Chapter X (8)

As for your eloquence, let the reader judge whether yours or mine be the more _muddy_, though I in plain scolding should have outdone you, yet I have this excuse which you have not, that I did but answer your challenge at that weapon which you thought fit to choose. The catalogue of the hard language which you put in at pages 3 and 4 of your _School Discipline_, I acknowledge to be mine, and would have been content you had put in all. The titles you say I give you of _fools_, _beasts_, and _asses_, I do not give you, but drive back upon you, which is no more than not to own them; for the rest of the catalogue, I like it so well as you could not have pleased me better than by setting those passages together to make them more conspicuous; that is all the defence I will make to your accusations of that kind.

And now I would have you to consider whether you will make the like defence against the faults that I shall find in the language of your _School Discipline_.

I observe, first, the facetiousness of your title-page, “_Due correction for Mr. Hobbes, or School Discipline, for not saying his Lessons right_.” What a quibble is this upon the word lesson; besides, you know it has taken wind; for you vented it amongst your acquaintance at Oxford then when my _Lessons_ were but upon the press. Do you think if you had pretermitted that piece of wit, the opinion of your judgment would have been ere the less? But you were not content with this, but must make this metaphor from the rod to take up a considerable part of your book, in which there is scarce anything that yourself can think wittily said besides it. Consider also these words of yours: “_It is to be hoped that in time you may come to learn the language, for you be come to great_ A _already_.” And presently after, “_were I great_ A, _before I would be willing to be so used, I should wish myself little_ a _a hundred times_.” Sir, you are a doctor of divinity and a professor of geometry, but do not deceive yourself, this does not pass for wit in these parts, no, nor generally at Oxford; I have acquaintance there that will blush at the reading it.

Again, in another place you have these words: “_Then you catechize us_, ‘_what is your name? Are you geometricians? Who gave you that name_,’” &c. Besides in other places such abundance of the like insipid conceits, as would make men think, if they were no otherwise acquainted with the University but by reading your books, that the dearth there of salt were very great. If you have any passage more like to salt than these are (excepting _now and anon_) you may do well to show it to your acquaintance, lest they despise you; for, since the detection of your geometry, you have nothing left you else to defend you from contempt. But I pass over this kind of eloquence, and come to somewhat yet more rural.

Page 27, line 1, you say I have given Euclid his _lurry_. And again, page 129, line 11, “_and now he is left to learn his lurry_.” I understand not the word _lurry_. I never read it before, nor heard it, as I remember, but once, and that was when a clown threatening another clown said he would give him _such a lurry come poop_, &c. Such words as these do not become a learned mouth, much less are fit to be registered in the public writings of a doctor of divinity. In another place you have these words, “_just the same to a cow’s thumb_,” a pretty adage.

Page 2, “_But prithee tell me_.” And again, page 95, “_prithee tell me, why dost thou ask me such a question_,” and the like in many other places.

You cannot but know how easy it is and was for me to have spoken to you in the same language. Why did I not? Because I thought that amongst men that were civilly bred it would have redounded to my shame, as you have cause to fear that this will redound to yours. But what moved you to speak in that manner? Were you angry? If I thought that the cause, I could pardon it the sooner, but it must be very great anger that can put a man, that professeth to teach good manners, so much out of his wits as to fall into such a language as this of yours. It was perhaps an imagination that you were talking to your inferior, which I will not grant you, nor will the heralds, I believe, trouble themselves to decide the question. But, howsoever, I do not find that civil men use to speak so to their inferiors. If you grant my learning but to be equal to yours, (which you may certainly do without very much disparaging of yourself abroad in the world), you may think it less insolence in me to speak so to you in respect of my age, than for you to speak so to me in respect of your young doctorship. You will find that for all your doctorship, your elders, if otherwise of as good repute as you, will be respected before you. But I am not sure that this language of yours proceeded from that cause; I am rather inclined to think you have not been enough in good company, and that there is still somewhat left in your manners for which the honest youths of Hedington and Hincsey may compare with you for good language, as great a doctor as you are.

For my verses of the Peak, though they be as ill in my opinion as I believe they are in yours, and made long since, yet they are not so obscene as that they ought to be blamed by Dr. Wallis. I pray you, sir, whereas you have these words in your _School Discipline_, page 96, “_unless you will say that one and the same motion may be now and anon too_.” What was the reason you put these words, _now and anon too_, in a different character, that makes them to be more taken notice of? Do you think that the story of the minister that uttered his affection (if it be not a slander) not unlawfully but unseasonably, is not known to others as well as to you? What needed you then, when there was nothing that I had said could give the occasion, to use those words; there is nothing in my verses that do _olere hircum_ so much as this of yours. I know what good you can receive by ruminating on such ideas, or cherishing of such thoughts. But I go on to other words of mine by you reproached, “_you may as well seek the focus of the parabola of Dives and Lazarus_,” which you say is mocking the Scripture; to which I answer only, that I intended not to mock the Scripture, but you, and that which was not meant for mocking was none. And thus you have a second στιγμὴ.

GRAMMAR AND CRITIQUES.

