CLAMOUR, RIXA, JOCI, MENDACIA, FURTA, CACHINI, OR, A SEVERE ENQUIRY into the late ONEIROCRITICA Published By JOHN WALLIS, Grammar-Reader in Oxon.  

Go tell the Assembly of Divines,  
Tell Adoniram blue:  
Tell Marshal, Burges, Case, and Vines,  
Tell now and anon too.   
LONDON, 1657.   

Reader,  
THou hast here two Title Pages. He who communicated the former Letter to Mr. Hobbes, thought the Doctor for his insolent and contumelious language towards him deserved no other Reply, then to be thus posted: But least the whole work might not be carried on by the same hand; I thought fit to join with it such a Title as the Author himself had prefixed to his Letter,  
O. V.   

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. OR AN EXACT ACCOUNT OF THE GRAMMATICAL PART of the CONTROVERSY betwixt Mr. HOBBES and J. WALLIS D. D.  
By the Author of the Former Letter.  Stolaeus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theocrit. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
LONDON. 1657.   

To the Understanding Reader.  
AFter that the contest betwixt Mr. Hobbs and our Geometrician had alarmed the world, I was requested by a Gentleman of the Middle Temple to send up the answer to those Six Lessons assoon as it should come out here: I did so, and found myself obliged to give him some account thereof, which I intended should be brief, but after the descant upon his childish Prosopopaeia, the Examen of his Critical remarks drew from me some sheets of paper, of which (I dispatched them, amidst other employments, in three days, and never transcribed them) I can give no further account then that the import of my thoughts is contained in that extract of a Letter published by M. Hobbes since, without my being privy thereunto, or acquainted therewith until it was too late to recall it with civility. Upon a review, I was well satisfied therewith, and with the entertainment it found amongst the Learned and Ingenuous; but I was a little moved, to see myself linked in the same cause with Mr. Hobbes. I know his Adversary (it is a sufficient Character to name him) to be JOHN WALLIS D. D. One who hath so merited by his Scurrility and O●scaenity, that his English writings may become Appendices to Pasquill's jests, or the merry Tales of Mother Bunch. There being no name put to the Letter, it might have been answered, and I not concerned: But then he had lost his railing accusation, (jud. vers. 9) whereunto whatever I shall reply, it is Responsum non maledictum, quia laesit prior. I have put myself to the trouble of un●aseing this r'anverse of Alcibiades his Sile●us, and let all men to see what an Adversary I have. Certainly Antonio's Nurse was adiscreet Woman! when ever she met any pe●ite Grammarian, she would cross her Child, and repeat those Charms, which the old Wives of Sicily make use of against mad Dogs, lest they by't. He calls me Scribbler: I confess it was penned in haste: but that is not the Doctor's contumely: he is so in love with his own works, that whatever is written either against him, or not after that strain, he esteems it as scribbling: but there are others that do not. Where I said, and that truly, how Calepine's Authority should not outweigh mine, if his reasons did not. He observes that Ingenium plumbeum est ponderosum, that he did speak but in jest too! The charge of ignorance amounts to nothing; since he would not acknowledge it himself, he could not but lay it upon me: and I thus far join with him, that one of us two is grossly ignorant. Sauciness, I understand not: I know no betters, but such as maintain the truth. As for the title of BOY, I have so handled the Professor, that he may wish he had that plea to excuse himself. But what help could he seek from personal aspersions? Must all I say be false, because I was once injured? How come I also to be Mr. H●●bss journeyman? I was never entreated to this task, much less in the pay of ●our and fourpences a day: if I had (and done nothing) I should have admitted of that residue of ill language SLAVE and Rascal. I would not be mistaken in what I say to this passage: I think the Scarlet Gown advantageth not a man's merit, nor is it a certain sign of extraordinary worth: yet I would not at present be understood to detract from it. Neither would I so prosecute my revenge as to prejudice the true Ministers of Christ in the w●●k of the Gospel: I have a real inclination for those who disperse the sincere milk, and do not pester the heads of their flocks, (theirs if they are chosen by them, and with a subordination to the fraternity,) with the burlesque of the Fathers, or jargon of the Schoolmen, (as if we were to go up to the Philistines to whet our too●s, or to fetch our interpretation of the Gospel from those to whom it was hid!) nor urge the Gallimaufry of Critical Learning: who deliver what the Spirit attests with their spirit to be the Word of God, & the comfort whereof they have experimented in their daily communion with Christ, not transcribed by usual converse with Books. These I have in all due esteem and regard, and I shall desire to employ my Talents in no other way so much as in the promotion of Christ's cause under them. Something about the Ordinary Ministry I have said in an account of Doctor Wallis' Thesis to a Member of the Army in Scotland, which thoughts I have long since enlarged, and put in Latin, but could never hear yet that his discourse merited a censure: some have thought that his repute might give a greater credit to the declining cause, than any Arguments he had brought, wherein Generals are only handled, and nothing accommodated to the times: which is the customary procedure of those that intent to deceive, not inform. But I have here attacked his reputation, and having weakened that in this present work, I may well expect the vacancy of the Press in Oxford, (that the same place may publish both discourses) to divulge what I have meditated in order thereunto: wherein I do promise myself such an answer to Matth. 28. 19 20. Ephes. 4. 11, 12. (the only material places in the Controversy) that they shall never be produced again conclusively. This present work had not been so long delayed, but that it was long ere my occasions, (which afford still diversions) and long ere my laughter upon the reading Dr. W. would permit me the use of a Pen: And being then rather to proclaim my victory, then to gain one, I supposed I might take a greater time to prepare for triumph, than had been otherwise necessary to the dispute. Nor do I now go about to triumph over the single Doctor, (the conquest is too mean!) but over all those whose interest or ignorance may have 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, Henry Stubbe. Oxon. June 17. 1657.   

SIR,  
I Doubt not but you are already sensible of what you have done, and what trouble you have now drawn upon me by communicating my letter to Mr. Hobbes. Though I have an entire respect for his person, a great esteem of his learning, and honourable resentments for his civility at that one visit I gave him, which as vulgar reports had rendered unexpected, so it begat in me an opinion that he was one of the most free, and obliging Gentlemen in the world: yet I durst not adventure a line to him by way of censuring his Antagonist, lest it might distaste those, who would not stick to entitle me to all his Heterodoxyes, (to which I am so great a stranger, that I know no more of them then common talk hath acquainted me with, having never had leisure to examine his books,) because I agree with him in some few inconsiderable points of Critical learning, and make me guilty of his sentiments, because I excuse his Latin. With such as think all manner of correspondence (which cannot be denied without incivility) with him, to be scandalous; all agreement even in Philology transcendently heretical; what can I hope for, but that they repute it Apostasy to appear for him in public? But Sir, for this you are accountable: I wrote a letter to you, you by publishing our privacies made it a reply to Dr. Wallis: I defended the Truth, you made it a vindication of Mr. Hobbes: and let me tell you, could he have discovered you, the TEMPLE had been no privileged place against the assaults and arrests of our high- Priest, you will say there needed no rejoinder, since he hath invalidated nothing I said; but how many will think so besides your self? If La Taupiniere doth not overcome, yet he triumphs, and though the beck be despicable, yet there wants an Apology against the title page, which yet is absurd enough, through the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of undoing Mr. Hobbes' points, after he had corrected him: duly! (but what will not these humble witted souls do to compass a jest?) Lest you should question my integrity, and suspect henceforth that I go about to impose upon you those things which are not veritable, 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 applouse of the ingenuous (whose praises were the more to be regarded, because they were directed to the piece which was public, not the Author, who was concealed) if this doth not deserve it, than you may let it fall, and suffer me (in the opinion of the illiterate) to seem foiled in my first essay. I have enlarged upon particulars, that so I might prevent in the Dr. all possibility of cavilling, and I have observed that conduct in my reply, as to speak not only what the Drs. pamphlet, but what the present case required. I have spoken the more concerning adducis malleum, that so important a business might not be overruled, nor the university debauched in their stile. I was essended at his Philologysermon, and reflected upon it in the letter, as no Apostolic way of preaching: he doth nor remove now that rock of offence, but tells me how I miscite him there, for he did not say Sobrius was but once in Tully, but very often: I trusted to my memory as to what I more. And Vessius in his book the constructione cap. 47. expressly teacheth, Ablati●os 〈…〉 sed ● praepositione omissâ, à, vel ab, de, 〈…〉 exp●imi; nisi qued cum Ablativis 〈…〉 and afterwards he saith of this latter, it is, haud 〈…〉 If this be 〈◊〉, than did Mr. Hobbs speak Grammatically, and with Tully, but not usually. And might not one retert upon the Doctor, that Vossius is as great a 〈◊〉 he?  
Dr. 〈◊〉 To defend you here he brings two places of Tully, and one rule of 〈◊〉 And tells 〈◊〉 that Alvarez made a Grammar. But tells me no news all the while; 〈◊〉 knew it all before. I knew that (besides many others) Emanuel Alvarus hath written a Grammar, (which is the same I suppose, w●th his Alvarez.) And I know not that 〈…〉 wrote against him: but what then? The two places of Tully I had seen cited in 〈…〉 Thesaurus 〈◊〉 ●s (from whence he borrowed them.) but I found them not to the purpose: The judgement of Vessius I knew very 〈…〉 and that it makes nothing against me. The places of Tully do not come home to the business; the Authority of Vessius is against you. In the first place 〈…〉 et molesto; that 〈◊〉 labour, etc. was not intended to design the cause of that endeavour, but only an 〈◊〉 (and the like of ad●●nientem cum fer●●●. etc.) and if you mean no more here, it was at first allowed you; but not 〈◊〉 meant by cum to ●mply a causality. The ●●le of Vessius is against you; and so is your own Advocate's decision. Vessius tells you haud ●emerè invenias, and if at a●l, yet haud temerè imita●●um. And all that your advocate dares affirm in the business, is, but a peradventure, [If so] it may be said Grammatically, but not usually.;  
Defen. That I have not wronged the Doctor I suppose he will here bear me witness; but how he hath wronged me, I leave it to his own conscience, and the judgement of the 〈◊〉 partial Reader. He talks high, as one whose reputation is at stake, yet his 〈◊〉 so incoherent, inconsistent, that it seems to be the Resve●y of a person, who placeth the greatest hope he hath of carrying the case, in his confident manner of speaking. The reader will easily perceive that the Doctor doth pervert the state of the Question, which is, whether the Ablative case of the manner may have the prep●●●on Cum going before it? The other Question, whether the preposition cum may be joined with the Ablative case of the cause or instrument, Ought not to beget any dispute, seeing the mentioning of it proceeded from the Doctors not knowing what Mr. Hobbs meant; th●● is ●●ear. The Doctors exception to Longitudinem percu●sam 〈◊〉 uniformi, 〈…〉 etc. was, that Cum were better out, it being the Abl ●●tive case of 〈◊〉 cause or instrument: Mr. ●●bs to rectify his intellectuals, tells him it is the Ablative case of the m●●ner. So that whatever can be objected against the Ablative of the cause with Cum▪ it is impertinent to the case in hand, & had not been mentioned by ●e, but that the Doctor saith, there is the same reason for cum when it is joined with the Ablative of the manner, and instrument: and in this latter case he saith positively, that though we may use in its expression, with in English, yet NOT come in Latin. So that what I objected was directly contradictory to his saying, viz. That in both case, we might make use of the preposition Cum. My allegations out of Tully are evident & undeniable, unless the Doctor show a disparity betwixt invadere cum ferro, and 〈…〉. As for what the Doctor talks of advenientem cum ferro, it shows his reading, that he hath not consulted Tully, but Car. Stephanus Thesaurus Ciceron▪ for he that reads the oration will find that Caecina came without arms, ex jure manu conser●um, but his adversary came non ex jure manu co●sertum▪ sed mage ●erro. I have pointed it here▪ according to the edition of janus Gr●terus, which I use, that the Doctor may not stake the point in question. And now, if the D. D. D. Dr. did know this (as he saith he did) let the Reader judge of his impudence to e●●●ce the allegation: or if he did not, of his 〈◊〉 in not knowing what he ought to have consulted, before he denied: ●nd withal he will find what allowance is to be made, that the Doctor's assertions may be currant, seeing he doth profess he knew all I had said, whereas it is evident he neither knew what I said, nor yet what was the matter in debate; which brings me to examine my second proof, 〈…〉: If this be not the Ablative case of the manner, I know not what is; and that was all I was to prove, and if this place do not come home to the purpose I give the ●eader leave to B●and me as ●gno●imously, as I do the doctor That the 〈◊〉 of V●ssius is against Mr. Hobbs is false, for he in the rule grants, and in the example's proves that the Ablative of the manner is governed of the preposition cum. What he saves of the Ablative of the cause, that it is haud temerè imita●●um; that doth clearly evince his judgement in the other cases: Exc●ptio 〈…〉: and doth not at all oppose us, who ex abundanti only spoke of the Ablative of the cause. This the Doctor knew too! But that the Doctor may learn a little more, I shall add the judgement of jul. Scaliger in his appendix ad 〈◊〉 Gelli●●s. Sect. XI.  
〈…〉. dixit Sepcimum casum●●● Quintili●● as well as Servius accounts the Ablative of the in●trament to be the seventh case ● cum praep●●●●●●nis n●à pani, quand, instrumentum Significat? Q●●d Prisciaous aliquò m●do voluisse videtur cum dicit: desunt verò interdum praepositiones, his magnum Alciden contra stetit. An quod ex arte ●●cueus est; et ex antiquis aliquos habebat quos udduceret, qui nostro savore sunt intercep●●? Non adduxit enim in re manifestà et incontroversa restes non necessarios: et nos ●●●ucemus Ovid. 4. Faster: adversus calumniatores.  Haec modo verrebat ra●o cum pectine pratum. 
Franciseus Sanctius also saith as to that very case, de cause. lingu. Lat. lib. 4. c de instrumenti praepositionibus. In instruments sign●ficando derst Come, Graec● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Sed vita●de ambiguiratis gratiâ non a●●ibatur. Quum enim dicis tetigi illum cum hastd▪ nescit●●, 〈◊〉 illum 〈◊〉 hastam tetigeris, an verò instrumentum significes. Sed ubi dubi● non est ●ratio, venustè app●nitur: ut, vidi gladium, CUM quo se percuss●t. Ovid. 1. M●tam: Con●●ssie Terque quat●rque. Caesariem, cum quâ terram, mare, sidera movit. Idem in Epis●●●. Acentii. 
Testis et Actaeon, quondam sera creditus illis,  
Ipse dedit letho cum quibus ante seras.  Idem 4. Fast. Haec modò verrebat raro cum pectine pratum. Aldus aliter 〈◊〉 it, quod non pre●●. Plin. libro 9 c. 28. Gaeteri cirri cum quibus venantur. Sic habet 〈◊〉 lectio. Paul. Orosius l. ●. Ipse imperator cum sagittâ saucius. Et quid Eleg●●tius qu●m illud non inceleb●●s Auth●●is (gladium, quicum se percu●●era●, eduxit.) quod imperitè 〈◊〉 Valla lib. 2. c. 6. The book hath an high esteem amongst learned men, and the licenser (no mean person) gives it this commendation, est enim ●pus, unde hujus aetatis Gr●●mmatici, (si tandem all q, vando serio sapere velin●) vera, bret●a, claráque p●●●cepta discere possunt. What the Doctor shall say for elevating his Authority. I believe will justify me in what I did against Calepine; he will answer out of Vessius (in the place alleged before) his proofs, and then his assertion m●st be countervailed with a negation. And, (that the reader may not be ignorant) it was Francisens' Sanctius whom Vossius (without naming him) answer there; and having replied to the proofs out of the ancients, by reading the places otherwise, or expounding them in a different sense; he proceeds no further, but (reflecting I suppose upon Orosius, and that other eminent writer taxed very peremptorily by Valla l. 2. c. 6,) concludes, Neque, 〈◊〉 aliter ●spi●m usurpetur, temerè liceat imitari. But how haud temerè imitandum, comes to be construed, not to be used in Latin, I do not understand. I should have glossed upon it otherwise, and thought it a prohibition not of the use absolutely, but frequently; as in the case of him who imitating Sallust, because he had found 〈…〉 (or the like once) he inculcated that expression upon all occasions: this was temerè imitari Antonius Nabrissensis in his Grammar lib. 4. Ablativus Caus●●, Excess●●s, aut medi, quò aliquid ●it, omnibus verbis adjungitur, qui semper pende● 〈◊〉 pr●positione. 〈◊〉. And, Hi●ce eculis eg●met vidi, etc. CAUSAE, Excessui, aut MODO eleganter 〈…〉: Instrumento non ita eleganter. It is not long since this Grammar was as Authentic in Spain, as Lily is in England, (out of whose rules Doctor Wallis con●utes us) and whether he be so still I cannot tell, I know nothing to the contrary: I find good writers to praise him, and if the Doctor produce more Grammars against us, I will allow him two to one, and venture my reputation against his no-credit; though all this be nothing to the controversy, which is about the Ablative of the manner, which I have proved to be good Latin, and (if the Doctor please) elegant also. He saith, I tell him Alvarez (betwixt which and Em. Alva●us, there is no other difference then that of Wallisius and Wallis) made a Grammar. Good reader dost thou find any such impertinency, in the Letter? I say Alvarez would have taught him more: and it is true, for Alvarez saith, Medus actionis praepositionem, Cum, inte●dum desiderat. And is this no more than to tell him Alvarez did write a Grammmar? I believe indeed that was all the Doctor knew of him, but no man could think that was all I meant; though writing in haste, I did not cite his words. Who that Orlandus Pescetius is, I do not know, but had he in his writings produced any thing that might avail the Doctor here, I doubt not but he would have alleged it. The Advocate's decision is not against Mr. Hobbs, but for him; I shall never censure any man for using Cum with an Ablative of the manner: nor yet if he use it once (or so) with an Ablative of the instrument: (and more you do not object to Mr. Hobbs) because I find it in Tully. Cum uno Cicerene errare milo, quam cum illis sapere. He saith, all that the Advocate dare affirm in the business, is, but a PERADVENTURE (if so) it may be said Grammatically, but not usually. was there ever any man guilty of such horrid falsification! If so! It is Ratiocinantis, not Dubitantis. Could ever any man force such a remark out of these words. If this be so, then did Mr. Hobbs speak Grammatically, but not usually; but you proceed.;  
And therefore say I, (as I said before) it were better ●ut! This is not all good Doctor, you said it could not be in: as is evident, and that not only where the case was of the manner but Instrument also. Your reason why it were better out, being, because it could not be in. And now you see, that you have afforded us nothing hitherto but falsities, and falsifications, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  

§ 2.  
The next passage is concerning Praetendit scire.  
Dr. W. Fourthly, you say, (i. e. Mr. Hobbs) that you think. I did mistake (pretended scire) for an Angl●cisms. Your words were these at first, (as that Paragraph was first printed, pag. 176.) tamen quia ●u id nesci●, nec pr●●tendi● scire 〈◊〉 auditu, etc. as appears in the torn papers. And then (after you had● modelled the whole paragraph, as it now is pag. 174.) tamen quia id nescit, nec pra●tendit scire, etc. This I did, and do still take (not mistake) for an Anglicisme. And you cannot deny but that it is so. Where is the mistake then? You say it is a fault in the Impression; yes that it is, and that twice, for failing. But was it not a fault in the copy 〈◊〉? You say it should have been, pr●etendit S● scire. That I confess helps the matter a little But why was it not so? The printer left cu●se (yes; at both places!) And why? But because the Author had not put it in?  
L. L●. His next reflection is upon pr●tendit scire; this he ●aith is an Anglicisme. If this be all his accusation, we shall lose upon this score many expressions that are used by the best Authors, which I take to be good Latin ●mes, though they be also Anglicismes, the latter being but an imitation of the former. The Doctor therefore was too fierce to condemn upon to general an account, that which was not to have been censured for being an Anglicisme, unless it also had been no Lati●isme. Mr. Hobbs replies, that the Printer had omitted se. He saith this mends the m●tter a little. It is very likely, for than it is just such another Anglicisme as that of Quintilian; Cum l●ricatus in foro ambularet, praetendebat se id meru fa●ere. The Doctor certainly was very negligent, ●relse he could not have miss this in Robert Stephen. O● haply, he was resolved to condemn Quintilian for this and that other Anglicisme, Ignoranti●● p●●●tendi non potest; as also all those that have used pretend, which are many, and as good Authors as Dr. Wallis who makes his own Encomiast (not an English man) amongst them to write Anglicismes.;  
Dr. W. repl. The next is praetendit scire, which I took to be no great elegancy. You suppose that 〈◊〉 it for an Anglicisme; and I confessed I did. Your defence was, that it should have been praetendit se scire, (thereby confessing, I suppose, th●t without see it was not good,) but that se was omitted in the impression (twice for failing.) Your Advocate's defence is, that praetendo is a good Latin word (as though any had questioned it) why did he not bring the same for Cum in the former place? For doubtless that is a good Latin word too. The easiest defence had been, in both places, as well as one, to put it upon the Printer; (in the one place he put in cum, which were better out; in the other he left out see, which should have been in:) or else, that it was but the stumbling of an hastypen, which had been excuse enough, and would have passed without any more ado.;  
What the Doctor said in his Elenchus I have not the book to see; yet I fear he mistakes the terms no great elegancy, and an Anglicisme! An Anglicisme may be a very great elegancy: and I think the Doctor did not do well in a Philosophical discourse to condemn phrases for not being great elegancies: but surely he took it for a Barbarism; upon the former account he must seem impertinent, and on the latter score, ignorant. In the construction of these two words, I imagined that his quarrel lay against the verb praetendo, to pretend, (and he I think must confess it, for the infinitive mood without an Accusative case before it, as here See was omitted, is frequent in Latin Authors, even in Tully) hereupon I said praetendo was a good word in that sense, and proved it. But that I said simply that pr●●tend● was a good Latin word, without any relation to its English signification, is a thing imposed upon me by the Doctor, that so he might seem to reply something, though he said nothing. What the printer might leave out, the Doctor will tell us anon in his own case; if he expect any favour, he must learn to allow more. You have had enough concerning Come, and it is as easy for a printer to leave 〈◊〉 see, (in my poor conceit) as He would have us credit him concerning the gr●●ver. If he had acknowledged it the stumbling of an hasty pen, the Doctor would hardly have let it pass, who will not let alone other passages that are not such. Let any body compare both, and see to what the Doctor answers. The mention of his Encomia●●es, who is a public Professor of Mathematics, of known abilities, and beyond exception, obliges me to present the reader with some part of his Latin letter: I am very charitable to think the Doctor did alter some of his Solaecismes, yet as it is after it hath passed both their hands, I here tender it.  
Cum a●state praeteritá in m●nus inciderit Thomae Hobs elementorum philosophiae Sectio pri●●● abstinere non petui quin tractatum istum leviter evolverim. Instigabat me ad hoc, tum Authoris hujus celebritas, ●um●tiam quod plura in eodem tractatu offendebam Geometrica, quae si Philosophiam non excolerent, saltem ut quam maximè illustratura f●rent, opinabar. Said me illum perlustrante, cum talia ibi invenerim ejus de Algebrâ five Analysi judicia, ● quibus mihi facile fuit colligere, quod Author hic in ●adem arte parum debere● esse versa●us: (quandequidem hac illa Ars existit, u● si liber su●s in Geometriâ egregii ac ardui quid con●●neret, qualia se passim invenisse PRAETENDERE mihi videbatur, id ipsum huic arti, judicio meo, in tetum deberet;) C●mque adhuc in perlustrando dum pergebam, nonnulla de rectae ac curvae aequalitate, aliaque complura animadvertebam quorum cognitionem nunquam mihi pollicebar ac inter seponenda notabam, ve●●●è si spes aliquâ inveniendi illa mihi superesset, quin Algebram in parts vocarem non dubitabam: Aliam excude de ipso opinionem concept, credens quod ill● quaeillum ante è proprio penu deprompsisse autumabam, non nisi altorum inventa esse, sed i●alium sensum ab eo traducta aut correpta: Ideoque siquid boni in es comprehende●etur, id quam maxime esse ventilandum ac ex●u●●●ndum.  
Here is such a premulsis out of Dutch-land, as I have not the patience to transcribe any more: If the Doctor will excuse him, he must ●lie to Tully's Epistol, nostrae debent hallucinari. He that had exhibited to us such a letter, might have spared the stumblings of a contemplative mind in a large treatise. This man the Doctor fayes needs not Mr. Hob's praise: If he did, I believe he would not obtain it: he gives not praises to them that stand in need, but which deserve them. If he have no better ornaments than we see here, (that I may use the Scarlet Doctor's phrase) the ragged regiment will scarce allow him the benefit of a muster●●. Mr. Hobbs called him Dun● 〈◊〉 the Doctor hints us out an Apology for him, (p. 10.) viz. that Duns should not be written with an S. well now that I have exhibited the letter, do as you see fit. Minshew (from whence I may as well say you have plundered the Etymology of Hob-gobbing, as you charge me with Nizolius, etc.) saith it comes from densus: and then it may be Duns; (with an S.) thee being wanting is a Dugardisine. When I read it I think there may be an allusion to his name, which having some affinity with Scotus, he surnamed him Duns. But I go on.   

