(_n_) “My second reason against this distinction, of liberty from compulsion but not from necessitation, is new, and demonstrates clearly that to necessitate the will by a physical necessity, is to compel the will so far as the will is capable of compulsion; and that he who doth necessitate the will to evil after that manner, is the true cause of evil, and ought rather to be blamed than the will itself. But T. H., for all he saith he is not surprised, can be contented upon better advise to steal by all this in silence. And to hide this tergiversation from the eyes of the reader, he makes an empty shew of braving against that famous and most necessary distinction, between the _elicite_ and _imperate_ acts of the will; first, because the terms are _improper_; secondly, because they are _obscure_. What trivial and grammatical objections are these, to be used against the universal current of divines and philosophers. _Verborum ut nummorum_, it is in words as it is in money: use makes them proper and current. A _tyrant_ at first signified a lawful and just prince; now, use hath quite changed the sense of it, to denote either a usurper or an oppressor. The word _præmunire_ is now grown a good word in our English laws, by use and tract of time; and yet at first it was merely mistaken for a _præmonere_. The names of Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, were derived at first from those heathenish deities, the Sun, the Moon, and the warlike god of the Germans. Now we use them for distinction sake only, without any relation to their first original. He is too froward, that will refuse a piece of coin that is current throughout the world, because it is not stamped after his own fancy. So is he that rejects a good word, because he understands not the derivation of it. We see foreign words are daily naturalized and made free denizens in every country. But why are the terms improper? ‘Because,’ saith he, ‘it attributes command, and subjection to the faculties of the soul, as if they made a commonwealth or family among themselves, and could speak one to another.’ Therefore, he saith, (_o_) they who invented this term of _actus imperatus_, understood not anything what it signified. No; why not? It seemeth to me, they understood it better than those who except against it. They knew there are _mental terms_, which are only conceived in the mind, as well as _vocal terms_, which are expressed with the tongue. They knew, that howsoever a superior do intimate a direction to his inferior, it is still a command. Tarquin commanded his son by only striking off the tops of the poppies, and was by him both understood and obeyed. Though there be no formal commonwealth or family either in the body or in the soul of man, yet there is a subordination in the body, of the inferior members to the head; there is a subordination in the soul, of the inferior faculties to the rational will. Far be it from a reasonable man so far