I come now to the comparison of our Grammar and Critiques. You object first against the signification I give of στιγμὴ, and say thus: “_What should come into your cap_ (that, if you mark it, in a man that wears a square cap to one that wears a hat, is very witty) _to make you think that_ στιγμὴ _signifies a mark or brand with a hot iron? I perceive where the business lies, it was_ στίγμα _run in your mind when you talked of_ στιγμὴ; _and because the words are somewhat alike you jumble them both together_.” Sir, I told you once before, you presume too much upon your first cogitations. Aristophanes, in _Ranis_, Act. V. Scen. 5,

Κἄν μὴ ταχέως ἥκωσι
Νὴ τεν Ἀπόλλο στίξας ἀυτοὺς.

The old commentator upon the word στίξας saith thus, ϛίξας ἀντὶ τοῦ ϛιγματίσας, ἠν γάρ ξένος. That is, στίξας for ϛιγματίσας, for he (Adimantus) was not a citizen. I hope the commentator does not here mock Aristophanes for jumbling ϛίξας and ϛιγματίσας together, for want of understanding Greek. No, ϛίξας and στιγματίσας signify the same, save that for branding I seldom read ϛιγματίσας but ϛίξας. For ϛίγμα does no more signify a brand with a hot iron, than ϛιγμὴ a point made also with a hot iron. They have both one common theme ϛίζω, which does not signify _pungo_, nor _interpungo_, nor _inuro_, for all your Lexicon, but _notam imprimere_, or _pungendo notare_, without any restriction to burning or punching. It is therefore no less proper to say that ϛιγμὴ is a mark with a hot iron, than to say the same of στίγμα. The difference is only this, that when they marked a slave, or a rascal, as you are not ignorant is usually done here at the assizes in the hand or shoulder with a hot iron, they called that ϛίγμα, not for the burning, but for the mark. And as it would have been called ϛίγμα that was imprinted on a slave, though made by staining or incision, so it is ϛιγμὴ, though done with a hot iron. And therefore there was no jumbling of those two words together, as for want of reading Greek authors, and by trusting too much to your dictionaries, which you say are proofs good enough for such a business, you were made to imagine. The use I have made thereof was to show that a point, both by the word Σημεῖον in Euclid, and by the word στιγμὴ in some others, was not _nothing_, but a _visible_ mark, the ignorance whereof hath thrown you into so many paralogisms in geometry.

But do you think you can defend your _Adducis Malleum_ as well as I have now defended my ϛιγμὴ? You have brought, I confess, above a hundred places of authors, where there is the word _duco_, or some of its compounds, but none of them will justify _Adducis Malleum_, and, excepting two of those places, you yourself seem to condemn them all, comparing yours with none of the rest but with these two only, both out of Plautus, by you not well understood. The first is in _Casina_, Act. V. Scen. 2, “_Ubi intro hanc novam nuptam deduxi, via recta, clavem abduxi_;” which you, presently presuming of your first thoughts, a peculiar fault to men of your principles, assure yourself is right. But if you look on the place as Scaliger reads it, cited by the commentator, you will find it should be _obduxi_, and that _clavis_ is there used for the bolt of the lock. Besides, he bolted it within. Whither then could he carry away the key? The place is to be rendered thus, _when I had brought in this new bride I presently locked the door_, and is this _as bad every whit_ as _Adducis Malleum_? The second place is in _Amphytruo_, Act. I. Scen. 1, “_Eam_ (cirneam), _ut a matre fuerat natum, plenam vini eduxi meri_,” which you interpret _I brought out a flagon of wine_, unlearnedly. They are the words of Mercury transformed into Sosia. And to try whether Mercury were Sosia or not, Sosia asked him where he was and what he did during the battle; to which Mercury answered, who knew where Sosia then was and what he did, _I was in the cellar, where I filled a cirnea, and brought it up full of wine, pure as it came from its mother_. By the mother of the wine meaning the vine, and alluding to the education of children, for _ebibi_ said _eduxi_, and with an _emphasis_ in _meri_, because _cirnea_ (from Κφνάω, _misceo_) was a vessel wherein they put water to temper to their wine. Intimating that though the vessel was _cirnea_, yet the wine was _merum_. This is the true sense of the place; but you will have _eduxi_ to be, _I brought out_, though he came not out himself. You see, sir, that neither this is so bad as _Adducis Malleum_.

