos, are ruined, such a careless Scribbler is our confident Bravo.  
(4.) He next cavils at some passages of mine concerning the Barometer, I introduce my Discourse about that Philosophical Instrument thus, [That there is Gravity even in the Air itself; and that that Element is only comparatively light, is now made evident and palpable by experience, though Aristotle and his Schools held a different Theory: And by the help of Quicksilver in a Tube—] In opposition to this he saith, That there is Gravity even in the Air itself; and that that Element is only comparatively light, was of old made evident by the man of Stagyra. [p. 7.] But how did Aristotle make that evident? It was by the Experiment of a blown Bladder; as [p. 4.] Let us remember this, and observe how he goes on: M. Glanvill neither understands what he opposeth, nor what he asserts; But why so I pray? enter the Reason: For in the Beginning he speaks of the Gravitation of the Element of Air, whereas the Instrument called the Barometer proposeth only a Way to measure the Degrees of Compression in the Atmosphere, in which Region I believe no man ever denied, but that the aqueous and terrestrial Corpuscles interspersed had their Weight and Pressure, [p. 7.] Now I look back, and return the Compliment; M. Stubb neither understands what he opposeth, nor what he asserts, This I prove by his own Argument; For he saith Aristotle proved the Gravitation of the Element of Air, and that by the Experiment of a blown Bladder, in which I believe no man ever denied, but that the aqueous and terrestrial particles intersperst had their Weight and Pressure. In short, I propose this Dilemma to M. Stubb to be considered; when he affirms, in my words, concerning Aristotle, That he proved the Element of Air to be only comparatively light, He meant either the supposed, pure, or the mixed Air; If the former, let him show how the man of Stagyra proved that to ponderate by the Bladder; If the latter, why might not I mean the same? There is no reason but this, M. Stubb would be interpreted as he means; and I shall be understood, as is fit for his Design. Yea, The Caviller might easily have known, (and no doubt he did so) that by Element of Air I meant that of the Atmosphere, since he cannot suppose, that one of his Virtuosos should hold a pure peripatetical Element of Air, except he will call the Aether by that Name: So that here the Animadverter wilfully mistakes me, to make an occasion to vent his impotent spite. 'Tis M. Hooks Opinion of the Air, That it is a kind of Tincture and Solution of terrestrial and aqueous Particles dissolved in the Aether, and agitated by it; Micr. p. 13. I am of the same mind, and never dreamed of such a thing in what I said, as an unmixed, peripatetical Element. And thus his Malice here also is nonsensical and impertinent, For he saith, I begun with the Gravity of the Element of Air, whereas the Barometer is an Instrument to weigh the Degrees of Compression in the Atmosphere; and hence he would have it clear, that I know neither what I oppose, or what I assert: And it is evident on the other hand, that the Caviller either knows not what he saith, or saith what he knows to be idle and inconsequent.  
Yea, in the words that follow a little after he represents Aristotle alike impertinent as himself, for he proves the Air to ponderate, p. 4. and this is a body which no man in his Wits ever denied to be ponderous, p. 8. And yet p. 5. in the Margin he tells us, that many Peripatetics (naming only one, Claramontius) held that the impure Air of our Atmosphere doth gravitate, it seems others of them did not hold s●. But I ask again, what Air, good M. Stubb did Aristotle weigh? The impure Air of the Atmosphere, no doubt, for sure he did not catch the pure Element in a Bladder; That Air no man in his wits ever denied to be ponderous; And was not Aristotle as well employed as M. Stubb, when he proved, that the Ancients could cure cut fingers? But what must become of all the Peripatetics that held not the Air to be ponderous? Claramontius, p. 5. and Averroi●, p. 7. are excepted, and many other Peripatetics, he saith, held the impure Air to gravitate; but who those many were he tells us not, nor how much the rest were in their wits that belonged not to that Number. What Feats would this man do against the Virtuosos, if he had any real Advantage, when he ventures every where to make himself ridiculous and absurd, rather than he will let the least passage go against which he can form the appearance of an Objection?  
(5.) I take notice next, that he falls upon me [p. 10.] for the Epithet of Heathen given to some of Aristotle's Notions: my words are these, [And the Zeal I have for the Glory of the Almighty discovered in his Creatures, hath inspired me with some Smartness and Severity against those heathen Notions, which have so unhappily diverted learned men from the Study of God's great Book, Universal Nature.— [Pref. to Plus Vlt.]  
If I had chanced to have left out that Epithet, or to have put another in its place (either of which might have been done, and my Discourse, yea that very Period had not been concerned) The Caviller had lost an opportunity of very learned Animadversions; and a minute verbal Alteration of about a dozen other Sentences in my Book, would make all he hath said against me useless and insignificant; so little hath he touched the main Parts and Design of my Discourse. But I must let that pass, the general Impertinence is notorious every where, and this is one of the least of M. Stubb's Imperfections; I note a worse Fault here, His Stricture is a Falsehood, the words are [He inveighs bitterly against Aristotle for his Heathen Notions, p. 10.] I recited my Period, from whence the Caviller takes this occasion, before, let any man judge whether I inveigh against Aristotle for his Heathen Notions, or whether the word Heathen bears any great stress in that Sentence. But M. Stubb makes what he confutes. He implies p. 11. that this was the Motive that swayed me to Anti-Aristotelism, viz. the Heathenism of his Notions, which is a mere Invention of his own Brain, and such a one as he knows to be a gross Untruth, for he pretends to have confuted my Letter concerning Aristotle, which contains several of my Motives, but makes this none; and my Scepsis S●ientifica, and even this last Book gives an other account of my withdrawing from the Peripatetic Doctrines.  
But he hath not done persecuting the poor Epithet; [Alas! He is troubled at his Heathen Notions! Oh! rare Puritanism! and afterwards it follows, Nothing hath more of the Presbyterian and Fanatic than this Topick, ib. p. 11.] Say you so M. Harry! Suppose one should call Universities, Churches, Church-Yards, Bells,— Antichristian, Idolatrous, Popish, Superstitious, as one M. Stubb did in his Light out of Darkness; would there not be more of the Fanatic in that? Or should he speak against all Humane Learning and Heathenish Writers, as the same Author, would there not be as much of Fanaticism in such talk? 'Tis Puritanical and Presbyterian, it seems to inveigh against Heathen Notions, but not so to decry Heathenish Authors and Heathen Writers. L. D. [p. 101.] But however it is, I am not at all concerned, For I no where inveigh against Heathen Notions, but in M. Stubb's Book, (not I mean because they are Heathen) though I speak against those of them, which I judge either false, uncertain, or useless. So that the Questions that follow about Atoms, Corpuscles, Mathematical Terms, Languages, etc. are impertinent, and the man only disputes with himself in his Dream.  
(6.) In the same Paragraph my Letter about Aristotle is confuted in short, For those Exceptions against him are nothing but Lies, [ibid. p. 11.] what ill luck hath M. Stubb to have controversy with none but Liars? Dr. Wallis was a notorious Falsifier; M. Baxter a great Calumniator and Liar; the Royal Society have yet invented nothing but a LIE; [ubi sup.] Dr. Sprat is a Legendary Historian, and my Animadversions on Aristotle are all Lies. It seems as soon as M. Stubb makes any man his Adversary, he commenceth Liar, ipso facto; And this I think, that (as he said to Dr. Wallis) one of us two is grossly ignorant, he may to every other Antagonist, one of us two is a gross teller of Lies; this I have proved in part already, and it will appear further in some of the following Notes. But as to my Reflections on Aristotle, if they are Lies, they are none of mine, the matters of Fact are reported from Patricius, Picus, Gassendus, Lord Bacon, Laertius, Suidas, Aelian, Arrian, Plutarch, Eusebius, and such like Authors; If these are all Liars too, there are no Tell-truths but M. Stubb.  
But 'tis a rare Protestation that follows; I protest in the Presence of Almighty God, that if there be not great Care taken, we may be in a little time reduced to that pass as to believe the Story of Tom Thumb,— p. 11.] Doth M. Stubb seriously think this, or doth he not? If so, he is more ridiculous than one that believes Tom Thumb already; If he be not serious in what he saith, he is impious in it; And if it were an other man, one might ask him, how he durst in that manner use the Name of God and protest a known and ridiculous Falsehood in his Presence. But who can tell what M. Stubb thinks of God? He saith enough sometimes to give occasion to conjecture; who knows but that all Religion is with a certain Anti-Virtuoso like the Story of Tom Thumb? And he might do well to inform us how far he extends his Expression of the Legends and Falsifications of History. I shall not here to tell you what I have heard him say.  
But he goes on [This Philosophy fairly disposeth us thereunto.] viz. to believe Tom Thumb and the Legends. If so, I hope he will excuse it from the so often objected Gild of Scepticism? But these Philosophers one while dispose men to believe every thing; and at the next turn to believe nothing. And yet one would wonder, how the Philosophy of the Virtuosos should incline men either to the one or the other. It deals in the plain Objects of Sense, in which, if any where, there is Certainty; and teacheth suspension of Assent till what is proposed, is well proved; and so is equally an Adversary to Scepticism and Credulity. But M. Stubb tells us, [ibid.] that it makes men so credulous by taking them off from the Pedantism of Philology and ancient reading,— It takes men off indeed, as Philology takes them off from Philosophy, and one sort of Studies takes men off from an other, which they are not able to pursue at the same time with it: But this is no more discredit to the Modern Philosophy, then 'tis to all other sorts of Learning, and indeed none to any. If M. Stubb means more than this, and would insinuate that experimental Disquisitions into Nature, have any direct Antipathy to Philology or ancient Reading, he speaks what is false and groundless; and is not able to say any thing to purpose, to make such a Censure good. He tells us indeed he is resolved to charge the Enemy home, and he doth it by confident Falsehoods and bold Affirmations without proof: His whole Force is in Noise and Clamour; and did he not keep a great Stir, and raise the Dust about him, he would scarce engage any to look towards him, or to take notice what he doth or saith.  