§ 3.  
Dr. W. In like manner Page 222. Tractatus hujus partis tertiae, in quâ mo●us et ●magnitudo per se et abstractè confideravimus, terminum hic statuo. This was the Printers fault too, was it not? Or at least a fault in the impression?  
L Lr. Here I must confess the exception is colourable, yet I can parallel it with the like objection made by Erasmus against Tully, out of whom Erasmus quotes this passage: Di●ti●s commorans Athenis; quoniam venti negabant solvendi facultatem, ●rat ani●●s ad te scribere: and excuses it thus, that Tully might have had at first in his thoughts volebam, or statuebam, which he afterwards relinquished for erat animus, and did not remember what he had antecedently written, which did not vary from his succeeding thoughts, but words. And this excuse may pass with any who knows that Mr. Heb● values not the study of words, but as it serves to express his thoughts, which were the same whither he wrote, in qud mo●us & magnitu●o per se et astra●●● consideati sunt, or consideratimus. If the Doctor will make this so Capital, he must prove it voluntary, and also show that it is greater then what is legible in the ●uny letter of his Encemiast, whom he would have to be beyond exception.  
Dr. W. repl. And the same defence (viz. that they were the stumblings of an hasty pen) should have been made for the third and fise place; m●●us et magnitu●● considera●●nus: and mulia ejusm●●i (propositi●nes) for to defend such mistakes, is worse than to commit them. And the like of many other elegancies, of which I gave you a taste the last time, which now are passed over in silence. And it would not have hurt you to have said as little of these. Such slips are no great blemish till they come to be defended. And I should not have thought it worth while, so much as to note them, if you had not ●● manner challenged me so to do.  
De●. That these were not the stumblings of an hasty pen in Mr. H●bs, I cannot say: if he had acknowledged it; how the Doctor would have passed over his faults, whereas he maketh such ado concerning the printers Errats', any one may conjecture, what I wrote in the letter, I wrote not as if it had been the rule he proceeded by, but excuse. And what more might have been said, for those that I passed by, let the reader judge by what I have said, and shall say for these. I cannot allow the Doctor that TO DEFEND SUCH MISTAKES IS WORSE THAN TO COMMIT THEM, greater men than I ●re concerned in this: the reader sees that Tully and Mr. Hebs are in the same condition, whatever then hath been said for the one, may justify the other (●●tatis ●●tandis) and what the Doctor objects against the Apologist for Mr. H●bs, will interest the Advocates of Tully in the controversy. It is not one, but several Solecisms that E●asirus carpeth at in Tully. I shall set down jal. Sca●gers defence (though it be long, it cannot be tedio as to the diligent reader) in gross, not omitting things remote from the present controversy, because the Oration is hard to be got, and contains very remarkable things. Thus than julius Scaliger speaketh to his supposed auditors, concerning E●asmus.  
〈◊〉 in Ciceronis scriptis deprehensos tradit etiámne id nebulo? Quis tibi dixit ita scriptum esse? Nihil enim est quod à maledicentissimo, ●odemque mendace non imponi poss●t. Quasi verò non aequè invidi atque inepti sit, ita ●eriptum suspicari reliquisse, et candidi ingenii in libratiorum culpam rejicere. Quanto facilius mihi sidem ●●bebunt omnes temporum injuriam accusanti, cujus tractibus atque an●●●ctibus, multa latent, multa invertantur. plu●ima depravantur, alia intereunt. Nolo enim hic tractare hunc locum, quasi communem, deplorareque saeculorum acerbitatem; neque si ●elim, sciam, sed tu●ipse qui hasce Tragaedias movere soles, qui nequaquam integro nobis Cicerone per tempestatum injurias frui licere clamitas, qui supposititios atque adultetino● libros sub ejus nomine falso circumfer●● indig●aris; quid hoc est negotii, ut calumniam istam de uno verbo, immò verò de unius ver●i syllab● mutueris? Quid inquies, si contendam aliter à Cicerone scriptum fu●●●e, quid two unde ea desumpsisti? Quid ●●●●m d●rmitantis manum Tyronis accusem? Sed ut haec omnia omittam, qu●●ro de ●e num in Ciceronem prima Grammaticae ●udimenta nescisse dicas? Id verò est, quod à veteribus dici solet, nihil esse perniciosius arr●gante homine, cum ●i semel ansapraebita est ad calumniam. Ageita sit, in libris Ciceronis vel illius ipsu●s manuscriptis Solaecismos deprehensus est. Hic verò scire pervelim, ubi gentium tam impurus veterat●● vitam vivat, qui illi id adscribere andeat. Sed non mirum est te id improbare quod tibi incompertum est, cum multo majore impudentiâ recepta quoque retractare s●udea●. In potestatem esse à Cicerone dictum, 
〈…〉 desendit in problematis Gelli●rus.  inquis, atque id minus Latinum quibusdam visum esse. At scin quibus? Barbaris aliquot, aure rudi atque agresti, judicio corrupto, quorum ineptiae ●eque abs te primò ●es●runtur, neque à me prin ò ●●●●lluntur: sed sunt nobis authores multo qu●m Cicero antiq●●ores, quibus à Graecis fontibus ea●●ta deducere placuit, Quam rem qu●ci iam à p●litishmo autho●e Gellio 〈◊〉 tractatur, diflusius non occupabo. Sed qu●●●●modem Q. Claudius in mediton relinquere dixit, quemadmodum in rem esse Latin di●●mus, in re esse pro eo quod est utile esse▪ non dicimus, sed ●●e esse●▪ atque alia 〈◊〉 in m●dum apud alios infinita: ita esse in potestatem. ALIUD enim est 〈◊〉 esse, qualis tu, c●●us in angustias sordésque nos detrudere vis; aloud populi con●●tudini, doctorum auctoritati, numeris orationis, purgatis auribus inservire. 〈…〉 Gellio qui hoc te docuit ex calumniatoribus, si tam candidus elles in, quam ille vir bonus fuit ac doctus, defensionem quoque mutuari de●ui●●es.  

Marcus Tullius vocem piissimus, inquit (Erasmus tanquam barbaram proscindit, quâ multi probati authores usi sunt. At Cicero id inter eos vires vitio ve●te●at, qui neque ●uncr●●lan ●runt. Ex quorum consensu semel assertum, quod dixistet, postea pro bono probat●que agnovit● Nec si 〈◊〉 voce usi sunt two, qu● tibi probi videntur, continuò tanquam 〈◊〉 à toto Senatu rej●ci non debet; sed tu illis qui tuo permissu eâ voce usi sunt, quoniam sin ilem ●ui vocem amplecteris, assentiris; Ciceroni qui totius Sena●●s, consensu, totius spe posteritatis candem ignominiâ notavit, dissimili tui auctori nonassentiris.  
Facere contumeliam, inquit, I at●●● dicitur, at id Ciceroni quasi non pro●è dictum taxatur. In Eu●●cho n●mque Terentianâ Thais ita lequitur. Nam si ego digna hac contumeliâ sum maximè, at tu indignus qui faceres tamen: Opinor, inquit, tacitè repeti contumelia●, M●●isicum sibi facinus ●ecisle videtur, si candem vocem alteri verbo reddidetit. At id etiam pueri sciunt, quod si tam praestantis esses memoriae, quam acerbi animies, si observationes non irrisisses, non tantopere nunc laborares. Quare non agam tecuminimic●●ed humaniter ●o labour te levatum meâ operâ volo, Audistíne unquam ex oratione Catonis, quam pro se contra C. Cassium habuit ea verba? Atque evenit ita● Quirites, ut in hâc ●●niumeliâ, quae mihi per hujusce petulantiam ●actumitur. Ex Plauti item Asinatia pot●ras hune servam excitare, cujus testimonium futile atque ineptum hoc in judicio put●●● non d●b●isti, qui istâ tuâ tragaediâ Da●um agis. Is igitur servus ita loquim: Tu alteri contumeliam facias, tibi non dicatur? En quanto beneficio meo uteris, qui te tam multa doceo, quae aut nullo modo noveris, aut perperam didiceris, aut turpiter oblitus fueris; Te tantâ in calumniâ deficientem excito, collapsum sublevo, tantu● abest ut tua ista ven●na pertimescam. Quamo●● rem tot tantáque edoctus, id quoque à me doceri debes, Ciceronem non id rejecisse tanquam nemo unquam sic locutus fuerit, sed quod tunc ista nemo loqueretur. Non enim dicit, Quis sic unquam l●cutus est? Sed quis sic lequi●ur? Idem poriò vitium est et inaudita, et obsoleta loqui. At ita evenit ut quod tantâ aetatis illius authoritate desitum erat, tu pari arrogantiâ instaurare coneris. Nan enim quaecunque veteres IMPOLITIVS dixissent, statim ab eâ elegantissimâ aetate recep●a sunt. Et cumidem Cato, idem Plautus multis dicendi formulis usi essent, id CASTIORES ling●ae haudquaquam sibi licere voluerunt. Quod ut apeiti●s cognoscas, vel ex Terentianis elocutionibus ampliùs intelligere est, quarum quasdam quamlibet puri authoris, nè probamus quidem. Non enim post illum quispi●m oratorum dixit, tibi, aut mihi decere, quod quidem extet: quâ dicen●i tamen formâ ille usus est. Neque multa alia quae ne ●astidium pariamus aponere supersed●bo.  
A voce n●vissimè et novissimus, inquit, abstinuit Cicero, quibus vocibus Salustium optimum authorem, & M. Catonem ●sos serunt. Etiamne id vitium, ac non prudentiam Ciceronis dicis? Eum ho●inem qui Latinam linguam tantâ curâ illustrate studeret, novissimam vocem formidare prudentiae ●uit; prolatâ autem ●ententiâ non damnare, quâ caeteri uterentur, modesty's. At quare n●n secutus est Cicero tantorum virorum judicium? Quare? Quia maluit solus culpâ ca●e●e, quam cum caeteris veniam poscere. Quia maluit Laelium sequi, cujus judicio ea vox damnata esset; cuius judicio qui loquebantur, rectè loqui putabantur: cujus judicium maluit sequi Cicero, quam contra illud mereri, ut se sequeretis. Aliud enim sonat auribus tuis improbo nunc verbo ●ssuetis, Era●●e, aliud Romano viro, qui tamen Asinianae calumniae Patavinitatem Livio objectare ausus es, quam tu quo loco, quo tempore cognoscere, quo modulo Baraves metiti potes? Qui ratione Teutonicus vitium illud conslari, quo iudicio dignosci dices? Si omnes voces Romanae sunt, si universa structura ex veterum cementis, lapidibus redivivis, incorruptà materiâ constat, si candor ille illam faelicissimam aetatem etiam superat, si omni invidia, omni calumniâ major est, quam in lacteo ●lumine labem lebes deprehendas? Cum tamen illius sententiae ne his quidem qui objecerat, cateroes Romanos habuerit assertores.  
I have taken the pains to transcribe all this, that the reader may see what entertainment Erasmus his Ciceronianus found in the world, and also because there are in it several things that may have a great influence upon some passages, which will hereafter be debated betwixt the Doctor and myself: I thought it therefore much more convenient to present you with the whole paragraph, then to detract any thing from so exquisite a piece, by retailing it in parcels. Another that hath made an Apology for Solacismes 〈◊〉 Stephanus Deletus, an exact imitator of Tully, and to whom the Latin tongue (notwithstanding what can be said to his disparagement) is very much beholden. He in his reply to Erasmus upon the same account, videl: quod eruditi non negant in Ciceronis Scriptis inveniti Solaecismos inexcusabiles, QVALES et ●lim exciderunt, et excidunt hodie vi●is multum doctis, dum in vari●s res distractâ cogitation, magis sentent●● praecedentis meminetint, quam verborum, eóque sit, ut periodi clausula prioribus non respondeat. Quod genus sit. Diutiùs 〈◊〉 Athenis, qu●niam venti ne●●●● solven●i facultatem, et at animus adie Scribere, etc. VIL: vulgar est, ●uique esse linguae multas loquendi formas, quae duriores videantur, & omnibus Grammaricorum regulis normisque solutae, quas si legibus et praeceptionibus adstringas, linguae illius dignitatem viols, et vim libettati adseras. EO loquendi genere si Romane ut Romani, usus est modice Tullius, id ne ut vitiosum animadvertendum ducet? An● ulta Romanes domi inter loquendum usurpasse dubitas, quae Scriptis elata, posteri ab illâ aetate remotiores, asperiora judicârunt? Quorum nulla constet ratio, sed in usu tantum et loquendi consuetudine ●uere posita. Romanè it●que scribens Tullius verbum priori sententiae non addidit: Erat animus ed te scribere dixit. Piaculum hoc purat Erasmus publicis supplicationibus expiandum!  
This he saith by way of defence of what I alleged agianst Doctor Wallis; and whereas Sir Th. More in the dialogue objects again.  
Ciceronem dixisse quaedam, quae nemo doctus putavit imitanda: veluti in potestatem esse pro in ●●●state esse. ●ursus in edicto M. Antonii M. Tullius veluti Barbaram et Latinis inaudit●m vocem proscindit, piiss●●us à 〈◊〉 cum ea apud probatissimos linguae Latinae Scriptores 〈◊〉 p●riater. Idem ut Solacon in eo reprehendit, quod Scripsisset, facere 〈◊〉, idem ab his vocibus novissime et novissimus, ceu malè Latinis abstinuit, cum eis non veriti sint uti M. Cato & Solustius. Vill: Libenter, unde aliquis invidiae flatus oftenditur, veladat Erasmus, 〈◊〉 in Ciceronem instruit, atque idoneam ●actus tempestatem, prorâ et puppi totum se ad obtrectationem rapit, Tullii navem veluti ad ba●ba●iei Scopulum allisam ridet. Dixit Cicero (inquit) multae quae nemo doctus putat imitanda, veluti cum ait in potestatem esse. Tam vino madebant, More, qui potessatem pro potestate, descrip●erunt, quam ridiculus est Erasmus, qui haec minutula consectatur, librariorum negligentià orta, non a Cicerone profecta. At in M. Antonii edicts, piissimus à pio tanquam barbaram vocem non satis r●ctè notat, apud 〈◊〉 lingua Latinae Scriptores frequentem. Idem hunc lequendi modum improbe reprehendit, facere contumelious: quâ locutione uti non veritus est Terentius: novissim● quoque et novissimus nimium religiosè fugit. PIISSIMUS, facere contumeliam, novissimè, novissimus, si veluti partim barbara, partim ut nova et dura vitavit Cicero, non hoc certè temere. Neque mehercule mihi persuasero, ut, quae tolerabilia novisset, ea in Senatu coram linguae Latinae principibus, tanquam ●arbara & Latinis hominibus ignota reprehendisset. QVIS Ciceronis ingenium usque adeò ignorârit, ut, quorum reprehensione▪ in reprehensionis periculum venisset, ea illum reprehendere voluisse arbitretur? Sequitur ut qua●e à novissimè et novissimus abstinuerit, paucis Ipse audias, et illum verborum delect● sapienter usum, non religione vitiosè abusum cognoscas. In Italia, in Galliâ, in Brittani●, in Hispania, vel in qu●vis etiam urbe, pervagata multa verba, multósque loquendi modos esse saepe intelligas, quos elegantiae cupidiores, aut ut duro● & malè proprios, aut ut recenter natos, aut ut insulsos et venustate carentes negligunt. Sic prorsus multas quondam Romae percrebuisse voces non ambigo, plebi et rudi multitudini gratas, oratoribus et exactiori aurium judicio viris non continuò arridentes: qu●s, si Catonem obsoletae dictionis peramantem, aut si Salustium audacem verborum architectum opisicemque imitemur, non rejiciemus: si Tullium locutionis mundae et purae observantissimum et undique splendentem sequemur, veluti faecem, aut ex lacuna aliqua erutas sorde●, resp●em●s.  
You have here the defence of two learned men (as learned as Dr. Wallis) for Tully: and you see what pains they take to commit a worse error, then that is which they defend. I should not say any more, but that the Doctor hath misrepresented me to that honourable personage in the dedication of his Pamphlet, as if I had said motus & magnitudo consideravimus were true Latin. That I said no such thing, the letter doth bear me witness, yet this I shall say; it being debated by the Pope's legate at Paris concerning the introduction of the Infantae of Spain's title against that of H. 4. (I may mistake in the History) one opposed the Salic Law to her plea. The legate demanded where that law was to be found? The other suddenly replied, upon the back side of the donation of Constantine to Pope Sylvester. So I say that (if we may believe H. Stephen de Criticis) motus & magnitudo ●●●sideravimus, is to be found written upon the back of that verse in Virgil, Aen●id. l. 2. 
Cui mater media sese tulit obvi● sylva  
Virgins os habitumque gerens.  Latinae linguae consnetudo poscit ut dicatur, illa tulit se ei obviam: Quo modo igitur haec Cui mater sese tulit obviam à Latinitate non discedere dicemus? Nam ineptum quidem (meo judicio) fuerit illud obvia a verbo tulit separare; hoc modo, Cui mater obvia (id est veniens obviàm) se tulit. Quid n. hoc est? Aut ubi lectum? far se alicui. Non video cerrè quod ex hoc loco pateat effugium, nisi ut dicamus tulit se dictum esse pro ●btulit. Sed quamvis simplicibus pro compositis utantur poetae, esse tamen nonn●lla constat, quorum talis usus nimium insolens et dur●● effet; nec dubito quin hoc in numero po●endum sit istud. Alterum exemplum peto ex Aeneid. 12. T●lis see 〈◊〉 nocte tulit. Nam si talem se sata nocte tulit, scribendum dixero, hoc ex aliis locis facile mihi evict●rus videor. But what if I had said it had been a Grecisme● And said the like had been frequent amongst them. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  And that Eustathius hath defended these; and therefore I am not the first that have defended Solaecismes (which I did not then, but only excused them) adding out of Eu●ipides. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  And after all concluded with that of Eustathius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had not my Poets, been as good as his Poets? Hath not Cat●llus imitated this, 
Ph●selus ille, quem vide●is hespites,  
Ai● fuisse navium celerrimus.  which hath been imitated by several Parodes thus; 
Sabinius ille, quem videtis hospital,  
Ait fuisse Mul●o celerrimus.  
& Deletus ille, qui necavit hospites,  
Ait fuisse carnifex Sacerrimus.  
& Magirus ille, quem vide●is hospites,  
Ait fuisse litigator optimus.  
& Maranus ille, quem fugàstis hospites,  
Ait fuisse pinsitor niger●imus.  
& Colonus ille, quam videtis incolae,  
Ait fuisse ●iles impigerrimus.  
It was such an ordinary Grecisme as made Terence say  
Quae sese optavit in●enest● hìc parare divitias,  
quam in patris honestè pauper vivere.  
and Horace, Patiens 〈◊〉 Caesaris ul●●r, and Ovid.  
Acceptum refero 〈◊〉 sibu● esse nocens.  And in imitation of this (as I favourably conceive did your Panegyrist lately say, Cujus ulti●a la●s est inter nos esse primus. Besides, the Doctor cannot pretend ignorance of Solaecismes in the N. T. which to excuse I do not believe he will say is so horrible an attempt as he charges me with; his friend Beza had better have excused that of juke (no bad Grecian!) Acts 26. v 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Camerarius did, then to insert into the text 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon the account of one old copy, which might have been transcribed by some such knowing Grammarian as the Doctor. Not have the ancients only, or those of mean parts used or imitated those kinds of expressions: Osorius that accurate Ciceronian in his book against Hadd●p hath presumed upon this Solecism. l. 2. Res (inquis Haddone) politicas civilis magistratus exercet, Ecclesiasticas administrant episcopi. Quos episcopos narrai? ●LLINE qu●s sedibus exturbastis, et invincula conjecistis? An illi potiut, qu●s ex triviis et 〈◊〉 a●repro●, in sanctorum pentisicum 〈◊〉 collocastis ' Haddon in his rejoinder charges him very fiercely hereupon with a double Selecisme. Itáne, noster supe bissime cens●r, contra Grammatices elementa tam evidenter p●●●as, & ILLI●●nis ●●nis pro ILLOS? Quare ex deli●a familiarituo D●●mada: castigabit hunc errorem tuum, et merebit adeo te pue●iliter esse prelapsam. S●io Cicereni nonnunquam ipsi tales 〈◊〉 ob●●psisse, sed tibi nihil condonare deb●o, c●m me●● orationem, etiam quae Latina et 〈◊〉 est, t●ucibus verbis odiosissimè exagitaveris. There is also one Petrus Alcyonius who wrote a book de exilio, (wherein he showed to what an hiegth of eloquence a genuine imitation might bring us at present) I do find him amongst his other elegancies to have let fall this affectedly negligent passage. Finem (ai●hat Hannibal) faceret Antiochus sperandi, se A●iam pacatam et tranquillam habiturum, sed potius c●gitaret, de illo Imperio, propediem cum Romanis certandum sibi esse terra marique; et ●ut illis Imperium or bis terrarum praesumentibus eripiendum, aut victum et regni possessione cedentum, accipienda● quascunque pacis conditiones victor hostis dedisset.  
Thus much I have chosen to say upon this point, that the Grammar reader may see how valid his rules are, how little need there was of that excuse he suggests, and how many are concerned in that absurdity he so exaggerates against me, for defending Solecisms, though I did only excuse an ordinary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek. Let the Doctor take notice of what I have now said, hereafter, and if in any thing that shall proceed from me he chance to find some places parallel to what I have produced out of Tully, Homer, etc. I shall never secure myself against his rules by excuse of haste, but without fear of shame acknowledge it VOLUNTARY.  
As for that false sunt— & multa ejusmodi (propositiones) I do still wonder that ever he should think that to be unusual: I brought him that place in the beginning of Tully paradoxes, Animadverti sapè Catonem, cum in Senatu sententiam diceret, locos graves ●n Philosophia tractare, abhorrentes ab hoc usu forenst et publico, sed dicendo consequi tamen, ut illa etiam populo probabilia viderentur, The Doctor excepts not against the place, he doth not show that locus is ever taken for a common place when it is of the neuter gender plural: I referred him to another passage in Acad. Quaest l. 2. An tu, cum res occultissimes aperueris, in lucé●●que protuleris iuratúsque es en te comperisse (quod mihi quo que dicebat, qui ex te illa cognoveram) negabis esse remullam, quae cognosci, comprehendi, percipi possit? Many more examples might have been produced, but I thought it needed not: neither do I think it now very necessary, but only to reflect upon the Doctor the more. Had not those Grammarians, who are, as I may phrase it with the eloquent Mr. Milton, bonis Authoribus transcribendis et divexandis nati, varied the text, Plautus would have furnished us with a multitude of examples, wherein the Substantive and Adjective had not agreed in gender, as eamus intrò, non utibile [now utibilis] hic locus factis tuis: and the like, which those puny critics have altered. But in the like case to that of Mr. Hobbs, 'tis common. Hoc pecus omne meum est, multae Stabulantur in antro. So Ovid. 
Crescunt arbusta, et f●tus in tempore fundunt,  
Quod cibus in totas usque ab radicibus imis,  
Per truncos ac per ramos di●●unditur omnes.  Several of the like examples are produced and defended by Giphanius upon Lucretius in Collectan. gener. mutat. not only out of Poets, but va●rro In any sentence where the substantive of one gender hath a Synonymous word of another, the adjective (not co●ering immediately, but following at a distance) ma●● agree either with it, or it's Synonymon, as in particular here multa may agree with prolo quia, enunciata, dicta, and not with propositiones, as Scelus postquam ludisicatus est virginem. Vbi ille scelus est▪ qui me p●●●idit? Scaliger. exercit. 31 c. Euclidae theor●mata reducenda sunt ad p●uctores. And without doubt in that piece of Scaliger may be found affectedly used all (or most) of those Solecisms which the Doctor censureth in Mr. Hobs. I find in very good ●udges of the Latin tongue these things proposed as imitable, populo ut placerent qua● fecisset fabulas. Cujus mo●● est consimilis vest●um, by se ad vos applicant, etc. Omnes repudiandum est arts. Vestri adhortandi causa. A●iquod fuit principium generandi animalium. These and the like I shall not decline occasionally (not frequently) to make use of, and give the Doctor that advantage, which h● hath not in this case, that he may say they were out of 〈◊〉.    

