Continuation of the Defense of Hugo Grotius, Postscript
A POST-SCRIPT.
1. HAving lately a ſight of a new piece publiſhed by the ſame Author, one of the firſt things I happened to fall upon, appeared to be mine own concernment. For having cited from ſome words of Hegeſippus, that ſoon after the death of the Apoſtles and their auditors, many falſe doctrines were preached and divulged in the Church, he hath theſe words.
2. I know who hath endeavoured to elude the ſenſe of this complaint, as though it concerned not any thing in the Church, but the deſpiſers and perſecuters of it, the Gnoſticks. But yet I know alſo, that no man would ſo do, but ſuch a one as hath a juſt confidence of his own ability, to make paſſable at leaſt, any thing that he ſhall venture to ſay or utter. For why ſhould that be referred by Hegeſippus to the ages after the Apoſtles and their hearers were dead, with an exception againſt its being ſo in their dayes; when if the perſon thus expounding this teſtimony may be credited, the Gnoſticks were never more buſie nor prevalent than in that time which alone is excepted from the evil here spoken of? Nor can I underſtand how the oppoſition and perſecution of the Church ſhould be inſinuated to be the deflouring and violating of its chastity, which is commonly a great purifying of it: ſo that speaking of that breaching and preaching of errours, which was not in the Apoſtles times, nor in the time of their hiarers, the chiefeſt time of the rage and madneſs of the Gnoſticks; ſuch as ſpotted the pure and incorrupted virginity of the Church; which nothing can attein unto, that is forreign unto it, and that which gave Originall unto Sedition in the Church: I am of the mind, and ſo I conceive was Euſebius that recited thoſe words, that the good man intended corruptions in the Church not out of it, nor oppoſitions to it.
3. What iuſt confidence any man can have of his own abilities to make any thing paſſable that he ſhall venture to utter] unleſs it be found in a due care never to adventure to utter any thing, which hath not perfect truth in it, I acknowledge my ſelf unable to apprehend. But how unjuſtly I am here charged of any kind of confidence of my own abilities, and how unſufficiently my anſwer in defence of the ancient Church-writers is here invalidated, will, I hope, ſoon appear, by a ſhort view, 1. of my anſwer, 2. of the words of the teſtimony it ſelf, on which it was clearly grounded, 3. of that which is here objected againſt the fitneſs of my anſwer.
4. For the first, It muſt be remembred (as the original of this debate) what from this teſtimony of Hegeſippus he had (a) formerly Pref. to his Book Perſever. p. 5.concluded, viz. the corruption of the Church as to doctrine, immediately after the Apoſtles fell aſleep, whereof, ſaith he, whoſoever will impartially ſearch into the writings that of thoſe dayes do remain, will perhaps find more cauſe to complain, thou is commonly imagined.
5. To which my anſwer was, (b) that all that Hegeſippus there ſaith, is onelyonly this, that the poyſon of the heretical or Apoſtatical, Anſw. to Animadv. p. 13.or Atheiſtical Gnoſticks, in expreſs words, the foreign, the ſect of the Gnoſticks falſly ſo called, and foreign, the Atheiſtical ſeducers, did openly ſet up againſt the truth of Chriſt, as ſoon as ever the Apoſtles were dead, which being by Hegeſippus terminated in the known deſpiſers and perſecutors of the true Church, and Orthodox profeſſors, the grievous Wolves that worried the flock, and thoſe conſtantly reſiſted and combated with, preacht againſt and written against by the Fathers and ancient writers, and never obſerved by any man to have gained of them, or infuſed any the leaſt degree of their poyſon into them, or their writings that are come to us. 'Tis a ſad condition, that the juſt and unjuſt, the falſe teachers and Orthodox profeſſors ſhould fall under the ſame envy, that the ſhepherds which oft laid down their lives for their ſheep, ſhould be defamed, aend again martyred by us their unkind poſterity, under pretence that they were in conſpiracy with the wolves alſo,
6. In this anſwer it is not poſſible I ſhould be ſubject to any miſtake, if this one matter of fact be true, that the Gnoſticks and Atheiſtical ſeducers were the very perſons, of whom alone Hegeſippus ſpake, (for that thoſe were the wolves, and that the Church-writers have conſtantly refuted and deteſted them, and not ſuckt any of their poyſonous doctrines from them, is ſo evident, that this author hath neither formerly nor now ſuggeſted the contrary.) And for this in the next place, I appeal to the expreſs words of Hegeſippus, there at large ſet down in Greek, but here onelyonly referred to, and more briefly toucht on by this author.