(7.) He proceeds to animadvert upon me thus, [He tells us that the Aristotelian Philosophy aims at no more than the instructing men in Notion and Dispute, that its Design was mean,— p. 12.] He quotes not the place whence this is taken, and 'tis well he doth not, for he misreports my Words, and affirms that which is false, for I was not speaking there of the Aristotelian Philosophy, but of the Modern Peripatetic Way, which I affirm in that very Page to be now quite another thing from the Philosophy which Aristotle's Books contain, and have frequently spoke to the same purpose elsewhere: Now let any one look into the voluminous Physics of Ariaga, Hurtado, Pontius, Oviedo, Carlton, and the rest of the late Peripatetic Writers, and let him then tell me what they aim at more, than the instructing men in Notion and Dispute. To talk here as the Caviller doth, of Aristotle's Books of Animals, and Theophrastus about Plants, and such like things, is toyish, impertinent, and like M. Stubb; And all the rest of the chat that comes in upon this occasion turns to wind and insignificant Prattle. This is the man that would charge the Enemy home; we are like to have good doings in his Quotations of other Authors, when he perverts even the words of his Antagonist.  
He is at the same sport again, [p. 14.] If Notions might be rejected for being first proposed, and used by Heathens, then is not Aristotle in a worse Condition than Epicurus, Democritus, Plato, or Pythagoras,— p. 15. He desires me to acquit Paracelsus from being impious in his Life. At this rate, there will be no end of Animadversions, and 'twill be impossible to escape the Anti-Virtuoso; Who said that Notions might be rejected for being first proposed, and used by Heathens? or what hath M. Glanvill to do with Paracelsus?  
But further [ibid. p. 15. He saith, Aristotle was of no such superlative Esteem in the wisest Times; But he tells us not what those most wise Times were, when he was in Disesteem] What need I? I said not that he was in Disesteem in the most wise Times; but of no such superlative Account, as he himself quotes my words in one Line, and makes quite another thing of them in the next. For is there no Difference, doth he think, between not being of superlative Account, and being in Disesteem? Such gross Slips as these in a Virtuoso would have afforded matter for endless Insulting, and Charges of Ignorance. He proceeds to prove that Aristotle was in Esteem in wise Times; and what then? It follows clearly, that M. Stubb can demonstrate, what no body denies. But was he in the most superlative account then? He doth not say so, for that had been to his purpose: or were those times when his Esteem was superlative, the wisest? He shifts from this too; he had not read of more wise People, than Greece, Rome, and the Mahometans,— and all these admired him at several times; but was their Admiration superlative, when the times were wisest? otherwise what he saith is not to purpose. He confesseth [ibid.] that he was much opposed and slighted by the first Fathers; and in his Light out of Darkness, p. 105. he saith, That Aristotle was condemned by the first Christians, and Honest men of all Ages. And I think the times of the first Fathers during the Glory of the Roman Empire, were some of the wisest times; and I mention in my Letter concerning Aristotle, the Observation of Gassendus, that in the flourishing times of Rome, and Athens, the Academics and Stoics were more in Esteem, than the Sectators of Aristotle; and instance in Cicero, Pliny, and Quintilian, who though they had a great Esteem of Aristotle, did yet prefer Plato before him. So that in those most wise Times, and among those wise men, Aristotle's Account was not superlative, if Gassendus, or M. Stubb himself be to be believed.  
And methinks it proves much, that the wisest men and times had the most superlative Account of Aristotle; because They divided into Platonists and Aristotelians, as they did into Catholics and Arrians, and the Arrians were Aristotelians, ibid. Aristotle was of best Account, because the Catholics followed Plato, and the Arrians were Aristotle's Followers. Doth not this tend to the re-advancing the Credit of Aristotle? If this will not do it, Aristotle shall be re-advanced by and by; it follows, [p. 15, 16.] Mahomet's Successors the Caliphs' did wholly employ themselves to improve the Doctrines of Aristotle, and the Peripatetics: So that Aristotelism, Arrianism, and Mahometanism issued out of the same Parts of the World, viz. Alexandria, and the adjacent Countries.— This the Virtuoso could not see, because so much History was above his reach, p. 16. and the Reasoning is as much above it as the History.  
He next quotes another passage of mine, relating to the same business, viz. That since the minds of Christians are enlightened with the Rays of the glorious Gospel, they have less reason to bow down to the Dictates of an Idolater and an Heathen.] Hence M. Impertinent concludes, that we must bid farewell to the Rhetoric, and other Works of Aristotle, which I had afore recommended; and he adds that we must shake hands with Seneca, Epictetus, and Plato, p. 16. This follows like the rest, because we may not bow down, and give an implicit Veneration to an Heathen Authority; Therefore we must bid farewell to all the Works of those Authors; As if there were no Difference between using their Works, and servilely adoring them.  
(8.) He perstringeth a passage cited out of Plato, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and what I add, viz. That [The Universe must be known by the Art, by which it was made.] Here I am sent to answer Dr. More's Dialogues, where he explodes the Mechanism of Nature. ibid. p. 16.]  
Before I descend to the particular Answer to this, I take notice, that M. Stubb runs up and down, and flirt's from some things to others, which have no Coherence among themselves, or in my Book. He falls upon my Discourse about Philosophical Instruments; and then, without any occasion given, suddenly steps back against a passage in my Preface, that hath no relation in the world to his Discourse, as p. 10. In the same Paragraph he leaps forward again to the 124. page of my Plus Vltra, and largely confu●es a Sentence or two there. The next Motion is back to a passage, p. 25. that had nothing to do with what he was saying; and so every where he writes, as he dreams. But to omit other Instances of this here, I come to show the Impertinence of this last Cavil.  
By Plato's Saying, I understood no no more, than that God made all things in Number, Weight, and Measure; and I suppose that Mechanism may be used, as far as it will go. Now Geometry assists men in mechanical Disquisitions, which are helps for the Knowledge of Nature and Causes: This was all I intended, for I do not believe that all the Phaenomena are merely Mechanical: So that Dr. More's Dialogues do no way oppose my Sense; He explodes not the Mechanism of Nature, (as M. Stubb tells us) but such a Mechanism, as is supposed to suffice for all the Effects of Nature, without help from any immaterial Agent. This may be seen easily by those, that read the Book, and endeavour to understand it; But M. Stubb reads by Indices and Catches, which is enough for the purposes of a Caviller.  
Having thus explained my meaning, I need not be concerned in what he adds in his Review, p. 170. etc. For all his Arguments are impertinent in reference to my sense, and I may take occasion, ex abundanti, hereafter to prove that they are trivial and childish in reference to any other. For they can do no execution even upon the mere Mechanical Hypothesis.  
But (9) to let that alone now, I cannot forbear noting here the intolerable Impudence and Lying of this man, p. 173. where he goes on with the Impertinence he begun, p. 16. He tells us there, That his Opinion had been amply maintained of late by Dr. Hen. More in opposition to what the Royal Society lays down in their History, viz. That Generation, Corruption, Alteration, and all the Vicissitudes of Nature are nothing else, but the Effects arising from the meeting of little Bodies of differing Figures, Magnitudes, and Velocities. Than which Opinions, saith he, there can be nothing more pestilent and pernicious; and Dr. More albeit a Member of this Society heretofore, (for be allows nothing to it now) yet a pious one, professeth that this Mechanical Philosophy inclines to Atheism: neither would he approve of those Deductions as necessary but ridiculous, when I upbraided him lately with that nonsensical and illiterate History.  
Upon my reading of this Paragraph I resolved to write to Dr. More, to know whether he had deserted the Society, or whether those other passages were true; I writ accordingly, and that learned Doctor was pleased to return me the following Answer, in which you may see the insufferable Impudence of this Prodigious Romancer.  
A Letter from Dr. More to I. G. giving an Account how M. Stubb belies him. p. 173.  
SIR,  
I Thank you for yours, which I received by the hand of your Friend and Neighbour M. C. Before I received your Letter I had not read half a Page in your Antagonists Book, for I had only seen it once by chance in one of our Fellows Chambers, but had no leisure as yet to read it, my time being taken up with other matters; And therefore I was wholly ignorant of those passages, p. 173. till your Letter gave me an occasion to inquire after the Book, and to read all there that concerns myself: At which I must confess I was much surprised; especially at that particular passage, which was pointed me to by another Letter from a Friend, the day after yours; that passage I mean, wherein he makes as if I were not still a Member of the Royal Society, but had left it; grounding his Assertion upon this Reason, [For he allows nothing to it now] It was a great marvel to me, that he should pretend to know better than myself, whether I be still of the Royal Society, or no. For I take myself still to be of it, and I am sure I have not left it. And as for the Reason he would build his Conclusion upon, in that sense as it will seem to sound to all men at the first reading, namely, That I allow them no Respect, nor have any Esteem for them now, it is grossly false. For the great Opinion I have of their experimental Philosophy, I have at least two months ago amply testified in my Preface to my Enchiridion Metaphysicum, when I did not at all dream of any such passage of your Antagonist concerning me in his Book. And do particularly note how serviceable their Natural Experiments in matter are to the clear Knowledge and Demonstration of the Existence of immaterial Being's: So far are they from tending to Atheism.  