§ 4  
I shall leav● the order of the Letter at present, and pursue the Doctor's method, according to which, the next passage to be debated is Tanquam d●cer●mus.  
Dr. Wallis. I might add that of tanq●●●m dicerem●s, (as if we should say) and 〈◊〉, and elsewhere, instead of a●●t, quasi, (or some such word) or 〈◊〉, which is Tully's phrase, (〈◊〉 si ●ua res aga●ur, tanquam si 〈◊〉 esset, 〈…〉 Asia for tanquam without ●r, signifies but a●, not as if● but because I know you are not the first that have so used it, of modern writers, and that even of the 〈◊〉 ●, some of them do sometimes leave out si, I shall allow you the same liberty, and pass this by without bl●●e (as passable, not accurate)  
L●r. Now he disallows tanquam 〈◊〉, as if we should say. But why is that less● tolerable them anq●●● secerts, as if you had done. It should be 〈◊〉 (forsooth!) or 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉, which is Tully's own word, (what is tanquam si become but one word?) Tanqu●m 〈◊〉 agatur, etc. Good Doctor leave out Tully and all 〈◊〉, or you will for ever suffer for this, and your add●cis 〈◊〉. Is not this to put yourself on their verdict, when you oppose Mr. Hobbs with Tully? but the Doctor gives his reason. And though he had the l●ck in his 〈◊〉 to follow the first part of the s●●ing 〈…〉 yet now it is senti●●dum cum 〈◊〉. For 〈◊〉 without ●i signifies but as not as if. It is pity the Doctor could not argue in Symbols too, that so we might not understand him, but suppose all his papers to carry evidence with them, because they are Mathematically scratched. How does he construe this, 
Pl●●●e, 〈◊〉 al●o Drus●●um sanguine, taxquam  
F●●●●●is ipse aliquid propter quod ●●bilis esses.  So Gaelius, one much esteemed by Gicere, who hath inserted his Epistles into his works, saith (Tull. ●●m. ep. lib. 8. ●p. 5.) omnia desiderantur ab 〈◊〉, tanquam ●i●il denegatum sit ei quo min●● pa etissimus esset, qui publico neg●●● praepositus est. But it was not possible the Doctor should know this, it not being in Stephen, where his examples for 〈◊〉 si are.  
But the Doctor having pitched upon this criticism, and penned it, some body, I believe, put him in mind of the absurditu thereof: yet the generous professor presumed no body else could be more intelligent than he, who had perused Stephen. He would not retract any thing, but subjoins, that he will allow it as passable, because other modern writers, and some of the ancients, have so used it, as Mr. Hobbs hath done. I know not what Authors the Doctor meant, for, if I am not mistaken, I do not find any in Stephen. His citation of Celumella is not right l. s. c. 5. (not can I deduce any thing thence till I have read the passage) but if he take juvenal and Caesius for modern Authors, I hope he will admit of Accius, N●●vius, and Garma●ta for the only ancients. Let him think upon this Criticism, and never hope pardon for his adducis mall●um, which is not half so well justified, and yet none but madmen or feels reject it. I have here exhibed the letter without any variation, no not of that place out of Columella, which the Doctor might well presume I had looked into, and found to be 〈◊〉 (as many else are, and are observed by Franciseus Floridus) though either the transcriber or printer did me that wrong to alter the figures: for which I am no more responsible, then for that verse out of Dienys: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. which is v. 725. and not v. 21. ●s it is printed: if the Doctor had consulted the place, he would not have spared me, there, as he doth not in his ensuing discourse.  
Dr Wallis. That of tanquaem, is but a mee● cavil, as well as the rest. janquaem dicerem●●s, and tanquaem pessent, I said were Ellyptical. And are they not? That tanquaem signifies only 〈◊〉 and not as if; and doth it signify any more? That Tully's word is tanquaem si (which is proper enough ad hominem, to you that will needs be Ci erenians, forsooth!) And it is not so? (That is, and is it not so?) [yes and O●●●'s too. Met. 7. tanquaem si parvae dedisses Den●,] hath not your journeyman made search in Rob. Stephanu's Thes. ling. lat. Thes. Cicerentanus (or Nizolius) and cannot find any one example of Tully to the contrary? But he saith, tanquam si is not Tully's word, 'tis two words; (a pretty exception, let it then be Tully's phrase) but why not if need be, one word, as etsi, acsi, etiam. si, etc. If et iam-si, why not as well tam quam si, one word? Or quam ab rem? But I said further, that though elliptical, yet I would allow Mr. Hobbs so to speak without blame; because some modern writers, and some of the ancients, do so speak. Well; was this the fault? Yes that's the fault. He would have had me condemned it absolutely, that he might have had some what to cavil at.  
I shall omit what follows, this being all that is material: yet all that the pevish Doctor saith, shall be answered in its proper place. The intelligent reader will easily perceive who plays the Caviller: for if this be not a cavil, I do not know what is; to condemn a thing as absolutely bad. TANQVAM without si signifies but 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 if. And yet to allow it now so far as to confess it to be in Caelius, juvenal and other authors? Ought not that plea to be sufficient with you, which is all you allege for adducis malleum? Custom and popular use being the rule of elegancy, it should have sufficed you, that so much favoured Mr. Hobbs: we would have added that the vulgar know little what belongeth to Ellipsis, they are not governed by Grammar. It is considerable how the Doctor varies his phrase, he said before tanquaem without si, signified as, and not as if, now he saith, that it was an Elliptical expression. The difference is this, an Elliptical expression may be good (such are all ablatives of cause, instrument, or manner, as Vossius proves, and others,) but the use of a word for what it signifies not, cannot be. Of the signification of words use must be the judge. All that I say of Stephen, is that I did not remember any example in him: the Doctor findeth three, a least three examples; which if he knew before, every body can judge, what a petulant caevil it was for him to engage in, and how much he hath amended this matter. Stephen's having examples was but accidental, and if the Doctor do prove he have, he overthrows his cause, and only puts me in mind of what I professed I did not remember. If I said it was not possible for the Dr. to know more then Rob. Stephen would tell him; I had not only for the ground of my assertion, his being taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; but I also knew that being asked by a Gentleman (a familiar acquaintance of his) not much younger than myself, (if so young) how he might attain to the knowledge of the accurateness of the Latin tongue, he put him over to the reading of Rob. Stephen. the same Gentleman told me that he wondered how he pretended to the world so much Philolegy, since in a long time of converse with him, he could not perceive any excellency of his that way. He tells me he finds my quotations in Charles Stephens Thesaurus Ciceronianus: might not I as well tell him the texes he citeth in his Latin or English sermons, are to be 〈…〉   

§ 5.  
I Am at last arrived at the main controvesse, Adducis malleum here is a tolerable case so 〈◊〉, that it is spoiled. A heavy work (this is the Doctor's 〈◊〉) about 〈◊〉 is mall●●m! And the Doctor in the management of it so deporteth himself, as 〈◊〉 once did in a quarrel about the learned men the A●●●pagi, the defence whereof found work not only for the Gentlemen of the Assembly, but that excellent pen of Mr. Mil●●n! The Grammar quarrel was carried on with as much animosity, as if the rise or downfall of 〈◊〉- presbytery depended upon that Solecism: nay, some have said that the 〈◊〉 are justly expulsed Oxen. for being so absurd as to think that those divines (of which our Doctor was a Scribe) which could make rules of faith, could break those of Grammar. The Doctor being descended from these infallible 〈◊〉, it is not to be wondered that he will not acknowledge, but defend himself (and which is more) as 〈◊〉 did Although I need no more th●n to transcribe or 〈…〉 the reader to the letter for his satisfaction, wherein all the question is so stated that any person of intellectual beyond D●cto Willis may receive a●● account of the case, and of the rule of 〈◊〉 grace (〈…〉 He that reads a book 〈…〉 not his Author the rule of elegance, but himself, and follows not the other but his own fancy, and of the validity of Mr. Heb's exception: yet because I perceive our Mathematician not to be so perspicacious as others are, I must crave leave to accommodate myself to his capacity, the letter being not intended for satisfying him, but one of more ingenuity. The preliminaries are all couched in the letter, which yet I shall now more largely set down, and then subjoin the text itself.  
It is to be noted that I make Tully the sole rule of Latin elegance, and other Authors no further useful (as to language) than they speak conformably to him. Vnus Cicero omnium elegantissimè est locutus: pure quidem 〈◊〉 quod est in maxima laudis parte poncudum; press alii, ac prope 〈◊〉 in brevitate divini extit crunt. Sed unus Cicero laudem omium ac virtutes in se transl●●● omnes, pure hic in loco, nec mulus cum res postulat, agit; in uno au●em illo illustrande orationis genere DEUS est, verborum delectum eloquenciae originem Caesar esse di●ebat: atqui alii SEMPER aliquid habent, quod aut prorsus damnetur, aut saltem aequè non probetur, vetustatem alii nimis deditâ operâ consectantur, in agrestibus ac parùm cultis sese alii magis oblectant, alii alio vitio laborant, UNUS Cicero tantùm abest ut tate quicquam in se admiseret, ut messem illam nobis, atque verborum omnium copiam omnem perpurgarit, qui NIHIL in sermonem, quod non Romanum oleret, quod ab aetatis suae 〈◊〉 atque dignitate quicquam abhorreret, quod omni derique splendore non elucesceret, prorsus intertextuit.  
I shall not engage at present in a defence of the imitation of Tully: that the Latin tongue is to be gained by imitation and converse with Authors, is confessed: that not the imitation of any single author, nor the framing of a new stile out of the reading of many, or all, promiscuously, is to be preferred before the bare imitation of Cicero (quod non tam hominis quam eloquentiae nomen est!) This hath been asserted with sufficient advantage to the cause by Cortesius against Politian, Bembus against Picus M●andula; Riccius, Doletus, etc. against Erasmus, whose dialogue entitled Ciceromanus did so disgust the learned of that age, that he was more declaimed against for that insolent and malicious piece, than any other work of his; he found that it was more facile to decry the Popa●y, than Tully; he found his reputation as to all manner of learning so lost through the publishing of that Pamphlet, that there was no possibility to regain his esteem but by a recantation, which he did, professing himself redress in gratiam cum Cicerone.  
Now for what is conformable to Tully's stile, I do not leave to the Umpirage of LILIES Grammar, nor yet to the determination of Nizolius or Charles Stephen's Ciceronian dictionaries, nor Doletus commentaries, or Schorus, or Riccius, nor any other of that kind. He that would be a competent judge of elegance, must be thorough-paced in Tully, and have weighed attentively his words, phrases, periods, the 〈◊〉 of the one, the choice and use of the other: In order to the latter, I expect either that the same phrase be produced, or some other of the same nature and kind, which may be equivalent. But the Doctor must pardon me, that School (whither he removed the case:) very wisely! For he knew nothing of the customs there, for that is the true construction of those his words, what belong; to the 〈…〉 Westminster School I do not so well know, as perhaps this 〈◊〉) and in his Prosopopaeia hath been as happy as the Scotch painter, who being requested to paint London, drew Edinburgh; which did not tend to the disgrace of the 〈◊〉, but painter:) that School never permitted me to argue à genere ad genus, from the Metaphorical use of the word, to the proper use of the same. Nor to conclude from the use of the Simple verb, the use of the compound: nor from the use of one or more compounds in a certain sense, to the using of another in the same manner. It being a way of reasoning from possibilities to realities, from the imaginary use of the word at some time, to the real use of it in the best and 〈◊〉 times: in which manner of arguings though the divines of late have much pleased themselves, and especially the Doctor in his thesis; yet I cannot approve it in them, or allow it in him. These things being premised, (which any body might have observed in the extract, which was sent to a person of understanding, however it came into Doctor Wallis' hands!) It is evident that whatever the Doctor hath produced of Adducere febrem, sitim, fastidium, rem in iudicium, discrimen, periculum● controversiam, 〈◊〉 angustiam, locum, statum, ordin●m, ad manus, ad concordiam; vitam 〈◊〉 extremum. (Which are all or most of what he hath alleged in adduco) are impertinent: the question being concerning local transportation. Again, it is clear, that whatever he hath alleged out of deduco, reduco, educo, perduce, produco, traduce, abduco, obduco, duco, amount not to a full proof of the case in hand, were they as significant as the Doctor would have the credulous reader to believe him in verbo sacerdotis!  
Another thing the Doctor should have considered, that I having fixed my rule of elegance otherwise, I am not to be refuted out of Pliny, Farro, Columell●, etc. If I allege any author of that stamp, it is a valid argument ad 〈◊〉, where Doctor Wa●lis is concerned; because he makes use of them as the rule of speech: but against me the procedure is as foolish, as if I should measure by the ●ard, and the Doctor meet with an Ell. The difference is about principles, not inferences, and therefore the Doctor should either have disputed what I took for a principle, and he did not; or else not have intermeddled. But the Doctor is a professor of Mathematics, and not Logic; I would fain know whether this be any part of Logistica Speciosa? Or the new Analysis? If I were to write of Physic, Husbandry, etc. I should not doubt to supply Tully's defect of terms out of those kind of Authors, yet I should not make use of their expressions further than they are vocabula ●rtis. If the Doctor had considered his quotations, he must either fall into a gross paralogism ex particularibus, or tell us that whatsoever the drag-net of Authors (ancient and antic, Poets and prosaic writers) hath drawn down, and tendered to us in gross, prawn, Crabfish and Lobster, Seaweed, shells, shrubs, unpicked, ungarbled, this is the RULE of Elegance. Otherwise his reason is no more than this, There are some expressions in Varro, Colnmella, Pliny, etc. which are passably elegant: Therefore this of mine is such. Though it be not in terminis, nor by any thing equivalent, to be found there, for aught either he, or I know.  
What esteem is to be attributed to Terence, Scaliger telleth concerneth facere contumelians: decere vobis: in his defence of Tully: and as for 〈◊〉 who fitteth his Latin to his persons, I shall never account his virnil●●er dicta (eduxi ●erum, abduxi clavens) for elegancies when any body hereafter shall use them, but Dr. Wallis. His argument from them, must be ex particularibus. I desire my allegations out of Scaliger and Doletus abovementioned may be considered in this place.  
As for the Poets, if he mean they shall stand for any thing, he must argue out of them, as he did out of the others, or else every man will be apt to throw dirt in his face; for, can any man defend all that ever Virgil, Horace, Ovid, etc. have said, I will not say to be good inprose (though that alone is to the question,) but in modern verse something in order to this hath been said afore out of Stephen, and it is infinite that might be objected against the three. I profess I am not disposed to converse in Meter; yet I shall then do it, when our judicious professor, shall versify in Tullye's prose; or that he may better it▪ in Tully's poetry. Ovid is said to be such a master of elegancies, that he hath been charactered as one in quo nullus est verborum de●ectus, nulla ad solutam or ationem accomodata locutio. I shall not disparage Virgil, nor Horace (whose non benè pro multo li●ertas venditur auro, may vie with cum impet● percurrere, I think) they are all Canendi non loquendi exempla. As for his urging passages out of Mr. Hobbs against him it is vain, as if he had urged them against me. Mr. Hobbs intended to inform our judgements, not to write what either should be an example or rule of elegance: he desired to be understood, to be read for improvement of knowledge, not the advancement of the Latin language: I believe the Doctor doth think better of his own English, than Mr. Hobbs of his Latin; yet I hope neither he, nor any else, will write thereby. The Doctor therefore did herein, (as in other things) mistake himself, when he used that for his defence of elegance, which the other never intended for such, yet Mr. Hobbs might justly. (upon contest) except against the Doctor's 〈◊〉, though he had used them himself, because he did not pretend to, nor aver them to be imbells, ●ments of speech, however significant enough.  
Having entertained you with these preliminaties, I see no reason yet why I should transcribe all that the Doctor hath said in his due correction p. 15, 16 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. I desire to give my thoughts as little diversion as may be, from other studies: and yet I would not omit any thing unanswered that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pygmy hath objected. I shall therefore next subjoin the letter, and then survey his scattered exceptions, as they fall in: And (which is more) show in the close that I can allow of the Doctor's conclusion, however he hath wrangled about the premises.  
Now follows his ridiculous Apology for adducis malleum, ut ●ccidas muscam, the occasion why he made use of that proverb (of his own phrasing) was this. Mr. Hobbs had taken a great deal of pains to demonstrate what Doctor Wallis thought he could have proved in short: upon this occasion he objects, add●cis malleum, ut ●ccidas muscam, which I shall suppose he intended to English thus, you bring a beetle to kill a ●●re. Mr. Hobbs retorted, that add●co was not used in that sense. The Doctor vindicates himself thus, duco, deduco, reduco perduco, preduco, etc. signify strange things, erg●, adduco may be used in that sense: which is a most ridiculous kind of arguing, where we are but to take up our language from others, and not to coin new phrases. It is not the Grammar that shall secure the Doctor, nor wea● Analogies, where elegance comes in con●est. To justify his expression he must have showed it usu tritum, or alleged the Authority of some Author of great note for it. I have not the leisure to examine his impertinent citations about those other compounds, nor yet of the simple verb duco; nay, to justify his saying he hath not brought one parallel example. He talks indeed very high, that duco (with its compounds) is a word of a large signification, and amongst the rest to bring, fetch, carry, etc. is so exceeding frequent in all Authors (Plantus, Terence, Tully, Cas●●, Tacitus, Pliny, Seneca, Virgil, Herace, Ovid, Clandia●, etc. that he must needs be either maliciously blind, or a very stranger to the Latin tongue that doth not know it, or can have the face to deny it. I read what will be my doom for not allowing his Latin; yet I must profess I dare secure the Doctor for having read all Authors, notwithstanding his assertion, and I hope he will do the like for me. And for those which he hath read, had he brought no better proofs than these, he had, I am sure, been whipped sound in Westminster School for his impudence, as well as ignorance by the learned master thereof at present. But I dare further affirm, that the Doctor hath not read in this point any, but only consulted with Robert Stephen's thesa●●us linguae Latinae, whence he hath borrowed his allegations in adduco; and for the other I had not so much idle time, as to compare them. And left the fact might be discovered he hath sophisticated those Authors whence Stephen citys the expressions, and imposed upon them others. If it be not so, or that the Doctor could not write it right when the copy was right before him; let him tell me where he did ever read in Plautus, adducta res in fastidium. I find the whole sentence in Plinye's preface to Vespasian (out of whom in the precedent paragraph he citys it) about the middle: 〈◊〉 verò it●●●ltis prodita; ut in fastidium sint adducta, which is the very example Stephanus useth, although he doth premise his adducta res in fastidium. Let the Doctor tell where he ever did read in Horace Ov● 〈◊〉 etc. adducunt taedium vini. Did he (or any else, with the interposition of an, etc.) make Trochaicks? I say, and Stephanus says so too, that is in Pliny lib. 13. c. 15. near the end; the whole sentence runs thus, Ebriosis Ova noctuae per triduum data in vino, tadium ejus adducunt. I doubt not but these are● the places he aimed at, although he disguised and minced the Quotations: if they be not, I should be glad to augment my Stephanus with his additions.  
These things premised, I come to consider the Doctor's proofs: Res e● adducta est: adducta vita in extremum: adductares in fastidium: rem ad mucrones et manus adducere: contracta res et adducta in angustum: res ad concordiam adduci poorest: in ordinem adducere: adducere febres, filim, taedium vini: (all in Robert Stephen) betwixt which and adducere malleum, what a vast difference there is, I leave them to umpire qui teretes et retigioso● nacti sunt aures, who are the competent judges of elegancy, and only cast in the verdict of one or two, who are in any place (where the purity of the Latin tongue flourisheth) of great esteem. Loosaeus in his Scopae linguae Latinae, ad purgendum li●guam à barba●ie, etc. (would any think that the Doctor's elegant expression, frequent in all Authors, which none but the malicious or ignorant can deny, should suffer so contumelious an expurgation?) Loosaeus (I say) hath these words: Adferre plerique minùs attenti utuntur pro adducere. Quod Plautus, in Pseudole, insigni exemple notat. C. Attulihunc. P. Quid attulisti? C. Adduxi volui dicere. P. Quis iftic est? C. C●arinus. Satisigitur admonet discriminis inter ducere, reducere, ad ●ucere, et abducere, quae de personâ; et far, adferre, etc. quae de re dicuntur. Idem. Dometium, quem ego novi, adduce; argentum non moror quin feres. Cavendum igitur est ne vulgi more, (let the Doctor mark this, and know that this author is authentic amongst the Cicerenians) adserre de personâ dicamus, sed adducere; licet et hoc de certis quibusdam rebus non ineptè dicatur. In this last clause he saith as much as Mr. Hobbs saith, and what the Doctor proves: but that ever the Doctor brought any example which might resemble adducis mallcum, is denied: for I have mentioned already his allegations every one of adduco. Another Author (a ●it Antagonist for the elegant Doctor) is the farrag● so didorum verborum, joined with the Epitome of Valla's elegancies. He saith, Accerse, adduc Pet●um, latinè dicitur pro eo quod pueri dicunt, adfer Petrum. And this may suffice to justify Mr. Hobs' exception, who proceeded no further than this Author, to tell the Doctor that adduco was used of animals. But the Doctor replies, this signification is true, but so may the other be also. I answer, if it never have been used so, it cannot be so, for we cannot coin new Latin words, no more than French, or Spanish, that are foreigners. A man may lawfully add some words to a language that is in vogue, because use may in time naturalise them: but we must leave a dead language such as we find it in the monuments of antiquity, and it is sacrilege to meddle with it. Mr. Hobbs was upon the Negative, and not to disprove the contrary opinion. If the Doctor would be believed, he must prove it by some example (which is all the proole of elegancy) and till he do so, not to believe him, it is sufficient not to have cause. But Doctor Wallis, why ●ot adduco for a hammer, as well as a tree? I answer yes, equally for either, and yet for neither: did ever any body go about to mock his Readers thus solemnly? I do not find (to my best remembrance) any example of it in Stephen, and the Doctor is not wiser than his book; if there be, it is strange the Doctor should omit the only pertinent example, and trouble us with such impertinencies for three or four pages. In Stephen there are adducere habenas, and adducere lorum, but in a different sense. It is not impossible I may guests at the Doctor's aim: In Tully de net d●or. (as I remember) there is this passage: Quum a●tem ille 〈◊〉, in agro 〈…〉 adductum, ut remissus esset, in or●lum suum recidisse, where it signifies nothing else but to be ●ent, bowed, or pulled back, and in that sense the 〈◊〉 of a clock, 〈◊〉 that of a smith when he fetcheth his str●ak, may be said 〈◊〉. And this I conceive the Doctor would have us in the close think to have been his meaning; else what doth he drive at in these words? When you have done the best you can, you will not be able to find better words then adducere malleum and reducere, to signify the two contrary motions of the hammer, the one when you strike with it, (excellently 〈◊〉!) the other when you take it back (better and betters) What to do? To fetch another 〈◊〉. If any can believe that this was his meaning, I shall justify his Latin, but must leave it to him to prove it sense. If he intended no more, why did he go about to defend the other meaning, and never meddle with this? Wh●ch yet might have been proved by this one example of mine? May not therefore his own saying be justly retorted upon him in this case; Adducts malleum, uteccidas mus●em?  
The Doctor deals very intricately in his reply, and seems therefore to have been more confused, that so he might make the better flourish, and that might pass for a sufficient answer, which was not in the least manner applicable to the case in hand. Once for all I shall acquaint the reader with a piece of the Doctor's Rhetoric▪ wherein he doth much please himself: It is a bad imitation of what was excellently used by H●rte●●●, whose custom it was Accusarienis membra divider●, et in digitis suit singulas partes causae constituere; et deinde unumquodque transige●e, expedire, absolvere. In imitation of him the Doctor seems not to have weighed the whole context of what I had said, but (divine like) takes all the frame into pieces, and then examines each parcel and fragment, as if it were a sentence integrate, absolute, independent of what precedes or follows. As for example, the Pantomine thus flourisheth it. Enter Mr. Hobs' second, what says he? He says it is ridiculous. That is easy said: but saying so doth not make it so. This is his reflection upon that passage of mine: Now follows his ridiculous Apology for adducis malleum. It is true I wrote an Epistle, not a treatise, to a person of ingenuity, not to the Doctor, and therefore I did rather hint then urge the proofs of my assertion: But any body now may see the vanity of his exception, that shall but read these prelimma●ies which I have here inserted, not as a ●●w addition, but by way of explanation of what was evidently contained in the text before. I did as little dream the Doctor should have ever been a judge of that letter, as he prophesy by his argumentum ad h●minem, that some Ciceronian should attack him▪ If I had thought so I should have accommodated myself to him. If the Doctor when be u●locked the King's cabinet of letters, did use him as he hath abused me, both in gloss and text, it is very possible that he may have done that cause to which I was still a friend, good service, but I cannot commend the means.  
Such another reflection is that of his p. 21. To say there is a vast difference, and not to tell us where that difference lies, are but empty words. This is his animadversion upon that saying of mine, these things premised (which are now explained in the preliminaries) I come to consider the Doctor's proofs. Res eò adducta est: addecta vita in ext●emum, etc. betwixt which and adducere malleum▪ wh●● a vast difference there is, I leave then to umpire qui teretes et religiosus nacti su●● ours, who are the competent judges of elegancy. I suppose by this time the difference in clear, and the 〈◊〉 from the use of the figurative significa ion to the proper one evinced: which they to whose arhitrement preferred myself could not miss 〈…〉 our little man (but great Critic) could not perceive it. I did not mean by 〈◊〉 aures, a 〈◊〉 head, (which name I take to suit with those that engaged in an holy war, for my part I adhered to the Parliament and the liberty of the subject) nor did I ever intent that any should construe Aures religiosas for Presbyterians. This kind of elocution discovers itself in all the Doctors controversal writing, but yet with a different success than did attend Horte●sius, who where he could not deceive, he did delight: our Doctor I believe ha●●● been as far from pleasing as he hath been from imposing upon them. In his examen of Locsaeus and C●ecius, in his discourse of 〈◊〉 and else where he doth lie at this open ward: but that I shall consider in its peculiar place.  
I must now invert the order of what the Doctor hath delivered, and so apply them to the parts of the letter: his first exception is.  
Dr. W. repl. He observes further that in some of the allegations we have not the word add●●●, but the simple verb duco, or some other compound: And therefore that all these are impertinent: because (forsooth) it is not Granmar, or Analogy that will secure us. But we are still besides the business. The original charge is against duco; and against adduco but as one of the train, not as a straggler from the rest of his company. And therefore the allegations are all pertinent: and that Analogy is ag●●●d argument in the case, we shall hear from his own witness by and by.  
To this there needs no further reply, then that the reader consider my preliminary positions only that the Doctor may learn hereafter to read with more attention I shall here give him so much light out of the text of the letter as may be requisite for to rectify him, though it may be impertinent as to others. The question is concerning elegance; proof of elegance is to be deduced from the use in such ages as Latin eloquence did most flourish in: since that age cannot be recalled, our recourse must be to such authors as wrote then: many of those are lost, others corrupted, if therefore we would determine any thing of Elegancy we must apply ourselves to those whom the general vogue of all ages hath represented unto us as the most pure and eloquent writers; and such are only Cesar and Tully: whose expressions we may acquiesce in and safely conclude it good, because found in their wooks. If we find aught in any other author, (whose authority is suspected) we can only say possibly it may have been used, but neither their using it, nor any conformity with Grammar can secure us, so that I did justly say that where we are but to take up our language from others, the Doctors arguing was ridiculous: neither could Grammar, or Analogies secure him, where elegance comes in contest. That the original charge lies against Duco is false; for the ground of contest was adduco: and that the case of the simple & compound verb may be different, is a preliminary hypothesis: so that his allegations are not pertinent, if they were significative: my witnesses lay not that Analogy in any case is a good argument: and how any argument can be good in one case and not in another (caeteris paribus) I understand not.  
His second exception runs thus.  
Dr. W. He takes notice (for so he was told in the Catalogue of Errata) that page 19 l. 23. Horace is put for Pliny, (that you may see how quick sighted he is, to spi● a fault when it is showed him) and that line 7. there is Plau. for Plin. (which had I discovered it in time, had been put amongst the Errata with the rest) which was the printer's mistake, etc. Then he observes, that these allegations are to be found in Robert Stephen's Thesaurus linguae Latinae: that is, some of them, (or else 'twere a wonder) but I hope he will not undertake so all. If he find those of page 20. 21. (and those are a competent number) in Robert Stephen, he hath good luck. And 'tis more than I know if all the rest be there. But he supposeth that I consulted with Stephen. It is very like so, if I had had him at hand, (he'd have thought me a fool if I had not) and did not he consult with him also for cum, and tanquam, (yes and with Charles Stephen too) and with Henry Stephen for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nay he dares affirm, he says, that I have not read in this point any, but only consulted with him. He's a valiant man, you see. He dares affirm, what I durst not, who have best reason to know. Perhaps he means, I did not read over all those Authors to make that collection. (No truly: I would not have him think I was such a fool.) Or that for what places I sound in Stephen, I did not consult the original authors. (For some, I did; for some I did not: for I did not think it worth the while, the controversy did not deserve it. Much less to examine all the Critics and Commentators upon them, as it seems Mr. Hobbs would have had me● but what is all this to the purpose? I never took Robert Stephen to be a wee●er of the Latin tongue, as if all that he had gathered were but to be thrown away; or that a phrase were ever the worse for being found in him. We have so much of the flourish, that I am afraid we shall have little substance.  
I answer, that in the Catalogue of Errata Plin. is substituted for Hor. But that I was any more told that, then that Plau. was put for Plin. I hope the reader will believe me: I neither read his thoughts, nor his table of Errata: I thought he could not commit any, who will not allow any in another: it was but a lesson of his own teaching, that I did then read him: it will require some grains of allowance, for him to verify that ever I was showed that catalogue: and if it were not showed me, I am as quicksighted as another, notwithstanding that I might have seen it, if I had looked in the latter end. But henceforth I shall look for Synod-man's Errata, and if I do not find all at the end of their books, I will imagine they have some mental reserves, which they did intend to put in, but that they did not discover them timely enough. But have not I as good reason, to judge of him, as he of Mr. H●bs, that the printer did print it so, why? Because the Author had written it so. Thus much for that, where I must take his word, for his thoughts; as he must mine, for not having seen his Errata. As for his having plundered Stephen, I never saw such a justification in my life, as our Ambi s●●●ister Hortensius mak●s. I said he had borrowed h●s quotations in adduco, out of Robert Stephen: and for the rest, I had not time to compare them. He makes me to speak as if they were only found there: whereas I saw him transcribe them, he hopes I will not undertake for all: I never said I would; I told you I had compared only adduco▪ he saith I have good lu●k, if I find those of p●g. 20. 21. (and those are a competent number) in Rob●rt Stephen. I am of the wi●ty-pos●s mind: for the quotations of those pages, are all out of Mr. Hebs himself, and I may then hope to find them in Stephen, when he finds the universal Church and its Catholic ministers (distinct from those called by the people,) in Scripture. He saith, that I suppose he consulted with Stephen: It is no groundless supposal, both as to the quotations in this first, and second pamphlet: I SAW HIM: The sentence following is somewhat dubious, by reason of a parenthesiss 〈◊〉 in wrong: I think he says, It is very likely so (that he had consulted with him) if he had had him at hand. It is very probable the Doctor hath not one of his own, and that made him repair to the public library to transcribe him. But doth not this carry an import as if he had never looked in him? It is a pretty piece of 〈◊〉! I pr●●ess I had never I ●ked there, had he not reminded me thereof, and so I resolved to see the bottom of his dea●●ng, which now I see depends not upon converse with good books, but with 〈◊〉, ordinary dictionaries and Grammars, as his divinity 〈◊〉 no higher than the 〈◊〉 Catechism. As for what follows, I never intended to put him to 〈◊〉 into the several authors on purpose for this controversy, but I hoped he would no● allege that place, of the import and se●se, whereof he was not ascertained by au●cy●▪ Some places he did examine, some he did not. It is an easy thing for to reply, that h●● had done well not to have alleged such places as he could not be certain they made for him, because he had not considered them i● their relation to foregoing or ensuing passages. He had also done well to have pitched upon those he was sure of, and for the credit of the rest have referred us to Stephen. But then the reputation of having read so many Authors, with such accurateness as not to understand them (which was all Mr. Hobbs I suppose did require of him; whether he were beholden to a commentatour or his own invention for the intelligence, it mattered not) this had been Cost, and we had not known what a Brav● in Critics two universities and the assembly of divines had produced. But he further excepts, that my exception is not to the purpose. If he mean that it doth not prejudice the allegations, I grant it: but my purpose then was to expose the Paracritick, and I believe he will not doubt that what I said did conduce to this purpose. He never took Stephen for a weeder of the Latin tongue. No indeed, not I neither; he gives a good account of words and phrases poetical, oratorical, historical, etc. so that the book is a good book, and of good use, when the reader doth not so far mistake as to seek for the defence of oratory amongst his Poeticks: so that I allow Stephen, as I would approve of the Physic garden, wherein there are simples applicable to several uses; but I look upon the Doctor as a Quack salver or Mount bank in his defence.  
And now I leave any body to compare what of flourish hath been produced, I come now to examine his little substance.  
I shall herein desire that my preliminary positions be not forgotten: And that it may be remembered how in the conduct of the letter, I had two things in hand, one thing to consider the controversy as stated betwixt the two combatants, Mr. Hobbs and Dr. Wallis: and another to consider it in itself, and according to the truth. You heard my judgement in the preliminaries; to excuse Mr. Hobbs I cited Loosae●●s and Cro●ius, (I might have cited others, but that I thought them the most fit counterpose to the Doctor) who say as much as he: and if that they be impertinent, you see Mr. Hobbs hath company: though for my part I doubt not but that they intended to restrain adduco to persons, and affero to things: Neither would they have been put off by the opposition he makes: no more than Laurentius Valla, whose elegancies have still a great esteem, though Mancinellus hath endeavoured to disgrace them by better quotations than our Doctor brings: against all which it is a sufficient defence, that Valla did make only Quintilian (for he he made Tully truckle under him) for his rule, and by that rule he did condemn those barbarismes, which others had made use of. But I shall tell you more! Amongst those Authors that say duco is used of animals, and affero of inanimates, there is one Henry Stephen (my name● sake) in his Thes. Gr. L. having observed how 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was used of inanimates 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. concludes, at LATINI dona aut vestes aut au●um Adducere NON dicerent, sed adferre, aut advehere. But he is a School-Author, and there I read him all over, but Loosaeus at the 〈◊〉 He saith they both are two School-books: It may be so, but I do not know what Schools in England use them. That they are in request in the Iesui●s-Schools, that jacobus ●ontanus and others have commended them, I know: But is it an exception against Loosaeus and Crocius, that they are School-books? And shall it not be against Lily? Are Stephen, Calepine, Tho●asius, Rider, I●nius Nomenclator, the less School-books, because they are in a bigger ●●lume? Or are not those books that are taught in Schools, the best? I thought so; but it may be the Doctor hath been educated otherwise. He charges me over and over ●●in for reading Animals instead of bodies animate: and then substituting as equivalent to both, that of persons. To the first I answer, that if it be a slip, it was occasioned through haste: and not voluntary, with an intention of stating the question otherwise: Again, the discourse being concerning language, which hath had always its rise from ●ulgar conceptions, I am not to be blamed for using their thoughts, who were to justify ●e in the use of the word: Now I doubt not but that the most of men understand Animals and bodies● animate as Synonyma: and what they are in my philosophy, I shall tell him when he tells us his opinion of rare-faction, or of those in whose power it shall be to call those vice-pastores, vicedomini, vicar's of Christ which he speaks of in his thesis. As for my substituting of persons instead of both, I think I do not do it, but do truly cite Loosaeus. I suppose that the dispute is not to be ended in Metaphysics; I take persona in this vulgar sense, id est persona, quantum ad ipsam actionem, quod in se habet quod possit agere, vel non agere. And so there will not be any great difference: whether you call them bodies animate, animals, or persons. In the place, Loosaeus doth not say, that Analogy is a good argument, which the Doctor said he did. His example is of adduce, and what he infers, sa●is igitur admonet discriminis inter ducere, Reducere, adducere, abducere, quae de persona; et Ferre, Adferre, etc. quae de re dicuntur. Are as full proof as was required for Mr. Hobbs, and as much as needed to be inferred: and I was not to maintain my own opinion there, as is expressly said in the Letter: which if it did not reach the controversy as now stated, yet it was full proof as to what was intended. And for my judgement it stands irrefragably balanced upon those preliminary suppositions. But the Doctor saith how he doth argue by way of Analogy from one particular compound (which is adduco) to the rest: but he doth not say, that the arguing is good, as my preliminaries evince it not to be: and therefore the Doctor was out, in arguing from the fact to the equitableness or validity of the thing. I am not to defend him, I did not allege him to that purpose: and the Doctor's Hortensian discourse about adsere, is nothing to the matter, but that he would be silent. I say my observation reaches no further than that adduco is used of persons, or of things considered as persons; and affero of things, and even of persons if they be not considered 〈◊〉 such: thus lecti●● ferri, adferri, referri, is sometimes good of men: but then, they are not considered as any way contributing to their local transportation. And thus may be solved all the Doctor's allegations out of Tully, and Loosaeus be never concerned in it; who meant I doubt not the same that I do now say: of figurative motions I give no rule, but regulate myself by use. Loosaeus, Crocius, etc. will be no more moved at his quotations of Virgil, (for horses and such animals are considered as persons) than I, unless it had been to laughter. And that Epiphonema of his, Now would any think that Virgil's elegant expression should suffer so contumelious an expurgation, hath little of weight in it, for the question is about elegance, and he doth but beg the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which in citing Tully I do no●. What validity the citations of Poets have, I have already discussed, and more may be collected out of the passages of Scaliger and Dole●: and that Broom sweeps clean, if the other do not. And thus I have done with that tedious discourse about Loosaeus, and have given a just account of every thing relating thereto, (as I think) yet amongst such an hotchpotch of talk, something may have passed not as unanswerable, but as unanswered. It is false that I oblige to the Pedantry of proving each phrase to a syllable; how far I require the testimony of old authors, I have so far explicated as is necessary. He saith some that are no fools take a greater latitude, and would rather forfeit that title of Ciceronianus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ('tis Erasmus his Echo; who you see could jumble languages to make a clinch) then be so confined. He doth not tell us that in so doing they did wisely: and therefore notwithstanding this; other that are no fools, may have committed folly. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would as well Echo to Presbyterianus, Walli●ianus, Puteanus, Salernitanus, as Ciceronianus. And for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 clinch in the Echo it is more excusable, then otherwise, 〈◊〉 the Doctor useth it: and janus Deusa hath pestered us with a poem operosè nug●x, 〈◊〉 the same quality: it is well that all men's actions are not examples. But to proceed that adduco to bring, in reference to local physical transportation, it is to be used of men I deny: but in reference to a moral transportation it may. That adduco to bend, o● how, (wherein there is not a local transportation of the whole) may be used of any thing capable of such a motion, I do grant. Thus adducere ramum may be good: adducere cortin●m, adducere ostium, adducere nervum: all pass. And so doth the Doctor's piece of Latin, ad incudem adducendo m●●lleum, (et abducendo, is without example) ite●umque reducendo, cum labore operoso et molesto admodum, & iteratis ictibus, si muscam fo●te feriant, occident proculdubio. Thus you see I can allow him adducere ramos, to bend, but not to bring boughs, nor yet trees: It is a pretty allegation out of Ovid, Metam. l. 8. near the end. — adductáque funibus arbour. Which doth not at all satisfy me as to a tree, and I wonder how he could ever hope it. The case is this: Erisichthon had been long in hewing down an old oak, which being now ready to fall, he tied ropes to the top of it, and so pulled it down. 
Persequitur scelus ille suum, labefactáque tandem  
Ictibus innumeris, adductáque funibus arb●r  
Corruit, et multam prostravit pondere sylvam.  This doth not convince me for a local transportation at all: And now I have done with his proofs of Adduco, which are all impertinently pertinent: The other proofs are taken off by my preliminaries, and were so by the letter before, but the Doctor would not see that: yet that it may be observable how secure the Doctor is in his quotations; I desire not only that adductáque funibus arbour, be taken notice of; but also Atque satas aliò vidi traducere messes. Virg. Eclog. 8.  
This allegation occurs no less than twice, and then the second time it hath this annotation, i. e. transfer. But these are plants only, not trees! I know not where to hope that the Doctor hath weighed his citations, if not here: yet I cannot think he understood it, for it signifies no more here then doth Ducite ab urbe domum mea carmina, ducite Daphnim.  
The ancients did imagine corn might be conveyed by Magic out of one field into another: a case whereof we have in Plin. l. 18. c. 6. and in the twelve tables the Law was, Nè pelliciunto alienas segetes excantando: Pellicere and excantare being the Pontifical words, (which make it clear that the messes were considered personally,) how can any one wonder if Virgil made use of traducere, to express the same act? Seeing he doth very frequently either retain or allude to those vocabula artis: as in porricere exta, oss●●gere, etc. Another place out of Tully near the end of his oration for Quinctius, is; Quod ibidem recte custodire poterunt, id ibidem e●stodiant: quod non poterunt, id A●ferre et Abducere licebit. These words though twice inculcated by the Doctor are not Tully's, but the Praetor's, whose edicts are of no more validity for Latin, than our own law-discourses are for English. The case, again, is this: by this edict all the goods, chattels, etc. were consigned over to Quinctiu's adversary, together with the rest of his estate: with this proviso, that what they could not keep safe upon the place, that they might carry away: from whence if any will argue that adduco is used of things, it is as gross a paralogism, as if because the Greeks did express the depopulation and despoiling of a country by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Latins by agere & far: therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was used of pots and pipkins, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of cattle.  
But I have now done with this point, there being no disagreement betwixt us as to the using of the hammer, but fetching it: Adduco when it signifies to fetch, or bring signifies it in a Moral sense, and so is appropriated to persons, or things considered personally; and therefore the Doctor was out (notwithstanding his question whether an hammer be a person? Where the sense is different,) when he used Adduci● milleum for to bring by a local transportation an hammer. As for the signification of duc●, which he says Mr. Hobbs and I were ignorant of; and with a rela●ion and proof whereof he troubles us for some pages: I would have him know I was not ignorant of it, but declined it as impertinent, since I did not regulate my ●atin by reason, but custom: and had long since concluded with Tully, usum l●quendi populo relinquere, scienti●m mihi reservare. I knew of the promiscuous use of words, and how the significations of words were altered and changed in popular discourses, it is no wonder then if we did not miss of what we should have blushed to object. I wish him more discretion in his choice and use of Authors hereafter: and not to bring nullities.  
I observe that he doth several times correct Stephen in this piece, and in this discourse; yet I noted above, that he seemed to disown him (if I had had him) the truth is Robert Stephen doth often err in his citation of Authors, and sometimes in the thing itself that is cited. And in this case I cannot think of the Doctor but I remember what Fran●is●us Floridus Sabinus relates of D●letu●, that having stolen his commentaries the lingu● Latinâ out of Robert Stephen and others, he braved it as if they h●d been his own collections: but in the controversy betwixt him and Bayfius (or Charles Stephen) he defends his mistake in Remul●us, thus: At Robertus Stephanus antea ●rat reprehendendus, qui in dictionario sus Remulum pro Scaphâ posuerat. Recte quidem, (says Floridus) sed tu quum ad ejusmodi defensionem cenfugis, et te furti alligas, (ut est res) et cum Roberte Stephan● e●rare pulcherrimum putas. And afterwards he shows how Doletus had followed Stephen in his miscitation of Pliny for Ulpian. Hircius for Cesar. etc.  
And now let the Reader judge of that clause wherewith the Doctor shuts up his whole discourse concerning adduco.  
The reader may hereby easily discern, how little these scribblers do understand either of the agreement or difference of fero and duco, or the true Emphasis of either.  
I hope we know that duco and fero were not written with the same letters; and as for the true Emphasis, (not that which was in use formerly) it is to be sought for in Tully, and Cesar, in which who are the better versed, or who hath approved himself the scribbler, let the reader judge.   

