and what none would contend for but he that either knows not what he asks or has a mind to overthrow the true Faith The next thing as near as I can guess that he endeavours to shew from Fathers Schoolmen and Protestant Divines is That the word Person is equivocal and uncertain in its signification I hope then his Clients may like it the better as being able to make use of it in a sense agreeable to their own Doctrines But after all this Vncertainty of the word Person about which he has shown so much Learning as far as I can find there is so much of its Signification agreed to on all hands that the Antitrinitarians are unwilling to use it as evidently including something that will not go down with them and I fear that this is the true reason of our Author's Quarrel against it But now our Author has shown himself such a Master of Books he can't forbear stepping a little out of the way again to show himself as great a Master of Reason and therefore falls foul upon the Dean for contradicting himself for making Three Minds and One Mind and making the Persons Distinct and not Separate which is to him an unavoidable Contradiction And who can help it if it be What the Dean maintains is not so to every body's apprehension especially if it be considered in his own words without our Author's Comment on them for it may be understood how Three Minds are One tho it be something difficult to apprehend that they are three sames and not three sames And I can no more understand our Author's arguing That if they are Distinct they are Separate also than he can the Dean's when he says they are Distinct and yet not Separate which I believe will not sound like an Absurdity to any but a Socinian Vnderstanding But if the Dean has been mistaken and has fallen short in his Arguing and has also set up an Hypothesis full of Contradictions which yet there are a great many Wiser men than our Author do not believe what would all this be to the Design of our Author's Book If Dr. Sherlock does not argue well must no body therefore write that can argue better If his Hypothesis be unreasonable is it therefore unreasonable to write in Defence of the Doctrine of the Trinity Or is the Doctrine it self unreasonable Some men we know think so and this may be several strokes in his Book be suspected to be the Opinion of our Author However he is so great a Lover of Peace why then does he quarrel so much with the Orthodox Writers and the Church of England that he is willing to admit the old way of speaking and the Ancient Notion of a Divine Person as being more consistent and less obnoxious Which if it had been kept to he had fâ—rborn his Suit 'T is the New Notion then that he quarrels at but why then must all men be desired not to write in Defence of the Doctrine of the Trinity even tho they do hold to the old Notion But hâ—re that is in the Ancient Notion of a Person or rather in that Word since it has been a long time in use without ever defending or explaining the thing he would have our Divines stop for Peace sake And I believe they will gratify him so far as not to enter into any farther Disputes about it if he will secure that the Socinians shall not oppose this but subscribe to it and not write against it Now he would persuade us and so it may be he might if we had never seen his Melancholy â—uit or did not understand English That all he desired was that men would stop at the Ancient Notion c. when 't is plain to any English understanding that he desired a great deal more viz. That no body would write at all in Defence of the Ancient Faith or Ancient Notion â—f a Person though our Adversaries do daily affront and ridicule the Doctrine of the Church and the Ancient Notion too For I only desire to know Whether the ridiculing the Athanasian Creed which was the occasion of Dr. Sherlock's Vindication be not ridiculing the Ancient Notion This being all his harmless Design he is very angry at the Imputation of Disguised Heretick c. What he is I determine not but I am sure he writes just as if he were such an one and since he has not set his Name I can't apprehend it any ways uncharitable to suspect so much of an unknown Author of whom we have nothing else to judge by but his Book which I am sure will never prove that he is any thing better and does well deserve to have a Brand set upon it that unwary Readers may not be deceived by it And this I believe whatever he doth very few Orthodox Hearty Asserters of the Catholick Faith will think a Calumny Now for the Dean's New Hypothesis again who did not keep within bounds and stop where he ought to have done but must needs be rambling and therefore he must have a lash or two for that And for the Reader 's great Edification our kind Author will give an account how far he had read of the Dean's Book when he writ which and several other as weighty Accounts of himself and his private Concerns I leave to the Reader that has Curiosity enough to peruse them But the Dean holds that which necessarily infers Three Gods and in his Apology goes beyond himself as in his Vindication he went plainly beyond and contrary to the Doctrine of the Fathers Schools and Protestant Divines Pray what 's