And 'tis invidiously done of your Adversary to commend me for Piety, with an unworthy and odious Reflection on the Society, as if men were less pious for being thereof: whenas I dare say there are as pious Persons of that Society, as there are out of it; and it is a gross mistake in him, that he looks upon that Mechanic Philosophy which I oppose, to be the Philosophy the Royal Society doth profess, or would support. But the Philosophy which they aim at, is a more perfect Philosophy, as yet to be raised out of faithful and skilful Experiments in Nature, which is so far from tending to Atheism, that I am confident, it will utterly rout it and the Mechanical Philosophy at once, in that sense which I oppose, namely, as it signifies a Philosophy that professeth, That Matter having such a Quantity of Motion as it has, would contrive itself into all those Ph●nomena we see in Nature. But this Profession cannot rightly be called the Mechanical Philosophy, but the Mechanical Belief of Credulity. For it has no ground of Reason in the earth to support it. But there are many and most palpable Demonstrations against it, as all the World shall see in my Enchiridion Metaphysicum. Wherefore it is a very high Injury of your Antagonist, to father so absurd a Profession upon a Society of such Learning and Judgement as the Royal Society is.  
I believe indeed most of us, I am sure myself does conceive, that Generation, Corruption, Alteration, and all the Vicissitudes of corporeal Nature are nothing else but Unions and Dissolutions (I will add also the Formations and Deformations) of little Bodies or Particles of differing Figures, Magnitudes, and Velocities. But this thus bounded is not the Mechanical Philosophy, but part of the old Pythagorick or Mosaic Philosophy, so far as I can see by any History. So that 'tis very unskilfully done of your Antagonist to bring me in as opposing, or clashing with the Royal Society in a thing of this great Consequence, and so to make them Patrons of that, which neither any sound Philosophy, nor true Religion can allow.  
Nor can I have so low a conceit of your Parts, Judgement, and Virtue, as to think, when you magnify D●s-Cartes his Philosophy so highly as you do, that it is for that hasty Presumption of his, that upon the Supposal that Matter was possessed of so much Motion as there is in the World, it would necessarily at length contrive itself into all such Phaenomena, as we see in the Universe; but because several of his Conceptions concerning the Figures of the Particles of such and such Bodies are exceeding plansible, and probable: amongst which that of the Globuli seems to me so far to surpass all other Hypotheses about Light, that I stand to him close against his most able Opposers in that point in my Enchiridion Metaphysicum, so far forth as concerns the Mechanical part of Light and Colours. But mere Mechanism does not exhaust all in those Phaenomena neither, as I there prove in a long Chapter on that Subject. By this time I think it is plain, what Mechanical Philosophy that is, that may incline men to Atheism, and that it is not the experimental Philosophy, which the Royal Society professes, that is, that Philosophy which inclines men to Atheism, but quite contrary, as I shall manifestly demonstrate in my Exhiridion Metaphysicum.  
I think there is nothing now that concerns me in the Page you point me to in your Letter, but my Judgement touching that large passage of the Learned and Eloquent Dr. Sprat, and the Deductions therein contained, which Deductions, says your Antagonist, I would not approve of as Necessary, but Ridiculous; Truly if I had said so, I should have made myself ridiculous; For how could I approve of Deductions, especially in so serious a point, as, or Quatenus Ridiculous; For there is no man, let him be never so pious, unless he be a Fool, that can approve of Deductions for their being ridiculous in so serious a Cause. But it seems he having a mind to monopolise all the Wit in the World to himself, is content to repute me for Pious, so he may remonstrate me withal to the World to be a Fool, and such as he may play the Fool withal, as he has in all this Page you have pointed me to. I might indeed approve of those Deductions as smooth and plausible, though not as necessary, but something of a lubricous and doubtful Aspect; but I know very well I could not approve of them as ridiculous. But I add further, that there are such Experiments made by us of the Royal Society, that do not only plausibly invite us to, but afford us most forcible and evident Demonstrations for the Belief of the Existence of immaterial Being's, and such as your Antagonist can never be able to elude the force of● by pretending that we do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as will appear in my Enchiridion Metaphysicum.  
Sir, by this I suppose you see how much I am concerned in this Page you point me to in your Letter; I have nothing more to add but that I am  
Your affectionate Friend and Servant Hen. More.  
This Letter I publish, because my Reverend and Learned Friend hath given me leave to print it, and he writes that he is much offended, that M. Stubb should pick him up as a senseless Clod in the Highway, to pelt so honourable a Society with, of which he is a Member.  
You may judge by this, Sir, how far we are to believe M. Stubb, when he tells us how many have deserted the Royal Society, when the very first Person that he names, disproves the impudent Falsehood. What a man is this that dares belly so Reverend a Person in the face of the World? and what am I to expect from him; if one, of whom he pretends to speak well, be thus used? By this you may see what Mechanism of Nature it is, that Dr. More explodes, and how impertinently and maliciously the Animadverter urgeth this learned man against the Mechanic Philosophy of the Royal Society, and that which I have recommended. And there is no doubt but were the other Authors, which he quotes, alive, and able to do themselves right, they would most of them disclaim the senses, which this Perverter of their meaning puts upon them, to serve himself in his Cavilling.  
(10.) But I am charged with this very fault, [p. 19] and M. Stubb will have it, that I have misreported the first Discourse between M. Cross and myself; He prefaceth to what he saith in the behalf of the Disputer thus, Nor will I engage particularly in the Dispute between him and M. Cross; and as soon as he had told us he would not do it, he begins in the immediate next words, and proceeds to do it, in several of the following Pages.  
I am informed, saith he, that the Relation is very false; and 'tis like he was so informed; His Friend M. Cross told him so. But I would have both these Adversaries know, that I scorn to report any matter of Fact publicly, which I cannot sufficiently, and substantially prove. I have two good Witnesses to attest the Truth of the Relation I made in my Plus Vltra, of the Discourse between M. Cross and me: They are both Masters of Art, and both of the same College to which the grave man formerly belonged; and that They may see I am not such a Legendary Reporter of things, as I have in part already, and shall yet further prove Them, I here produce the Attestation.  
We whose Names are underwritten were present at the Conference between M. Cross, and M. Glanvill at Bath, and do attest, that the Discourse was exactly, and sincerely such as it is reported by M. Glanvill in his Book PLUS VLTRA.  


Io. a Court.  
Will. Allen.    
These same Witnesses have attested the Falsehood of M. Crosses Relation of the Discourse, in all the material, yea, even in most of the minute particulars also; And have proved him guilty of sixteen gross Untruths in that account he gives in his Book which was rejected the Press. But their Attestation here, is too large to insert; I have it in a Latin Answer to M. C. which lies by me, and any man that hath a mind shall see it.  
Thus I have proved my Relation for M. Stubb's Satisfaction; and there is no other matter I have related concerning either of them, but I shall make it good, whenever I am called upon to do it; yea, if they please, I am ready to lay the issue of all here; If I cannot prove every matter of fact, that I have printed about them; I shall humbly lay my neck at their feet: And if on the other hand, either of these Adversaries can prove one of those reproachful things they have alleged against me, I'll be their Uassal and their Uictim. Before I have done, you will see, that this is no dangerous Offer. But I must pass these things over briefly.  
He is so kind to M. Cross, [p. 20.] that he is willing to venture the being found in an error with him; For he saith, I profess myself in an Error, as well as M. Cross, if it be not true that Aristotle had sundry Advantages to pen his History of Animals, which our Virtuosos want. But the mischief is, this Kindness will not signify to his Friend; for he doth not say, that Aristotle had more Advantages to pen his History of Animals than the Virtuosos only; but more Advantages for Knowledge, than the later Ages: If M. Stubb will undertake his Cause here, he may do him a favour, otherwise, his Kindness is as impertinent, as his Reasonings use to be. In the next words he attempts to prove the Advantages Aristotle had for his History of Animals, and he doth it by the Authority of Pliny, which Author he makes a Liar to an Instance, [p. 161.] where he saith of Sir Kenelm Digby, that he was the Pliny of our Age for Lying: but any Authority shall be heard against the Virtuosos.  
I am perstringed [p. 21.] for not knowing what Authors writ well upon the several Subjects, in which I pretend the Moderns have outdone the Ancients: This he proves, because I mention Sava●orol● among the Improvers of the History of Baths; and a man that knew Authors as well as M. Stubb, hath named him among those Natural Historians, the Person is Dr. Hackwel in his Apology, p. 283. But the Animadverter discovers my Ignorance further, for he never heard any man commend Blanchellus on that Subject, viz. concerning Baths, [p. 22.] But I can tell him, that the just mentioned learned Doctor commends him on that Subject. [ibid.] For he reckons Him and Savanorola among those, who had written parts of Natural History more exactly: I speak of no more Improvers of this sort, than those he mentions, because I was only to give some few Instances, and was not obliged to an exact and full Account. I omit Dr. jordan, because he pretends not to improve the History of Baths, and the Animadverter is malicious in urging this as a Defect, and Argument of my not knowing him; If I had named him on this occasion, I had been besides my Subject; And if I had troubled myself to collect and recite the Names of all Improvers, I must have been tedious and impertinent; for I had not obliged myself to any such task, nor did my Design require it.  
But he mentions another great Omission of mine, with which, he saith, he is surprised, viz. Because I do not make the Moderns to surpass the Ancients in Architecture, Sculpture, Picture, and several other Arts of ingenious Luxury. [p. 24.] But why should he expect that? I proposed only to discourse such things as were Helps and Advantages for the Advance of Useful Knowledge; as he might have seen, [p. 9] and in other places of my Plus Vltra. Nor was I bound to mention every thing; I intended no perfect History, and the Instances I alleged were enough to carry my Cause, and to encourage Philosophical Endeavours, though a great many others that might have been very pertinent, were omitted; and several that M. Stubb would have had there, designedly left out, because they were not proper for my purpose: and I do not believe, that the Moderns surpass the Ancients in Architecture, Sculpture, Picture, or the Arts of ingenious Luxury; so that M. Stubb need not have been surprised at my Omission.  