§ 6.  
AFter so long a discourse concerning nothing, and so much Latin, to little purpose, we come to Greek, wherein the Doctor hath gained this repute that having outdone all others that pretend to Criticisms in Latin, he hath in his Greek gone beyond himself: So of that all the Critics known in Lumber-story none hath surpassed Doctor Wallis for Latin, except Doctor Wallis in Greek. The Epistoler having done Doctor Wallis no wrong, I shall abbreviate the controversy, by falling immediately upon the text of the Letter, which runs thus.  
LL. I am now come to the main controversy about Empusa: the Doctor saith nothing in defence of h●s quibble, nor gives any reason why he jumbled languages to make a silly clinch, which will not pass for wit either at Oxford, or at Cambridge, no, no● at Westminster.  
It seems he had derived Empusa from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and said it was a kind of Hobgoblin that h●pped upon one leg: and hence it was that the boy's play (fox come out of thy hole) now adays in use, came to be called Empusa. I suppose he means Ludus Empusa. This derivation he would have to be good, and that we may know his reading (though he hath scarce consulted any of the Authors) he saith Mr. Hobbs did laugh at it, until some body told him it was in the Scholiast of Aristophanes, (as good a Critic as Mr. Hobbs) Eustathius, Erasinus, Caelius Rhodiginus, Stephanus, Scapula and Calepine. But sure he doth not think to scape so. To begin with the last, Calepine doth indeed say, uno incedit pede, unde et nomen. But he is Modern, and I do not see why his Authority should outweigh mine, if his Author's reasons do not. He re●ers to Erasu us and Rh●diginus. Erasi●us in the adage Proteo mutabilior, hath these word of Empusa. Narrant autem uno videri pede, (this is not to hop) unde et nomen inditum putant, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He doth not testify his approbation of the derivat on at all, only lets you know what conjectural Etymologies (unde nomen inditum putant) some have given before him. And doth any body think that Doctor Harmar was the first which began to show his wit (or solly) in Etymologizing words? Caelius Rhodiginus doth not own the derivation, only saith, Nominis ratio est, ut placet Eustathio, quia uno incedit pede; (is this to hop?) Sed nec desunt qui alterum interpreten●ur habere aeneum pedem, & inde appellatam Empusam: quod in Batrachis Aristophanes expressit. And then he recites the interpretation that ●ristophanes's Scholiast doth give upon the text, of which by and by. If any credit be to be attributed to this allegation, his last thoughts are opposite to Dr. Wallis; and Empusa must be so called, not because she h●pped upon one leg, but because she had but one, the other being br●ss. But for the former derivation he refers to Eustathius.  
As to Eustathius, I do easily conjecture that the reader doth believe, that the Dr. (for Rhodiginus was an understanding and well-read man) doth mean Eustathius upon Homer, for that is the book of most repute, his other pieces being no way considerable either for bulk or esteem. But it is not that book, nor yet his History of Ismenias, but his notes upon the 725. verse of Dionysius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Poet had said of the stone I●spis, that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Upon which Eustathius thus remarks: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (fort 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Steph.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This testimony doth not prove any thing of hopping, and as to the derivation, I cannot but say that Eustathius had too much of the Grammarian in him, and this is not the first time, neither in this book, nor elsewhere, wherein he hath trifled. It is observable out of the place that there were more Empusa's then one, as indeed the name is applied by several men to any kind of frightful phantasm, and so it is used by several Authors; and for so much as phantasms are various, according as the persons affrighted have been severally educated, etc. every man did impose this name upon his own apprehensions; and so Empusa came to be so diversified in the fantasies of men, as they were fearful of different apparitions, for who will believe that she was not apprehended as having four legs when she appeared in the form of a Cow, dog, etc. in which shapes she was at that time fancied by Bacchus and his man, as well as that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? I do not find that she appeared in any shape but such as made use of legs in going, whence I imagine that Empusa might be opposite to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which appellation was anciently fixed upon the Gods (propitious) upon a twofold account. First, for that they were usually affigiated as having no feet: which leads me on to a discourse, which however digressive, is neither impertinent now, nor will be otherwise disuseful.  
The ancients, being sensible how the deity was not to be comprehended, and so not to be effigiated; and yet withal finding how prone men were to entertain themselves with corporeal thoughts of God, they did at first erect not statues to him, but Symbolical Columns, which might have that use as to remind them that there was a God, and yet take them off from those low apprehensions of h●s A●thropomorphisme, or other such like sh●pe. And hence the Herma had their original. Materia illis lign●a, v●l 〈◊〉: f●rma ta●is, faciem Mercurii praefer●bant, desin●bant non in pedes, sed epis●ytium 〈…〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Vnde et Pa●sen●as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thus Dr. 〈◊〉 in his excellent notes upon Longinu●. They raised their Hermae in form of a square pillar, pilae quadratae, cui caput imp●nebant: quo niminum 〈◊〉 ●mnes emnem human arum firmitatem, quam quadrqngulas figura not●t. à capite cert● pendere. These heads were of various and different forms, according to the different intent of the designer. cum enim perfectam dei 〈…〉. Hinostatus Veneris in hortis, 〈◊〉, in 〈…〉 Venerem Uraniam, 〈…〉 convenientibus ad 〈…〉 This is the observation of G●r●pius 〈◊〉: and may be illust●ted from those passages (amongst others) out of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Messen● and in his description of Megalopolis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Such were the statues of Pallas E●gane, Hercules, Lucina, etc. as any body may inform himself out of 〈◊〉 his Arcadica. Clement Alexan frinus in h●s Paraenesis adgent. saith that the ancients had no statue-Gods, but the Scythians did worship their Acina●●●, and the Persians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The same writer saith in his 〈◊〉 l. 2. That the Israelites were lead by a pillar of fire, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And that Thras●bulus when he went to restore the exiles had a pillar of fire that did conduct him through waves [otherwise] impassable▪ in a dark winter's night, and disappeared there where ●ood the altar 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence he infers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Upon which Hervetus doth thus co●ment. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apud Graecos pro Statu● et pro column● dici●ur Genes. 1. 19 uxor Lothi dicitur versa in statuam salis, ita enim habet nostra [●ulgaris] versio; sed Septuaginta ve●terunt, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Quod iter nostra habet, lapis iste quem erexi in titulum, vocabitur domus dei. Genes. c. 28. in Gra●● apud 70. est, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. id est, lapis quem erexi in statuam, etc. est autem utrobique idem v●cabulum, & in Hebraeo, et in Graeco: illic 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Latinè titulus, id quod in alicujus honorem erigitur. And then concludes, Lapis ergò qui erige●atur in dei honorem, et quo significabatur Deus, et Latinè erat titulus, et Graecè 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, et Latinà Columna. But to return to what I was speaking of at first. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not the name of a particular deity at first, but of such a compages, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which represented God symbolically, according to this or that attribute with accessional distinctions and diversifications: all were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but tho Greeks in process of time added the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which were not used (that I know) by the Egyptians, from whom these kind of statutes had their original: I shall not go about to prove that they gave the same shame of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to them: yet they had their Hermes Trismegistus, which was such a column (with several inscriptions of note: which was usual in old time; neither did they only serve to acquaint people with the way, but to instruct them in morality, and actions of daily concernment, and also in natural philosophy) the ignorance whereof hath begot several discourses concerning the life and books of that imaginary Trismegistus, who should give rise to the Hertnetick philosophy. Of the same nature were the Roman Gods until the time of Tarqvinius superbus: such was their Terminus, janus, Vertumnus: (which whether they were several I shall not dispute now:) and though janus had two faces, (and sometimes four, as at Falisci) yet it was but one Column. Delubra sic dicta, qued ligna essent delibrata, id est decorticata, more veterum in simulacris deorum: some such thing is either expressly delivered, or hinted by Asconius Padianus in Verrina.  
Secondly they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for that they did not walk, but rather swim, if I may so express that non gradiuntur, sed fluunt; which is the assertion of all the commentatours I have ever seen upon that verse of Virgil,;  Et vera incessu patuit dea.— 
This whole discourse may be much illustrated from a passage in Heliodor. Aethiop. l. 3. Sect. 12, 13. Calasiris told C●●non that the Gods Apollo and Diana did appear unto him, 〈◊〉 replied, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; upon this the old priest answered, that both Gods and Demons, when they appear to men may be discovered by the curious observer, both in that they never shut their eyes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Fa●naby upon the place in Virgil observes that Deo●um incessus est contin●●s et aequalis, non dim●tis pedibus, neque transpositis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cornelius S●●revelius in the new Leyden notes, saith, Antiquissim● quaeque 〈◊〉 sim●la●hra, quod observant viri magni, erant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ●iique ipsi non gradiuntur, sed fluunt. How their most ancient statues were ef●●giated, hath been above explained at large: those that were afterwards erected became more polished, being not only faced, but so carved as to represent the upper parts of a man complete, (if they were made after that way) but without hands; their nether parts were not divided into legs, but one continued piece, lessening continually, 〈◊〉 it came to the base, which carried a little of the representation of a foot in some; in others, not at all. Thus I have seen 〈◊〉 represented, and Orus in ancient sculpture; and others are said to have been expressed in the same shape. The Giants contrariwise were represented with the nether parts as of a serpent's tail wound up in circles; whence they were called angripetes: The symbolical meaning of the one and other being, that the Gods did what they pleased directly, and by way of absolute power, but the wicked by crooked and indirect means. To this way of picturing the Gods, did that heathen Emperor allude, who meeting with a man impotent and bedrid, cut off his feet by the ankles, and pared off the flesh on the inside of his legs, saying, that since he was not able to walk like a man, be would make him stand like a God. Yet after that they came to be represented in the ●ull shape of creatures.  
These things being premised, I suppose it easy for the intelligent Reader to find out the true Etymology of Emp●sa, quasi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from going on her feet, whereas the other Gods and Demons had a different gate. If any can dislike this deduction, and think her so named from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whereas she always went upon two legs (if her shape permitted it) though she might draw the other after her, as a man doth a wooden leg: I say if any, notwithstanding what hath been said, can join issue with the Doctor, my reply shall be, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now as to the words of Aristophanes upon which the Scholiast descants, they are these: speaking of an Appartion strangely shaped, sometimes like a Camel, sometimes like an 〈◊〉, a beautiful woman, a d●g, etc. Bacchus tells his man, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Scholiast hereupon tells us that Empusa was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And this is all that is material in the Scholiast, except that he adds by the by, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is all one with the leg of an Ass.  
This text and Scholiast is that to which all the Authors he names, and more, do refer; and is all the ground can be alleged for that derivation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quasi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
I come now to Stephen, who in his Index, and in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, gives us the derivation of 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gradior, incedo, (not to 〈◊〉) sic Suid● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dictam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quod uno incedat pede, quas● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, alterum enim pedem 〈◊〉 nabet. But neither Stephen, not any else (except Sui●●● whom the Hypercritical Doctor had not seen, who hath a multitude of absurd deductions, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a can●le, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. and Eustathius, whose authority is alleviated before) no not the Scholiast of Aristophanes (that better Critic than Mr. Hobbs!) doth relate the Etymology as their own. Nay, there is not one saith that Emp●sa HOPPED upon one leg, which is to be proved out of them. The great Etymological dictionary deriveth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to hinder, let, etc. It's apparition being a token of ill luck. But as to the Doctor's deduction, it saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It doth only se●m so: And it is strange that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should not alter only its aspiration, but change its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which I can hardly believe admittable in Greek, lest there should be no difference betwixt its Derivatives and those of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the proposition.  
When I consider the Gods, their Herm●, in Greece, how they stand in the streets at every turning, being only capitati obelisci, how they were placed in their highways, fields, etc. I can think that the origin of this name may have been thus. Some fearful person going out in the dark, phantafied to himself an Apparition, which his companion might tell him was nothing but one of the several Herm●, that stood upon every turn; against this the other might reply, that they were nothing but squared Columns with head● set upon them, but this new phari●sme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this is none of those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those trunci Hermae, this hath feet. Or it may have had its name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because that after they had attributed complete shapes, and feet to their Gods, yet they did not then suppose them to go accordingly as w● go, moving first one foot, and then another. This is the observation of Dionys. Petavius in his notes upon the second oration of julian. Apost. referring to that verse in Homer, speaking of Neptune, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Crediderunt veteres Deos non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ac promovendo pedes ingredi, sed continuo velut impetu fluere. But they did imagine then to move 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and therefore our Nightwalker being surprised with an unexpected phantasm, cries out in a different expression from that of Aeneas in Virgil, incessu patuit Cacodamon: it goeth upon feet after the usual manner, and so is no good, propitious Apollo, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but ill-aboding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for which apprehension of his some body might fitly coin this name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It may also possibly have been deduced from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be reduced in time to the single term of Empusa. Nor do I much doubt, but that those who are conversant in languages, and know how that several expressions are often jumbled together to make up one word upon such like cases, will think this a very probable origination. I believe then that Mr. Hob's friend did never tell him that that absurd derivation was to be found in the Authors alleged by the Doctor. But that the Doctor took this occasion to let us know how many books there are to which he pretends, but will not certainly profess that he hath read or looked upon in this case. Empusa was no hopping phantasm; it had two legs and went upon both, as a man may upon a wooden leg. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was also a name for La●●e, and such was that which Ma●ippus should have married, which I suppose did neither hop, nor go upon one leg, for than he might easily have discovered it. Philost. l. 4. the ●it. Apollon. Vx●● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a●e Synonyma, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to me not a partiti●● of species but individuals.  
But Mr. Hobbs did not except against the derivation (although he might justly; derivations made after the imposition of names carry more of fancy than truth; and the Doctor is not excused for asserting what others barely relate, none approve.) But asked him where, that is, in what Authors, he read that Boy's play to be so called? To which question the Doctor (to show his reading, and the good Authors he is conversant in) replies, In Iunius' Nomenclator, Rider, and Thomas' Dictionaries, sufficient Authors in such a business. It is to be remembered that the trial now is in Westminster School, and amongst Ciceronians, neither whereof will allow those to be sufficient Authors of any Latin word. Alas! They are but vocabularies: and if they bring no Author for their allegation, all that may be allowed them is, that by way of allusion our modern play may be called Ludus Empusae: but that it is so called, we must expect till some Author do give it that name. These are so good Authors, that I have not either of them in my library; but I have taken the pains to seek out and consult, first Rider; I looked in him, who was only Author of the English dictionary, and I could find no such thing. 'Tis true, in the Latin dictionary which is joined with Rider, but made by Holyoke; (O that the Doctor would but mark!) In the appendix of obsolete words, there is Empusae ludus, vid. Ascoliasmus: and there I find Ascoliasmus, Ludus Empusae, fox to thy hole. The same is in Thomasius, who refers to junius in like manner. But could the Doctor think the word obsolete, when the play is still in fashion? Or doth he think this play so ancient, as to have had a name that through length of time should grow obsolete? As for Iunius' interpretation of Empusa, it is this, Empusa, spectrum quod se infalicibus ingerit, uno pede ingredients. Had the Doctor ever read him, he would have quoted him for his derivation of Empusa, I suppose. In Ascholiasmus he saith, Ascoliasmus, Ludus Empusae, fit ubi altero pede in aero librato, unico subsiliunt, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Pollux. Almanicè, Hinctelen. Belgicè, Open cen been springhen. Hinctepincten Flandris. But what it is in English, he doth not tell, although he doth in other places often. What the Doctor can pick out of the Dutch I know not: but if that do not justify him, as I think it doth not, he hath wronged junius, and grossly imposed upon his Readers.  
But to clear up this controversy further, I cannot be persuaded the Doctor ever looked upon junius, for if he had, I am confident according to his wont accurateness, he would have cited Polluxes onomasticon into the bargain, for junius refers to him, and I shall set down his words, that so the reader may see what Ascoliasmus was, and all the Doctor's Authors say Ludus Empusae and Ascoliasmus were one and the same thing. Iul Pollux lib. 9 c. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (old editions read it as doth junius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So that Ascoliasmus, and consequently their Ludus Empusae, was a certain sport which consisted in hopping, whether it were by striving who could hop furthest, or whether only one did pursue the rest hopping, and they fled before him on both legs, which game he was to continue till he had caught one of his fellows; or whether it did consist in the boys striving who could hop longest; or lastly whether it did consist in hopping upon a certain bladder, which being blown up and well oiled over, was placed upon the ground for them to hop upon, that so the unctuous bladder might slip from under them, and give them a fall. And this is all that Pollux holds forth. Now of all these ways there is none that hath any thing of resemblance with our Fox to thy hole; but the second: and yet in its description of his issuing out of a certain kennel, nor of his having a glove tied at the end of a string wherewith to reach the play fellows, nor of their being accommodated with the like habiliments, etc. wherein the play consists as well as in hopping. Any of them notwithstanding might be called Ludus Empusae, but not in any sort fox to thy hole. So that the Doctor and his Authors are out; imposing that upon junius, (and Pollux) which he never said. And thus much may suffice as to this point: I shall only add out of M●urfius's Ludi Graeci, that Ascolia were (not Ludus Empusae, but) Bacchi Sacra, and he quotes Aristophanes' Scholiasts in Pluto. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As also Hesychius; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.;;;  
But I could have told the Doctor where he might have read of Empusa as being the name of a certain sport or game, and that is, in Turnebus adv. lib. 27. c. 33. There he speaks of several games mentioned by jastinian in his Code, at the latter end of the third book; one of which he takes to be named Empusa. Adding withal, that the other are games it is indisputable: only Empusa in lite et caus● erit, quod nemo nobis facil● assensurus sit Ludum esse, cum constet spectrum quoddam fuisse formas variè mutans. Sed quid vetat eo nomine Ludum fuisse? Ce●tè ad vestigia vitiatae scripturae quam proximè accedit. Yet he only is satisfied in this conjecture, till some body else shall produce a better. And now what shall I say? Was not Turnebus as good a Critic and of as great reading as Doctor Wallis? Who had read over Pollux, and yet is afraid that no body will believe Empusa to have been a game; and all he allegeth for it is Quid vetat? Truly all I shall say, and to conclude this business, is, that he had read over an infinity of books, yet had not had the happiness which our Doctor had, to consult with Iunius' Nomenclator, Thomasius and Rider's dictionary, Author's sufficient in such a case.;  
Thus I have put myself to the pains of transcribing the whole text of the letter, that so the question as stated by me, and impugned by him, might be more fully represented to the reader's eye. I have altered some things in it, besides the digressive addition, which my haste caused me either to quit, or express otherwise then I should have done upon meditation: they are such passages to which the Doctor hath excepted nothing; I come now to examine what he hath said against my discourse. It is confessed on both sides that there were more Empusa's then one: that the name 〈◊〉 applied by several men to any kind of frightful phantasm; every man (according as they had been severally educated imposing this name upon his own apprehensions. That the word Hobgoblin is of the like use and extent, I do not know; I have not read in the Chronicles of King Oberon, no the annals of Fairy Knights, that ever our Hobgoblins did hop on one leg, or had the one foot of an Ass, the other of brass. And therefore my assertion must he contradictory to the Doctors (who having made up some general concessions of mine, infers) And therefore by ALL signs and tokens, Empusa was an Hobgoblin. I say not by All signs, for aught that I know, or the Doctor informs us. As for the Clinch it is not for me to determine what was in the Doctor's intentions: he that considers the Doctor's humour, and way of writing, will think it probable he intended one: you heard how he defended it by the example of Erasmus: take the whole passage as it is in the Elenchus, and judge as you please of it.  
Erat Empusa— pedibus altero aeneo, altero asinino, sed utut (uti videtur) duos pede● habuerit, non tamen nisi uno incedebat, ut aliunde si opus sit discas (unde LIQVET ex eorum lemurum numero fuisse quas nos Anglicè dicimus Hobgoblins) nempe ab 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 et 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 factum est nomen illud: unde et puerorum ludus ille, Empusae ludus dictus (Anglicè Fox, fox, come out of your hole, hoc est, heus vulpes de foveâ prodi) 〈◊〉 sortitur, 〈◊〉 paer ille qui vulpes audit, altero suspenso pede, altero sulsult●●● iu●●dit, (quod est Auglic● to hop) à reliquis flagellandus s● ut●oqu● terram tetigerit.  
Mr. Hobbs in his lessons could not but take notice of this passage, and reflect upon it to this purpose. When a stranger shall read this, and hoping to find therein some witty conceit, shall with much ado have gotten it interpreted and explained to him, what will he think of our Doctors of Divinity at Oxford, that will take so much pains, as to go out of the language they set forth in, for so ridiculous a purpose? You will say it is a pretty Paronom●sia. How you call it there I know not, but it is commonly called here a Clinch; and such a one, as is to insipid for a boy of twelve years old, and very unfit for the sanctity of a Minister, and the gravity of a Doctor of Divinity.  
Because I have to do with a Divine, I shall branch out the Doctor's text into these following propositions: First, than Empusa had two feet. Secondly, though she had two 〈…〉 nisi uno incedebat, that is, she bepped upon one: for he wonders in his last reply how the Epistoler can understand it otherwise then of hopping: and that it comes from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thirdly, Ind liquet, it is therefore (viz. because she hopped) clear that El●●sa was such a spectre as we in English call an Hobgoblin. Fifthly, that by Analogy to this hopping El●●, the boys play of fox to thy hole hath its name of Ludus Empusa. His last reply furnisheth me with some other additional observations. As that, of any affinity betwixt Hobgoblin and Mr. Hobbs, he spoke not a word: and therefore is not responsible for any jest, or clinch. Very good! Doth any man that maketh clinches, write in the margin, this is a clinch: I allude to this, or that? Doth he not suppose his reader so intelligent as to know the other name, (viz. Hobbs) upon which ariseth a jingle? If it be not certain, it is very suspicious that he intended that way; for otherwise I do not see how pertinent that discourse is to the matter, if it be not a reflection of the person against whom he writ. Another thing is, that he doth nor say that Hobbs, or Hob goblin came from Hop.) This is such another equivocation as the former. He doth not say it! But it seems to be employed. Yet who said he did? Who charged him with being out in his English deduction? Not Mr. Hobbs! Not the Epistoler! They quarrelled with him for making Empusa to come from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not for deriving Hobgoblin from hop. But this would give occasion for a digression that might seem extraordinary to the vulgar; and instruct the Richardsons, dickson's, etc. with a new answer to that old 〈◊〉, Who gave you that name? The whole is a pretty impertinency: I am not so far his adversary as to deny him commendations where he does well. This hath something of ordinary reading in it, (if he had penned nothing but this and his English Grammar, I should have reserved a civil esteem for him, as to the study of our native language, how mean thoughts soever I might have had of his Latin and Greek) It is an account of what Minshew told us long ago, with an inconsiderable addition out of Vers●egan. He (Minshew) told us, that Hobgoblin was quasi Rob-goblin, etc. and that Goblin in English was G. Gobelin: which our linguist explained (to show how good he is at deciphering characters, especially having the key in Minshew, that G. stood for Gallicè) Gobelin is a French word, used in the same sense (I suppose: for Minshew doth not speak clear!) with them, that Hobgoblin is with us, for any frightful phantasm. His illustrations are obvious; and the case had been more clear, if he had only said that Rob hath been used for Robert, and likewise Ob and Hob (the which are now used in the North) wherein the change is no greater than is that of H●dge for Roger. I mean as to sound. So in the Latin tongue he who is called by Tully Rab●●ius, is by Priscian called Habonius, where he citys the same passage out of the Verrin●, as Gra●er observes. He might have said, much more for the instruction of h●s edversary in his right name: and that namesake of his Hobgoblin. He might have showed how Gobrias hath been used for God, and then the diminutive Goblin or Gobbling, had been as easily found out as Goslin, or Gosling, etc. He might have showed that it hath been used to affright children therewith, as if it would devour them, to goble and to eat hastily, being all one. Or he might have made it Greek as well as French, and deduced it from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that wanton Devil, for such sometimes is the merry Hob; or from Ops, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the goddess of the woods, Diana. Thomasius (his all-sufficient Author!) thinks it came from the Guibellines. But it may be it had become the late Scribe to the Sanbedrin, to have resolved the case by the Assemblies annotations; and derived the English from the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ob, which with them was the name of a Python, or Damon that spoke with a shrill voice out of sepulchers and subterraneous Caverns. So Saal saith, 1 Sam. 28. 7. seek out a woman that hath an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ob. And there was a woman at Endor that had an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ob, or familiar spirit. So isa. 19 3. They shall seek to them that have familiar spirits, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Obs; and a Kings 21. 6. Manasseb restored 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Obs, and wizzards. The Greek, as Selden and others cite it, hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is, he did neglect the true God, and would not attribute effects to him, that is, glorify him in his actings, but ascribed them to Obs, and found out such persons as did not only attest from hearsay, but pretend a knowledge and familiarity with those Obs: this may be intimated in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though perhaps the Hebrew be not so significant. Yea, the Doctor might have argued out of Scripture, that it was not lawful to converse with Mr. Hobbs, since Obs were prohibited of old: such reasonings are found in his thesis. There may also have been some allusion to that incessus deorum of which I spoke afore: and our Countrymen may have attributed to their Gods one gate, and to their Goblins another made up of going and hopping, which is to Honorable along, and thence might have come Hobgoblins, i. e. Hoble-goblins.  
In the second place, the Doctor observes that though Empusa had many shapes, yes Mr. Hobbs (viz. in that excellent Epistle to the Earl of Devon-shire prefixed to his natural philosophy) confines himself to one, which had indeed two legs, the one of brass, the other of an Ass, (as not only Mr. Hobbs but Aristophanes informs us) Mr. Hobbs had no reason to mention any more at the present, and I do not see why he should have been impertinent, to instruct the Doctor the better.  
But the Doctor saith, Empusa went but upon one leg, as appears by the places (though I should have cited more:) from whence, as most agree, it took the name.  
