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