(11.) But to show how unsupportable such kind of men, as the Virtuosos, are in all judicious and intelligent Company, he sets down my Discourse with M. Cross about Dioptrick Tubes. [ibid. p. 2.4, etc.] And the first Remark he makes upon it [p. 27.] is, That I have little or no insight into Optics; This he remarks roundly, but doth not show us how he infers it from my Discourse, but adds immediately, The Solution of M. Crosses Fallacy, if it were his, by that Interrogatory, why cannot he write better with two Pens than with a single one? is ridiculous, since there is no Uis unita there.— But who told M. Stubb that my instance of the two Pens, was a Solution of M. Crosses Fallacy about the two Spectacles? Let him but look back upon the words that he had newly recited, and he will see, that I allege this to show the Ridiculousness of M. Crosses Argument; I do not say there is a Vis unita in the two Pens; But this I do, that there is as much of it there, as in the two Spectacles, and consequently, we may as well infer, That a man can write with two Pens better than with one singly, because Uis unita fortior; as, that one can see better with two pair of Spectacles, than with one, for that reason; which was M. Crosses Argument; that is, there is no Consequence in either. So that I first show the Absurdity of my Antagonists Reasoning by the instance of the Pens, and then solve his Fallacy by denying there is any Vi● unita in the two pair of Spectacles, as it follows immediately in the words that M. Stubb citys from my Book, The Reason he [M. C.] gave, why one would expect it should be so, viz. that a man should see better with two pair, than one, is the Reason why 'tis not, namely, because there is no Vis unita in the two, as I had intimated before, and do again in the words immediately following. So that M. Stubb here either wanted Spectacles, or saw what I said through the double ones of his Pride and Malice, that misrepresented my Discourse to him.  
But that which follows in the same Period is yet more marvellous, my Solution of the Fallacy by the two Pens he had said is ridiculous, since there is no Vis unita there, to which he adds in the immediate next words, And in one sort of Tubes, though the Rays be united in the first convex Glass, and brought to a Convergency, yet must the spherical Cavity of the next dilate it again, and dispose them fittingly to effect the expected vision in the Retina. How doth this prove that my solution of M. Crosses Fallacy by the two Pens is ridiculous? What distant things ramble together into this man's wild Fancy? But perhaps he had reference to something I had said before; I will charitably suppose this, to try if I can make any sense of his arguing; I had said that we see better through the two Glasses in Perspectives, than any single one, because they are so fashioned and ordered that the visive Rays are better gathered and united by them for the Advantage of Sight: If this be not the thing he mutters against, I cannot imagine what he means; or if it be, I cannot understand how it comes in here. But I need not wonder at the incoherence of M. Stubb's Reasonings; This must be allowed him, or we shall never have done remarking: Let it be so then, In a sort of Tubes the Rays are brought to a Convergency in the first Glass, and again dilated in the second; Therefore the two Glasses are not so ordered in Perspectives that the visive Rays are better gathered and united for the Advantage of Sight. This is the Argument in its best Prospect, and let him make the most of it. I suppose, I need not tell the intelligent Reader how absurd it is, and how impertinent; nor inform him, that by the Union of the visive Rays I do not mean their Coincidency, but such an Order among them as is fit for Vision. But I may further animadvert on these things hereafter, if upon second Thoughts I think them worthy of a further mention.  
After he had thus remarked my Ignorance in Optics, and proved it irrefragably by the two Arguments I have now recited, He attempts to bring off his Friend M. Cross. He is a generous man, and told a Reverend Person from whom at second hand I had it, That he would rescue the poor Fellow out of my hands; nobly and charitably designed! But let us see how he succeeds in this Design of Rescue; His first main Attempt follows here, [p. 28.] As to what M. Cross is said to have argued against Telescopes, that the Addition of one Glass to another must hinder, rather than improve Vision, because that the super adding of one pair of Spectacles to another, rather weakens than amends the Sight. I must say, that whosoever understands the Form of an Argument cannot except against the Form of that, nor do the Propositions so ill cohere together, as that one should be for Sense, the other for Convenience: All that Excursion of our Virtuoso shows his Ignorance, not M. Crosses. Thus the Defence begins, and is not M. Cross like to be rescued? The Form of the Argument is not to be excepted against: And pray M. Impertinent, who talked of the Form of the Argument, or excepted against it? Doth M. Stubb intent this for a Defence, or doth he not? If not, what makes it here? If so, 'tis a rare knack, by which any thing may be defended. For instance, M. Stubb calls the Members of the Royal Society, Poor Devils, [Campanella revived, p. 16.] And thus, suppose he forms his Arguments to prove it; If the Disasters of the late Dutch War, the Plague, and Fire of London were less Inconveniences than the Perpetuity of the Royal Society; Then the Members thereof are Devils; But the Disasters of the late Dutch War, the Plague, and Fire of London were 〈◊〉 Inconveniences than the perpetuity of the Royal Society, [Camp. rev. p. 21.] Ergo, There is no excepting against the Form of the Argument; conclusum est contra— Again, if They are pitiful Mechanicians, an illiterate Company, Impostors, mean Spirits, etc. then they are poor Devils; But they are pitiful Mechanicians, [Pref. against Plus Vlt.] an illiterate Company, [Camp. rev. p. 21.] Impostors, [Camp. rev. Pref.] mean Spirits, etc. [Pref. against Plus Vlt.] Ergo, No one that understands the Form of an Argument can except against these; Nor do the Propositions so ill cohere, as that one should be for Sense, the other for Convenience. Whoever excepts against the Arguments shows his Ignorance, not M. Stubb's, as I showed mine, by excepting against the Reason taken from the Spectacles, not M. Crosses. How easily can M. Stubb prove a man guilty of Ignorance? Well! This is said in M. Crosses Defence, and I believe he could have said as much as this, to defend himself. If he be called in question for the matter of his Argument, M. Stubb gives him up, and tells us, [ibid.] There is no Defence to be made for him, if he urged this otherwise than to try the Intellectuals of M. Glanvill. Thus the Cause is quitted, and M. Cross left defenceless, only this was a sort of Knowledge that was not necessary for a Divine, and he hath other, and better Qualifications than carnal Reasoning. But since M. Cross cannot be brought off, I must be charged; And that I as little understand the Subject of Knowledge I pretend to, He saith it is manifest from hence, That I might easily have denied the Assertion of the Spectacles, that two pair did not impede, but amend the Sight in some Eyes that are very weak: For there is an old Gentlewoman, and a young Gentlewoman of his acquaintance that use two, [p. 29.] I shall here tell M. Stubb that there are very few things which I pretend to know: But whatever Ignorance I am guilty of, M. Stubb hath never the luck to discover it, nor to prove his charges against me of this kind. He remarked that I was ignorant of Optics, because I intimate that the Axiom, Vis unita fortior, may be as well used to prove a man can write better with two Pens, than with one; as that he can see better with two Spectacles, than a single pair. I am charged with Ignorance for excepting against M. Crosses nonsensical Argument, which at last is given up as defenceless, and here it is manifest, that I understand not the Subject of the Knowledge I pretend to, by as good reasons. Forsooth! I might easily have denied the Assertion of the Spectacles, that two pair did not impede, but amend the Sight in some Eyes that are weak. The Assertion was not that two pair did not, but that they did impede; But we must pass by M. Stubb's Improprieties and Nonsense; and this Period is not Sense, as 'tis worded. He means, I might have denied that two pair of Spectacles hinder the Sight, they amend it in Eyes that are weak; Because I did not this I am ignorant in Optics. But if I had done so, I had been impertinent in answering; For it must be granted, that two pair ordinarily hinder the Sight, though in M. Stubb's old Gentlewoman and young, the Case is different, and if I had allowed the Consequence, this had been enough to have carried M. Cross' Cause against the two Glasses in Telescopes. Thus I must be ignorant, because I was not impertinent. But doth M. Stubb think that every one is unacquainted with Optics, who doth not know that double Spectacles mend the Sight in some whose Eyes are weak, or dis-affected? Must all be Ignoramus's that have not met with the old Gentlewoman his Acquaintance, and the young Gentlewoman that he knows with Cataracts in her Eyes, who use two pair of Spectacles? or must he needs be ignorant that meeting two false Propositions in a Syllogism, contents himself to deny one, and that the denial of which most evidently tends to the nulling the Argument, and rendering it ridiculous? I propose not these Questions to justify my own Knowledge, but to represent and shame M. Stubb's childish, trifling, and malicious Impertinence.  
12. As to the large Discourse that follows concerning Telescopes, I shall treat fully on the Subject, and answer the Animadverter's Cavils, in the Book, where I particularly examine his Authorities; and in that all other things which are worth an Answer shall be considered. For the present I take notice, that this whole Discourse is an elaborate Impertinence, for he proves not, that Telescopes are no late Invention, nor yet, that they are not Helps for Knowledge; He pretends indeed to show that their Reports are sometimes uncertain, but yet will not be understood totally to discredit the use of Telescopes in celestial Discoveries, as he cautions, [p. 47.] And so, what he s●ys, is impertinent to the main Business, though it may seem to confute some passages of mine concerning those Glasses. But let M. Stubb urge all he can for the f●lliciousness of Telescopes, a Sceptic will produce as much to prove the Deceitfulness of our Eyes, and I'll undertake myself to offer such Arguments against the Certainty of Sense, as M. Stubb with all his Sagacity shall not be able to answer.  