It is very considerable that the Doctor is never so far exhausted, but that there are more allegations (equally pertinent!) which he could have cited. So he told us in tanquam; so in adduco: though the same motives that made him blot his copy, so much as he did before it was printed, might have induced him to omit a number of passages which he suffered to remain. Again I would fain know, what those places are, from whence most agree, it took the name. I told him in the letter, that all depended upon that one place of Aristophanes. I would he had been so willing, as I presume he is able (for he knew of more) to inform me: for all the Authors he named refer to this one; but as I must condole the loss Philology received when the Doctor silenced his pen as to those additional quotations, (viz. out of Doctor Davis, Thomas, junius and Holyoke, from whence, that is, from the passages in whom Empusa took her name) so I fear the reader will question my candour, that will not trust the Doctor in those places which he had particularly consulted, and sound them to express or imply the same derivation. The first place he here insists on is at large set down in the letter: but that the Doctor may learn how it is not enough to consult a place, unless he understand it, I shall put myself and the reader to the trouble of a review— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I do not find that the Doctor sees more in the text than I do; but his notes infer more. What? That she went upon one leg only, though she had two. I have wiped my eyes, and yet I cannot discover so much in the words: and what appears to him, appears not to me, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Who could construe this, she went upon one leg? She did but seem (so that the Doctors appear, must be favourably expounded,) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to straddle with the even leg: it is such an expression, that if I were to character a person that went upon a wooden leg, I should not deliver myself in other words whereby to express his ga●e: for it is not possible, that he who hath ●o use of his joints so, as to bend his knee, should go otherwise then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the walking of one on stilts, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here to me imports intervallum. But this exposition of the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being new, and it may be no example of it (not only in this sense, but v●i●e) I account it a venial slip of the Doctors, whose videtur quod sic, is easily put off with a videtur quod non, and that not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the description of Empusa in Aristophaces, but according to Eustathius: of his reading of whom I a little a doubt; for that hand which blamed me for misciting Columella, which was but a slip of the transcriber at London, (for I had compared the place) could not have pardoned the misallegation of the verse in Dio●ysius. But I had furnished the Doctor cut of Stephen with a different reading, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which though it be but a conjectural reading of Stephens, and not the text (nor received into the text) of Eustathius, whose mind is controverted, yet I shall give him leave to help himself therewith if he can. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to t●ead firm and sure with one foot: which she must do with her asse's foot, that other of brass being no more capable of sure footing, than a treen or wooden leg is; and any body will grant me that it is easier to throw such cripples down, than those that have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I cannot raise up Stephen to ask his meaning, but the whole text suits excellently well with what I have said. Empusa did seem to tread firmly upon the one leg, (but limped, or halied, downright on the other) whence she had the name of Empusa, as if we should say ●ne-leg, that is, having the one leg of an animal, the other being of brass, nempe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thus the Doctor's words and mine do not differ, but our meanings vary, when they come to be explained in English; I do not think that Eustathius intended to say Empusa, id est, one-leg, was so called because she had two: I do not think that she laid her brass-leg over the left shoulder when she walked. I do take that to be the reason why she did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because she was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and if the Geometry professor will not grant me this, I believe the natural philosopher will. The next place is that of the Scholiast of Aristophanes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I would the Doctor had Englished this passage, I profess I do not find the Doctor's assertion couched in these words: It had been but fairly done, if after my excepting against this Scholiastical inference in the letter, he had informed me in his rejoinder, of somewhat more than I had expressed therein, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what is the English of that? Some say, but what is that to the Scholiast of Aristophanes? Doth he say it? Doth he allow of it? He neither approvers, nor disallows, but relates it. If then his allegation amount to any proof of what the Doctor says, he must lay down this maxim, whatsoever any man reports as from another man, (without the least interposition of his own judgement) that he allows of, and asserts. But so doth this Scholiast in the derivation of Empusa: Ergo. Doctor Wallis was scribe to the Assembly. But further I am of the mind that the Sholiast doth disallow it: for he doth not say that it is so, but that some say so, which is tantamount to a disallowance thereof, at least to a doubting of the veritableness thereof. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and derive it quasi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one leg, because it did once, whilom, so appear, as to have the one leg of an asle, and the other of brass, which is to have the use of one leg; as he whose nerve is cut, may have lost the use of an arm, yet not so totally, as not to be able to lean on it, or upon some occasions to benefit himself thereby. Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, do not infer the total disuse of any servant, and H●ratius is said to have been troubled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which was but a debility in them, yet such as rendered him unserviceable in war, or active employments in peace. I could almost divine, that he (the Scholiast) seems to expose the Etymologists for their whimsies in derivations, that should offer to deduce Empusa from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because she went once upon one leg, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereas there are as many inducements for my Etymology, as there are shapes she appeared in, (which is fair odds against the Doctor) and one more which is the analogy with the ancient statues of the Gods, and the solving of the Author's sense, which cannot be justified if the Doctor's mind hold; for to what use should that other leg seem? It is further dubitable, whether that same brazen leg were continuous with the body of Empusa, or no? If not, than she had but one leg, and so was (when in that shape) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet went upon two, viz. the additional one of brass also. Now that it was, or could be continuous, is a question to be disputed in another place: there being natural philosophers that assert, that when a bough withers upon the tree, it ceaseth to be a part, and to be continuous therewith. But take it either way, it is but aequivocè membrum, and therefore t●ough I should grant that she were called Empusa from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet it would not follow that she went upon one only, or hopped. As for his additional of what he could have cited, I shall tell him of better; that is of Favorinus, who transcribed the Scholiast, and Hesychius: (besides Suides and Etymologus, whom I advised him of in the letter) Hesychius says, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which makes as much for him as doth the Scholiast of Aristophanes, who bringing neither reason to confirm the others saying, nor avouching it himself, ought not to be any way entitled to the owning of it.  
Then follows a digression about Rider's dictionary: it was a matter of no great moment at first, but now I shall consider what our Divine says about it. I might have added another book, which I do not know how to call; should I call it Rider's dictionary? you would tell me Holyoke made part of it; should I call it Holyoke's, others would say Doctor Grace, if I mistake not, and some others with him, have added almost as much to Holyoke, as he had done to Rider, and digested the whole anew, and the book so digested is that I mean: whether what I cited out of it were in Holyoke's edition or not, I do not know, otherwise then that I am now told, it is in an appendix of obsolete words; the book that I intended to cite, hath it in the body of the dictionarium Etymologicum: yet I was loath to call it Dr. Gray's dictionary, for fear it should not be understood what book I meant. I cited it then by the name of Rider, because the first title-page entitles the book to him, and the rest as an appendix.  
He knows not how to call it! Why does not he? Is not the name prefixed HOLYOKES dictionary? Will he not allow it the benefit that other books have, to be called by the names they bear? Did any, at least did ever the vogue of the people ascribe that piece to Dr. Grace? Was it ever printed under his, or any other name? Because I censured you for calling it by a wrong name, should I therefore have quarrelled with you if you had named it aright? I did not charge you for citing Scapule, where the work was Stephens? I did not. I let Calepine pass, though his be all stolen, and hath received now as great an accessional, as ever Holyokes did. Doletus ex Marii Nizolii, Bartholomei Riccii, Roberti Stephani lucubrationibus, tam pulchros Latinae linguae commentarios, panè Ambrosio Calepino par, insulsissimè compilavit. Yet if he had cited the one, as he did the other, I should not have found fault with him. And so in the citing of any book I allow it what title the frontispiece gives it: for than I know and so may others, know where to look, and not blunder as I did betwixt Rider and Holyoke: and at last I met with a different edition from what the Doctor used. Mine had the obsolete words by themselves, his had received them all into the body of the book, but with an Asterisme or obeliske, thus. ● Empusa Ludus jun. vide Ascoliasmus; and there it is Ascoliasmus jun. Grec. Empusae ludus, fox to thy hole. What the meaning of that obeliske is I desire to show out of Holyokes advice to the reader. Cuncta vocabula quo in probatis authoribus neutiquam sunt reperta, et à flexione Latinâ aliena, obelo in front notavi. Itidemque ea barbara quibus ob purorum defectum, necessitate coacti, utimur, eâdem noâ insignivi. You see what the Doctor hath gotten by pleading variety of editions; as also, how I let Thomas and Holyoke (though it to be confessed, that where they both agree, the latter did but transcribe the former) pass for two, without a censure, so that the Doctor needed not have been so fearful; but that he was sensible of his being out, yet would seem to say something. In the last edition: Rider is but an appendix to Holyoks, so saith the title page of A. Greeks edition: but the binder's do often transpose the books, which gave occasion and opportunity to the Doctor to say the greater was added to the lesser, and that Holyoke should perfect Rider, and so make his own work an accessional only, whereas he assumed the other merely to complete his own.  
Of his many Authorities he instances in on more, though he might have transcribed them out of my letter: only talks idly.  
But all these Authorities are nothing worth with this epistoler. Calepine is but modern, and therefore he sees not why Calepines authority should outweigh his own.  
I am very sorry to hear the Doctor relinquish reason for bare Authority; I confess I do not know the validity of man above man further than he must derive from his reason: doth the Doctor think there is Magic in names, so as the most letters or syllables should prevail against the fewer? Or doth he balance men in the scales, and so take them not for intrinsique value, but weight? If so, I believe he that shall weigh Dr. Wallis by the stone, will not give him that respect which his own opinitivity will assume. I know not why Authority should sway more in Philology, than Divinity: I cannot believe the whole Assembly of Divines, nay all the Divines in Europe can outsway by their authority my single exposition of Ephes. 4. 10. etc. or Mat. 28. 19 etc. I said only this of Galepine. that I did not set why his Authority should out weigh mine, if his Author's reasons did not. The Doctor had something of the Devil in him, when he quoted my text by halves; and then takes occasion to charge me with self-conceitedness: whereas I say no more of myself, than I would of Doctor Wallis, or the merest idiot in the world, viz. that I know no differerence betwixt the fool and the wise, but only reason. Yet that I may acquit myself of Calepine, I shall add to what I already have brought against Galepine in the case of Doletus, a further testimony of Franciscus Floridus concerning him: Videmus post Nicolaum Perottum, omnium interpretum munus subire voluisse Ambrosium Calepinum, illius laborum ac vigiliarum furem manifestissim●●: in omnibus tamen maxime absurdum, cum insulso suo dictionario, in quo ne gry quidem ● se protulit, nist siquos ab infirmis Scriptoribus sordes collegit, qui non minus fidei Apuleio, aut Martiano Capellae, in verborum proprietate, quam M. Ciceroni, aut Cas●ri tribuit, etc.— Itaque Perotti nomen auxit 〈◊〉 mediocriter, evimulta ab eruditis in reddendà verborum ratione deforuntur, 〈◊〉 Calepino vix credant, quod veterum testimoniis confirmet: et hunc LUDIBRII, illum honoris caus● nominare solent. And thus I free myself from Calepine, who is a School book; and indeed of no authority further than those precincts extend; but I forgive the Doctor for using him here whose education had not permitted him the trial, or begot in him judgement to discover his imperfections. As for Erasmus, Stephanus, Rhodiginus, I did not any way lessen their esteem, because they did truly allege their authors, and so shifted off the quarrel from themselves, as you may see at large in the letter: they did not at all clash with me, as the reader may see, unless whatever any man reports as from another, he may justly be impleaded as the author thereof. But that the Doctor may see what weight Antiquity hath with me, had all his Authors without any reason or ground more than that of Aristophanes, asserted what he would have them, I should have preferred my conjectural something, as it is now stated, before their positive nothing: my 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, before their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the one being an impertinent compound, the other a jumble.  
A jumble! Doth the Doctor take this for an exception? What is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Auchialus in Martial? Are not there a thousand words jumbled together in as ill a manner as Empusa, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? It is observed by Mr. Selden de diis Syri●prol. c. 2. that the names of Gods in their Etymologies are not subjected to Grammar rules: Caterum tempestiuè meminerts Deorum nominum deductiones ubique Grammaticis analogiae apicibus omnino olim solutas esse. Which is evident not only from what the Pedees' of Orbilius have taught us, but also from what Plato in his Cratylus hath recorded: it hath been thus in all nations, (if we may believe those who have conversed in languages:) and questionless the strangeness and uncouthness of the word or name, was thought to contribute much to the procuring a reverence and upholding the majesty of the deity. I do but therefore applaud my own sentiments, when I commend that observation of that eminent Antiquary, Fato comparatum est, ut a Grammaticorum imperio dii sint liberi. Which single remark were a sufficient confutation of all the Doctor hath brought against me in this case: against whose derivation I should not have brought Grammatical objections, had he produced such grounds as I have for mine. I objected (having refuted his authors, or nullified them) It is strange that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should not alter only its aspiration, but change its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which I can hardly believe admittable in Greek, lest there should be no difference betwixt its derivatives and those of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If the Doctor had read this confiderately, he could not but have observed how timorously I spoke: and had I not sufficiently evinced my own deduction, and showed the invalidity of his grounds, I should never have cast this into the balance; which I would have looked upon as over-weight, and not as put into the Scales to counterpoise aught of moment on the other side. I said it was strange: I said I could hardly believe it admittable: neither the one, nor the other saying implied a positive denial. I have been always of that opinion, which afterwards I found to be confirmed by Selden, and the judgement of others not inferior to him in philology. The Doctor replies, The former of the two (which he slighteth in comparison of the other) I confess hath some appearance of weight; yet not so much as to carry the cause: for the Etymologicus, you see, who takes notice of it, can yet pass it over, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the rest could not be ignorant of it, yet none of them do upon that account reject it: and you know well that the Greek doth in some derivations, compositions, and otherwise change the spirit: as in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.  
I see it is not possible for the Doctor and me to agree, I confess I did slight that objection of the change of the aspiration, not upon those trifling cases alleged by our Pseudo-Caninius, which have nothing of parallel, and the last whereof I do not understand; it is very likely his printer can mistake too, and that may be in the book, which was not in the copy. I knew that even 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 itself had altered its spirit in composition; ay when a School boy did so construe that allegation out of Menander in Suidas, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I will be here before you can tell one, two, three. Which is confermable to what Stephen renders it, viz. celeriter, and Suidas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: though neither give the Etymology. This I knew besides many other v●riations in compounds, which it would be tedious to reckon up. But another thing which was most urgent with me, was, that I knew those aspirations were of late addition, and of a much newer standing than the common dialect, being the invention of Grammarians (I mean as to the writing of them) upon the declining of the Grecian learning: as for the pronunciation, it was different in several territories, that which aspirated in one place was tenuated in another: et vice versâ, so that the exception against the non-aspiration could be of no validity, unless it could be proved that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was always aspirated, and (which is more) that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was framed in place where that aspiration was so used: which that it was not, nor could be universal in Greece, both natural reasons, and records make impossible, the common dialect was an extract out of all those scattered dialects of Greece, and had so much of Greek in it as to be (for the most part) understood every where: as our ordinary English phrase is apprehended all over England, though the same be differently pronounced not only as to the aspiration and levigation, but sound of letters, and more differently written: and he that goes to make a certain English Grammar, however he may pretend to universality, regulates it by his own ear, use, and custom of such as he approves of, (which is not to approve of them, but himself) and hath been conversant with. Thus I have given an account of the causes why I put no greater stress upon that objection, which the Doctor thought to be of some importance. I come now to his examen of what I secondly objected not as impossible, but dubious and suspicious, and hardly (when joined with the other change of spirit) to be believed.  
Dr. W. repl. But the other upon which he puts the greatest stress, (not only but also) is ridiculous. Could any man believe that the change of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is hardly admittable in Greek? Nay, is it possible to be otherwise, when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to come immediately before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Did this Paracritick ever see 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to come together in any Greek word whatever? Is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perpetually so changed when ever any such case shall happen, because the analogy of the Greek tongue will bear it? A very little skill in Greek would have been able to rectify such a gross mistake. And he can never with any face pretend to be a Critic, who doth not know it. Me thinks that either Mr. Hobbs or that third person through whose hands this paper it seems came, might have had so much as not to suffer such a childish business as this to pass both their hands uncorrected. And what he adds, lest there should be no difference betwixt its derivatives and those of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, helps it very little, for such a conclusion is much more allowable in Greek, then that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should come next together: nor would this help it at all (if it were allowable) save only where the next letter is a labial: for else there would be no occasion of changing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in either of them. 'Tis well therefore if that be true that we are told, that he hath better ornaments then to be willing to go clad abroad in the habit of a Grammarian: for if he have no better ornaments than these, he may be one of the ragged Regiment for aught I see.  
I have set down the Doctor's words at large, that so you might see how (upon slender grounds) apt he is to presume upon his puerile thoughts, and how little he hath improved his School-dictates. I have already told you how studious an imitator he was of that Hortensian way of examining things. I said I could hardly believe it admittable in Greek, that the derivatives of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should have no characteristical sign or mark, whereby to distinguish those of the one kind from the other. And I had observed the little force of the aspiration, which had been changed not only in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 descendants of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. but even in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. There remained then that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be retained in the one, and varied in the other. The Doctor after an Oraison to Laverna.— 
— Sancta Laverne,  
Da mihi fallere, da sanct●mque pi●mque videri,  
Noctem peccatis, et fraudibus objice nubem.  brings me in as if I had said simply, the change of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is hardly admittable in Greek. And then asks, is it possible to be otherwise when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 come together? To this foolish interrogatory. I answer that neither He, nor I can determine of what is impossible; there being a multitude of circumstances, the knowledge whereof at present is no less impossible for us, then important, for such a decision, viz. the knowledge of the true sound of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not only in one part but all the Contons of Greece; and that not for one but all those ages that have passed since the rise of that language, to the declining of that Empire, the ruin whereof brought in the knowledge of the Greek ●ongue into Europe: yea this is not all, we are to know the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such men as were of repute, for their mistakes or phansics were authenticated by their followers, and so spread up and down, men endeavouring to fashion their mouths to the pronunciation, as well as pens to the writing of what they had so great an example for. Yea the several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (of which you may read at large in Maussacus' dissectatio Critica joined with his notes upon Harpocration's dictionary) ought to be known thoroughly if you mean to determine of what was possible, and what not, in the Greek tongue. I imagine the common dialect in Greece (wherein the books we have are generally written, and which we call Greek) to have been like our ordinary English in the Souther 〈◊〉 parts: the Antic dialect to have been answerable to our London or rather Court-phrase: and the other as well dialects, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to have corresponded with the several dialects in the North and West of England, and Idioms of other countries. The ordinary Southern language is a mixture of the several dialects used in England (with the remains of those which are otherwise extinct) besides an accessional of Italian, French, Spanish, W●l●h, etc. according as the inhabitants have conversed one with another, and with foreigners: and even this ordinary language suffers a daily innovation and insensible change, as is evident to the observer, through the variation of the ambient, novel manner of education, customs, national and personal alliances, Du-Gardismes in Printing, and the affectation of writers, which new-model us; nor will the Doctor's English Grammar be able to stay this imminent alteration. In like manner as the Latin tongue was in continual change, and elegance is nothing but opinion. (I take Latin in a large sense) There was the ordinary Latin received in Rome, Italy, and the Roman colonies: then there was the Roman or more elegant phrase: and besides these two there were other scattered dialects, mixtures of the Tuscan and Oscan, the Greek, etc. there were the Patavinities, Tarentismes, Siculismes, Africanismes, Hispanismes, and as many variations, as regions, (or thus in a more general division, Quadruplex dicendi figura veteribus servata Grammaticis, Prisca, Latina, Romana, miscella.) Hence Tully in his Divinatio contra Verrem, tells Caecilius that he learned Latin not at Rome but in Sicily. And as for the common Latin language, it did suffer daily change: in so much that Polybius informs us, there was so great an alteration in the Latin tongue from what it had been, that the League betwixt the Romans and Carthaginians upon the close of the first Punic war, (which was made in the first year after the ejectment of Kings, junius Brutus and Valerius Poplicola being consuls) could hardly in his time be interpreted or understood by the best Antiquaries: which saying how true it was, may be collected by what Foliota produceth concerning the column erected to Duillius upon his naval victories: wherein you have no C. but G. as Leciones, Macis●ratos: very seldom V. as pri●●● captom: then Exfociont for essugiunt. Ceset for gessit: the Ablatives singular end in D. as praded, altod, marid: lastly, (besides other archaismes of less note) Triompo for. Triumpbo, which kind of pronunciation I observed to have continued even in Tully's time. The same Author hath a Gen●a table of a less ancient date, yet of a different stile from what was used in the days of Cicero. These things considered (if we had no testimony of the difference betwixt the old and the common Greek,) we may conclude the variableness of it, which with the consideration of the change it hath undergone since the fall of those Commonwealths makes it certain: (though the multitude of antiquated, and new words, the different pronunciations, changes of the ambient, inroads and conquests of other nations, which might be discoursed on at large,) and consequently no man can determine of what was possible, or impossible in that tongue, but who can give a thorough account of those things, I have named: from which attempt I doubt not but the Doctor is as far from effecting it, though he brave it in Critics, as I am from professing it. The Doctor's question therefore was ridiculous, (this is now not only said, but proved!) Is it possible to be otherwise, when 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to come immediately before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which question implies a Negation; viz. that it is not possible for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to come together, and yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 remain unexchanged for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which proposition I have already demonstrated to be rasb, and I shall now prove it defacto false: and refer myself to the Ancient inscriptions in Gruterus, wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 1010. p. 1037. p. 313. p. 314. p. 315. p. 316. and in several other places, where because they are inscriptions of lesser note, and of more obscure persons, the more ignorant Artisans might have been suspected to have erred, but that these of greater Authority do justify their writing. Doth not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 go before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Yet you have p. 810. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bioroto vitae inculpata: Scaliger upon Euseb. Chron. writeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: and so doth Hermannus de litter. so that you see a very little skill in Greek would have been able to prevent this gross Interrogatory: and the persons through whose bands the papers came, are not to be censured, because the Doctor's School-learning made him think it a childish business. But I did not say I thought the change of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hardly admittable in Greek. The Doctor no more quotes my words, than the Devil quoted Scripture to our Saviour; by this way of citation, the whole word of God may become the word of the Devil: like as the Censura Symboli Apostolici ad instar censurae Parifiensi● (whicham to be found in Alphonsus de Vargas strateg. jesuit. and Raynandus de confir. libror.) shows each proposition in that Creed to be either Heretical, Dangerous, or Scandalous. My not only but als●, is this. It is strange, ' that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should not alter only its aspiration, but change its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which [viz. change of both aspiration, and letter: for the change of either in a single consideration, is admittable. I bear with the Doctor for not understand ●g Greek, you see he is at a loss in plain English.] I can hardly believe admittable in Greek, lest there should be no no difference betwixt its derivatives and those of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And this conjecture of mine (concerning the Grammatical Greek, from whom we received our punctation and reading) is not very contemptible, if we mind their practice in avoiding confusion. Dr. Waltis upon this consideration, saith it helpeth very little. He dust not say, nothing at all. Though I suppose he will give his words that gloss, which others do to the text in the Gospel, He shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven; that is, He shall never come there. But since the Doctor hath so examined those reasons, upon which I placed no great stretch: since he hath charged me with being wholly unacquainted with the rudiments of the Greek tongue, (for that I am not able to give a rational account of it, I profess without blushing: Incerta haec si tu postules ratione certa facere. nihilo plus agas, quam si des operam ut cum ratione insanity,) that my skill is but to turn over Index's and Dictionaries, (at which work the Doctor was taken tardy; and the latter are good Authors!) I shall 〈◊〉 his reasonings, in which work if I at any time mistake his meaning, he must blame himself for speaking so obscurely. As I understand not that query, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perpetually so changed, when ever any such case should happen, because the Analogy of the Greek tongue will bear it? So it is possible I may misunderstand his next assertion, and yet be far from forgery or falification. His reason why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot come together without a change, is this. Because the next letter is a LABIAL: for else there would be no occasion of changing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in either of them. (viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) Would any man talk thus, but who had sat three years in the Synod? Can he that deciphers characters, thus puzzle his reader in plain English? 