7. The words, as far as this matter is concern'd in them, I ſhall recite; They are theſe, Euſeb. Eccl. Hiſt. l. 111. foreign. That there may be no place for doubt in this matter, I ſhall now give the Engliſh Reader a full view of them, thus. But when the ſacred quire of the Apoſtles had ſeverally ended their lives, and the generation of thoſe that had been thought worthy to hear with their own cars the divine wiſdome, was now past, then the rout or riotous convention of the Godleſs ſeduction or ſeducers (foreign ſignifies a ſeditious aſſembling, or military preparation of confederates or conspirators, and foreign deceit or ſeduction, may be uſed for the men that deceive or ſeduce) received its beginning, by the cunning or deceit of falſe teachers, who, now that none of the Apoſtles were left, avowed and openly attempted to preach or promulgate the ſcience falſly ſo called, in oppoſition to the preaching of the truth.
8. What is here meant by the ſcience falſly ſo called, no man can be ignorant, that hath compared that phraſe uſed expreſly by the Apoſtle, 1 Tim. 6. 20. with the writings of the Primitive Fathers, or but lightly conſidered the very nature of plain words. The word foreign Gnoſticks, literally ſignifies knowing men, ſo ſtyled by themſelves, but upon no grounds of truth, their doctrines being indeed directly oppoſed to the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jeſus Chriſt, and ſo foreign knowledg or ſcience falſly ſo called. This therefore muſt be the meaning of the Apoſtles words, foreign, the oppoſitions of the ſcience falſly ſo called, i. e. the doctrines of the ſect of the Gnoſticks, in direct oppoſition to the doctrine of the Apoſtles, and conſequently the ſame muſt be the importance of the like phraſe in Hegeſippus, in conſent with the Apoſtles dialect; what the Apoſtle calls ſcience falſly ſo called, Hegeſippus muſt be believed to mean by the very ſame words, the ſcience falſly ſo called, i. e. the Gnoſticks; what the Apoſtle calls foreign oppoſitions or contradictings, Hegeſippus expreſſes by foreign oppoſite or contrary preaching, and theſe phraſes are both farther cleared by a paſſage in the ancient author foreign: c. 6. which tels us of foreign, the contradictory diſcourſes of the dotage or folly or madneſs of Simon; by contradictory diſcourſes certainly meaning the foreign and foreign, oppoſitions and antipreaching, and by the dotage or madneſs of Simon Magus, the knowledge that he pretended to, and his followers, and which ſo puſs them up in a mad conceit of it, but was indeed nothing elſe but blaſphemous folly, far removed from all degree of true ſcience.
9. From this ſhort repreſentation of this plain matter of fact, thus viſible before our eyes, I ſhall now ſuppoſe it cleare, that it was not confidence of my abilities, but a well grounded perſwaſion, that he that cited theſe words in Greek, underſtood the plain meaning of them, upon which I built my hope, that my anſwer to this paſſage of Hegeſippus would approve it ſelf to him. For if the Gnoſticks and none elſe were the men ſpoken of by Hegeſippus, then was there no place for exception againſt my anſwer, and if Hegeſippus expreſſe words might be believed, thus it was. And thus ſtands this matter betwixt me and my Reprover at this time; I have laid it before him, let himſelf now, if he pleaſe, be party, witneſſe, and judge; I cannot think it poſſible I ſhould need other.
10. But then in the third place, he hath an objection againſt this ſenſe, which at leaſt may have force againſt me; For, ſaith he, if the perſon thus expounding this testimony (i. e. I) may be credited, the Gnoſticks were never more buſie nor prevalent then in that time, which alone is excepted from the evil here spoken of.