But how comes M. Stubb to say in the Entrance of this Discourse, p. 29. That he was sure M. boil is in the same error with M. Cross? Let us see upon what ground he built his Confidence in this first Instance by which he impugns Telescopes: Why, M. boil complains that when he went about to examine those appearances in the Sun called Maculae & Faculae solares, he could not make the least Discovery of them in many Months, which yet other Observators pretend to see every day, yet doth M. boil profess that he neither wanted the conveniency of excellent Telescopes, nor omitted any circumstance requisite to the Enquiry. Thus the Animadverter; and hence he is sure that M. B. is in the same error with M. C. That Telescopes are fallacious. Let this be an Instance how this Swaggerer quotes Authors, and let the Reader look into the place cited from M. boil, If he do so, he will see, That that Honourable Person saith nothing there, that tends to the proving the Deceitfulness of Telescopes, much less, that he believes them fallacious. I have not the Latin Translation of those Essays, but in the second Edition of the Original English, I find the Discourse to which M. Stubb refers, p. 103. where the excellent Author imputes it not to the Glasses that he could not for several Months see the Macul● and Faculae solares, but seems a little to blame those Astronomers, who have so written of the Spots and more shining parts,— as to make their Readers to presume that at least some of them are almost always to be seen there, which he conjectures was occasioned by their so often meeting such Phaenomena in the Sun, [ib.] But these for many months, our Learned Author could not discover by his Telescopes, not because of their Fallaciousness, but for that during many months they appeared so much seldomer than it seems they did before. These are the words of that Honourable Gentleman, [ubi sup.] And now how doth it appear hence that M. boil is in the same error about the Deceitfulness of Telescopes, with M. Cross? Is it sure that he thought those Glasses fallacious, because he could not see the Maculae and Faculae in the Sun, when they were not there? what are we to expect from this man in reference to the other Authors he citys, when he so grossly and impudently misreports so known a one of our own, who is yet alive, and sees how maliciously the Caviller perverts him? I shall examine his carriage to other Writers in my next Book; and in that show that most of the Arguments he brings to argue the Fallaciousness of Telescopes, prove only the Diversity and Changes of the Mediums, and of the celestial Phaenomena, not the Deceit of those Glasses.  
But I am concluded to be altogether unacquainted with Telescopes, as well as ignorant of Optics, [p. 46.] because I say, That [They alter the Objects in nothing but their Proportions.] by which I meant, that they make no Alterations in the Figures of Bodies, but represent them, as they are, only in larger proportions. And I am ignorant in Telescopes, for saying so, For (1.) Some Telescopes invert all Objects, and (2.) the Dioptrick Tubes represent the Light and Colours more dilute and remiss, (3.) Some represent some Objects greater, (4.) Some no bigger, or rather less, (5.) Some Objects are magnified, but not so much as others. These are Arguments of my Ignorance, or M. Stubb's Impertinence: For my Ignorance, I have told M. Stubb, that I am ready to confess a great deal more, than he can prove me guilty of; And whether he hath shown it here, as he pretends, let the Reader judge. If some Telescopes invert all things, that's nothing to his purpose, for I spoke of the ordinary Tubes; Nor is there any change of the Figure of Objects, when they are inverted. Though in the largest Tubes the Light and Colours are more remiss; yet that makes no alteration of the Object, and I said the Glasses altered the Objects in nothing but their Proportions. Though some Objects in some Tubes are represented no bigger, or rather less, than they otherwise seem; yet that's nothing against what I say, For Telescopes ordinarily magnify, 'Tis their remarkable property, and that for which they are used; and though some Objects are not magnified as much as others, yet they are confessed to be magnified, and that's sufficient; or though some are not, 'twere nothing, as I just now observed. I note these obvious things as my eye runs over my Adversaries Book. They are enough to justify what I said, and to show M. Stubb's Impertinence; I shall discover it further, when I come to consider these things more deeply. I represent the easiest matters now, that all Readers may see what a pitiful Caviller this man is, that boasts such mighty matters, and counts all men ignorants, and Fools, but himself.  
(13.) And 'tis notoriously evident in this next Instance, I had said, [Chemistry hath a Pretence to the great Hermes for its Author, (how truly I will not dispute,) But M. Stubb will make me dispute whether I will or no. For after he had recited these words he saith, he can tell me what he is sure I am ignorant of. The Egyptians did never attribute to Hermes the Invention of Physic or any part of it,— p. 50.] How doth this Scribbler confute his own Dreams? who said that the Egyptians attribute to Hermes the Invention of Physic, or any part of it? How easy is it to pile up Authors against any Writer, if a man may take this Liberty of making him say what he pleaseth? I say, Chemistry hath a Pretence to Hermes for its Author; And M. Stubb confutes me by proving the Egyptians did never ascribe the Invention of Physic to Him. And what then? the usual Conclusion follows, M. Stubb is an industrious Impertinent. But will he say, There is no ground for my Affirmation that Chemistry hath a Pretence to Hermes for its Author? He quotes VOSSIUS for the Derivation of the word from the Greek, [p. 51.] If he had read out that leaf in Vossius, he would have found a reason for that passage of mine. That learned man tells us, Transiit Alchymia Disciplina ad nos ab Arabibus, sive Mauris,— Mauros verò ab Aegyptiis accepisse autumant,— Egyptii rursum edocti existimantur ab Hermete seu Mercurio Trismegisto, [Vos. de Philos. c. 9 p. 68] This Saying of Vossius had been enough to justify so transient a passage: But again, SENNERTUS is an Author, against whom M. Stubb saith, he hopes there is no Exception, [p. 58.] This Author he quotes in that Page; If he had here either read out the Chapter, which he citys, he would have seen another reason, why I say, Chemistry hath a Pretence to Hermes for its Author. For thus that celebrated Writer, Post Diluvium à plerisque sive Inventio, sive Propagatio Chymiae ad Hermetem Trismegistum refertur, & ab eo Ars Chymica dicitur hodie Ars Hermetica, Vas Hermetis, & Sigillum Hermetis provulgantur,— Omnes Chymici hactenus censuerunt, ut scribit Albertus Magnus, quòd Hermes fit Radix, super quam omnes Philosophi sustentati sunt,— [Sen. de Natura Chym. cap. 3.] This is another instance how well M. Stubb himself is acquainted with the Authors he quotes, and an evidence that he reads only such Scraps of them, as he thinks make for his turn. And may it not reflect Shame upon a man of his Pretences, that his Adversary should be justified by the very Books he himself citys, and even in the same Chapter and Leaf, whence he takes passages from them; yea, and in a thing too that relates to his own Profession.  
And here I cannot but take notice of an other instance of his Knowledge in the Authors, with which he hath the most reason to be acquainted; He tells us, [p. 112.] That Dr. HARVY in his two Answers to Riolanus, and his Book of Generation, no where asserts the Invention (viz. of the Circulation,) so to himself as to deny that he had the Intimation or Notion from Caesalpinus, which Silence (saith he) I take for a tacit Confession,— How true this is, may be seen in the Book he last mentioned, De Generatione Anim. Edit. Amst. p. 309. There Dr. HARVY in express terms assumes the Invention to himself in these words, CIRCVITUM SANGVINIS admirabilem à me jampridem Inventum, video propemodum omnibus placuisse,— M. Stubb tells us, That His Ambition of Glory made him willing to be thought the Author of a Paradox he had so illustrated,— yet such was his Modesty as not to vindicate it to himself by telling a Lie; [ubi sup.] This we see he did if Cesalpinus was the Author. That this last named Person was the Inventor of the Circulation, M. Stubb labours much to prove, and struts mightily in his supposed performance; I shall not undertake to examine that matter now, only I cannot but take notice, that M. Stubb is impertinent in all that Discourse: For if Caesalpinus be the Author, the Invention is however modern, for he writ his Quaest Medicae not above eighty years ago, and in them it is pretended he discovered the Circulation. And I am the less concerned in all the Animadverters voluminous Nothing about the Author of that Discovery, because I took care before to prevent such Impertinences; but I see M. Stubb will be impertinent, do I what I can to prevent it. I ascribe the Invention to D. Harvy, as almost all men now do, except the Animadverter; but take notice withal, that not only divers Ancients, but some Moderns have had the Glory fastened on them, among these, I mention this CAESALPINUS, and add, [For these though either of them should be acknowledged to be the Author, it will make as much for the Design of my Discourse, as if Harvy have the Credit; and therefore here I am no otherwise concerned, but to have justice for that excellent man,— Plus Ult. p. 16.] But M. Stubb's malice against Dr. Harvy, and spite against me would not permit him to discern that he had no reason here to fall on this Controversy; and 'tis nothing to him whether he have reason, or not; He follows the Impetus, and writes on, if it happen to be to purpose, 'tis well, if not, he cannot help it.  
AND now, Sir, I am quite weary of discovering the Falsehoods, and Follies, and Impertinences of this insulting man. The Instances I have given are enough for my present purpose; They will more abundantly appear in the further Animadversions I intent, in those I shall take all things to task, in which I may be thought to be concerned. But for that work I must have time; I have other things enough to do, which 'tis more my Concern and more my Inclination to mind; And that Business will require me to examine a multitude of Authors, which I have reason to be confident M. Stubb hath misreported and abused; I have given you a taste already of some of his dealings with the Writers he quotes, I shall present the World with a great deal more of the same kind in my next engagement. But that will be a thing of Labour, and 'tis not so agreeable to my humour neither, and therefore the execution of this my Design will be the slower.  
