he had written what was thus chargeable and so had not been reproveable if they had been all out of the Institutions those being as acknowledgedly his as the Commentaries and both much more then the Annotations on the Epistles are Grotius's and 3. if he stand by learned men acquitted of the charge then as I said that may make the parallel more exact betwixt him and Grotius though I undertake not that every learned man hath been thus just to acquit him 60. But then fourthly for Calvino-Turcismus by me mentioned in a parenthesis he tels me I have forgotten the design of it and that Calvin is no more concerned in it than others of the first Reformers nor is it from any doctrine about the Deity of Christ in particular but from the whole of the Reformed Religion with the Apostacies of some that they compare it with Turcisme adding that something indeed in a chapter or two they speak about the Trinity from some expressions of Luther Melanchthon Calvin and others 61. To all this I answer 1. that 't is visible I speak not of Mr Calvin alone but of the learnedst and most valued of the Reformers and of Mr Calvin onely as one of them 2. That although the forgetting the design of Reynolds and Giffords Book would be far from a crime in me had I been guilty of it the subject matter of it is not so much worth remembring much lesse any indication that Grotius were insufficiontly vindicated yet when the Reviewer confesses that in a chapter or two it speaks about the Trinity from some expressions of Luther Melanchthon and Calvin and others this clearly evidences that these Reformers were there thus accused in the matter of the Trinity as now it seems Grotius is And 3. if Hunnius's Calvinus Judaizans which is home to the business be answered by Pareus and an account of the calumny given by him this still renders the parallel more complete An account of the calumny and the first author and grounds of it against Grotius being happily rendred by himself also in the Discussio p. 17. 62. The Reviewer concludes this matter with a signification of his constant adhering to his proposition formerly asserted with one limitation expressed of his own observation But I that first gave the occasion of the debate in my Digression concerning Grotius did never propose it with reference to that limitation not being able to foresee how much this Reviewer had read or observed of Grotius's writings nor can I yet pass judgment whether what hath now been offered to him by another will be yielded to come within the compass of that limitation or no And so I must be content to leave it at this time 63. On the second sort of suggestion the Reviewer hath chosen to be brief and hath well prepared for it by expressing dislike and aversation to any such undertaking that seemed incumbent on him viz. to prove that Grotius was a Papist But to this I reply as before that this task is sure incumbent on him if as he said his defensative be suited to what I pleaded in his behalf For 't is certain that in the Digression I had so proposed the debate and undertaken to vindicate him from this suggestion viz. that he was a Papist 64. That he closed with the Roman interest he is now willing to infer from his observation on Rev. 12. 5. To that therefore I have turned and there find no other premisses toward this conclusion than onely these 1. that Dispersi ex Judaeis instrumenta Ecclesiae Catholicae multos de populo Romano Christo genuere that those that were dispersed from Judaea begat to Christ many of the people of Rome and that these are there called partus masculinus the man-childe or masculine birth in respect of the great constancy which appeared in the Church of Rome of those times then 2. that the Church of Rome hath this above other Churches that no Church subjected more people to the word of God so that her victories by the weapons of Christ were not inferior to the Martial successes of Old Rome 3. that the regiment of other Churches after the Apostles death belonged to that Now this being clearly applied by him to the infancy or first ages of the Church that which is first said of the constancy is indeed much for the honour of the Primitive Roman Church but no way for the interest of the present which having much departed from the Primitive cannot in any reason partake of those elogies which he there bestows on that masculine birth at the first appearing of it in the world So likewise 2. of the ancient Roman Church it is that he saith it converted so many to the faith which is a truth known and acknowledged in History but is not at this day assumed witness S. W. to be the foundation on which their Supremacy is built 3. that after the Apostles death Rome being a chief Metropolis and as the Imperial See the most eminent of all others had the dominion aliarum of other it is not omnium of all Churches is not denied by any either ancient or modern that I know of All the suburbicarian Region and the Churches in that were under the Primate of Rome and that Primate was within a while lookt on as the Patriarch of the West and the First Patriarch And the words of Grotius are not by any circumstance of the place inclined to any other sense The aliae Ecclesiae other Churches being in no reason interpretable any farther than those which Rome had converted to the faith nor necessarily to all them but to the oppida minora and Provinciae the lesser Cities and Provinces unto which as he interprets the woman is said to flie and so Christianity to be propagated when Simon Magus by the favour of the Emperour had opposed and much oppressed it at Rome and drave the