Chap. 5. the ninth Diuision.
But of this matter I mynde also to speake some thing in the se∣cond parte of this Admonition.
But of this matter you say you will speake againe. In deede so you doe, and againe, wherin you confounde the memorie and vnderstanding of the Reader, and declare your selfe not only igno∣rant of Aristotles rule of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which is to speake of one thing generally and once for all) but euen to be voyde of that order, whiche men haue commonly by the naturall Logike of reason. Neyther can you excuse your selfe in saying that the admonition giueth you so oftentimes occasion to speake of them, and so to laye the fault vpon it, for that it beyng written by diuets per∣sons of the same matters, wherof (a) 1.1 one knewe not of an others doing, can not be blamed for the repetition of one thing twice, when as you can not escape blame, whiche myghte haue gathered easyly into one place, that whiche is sayde of them in diuerse: which thing, although it be not so easy for me to do in your booke, as it was for you to do in theirs, yet I wil assay to doe it bothe in this, and in all other poyntes that followe, not thinking therby to bring this treatise of yours to a∣ny good order (for that were to cast it newe againe, and then you would complayne of your mind peruerted) but that I might remedie this so great disorder, which may be boone without chaun∣ging any thyng of that which you haue set downe.
I haue doone as you ought to haue doone if you had mente playnly: for I haue fo∣lowed verbatim the booke that I confute in the same order, that it is written, which I thinke be that confuteth oughte to doe. That the Admonition was written by dyuers persons, the one not knowing of an others doing▪ can not be true: for both the partes haue one title, they bée in one volume, they were Printed in one letter, at one tyme, by one and the same Prynter, and came abroade together, neyther were they e∣uer separated that I knowe or can vnderstande. Moreouer this bewrayeth all, and condemneth you, for one that hath no conscience in wryting vntruthes, that in the beginning of the Admonition mētion is made of both of these treatises in these woordes: Two treatyses you haue heere ensuyng (beloued in Christe) whyche yee muste reade. &c. And in the ende of bothe these Treatises it is thus wrytten: Weee haue thought good in the latter end of our booke, for sundry consyderations, to certifye you (belo∣ued brethren) of the reasons that haue moued vs, who are the authours of these treatyses to keepe backe oure names. &c. Fynally, the order and maner of bothe these Treatises the stile, the quotations. &c. doe manyfestly conuince you of false witnesse bearing: but it is to vsuall with you.
I am not so cunning in Aristotle, that I can be so bolde as to attribute that vn∣to hym, whych is not to be founde in hym, as you do in thys place: for though he speake much of this rule 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yet hath he no such thing as you father vp∣on him in this place.
It is méete that he whyche wryteth a booke of any matters, shoulde of one matter speake fully in one place: but hée that confuteth, muste followe his or∣der, whome hée confuteth. Whyche if you hadde doone in my Booke, as I haue doone in theyrs, eyther woulde not youre vnfaithfull dealyng haue bin so muche, or else must it sooner, or easylier haue bin espied. Youre tauntes I leaue to your selfe that haue so good a grace in them.