11. To this I anſwer, 1. that in caſe I had at ſeveral times ſpoken things incoherent or contradictory, this would be no ſufficient proof that what I now recited from Hegeſippus's plain words, was not contained in them. But then 2. I have been far enough from having thus (any where) contradicted my ſelf, or what I affirme in this anſwer of mine, nor (if I may be allowed the confidence to believe that I know and ſpeake my own ſenſe) did I ever let fall any thing which will not be exactly reconciled with it. The ſhort is this. The Ringleaders of the Gnoſticks were verry buſie in the Apoſtles times, but did at firſt more clancularly operate, from whence in my opinion (of which here it ſeems I muſt give an account) they are in the Apoſtle expreſt by foreign, the myſtery of iniquity, iniquity, but that ſomewhat diſguiſed, till at laſt in the ſeaſon moſt for their turn, ſome of them put off their diſguiſes; Simon Magus in the Apoſtles times, and though he miſcarried, yet many of his followers afterwards in a more avowed and profeſt hoſtility (the foreign in Hegeſippus) when they had the advantage of all thoſe being dead who had received the truth from Christ himſelf: This is the ſumme of what I have elſewhere frequently, and more largely delivered, and this is exactly the ſenſe of Hegeſippus in that place, as will yet more clearly appear by the addition of ſome other words, not yet recited, and (I know not why) omitted by this author in his firſt producing of them, when yet both the antecedents and conſequents were ſet down by him. They are theſe, foreign. Till thoſe times he there ſpeaks of, thoſe hereticks, though ſome there were, that endeavoured to corrupt the wholeſome rule of ſaving doctrine, skulked in darkneſs undiſcernable, but afterwards (when the ſenſon better agreed with their deſign) they did it foreign, with bare head, or face, putting off diſguiſe or care of ſecreſie, with this, indeed it would not eaſily be reconcileable to ſay, that the Gnoſticks were never more buſie nor prevalent, then in the Apoſtles times; And this he is pleaſed to ſet down as my ſaying; but hath not intimated the place, where I ſaid it (as eaſily he might have done, and I ſuppoſe would not have neglected to do, if he had known where.) For my part I remember not, neither believe any ſuch words ever to have paſt from me; If he ſhall produce any that have the leaſt ſound that way, I ſhall not doubt to give him an account of them, ſuch as ſhall ſufficiently ſuperſede the concluſion, which now he is willing to draw from them.
12. Mean while I ſhall yet farther give thus much over meaſure of reply to his objection, that in caſe Hegeſippus had not expreſly named the Gnoſticks, which yet expreſly he names, and therefore muſt mean them if he knew and conſidered what he ſaid, yet the foreign the Atheiſtical ſeduction or ſeducers, and the foreign the riotous convention or confederation of theſe, muſt needs ſignifie ſome known ſect of hereticks in that age of the Church, be they Cerinthians, Ebionites, Nicolaitanes, Menandrians, B…ſilidians, Saturnilians, or after them Valentinians, Marcionites, or who ever elſe can be ſuppoſed; And then, as it is certain, that all, or moſt of theſe, met and agreed in this common notion of the Gnoſticks, ſo from the poyſon and taint of all and each of them, tis ſtill equally clear, that the Church of God, and the known Governours and ſhepherds thereof, by Gods grace and bleſſing preſerved themſelves, and expreſt their conſtant oppoſition and doteſtation of them, and markt them out to be avoided of all Chriſtians; and ſo cannot be imagined to have been corrupted by them (but on the contrary whoſoever was diſcerned to be ſo corrupted, was caſt out of the Church) and by their contrary doctrine, illuſtriouſly known in their writings againſt theſe hereſies, long after the Apoſtles times, (Irenaus againſt the Valentinians &c. Tertullian &c. againſt the Gnoſticks) have demonſtrated themſelves to have continued ſtedfaſt and immaculate, and not to have been in the leaſt corrupted: And then what can be farther removed from truth, than this whole ſuggeſtion from Hegeſippus, of the infection being diffuſed in the Church?