But suppose out of some one place in some one blind author you had paralleled your _Adducis Malleum_, do you think it must therefore presently be held for good Latin? Why more than _learn his lurry_ must be therefore thought good English a thousand years hence, because it will be read in Dr. Wallis’s long-lived works. But how do you construe this passage (1 Tim. ii. 15) of the Greek Testament: Σωθήσεται δὲ διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίας, ἐὰν μείνωσιν ἐν πίστει? You construe it thus: _she shall be saved notwithstanding child-bearing, if (the woman) remain in the faith_. Is child-bearing any obstacle to the salvation of women? You might as well have translated the first verse of the fifth of Romans in this manner, _Being then justified by faith, we have peace with God notwithstanding our Lord Jesus Christ_. I let pass your not finding in τεκνογονίας, as good a grammarian as you are, a nominative case to μείνωσιν. If you had remembered the place, 1 Pet. iii. 20, εσώθησαν δὶ ὑδατος, that is, _they were saved in the waters_, you would have thought your construction justified then very well; but you had been deceived, for διὰ does not there signify _causam, ablationem impedimenti_, but _transitum_; not _cause or removing an impediment_, but _passage_. Being come thus far, I found a friend that hath eased me of this dispute; for he showed me a letter written to himself from a learned man, that hath out of very good authors collected enough to decide all the grammatical questions between you and me, both Greek and Latin. He would not let me know his name, nor anything of him but only this, that he had better ornaments than to be willing to go clad abroad in the habit of a grammarian. But he gave me leave to make use of so much of the letter as I thought fit in this dispute, which I have done, and have added it to the end of this writing. But before I come to that, you must not take it ill, though I have done with your _School Discipline_, if I examine a little some other of your printed writings as you have examined mine; for neither you in geometry, nor such as you in church politics, cannot expect to publish any unwholesome doctrine without some antidotes from me, as long as I can hold a pen. But why did you answer nothing to my sixth _Lesson_? Because, you say, it concerned your colleague only. No, sir, it concerned you also, and chiefly, for I have not heard that your colleague holdeth those dangerous principles which I take notice of in you, in my sixth _Lesson_, page 350, upon the occasion of these words, not his but yours: “_Perhaps you take the whole history of the fall of Adam for a fable, which is no wonder, seeing you say the rules of honouring and worshipping of God are to be taken from the laws_.” In answer to which I said thus: “_You that take so heinously, that I would have the rule of God’s worship in a Christian commonwealth to be taken from the laws, tell me from whom you would have them taken? From yourself? Why so, more than from me? From the bishops? Right, if the supreme power of the commonwealth will have it so; if not, why from them rather than from me? From a consistory of presbyters themselves, or joined with lay elders, whom they may sway as they please? Good, if the supreme governor of the commonwealth will have it so. If not, why from them rather than from me, or from any man else? They are wiser and learneder than I; it may be so, but it has not yet appeared. Howsoever, let that be granted. Is there any man so very a fool as to subject himself to the rules of other men in those things which do so nearly concern himself, for the title they assume of being wise and learned, unless they also have the sword which must protect them? But it seems you understand the sword as comprehended. If so, do not you then receive the rules of God’s worship from the civil power? Yes, doubtless; and you would expect, if your consistory had that sword, that no man should dare to exercise or teach any rules concerning God’s worship which were not by you allowed._”

This will be thought strong arguing, if you do not answer it. But the truth is, you could say nothing against it without too plainly discovering your disaffection to the government. And yet you have discovered it pretty well in your second _Thesis_, maintained in the Act at Oxford, 1654, and since by yourself published. This _Thesis_ I shall speak briefly to.

SCOTCH CHURCH POLITICS.

You define ministers of the Gospel to be those _to whom the preaching of the Gospel by their office is enjoined by Christ_. Pray you, first, what do you mean by saying preaching _ex officio is enjoined by Christ_? Are they preachers _ex officio_, and afterwards enjoined to preach? _Ex officio_ adds nothing to the definition; but a man may easily see your purpose to disjoin yourself from the state by inserting it.

Secondly, I desire to know in what manner you will be able out of this definition to prove yourself a minister? Did Christ himself immediately enjoin you to preach, or give you orders? No. Who then, some bishop, or minister, or ministers? Yes; by what authority? Are you sure they had authority immediately from Christ? No. How then are you sure but that they might have none? At least, some of them through whom your authority is derived might have none. And therefore if you run back for your authority towards the Apostles’ times but a matter of sixscore years, you will find your authority derived from the Pope, which words have a sound very unlike to the voice of the laws of England. And yet the Pope will not own you. There is no man doubts but that you hold that your office comes to you by successive imposition of hands from the time of the Apostles; which opinion in those gentle terms passeth well enough; but to say you derive your authority from thence, not through the authority of the sovereign power civil, is too rude to be endured in a state that would live in peace. In a word, you can never prove you are a minister, but by the supreme authority of the commonwealth. Why then do you not put some such clause into your definition? As thus, _ministers of the Gospel are those to whom the preaching of the Gospel is enjoined by the sovereign power in the name of Christ_. What harm is there in this definition, saving only it crosses the ambition of many men that hold your principles? Then you define the power of a minister thus: “_The power of a minister is that which belongeth to a minister of the Gospel in virtue of the office he holds, inasmuch as he holds a public station, and is distinguished from private Christians. Such as is the power of preaching the Gospel, administering the sacrament, the use of ecclesiastical censures, and ordaining of ministers_,” _&c._

Again, how will you prove out of this definition that you, or any man else, hath the power of a minister, if it be not given him by him that is the sovereign of the commonwealth? For seeing, as I have now proved, it is from him that you must derive your ministry, you can have no other power than that which is limited in your orders, nor that neither longer than he thinks fit. For if he give it you for the instruction of his subjects in their duty, he may take it from you again whensoever he shall see you instruct them with undutiful and seditious principles. And if the sovereign power give me command, though without the ceremony of imposition of hands, to teach the doctrine of my _Leviathan_ in the pulpit, why am not I, if my doctrine and life be as good as yours, a minister as well as you, and as public a person as you are? For _public person_, primarily, is none but the civil sovereign, and so secondarily, all that are employed in the execution of any part of the public charge. For all are his ministers, and therefore also Christ’s ministers because he is so; and other ministers are but his vicars, and ought not to do or say anything to his people contrary to the intention of the sovereign in giving them their commission.