1. Propos. When a Labial follows 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there is OCCASION for to change it into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
2. Propos. Otherwise there is no OCCASION.    
Would any man of common sense (but I have to do with a Professor!) talk thus, where the Question is, Whether the Greek Pedants would take or omit the OCCASION? Did I deny there was Occasion? Did not I only think, they would neglect the Occasion, and dispense with a facility of pronunciation, (if it were so) where different senses might more trouble the reader's brain. than the word would his tongue.  
Otherwise there is no Occasion! what then? Did they always take the benefit of proffered Occasions? Did they never vary when there was none? Try your Hearsel Doctor (for I know you make your own fancy, and that pronunciation to which you have been accustomed, the rule of Euphony and Cacophony) and see whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, do not sound as ill as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; I think they sound worse: I know very well that as people have been differently educated, so they vary in their sentiments. Aldus Manutius differs from me about what is Euphonous, and what Cacophonous: he says Quidquid. I think quicquid sounds best, etc. Divers men have divers opinions concerning a stile; Bembus and Barclay, Milton (that glory of our English nation!) and Salmasius make use of a different sort of writing: yet who doubts but each did acquiesce in his own way as best? When the Doctor speaks Greek (and in writing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may as well stand as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word is only Greek, the sound is English: and so for Latin. That the way of writing is not to be regarded, nor upon that any great argument to be built, I think I may well conclude, and that because that the letters may be the same in several nations, yet the sounds different; and the impossibility of one following another lies upon the tongue of the speaker, not the hand of the writer. I shall illustrate this, from what Giphanius lays down in his preface to Lucretius, upon another occasion. Qui contra libros veteres multis locis nihil et nihilum in nil et nilum, ratione, ut ipsi putant, versuum ac numerorum, commutant: nae illi in veterum Scriptis versantur, nec attendunt Synaeresin veteres in metiendo duntaxat multis locis obseruâsse, in scribendo rarissime. Hinc multae in Plauto, Terentio, aliisque antiquis mutationes malae. The same I say concerning writing, and speaking; but even in writing betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both according to the old capital, and later small letter, there was a great affinity in configuration, (which may topically infer an affinity in sound) as any man knows that hath seen an old print in Greek, or ancient Marble. And if I did not speak of Labials and Palatines; it was because I had not to do with Hebrew or Welsh, etc. but Greek. And how doth he know what modulations they had of their voice, and what sound they gave to their letters? It is clear that they had a different sound for their vowels, than we have: Cheek and Smith were more able to disprove their old pronunciation, then confirm that which they introduced, not as genuine, but convenient. I shall not speak of all the letters of the Greek Alphabet, because it would be a long and perhaps tedious work: I shall only now show that though N and M do differ very much in the English tone, yet they did not so hereto fore neither in the Latin, nor Greek: and that though it might be written, N, yet it was as variously pronounced as now when we substitute another letter, according as the letter following (of whose sound we have no certainty) did require. The present Greeks do write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. In Hesychius I find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Amongst Gruter's inscriptions. that in the temple of Aes ul●pius hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and elsewhere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 313, 314. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 315, 316. in a public decree of the Ag●igentines, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a Doric inscription: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in an inscription for Menander: and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and an hundred the like examples might be alleged thence, if any one would range all the words that are found in the several inscriptions: and of these I have alleged some are written at other times otherwise, according as we now write them. In the Marmora Arundeliana I find 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over and over, etc. In the decree of the Delians Mr. Selden furnishes us with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (though elsewhere it be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and in another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In Latin Conlega Conjux Cojux, Conjunxs, and the like, an infinity whereof might be fetched out of Dansqui●s, Manutiu●, Gruterus and Lucretius, etc. This may suffice to show that the ancients did not constantly follow one Orthography. Suetonius expressly tells us of Augustus, c. 88 Orthographiam, id est formulam rationemque scribendi & Grammaticis institutem non ad●o custodiit. In which words you have an account of the Authors of our way of writing, and the esteem they had in that age. In prosecution (possibly) of this humour of Augustus, it was that in the pillar set up for a memorial of his acts, and transcribed by Gruter we have rotiens, quadragien, centun millia, as annum alterun et quadragesimum. Yea, cumlega for collega: and I cannot think but if the Romans had in the same manner pronounced those adverbs to●iens, quotiens, centiens, etc. that they did triens, bidens, etc. as they would not have reduced them to toties, quoties, etc. as they would not have reduced agceps, aggelus, aggustum, agcilla, to anceps, angustum, angelus, ancilla, if they had not there pronounced G. somewhat like N. but that the controversy may receive a further light● I shall give an account of what variation our N. meets with in the Arundel ma●bles (and occasionally speak of some other letters.) They are all in Capitals, the letters not distinguished into words, nor any stop or break made but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The prepositive particle coming before other words beginning with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 changed as following, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is changed, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 often, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Before a word beginning with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I find also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This is the general way of writing in those inscriptions; yet I find once 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 once; and though those other Syncategorematical particles (as it were running into one word) suffer such a change, yet we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. I find once 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the inscriptions of the Delians, the writing is more uncertain: you have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The like change of N in Latin is observed by Giphanius in a letter of his to Murc●us, where out of an old copy of Tully, he citys in memoriam, etc. for in memoriam, etc. from all which I think I may infer that though the Greeks had 16, or 24. letters (that matters not at present) they had more sounds, than letters: and [in Smyrna and Delos] in particular, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had a different sound according as the letter following (whether in the same, or another word, so it were contained within the same clause, and to be pronounced in the same breath) was different.  
Secondly, that where the words were not pronounced in the same breath, but interrupted by an imaginary comma, or the like, (for real stops and pauses they had none) that then the sound and letter were not varied, as appears every where in the marmora Arundeliana, and especially in the two last examples rehearsed, where you have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. And in the latter after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 follows, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and if that change be not always observed, I suppose it may have happened, because that since neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did express the sound, it might indifferently be written either way as participating of the found of both, but rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Thirdly, I infer, that the reason did not concern only composition, but extended to simples: and the reason why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not written before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. In composition, was, because it could not be written or pronounced before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &c in the simple; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same clause coming before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did not sound full, as it did before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but had a middle sound betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and therefore if the Doctor meant that it was impossible for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to come before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and retain its full English sound, I do grant it: but so it could not come before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so that he should have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no less than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Fourthly I infer, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be written before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either in simple or compound (there being the same reason, if they were within the same clause) though not altogether so well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (because the sound was more like that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) since that the Greeks had no Character whereby to express those mixed sounds upon the concurrence of consonants. In which point also the Latins were to seek: as you may read in Vossius de arte Grammaticâ l. 1. c. 20. Where he citys a passage out of Marius Victorinus (whom he thus characters, Scriptor accuratus et antiquus; ut quem cum Donato, Hieronymi Magistro, vixisse vel ex Eusebio constare possit.) The beginning whereof doth confirm, and is confirmed by what I have said. Clari in studiis viri, qui aliquid de Orthographiâ scripsere, OMNES ferèaiunt, inter M, et N, literas, MEDIAM VOCEM, quae non abhorret ab utr●que literâ, sed neu●ram PROPRIE exprimat, tam nobis [Latinis] deesse, quam Graecis: cum illi Sambyx [forte 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] scribant, nec M exprimere, nec N. Sed haec ambiguitas in his fortasse vocabulis, siout in Ampelo Lycambe; (and why not in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉?) in nostris non est, etc.  
Although I think I have said enough to refute the Doctor's assertion, yet I shall further consider what the Doctor hath said by way of reason: That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before a Labial hath occasion to be changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In his Grammatico-physical discourse he tells us these are Labials. P. F. B. V. W. M. I would fain know whether he mean that when ever N. comes before any of these in any language it be impossible but that it be changed into M. I gave some account of the ancient orthography out of Hesychiu●, who affords a multitude of the like stamp, amongst which there are exceptions against this reason as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is the same Author that hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Gruter in his marbles hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 787. and p. 791. and which is more 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 several times, but amongst the inscriptions of mean persons. A Cretan marble hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 505. Another inscription of note hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The other Labials need no instances; and what is said for N before B will make a probability as to P. since there hath been of old so great an affinity betwixt those two letters in sound, that the one is often put for the other, and when the one is written the other is sounded. Hence in the Latin, ops, apsens, etc. for obses, absens. Quintilian l. 1. c. 7. Quarisolet in scribendo praepositiones, sonum, quem juncta efficiant, an quem separate, observare conveniat: ut cum dico obstinuit. Secundam enim B literam ratio proscit: aures magis audiunt P. So Vossius (to whom I owe that citation) saith, Arabs, trabs, urbs, quia sic inter doctssimos obtinuit, per B scribo: sed for us exigit urps, traps, Araps. This concurrence of consonants gave occasion to mix sounds, and thereupon men came to write promiscuously some that juxta sonum vocis separatae, and others juxta sonum quem juncta efficiebat. But I have made trial in English of N before B, and unless the Doctor's whistle differ from my windpipe, I can pronounce Henbane: I say pronounce it, for I can spell it Henbane: nor do I find any physical impossibility in the sounding of Henp●sa, or Emp●sa, However, the Doctor should not have reminded us of the Labial 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But being to give his reason, why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is changed into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he should only have said, because it comes before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But how 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might have come before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have shown: and he must be a great stranger to the rise of languages, that thinks it not only impossible, but improbable that the case was otherwise, but since N and P are by the Doctor allowed the same sound with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that which renders the case of one impossible, must have the like influence upon the other. Yet I find that the ancients wrote juponito, in an old inscription at Naples, the same Authority there is for Quod, ici, inprobarint, inprobum esto, and elsewhere inpeditus. So Faernus upon Terence helps me with Ir●unè, Inprudens, Inperiosus was wrote upon the Roman arch triumphal: and inperi●m in Sigonius' brass table. In the Pandects at Florence, there are, Inpubes, Inpressum, Inperfectum, Inpossibile. Prudentius hath this verse. Inmitis, atrox, asper, inplaca●ilis. And an infinity of the like might be cited out of Dansquius about the old Latin tongue, and others. But left these should be the writings of agreste Latium only, when men wanted our Geometrical phonescues; the Italians have either retained or resumed that pronunciation. Florio furnishes me with store of examples, Inportare, Inpresa, Inpendere, Inpertinente, etc. which are not to be confuted in this case by della Crusca. I have now taken away that physical impossibility of the concurrence of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, N and P: of which what are we that we should determine? Who neither know the sound of the letters, nor the several conformations of parts which regulate that air (which also is different here and there) the phantasm of the motion whereof continued to our car is Sound! I now aver that not Euphony but use was regarded in the generation of language: time begets that alteration, which if we call polishing or perfecting, we must build upon the opinions of men: what is Euphonous to one is Cacophonous to another: and what pronunciation is difficult or impossible to one, is not so to another. We see when different nations speak Latin, they give it the sound of their own countries, and retain nothing of the old Roman but the letters and words when written. Thus Aldus thinks one thing Euphonous, and I another; he being an Italian diversely educated, and I an Englishman. There was a time when Tonsrix, Cursrix, Fesrix, sounded well; Charisius the Grammatian (as I am informed) saith they ought to be written so. Sollempius, Sompnus, Hiei●ps, were once very taking. The like may he said of the Greek, of which the Latin is a descendant; I told you before of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. there was a time when they were not only usually so pronounced, but it was reputed elegant. Phrynichus in his Ecloga diction Atticar. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He says you must leave out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Nunnesius in his notes reads it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Etymologic. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But I think I have detained you too long with this discourse, which a little knowledge in the rise and declination of languages, and the Grammatico-physical part thereof, might have prevented. The same letters have different sounds in divers nations, and the Euphony of one nation doth not give laws to another. Terentianus Ma●●us tells us that C●. doth not sound well: but C there must sound like G. yet in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. beget no disorder: non quod dissimilis res, sed quod is qui dicit. Let an English man try to sound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the beginning of a word (as the Latins cared not for Mn. which is frequent in Greek) he will hardly pronounce it; viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: but when he shall have accommodated those letters to the modern Turco-greek sound, he will as easily pronounce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Bajazet. The like for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Doria the famous Genoutses. Be pleased once more to read over the discourse of our Critical Bravo, and judge what ground he had to cast that scorn and contempt not upon me only, but on the Gentleman through whose hands my letter passed to Mr. Hobs. The most charitable opinion I can have of the Doctor, and if such charity may extend to a Divine! is, that he engaged into this rant merely to save his reputation, which being lost as to all persons of learning, he determined to sit down with the applause of Schoolboys, or such as deserve no better esteem.  
But the Doctor upon second thoughts, will assist me with arguments against his Etymology: I shall consider his reasons, and give you an account of them; they must sure be good, for his charge against mine, obliges him to nothing trivial.  
Dr. W. But if he have a mind to dispute against the Etymology, I could furnish him with better arguments by much, then that of changing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For (besides the change of the spirit, which I allow to be considerable, though he put less weight upon it) the termination of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not regularly descend from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all its derivatives retaining either the termination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or, so soon as they depart from it, assume the form of the oblique cases 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. (as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc.) And further the first part of the Composition, if it were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 could not regularly, according to the analogy of other compounds, end in a Consonant but in a Vowel; not as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And moreover, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not usually begin a Composition at all. Nor do I at present remember any one word in the whole Greek tongue, where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the first part of the composition: but instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unoculus.] And so it should not have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to express that notion, but rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the same form with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the same form with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is Empusa's Epithet. And those arguments would prove indeed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no regular grammatical composition, (nor do any that mention it, take it to be so;) but that it may not pass amongst the catalogue of remotiora composita vel derivata [of which we find in Etymologists a competent number] or may not pass for as good a jumble as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I see no reason: nor, why that of so long standing, and allowed by so good Authors, should give place to this upstart.  
What value is to be put upon the change of spirit I have already declared; as also what stress may be laid upon the variation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. in this case: and though I have invalidated those arguments in a single consideration, yet the change of both in the same word seems to me still a little improbable. But he tells me further that the termination 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not regularly descend from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I would he had determined what he meant by regularly: for those rules of Grammar we have (I do no not mean Camden's Grammar) are of a later date than is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore it cannot be counted irregular ex post facto. Nor, if all the other compounds or derivatives have a different termination, will any wise man thereupon infer that there cannot be a Singularity in this? As for that which he further objects: if the first part of the composition were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it could not regularly according to the Analogy of other compounds, end in a consonant, but in a vowel: I would he had cleared up his thoughts, and told us in what country it was so irregular, and what Analogy of compounds he would oppose us with. I for my part find in the Etymologicum magnum, that the Atticks in the compounds and descendants from numerals did retain their last letter; that is, they did assume nothing after it; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: these men then (and they a considerable part of Greece, and from whom especially did descend that common dialect of ours) would have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The assertion is to be found in the said book in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And for the compounds of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Doctor could not think to overrule us with their Analogy whereas he knew of none, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is no Greek word, no more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of which it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quasi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That which he further suggests, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not usually begin a composition at all, is very weak arguing, and I shall not make use of it until the Doctor legitimate that other argument, that because most men ●●unlearned, therefore none are learned. The compounds of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not usually assume 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. may not we therefore say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? A very little skill in Greek would have been able to rectify such an argument: as also to inform his memory better, then to forget that in the whole Greek tongue (and that is a thing of large extent) there should not be one word, where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the first part of the composition: what not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Have you so soon forgot your numbers? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 anniculus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, navis uniremis, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qua unâ horâ digna sunt, besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 univira five univiria, which where I have read I do not remember, but I think it is in Heraldus upon Arnobius. You see Doctor how a man's memory may fail him; but you seem to decay in your judgement also, when you infer, that Because you remember no compound beginning with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, therefore it should not have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: as I have evinced unto you. It remains now only to consider your conclusion, wherein you say, that your derivation is allowed (as in another place you say it is a received Etymology) by so good Authors: the contrary whereof I have made appear in the letter as it is now augmented: where I have showed you reason why your old groundless deduction should give way to this upstart. Upstart! doth the Doctor think this an objection? Doth he reject things because new, and not because false? I wonder a Theologue should argue thus. I might as well condemn his writings because he is a lesser man than I. However the Doctor should consider that second thoughts are best, and that a child upon a Giant's shoulder (it is a saying of the reformed Divines; and the Doctor called me Saucy boy, though I do not think I stand upon a Giant's shoulders when I everlook him) may see further than the Giant. I do not know whether the Doctor think that I intended to jumble 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into one word: if he did, he mistakes me as much as he did them he said did deduce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: for though they said to, they gave you the derivation in sense only, and not in words. All that I insist upon is that it come from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: concerning the termination, perhaps the Greeks may have had a way in old times of adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as we in English do A. as Green- 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. perhaps it is only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Feminine: It may come from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being only retained: not is that deduction by such an apocope, wo●se then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I am not the first that observe in Etymologies the retaining of one letter is sufficient: as Neptunus' a nando▪ which is laughed at by Tully. Yet I can further show of later date than those antiquated times when Empusa had its original, such an Apocope, as is more than literae vel syllabae ablatio. In the Greek Epigrams l. 6. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Here is for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and which is an exception to your Grammar, they do not vary their gender and become neuters. If this Etymology displease, deduce it from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Laconicè, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. I have read such use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but I remember not where. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (so Hesych. but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Favorine) signifies al●o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, safe: so that the person affrighted at the light of a spectre, might cry to his companions, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; here is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is all well? Or from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is dolentis interjectio: or from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is an interjection of admiration.  
The next passage of the Doctors is a very considerable one; whether what we have disputed of he only a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whether Mr. Hobbs did well to English the Doctors uno pede incedere by hopping? I think he, or any one else that reads the passage which I have cited at large before, will think the Doctor intended it so: for though he said that the boy in the play did uno pede incedere, which is not denied: yet he also said, that that play was called Empusa (or Ludus Empusae) because that that Empusa did uno pede incedere: which reason will be well, if the terms uno pede incedere be equivocal. Mr. Hobbs then did him no wrong in Englishing it so; no more than I, who cannot understand that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the context of Aristophanes' scholiast should signify ●o hop: or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the words lie in Eustathius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is not his quotation, nor uno pede ingredients in junius:) what the meaning of those places may be, I have already told: and the Doctor doth not bring any thing to the contrary. Rhediginus doth but refer to Eustathius, and if he hath ill translated him, am I accountable for his errors? but the mistake was on the Doctor's side, for Rhodiginus used a term that might be attributed to the gate of the Gods, as well as the footing of men. Et vera incessu patuit dea. Superûm incedo regina: but the Doctor restrained it to hopping as I have showed.  
Dr. W. But how I should wrong junius, in taking these words of his, altero pede in aere librato, unt●o subsiliunt pede, to be understood of hopping, I do not understand, nor am likely to do till he can find out a possible meaning of those words. And when he hath so done, I will see what I can pick out of the Dutch. For though I do not profess myself a Dutch man, yet so much Dutch I have as to understand that Hincken in high-Dutch, and Open cen been springen, in low-Dutch signify the same as to hop in English.  
Thus the Doctor changeth the controversy: I said he had grossly wronged junius, and imposed upon his readers, if he did not find in the Dutch (for the Latin hath no such thing) that Ludus Empusae was the boys play of fox to thy hole. I gave an account of Iunius' words, which I desire may be read over again: that both the Latin and Dutch did signify to hop I know; but whether they signified the play of fox to thy hole, that I knew not, and desired a better expositor than the Germane I asked. That which junius saith will agree to Ascoliasmus, or any play that consists in hopping: and consequently what junius said doth no more make for fox to thy hole, than Scotch● hop. I would say more to this paragraph, but that I do not understand well what it is the Doctor requires of me, when he expects that I find out a possible meaning for those words of junius. Either he or the printer are in a fault here; or did not the printer print it thus, because he had so written it?  
His Parenthesis ought not here to be left out: He doth not know well how a man can go upon one leg without hopping. The question is concerning the gate of the Demons, and he talks how men go: just as if I should argue, (as I do not, but the Doctor) I do not know well how men can see without eyes, Ergo God sees with eyes. I do not know how Pythagoras went, and yet he is reported to have had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I understand not what kind of motion the Israelitish pillar, or that of Thrasybulus had, (of which I cited Clemens Ale●●an) the motion of that will suit with that of one leg, yet I do not think it hopped. In fables and phantasms I do not use to exact scrutiny, lest I should find them as ridiculous that excellent piece of raillery and merriment the Extravagant shepherd doth represent them. I do not understand how Talus the iron-man (not only in the fairy Queen, but Apollonius Rhodius and Plato) did move his limbs: yet I shall not say he went as we do, because I do not know well how a man can go otherwise then by setting one foot before the other. Apollon. Argon. l. 4. 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  It may be the manner of his motion is employed in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but if the Doctor should deny it, I could not prove it to him. Many of the like instances might be given: and if I had not been taught, I should as little have known how the Gods did move: which is excellently described by Ronsard in his poem upon Q. Margaret.  
Thus he describes Pasithea one of Venus' Graces coming from Heaven. 