I Thought here to have added an Account of my other Antagonist M. Cross; But that Adversary is to be pitied, all that he can do in the Controversy is but to call Names and invent Stories, and make scurrilous Rhimes; These are the Arms he hath used against me, ever since our Controversy began; I speak not this in a way of contemptuous Abuse, but with all that seriousness, with which I can affirm any thing, which I do most heartily believe. This I say (and I am sorry I can say no better of him) hath been the course he hath taken: I represented the Contents of his Book in a private Letter to Dr. Ingelo, that afterwards, coming to a Friends hands in London was printed by him, and called the Chue Gazett, (for M. Cross lives at a place called Chue.) It was printed, but there were not an hundred Copies of it, and those all given into private hands, that his shame might not be made public. In that Letter, I presented a Collection of some of the Names he had called me, which were as foul and scurrilous, as the most ill-bred Ruffian could have vented in a distempered Huff; I recited about sixteen of his gross Falsehoods, which were the broadest and silliest that ever were framed, for they were so pitifully contrived, that every one that knows me, knew most of them to be false, and he himself could not but know, that they were notoriously untrue; yea, some passages of things he had said, which he publicly denied again in his Book, and with most solemn Invocations of the name of God, have been attested to his face. So that I am as much astonished at the prodigious Indiscretion of this marvellous man, as at his matchless Legends. And in him I see an Instance how far Rage and Malice will carry a proud and intemperate Spirit. He did not know nor care what he said, so he could gratify his wild Passion against me. If ever you chance to light upon that Paper, you will see that this Censure is sober and true. In the same Letter I discovered the contemptible Impertinency of his Book, which doth not as much against mine, as M. Stubb did, when he confuted the Errata of the Press. I give a Specimen also of the Learning he shows in Schoolscraps, and little ends of Verse, and children's Phrases, which are all the Reading he discovers. These things are in brief represented in the Gazett, and much more largely in a Latin Account of his Performance, which I have ready by me.  
After my Letter was abroad, to divert his Trouble and Disorder, he fell into a fit of Rhyming, and writ scurrilous Ballads to abuse me further; upon this occasion he was so given to versifying, that he could not write a Note but it must be in Meeter. As for instance, sending to a Neighbour Minister to preach for him, he presents his Request thus, 
Good M. Battin,  
You speak good Latin,  
And so you do English too:  
Your Neighbour Cross  
Is taking Horse,  
And you must preach at Chue.  With such Poetry as this, my Praises, and those of the City of Bath, were celebrated. And so taken he was himself with his vein, that I have heard, he used to vaunt how much he was in a Poetic Dispensation above Hudibras.  
But the likeliest course he ever took, was the engaging M. Stubb in his Quarrel. He hath a Pen that is always ready to be retained in pay. M. Cross (as I was told by the Animadverter himself) sent him his Book, which he then despised; and said even to me, that he was an old— that had been asleep these forty years, and knew not what the World had been doing; But 'tis like M. Stubb did not know then, what Advantage might be made of M. Crosses Friendship, by one that would undertake his rescue. The Reverend Disputer after this caressed, and courted him highly; treated him at Bath, and entertained him divers times with dear welcome at his House, so that at last he was fastened. How like these two are in their Genius's and Performances, I may have an occasion to show in a parallel. What Assistance M. Cross can afford his Friend in the Cause against the Royal Society, he shall not want: I am told, that he is doing that, which is suitable to his Temper and Abilities, viz. collecting the Legends, that Himself and his Confederates have made and driven about concerning one of those, they call the Virtuosos, to furnish M. Stubb with them; worthy work for a second Cobbler of Gloucester! But their Labour will be lost, and worse: That Person despiseth their malicious Figments; and will make some body repent the infamous Project.  
And now while I am speaking of Legends, I remember one, by which I have been much abused to the GENTRY of WILTS, as if I had spoken rudely and injuriously concerning them. You, Sir, are of that County; and I owe a justification of myself to you, and those other ingenious and worthy Persons, who have heard the Fable. The occasion of the the false Report, which 'tis like you have been told, was this, I commended an Honourable Gentleman of your County, and particularly for his Skill in Mathematics, adding, that I knew none other in the parts where I was then, (being not in Wiltshire) so acquainted with those Studies; or to that purpose; This happened to be mistaken and misreported, and after coming to the ears of some, whose Tongues are their own, they form it into that abusive Falsehood that went about. I know you cannot believe me guilty of any thing so rude, or if I were capable of such Folly or Incivility, I should not have vented it against Persons, by some of which I have been so highly obliged; And when there are not Three Gentlemen, that I know there, for whom I have not a very great Honour and Esteem. And particularly for yourself, I have all that Respect and Value, which so many and so great Accomplishments both intellectual and moral, as you eminently possess, can claim from one, that is sensible, and obliged by innumerable Civilities to be  
SIR, Your Affectionate Humble Servant, Jos. Glanvill.   

Postscript.  
MR. Stubbe being resolved to charge the Enemy home, (as he told us) hath published two other Books, since that against me; The First he calls LEGENDS NO HISTORIES, against Dr. Spratt, and M. Henshaw; The other he names CAMPANELLA REVIVED, designed to prove, That the Royal Society is managing projects to introduce Popery: In these worthy works I cannot tell which I shall admire most, his impudence, or his impertinence; The former will sufficiently appear in the bare recital of some of his expressions, which I shall present for a Taste; The other virtue will require Animadversions, which I suppose the Gentleman concerned may bestow upon the Legends; and the other Pamphlet I may perhaps take an occasion to examine. The shorter work I undertake now, as a Supplement to my Account of M. Stubbe's modesty, and civilities.  
And the First thing I take notice of, is, That this doughty man of Warwick sends public Defiances beforehand, to those he intends to assault, and, as I have read somewhere of the Great Turk, in the pride of his puissance gives solemn warning where he intends to make War: 'Tis unbecoming his mightiness to surprise an Enemy. He therefore informs M. Evelyn, and Dr. Merrett what he intends against them [Camp. rev.] which is somewhat less, it seems, than he could do, should he give himself the trouble; For he saith, he could make M. Evelyn ' s account of the Birch Tree appear as ridiculous, as the History of Salt-Petre; 'Tis like he understands that Tree, He experimented something more than ordinary of it at Oxford; and perhaps if he had right done him, he would have more experience of another Tree. But I must not stay, to remark here. He gives out, That he will make the Lord Bishop of CHESTER smart, and writ to one (as I am credibly told) that he was making inquiries into his Lordship's Learning, parts, and qualifications for a Bishop. How fit is he to be a visitor of Bishops? But to confine myself to what is printed.  
He gives notice in the Preface of his Legends of several Books more, that he hath coming, in pursuance of the Projects of his former; Particularly he threatens one against my LETTER concerning ARISTOTLE; a Design suitable to the Grandeur of M. Stubbe's mind. That short Discourse was first only a private Letter, written when I was not 23 years of Age, and printed six, or seven years ago. Let the mighty man, in the glory of his conquests, insult over an essay of a green youth, and take six years' time to write against two sheets of Paper, which for aught he can tell the Author by this time disrellisheth himself. But the truth is, I do not know, whether I have any reason to do so, or not, having not read it over since. Whatever other faults there may be in the Composure, I'm sure there is no Lying, as M. Stubbe chargeth it, according to the usual way of his civility. I reported no matter of Fact concerning Aristotle or his Philosophy, but from some good and approved Author; though perhaps I should find trouble now in the particular citations, because I want the opportunity of those Books that I then used, and I have lost the Notes that I took from them. Whether it will be worth my Labour to answer what M. Stubbe shall write against that young exercise of my Pen. I cannot certainly foresee, but I shrewdly guests. Perhaps the sole consideration of my youth, when I writ it, will excuse more faul●s than M. Stubbe's wit, and spite together can discover, or as much as pretend to find there. If he confutes that Letter with the like Ignorance, and impertinence as he hath used in his Animadversions on Plus Ultra, 'twill be answer enough to print it again. The Lies he pretends it guilty of, will, I may expect, be disproved by some that are so indeed, for his Authors must sp●ak what he would have them say, and he tells a gross one in the few words in which he mentions the design of confuting me, when he saith, that I have never as much as read over Diogenes Laertius, which were impossible he should know, though it were true. I only take notice further, concerning this, that according to that little cunning which I mentioned before, He would fain draw in the Royal Society to be concerned in that Letter of mine, That so his intended Triumph might be greater, and the Virtuosos prejudiced by his pretended advantages against it. The Letter (forsooth!) is joined to the Edition of my Sc●psis Scientifica, which bears the Arms, and is dedicated to the Royal Society, [Pref. to Leg.] That Book was indeed Dedicated to the Society, but I was not then a Member of it: And are Patrons of Books responsible for their imperfections? If so, 'twere very bad news for the modest Dr. Willis to whom the cleanly discourse of Chocolate is directed. The Prefixing the Societies Arms to my Dedication was the Stationer's conceit; and the mention of it, puts me in mind of a ridiculous offence that was once taken against another Book of mine: The Printer had set a flourish at the beginning over the Dedication, 'Twas a Cut of Henry 8. lying by a Tree, which some took for an emblem of Protestantism coming out of his Codpiece; Just such Arguments M. Stubbe useth to prove that the Royal Society have a design to reduce us to Popery: And I remember, when the Theatre at Oxford was newly built, he very sadly told me, (and made a deal of tragical talk about it) That They had pictured God the Father in the midst of the Ceiling in the shape of an old man; when the figure he meant was but a Mythological picture; what particularly, I have forgot. I wonder this was not insisted on to prove that the Society designs Popery; no doubt it had been as good a one, as any he hath produced.  
But I am a little stepped besides my design of presenting some Instances of his rare modesty, and civility, in his last Books, I shall now do it briefly.  
He calls the Royal Society Trojan Horse, [Pref. to Camp.] and an illiterate Company [p. 21.] The Members of it, Great Impostors [Pref. 10 C.] Fops [Pref. to Leg.] and poor Devils, in his Letter to Sir N. N. viz. Sir Nicholas Nemo. And p. 21. in his Postscript, speaking of the overthrow of the Royal Society, He expresseth himself thus— which not only all Doctors, but all good men o●ght to endeavour; That the disasters of the late Dutch War, the Plague, and Fire of London were less inconveniences than their perpetuity; That these calamities admitted some remedy hereafter; but the evils they are likely to occasion us, would never be corrected by any humane Providence, and I doubted not whether God would support us by his Prudence, when they had debauched the Nation from all piety, and morality, as well as civil wisdom; This was, he saith, part of the purport of another Discourse of his about the errors and cheats of the Virtuosos.  
