Selected quad for the lemma: book_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A60952
|
A table of the additions and alterations made in the second edition of the Animadversions upon Dr. Sherlock's book of the Trinity
|
South, Robert, 1634-1716.
|
1693
(1693)
|
Wing S4743A; ESTC R200970
|
10,803
|
16
|
A TABLE of the Additions and Alterations made in the Second Edition of the Animadversions upon Dr. Sherlock's Book of the Trinity PReface Page 3. over against Line 22. this Passage is added in the Margin Dr. Owen in his Vindication of Himself against this Author gives him the Character of a Scoffer and a Censurer of other Mens Labours Judgments and Expressions Which Witness of his is True and since it is so Whether he of whom it is True deserves a Rebuke or no is left to the World to judge Owen ' s Vindic. against Sh. p. 129. Preface p. 5. line 4. This Passage in the first Edition which shews That Tender Consciences are such Things as may some time or other put the Church not only to part with its Liturgy Rites and Ceremonies but its very Faith also for their sake is thus altered in the Second Edition which shews That there are some such Tender Consciences in the World as when opportunity serves may put the Church not only to part with its Liturgy Rites and Ceremonies but its very Creed also for their sake Preface p. 12. l. 26. after the words paying the Scores of both this Discourse follows in the Second Edition But now if either He himself or any for him shall plead That it was not fairly done to charge him with those Blasphemies which he may and perhaps does pretend to have been uttered by Him in the Person of his Adversary and as the genuine Consequences of the Doctrine maintained by him To this I Answer First That he who pretends to speak in the Person of another ought according to all Justice and Decorum to speak only such Things as that other whom he personates uses to speak and consonant to his known Avowed Sence But did his Adversary Dr. Owen ever speak so Or use the Expressions here uttered by this Author Whereas he declares himself concerning the said Expressions thus viz. That he cannot mention them without begging Pardon for repeating such horrid and desperate Blasphemies Owen ' s Vindication against Sherlock p. 46. That they were fitter for a Iew or a Mahometan for Servetus or Socinus than a Son of this Church p. 47. That he abhorred the Rehearsal of such horrid Profaneness p. 49. That they were odious Satanical Exprobrations of the Truth of Christ's Satisfaction ibid. And now can this Man pretend to speak these Things in the Person of one who thus Abhors Abominates and Detests them The Truth is his whole Book is such a lewd Misrepresentation both of the Words and Sence of his Adversary that if he has any Bloud in his Body it must needs fly in his Face and bid him Blush for such Unconscionable Falsifications But Secondly If he charges these Assertions as Consequences of the Doctrine maintained by his Adversary I must put him in mind of these two Things 1. That to the just charging of any Man with the Consequences of his Doctrine or Opinion the Things so charged ought to be not only the Real but also the Plain Direct and Immediate Consequences of that Opinion Forasmuch as no Man ought in reason to be charged with the Remote far-fetched Consequences of any Proposition held by him since he may in all Equity if he disclaims them be supposed ignorant of them and that inculpably too 2. This Author is to know That to the just charging of even any Doctrine or Opinion with such and such Consequences though they follow never so really and truly from it yet if they also lie any thing remote and at some distance from the same they ought first by clear undeniable Arguments to be proved to follow from thence before they can justly and fairly be charged to do so Which two Observations thus premised that I may lay the whole Matter before the Reader more particularly he is to take Notice That the Doctrine which this Author loads with these Blasphemous Consequences is That of the Necessity of a Satisfaction to be paid to God's Justice in order to the Pardon of Sin and the Justification of Sinners And this I affirm to have been the received Doctrine of the Church and the General Opinion of Divines in the Case all asserting the Necessity of such a Satisfaction though not All I confess upon the same ground For First Some found this Necessity upon the Necessary Egress of God's Vindictive Justice naturally acting and exerting it self where it meets with a Proper Object But Secondly Others state this Necessity upon the Decree or Purpose of God resolving to take this course for the Pardon of Sin and no other Which Decree and Purpose though made freely yet being actually passed and declared it was not free for God to baulk the execution of it His Veracity Wisdom and Honour as Supreme Governour of the World not suffering him to let the Violation of his Laws pass without a due satisfaction made to his Iustice. And this has been the Opinion of most Divines in this matter Nevertheless whether upon either of these grounds or some other it is certain that the Necessity of a Satisfaction was still held and owned by the Church And yet upon supposal of this Necessity alone it is whatsoever ground it be stated upon that this Author sets God forth in a most Profane manner as an Impotent Man venting his Rage and Passion without any sufficient Ground or Reason for it For I am sure no other Consideration can Answer or come up to the Impiety of the forecited Expressions And I freely appeal to the Learned and Unbyassed Reader Whether the said Passages can be placed to any other Account whatsoever And if they cannot I ask with what Conscience could this Man of his own Head invent such Hideous Abominable Words and then thrust them into his Adversary's Mouth whether he would or no Or charge them as the necessary Consequences of his Doctrine without proving or by any formed Argument so much as offering to prove them so For surely he ought to have done this in the first place and since he knew that the Learned Assertors of this Doctrine did and would deny these to be the Consequences of it to the very Death he should by clear and solid Ratiocination have proved against them in spight of their Denial that these were indeed the True and Natural Consequences of the said Doctrine before he reproached them as such But it seems he was for doing execution first and for proceeding to Tryal afterwards though as hasty as he was in the former he has not yet done the latter nor I believe ever will Upon the whole Matter it is manifest That it was not so much any thing Personal in Dr. Owen how bitter soever he was against him as the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction asserted by the said Doctor in common with the whole Christian Church which this Author so vilely reflected upon and discharged all those Blasphemous Scoffs at in that Book of his and consequently so far as he was the Author both