The young and all Divine Pasithea  
The Skies abandoned her command t' obey,  
The air gave place unto her, and the wind  
Through the vast regions blowed her up behind.   

She stooped descending in a sudden flight,  
Cleaving the clouds, as in the silent night  
Far off there in a shining tract is spied  
A falling star betwixt two airs to glide.   And afterwards he describes the Queen's dancing at the Ballet Royal. 

Locking his hand in here's the King did lead  
The dance, and her who did not seem to tread,  
But as she had no feet, she in her pace  
Swimmed as she moved with a celestial grace.   

Man heavy treads, and by his gate doth show  
The dull alliance he to earth does owe:  
But Gods do fly, and unconsined to pace  
Prove their eternal and spiritual race.   

When the Lavolto was of Provence danced,  
The King with this his sister Grace advanced  
In a grave sweetness, nimbly following She  
With airy motion 'bout the Hall did flee.   What remains of this discourse is taken up in a mistake of mine, which being neither voluntary, nor greatly material, I am the less concerned in acknowledging that I did him wrong imposing upon him that he should say Empusa came to be attributed to the boys play. He said comes to be attributed, etc. As I have represented it now in the text, which my haste did not then permit me to consider so thoroughly. I acknowledged that the boy's play might be so called, but that it was so called I desired proof. I excepted against Holyoke and Thomas (for junius hath no such thing: and the two dictionaries aforesaid deceived the Doctor, for they said Ascoliasmus Ludus Empusa jun. fox to thy hole: and he presently thought junius had said Ludus Empusa was the same game with fox to thy hole.) I excepted against them as no Authors, but vocabularies. I confess they may in some sense be called Authors, as the Doctor may be called the Author of that Phrase adducis mall●um, which term will not make for his advantage, when any man shall bestow it upon him: I took it in that sense which Lancilotus Pasius (to whom I had then regard) did take it in, when he disputes whether Isidorus, Priscian, etc. be to be acknowledged Authors? Lib. 2. c. 34. Authores voc● et vocandos censeo, quorum dicta sequamur ad instituendam eruditionem; and afterwards, Authores propriè Scriptores, ut Homerus, accipiendi; qui fuerunt ante observationem artis Grammaticae, quorum dicta observave●e posteriores aliqui ad artem sermonis, et hoc pertinet ad Grammaticos: aliqui aemulati sunt, ut poetae, atque alii, unde & ipsi authorum nomine gaudent. Ergo cum dicunt aliqui Authorem Priscianum, (ne alios hoc genus recenseam) animadvertant, an ab eo sit Authoritas quem sequatur eruditorum consensus, qui in its● Grammatied nititur aliorum exemplis: qua causae est, quod ubi caret exemplo iterum at qu● iterium exploditur; Praecipue à Vallà taxatur Nonius, non dicam de Servio & Do ●ato quos constat authoritate muniri poetarum, oratorum, historicorum. Quid? quod Plinius in Grammatice, Charisius, Probus, Diomedes, & majoris existimationis Gellius, citant Scriptores: nulla alia profectò de causa, nisi ut dignoscantur ministri à dominis; two sunt Grammatici, high verò authores. Which words since they are highly rational, I see no cause why I should recede from my former thoughts: doth any man take the single Authority of Thomas, or Holyoke, for a sufficient proof in Latin. It seems the Doctor doth; I advise him therefore betimes to sue out a writ of Privilege, and remove his case from Westminster School to the University, for there it is so far from being valued, that it is a whipping matter for any in the upper forms to allege them. You see what a difference there is betwixt Classic and Classical Authors. He asks me what is the difference betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Vocabularium? This is not so perplexing a Query, as the Doctor took it to be. There is no difference in the name; but there is a great difference in our manner of citing them: I cite Pollux as a Vocabulary, he refers to Thomas and Holyoke as Authors. He would not cite Pollux, because he did not think him to be a prophet: yet I favourably think the Doctor did prophetically bring against Mr. Hobbs that argumentum ad hominem. Whether the Authors I have cited all along be to the purpose, I refer to the discreet reader's judgement: I doubt not but he will concur with me in this, that the Doctor hath felt the force of them to the purpose: and particularly as to Ascoliasmus I could not but speak of it, for without doing so I could neither have found Ludus Empusae in junius, nor fox to thy hole in Rider or Thomos.   