Again, if you have in your commission a power to excommunicate, how can you think that your sovereign who gave you that commission, intended it for a commission to excommunicate himself? that is, as long as he stand excommunicate, to deprive him of his kingdom. If all subjects were of your mind, as I hope they will never be, they will have a very unquiet life. And yet this has, as I have often heard, been practised in Scotland, when ministers holding your principles had power enough, though no right, to do it.

And for administration of the sacraments, if by the supreme power of the commonwealth it were committed to such of the laity as know how it ought to be done as well as you, they would _ipso facto_ be ministers as good as you. Likewise the right of ordination of ministers depends not now on the imposition of hands of a minister or presbytery, but on the authority of the Christian sovereign, Christ’s immediate vicar and supreme governor of all persons and judge of all causes, both spiritual and temporal, in his own dominions, which I believe you will not deny.

This being evident, what acts are those of yours which you call _authoritative_, and receive not from the authority of the civil power? A constable does the acts of a constable _authoritatively_ in that sense. Therefore you can no otherwise claim your power than a constable claimeth his, who does not exercise his office in the constabulary of another. But you forget that the Scribes and the Pharisees sit no more in Moses’ chair.

You would have every minister to be a minister of the universal Church, and that it be lawful for you to preach your doctrine at Rome; if you would be pleased to try, you would find the contrary. You bring no argument for it that looks like reason. Examples prove nothing, where persons, times, and other circumstances differ; as they differ very much now when kings are Christians, from what they were then when kings persecuted Christians. It is easy to perceive what you aim at.

You would fain have market-day lectures set up by authority, (not by the authority of the civil power, but by the authority of example of the Apostles in the emission of preachers to the infidels), not knowing that any Christian may lawfully preach to the infidels; that is to say, proclaim unto them that Jesus is the Messiah, without need of being otherways made a minister, as the deacons did in the Apostles’ time; nor that many teachers, unless they can agree better, do anything else but prepare men for faction, nay, rather you know it well enough, but it conduces to your end upon the market-days to dispose at once both town and country, under a false pretence of obedience to God, to a neglecting of the commandments of the civil sovereign, and make the subject to be wholly ruled by yourselves, wherein you have already found yourselves deceived. You know how to trouble and sometimes undo a slack government, and had need to be warily looked to, but are not fit to hold the reins. And how should you, being men of so little judgment as not to see the necessity of unity in the governor, and of absolute obedience in the governed, as is manifest out of the place of your _Elenchus_ above recited. The doctrine of the duty of private men in a commonwealth is much more difficult, not only than the knowledge of your symbols, but also than the knowledge of geometry itself. How then do you think, when you err so grossly in a few equations, and in the use of most common words, you should be fit to govern so great nations as England, Ireland, and Scotland, or so much as to teach them? For it is not reading but judgment that enables one man to teach another.

I have one thing more to add, and that is the disaffection I am charged withal to the universities. Concerning the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, I ever held them for the greatest and noblest means of advancing learning of all kinds, where they should be therein employed, as being furnished with large endowments and other helps of study, and frequented with abundance of young gentlemen of good families and good breeding from their childhood. On the other side, in case the same means and the same wits should be employed in the advancing of the doctrines that tend to the weakening of the public, and strengthening of the power of any private ambitious party, they would also be very effectual for that; and consequently that if any doctrine tending to the diminishing of the civil power were taught there, not that the Universities were to blame, but only those men that in the universities, either in lectures, sermons, printed books, or theses, did teach such doctrine to their hearers or readers. Now you know very well that in the time of the Roman religion, the power of the Pope in England was upheld principally by such teachers in the universities. You know also how much the divines that held the same principles in Church government with you, have contributed to our late troubles. Can I therefore be justly taxed with disaffection to the universities for wishing this to be reformed? And it hath pleased God of late to reform it in a great measure, and indeed as I thought totally, when out comes this your _Thesis_ boldly maintained to show the contrary. Nor can I yet call this your doctrine the doctrine of the university; but surely it will not be unreasonable to think so, if by public act of the university it be not disavowed, which done, and that as often as there shall be need, there can be no longer doubt but that the universities of England are not only the noblest of all Christian universities, but also absolutely, and of the greatest benefit to this commonwealth that can be imagined, except that benefit of the head itself that uniteth and ruleth all. I have not here particularized at length all the ill consequences that may be deduced from this _Thesis_ of yours, because I may, when further provoked, have somewhat to say that is new. So much for the third ϛιγμὴ.

AN EXTRACT OF A LETTER CONCERNING THE
GRAMMATICAL PART OF THE CONTROVERSY
BETWEEN MR. HOBBES AND DR. WALLIS.