of the Book and the Scoffs in it he was as fit a Person to have joyned in the Address to the Morocco Ambassador as any Man in England besides I do I confess charge this Author with Asserting Three Gods though He does not in Terminis express it because of his Asserting Three distinct Infinite Minds or Spirits but then the Case here on my part is quite different from what it was on his For in this the Consequence of Three Gods from Three distinct Infinite Spirits is Direct Manifest and Immediate or rather in Truth is not so properly a Consequence or one Assertion following from another as one and the very same thing expressed in other words which is the true account of this Matter For the Words Infinite Mind or Spirit are but a Periphrasis of the Thing signified by the Term God And their perfect equivalence shall be fully demonstrated in my Fifth Chapter From all which I conclude That since there are beyond all pretence of denial several Horrid Blasphemous Expressions in this Author ' s forementioned Book which must and ought to be charged somewhere and since his Adversary utterly disowns them all both as to Words and Sence and since the Doctrine it self maintained by him infers no such Thing nor has this Author proved that it does so but that the said Representations of it are peculiarly his own and occur no where but in his Book except possibly in the Writings of some of his old Friends the Socinians and those such as the Transilvanian Ministers it follows that according to the strictest Laws of fair and just Quotation all the black Dirt of those Impious and foul Passages which I have Cited from him and charged upon him ought to lie wholly at his Door and let him and his Porter shovel it away thence as they are able As to what concerns the Licensing this Book so severely and so justly reflected upon by Dr. Owen it did it must be confessed meet with a Person as it were framed for the very purpose c. In the Book p. 24. between l. 12. and 27. of the First Edition this Addition and Alteration is made in the Second I must here remind him of Two Things First That he would be pleased to tell us how Men can Write plainer and plainer of the Trinity every Day after his New Notion of it has solved all the Difficulties about it as in the forecited p. 85. l. 27. he positively tells us it does For as I take it where there remains no Difficulty there must be the utmost degree of plainness and withal when Men are come to the utmost of any Thing they can then go no further Secondly I must remind him also That the word Plainer in the Comparative Degree does not couch under it the positive signification of Plain c. And much less very plain and easie Nay so very plain as to have all the difficulties of it solved as this Author has expresly affirmed So that if this be a Scandalous Imputation it is easie to see to whom the Scandal of it must belong c. P. 27. l. 25. after the word Contradicted this Parenthesis is inserted in the Second Edition as nothing ought to be which cannot be comprehended P. 74. l. 30. after the word whatsoever three Lines from the bottom in the First Edition this following Parenthesis is inserted in the Second For an Hypostatick Union and an Hypostatick Composition viz. Such an one as makes a Compound Hypostasis are quite different things And this Author shall in due time be taught so much if he has any thing to object against it Or c. Page 291. over against Line 12. of the First Edition the following Latine Quotation is added in the Margin of the Second Qui personas in Deo modos tantúmmodo existendi sive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse dicunt ipsam Deitatem nequaquam excâ—â—dum in quâ conveniunt Sed nihil aliud esse volunt quà m Existendi modum in quo differunt Quáre Pater non est modus tantùm existendi sed Deus est quemadmodum caeter ae Personae verùm Deus est cum certo modo existendi qui neque Filio convenit neque Spiritui Sancto Sic Filius Deus est non modus tantùm existendi Sed Deus est cum certo modo Existendi qualis neque Patri convenit neque Spiritui Sancto Ad eundem modum discriminis Spiritus Sanctus Deus est non modus existendi tantùm Sed deus est cum certo modo existendi qualis nec Patri convenit neque Filio Summa est Personas in Deo non differre essentiâ quia sunt unus Deus sed Proprietate modo Subsistendi Twissus in Responsione ad Arminii Praefationem in extremâ Pag. Lin. 20. editionis Amstelodamensis apud Ianssonium anno 1632. Page 342. after these words joyned true Greek and English together in the 4th Line this following Discourse is to be inserted But there is an extraordinary Passage in his Book of Judgment Chap. 2. Sect. 1. p. 164. of the last Edition which should be the most correct and I was doubting whether I should charge it upon his Ignorance or his Insolence but both of them play their Parts very remarkably in it For first he makes a most false illiterate and absurd Translation of a Verse or rather part of a Verse in the New Testament and then reproaches the received Translation as wrong and very faulty for rendring it otherwise The place is in 2 Pet. c. 2. v. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In which he considers only the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dividing them from the rest of the Sentence viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by that means from the Verb in this latter part of it which should govern the Noun in the former thereby making 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be governed not by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it ought to be but most falsely and Ungrammatically by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so he renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 casting them viz. the Apostate Angels down into Chains of darkness And this interpretation he builds partly upon the pretended Reason of the Thing here discoursed of and partly upon the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but upon both of them very absurdly From the Reason of the Thing he argues that if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should signifie the Apostate Angels being cast down into Hell how could they be said upon Sentence passed upon them at the last Judgment to be then cast into Hell if they were there before To which the Answer is very easie and obvious That immediately upon their sin they were cast down into and kept in those lower Regions called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Hell locally but not cast into Hell-Torments till the last Judgment has passed upon them so that with full accord both to Scripture and Reason we are to distinguish the place