Sect. 7.  
●. I Now come to the Doctors last and greatest triumph, at which I cannot but stand 〈◊〉 admiration, when I consider he hath not got the victory. Had the Doctor been pleased to have conversed with some of the Fifth Form in Westminster School (for he needed not to have troubled the Learned Master) he might have been better informed then to have exposed himself thus.  
Mr. Hobbes had said, A Ma●k, or of some put instead of it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is a mark with an hot Iron, is visible; if visible, than it hath quantity; and consequently may be divided into parts innumerable. After that the Doctor had reflected upon the wit of the argument (whereas he ought to have replied to the Antecedent: the reason being valid, It is visible, therefore its divisible) He is pleased to play the Drol thus upon that saying, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a mark without an hot Iron. ●Prethee tell me good Tho. before we leave this point (O the wit of a Divinity Doctor!) who it was told thee that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a mark with an hot Iron? 
Dr. V●  for 'tis a notion I never heard till now, (and do not believe it yet) Never believe him that told thee that lie; for as sure as can be, he did it to abuse thee. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a distinctive point in writing made with a Pen or Quill, not a mark made with an hot Iron, such as they brand Rogues withal; and accordingly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, distinguo, interstinguo, are often so used. It is also used of a Mathematical point, or somewhat else that is very small, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a moment, or the like. What should come in your Cap, to make you think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a mark or brand with an hot iron? I perceive where the business lies; 'twas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ran in your mind when ●you talked of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and because the words are somewhat alike, you jumbled them both together, according to your usual care and accurateness, as if they had been the same.  
When I read this, I cannot but be astonished at the Doctor's confidence, and applaud him who said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That the Doctor should never hear that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a mark with an hot iron, is a manifest argument of his ignorance: But that he should advise Mr. Hobbes not to believe his own readings, or any man's else that should tell him it did signify any such thing, is a piece of notorious impudence. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a distinctive point in writing made with a Pen or Quill, (is a Pen one thing, and a Quill another to write with?) no body denies. But it must be withal acknowledged that it signify many things else. I know the Doctor is a good Historian (else he should not presume to object the want of History to another) let him tell us how long ●goe it is, since men have made use of Pens or Quills in writing; for if that invention be of no long standing, this signification must also be such; and so it could not be that from any allusion thereunto the Mathematicians used it for a point. Another thing I would ●ain know of this great Historian; how long ago 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 began to signify interpugno? for if the Mathematics were studied before the mystery of Pointing was found our (as shall be proved, when ever it shall please the Doctor out of his no-reading to maintain the contrary.) Then the Mathematical use thereof should have been named before the Grammatical. And if this word be translatitious, and that Sciences were the effect of long contemplation, the names used herein ar● borrowed from commons talk; Mr. Hobbes did well to say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 precedaneous●y▪ to that indivisible signification, which it afterwards had, did signify a visible mark, made by an hot Iron, or the like. And in this procedure, he did no more than any man would have done, who considers that all our knowledge proceeds from our 〈◊〉; as also that words do primarily signify things obvious to sense and only secondarily, such as men call 〈◊〉.;  
This occasion leads me to a further consideration of the word. Hesychi●s (of whom It is said, Legendus est non t●nquam 〈◊〉, sed tanquam jus●us Author) Interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is a point or prick of a greater of lesser size, made with any thing. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to prick or mark with any thing in any manner, and hath no impropriated signification in itself, but according to the writer that useth it. Thus in a Gr●●mmarian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to distinguish by pointing often, sometimes, even in them, it is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: sometimes it signifies to ●et a mark, that something is wanting in that place, which marks were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In matters of policy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to disallow, because they used to put a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉)▪ before his name who was either disapproved, or to be mulcted. In punishments it signifies to mark or brand, whereof that of an hot Iron in most usual in Authors, because most practised by the Ancients. And the mark which the Turks and others do imprint without burning may be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; at likewise in Herodian that term is given to the ancient Britain's, of whom he says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thus Horses that were branded with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) were said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: was a term of Law; when any man's land was mortgaged the Creditor did erect a Pillar (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) as 〈◊〉 token of the mortgage, so the field became 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the contrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So Pollux. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to have been taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Eustathius, Pollux, yea, Hesychi●s, as I have elsewhere cited him. The Sea also is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Eustahitus upon 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As to the Grammatical use (supposing punctation not to have been in use in Aristotle's time,) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Rhetoric torick signifies no more than to point as children do with a Fescue, where no impression remains. It doth also signify the making of a real point in writing, hence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or marked with points on every side, was used in the books of Plate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as L●erti●s in his life tells us; it stood for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (whence your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or collections of sentences) as L. N. in Latin stood for Laudabilis nota. But farther Epiphanius in his book De ponderibus & mensuris, makes use I conceive of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the several punct●●ions in writing, as the notes of Aspiration and Leviga●●●●, Apostrophes, Hyphen, etc. with which he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazia●zen in his Letter ad notarium giving him directions how to write, biddeth him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.;  
Thus in its Origine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth signify a visible mark or brand, with an hot iron, or the like; And that that must be the proper signification to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is proper to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, none but such as D● Wallis can doubt. And in its descendants it is no less evident; for from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comes Stig●●sus, which signifies branded, or marked: Vit●lli●●● cicatrice stig●●sus, not stigmatosus: so Pliny in his Epistles, as Robert Stephen citys it. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (the derivative of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies any mark, as well as a brand, even such remain after stripes, being black and blue) was a Nickname imposed upon the Grammarian Nicanor, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And though we had not any examples of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being used in this sense, yet from thence for any men to argue against it (but he who will know no more than Stephen tells him) is madness, unless he will deny that any word hath lost its right signification, and is used only (by the Authors we have, though neither the Doctor nor I have read all them) in its Analogical signification.  
I have always been of opinion, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified a single p●i●t, big or little, i● 〈…〉 the letter not, had signified a single point, had such been used. And from the common use of it for a point made any way, (upon several occasions severally, but a point it became 〈◊〉 used, by Philosophers, Mathematicians, and Grammarians. I could give grounds for this conjecture, and not be so impertinent as the Doctor in his Sermon, where he told us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not in Ho●●r; that from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 came ●●brius; that Subrietas was not bad Latin; that Sabrius was once (as I remember) in Tully. Is this to speak Suitably to the oracles of God, or rather to lash out into idle words? Hath the Doctor any ground to think these are not impertinencyes? Or are we, poor mortals, accountable for such idle words as fall from us in private discourses; whilst these Ambassadors of heaven droll in the pulpit without any danger of an after-reckoning?;  
But I proceed to a further survey of the Doctor's intolerable ignorance. Nis charge in the end of [his] Schoolemaster's rant, is, that he should remember 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are not all one. I complained before that he had not cited Stephen●right ●right: now I must tell him that he hath been negligent in the reading of Henry Shephen; for in him he might have found that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was sometimes all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though there be no example to him wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as Stephen rightly cireth it) in his Scutum Herculis; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So Scholi●stes, joannes 〈◊〉 upon the place, a man, who (it I may use the Doctor's phrase) was as good a critic, as the Geometry professors?  
Thus much for the Doctor: to the understanding Reader, I say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, used, for burning with an hot, iron; a Mac●cab. 9 11. where speaking of Antiochus' lamentable death, his body p●trifying and breeding worms, he is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being pained as if he had been pricked with hot irons. And that this is the meaning of that elegant writer, shall be made good against the Doctor, when he shall please to defend the vulgar interpretation. P●●sanias, in Baeo●icis, speaking of Epaminondas, who had taken a 〈◊〉 belonging to the Sicyonians called Phae●●●, wherein were many B●●otisn fugitives, who ought by law to have been put to death, saith, he dismissed them under other names, giving them only a brand or mark. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here put adverbially. but that doth not alter the case. Another example of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in this sense is in the collections our of Diodorus Siculus lib. 34. As they are to be found at the end of his works, and as Photius hath transcribed them into his Biliothaca. He saith that the Romans did buy multitudes of servants and employ them in Sicily; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. These are the words but of 〈◊〉 Author, but aught to pas●e for the Judgèment of two, seeing Photius, by inserting them, hath made them his own. Again Zoneras in the third ●ome of his History, in the life of the Emperor Theophi●●s, saith, that when Theophanes and another Monk had reproved the said Emperor for demolishing images, he took and Stigmatised each of them with twelve lambickes, in their faces, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A place so evident, that I know not what the Doctor can reply; it being 〈◊〉 with what the 〈◊〉 Author saith in the life of Irene, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If the Doctor object that he is a Modern Author, he will never be able to render him so inconsiderable as Adriqnus 〈◊〉 Nomenclator, Thomos●● and Ride●. If any will deny that he writes good Greek, Hieronymus We●●●s will tell them, his only fault is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, redundancy in words, and not the use of bad ones.;;  
Besides, it is the judgement of a great Master of the Greek tongue, that Stigmata, non tam puncta ●psa, quam 〈◊〉 veriet●● superfici●m Graci vocaveru●●. I need not I suppose name him, so great a Critic as the Doctor cannot be ignorant of him.  
Against this all that the Doctor saith is either false or grounded upon such mistakes, as that ungenerous resolution of his never to acknowledge, makes me suspect for voluntary. What Mr. Hobbes' argument was you have seen in the Letter, where he cannot except against the state of the question, it being taken out of himself 〈◊〉 correct. P. 28. All that Mr. Hobbes said, was that for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some do substitute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is a mark with an 〈◊〉. I did so understand this saying of his as if he had annexed those words with an hot iron, to explain, not to determine and restrain the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which favour I allow the Doctor when he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) is a mark with an hot iron. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not only any sort of mark, as upon the Dragons in Honeyed aforecited, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Eus●ath. histor. Ismen. l. 2. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cantic. 1. 10. And in the collections of Theodotus at the end Clem. Alexandr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And Grog●r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (citane Budaeo) So Arria●s de rebus judic. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (I●dis) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And Aristotl● Histor. Animal. l. 7. 976. calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those marks that are born with and hereditary to some Families, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But also the numeral 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which remark the Doctor did omit in his Arithmetic, because it was not ●ound to be in Stephen, of those All● sufficient Authors which he deals in. And thus that Pseudo-Master of Westminster School might as well have showed the Doctor how 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be made without an hot iron, as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I give the same allowance to that saying of his, that it is a brand with 〈◊〉 hot iron, when they mark a Slave or Rascal. Dispunct. p. 43. For else branding is not always dishonourable. Giphanius observ. Ling. Lat. no●●s that 〈◊〉 calls the worst of Servants extrema not a serv●s, whence he collects that they had different marks, and that there were others melioris not●. Nay in its original, whether we deduce it from the Thracians, (as the common opinion doth) or from the Egyptians from whence it was propagated to the Assyrian Priests of Astacte, (whence I would bring it) it was honourable, Herodotus l. 3. saith, that amongst the Thracian Dames 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So amongst the Britain's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a piece of Gallantry. Of this opinion was Dion Chrysost●● in his first Oration de ser●●●t; Wherein he asserts that one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, might be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which when one thought absurd, he asked him if he had ever been in Thrace: he answered, yes. Then he demands again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, As for the Egyptians it was a part of their Priest's Initiation: Of this (I conceive Prudentius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈…〉 may have spoken▪ 
〈…〉  
Ac●● minute's ing●runt 〈◊〉,  
His membra pergant utere; 〈◊〉 igniverint,  
Quamcunque partem corporis servens nota  
Stigmirit, have sic consecratam praedicant.  Unto this (I likewise conceive,) was it alluded in the Old Law Levis. 19 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. They should not stigmatize themselves, or make any such marks upon their bodies, as the Egyptians and Assyrians did. And in the Primitive times there wanted not those who would expound that of john, that Christ should baptise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of this way of 〈◊〉: and thereupon in baptism 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hereunto alludeth Apuleins (or rather expresseth this custom of initiation) in Metam. l. 11. The Goddess told him that one Mithi●s was divino quodam stellarum consortio ipsi conjunctus: now this was the Priest who was to initiate him and carry him through the confines of ●eath, & quatour elementa. Martial in another case saith Et 〈◊〉 linunt stella●am splen●a fr●●tem. Thence Pythagoras had it, thence Epimenides of whom Hesychius Milestus tells us that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Whence came the proverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Me●●sius excellantly observes upon the place. So the Priests of Astacte Lucian (de deâ Syrid) saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This was my apprehension of Mr. Hobbs his words at first, which since he hath owned in his last reply (p. 15.) it is no longer● to be doubted. And though his words as they lay in the text at first had been suspicious? (though who could ever suspect a person of such parts and abilities, who had given such a proof of his abilities in Greek by translating Thucydides, and illustrating him with Maps, that neither will the Doctor be able to equal him in the like performance, or bring the Author thereof into dis-repute through his cavils?) yet now there is not any can impose upon him such an intendment without being guilty of forgery. Which leads me 〈◊〉 to a just censure of what Dr. Wallis (that tender-fronted Theologue!) saith both concerning Mr. Hobbs and me.  
Dr. W. I said, among other things, that you mistook 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: it was this, not that, signified a marks with an hot iron. Your reply confesses that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth so signify; but undertakes to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: are all one: and your journeyman comes in to help you.  
What Mr. Hobbs said at first I have already declared: It is true, Dr. Wallis did tell him (and that in 〈…〉) how he mistook 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; but Mr. Hobbs did never acknowledge any such thing: for though 〈◊〉 signify a mark with an hot iron, yet it doth not follow that they are one and the same thing; because that signification i● general, and they have, besides that general import, a particular distinctive signification, as have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So that (besides the Doctor's ignorance) there was no reason to charge him with that mistake and jumble, or with want of accurateness, whereas he was more subtle and understanding then our Professor. Well! but the Doctor saith Mr. Hobbs, in his reply confesses that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth so signify. Yes! hear his own words! (P. 15.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth no more signify a brand with an hot iron, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made also with an hot iron. They have both one common theme 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which does not signify 〈◊〉 nor interpungo, nor inur● (for all your Lexicon) but notam impri●●ere, or pungendo not are, WITHOUT any restriction to burning or punching. I hope you are now satisfied what a Confusion Mr. Hobbs hath made in his last reply: you shall next see what he intanded to prove, but that my Letter did casually intervene, and so saved him that labour. Our Doctor saith he under●●es to prove that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all one. Which is as true, as that I come in to 〈…〉 W●●● I saw that in Italic, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all one. I supposed it had been the assertion of Mr. Hobbs and myself, and that he had therefore put a different character, because the sentence was not his. After a strict enquiry into what Mr. Hobbs had delivered, I could not find any such thing: that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth simply signify a mark, he confesses, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a point visible (which is a kind of) mark, he doth likewise grant. He doth further say, that it is No less proper to say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ● mark (a certain mark is a mark; and indefinitum aequivales particulari) with a● hot iron, then to say the same of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (which is also a certain mark.) These are the things he says, and if he said any more, or what might contradict these, I am confident I never came in to his help; and the Doctor hath acquitted me in the next page (though he would not in this) p. 44. If I understand him, he was always of opinion that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were not all one.  
I have further examined my own Letter, to see what grounds he could have there to ●●rge upon me such a proposition; as he had 〈◊〉 reasons from my own positive assertion, to pronounce, that I was always of another judgement. The only places that might give him occasion to say so, are these two: The first, where I say, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which he might have found in Stephen, although he could not find in him any example whereby to prove the use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This I did there show out of Hesiod: which place I would have so far considered, as that we forge● not how the Scholiast expounding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can hardly be understood to construe or explain obscurum per obscurius, the 〈◊〉 acception of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by taking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a more unco●●h and improper sense: It seems therefore highly probable that in the Scholiast's time the use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a visible point, was allowable (such as are the Spots upon Dragons, in which sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are frequently used not only by Oppian, but also Aeschy●●s, as your picti Aga●hyr●●, picti Geloni, virgati Da●ae in Latin) and the use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that sense, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is demonstrated. And consequently as the Master bade the boy remember the difference between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; so I may justly desire the Doctor to find out the difference in that place of Hesiod's. But all this doth not give him cause to say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all one. The next place is where I say (not to the Doctor but reader) that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for a burning with an hot iron. But from hence he could not infer that I said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were all one; for, I have already showed how both might be used to signify a burn with an hot iron, and yet they might retain their specifical significations still, and so continue differenced. And secondly had I taken there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (〈◊〉 I did) 〈◊〉 a brand with an hot iron, yet it could not from such an use of the word be inferred, that they were simply all one: but that in the places cited they were so: which is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now all that I told the reader (to show there was no such vast irreconcilable difference betwixt the two words) was That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for a burning with an hot iron. By this time you see not only what Mr. Hobbs, and what I said, but also what credit is to be given to the Do●●r. Now I come to examine what the Doctor hath brought by way of exception against the proof Mr. Hobbs, and I brought for such acceptation of the word.  
My argument was this, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was descended from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signified to marks with an hot iron, or the like: therefore such originally must be the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: (this doth not 〈◊〉 to a confounding it with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and though we had no examples of such use of the word, yet the reason was not thereupon to be denied, but by him who could think that no word hath lost its right signification, and is used only (by the Authors we have, although neither the Doctor nor I have read all them) in its Analogical signification. This I shall not now doubt to call (as Sal●●us doth the like upon every occasion) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This is the same argument which Mr. Hobbs doth imply in his defence, when he brings an example out of Aristophan: in Ravis. Act, 5. 〈◊〉. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The old commentator upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the (Adimantus) was not a Citizen. I hope the Commentator doth not here mock Aristophanes for jumbling 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 together for want of understanding Greek. No, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the same, save that, for branding I seldom read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, As for my part I never read it, but in Scholiasts, or the like Grammarians.  
The Doctor replies nothing to the argument, only the instance (for proof of what I could have cited forty Authors more, and did therefore suppose it as granted:) he saith that when he read those words, he took them to prove the contrary. If 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were all one, where was the mistake? What need the Apology, that he (Adimantus, who did not speak pure Greek, but said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) was a foreigner?  
Justly did Mr. Hobbs complain that you presumed too much upon your first cogitations, that you wanted reading in Greek Authors, and did too much trust to your dictionaries! He that reads this passage (I have related all the Doctor saith, and in his own words) would think; That the Doctor had READ the place, That ADIMANTUS spoke. That he MISTOOK 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that use of the word not being pure Greek. And lastly, That the Scholiast makes an APOLOGY for that mistake of his in these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for he was a foreigner. But I who know that neither did Adimantus speak; neither was there any mistake committed; nor any Apology made by the Scholiast, do think I may conclude the Doctor never READ the place: or else I do not know what to think.  
Pluto being to let Aeschy●us return to Athe●s with Becchus, he tells him what he must do when he comes thither; that he should give good advice to the Citizens; and carry that [Rope, or the like] too Cleph●n Myrmex, Nicomachus, and Arche●●●●●, and bid them come quickly to him, without stay, adding 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   
If they do not come forthwith, he will brand them, and put them in bonds together with Adimantus, and so send them to Mell. Now this punishment of branding being novel at Athens and not inflicted upon any Citizen, but upon the 〈◊〉 after their second revolt, (whence ca●●e the Proverb in Athens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and possibly upon some others that were not Natives of Attica. Plato seems to hold forth this in his Book de legib. l. 8. (wherein he doth so give laws, that he hath an eye still upon those of his own country.) he supposes no Citizen will commit Sacrilege, and for other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: the 〈◊〉 lest any should wonder how Cleoph●n and Adimantus & the rest who were in great power at Athens should be stigmatised, he tells us expressly of Adimantus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now that Cleoph●n was so too, the same Scholiast doth expressly say in his comment upon the following Chorni, and I think the poet doth in●end that not only he, but the rest were so, when he praye● that the Athenians may have peace, and let Cleoph●n and the rest of these (whom? but them he had spoken of before) 〈…〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
 
〈…〉 did not signify a visible point. 〈…〉 give him one blow with his wooden Dagger) that what he addeth about Trab●, is no more to the purpose then the Post● And if he understood what he had already said, I wonder how he could find no better way to illustrate his thoughts.  
What he saith, Fifthly: is but an acquitrance of me (as I already observed) that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did differ as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 in his book the A●. calls D●●●critus's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of which he thought the soul to consist, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: but those are not visible. theophra. de plant. l. 3. c. 15. saith of the bark of the tree, Corylus, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Here it is a visible sp●t. So Aristot. Hist. An. l. 6. c. 7. distinguishing the Birds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saithe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ● Which distinction he is so far from having understood, that it hath cast him into further absurdities. What ●e in conclusion after t●, that it is now contended for, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be all one; it is false, as I have showed.  
I have already given an account of his Sixthly: He had well read and considered the place in Stephen: yet Stephen saith not what the Doctor saith; he doth not say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. He saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth in Hesiod Puncta five macules quibus aliquid variatum est atque distinctum qu●st panctis. But that it is put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sometimes, or often, he saith not a word. But St! the Doctor observes! what? that he doth not say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (but I have proved it) or is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which latter, if it be taken absolutely, no body asserted: but take it secundum quid, and he that quoted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the text of Hesiod, quoted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Scholiast: that is, he expounded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the place, by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which is to say, that as Hesiod used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so the Scholiast die use 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but not for a mark with an hot iron.  
In the place out of 2 Macat. 9 11. he saith it is possible that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may imply somewhat of pricking, but not burning, nor with an hot iron. But I would not have him confound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: the latter imports only action of pricking (as when we we mark somewhat) but the latter doth imply the mark itself. And the sense of the Author requires it (in my judgement) to be expounded by burning (rather then any other way) since Antiochus died of an er●●tion of Worms: and I am sure they who 〈◊〉 troubled with the Worm (which in the North often breeds in their knees under the Pan●tella) complain that their torments are as if they were burnt with hot irons. That of Pans●ni●s doth not mention an hot iron; no more doth any place he shall bring for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: yet the general consent of men hath rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by nota i●●●ta: and however 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in there put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the use of any other way of stigmatising them by hot irons, I do not remember to have read, in these days. Appi●n. b●l. civil. saith, that the servant of Restio was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and call the mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Martial saith, he was fro●● notarus, which are generally understood of his being burnt; and the Authors thought they had by that word expressed as much as Velarius Meximms who saith l. 6. c. 8. that he was Inexpiabili liter●●●●●old per 〈◊〉 oris cont●●sliam inustus. Or Austi●● (whom I cite, though no Grocian) is reported to say, Pri●s sub Restione 〈…〉 Dion Ca●●●es and his Epitomiser Xiphilin say of the same, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
To Diodorus 〈◊〉 he replies that it is not said to have been done with an hot iron: which is true, and would have been, if it had been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That servile was brake out when 〈◊〉 was engaged at the 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉: and I do not know that men were any other way marked at that time, but by hot irons: And men did therefore speak more negligently, because that another way was not then in use; nor a long time after the decay of the Roman Empire: they did matriculate Soldiers, and brand them first with Iron, and after infuse with a Stylus or the like, a thick gross sort of Ink: which was thereupon called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cedrens: not that the brand was performed by pricking, but because it was afterwards so pointed with Ink, because that they had learned a way of taking them out otherwise.  Stigmata nec vas●● delebis Cian●●●s ar●e. 
He adds further, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (in the plural) are used as equipollent to one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (in the singular.) But this conjecture must not overthrow my opinion, since there were more 〈◊〉 than one imprinted: yea more stigmata,, as upon the Hand, Back, Shoulders, etc. And this was not only the practice of the Assyrian (and Egyptian) Priests, and Thracians, (where it was honourable) but Grecians and Romans: (as every one knows) and even in that place 〈◊〉 renders it Certe per inustionem corporum notae inprimebantur. But could not the Doctor have found a more easy and obvious interpretation, that they had all but one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or mark to show whose servants they were; but they had several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, upon their bodies. But it is further observable that Isidorus Orig. l. 20. c. 16. speaking the instrumentis equorum, where it was most requisite for him to fix the terms of art upon their right significations, faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Character, est ferrum 〈◊〉, quo nota pecudibus inuruntur. The mark itself is called by Anacreon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Hesychius calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Now follows Zonaras, whose two texts compared together do sufficiently evince, that what he meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he intended by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In both places he speaks of more than one, and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not necessarily restrained to signify the pricks; and in the same text he seemed to me, (nor to me only, but also to Lips●us) to render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. There is no mark with an hot iron: it is right, but that is presumed, as in Rbodigimus, when he explains stigmatias by notis inustus. But the Doctor can construe Greek! 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [he made points or pricks in their faces] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (and put 〈◊〉, upon these pricks] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or characters which consisted of those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, made so many letters) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which Letters made up these lambicks) After this exposition (you see the Doctor can not only gloss upon 1 Time 2. 15. he can make a Nose of Wax of other Books too) the Doctor asks, What serves all this to prove? I answer, that it still proves that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be made without an hot iron (if these marks were so imprinted.) But why doth he render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the pricked them in the face? Is that the signification of the word? can he ●hew an example of that use of it? Is there any other term in Greek for to signify to brand, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is more usual? is not taken for a Synonyma with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Is it not still expounded by the Latins inuro, inscribe ●tis compungo? I know not what might occasion him so to render it, unless because I had taught him the difference betwize 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was like that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; he like a bad Scholar imagines the stigmata to have been made up of actual points: (yes! Commas, and Colons!) just as a Letter (in ordinary speech, for I do not now intent to dispute Philosiphically) is supposed to be made up of actual lines! which is not true of many, and wheel it is, that is not the thing begets the appellation, but the conceit we have thereof. Either it must have been so; or that Latin phrase notis 〈◊〉 hath deceived him! for that expression may be verified of your Sheep or 〈◊〉. I find also stigmate p●●●cti in Petr●●ius: from whence I may conclude, In the Doctor's way, that stigma was but a point. There remains nothing but that the Author of that interpretation urge that confodio is to run through with a Spade: and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to prick with a Needle, or the like in Appian, and Zosi●●s, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 several times in the Septuagint. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉! The Doctor was not content to give us a new Gloss; he varies the old Text. His 〈◊〉 (forsooth,) tells him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Verb contract, and therefore it ought to be contractedly read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Surely he read this place too! But the Author is not bound up by those novel rules, but writes with that latitude, which frequent precedents do) justify unto him, notwithstanding our Critic. But letting the Text stand as it does, why may we not think he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Seeing Cedrenus saith he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (notis berbaricis, id est, Thr●iciis, so Austin.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if any will construe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, yet will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have a relation to that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with which the same Author saith the Armenians were stigmarized: of which I spoke before. Moreover, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will hear as large a signification as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for so I read in Epictetus c. 61. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If in your shoes, you look for more than the securing of your feet from external inconveniences, than you become obnoxious to fashions, the gilded, the purple, and the particoloured shoe. So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eustath. in Homer. And in another place Theodora that Empress tells one of those same Stigmatical Monks, when she looked upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to engrave as it were with a Chissel. And Step●onus saith out of Phylarch; that the Lacedæmonians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I confess that if the Doctor had showed that ever the Ancients did so brand people as to make the up letters of actual points placed in such a series as to make up Letters, he had weakened the authority of the place: or if he had showed how that after Constantine (upon a good reason● because he would not have the image of God defaced in man,) prohibited the stigmatising of any in the face, that upon the renewing of the punishment they altered the manner, it had been something, but since they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, notis barbaricis inscripta, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, inci●a, (which to interpret as done by pricks, were strange.) Since there is nothing alleged for the abosishing of the old 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and introducing a new way by pricks (for the performance of it by a Pencil or Pen knife is novel, and of it there is not any mention in the Ancients, that I remember, till after men grew more ●ender● spirited) let me enjoy the standing meaning: and let 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 refer to the two persons stigmatised. I shall not stand to profess that the way of branding is difficult to explain, because that words are capable of different interpretations; and in this c●le it is impossible to make out the manner thereof beyond exception. That it w●● performed by burning of old there is no doubt: 
Vritur ardenti propter duo lintea ferro. juvenal.  
Signare oportet frontem cali●● forcipa. So No●ius.   
And in Greek, Plato calls the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his T●●●us: Lacian in his Piscator brings in Truth bidding Parre●iades to shave the Pseudo Philosophers beards close, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I do here conceive that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify one and the same thing under several words: and that it was performed with a brand, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and I do not see why we should think that mark of an Ape or Fox to have been made up of several points: yet so the Doctor must construe all the places wherem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 occurs; and after all that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be a mark with an hot iron, though not the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we did never say; nor were we concerned in the 〈◊〉 of Rog●●es, since all that Mr. Hobbs said (and ●o the Doctor citys him Dr. Cor. p. 18) was, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a mark with an hot iron, let it be inflicted upon whom, or what cause you will. How Rogues were 〈◊〉, I cannot explain one of any Greek Author further than that place of Lucian, and that other of Zonara's (which hath its like in Petronius) do help me: other places they have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which passages tendered by Latin Authors inscripti, inusti, 〈◊〉, literati, notis compuncti, catid● forcipe signati. Aris●ophanes in Avibus. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Here it is evident that no mention is made of burning, but it is still supplied by the 〈◊〉, and no mention is brought in those times of that other way which I mentioned out of Elias Vinetus performed by the incision of a Pen kni●e, in the days concerning which I brought the proof of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And as for the other marks honorary the Egyptians seem to have imprinted by fire irons only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, single points: so Prudentius saith it was ●●formed acubus minutis stigmendo, not stigmatisando Not do I ever remember that I read of any form those 〈◊〉 marks had: that Stellarum 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉, and those Sphragitides may be solved well enough, if, we suppose the management to have been thus; yet Epimenides was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As to the number of them, Prudentius and that example of Epimenidet do make it clear they did imp●int many marks▪ yet I do not hear that Pythagoras had more than one, and that on his thi●● which is the conjecture of an ingenious but modern writer. The Assyrians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; jamblich. in vit. Pythag.) did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and were branded but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Yet even there they may have had a multitude of mark●▪ or ●f they had not, yet what is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when considered simply as a point, may be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when considered as figured: And this I say not receding from, but keeping to that distinction which I said was betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as betwixt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Yea, the case was so upon other occasions, so as that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were one and the same thing (under a different notion) as appears from the use of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Theophrastus, etc. and that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hesiod, Aristotle, etc. I do not think that the pictures of animals which were imprinted on the old Britain's (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) will be understood of pointing, or pricking: and if the Doctor should go to any person and bid him write, engrave, carve, cut, etc. his name; I do not think they would so understand the Doctor, as he understands 〈◊〉. Of▪ the Thracians I can say no more than that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so Dion Chrysoft. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so Eustath▪ upon Homer (the Dabe were Virgati, will any expound that of pricks too?) and though the brand were never so great, and shaped, yet it might be said compungi, to be punched, as I observed before. And now I have said not only more than any before me, but what may satisfy one not resolutely contumacious: I have sufficiently evinced that the Doctor was out, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being a mark with an hot iron: And for what follows, let any man believe that the ●udgement of Marcellus, Stigmata non ta●● 〈◊〉, qu●m punctis ●ariatam super●iciem Graci ●●caverunt: which I find seconded by the attestarion of several Authors (de 〈◊〉 vene●icarum;) let any man believe that that same is against me, that can.  
And now I have run through this tedious plece of pedantry: I have not omitted any thing unanswered, that I know: not have I ever imposed upon him any thing, wittingly, which might not be his meaning. I have so examined things, as who should seek truth, and not victory: I have not heaped upon him impertinent contumelious; and for telling him what he is (which is no abuse) I think he ought rather to thank me then he angry: I hope he will not hereafter look upon himself in the ●al●e glass of Enco●●●tick Letters, but take his length from my measure; and not trouble the world, nor pester his books with curiosities in Philology, nor intermeddle with Divinity but confine himself to Symbols, wherein he may do well it is hoped in time, and he will have that happiness to meet with as few Readers as he doth Auditors. I would advise him to call Mr. Hobbs his book, Stigma Hobbianum▪ rather than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 since all the several points therein discussed and examined amount but to one Stigma: which I here represent. K. I. K. I. And so dismiss him as one of the LITERATI, though not as a Virtuoso.  
Thus Sir you see I have vindicated myself, and you, or rather myself to you: I have dealt so with your enemy, that I dare take up the saying of Petronius, Implevi frontem ingentibus literis, & notum epigr amma per totam faciem liberali manu duxi. I hope you will prove hereafter more cautious, then to publish any thing in Philology, since Mar●anus Capella hath left his Mistress double-beneficed to the Assembly of Divines: and no one is to pretend to Criticism or any thing of learning but such as are of that Class: if any man shall presume to call another so, or have any esteem for them, or make honourable mention of them, there shall be aspersions cast upon him, and an Index expurg●torius, whereby shall be blotted out all those honourable mentions of any dissenter: In like manner as their Predecessor, the Pope (the power is the same whether divided, or united) expunged the titles of doctus, and eruditus out of the Catholic writers where they were bestowed upon the Protestants. I shall now conclude with the divertisement of some Poetry, the Authors whereof I am not bound to declare; and desire you would find out some other way hereafter, whereby I may show you how much I am and desire to be  
Oxon. jun. 12. 1657. Sir, your most humble and most affectionate Servant, H. Stubbe.    

Ad Honoratissimum virum, Marchionem Dorcestrensem Super scriptis nuperis Wallisianis.  
Hendecasyllabon.  
H●ros maxime, maxim●qúe litis  
Major arbiter, Oxon● vetustas  
Obsoles●●re nè Scholas pu●●●●●,  
Aut loc● Genium, aut Styli d●●orem  
Mutatum crepero sonore voc●m  
P●●onomas●is, ineptiisque.  
Scriptores alios dabit 
* Oxonia.  Calenum  
Dignes auribus, Hunc too cachi●●●  
Propi●●t Criticum, Geometramqúe:  
Quem ●emo legit, aut requir●● usqu●m,  
Quem vix quat●uor audiunt leg●●●em:  
Quin loquar bene nota, saepe in 〈◊〉  
Solus friget Oront●● cathedr●,  
Hospes, externs, advena, Scotist●,  
Ple●●s ●●ris & in●●cetiarum.  
Quovis judicio refige, damna  
Improbam Crisin, haud pro●am Mathesin;  
From Huic STIGMATE, nostra non notatur.   

Ad D. Wallisium Epigramma.  
●ingeris, ● to●● spargiss convitia plebe,  
De●ensor nostrae quò videare Sto●.  
●rr●●! responsum, si sortè Academia 〈◊〉 est,  
〈◊〉 ●alè concinnas 〈…〉.  
FINIS.