But he further objects, That the oppoſing and perſecuting of the Church, which is a great puriſying of it, cannot be inſinuated to be the deflouring and violating of its chaſtity: To this I anſwer, 1. that if there were the leaſt force in this objection, it would yet be unſufficient to diſprove my anſwer; It might poſſibly infer the impropriety of Hegeſippus's expreſſion, whereof I undertook not to be the advocate, but cannot conclude him not to have meant thoſe to be the corrupters, whom he expreſly names to be ſo. 2. That in reſpect of thoſe weak or deceiveable members of the Church, that received the heretical poyſon, (and then fell off from it, or were by juſt cenſures caſt out of it) 'tis not improper to ſay, that the Church which once conteined them, was defloured and violated; though on the other ſide, in reſpect of the conſtant fidelity of others, who were not moved by all their oppoſition, the Church was ſtill rather purified then defloured, as gold by trial in the fire comes out more pure, whileſt yet the droſſe is diſcovered by the ſame, means, and declared to have no purity in it. The truth is, many viſible and temporary profeſſors were infected and defiled by the Gnoſtick infuſions, as in all times of trial befals thoſe that forſake the Faith, rather than they will endure perſecution; And that is the plain meaning of Hegeſippus's words, and hath nothing new or ſtrange in it.
14. One thing by the way I ſhall farther obſerve, that in this citation he hath made ſome change in the words, from what before he had repreſented; to the Apostles times, adding, the time of the Apoſtles hearers, and not onelyonly the Apoſtles themſelves, as if Hegeſippus included that ſecond generation in the ſpace of the virgin uncorrupted age, after whoſe deceaſe (and not till then) the corruptions by him ſpoken of came in: But that I ſuppoſe will be found to be a miſtake alſo.
15. In his former citing of the paſſage (in his Preface of Animadverſions) he underſtood Hegeſippus of the corruption immediately after the Apoſtles fell aſleep. And indeed this is all that the words aſſure us [when the quire of the Apoſtles, ſaith he, were dead, and the age paſt of thoſe that were deemed worthy to heare with their own eares, foreign the divine wiſedom, or the wiſdome that had divinity in it—] where that ages being paſt,] and the Apoſtles being dead] ſure ſignifies the ſame thing, and foreign the divine wiſdome] very fitly ſignifies Chriſt himſelf, the wiſdome of the Father, and no way appears to be extended to the Apoſtles alſo; and then they that were the hearers of that Wiſdome, will be the men of the Apoſtles age, ſpecially the Apoſtles themſelves, and not the ſubſequent generation. And that indeed thus it was, appears by the context in Hegeſippus, which evidenceth him to ſpeak of Trajanes times, wherein Simeon Biſhop of Jeruſalem, one of the foreign and foreign, ſeers and hearers of the Lord, being falſly accuſed by hereticks, (foreign) was put to death. Now this we know, was but the concluſion of the Apoſtles age; (John, who was one of them, living till that time) and not of the auditors of the Apoſtles. But ſhould it be granted according to his deſire, that 'twas of the latter age that Hegeſippus ſpake, it would, as hath appeared, ſtand him in little ſtead; and therefore I ſhall not ſpring new occaſion of contention with him on this matter; Had not the honour of the Ʋniverſal Church of Chriſt ſucceeding the Apoſtles (ſo nearly concern'd in this his reinforced objection) ſeemed to exact this juſt tribute from me, I had not here given him this importunity.
16. Whereon ſeeing I am thus far entred, It will not be amiſs to pay him at once what he may expect of return to ſome other paſſages of this his laſt piece, wherein he is pleaſed to reflect on me.
17. And 1. occurs towards the beginning of it, pag. 33. a diſcourſe of foreign &c. which he endeavours to apply to the prejudice of my evidences for the Epiſtles of Clement, and of St Paul to the Corinthians, being written to all the Churches of Achaia: In return to this I ſhall note but theſe four things of very many that offer themſelves.
