ἈΙΕΝ ἈΛΗΘΕΎΕΙΝ, OR, A brief Account of one Suggestion of the Romanist against THE DISPATCHER DISPATCHED.  
BY Henry Hammond, D. D.  
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  
LONDON, Printed for RICHARD DAVIS, book-seller in Oxfor MDCLX.   

A brief Account of one Suggestion OF THE ROMANIST.  
§. 1. IT is the Stateman's maxim 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 applied to inferior and less considerable transactions, yet the interests of Religion, in the maintenance of truth, are not so despisable, 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 tendered, there needs no other blast, or smut, or vermin 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 entertained him with a short relation of that, which I had rather myself 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. White's words, which I refer to in one Dispatcher dispatched, 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 only a Theological conclusion; when (said he) the Apologist in that very place had expressly 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 myself 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 than could not doubt, so now I acknowledge to be faithfully related) then to Master White's 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 noonday suspect mine own eyes) in that Apologist, p. 56. l. 12. [For, nothing is more clear, then that the validity of Baptism by heretics 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 con-created to the perfecting of the body.] What can be more manifest, then that in this period the beatifical 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 subjoined) of which it is affirmed in the plural, that they are not yet held matters of Faith, but only Theological conclusions? which was all to a syllable, that I cited from him in that place, with this only change, that speaking only 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 only 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 dispatched 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 man's 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 sense, even that for which the Romanist had vouched them; for thus he found them [For, nothing is more clear, then that the validity of Baptism by heretics 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 only 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 only concernment, wholly transformed, that which before was joined with the spirituality of Angels, as not yet held matters of faith, but only Theological conclusions, being now annexed to the validity of Baptism by heretics, 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. White's 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 authentic 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 only 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 furnished 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 grossly 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. when this change was thought fit to be made, I did, and still want augury to divine; only 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 worcester-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 reflection on it, than what a Quo teneam vultus mutantem—? will amount to. But that is also unnecessary, my whole design being completed 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 sense or words, those, I mean, which I read in his book, from which 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 snatched 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 wits (enormous) power to transform Testimonies; which yet shall 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, than 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 called for, and moreover deliver S. VV. from some temptation, himself to think, or to persuade others, that he had sprang some real game to invite his chaces, 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 ways of examination and trial, than the bare authority or confidence of the suggesters.  
THE END.