not only from the Learned of your own Countrey, but of most of the
other Northern Nations, whether more or less Polite: Who would any of
them have glory'd in having you their Native, who have done so much
Honour to the Original of almost all the Languages in Europe.

But it seems you are not of so much Credit with these _Gentlemen_, who
question your Authority, and have given a very visible Proof of their
Ingenuity in an Instance which plainly discovers, that they cannot
believe their own Eyes.

The _Saxons_, say they, if we may credit Dr. _Hickes_, had
various Terminations to their Words, at least two in every
Substantive singular: whereas we have no Word now in use, except
the personal Names that has so. Thus Dr. _Hickes_ has made six
several _Declensions_ of the _Saxon_ Names: He gives them three
_Numbers_; a Singular, Dual, and Plural: We have no Dual Number,
except perhaps in _Both_: To make this plainer, we shall
transcribe the six Declensions from that Antiquary's Grammar.

I would ask these Gentlemen, and why not credit Dr. _Hickes_? Is he
not as much to be believ'd as those Gentlemen, who have transcribed
so plain an Evidence of the six Declensions to shew the positive
Unreasonableness and unwarrantable Contradiction of their Disbelief?
Did he make those six Declensions? or rather, did he not find them in
the Language, and take so much pains to teach others to distinguish
them, who have Modesty enough to be taught? They are pleased to say we
have no Word now in use that admits of Cases or Terminations. But let
us ask them, what they think of these Words, _God's Word_, _Man's
Wisdom_, the _Smith's Forge,_ and innumerable Instances more. For in
_God's Word_, &c. is not the Termination _s_ a plain Indication of a