profession out of it by which means those aliae Ecclesiae were planted And it may be worthy to be observed that when the text before him was general for {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} all the nations he is not thereby moved to interpret it in that latitude of all simply but in a more restrained sence wherein all in Scripture-style oft signifies but a great many onely by the nulla plures and aliarum others and none more then that 65. Here before he concludes he is pleased to look back on a passage which he had used that if men be drunkards proud boasters c. hypocrites haters of good men persecutors and revilers of them yea and if they be not regenerate and born of God united to the head Christ Jesus by the same spirit that is in him they shall never see God for which he now saith he fears not what conclusion can regularly in reference to any person living or dead be deduced To this I reply by acknowledging the certain truth of the general Aphorisme and onely remembring him that
there were somewhat herein really mistaken by me which called for this so solemn rebuke But the Reader is intreated to consult the place or if it be not worth his pains he may believe me who made the inspection more then slightly and can assure him that there is no part of what he thus now recites to be met with in that Preface whence he hath formerly drawn his testimony I say in that Preface to the last part of the Annotations under Gretius's name from whence it was that the words Jam viro sciendum were truly cited and to which Words it was visible that I gave that answer which he now pretends to refute from the intention and words of the Prefacer 9. The short is There being two volumes of Annotations set out since Grotius's death the former on the Acts and so on through the Epistles of Saint Paul and Saint James the later on the other six Catholick Epistles and the Revelation and before the former of these the Printers Epistle inscribed Typographus Lectori before the latter a Praemonitio ad Lectorem From the latter of these it is that the words formerly by him produced Jam verò scieudum and to which consequently I gave answer were cited And I that obediently and diligently read over that to which I was directed and there finding the words which were cited gave my answer to them such as I thought the words capable of am now unexpectedly rebuked for not reading it and more then so for despising those with whom I had to do when indeed what is now in the Reply cited from it is not to be found there but in the Printers Epistle to another volume By what means he fell into this mistake and was by that led into this causeless severity I leave him upon recollection to consider 10. I need add no more for the vindicating my self in this matter yet if I shall now having till now no occasion attend to this other testimony now newly alledged by him out of that other Preface it will soon appear that it neither as is pretended disproves the answer which I gave to the words formerly cited from the premonition nor refutes what I had first said concerning the Posthumous Annotations and then surely I shall not be much concern'd in it Not the first for my Answer being no more but this that Opus Integrum signified not that volume completed and so made integrum intire by Grotius's own hand but the whole volume or volumes which contained all his {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Adversaria on the New Testament This is no way refuted but rather confirmed by these other words of the Typographus Lectori for there also Opus integrum signifies the whole volume or volumes as that is opposed to the Magna pars voluminis in the line before without any respect to its being completed or made intire Which alone having been denied by me my answer is still secured from any force of this Testimony 11. Not the second For if I shall now grant the Printer to have in that Preface delivered the whole and naked truth which I had no obligation to be confident of and consequently that Grotius committed to a Friend those Annotations in order to Printing yet this no way proves that they were completed and perfected by him There is a middle truly supposable betwixt these two viz. that they were by occcasion of the Authors unexpected diversions delivered to him imperfect This Remainder of Annotations now by the Reader expected to follow those on the Gospels and on the Old Testament and the learned Compiler being now at some leisure to set about it was suddenly called back from Paris to Sweden a long voyage not certain whether ever he should return again as indeed he did not or whether God would spare him life and vacancy to perfect that work Having therefore communicated his notes to a learned man one by the way much more addicted to the doctrine of Calvin then Socinus going now thence he left them in his hand and committed the publishing of them to his care taking onely with him those sheets which were not legible which he hastily transcribed in his journey and as the Printer tells us returned them from Hamburge and these as by his words appears belonging to the last volume that on the Revelation which therefore had truly thus much of his last hand as this hasty transcribing comes to so hasty that M. who was prepared to write them again for the presse did almost despair of decyphering them The rest those on the Epistles remained in the first rude draught and are not pretended to have been so much as hastily transcribed by him and so never obtained that perfecter growth that fulness of limbs and lineaments which I did and do suppose