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 men's Labours, Judgements, 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 shows, 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 shows, 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 Sense. 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 jew, 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 Sense of his Adversary, that if he has any Blood 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, aught 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 farfetched 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 itself 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 balk the execution of it. His Veracity, Wisdom and Honour, as Supreme Governor of the World, not suffering him to let the Violation of his Laws pass without a due satisfaction made to his justice.. 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 unbiased 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 form 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 spite 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 Trial 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 joined 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 aught to be charged somewhere; and since his Adversary utterly disowns them all, both as to Words and Sense; and since the Doctrine itself, 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 Transylvanian Ministers) it follows, that according See a most Virulent and Blasphemous Book Wrote by these Men, and entitled, Praemonitiones Christi & Apostolorum de abolendo vero Christo per Antichristum. 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, aught 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, etc.] 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, etc. And much less very plain and easy: [Nay, so very plain as to have all the difficulties of it solved, as this Author has expressly affirmed]. So that if this be a Scandalous Imputation, it is easy to see to whom the Scandal of it must belong, etc. 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, etc. Page 291. over against Line 12. of the First Edition, the following Latin Quotation is added in the Margin of the Second. Qui personas in Deo modos tantúmmodo existendi, sive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 esse dicunt, ipsam Deitatem nequaquam exc●●dum, in quâ conveniunt; Sed nihil aliud esse volunt, quam 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 janssonium anno 1632. Page 342. after these words [joined 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 Judgement, 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 rendering 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 signify the Apostate Angels being cast down into Hell, how could they be said upon Sentence passed upon them at the last Judgement, to be then cast into Hell, if they were there before? To which the Answer is very easy 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 Judgement has passed upon them; so that with full accord both to Scripture and Reason we are to distinguish the place of Hell, where they now are, from the judicial penal Torments of Hell, which they shall be adjudged to, and endure in that place hereafter; as we distinguish the Prison wherein Malefactors are kept, from the execution which they are there kept for; As indeed this Text with great significance alludes to both: So that his Argument from hence falls to nothing. His other Reason is from the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which he affirms to signify only to cast down. But on the contrary, I must here tell him first, That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not only import the Act of casting down, but (being derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) signifies also the Term ad quem, or the Place, into which this casting down is. And I refer him to all the Greek Lexicographers (not one of them excepted) whether they do not render 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by in Tartarum detrudo, dejicio, or praecipito; and if so, how can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 possibly here agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; for if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be the Term ad quem of the Act, how can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be so too; since one single Act can have but one Ultimate Term ad quem? And even this Man himself does not allow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be one and the same thing. And besides this, I must tell him further, That if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imported the Term, Thing, or Place, into which God cast down the Apostate Angels, it ought not to have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, forasmuch as the motion of casting down, importing a Local descent to something, the Dative Case cannot in true Grammar answer it. And therefore the old Latin Version makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to import, not the Term to which, but the Instruments or means by which these Angels were thus brought down, rendering the Text thus, Rudentibus Inferni detractos in Tartarum tradidit, etc. which, as it is not strictly a Translation, but an arbitrary Paraphrase, so it is a very forced and unnatural one too; as importing not a casting but a drawing down these Angels into Hell. In which case, who must be the Person drawing them? For since God (to whom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does and must here agree) ought to be considered by us as in the Highest Heaven, how can this drawing down be applied to him, which, in the Nature of it, supposes the Person drawing to be in that lower place, to which he is drawing others? For all Traction is a motion of the Agent forcibly bringing something to himself, but Trusion a motion by which he removes or forces something from himself. It is clear therefore, that according to all the Rules of Grammatical Construction, and proper speaking, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that, therefore something else must be sought for to govern it, which can be nothing besides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And then the whole Sentence will be properly and plainly translated thus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [God] having cast or thrust them [viz. the Apostate Angels] down into Hell [or the Lower Regions] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, delivered, or put them into Chains of darkness, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, kept, or reserved to [or for] judgement. And this is sense and propriety of Speech, agreeable both to the Natural Signification, and the Grammatical Syntax of the Words. But the Translation so imperiously and ignorantly given by this Man (in correction of that of the Church) is agreeable to neither. For it both divides one part of the Sentence from the other, from which it must not be divided, and then makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be governed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which cannot govern it, and quite cuts it off from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which alone can. And now, ought it not to be matter of Amazement to all Men of Sense and Sobriety, to see a Puny, who is not able to master three words of Greek, presume to control such great Masters of that Language, as the Translators of the New Testament into English undoubtedly were? Nay, and thereby to reflect upon the Church herself, which has received and owned this Translation, and to whose Judgement and Authority (if he be so nearly related to her, as he pretends) he owes so great and filial a Deference? Let him rather instead of correcting the English Translation (a Work which he was never born for) thank God, and the Translators for it; there being few Men living more beholden to it than himself. And therefore leaving his forlorn Criticism (as new every whit as his Divinity) to shift for itself; I, for my part, like my English Bible, for his dislike of any part of it, better than before. For I can by no means see any force or consequence in this Argument, viz. That because this Author is much better at quoting a Greek Sentence than at construing it; therefore the English Translation of this Text in St. Peter is a very bad Translation: I say, I cannot admit, or yield to this Consequence.] Page 347. of the First Edition after this Sentence [In such a Case some are of Opinion, that where the words escape it, the Author himself ought to have it] the following Discourse comes in P. 351. Lin. 8. of the Second Edition beginning with these words. [But because some perhaps will hardly be satisfied with so General a Charge without an Allegation of more Particulars, I shall here give the Reader a Catalogue of this Author's Greek Errata in the Second Edition of his Vindication of the Trinity (which should in Reason be thought the most correct) together with their Correction confronting them. Greek Errata. Correction. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 102. Quotat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Punctum interrogationis post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro Semicol. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 107. Quotat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Punctum interrogationis post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro Semicol. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 107. l. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 110. Quotat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 113. Quotat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2d Quot. ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 115. Quotat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 116. Quotat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 119. Quotat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 119. l. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 120. l. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 121. l. 24, 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 122. l. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 123. Quotat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Punctum interrogationis post 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro Semicol. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 125. Quotat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pag. 128. l. 19 Quotat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 129. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 166. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 200. Now all these Errata, one would think, make up a jolly Company to rendezvous together in the compass of less than half a dozen Pages of an English Book; a Company fit for our Author to march Triumphantly in the Head of. Page 360. After [William Giles some time of Mark-Lane] in the First Edition in the Margin, is added in the Margin of the Second [who Wrote (forsooth) in defence of our Author against the Papists.] Page 374. Lines 12, 13, 14. That Passage [It is much fitter to be Censured by a Convocation, though even He Himself should be Prolocutor of it] is altered in Page 377. Line 9 thus— [[Though even He Himself (since John Goodwin and Hugh Peter are gone off) should be Prolocutor of it.] And now, upon the issue of the whole Matter, I hope all Ingenuous, and Impartial Readers, all True Friends of our English, Church and Old Divinity will allow, that I have treated an Insolent, Imposing Innovator, no otherwise than he has deserved; or rather indeed much short of it; and that None will Tax, or Censure me for what I have Wrote, but such as can think it reasonable for one Man to Trample upon, and Insult over his whole Profession, and to be Applauded, or at least endured in such a Presumption. For my own part, I can by no means judge so; and as I abhor such Pride in others; so, I hope, I shall never be guilty of the least degree of it myself. I thank God, I account not the meanest of my own Profession my Inferior; and if I should be tempted to think any one Below me, it should be only such an one as thinks himself Above all the World besides. FINIS.