Mr. Hobbes hath these words: “_Longitudinem percursam motu uniformi, cum impetu ubique ipsi B D æquali_.” Dr. Wallis saith _cum_ were better out, unless you would have _impetus_ to be only a companion, not a _cause_. Mr. Hobbes answered it was the _ablative case of the manner_. The truth is the ablative case of the _manner_ and _cause_ both, may be used with the conjunction _cum_, as may be justified. Cicero in Lib. II. _De Nat. Deorum_: “_Moliri aliquid cum labore operoso ac molesto_;” and in his oration for Cæcina: “_De se autem hoc prædicat, Antiocho Ebulii servo imperasse ut in Cæcinam advenientem cum ferro invaderet_.” Let us see then what Dr. Wallis objects against Tully, where a casualty is imported, though we may use _with_ in English, yet not _cum_ in Latin; to kill with a sword, importing this to have an instrumental or causal influence, and not only that it hangs by the man’s side whilst some other weapon is made use of, is not in Latin _occidere cum gladio_, but _gladio occidere_. This shows that the Doctor hath not forgot his grammar, for the subsequent examples as well as this rule are borrowed thence. But yet he might have known that great personages have never confined themselves to this pedantry, but have chosen to walk in a greater latitude. Most of the elegancies and idioms of every language are exceptions to his grammar. But since Mr. Hobbes saith it is the ablative case of the manner, there is no doubt it may be expressed with _cum_. The Doctor in the meantime knew no more than what Lilly had taught him; Alvarez would have taught him more; and Vossius in his book, _De Constructione_, _cap._ XLVII. expressly teacheth, “_Ablativos causæ, instrumenti, vel modi, non a verbo regi sed a præpositione omissa, a vel ab, de, e vel ex, præ, aut cum, ac præpositiones eas quandoque exprimi nisi quod cum ablativis instrumenti haud temere invenias_;” and afterwards he saith, “_non timere imitandum_.” If this be so, then did Mr. Hobbes speak grammatically, and with Tully, but not _usually_. And might not one retort upon the Doctor, that Vossius is as great a critic as he?

His next reflection is upon _prætendit scire_, this he saith is an Anglicism. If this be all his accusation, upon this score we shall lose many expressions that are used by the best authors, which I take to be good Latinisms, though they be also Anglicisms, the latter being but an imitation of the former. The Doctor therefore was too fierce to condemn upon so general an account, that which was not to have been censured for being an Anglicism, unless also it had been no Latinism. Mr. Hobbes replies, that the printer had omitted _se_. He saith, this mends the matter a little. It is very likely, for then it is just such another Anglicism as that of Quintilian: “_Cum loricatus in foro ambularet, prætendebat se id metu facere_.” The Doctor certainly was very negligent, or else he could not have missed this in Robert Stephen. Or haply he was resolved to condemn Quintilian for this and that other Anglicism, “_Ignorantia prætendi non potest_,” as all those that have used _prætendo_, which are many and as good authors as Dr. Wallis, that makes his own encomiasts (not an Englishman amongst them) to write Anglicisms.

Then he blames “_Tractatus hujus partis tertiæ, in qua motus et magnitudo per se et abstracte consideravimus, terminum hic statuo_.” 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: “_Diutius commorans Athenis, quoniam venti negabant solvendi facultatem, erat animus 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 know that Mr. Hobbes values not the study of words, but as it serves to express his thoughts, which were the same whether he wrote _in qua motus et magnitudo per se at abstracte considerati sunt_ or _consideravimus_. And if the Doctor will make this so capital, he must prove it _voluntary_, and show that it is greater than what is legible in the puny letter of his encomiast, whom he would have to be beyond exception.

Now follows his ridiculous apology for _adducis malleum, ut occidas muscam_. The cause why he did use that proverb, of his own phrasing, was this. Mr. Hobbes had taken a great deal of pains to demonstrate what Dr. Wallis thought he could have proved in short; upon this occasion he objects, _adducis malleum ut occidas muscam_, which I shall suppose he intended to English thus, _you bring a beetle to kill a fly_. Mr. Hobbes retorted, that _adduco_ was not used in that sense. The Doctor vindicates himself thus: _duco_, _deduco_, _reduco_, _perduco_, _produco_, &c. signify the same thing, ergo, _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 weak analogies, where elegance comes in contest. 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 that 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_, &c. is so exceeding frequent in all authors, Plautus, Terence, Tully, Cæsar, Tacitus, Pliny, Seneca, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Claudian, &c. 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 soundly in Westminster School, for his impudence as well as ignorance, by the learned master thereof at present. But I dare further affirm, the Doctor hath not read in this point any, but only consulted with Robert Stephen’s _Thesaurus Linguæ Latinæ_, whence he hath borrowed his allegations in _adduco_; and for the other, I had not so much idle time as to compare them. And, lest the fact might be discovered, he hath sophisticated those authors whence Stephen cites the expressions, and imposed upon them others. If it be not so, or that the Doctor could not write it right when the copy was right before him, let him tell me where he did ever read in Plautus, _adducta res in fastidium_. I find the whole sentence in Pliny’s preface to Vespasian (out of whom in the precedent paragraph he cites it) about the middle: _alia vero ita multis prodita, ut in factidium 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, _Ova noctuæ_, &c. _tædium vini adducunt_. Did he, or any else, with the interposition of an &c. make Trochaics? I say, and Stephanus says so, too, that it is in Pliny, lib. xiii. cap. 15, near the end; the whole sentence runs thus: _Ebriosis Ova noctuæ per triduum data in vino, tædium 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 eo adducta est_: _adducta vita in extremum_: _adducta res in fastidium_: _rem ad mucrones et manus adducere_: _contractares et adducta in augustum_: _res ad concordiam adduci potest_: _in ordinem adducerem_: _adducere febres, sitim, tedium vini_ (all in Robert Stephen) betwixt which and _adducere malleum_, what a vast difference there is, I leave them to umpire _qui terretes et religiosas 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. Losæus, in his _Scopæ Linguæ Latinæ, ad purgandam Linguam a barbarie_, &c. (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?) Losæus, I say, hath these words: _Adferre plerique minus attenti utuntur pro adducere. Quod Plautus, in Pseudolo, insigni exemplo notat_.