I now begin to repent that I have troubled myself so much with this hotheaded Impertinent, for I perceive that no one is so fit to answer him, as the Keeper of Bedlam. I begin to pity him, and to wish, that The College of Physicians to requite him, for that grandeur, he saith, he designs for them, would prescribe somewhat for him; For certainly there is much ground to think, that the fancy of his supposed great exploits, hath blown him up to a great distraction: Let us hear how he swaggers on, [It is said that my Animadversions on M. Glanvill contain little of matter, to which I answer, That they contain enough to have made twenty Uirtuost famous, and would h●ve acquired them a memorial of ingenious, and noble experimentators: They contain enough to show the Ignorance of that person, who had so insulted over all university-learning, and particularly over the Physicians: They contain enough, since they contain more than They All Knew, and think I have done great service to the Learned, in showing that these Virtuosos are very great Impostors— To the Reader in Camp.] Again, in the Dedication of his Legends to the Universities, thus, I have stooped the Talbots their Supporters for them, and if ever They hunt well hereafter, this Age knows whom they are obliged to] In a Letter to Dr. Merrett, which is after inserted, He rants thus, If you will proceed with them, you must be trampled on with Them● who are irrecoverably lost; To the same 〈◊〉 he speaks, in his Epistle to Sir Nicholas Nemo, p. 18. The removal of these, viz. (The Royal Society) will not derogate from, but illustrate [the Kings] renown, and confirm England in the Reverence of his generosity, and their Detestableness].  
By the way, what sense is this ● The Reverence of their Detestableness? M. Stubbe saith in the Preface to his Legends, That if there be any person worthy of his indignation, that will justify the rhetoricalness of the History of the Royal Society, he will write about that, and make the Comical wits renounce the Ancient Orators, as they do now the Philosophers.] A rare Censor of Rhetoric, and Oratory this, that doth not himself write Grammatical sense! This I should offer to him, if he were recovered, and fit to be discoursed soberly with. That I will show more gross non sense in his writings, than he can of pretended mistake● in all the Virtuosos that ever writ; I do not mean in the stupidity, ignorance, and incoherence of his reasonings only, but in the frame of the very words. But for a little more of his vapouring.  
[I have a thousand faults more to charge them with, but I reserve them for another Treatise, which if they do not submit to the College of Physicians, and the two Universities, I will publish. In his Letter to his Friend Sir N. N●mo. p. 16.] Submit O ye Virtuosos, for fear of that dreadful Treatise! If that be once publishe●, you are more than irrecoverably lost; For he hath told you, you are so far gone already. How he would have you submit he expresseth in Camp. Rev. p. 15 viz. You must declare solemnly to the world that you understand nothing of ancient, or modern Writers, that is the best way he saith, to secure your credit, from being thought Plegiaries, and Cheats, ibid.] Nonsense again; but that's no News. He adds, if they would but get any one to teach them Latin, and Greek ● it would have saved me some trouble, as you will see in my Animadversions on their History. Neither is this period, true English. If any one had taught M. Stubbe to write sense, he might have saved me trouble, as any one may see in my Animadversions on his.  
But for a passage or two more; [As for M. Glanvill ' s Book, it was perused by several of their members, and corrected by them (a broad falsehood, as I have shown in my Preface) and how much we are redevable to a Society, that could allow of that, and would not at my reiterated importunities, call it in, or disclaim it, let all Physicians judge, Pref. to Camp.] And again, p. 15. They might have appeased me, (Goodly!) would they have called 〈◊〉 these two Books, (viz. the HISTORY of the Royal Society and PLUS ULTRA) but since they would not do that, I suspect their intentions, that they drive on Campanella●● project; why else should they scruple at it?] If They will not call in and renounce all Books that offend M. Stubbe, 'Tis evident they drive on Campanella's projects● There can be no other reason why they should scruple it.  
Further, in the Preface thus, [Nor would I have any man believe that there are so many eminent Physicians of the Royal Society, for neither is the number of those admitted considerable, (I find 30 Doctors of Physic in the last years Catalogue, and many if not most of them of the College,) Few of note, but have deserted it again; The rest approve not of it, so that all the talk will not amount to three understanding persons.] I am assured, that 'tis false that any of note, except one or two have deserted it, and M. Stubbe should tell us, How those that remain have signified their disapproval. Among several other very ingenious persons of the faculty of Physic, I remember these of Note in the number of Fellows of the Royal Society, Sir Geo. Ent, Dr. Glisson, Dr. Goddard, Dr. Willis, Dr. Whistler, Dr. Walter Needham, Dr. jasp. Needham, Dr. Clerk, Dr. Allen, Dr. Horshaw, Dr. Merrett, Dr. Croon, Dr. Power, Dr. Trustan: one or two of these are understanding persons, M. Stubbe saith, not three; would he tell us now which are the one or two that have understanding among them; At this rate M. Stubbe makes the College of Physicians as illiterate a Company, as the Virtuosos; And let any one in that famed body of Learned men, be named in opposition to any thing he shall think fit to say, and that person, be he who he will, shall be cast among the Fools, and Illiterate. I have more reason for this saying then I'll mention here. All the famous Doctors named excepting one or two, are Prattle-boxes and Ignoramus's; who can scape the lash of such a Tongue?  
But I had almost forgot, that to show his candour and good nature he acknowledgeth some of the Society. For he saith in the Preface to his Legends, That he must be insensible of all merit that can derogate from Sir Rob. Moray, Dr. Wren, and Dr. Wallis, and it doth not (he tells us) become any one that knows M. boil, to think that he would abet a design to subvert Piety, and the Protestant Religion. It seems he allows Sir R. M. Dr. Wren and Dr. Wallis to be understanding persons, and rather than leave out M. boil, he shall be brought in too, though but for a negative merit. These are the excepted persons that have the hon●●r of some place in his favour: The rest are Virtuosos, and deserve all that contempt with which we depretiate the Illiterate and Fools. But how comes Dr. Wallis that was branded by him with so many charges of illiterateness and ignorance, and all things else of contempt, as we have seen, how comes this Gentleman now to be so highly in his Books? It seems the Doctor is exceedingly improved in 10 or 11 years, and hath got a great stock of merit, since M. Stubbe writ against him; or rather men shall have merit when M. Stubbe pleaseth, and when he pleaseth, they shall have none. 'Tis to be hoped that the rest of the Virtuosos in ten years more, may get a little merit too, and obtain from him at least a negative commendation.  
And now what can any one think that reads these passages, but that M. Stubbe is overheated in his head? This is the most charitable thought can be entertained of him. I expect that hereafter he should make it his excuse, and certainly 'twill be a better Apology then that of serving a Patron.  
I lately received a Letter of his which he writ to Dr. Merrett, with a desire that I would print it in this Postscript; 'Tis very pleasant stuff, and I here present it to the Reader for a little further entertainment.  
A Letter from M. Henry Stubbe to Dr. Merrett Doctor of Physic and Fellow of the College of Physicians.  
Dr. Merrett,  
HAving not yet seen your book, wherein I am concerned, I cannot tell how far I am to resent it: But I understand you are exasperated against M. Starky, about a Postscript, bearing my name. Sir, There is nothing therein spoken positively, but upon supposition— If one may judge of your abilities, by what you have writ against the Apothecaries then— These words are not actionable, at least till the case be decided in Physic: And 'tis but fi●ting that you suspend your process, till I appear against you in Print, which I will do next Term, and appeal in the judgement of the College, or what Members thereof you'll choose● It is all one to me, For whosoever differed from my judgement, where I oppose you, will but injure himself and betray his ignorance in Physic. But Sir, to let you see how civil I am to my own faculty, if you will desert the ROYAL SOCIETY, and endeavour to adjust the differences, rather than to widen them betwixt Physicians, and Apothecaries, and join in the common interest, and support of our profession, against the Quacks, and Virtuosos, I will be ready so far to gratify the desirest of some of your friends, and mine, as to add, aft●r the debate betwixt you and me upon the case, That I do believe your haste, and passion might occasion the miscarriage, and that your abilities are not to be measured of by any single failure. I beseech you consider the interest, and honour of our profession in your quarrels, and let us not, out of passion against the Apothecaries, destroy ourselves, and give advantage to the multitude of Quacks, under the protection of the Royal Society, and the pretence of making their own Medicaments. You see with what success, I have managed the quarrel, in behalf of Physic, against the Uirtu●●t. Desert these ignorant, and insolent persons, and let me not be blown up behind by the divisions of the College, the Grandeur whereof is my Design. If you will comply herein I will treat you civilly enough; If you will proceed with ●hem, you must be content to be trampled on with them, who are irrecoverably lost. You s●● what miserable Apologies the Wit of Dr. Spratt, and the revi●ing of the Bishop of Chester hath produced: What man of Common s●nce would associate with such Partisans? 'Tis your interest, and 'tis for your credit to abandon thes●●atch doterels. I know my advantages over that book of yours, which I write against, ●nd your repute will extremely depend (considering the odium you are under) upon my ●ibility to you. The world will laugh to see our pens revenge themselves in Westminster-Hall. Let us not divert any eye from scorning the Royal Society: That is the interest of every English man, I'm sure. You may tell them from me, that their dull Letter to me is answered; and that I will bestow a Preface on Glanvill, and the rest, when that against you is published; which is not yet gone to the Press, because I attend the news of your dep●rtment, who I hear are upon disclaiming the Royal Society; the Declaration thereof will be enough to make me  
Your very humble Servant, H. Stubbe. Warwick, Aug. 16. 1670.  