his {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and greater leisure would have afforded them Which therefore cannot with any justice be balanced against the contrary evidences and plain words either of his Discussio the last thing as I said written before his death or of his later dated after his reading of Crellius's and the Socinians interpretations to which his supposed change is imputed and avowing his continued adherence to his former doctrine much less of the several passages producible out of his undoubted writings maturely composed and publisht by him which positively and professedly set down his sense and cannot be prejudiced by such uncertain feeble suggestions as these drawn from his supposed misunderstanding of some few pages in the Epistles And let this serve for a second stage in my proposed method 12. Thirdly That adhering to my former method and upon the grounds premised abstracting from or setting aside as 't is visible I have done from the first rise of this debate these posthumous Annotations upon account of some heterodox mixtures in them discernible especially in the matter of our justification and the satisfaction of Christ and some other particulars elsewhere noted and confining our discourse more reasonably to those Annotations which he perfected and published in his life time i. e. to those on the Gospels and on the Old Testament taking in also all his other writings whatsoever There cannot be any ground of suspicion concerning his change nor want of instances which the Reviewer now requires to disprove his Vniversal Negative and to invalidate the charge brought against that learned man of his wresting to another sense every text of Scripture wherein testimony is given to that sacred truth or at least concealing and obscuring the doctrine of them 13. I shall therefore being now admonished of Quintilians rule of aut negandum aut defendendum do my duty in observing it and formally deny his position of every text c. and for contrary instances begin with Matth. 20. 28. where the son of man is said to give his life a {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or ransome for many Here saith Grotius Puto respici
to the washing of the soule Which words are certainly of competent largenesse to contain and so exclude not the doctrine of satisfaction that being of the number of those things which in Gods counsel were appointed and so required to the washing of our souls This being considered it will be no prejudice to that learned man that in the former words he took in Socinus's interpretation of morte suâ certos nos reddidit veritatis eorum quae docuerat quae talia sunt ut nihil sit aptius ad purgandos à vitiis animos For of that there is no question but that Christ by his death did give us assurance of the truth of his doctrine and that this assurance is very apt to purge us from our evil and vitious courses In respect of which purgation Saint Paul himself saith Tit. 2. 4. that Christ gave himself that is surely even to dye for us that he might redeem us from all in quity the power as well as guilt of it and purifie unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good works And Gal. 1. 4. he gave himself for our sins and thereby I suppose made a satisfaction for us that he might deliver us from this present evil world from the vices and abominations thereof And Eph. 5. 25. Christ gave himself for the Church that he might sanctifie and cleanse it that he might present it unto himself a glorious Church not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing From whence I conclude that the Socinians errour consists not herein that they affirm this but that they say this is all that Christ did by his death and so exclude his satisfaction which can by no means be affirmed of Grotius who as he wrote a Book in defence of it so in this very place ascribes to Christ the performing omnia all things indefinitely which were required to the washing of our souls from which number his expiatory sacrifice was never excluded by Grotius 28. And then it may be fit to be remembred that as the denying the satisfaction of Christ is one great errour justly charged on the Socinians so the confining the effects of the death of Christ to that one head of satisfaction is an errour also very carefully to be averted by him that desires to reap benefit by Christs death 29. After his view of this place he is pleased to prevent the Readers farther trouble to refer him to Grotius's Annotation on one place more of the Revelation chap. 13. 9. and I have observed his directions and can assure him there is not there one word to this matter Onely that Arethas rightly applies the phrase from the foundation of the world to the word book not to the word slain evincing it from the parallel place chap. 17. 