the matter now Why he calls the Son a God Incarnate and the Holy Ghost a God and therefore infallibly by vertue of this little Particle a there must be Three Gods all the world can't help it For tho he expresly says These Three are but One God and proves it too yet as long as he says the Son is a God Incarnate there is nothing can vindicate him from the Imputation of Tritheism and therefore he must according to his Promise thankfully correct this Absurdity now it is so plainly shown him But does a God Incarnate signify any more but that he who is Incarnate is God Which if we were always to deal with such Criticks is a much safer way of speaking than to say he is God Incarnate for among those who own a Trinity of Divine Persons in the Godhead a God Incarnate can signify no more than that One of the Divine Persons who is really and truly God is Incarnate but to say God Incarnaâ—e might be abused by such perverse Criticks to signify That the whole Trinity which is the One God is Incarnate The next Complaint of our Author is That the Dean charges him with desiring that no body would write agaâ—nst the Socinians And pray is not that the design of his Melancholy Suit To most mens apprehensions I dare say it is nor do I find that he himself makes any exception
against the Truth of the Charge he does not say it was not his design tho it is very iniquitous in the Dean to charge him with it because whatever his Intent was he has given us two admirable Reasons why it cannot be concluded from his Book The first is That others as well as Socinians are Heterodox in this Point But the Dean and Dr. Wallis writ only against Socinians and he owns his Suit was chiefly to them and no body else is particularly named in his Suit and therefore the Dean guessed pretty right and had some reason for his guess 2dly These are not the only Points in which they are Heterodox and therefore the Doctor had liberty to write against them in other Points But still was not he and every body else desired to forbear them in these their principal Errors And did the Dean charge him with any thing more For in this present Controversy what had he to do with their other Errors And yet I believe many at least of his Reasons for not writing will hold as well in other Points as in this of the Trinity In the next place he gives an account why he stiles himself a Stander by which does not become any Divine of the Church of England in such a Fundamental Article of the Christian Faith The first Reason he gives is his mean opinion of his own Skill in the Controversy but it is modestly express'd with a perhaps and therefore perhaps it was his ill opinion of the Controversy it self His next Reason is That every one who is skill'd at his Weapon must not draw upon every one he meets begirt with a Sword but if they draw upon him or to take it out of the Metaphor assault the Catholick Faith which every Christian is concerned in and every Divine concern'd to defend it does not become him to be a Stander by but to use his Skill to defend himself and his Faith for to be a Stander-by in such cases in plain English is to be a Neuter and when there is a dispute of Faith if a Neuter be not a Heretick he cannot be Orthodox for he is on neither side if we can suppose a Medium between these two In the next place he does not like to be thought tender on the wrong side but certainly he is so if he means any thing that he speaks He readily owns what I believe no body will lay to his charge That he has shown a Tenderness to the Church of England and the Nicene Faith I suppose by those severe Reflections which he makes upon both and his Burlesque of the Athanasian Creed and the Litany which as yet stand in our Liturgy and are like to do so till it fall into the hands of such Melancholy Reformers as out of pure Tenderness for the Credit of the Old Reformation are for changing the Frame of our most Fundamental Articles or resolving them all into a mere Negative Belief which is to leave no positive Faith in the Church And here our Author would know how he is Tender on the Wrong side when he has only express'd a tenderness for the Church of England the Credit of the Reformation and for Peace and Holiness and I 'le warrant you has not said one word in favour of the Socinian Heresy and therefore the Dean may keep his profound politick Notes of mens tenderness being due to their Inclinations for better purposes What these purposes are I know not but certainly 't is no improbable conjecture that men have some Inclinations to that for which they express a great tenderness though t is possible this Rule may sometimes fail and that tenderness which our Author saith he has expressed for the Church of England may not be due to his Inclinations But now let us go forward to the next Paragraph and we shall meet with some farther instances of the Dean's disingenuous arts who perverts our Author's Peaceable Assertions and makes what he pleases of them by odious that is's which the Reader must know is his common way of dealing A short but heavy Charge this if it be true but the comfort is that he who reads the Dean's Book with his own Eyes rather than the Antapologists