None of South's compositions are more striking or characteristic than
his two English tracts against Sherlock, his _Animadversions on
Sherlock's Vindication of the Trinity_, 1693-94, 4to., {403} and his
_Tritheism charged on Sherlock's new Notion of the Trinity_, 1694, 4to.
For caustic wit and tremendous power of vituperation, I scarcely know
any controversial works which surpass, or even equal them. South looked
upon Sherlock with profound scorn as a Sciolist, and hated him most
cordially as a heretic and a political renegade. He accordingly gives
him no quarter, and seems determined to draw blood at every stroke. Mrs.
Sherlock is of course not forgotten, and one of the happiest passages in
the _Tritheism charged_ is the well-known humorous illustration of
Socrates and Xantippe, p. 129. It is somewhat curious that,
notwithstanding these two works of South have attracted so much notice,
it seems to be quite unknown that he also published a Latin tract
against Sherlock, in further continuation of the controversy, in which
the attack is carried on with equal severity. The title of the tract in
question is, _Decreti Oxoniensis Vindicatio in Tribus ad
Modestum ejusdem examinatorem modestioribus Epistolis a Theologo
Transmarino_. Excusa Anno Domini 1696, 4to., pp. 92. The tract, of which
I have a copy, is anonymous, but it is ascribed to South in the
following passages in _The Agreement of the Unitarians with the Catholic
Church_, part i. 1697, 4to., which is included in vol. v. of the 4to.
_Unitarian Tracts_, and evidently written by one who had full
information on the subject. His expressions (p. 62.) are--"Dr. South, in
his Latin Letters, under the name of a Transmarine Divine;" and a little
further on, "Dr. South, in two (English) books by him written, and in
three Latin letters, excepts against this (Sherlock's) explication of
the Trinity." In confirmation of this ascription, I may observe that the
Latin tract is contained in an extensive collection of the tracts in the
Trinitarian Controversy formed by Dr. John Wallis, which I possess, and
in which he has written the names of the authors of the various
anonymous pieces. He took, as is well known, a leading part in the
controversy, and published himself an anonymous pamphlet (not noticed by
his biographers), also in defence of Oxford decrees. On the title-page
of the Latin tract he has written "By Dr. South." I have likewise
another copy in a volume which belonged to Stephen Nye, one of the
ablest writers in the controversy, and who ascribes it in the list of
contents in the fly-leaf, in his handwriting, to Dr. South. These
grounds would appear to be sufficient to authorise our including this
tract in the list of South's works, though, from the internal evidence
of the tract itself alone, I should scarcely have felt justified in
ascribing it to him.