8. where so it is joyned Whose names are written in the book of life from the foundation of the world the book of life in one place and the book of life of the lamb slain or the slain lambs book of life in the other being perfectly aequipollent 30. The remainder of the Catalogue of Texts that is added is all again out of the Epistles and so hath already more then once been accounted for by denying the Annotations on them to have been perfected by Grotius And this is all that need to be considered in reference to the first branch of the suggestion that concerning the doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ 31. On the second Socinian head of doctrine that concerning the Deity of Christ whereon the Disputer had affirmed that of all the texts of the Old and New Testament whereby the Deity of Christ is usually confirmed Grotius hath not left any more then one if one speaking any thing clearly to this purpose I thought I had given some matter of conviction by referring to that learned man's Annotations on John 1. when both that one signal text is left by him speaking clearly to this purpose and many other places of Scripture are mentioned and interpreted and applied to the same sense as parallel and answerable to that To this he replies that this of John 1. was the one place by him expresly excepted and therefore this instance would not evade the charge And for the other places Prov. 8 c. he is pleased to suppose that on the view of my defence men must needs suppose that in the Annotations on the places repeted Grotius must give their sense as bearing witness to the Deity of Christ Hereupon he will turn to the several places and give the Reader an account of them 32. But before he proceed to that and to save the pains of many of them it may be soon considered that what Grotius doth in the Notes on John 1. is as truly his act as any thing that is done by him in any other place much more so than what is publisht under his name in the Annotations on the Epistles and consequently that as many places as he hath there affirmed to be parallel to John 1. 1. so many places he hath left speaking clearly to this purpose Grotius had not at that time publisht any other Notes on any part of the Bible but those onely on the Gospels On the rest of the New Testament he never lived to publish any yet here on John 1. hath affirmed the words of Saint Paul Col. 1. 16. all things were created by Christ to be agreeable to the words of Saint John that without him was nothing made that was made Is it not now as visible that he hath left that place of Col. 1. 16. speaking clearly to the Deity and creative power of Christ by which all things were at first made as if he had lived to set out Annotations purposely on that place and had therein so interpreted it This certainly is so clear that I cannot yet doubt what ever the Reviewers sarcasme would suggest of being a successful advocate in this matter 33. The same is again as clear of 2 Pet. 3. 5. and of the two places brought by him in concent with it from the Chaldee Paraphrast on Isai. 45. 12. 48. 13. to testifie that by this {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} i. e. by the word of the Lord Christ the whole world was founded which again though he never should mention them again in all his writings are yet solemnly left by him to testifie clearly to the Deity of Christ And so more than that one of John 1. 34. But the place more largely recited by Grotius to this purpose is that of Prov. 8. from verse 23. A seculo habui principatum I was set up from everlasting to verse 27. when he prepared the heavens I was there And this the Reviewer thinks fit to examine by repairing to his Annotations on the Old Testament and there 1. he finds his first note on the Wisdome there spoken of to be Haec de eâ sapientiâ quae in lege apparet exponunt Hebraei sane ei si non soli at
praecipuè haec attributa conveniunt and this he thinks a very advantageous discovery for if they agree solely or principally to the wisdome that shines in the Law how can they be the attributes of the person of the Son of God 35. But I answer that note of his is on the first verse of that chapter far enough from verse 23. where the citation in his Note on John 1. begins And why might not many parts of the character of wisdome be by the Jews duly applied to the Law as will appear if you read the former part of the chapter for above twenty verses together and yet the latter and sublimer part of its character be competible onely to Christ the eternal wisdome of the Father And why should not Grotius's haec on verse 1. rather belong to those former 20 verses than to the 23 c. which he there as in the Notes on the Gospels expresly interprets so as that verse 27. and 30. be all one with John 1. 1. and so Prov. 9. 1. Wisdome built her an house i. e. saith he corpus humanum a mans body which is not applicable to any thing but Christ in his incarnation And so I hope this artifice hath stood the Reviewer in little stead 36. But then saith he On verse 22. Grotius affirmes of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that it is rendred not amiss by the Chaldee {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and by the Septuagint {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} though he knew that sense was pleaded by the Arrians and expleded by the ancient Doctors of the Church 37. To this I answer That Grotius's words sensu non malo si creare sumas pro facere ut appareat signifie not that that rendring is not amisse for he had formerly exprest his opinion of that that Aquila and Symmachus and Theodesian their rendring it by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} was well agreeing or answerable to the Hebrew {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} but that the other which was not the right rendring might yet bear a tolerable or not ill sense if it were interpreted to signifie no more than that which he there names viz. making to appear a sense which the Fathers never exploded nor was fit to be pretended by the Arrians or favoured by any in kindness to them 38. This therefore was but a weak foundation of that confidence with which the Reviewer concludes that of the Son of God the essential wisdome of God subsisting with the Father we have not one word especially when he had himself confest that on verse 27. he addes aderam i. e. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} John 1. 1. for certainly if those words of wisdome when he prepared the heavens I was there and the same again verse 30. to which also he refers the Reader though the Reviewer pleased not to see it When he appointed the foundations of the earth then was I by him be all one with the word was with God John 1. 1. there is then some word of the Son of God the essential wisdome in those Notes and perfectly as much as is proportionable to the manner of those very short Annotations on the Old Testament 39. To which may be added that by interpreting the phrase his wayes verse 22. by operationes Dei the operations of God the sense of that verse which the Reviswer thinks perverted or obscured must in his rendring run thus In the beginning of his operations God possessed this eternal wisdome the Son of God which will be still to the same sense And then the Note on chap. 9. 1. sets down the incarnation of this eternal word or wisdome And what could have been more punctual against the Socinian interest than all this being thus briefly amassed together if the Reviewer would have but the patience to discern it 40. What he adds by way of wonderment that I should add the places of Isa. 45. 12. and 48. 13. to the number of texts interpreted by Grotius to this matter of the Deity is soon satisfied by remembring what was visible enough before that the Chaldee Paraphrast in those and many other places rendring the word God by God and his word is fitly brought by Grotius as a witness that the world was created by the word of God as that is God and that that is the sense of those places Which if it be then are those texts of Scripture left by Grotius to testifie to this truth of the Deity of the word of God i. e. of Christ 41. Now for the principal place that of John 1. 1. the Reviewer hath exprest his dislikes also to that and mention'd some grounds thereof 1. that Grotius is very careful of ascribing an {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} But if by this phrase he would signifie him unwilling to ascribe an hypostasis to the word this is misrepresented by him for 't is evident Grotius expresses no dislike to that style all that he saith that way is vecem {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} non à primis Christianis usurpatam cùm contra {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} dixerit Athanasius Synodi Nicaena Sardicensis Romanae aliquot that that word and some others was not used by the first Christians that Athanasius and the Nicene Sardicene and some Roman Councels affirmed that there was one hypostasis And all these I hope are so contrary to the Arrian that if Grotius should chuse to speak with them he could with no justice be accused of that heresie or obscuring the Deity of Christ by so speaking 42. And yet it is farther clear that from Origen others after him he cites the distinction of hypostases and what could he have done more to obtain the Reviewers favour then to cite it from them that used and not pretend it from them that used it not 43. That he hath interweaved many Platonick interpretations of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is also in the second place suggested and at once that he hath darkened the whole counsel of God in that place But I hope there is no heresie in letting the Christian Reader know how much Platonists and hethen Philosophers have by groping discoverd of divine truths and to me it is not imaginable that when the Christian doctrine is once declared such additions as these should by being subjoyned ex abundanti obscure what was once made clear and so darken the whole counsel of God 44. Thirdly It may not be amisse saith he to observe that not onely the Arians but Photinus himself acknowledged that the world was made {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} And to this I answer that what is wide of the mark to which it is directed no way sufficient to infer the desired conclusion is in the managing of a controversie amiss to be observed And such will this observation appear to be For the matter of the question
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 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 onely this that the poyson of the heretical or Apostatical or Atheistical Gnosticks in express words the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the sect of the Gnosticks falsly so called and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 'T is 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 onely 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. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifies a seditious assembling or military preparation of confederates or conspirators and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} knowledg or science falsly so called This therefore must be the meaning of the Apostles words {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} oppositions or contradictings Hegesippus expresses by {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} opposite or contrary preaching and these phrases are both farther cleared by a passage in the ancient author {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} c. 6. which tels us of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the contradictory discourses of the dotage or folly or madness of Simon by contradictory discourses certainly meaning the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 anywhere contradicted my self or what I affirme in this answer of mine nor if I may be allowed the confidence to