18. Firſt, that there is a double notion of foreign &c. one wherin it is oppoſed to foreign, (and is all one with foreign or foreign, being ſtrangers or ſojourners) in which notion aD. verb. ſig.Pomponius takes it, when by it he expounds the Latin incola, as that is all one with inquilinus a ſtranger in any place, qui aliquâ, or rather, aliâ regione (foreign ſaith Theophilus) domicilium ſuum contulit. Of this notion of the word I ſpake nor, nor could be imagined to ſpeak, nor (whatever he thinks) is or can parochia or paraecia to be taken in this ſence in any author. Another notion there is of foreign for accola a neighbour, as in Thucyd. l. 4. foreign, the Spartanes, and the neareſt of the neighbouring cities, (ſome of thoſe foreign, neighbours, it ſeems, nearer then others) and ſo Pomponius alſo, non tantùm qui in oppido moratur, ſed qui alicujus oppidi finibus agrum habet, a borderer that lives and holds lands within the bounds, i. e. in the territories of any city, whether nearer or farther off, or whether that territory be wider or narrower; wider as the territory of a Metropolis, narrower as of an ordinary city, or yet lower, as of a town or village; And which of theſe it is in any author, is not concluſible from the nature or uſe of the word, which equally belongs to all theſe, but from the quality of the place, to which in any author it is applied; If the diſcourſe be of a Metropolis, then the territory, and ſo the foreign is the whole Province or foreign, as when Mark is ſaid by Euſebius to have conſtituted Churches in the plural at Alexandria, the chief Metropolis of Egypt, theſe are by cEccl. hiſt. l. 11. foreign.him all conteined under the phraſe foreign, as by Mark committed to Anianus, and to the Churches that belong to the chief Metropolis of Crete, Gortyna, are by Dionyſius Biſhop of Corinth, called foreign, the Church adjacent to i. e. the Province of Gortyna; If ſpeech be of an ordinary city, then the territory of that, and ſo the foreign is that which we now call a Dioceſe (though foreign anciently ſignified otherwiſe) Territorium eſt univerſitas agrorum intra fines cujuſque civitatis, ſaith dIbid.Pomponius, and is rendred by Theophilus foreign, all the region which is under a city; And ſo farther downward to towns and villages alſo, as they are called foreign, Paroecia, pariſhes, the whole territory or bordering neighbourhood is comprehended under it. And ſo in ſumme, Corinth, otherwiſe appearing to be the Metropolis of all Aehaia (as Achaia was one of the ePauſan: foreign.five foreign of Pelopouneſus) and this both in the Civil and Eccleſiaſtical Notitiae; in the Civil, as is evident by the Proconſuls keeping his reſidence there, Acts 18. 12. 15. (Corinth being before this time fPauſaen: foreign. p. 44. l. 19.deſtroyed by Mummius, reedified by Iulius Caeſar, and now a gMe. la l. 11. c. 3.Roman Colony, and having a hPauſan: foreign: p. 44Province belonging to it, called foreign, the Corinthian region) and in the Eccleſiaſtical, as appeared both by the general foreign or conformity between the city and the Church, not onelyonly in after ages, but from the firſt, cited from a moſt ancient learned Church-writer, Origen contr. Celſ. l. 3. and more particularly as to Corinth, by the expreſs words of iTo: 3. p. 343.Saint Chryſoſtome. All this, I ſay, otherwiſe largely appearing, and not deduced from the bare ſtyle [foreign] this Church thus ſtyled by Clemens, and compared with Pauls firſt Epiſtle, which expreſly comprehends the Saints of all Achaia, and yet (as is granted on all ſides) no greater an extent, then what Clemens wrote to, is by me regularly affirmed to be that whole Province of ſeveral Churches, (for which 'twas not yet that foreign grew to be the Eccleſiaſtical word) and not that ſingle Church of Corinth, but all under that Metropolis.
19. 2. That it is moſt unreaſonable to affirm that either 2 Cor. 9. 2. or any where elſe, Achaia and Corinth are all one, for that is all one as to ſay France and Paris, a region or nation, and a city in that region, are all one. 'Tis true the Church, to which the Epiſtles of Paul were written, comprehends under it all the Chriſtians of Achaia, but then my pretenſions muſt have place, that thoſe Epiſtles were written to all the Churches of Achaia, united in Corinth, the Metropolis, not that Achaia, which had many cities in it was all one with Corinth, that but one, though Metropolitical city.