_CA._--Attuli hunc.
_PS._--Quid attulisti?
_CA._--Adduxi volui dicere.
_PS._--Quis istic est?
_CA._--Charinus.

_Satis igitur admonet discriminis inter ducere, reducere, adducere, et abducere, quæ de persona; et ferre, adferre_, &c. _quæ de re dicuntur_. Idem, _Demetrium, quem ego novi, adduce: argentum non moror quin feras_. _Cavendum igitur est ne vulgi more_, (let the Doctor mark this, and know that _this author is authentic amongst the Ciceronians_), _adferre de persona, dicamus, sed adducere; licet et hoc de certis quibusdam rebus non inepte dicatur_. In this last clause he saith as much as Mr. Hobbes saith, and what the Doctor proves; but, that ever the Doctor brought an example which might resemble _adducis malleum_, is denied; for I have mentioned already his allegations, every one, of _adduco_. Another author, (a fit antagonist for the elegant Doctor), is the _Farrago sordidorum Verborum_, joined with the Epitome of L. Valla’s _Elegancies_. He saith: _Accerse, adhuc Petrum, Latine dicitur, pro eo quod pueri dicunt, adfer Petrum_. And this may suffice to justify Mr. Hobbes’s 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 say if it never have been used so, it cannot be so, for we cannot coin new Latin words, no more than French or Spanish who are foreigners. Mr. Hobbes 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 proof of elegancy), and till he do so, not to believe him, it is sufficient not to have cause. But, Doctor Wallis, _why not adduco for a hammer as well as a tree?_ I answer yes, equally for either, and yet for neither. Did ever anybody 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 impertinences for three or four pages. In Stephen there are _adducere habenas_ and _adducere lorum_, but in a different sense. It is not impossible I may guess at the Doctor’s aim. In Tully _de Nat. Deor._ as I remember, there is this passage: _Quum autem ille respondisset, in agro ambulanti ramulum adductum ut remissus esset, in oculum suum recidisse_, where it signifies nothing else but to be _bent_, _bowed_, _pulled back_, and in that sense, _the hammer of a clock_, or that of a _smith, when he fetcheth his stroke_, may be said _adduci_. 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 than _adducere malleum_ and _reducere_, to signify the two contrary motions of the _hammer_, the one when you strike with it (_excellently trivial!_) the other when you take it back (_better and better_), _What to do?_ to fetch another stroke. If any can believe that this was his meaning, I shall justify his Latin, but must leave it to him to prove its sense. If he intended no more, why did he go about to defend the other meaning, and never meddle with this? Which yet might have been proved by this one example of mine? May not, therefore, his own saying be justly retorted upon him in this case, _Adducis malleum, ut occidas muscam_?

Another exception is, _Falsæ sunt, et multa istiusmodi_ (_propositiones_). I wish the Doctor could bring so good parallels, and so many, out of any author, for his _Adducis malleum_, as Tully affords in this case. Take one for all, out of the beginning of his _Paradoxes_: _Animadverti sæpe Catonem, cum in senatu sententiam diceret, Locos graves ex Philosophia tractare, abhorrentes ab hoc usu forensi, et publico, sed dicendo consequi tamen, ut illa etiam populo probabilia viderentur_. This is but a _Solæcophanes_, and hath many precedents more, as in the second book of his _Academical Questions_, &c.

I cannot now stay upon each particular passage; I do not see any necessity of tracing the Doctor in all his vagaries. Now, he disallows _tanquam diceremus_, _as if we should say_. But why is that less tolerable than _tanquam feceris_, _as if you had done_? “It should be _quasi_, (forsooth!) or _ac si_, or _tanquam si_, which is Tully’s own word.” What is _tanquam si_ become but one word? _Tanquam si tua res agatur_, &c. Good Doctor, leave out Tully and all _Ciceronians_, or you will for ever suffer for this, and your _Adducis malleum_. Is not this to put yourself on their verdict when you oppose Mr. Hobbes with Tully? But the Doctor gives his reason. And though he hath had the luck in his _Adducis malleum_, to follow the first part of that saying, _Loquendum cum vulgo_, yet now it is, _sentiendum cum sapientibus_. For _tanquam_ without _si_ signifies but _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:--

“Plance tumes alto Drusorum sanguine, tanquam
Feceris ipse aliquid, propter quod nobilis esses.”