Dr. Merrett sent me his Answer to this Letter, and I had made it public (having his permission to do so) but that my Postscript swells to too great a bigness; Nor indeed doth it need any De●●ant to render it contemptible, and ridiculous. Only this I think ●it to insert out of the Doctor's remarks; That whereas the Quack of Warwick saith, he hears He is de●e●●ing the Royal Society, (to which he threatens, and invites him) The Doctor professeth his great, and just esteem of that Honourable Assembly in the words that follow [I shall save myself the labour of apologizing for the ROYAL SOCIETY, whose repute with foreign Princes, and learned men of all sorts, witnessed by their pens, and the imitation of the like Societies by them● The resort of Ambassadors to their Meetings, and the many Books published by the Members thereof, evidence to the world the ignorance and insolence of this pitiful Scribbler. He goes on, owning his relation to them with great respect, and though he confesseth, that for a year or so, he hath by his occasions been often diverted from their meetings, yet adds that he hopes to frequent them more for the future.  
Thus we see, in another instance, how impudently M. Stubbe romanceth in his Stories of persons withdrawing from the Royal Society. He names but two, of those he pretends to be declining from it, viz. Dr. More, and Dr. Merrett, and I have, I suppose, presented such effectual confutations of his bold falsehood, from both these learned Gentlemen, as would make any man blush, but M. Stubbe.—  
I shall make no other remarks upon the recited Letter; Every Reader will make enough for the credit of the writer.  
He tells us in one of his last Books. That he hath some virtues of the most celebrated times; I hope he doth not mean veracity, or modesty. If he would let us know what the celebrated Times were, in which the Qualities I have noted from his writings, were Virtues, 'twould be a discovery; and I'll assure him none of the Virtuosos would take the honour from him, of finding out the new virtues, or being the most eminent in them. But now I remember, he hath already given hint enough for the discovery; For in the Preface to his la●e Book of Chocolate, He saith of Presbytery, that it is malice, and disingenuity heightened with all the circumstances imaginable in men this 〈◊〉 Hell. We know he celebrated the Times in which the Creatures, and Supplanters of Presbytery reigned, and there is no doubt but They abounded as m●ch with those good Qualities which he makes the essence of Presbytery, as any men, this side the place he speaks of; And since Those were his celebrated Times, we may learn easily what were the virtues; and in how high a degree M. Stubbe p●ss●sseth ●hem, he is blind that doth not see.  
For my part, However ignorant I am otherwise, He hath sufficiently informed me in this; and there is no doubt, but after what I have done in the foregoing Account, I must expect further exercis● of his celebrated virtues towards me. I● his r●ge and ●●ight were ●o kindled only ●y a Cut finger, How will he be inflamed by the wounds my representation of his impudence, falsehoods and impertitencies hath given him?  
Let him now raise his malicious pride to it● most ridiculous height, and spit his most spiteful scorns, and contempts upon me, from it: Let him set his cavilling invention on work for more falsehoods and slanders to vilify and debase me, and call in his friend M. Cross to help him, out of his Storehouse of Legends, and Reproache●. Let him wrest my 〈◊〉 and confute his own dreams, and the E●●ata of the Press, to stuff up a Book of more folly and impertinence; or, which it may be he may think the wiser course, Let him ne● give me up to the Common pens (as he threatens) to be laughed at, and leave them to prove what he hath courageously affirmed, as he did in the case of M. Baxter. These returns I may expect from one, that hath so many good Qualities of his Celebrated Times. In this way he can write on for ever, for such proceedings are most suitable to his parts and virtues: By them he will make himself the admiration of Envious Fools, but the scorn of the wise and intelligent; which latter he hath sufficiently done already. And therefore I shall leave him to the Applauds of hi● Friends, and the Contempts of the Friends of virtue, and wisdom; after I have justified myself in a thing, which is like to be objected by this Antagonist.  
I am told he will Answer all that I have produced out of his writings to show the Hypocrisy of his pretences for Monarchy, and the Church of England, by recharging me with compliance with those Times; An Answer befitting such a Writer; and let him make the most of that charge. My great fault was that I was born in that unhappy season, and bred in those dismal days● But can he accuse me of any thing I ever said or did, that was Disloyal? Did I write a Defence of the Cause of Regicides, and Vsurpers ● or Defame Kingly Government, or blaspheme my persecuted Sovereign, or promote Anarchy, and public ruin? If M. Stubbe cannot prove any of th●se (as I da●e him to offer at it) He cannot recriminate; And his charges of this kind will b● contemptible ● and like all the rest. He had best write against me for coming into the world in an ill Time, and for being born a Child ● I have not the least offence besides to answer for● in reference to the Governments ● except what I apologized for before, the recital I have made of his former Tr●asons and Impieties.  
I have now done for the present with M. Stubbe; But must add this to some silly sneaks, who think he hath written things not to be answer'd ● That Impudence and nonsense are the most troublesome things to answer in the world. I have proved already and shall yet more fully show, that the Argumentative part of his Book against me, is so far from being unanswerable, that it cannot deserve any other Answer then a smile, and silence: For most of that he saith, is lamentably inconsistent and impertinent. He tells us He sends the things to the Press that were suggested as he travelled; and one may judge by their incoherence that he rid upon a trotting Horse; upon which I leave him pursuing the Virtuosos, and add this Advertisement.  
If any man hath a design to write his Life, and further to describe this Sir Hudibr●s and his Steed; He will do well to hold his hand a while, For M. Stubbe's Friend M. Cross hath writ a Book called Biographia, which gives Rules, how Lives are to be writ; This will be printed, if the Licensers will permit the good man to spoil so much paper, and so make himself publicly ridiculous; And the Historian had no● best begin, till he hath M. C. directions, for fear he transgress the Rules, and incur the lash of the Methodical Pedant. This Book, it seems, is intended to correct the Learned and pious Dr. ●ell, for his way of writing the Life of Dr. Hammond, and 'tis M. C. revenge upon that excellent person, for his denying Licence to the scurrilous and nonsensical Book he writ against me. I have not heard many particulars of it, but only this, He calls that Reverend Divine who hath been long Doctor of Divinity, presides over the chief College of Oxford, is Dean of that Diocese, and hath governed the University as Vicechancellor, with singular wisdom, diligence, and applause, I say, he calls that venerable man, jubenis; and I believe that name of diminution doth not go alone; but the Reverend person from whom I had this, lighted on that by chance as he cast his eye upon the Disputer's Papers, which he carrieth about for a show. 'Twould be well for an old man I know, if he had this excuse of being young, for his weakness, and puerilities, for which there can be no Apology made, except he confes● himself arrived to his second childhood. And so I take leave of him out of pity, and, for aught I know, for ever.  
FINIS.   

ADVERTISEMENT Concerning the ERRATA, and some passages liable to be mistaken.  
THat M. Stubbe may not trouble himself to write more Animadversions on the Errata of the Press, I give notice, That when I speak of his Reporting the Design of the Royal Society to be laid by a jesuit, p. 2. or 3. It should be, by a Friar. The mistake was the persons that told i● me, who said, a jesuit, thinking, it seems, That Campanella was of that order.  
In Dr. More's Letter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is se● instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I know not whether the mistake be the Printers, or Transcribers; 'Twas not mine, I never writ out that Letter.  
There are several other small errors I took notice of in running over my Printed Papers, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Pigmy, which should have had no Comma between, and the like; But I have not my Book now at hand to note them particularly, and therefore must lie at M. Stubbe's mercy.  
But these following things were noted, while my Papers were by me, to prevent mistake.  
[P. 174.] When I say, It must be granted that two pair, viz. of Spectacles ordinarily hinder 〈◊〉 sight, I would not be understood, 〈◊〉 they do so, when used by those of Great●● Age. For two pair to them have but the power of one.  
[P. 178.] When I say Telescopes represent ●●jects as they ar●, only in larger proporti●ns; I mean as they are, for figure, and only represent them larger than they appear to the 〈◊〉 eye.  
[P. 179.] When I grant what M. Stubbe saith, that in the longest Tubes the Colours of Objects are more remiss; whatever he mean●, I would not be understood, as if the length of the Tubes made the remissness o● the Light, for that is caused by the number of the Glasses, or ●he darkness of their metal.   

Books Printed for and sold by James Collins, at the Kings-Arms i● Ludgate-street near the West end of St. Paul's, and at the Kings-head in Westminster-Hall.  

A Discourse of the Religious Temper and Tendencies of the modern, experimental Philosophy, which is professed by the Royal Society. To which is annexed a Recommendation and Defence of Reason in the affairs of Religion. By jos. Glanvill. In octavo.  
Observations upon Military and Political Affairs ● Written by the most Honourable George D●ke of Albemarle, etc. Published by Authority. In folio.  
A Private Conference between a Rich Alderman and a Poor Country Vicar, made Public. Wherein is discoursed the Obligation of Oaths which have been imposed on the Subjects of England. With other Matters relating to ●he present State of Affairs. In octavo.  
Praxis Medicinae: or the Universal Body of Physic. Containing all Inward Disease's incident to the Body of Man. Explaining the Nature of every Dis●ase, with Proper Remedies assigned to them. Very useful for Physicians, Chirurgeons, and Apothecaries, and more especially for such who consult their own Health. Written by that famous and learned Physician Walter Bruell. In quarto.  
The Christians Victory over Death. A Sermon at the Funeral of the most Honourable George Duke of Albemarle, etc. in the Collegiate Church of St. Peter's Westminster on the 30. of April, 1670. By Seth Lord Bishop of Sarum. Preached and Published by his Majesty's special Command. In quarto.  
The Episcopacy of the Church of England justified to be Apostolical, from the Authority of the Ancient Primitive Church: And from the Confessions of the most famous Divines of the Reformed Churches beyond the Seas. Being a full Satisfaction in this Cause, as well for the Necessity, as for the Just Right thereof, as consonant to the Word of God. By the Right Reverend Father in God Thomas Morton late Lord Bishop of D●resme. Before which is prefixed a Preface to the Reader concerning this Subject, by Sir Henry Yeluerton Baronet. In octavo.