20. 3. That of the Churches of Achaia, beſide Corinth, that of Cenchrea is expreſly named, and though no other chances to be thus explicitely mentioned in Scripture, which was not obliged to write the full Corography of the Apoſtles plantations, yet this negative argument gives us no reaſon to doubt, but there were more cities in Achaia then theſe two (all Geographers aſſure us of many) and thoſe in ſome proportion converted to the faith, and formed into Churches, in Saint Pauls time, and before Clements writing to them. However that one of Cenchrea concludes as much, as I want; Cenchrea being another city-Church, different from Corinth, and foreign neighbouring to it, part of its territory, and under it as a daughter under a Metropolis.
21. 4. That Chryſoſtome, that ſpeaks of Corinth as a Metropolitical Church, ſpeaks of it, not (as this Author pretends) onelyonly in the political, but Eccleſiaſtical notion, and not onelyonly as in his own, but as it was in the Apoſtles time: Elſe he could not ſay of S. Paul, as he doth, foreign that he wrote to a Metropolis; Twas certeinly to the Church that Saint Paul wrote not the city; and 2. to that Church, in Saint Pauls age. The teſtimony is as clear as the Sun, that bTom. 3. p. 343.Saint Chryſoſtome ſpeaks of Corinth, Theſſalonica, and the Epheſians, and Galatians, to whom the Apostolical Epiſtles are directed, as ſo many Metropolitical Churches, to each of which Saint Paul wrote, and thereby in every of thoſe Epiſtles wrote not foreign, to one city onelyonly, (he addes, or to two, or to three) but foreign to all every where in each of thoſe regions, relating to thoſe Metropolitical Churches, to all the Churches of Galatia, of Achaia, &c.
22. And ſo much for that affaire, on which five leaves were providently laid out at the beginning of his journey, to ſecure ſome principles which were after to be improved by him, which yet he cannot but know are ſuperſeded by many other evidences of Metropolitical Churches planted in the Apoſtles times, at Jeruſalem, Antioch, Epheſus, Theſſalonica, Philippi, Alexandria, and Rome &c. every of which requiring his anſwer, as much as foreign.
23. P. 87. he minds me of his acknowledging the catholick church, both the inviſible body of Chriſt, his elect, &c, and the Ʋniverſality of viſible profeſſors, and conſequently of the injury formerly done him, in comparing his expreſſion [that there was never any Church-Officer inſtituted in thoſe firſt times relating to more Churches in his office, or to any other Church than a ſingle particular congregation] with the author of the Saints beliefe, which inſtead of the Holy Catholick Church in the Apoſtles ſymbols ſubſtituted this very hypotheſis; as if I either really believed, or was willing to perſwade others, that he denyed the Catholick Church.
24. To this I anſwer, 1. that I neither entred into his ſecrets, nor indeavoured to infuſe any jealouſies into others concerning his talent undiſcovered thoughts, but onelyonly conſidered thoſe words then before me, not being at that diſtance able to divine, how far he meant to acknowledge the Catholick Church in a tract written two years after.
25. Secondly, That his acknowledging now two notions of the Catholick Church, one of all the elect, the other of all that are called, doth not ſo certainly difference his doctrine from that of the author of the Saints belief; there being no reaſon to doubt, but that he that compiled that, did at that time acknowledge the Catholick Church in thoſe two notions. The thing that he meant to deny, and renounce, implicitely by leaving out the mention of the Catholick Church, and explicitely by what he ſubſtituted in ſtead of it, was (I ſuppoſed) the ſeveral degrees of aſſociations, each known among men by the name of a Church, 1. that of the whole Chriſtian world, the Ʋniverſal Church, either as it by ſome pretended to be Monarchically, or by others Aristocratically governed. 2. That of each National Church under the Primate thereof. 3. That of each Provincial Church under the Metropolitane. 4. That of every Dioceſan Church under the Biſhop; and laſtly, of every Parochial Church under the Rector thereof. And all theſe ſeem as avowedly to be denied by this author to have been inſtituted in thoſe (i. e. in Ignatius's) times, as by the compiler of the Saints Belief they were; And ſome of theſe being, to my underſtanding, thus anciently inſtituted, and expreſs mention made in Ignatius, not onelyonly of the foreign or multitude under a particular Biſhop, which is one of theſe, but farther of the Church of Syria, i. e. of that whole region, and the Church of Syria which is at Antioch, all joyned under Antioch, the Metropolitical Church, and the Catholick Church, wider then either of theſe, and comprehenſive of both; this I deemed fit to be confronted to his hypotheſis (and the parallel in the Saints Belief) of the no other Church, than a ſingle particular congregation, which I ſuppoſed narrower than any one of theſe. And this is a brief, and I hope, inoffenſive, account of that particular.
