Brief Account of One Suggestion of the Romanist 2, Text
ἈΙΕΝ ἈΛΗΘΕΎΕΙΝ, OR, A brief Account of one Suggeſtion of the Romaniſt againſt THE DISPATCHER DISPATCHED.
BY Henry Hammond, D. D.
foreign.
LONDON, Printed for RICHARD DAVIS, Book-Sellor in Oxfor MDCLX.
A brief Account of one Suggeſtion OF THE ROMANIST.
§. 1. IT is the Stateman's Maxime concerning a falſe Suggeſtion, that if it be believed but four and twenty hours, the value of it is ineſtimable; which though it muſt be allowed to receive a grand abatement, when it is applyed to inferiour and leſs conſiderable tranſactions, yet the intereſts of Religion, in the maintenance of truth, are not ſo deſpiſeable, as that he that hath appeared or embarked in them, can ſafely neglect the advantages which evil arts may yield, or furniſh an adverſary againſt him.
§. 2. Such in reaſon, and in Experience, beyond all others is the charge of falſifying, which if it be but ſuggeſted, and believed of any, and much more if a pregnant and viſible proof of it be tendred, there needs no other blaſt, or ſmut, or vermine to lay waſt the whole field, and deprive him of all harveſt of his ſeed and labours.
§. 3. How this is my concernment at this time, the Reader will not ſuddenly divine, till I have entertain'd him with a ſhort relation of that, which I had rather my ſelf proclaim on the houſe top, then leave others to whiſper it in corners.
§. 4. I was lately advertiſed by a judicious and Reverend friend, that it was particularly urged againſt me, by a Romaniſt, that I had miſtaken, or perverted M. Whites words, which I referr to in one Diſpatcher Diſpatcht, Chap. III. Sect. 4. p. 279. where I ſuppoſe him to anſwer (in his Apology for Trad. p. 56.) that the beatifical viſion of the Saints before the day of Judgement was not yet held a matter of Faith, but onelyonly a Theological concluſion; when (ſaid he) the Apologiſt in that very place had expreſly ſaid, that this point is a matter of faith, grounded on Tradition, and not a Theological concluſion.
§. 5. That I ſhould be guilty if but of ſuch an oſcitancy or mistake, much more of ſuch a vile perverſion as this, I may be allowed to have been as unwilling my ſelf to believe, as I am obliged to take care that others ſhould not cauſeleſsly apprehend it of me. Therefore without delay I turned firſt to mine own words (which as I then could not doubt, ſo now I acknowledge to be faithfully related) then to Maſter VVhites words, in the page of his Apology, whence I had cited them, and thoſe I found exactly, and to a letter concordant to my tranſcript of them in Diſp. Diſp.
§. 6. For thus I ſtill read (if I will not at noon-day ſuſpect mine own eyes) in that Apologiſt, p. 56. l. 12. [For, nothing is more clear, then that the validity of Baptiſm by hereticks was a Tradition, and decided by it: ſo the Beatifical viſion of the Saints before the day of Judgement, the Spirituality of Angels, are not yet held matters of Faith, but only Theological concluſions; as likewiſe the ſouls being concreated to the perfecting of the body.] What can be more manifeſt, then that in this period the Beatificall Viſion of Saints before the day of judgement is by that Apologiſt ſet down, as one of the two things (to which after a third is ſubjoyn'd) of which it is affirmed in the plural, that they are not yet held matters of Faith, but onelyonly Theological concluſions? which was all to a ſyllable, that I cited from him in that place, with this onelyonly change, that ſpeaking onelyonly of one of theſe, the Beatifical viſion &c. I ſet it (as it was neceſſary) in the ſingular [is not yet held a matter of Faith, but onelyonly a Theological concluſion.]
§. 7. That I might be ſure not to have miſtaken my Author, I carefully conſulted the Errata; but there was none noted, relating to that page: and indeed the whole compoſure of the period was ſuch, that there muſt be a concurrence of very many changes in the compaſs of very few lines (more I believe then the moſt negligent Compoſitor and Corrector have at any time conſpired to be guilty of) to wreſt this teſtimony from me, or change it into what this Romaniſt had affirmed it to be.
§. 8. Having diſpatch't this account to my friend, from whom I received the former advertiſement, I had no cauſe of doubt, but that this affair had received its full period, the Romaniſt being obliged to yield to ſuch full uncontrollable evidence, and every mans eyes, to whom the contrary ſuggeſtion could be offered, being as well qualified as mine, to ſecure him from being miſled by it. And on theſe grounds of ſafety I had no leaſt thought of troubling the Reader with any account, or complaint, which I now ſee is become ſome part of my intereſt, and my duty.