So Cœlius, one much esteemed by Cicero, who hath inserted his Epistles into his works, saith, in his fifth Epistle (Tul. Epist. Fam. lib. viii. ep. 5), _Omnia desiderantur ab eo tanquam nihil denegatum sit ei quo minus paratissimus esset qui publico negotio præpositus est_. But it was not possible the Doctor should know this, it not being in Stephen, where his examples for _tanquam si_ are.

But, the Doctor having pitched upon this criticism, and penned it, somebody, I believe, put him in mind of the absurdity thereof; and yet the generous _Professor_, (who writes running hand and never transcribed his papers, if I am not misinformed), presumed nobody else could be more intelligent than he, who had perused Stephen. He would not retract anything, but subjoins, “That he will allow it as passable, because other modern writers, and some of the ancients, have so used it, as Mr. Hobbes hath done.” I know not what authors the Doctor meant, for, if I am not much mistaken, I do not find any in Stephen. His citation of Columella is not right, (lib. v. cap. 5), nor can I deduce anything thence till I have read the passage, but, if he take Juvenal and Cœlius for modern authors, I hope he will admit of Accius, Nævius, and Carmenta, for the only ancients. Let him think upon this criticism, and never hope pardon for his _Adducis malleum_, which is not half so well justified, and yet none but _madmen_ or _fools_ reject it.

But certainly the Doctor should not have made it his business to object _Anglicisms_, in whose Elenchus I doubt not but there may be found such phrases as may serve to convince him that he is an Englishman, however Scottified in his principles. If the Doctor doubt of it, or but desire a catalogue, let him but signify his mind, and he shall be furnished with a _Florilegium_. But I am now come to the main controversy about Empusa. The Doctor saith nothing in defence of his _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, nor at Westminster.

It seems he had derived _Empusa_ from ἓν and ποῦς, and said it was a kind of _Hobgoblin_ that hopped upon one leg: and hence it was that the boys’ play (_Fox come out of thy hole_) came to be called _Empusa_. I suppose he means _Ludus Empusæ_. 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. Hobbes did laugh at it, until somebody told him that it was in the Scholiast of Aristophanes (as good a critic as Mr. Hobbes), Eustathius, Erasmus, Cœlius 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 a _Modern_, and I do not see why his authority should outweigh mine if his author’s reasons do not. He refers to Erasmus and Rhodiginus. Erasmus in the adage, _Proteo mutabilior_ hath these words of Empusa: _Narrant autem uno videri pedi_--this is not to hop--_unde et nomen inditum putant_, Ἔμπουσαν ὁιονεὶ ἑνίποδα. He doth not testify his approbation of the derivation at all, only lets you know what etymologies some have given before him. And doth anybody think that Dr. Harmar was the first which began to show his wit, (or folly), in etymologizing words? Cœlius 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 interpretentur habere æneum pedem, et inde appellatam Empusam; quod in Batrachis Aristophanes expressit_. And then he recites the interpretation that Aristophanes’s Scholiast doth give upon the text, of which by and by. If any credit be to be attributed to this allegation, his last thoughts are opposite to Dr. Wallis; and _Empusa_ must be so called, not because she hopped upon one leg, but because she had but one, the other being brass. But for the former derivation he refers to Eustathius.

As to Eustathius, I do easily conjecture that the reader doth believe that Rhodiginus doth mean Eustathius upon Homer, for that is the book of most repute and fame, his other piece being no way considerable for bulk or repute. But it is not that book, nor yet his History of Ismenias, but his notes upon the 725th verse of Dionysius Περῖηγητής. The poet had said of the stone _Jaspis_, that it was

Ἐχθρηὶν Ἐμπούσησι καὶ ἄλλοις ἔιδώλοισιν,

Upon which Eustathius thus remarks: Δοκεῖ γαρ ἀλεξίκακος εἶναι ἡ λίθος ἅυτη, καὶ ἀποτροπιαςτικὴ φασμἀτων, ὧν ἕν ἐςτι καὶ ἡ Ἔμπουσα, δαιμονιόν τι τερί τἰὼ Ἑκάτην, ἑνὶ ποδὶ δοκοῦν δἰήκεσθαι· (_fortè_ διερείδεσθαι _Steph._) ὄθεν καὶ παρονομάζεται, ὡς ἔι τις ἔιπη μονόπους ποδι ζωοῦ· ὡς τοῦ ἑτέρου ποδος χαλκοῦ ὄντος, κατὰ τὸν μῦθον. This testimony doth not prove anything 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 _Empusas_ than 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 as much as phantasms are various, according as the persons affrighted have been severally educated, &c. every man did impose this name upon his own apprehensions. This gave men occasion to fain _Empusa_ as such--for who will believe that she was not apprehended as having four legs, when she appeared in the form of a cow, dog, &c.--but, as apprehended by _Bacchus_ and his man at that time. I do not find that she appeared in any shape but such as made use of legs in going, whence I imagine that _Empusæ_ might be opposite to the θεοὶ νεποδες, which appellation was anciently fixed upon the gods, (_propitious_) upon a two-fold account; first, for that they were usually effigiated as having no feet, which is evident from ancient sculpture, and secondly, for that they are all said not to walk, but rather swim, if I may so express that _non gradiuntur, sed fluunt_, which is the assertion of all the commentators I have ever seen upon that verse of Virgil:--