26. Pag. 232. An exception is made to my inſtance in the Biſhop of Oxon, and that from a ſuppoſed exemtion of this author, at the time of his writing, from the juriſdiction of that Biſhop. But 1. I proceeded not to the naming or specifying the author at all, when I ſpake of the Biſhop of Oxon, much leſs conſidered the quality, which was peculiar to him, from other men, or the exemtion conſequent to that quality, which whatever it can be pretended, is but temporary, and perſonal, and ſo not proper for any special conſideration. 2. I anſwer, The Biſhop of Oxon hath a Dioceſe, or elſe no man that lives in that, could by any priviledge of his place, be exemt from it. And then what I ſaid of the duty owing to that Biſhop (ſomewhat more then ſtyling him a reverend and learned perſon, and being glad of his neighbourhood and acquaintance, foreign ſignifies more than that) regularly belongs to all ſuch as are in his Dioceſe, and are not exemt from his juriſdiction, and whatever he pleaſe to imagine, I never meant to extend it to any other.
27. Pag. 122. I find a diſlike of my way (he ſhould not have ſaid of juſtifying our ſeparation from Rome, but) of defending our Church from the guilt of ſchiſme, charged on us by the Romaniſts. But this is no news to me; he had once before ſignified thus much, and I was not then ſurpriſed with it, and ſhall onelyonly aſſure him, that now I have ſeen his new way, I am no whit leſs pleaſed with the old, than before I had the confidence to be.
28. The laſt that I took notice of to be my concernment was pag. 229. where perhaps I may be the perſon, accuſed to have charged the doctrines (there named, as a conſiderable portion of the doctrine of our Church) of everting fundamentals. If it be ſo, I have then two things to ſay in this haſte, and no more, 1. that the doctrines, which I charge in the tract of Fundamentals, I charge not of everting of Fundamentals, but (as may be ſeen in the title and contents of the 12 chapter) of aptneſs to obſtruct and hinder the ſuperſtructing of good life upon Chriſtian belief: Of which whether the doctrines by me ſpecified be guilty or no, I appeal to thoſe indifferent Readers that ſhall impartially view what is there ſaid, and ſhall be content to be concluded by that, though not by this Ʋmpirage.
29. 2. That no one of the doctrines thus accuſed by me are the doctrines of the Church of England, as there (as far as I ever heard it doubted) is cleared by me; whereas on the contrary ſome of them, that particularly of Chriſts redeeming none but the elect, are as expreſly renounced by our Church, as any branch of Atheiſme or Polytheiſme is diſclaimed by the Creed of the Apoſtles.
30. And now I may be permitted to take my leave of him at this time.
THE END.
ERRATA.
Pag. 3. l. 11. r. and ſo. p. 5. l. 33. r. bad been long expected. p. 6. l. 20. r. his letter. l. 27. r. few paſſages. p. 7. l. 18. r. ſo that 53. ibid. r. 10 this ſenſe l. 35. r. foreign l. 36. r. foreign p. 8. l. 5. again, i. the. p. 9. l. 21. r. was written. p. 16. l. 7. r. foreign l. 16. r. foreign p. 25. l. 8 r. or as. l. 34. r. Schluſſelburgius p. 32. l. 13. r. ſounded. l. ult. r. on them. p 36. l. 4. r ſecrecie; with. p. 39. l. 8. dele to. l. 29. r. And ſo the p. 42. l. 16. r. ſymbole. l. 21. r. latent. p. 43. l. 1. r. as it is.
End of the text · Henry Hammond, Continuation of the Defense of Hugo Grotius (1657)