be enough to satisfy any conscientious man in rejecting it, in its present circumstances.

To conclude all in a few words: one thing we may require and demand in the present case; that before we venture to dethrone our God and Saviour, by bringing him down to the rank of creatures; before we presume to abridge him of those honours, and that worship, which he has held in the Christian Church by a prescription of fifteen, sixteen, or seventeen hundred years; before we run upon what has hitherto been accounted blasphemy, horrid blasphemy, by the wisest, the greatest, and most eminent lights of the Christian Church, in former and in latter ages; before we disclaim our solemn vows in baptism, where we dedicated ourselves to the service and worship of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one God blessed for ever; before we go these lengths, let us, at least, have things fairly and impartially examined, in sincerity and singleness of heart; disguising nothing, nor smothering any evidences, but comparing things with things, Scripture with Scripture, reason with reason, and then balancing the whole account: let us know, in some measure, what we do, that we run not blindfold into our own certain damnation. In the mean while, it behoves us to retain steadfastly, what we have hitherto piously believed and professed, in the integrity of our hearts and minds. And may the sacred Three, to whom we once have so solemnly devoted all our services, accept of our sincere endeavours to preserve and keep up that divine honour, which has been hitherto (and we doubt not, justly) paid to each of them. To the same most holy, undivided Trinity, God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, be all honour and glory, adoration and worship, in all churches of the saints, now and for evermore. Amen.

AN

ANSWER

ΤΟ

DR. WHITBY'S REPLY:

BEING A

VINDICATION

OF THE

CHARGE OF FALLACIES, MISQUOTATIONS, MISCONSTRUCTIONS, MISREPRESENTATIONS,

&c.

Respecting his Book entitled

DISQUISITIONES MODESTÆ.

IN A LETTER TO DR. WHITBY.

I

SIR,

HAVE read over your Reply, lately published. I perceive

you are much disturbed at the freedom I took with you, in that part of my Defence which concerned you: and though you have, for several years last past, been acting the part of a censor, and a severe one too, (if we consider the intention rather than the effect,) upon many great, good, and learned men, ancient and modern; yet when it comes to be your own case to be animadverted upon, (however justly, and upon a necessary occasion,) you are not able to bear it with due temper of mind. I am very unwilling to give you any further disturbance: and, indeed, were your Reply to be read only by men of letters, I should not have a thought of returning any answer to it. But since the controversy, about the ever blessed Trinity, is now spread among all kinds of readers, I have judged it necessary, in so momentous a cause, to take some notice of what you have done, for the sake of some well-meaning men who might otherwise happen to be imposed upon by it.

You divide your work into two parts, defensive and offensive : the first, to take off (so far as you are able) what I had charged you with; the second, to retort the charge, and to raise objections from antiquity, chiefly against the Catholic cause, which I have the honour to espouse.

My Answer, accordingly, if it shall be thought needful to carry it through, must consist of two parts: one to shew that you have not been able to take off what I had charged you with; the other to make it appear that your objections against us are slight and trivial, not capable of doing our cause harm.

PART THE FIRST.

Which is to shew that you have not been able to take off what I had charged upon you.

The Charge was contained under two heads:

1. General fallacies, running through your whole book, entitled Disquisitiones Modesta.

2. Particular defects, viz. misquotations, misconstructions, misrepresentations, &c.

I do not add the epithets of gross, egregious, or the like, as you are pleased to do, (Reply, p. 100.) because, if I can prove the facts, the reader may be left to judge how gross or how egregious any misconstructions, misrepresentations, &c. are: and because those and the like epithets or decorations, are then only useful, when a writer lies under the unhappy necessity of endeavouring to make up in words what he wants of proof. But to come directly to the matter in hand, I must begin with the charge of general fallacies, which were three, and which I shall take in their order.

1. The first general fallacy charged upon youa, was, your making essence and person to signify the same. One individual or numerical essence you every where interpret to a Sabellian sense; understanding by it one individual Hypostasis or real Person. In your Reply, you admit (p. 5.) that the same numerical intellectual essence is, with you, equivalent to same person : so that the fact charged upon you stands good, by your own confession.

Now then, let us see whether you have dealt fairly and justly with Bishop Bull. I observed what influence this one principle, or postulatum, of yours must have upon the state of the general question; and indeed upon your whole thread of reasoning quite through your book. For, if it appears that you have set out upon a false ground, you must of course blunder all the way, running into a perpetual ignoratio elenchi, (as the Schools call it,) that is, disputing besides the question: which, under pretence and show of confuting Bishop Bull, is really nothing else but confuting an imagination of your own. The question with Bishop Bull was, whether the Ante-Nicene Fathers believed the Son to

a See my Defence, vol. i. p. 507.