_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.