§. 9. For I was ſoon aſſured by my friend, that the words which I had punctually tranſcribed from my copy of the Apology, were not to be found in that, which he had before him, but quite transformed into the contrary ſence, even that for which the Romaniſt had vouch'd them; for thus he found them [For, nothing is more clear, then that the validity of Baptiſm by hereticks was a Tradition, and decided by it: ſo the Beatifical viſion of the Saints before the day of judgement. The Spirituality of Angels is not yet held a matter of Faith, but onelyonly a Theological concluſion.]
§. 10. By this repreſentation I was ſoon forced to confeſs, that the whole ſcene was changed, the firſt part of the words remaining the ſame, but the ſecond (of the Beatifical viſion of the Saints) which were my onelyonly concernment, wholly transformed, that which before was joyned with the ſpirituality of Angels, as not yet held matters of faith, but onelyonly Theological concluſions, being now annext to the validity of Baptiſm by hereticks, and ſo affirmed to be a Tradition (and that is with him a matter of Faith) and decided by it. And then I had reaſon to acknowledge the candour of that Romaniſt, who proceeding on theſe appearances, had laid no heavier a cenſure on me, then that of either miſtaking, or perverting M. Whites words.
§. 11. In this new poſture of affairs, firſt it was preſently diſcernible, that the very many changes, which I had foreſeen, had been really made, to bring this about. And as all this was obvious, and credible to be done by a new Edition of the book, ſo it remained uncertain to me whether mine, or that other ſo contrary to it, were the true and authentick Edition: this therefore was my next care to examine.
§. 12. And herein again I met with an intricacy; for if the title-pages, and a concurrence of all obvious indications, might be believed, there was all this while but one edition, both copies carrying in their front, A Paris, chez Jean Billain Rue S. Jacques à l'enſign S. Auguſtin 1654. the ſame volume, print, number of pages, beginning and end of every page, &c. This ſoon ſuggeſted that which was the onelyonly clue to extricate me then (and the reader now) out of this labyrinth. For ſending to the Stationers for another copy of the Apology, as from one I received a copy perfectly agreeing with mine, ſo by the help of another I was furniſht with one exactly accordant to what my Monitor from the Romaniſt had repreſented to me, yet not diſcernibly differing from my own in any other, ſave in this one paſſage; and looking more narrowly, firſt the paper and ink wherein that leaf was printed (diſcernibly differing from all the reſt of the book) was apt to inject ſome ſuſpicion: but I ſoon ſaw that I had no need of this, or other obſcurer intimation, it being groſly viſible, that in this place a leaf had been cut out, & a new one paſted in. And what Gordian knot might not have been untied by the like inſtrument?
§. 13. VVhen this change was thought fit to be made, I did, and ſtill want augury to divine; onelyonly this is apparent, that it was a work which ſecond thoughts ſuggeſted, after the Book was publiſhed, elſe my copy which came regularly to me from the VVorceſter-ſtationer, (in the year, if my memory fail me not, 1655.) and another now ſent me from another Stationer (which aſſures me there be many more) muſt have had their parts in the change.
§. 14. Having given the Reader a brief and ſingle view of this matter, I abſtain from any farther obſervation, or reflexion on it, then what a Quo teneam vultus mutantem—? will amount to. But that is alſo unneceſſary, my whole deſign being compleated in this, that it is now manifeſt to the moſt imperſuaſible of their diſciples, that dare read what is written againſt their Maſters (which I perceive few are permitted to do) that I neither miſtook, nor perverted the Apologiſts ſence or words, thoſe, I mean, which I read in his book, from wch alone I could be imagined to receive cognizance of them, not being able to forecaſt, that what I had thus really tranſcribed from him, would be ſo ſoon ſnatcht from me again, or that what was to me ſo viſible, ſhould vaniſh, and become inviſible to other men.
§. 15. This indeed is an unexpected proof of what S. VV. had told me, concerning the VVits (enormous) power to transform Teſtimonies; which yet ſhal not diſcourage me from dealing in that ware, (being firmly reſolved never to make uſe of my duller faculties, to work ſuch Metamorphoſes) nor yet from diverting ſometimes into ſuch pleaſant fields, adorned with ſo great varieties, as that Apologiſt frequently affords the world, hoping, that I ſhall not again meet with ſuch miſadventures as theſe, or any greater interruptions in reading him, then what a competent attention, and a table of Errata ſhall enable me to overcome.
§. 16. This account I conceived would more pardonably, becauſe more moderately, divert the Reader at this time, then if I ſhould ſtay till it were ſolemnly and articulately call'd for, and moreover deliver S. VV. from ſome temptation, himſelf to think, or to perſwade others, that he had ſprang ſome reall game to invite his chaſes, ſome guilt to ſupport his contumelies, and perhaps prevail with ſome of their moſt credulous followers, to think it equitable to ſubject the ſuggeſtions they meet with to ſome other waies of examination and triall, then the bare authority or confidence of the ſuggeſters.
THE END.
End of the text · Henry Hammond, Brief Account of One Suggestion of the Romanist 2 (1660)