“Et vera incessu patuit dea”----

This whole discourse may be much illustrated from a passage in Heliodorus, Æthiop. lib. iii. sec. 12, 13. Calasiris told Cnemon that the Gods Apollo and Diana did appear unto him; Cnemon replied, Ἀλλὰ τίνα δὴ τρόπον ἒφασκες ἐνδεδεῖχθαἱ σοι τοῦς θεοῦς ὅτι μὴ ἐνύπνιον ἦλθον, ἀλλ’ ἐναργῶς ἐφᾶνησαν; 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, καὶ τῳ βαδίσματι πλέον, οὐ κατὰ διάστησιν τῶν ποδῶν οὐδέ μετάθεσιν ἀνυομένω, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τινα ρὕμην ἀέριον, καὶ ὁρμὴν ἀπαραπόδιστον, τεμνόντων μᾶλλον τὸ περιεχον ἢ διαπορευομένων. Δὶο δὴ καὶ τὰ ἀγάλματα τῶν θεῶν Ἀιγύπτιοι τὼ πὸδέ ζευγνύντες καὶ ὥσπερ ἑνοῦντες ἵστᾶσιν. ἅ δὴ καὶ Ὅμηρος ἐιδῶς, ἅτε Ἀιγύπτιος, καὶ τὴν ἱερὰν πάιδευσιν ἐκδιδαχθείς, συμβολικῶς τοῖς ἔπεσιν ἐναπεθετο, τοῖς δυναμένοις συνιέναι γνωριζειν καταλιπών, ἐπι τοῦ ποσειδῶνος, το

Ἴχνια γὰρ μετόπισθε, ποδῶν ἠδέ κνημάων
Ῥεῖ ἔγνων ἀπιὸντος.

οἴον ῥέοντος ἐν τῆ πορεία, τοῦτο γάρ εστι τό ῥεῖ ἀπιόντος, καὶ οῦχ ὥς τινες ἠπάτηνται, ῥᾳδίως ἔγνων ὑπολαμβάνοντες. Farnaby, upon the place in Virgil, observes, that _Deorum incessus est continuus et æqualis, non dimotis pedibus, neque transpositis_, ἀλλὰ κατὰ ῥύμην ἀέριον. Cornelius Schrevelius in the new Leyden notes saith, _Antiquissima quæque Deorum simulachra, quod observarunt viri magni, erant_ τοῦς πόδας συμβεβηκότα, _diique ipsi non gradiuntur sed fluunt_. Their statues were said to stand rather upon columns than upon legs, for they seem to have been nothing but columns shaped out into this or that figure, the base whereof carrying little of the representation of a foot. These things being premised, I suppose it easy for the intelligent reader to find out the true etymology of _Empusa, quasi_ ἐν ποσιν οῦσα, or βάινουσα, from going on her feet, whereas the other _gods_ and _demons_ had a different gait. If any can dislike this deduction, and think her so named from ἑνιπους, whereas she always went upon two legs, (if her shape permitted it) though she might draw the one 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 Σοὶ μὲν ταῦτα δοκοῦντ’ ἐστὶν, ἐμὸι δὲ τάδε.

Now, as to the words of Aristophanes upon which the Scholiast descants, they are these:--speaking of an apparition strangely shaped, sometimes like a camel, sometimes like an ox, a beautiful woman, a dog, &c. Bacchus replies:

Ἔμπουσα τοινὺν γ’ἐστι.
ΞΑ. πυρὶ γοῦν λάμπεται
ἅπαν το προσωπον, καὶ σκελος χαλκοῦν ἔχει.
ΔΙ. Νὴ τὸν Ποσειδῶ, καὶ βολιτινον θάτερον.
ΞΑ. Σἁφ’ ἵσθι.

The Scholiast hereupon tells us that _Empusa_, was Φαντασμα δαιμονιῶδες ὑπὸ Ἑκάτης ἐπιπεμπόμενον καὶ φαινόμενον τοἴς δυστυχοῦσιν, ὅ δοκεῖ πολλὰς μορφας αλλασσεω καὶ ὁι μεν φασιν ἀυτην μονοποδα εῖναι, καὶ ἐτυμολογοῦσιν’ ὁιονεὶ ἑνιποδα, διὰ το ἑνὶ ποδι κεχρῆσθαι. And this is all that is material in the Scholiast, except that he adds by and by, that βολιτινον σκελος is all one with the leg of an ass. And this very text and Scholiast is that to which all the authors he names, and more, do refer.