will find no ground for such an Accusation for he does no where pervert his Peaceable assertions nor do his that is's Misrepresent the consequences of our Author's Assertions And I take it for no disingenuous art to expose any Assertion by shewing its true mâ—â—ning and laying open the just consequences of it Aâ—â— as to that publick hate which he saith the Dean endeavouâ—s to cast on him I don't see how that can be since 〈◊〉 Dean has never mentioned his Name and therefâ—â—◠〈◊〉 did not know him or had no mind to expose him In the next Section he confesses himself an 〈◊〉 â—o such open Disputes between Protestants as only Puâ—liâ—â—â—o the common Enemies the Divisions of the Protestants And so I believe is the Dean too as also to all such open Disputes among Christians as have the same ill consequences with respect to the common Enemies of Christianity and yet I believe neither he nor our Author would from hence conclude That we must not dispute against any Popish Errors because this publiâ—hes to the common Enemies of Christianity the Divisions of the Christians or that if there be any such open Disputes those who defend the Truth when openly contradicted must bear the blame of them As to what he says That Voluntary Disputings have never suppressed but rather revived old Heresies If he means by Voluntary Disputing a necessary Defence as he must mean if it be any thing to the present purpose 't is very wisely thought of that disputing against those who revive and propagate old Heresies is the thing which revives them How this Projector for the Churches peace would have those who should Write in this Controversy authorized he will set down anon and then 't will be time enough to admire the wisdom of his Contrivance Let us in the mean time come to his Latitude of Faith which is another branch of his notable project for Peace which he still adheres to though I think he has given little or no answer to what the Dean urged against it so that the Dean's Arguments hold good still notwithstanding his Exceptions against them Nor are we one dram the wiser for all that fine Lecture which he here reads concerning Latitude as a Metaphorical term derived from Astronomy Geography Triple Dimensions or what else you please nor yet for his citation from one who I believe was far enough from his Latitude of Faith For I can't yet find what he would be at in the present point unless it be what he has been already charged with That every man should be let alone to believe what he pleases so he doth but profess to believe the Words of Scripture though in never so perverse a sense This I can't believe is that Latitude in
this was meant for an instance to show his Tenderness for the Church of England who owns and embraces this Creed He has found out a way and as far as I know the Glory of the Invention may be all his own to prove from this Creed that Two of the Three Persons are not Eternal but Created because there is but One Eternal and One Vncreated and therefore Two of the Three must be Created tho the Creed expresly says of each of the Three Persons That he is Eternal and Uncreated Any man I think would rather hence conclude That these Three are One Eternal and One Uncreated than that Two of the Three are not Eternal And I dare venture any man for making such a mistake tho he hath a less Metaphysical Head than our Author and less Grammar to direct him how to discern when a word is to be taken adjectively or substantively And now he tells us Therefore i.e. because of what has been said he had reason as to the Doctrine of the Trinity not to go beyond the Decisions of the Councils but to acquiesce in their Authorities as if that were all he had urged when 't is plain that he affirm'd That it was Authority that chiefly carried the Point in these Councils and would have us urge nothing but their bare Authority in defence of our Faith and whether from what he has said there be reason for us thus to expose our selves for Fools to our Adversaries I leave every one to judge who knows what Reason means So that the Dean's question was very pertinent and still retains its first force for I would fain see this Author show us any man of sense who would believe such absurd Doctrines as the Socinians represent the Trinity in Vnity to be merely upon Church Authority What farther Authority beyond that of the Church interposed in the Council of Nice he has no mind to speak But I think what he does speak does plainly enough insinuate that it was not Reason nor Scripture but Human Force which carried it and determined the Point in that Council and would any man who did not intend to expose both the Nicene Faith and Council too insinuate this Let the Dean then be as charitable as he will in his Opinion I am hard to believe that this was writ with any other design than to expose the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Church of England as well as the Council of Nice which no doubt is much beholding to him because he would not speak all he knew of it but leave every one to suspect the worst And after the same manner I find he is willing to oblige the Dean for he will also pass by here as small faults some Blunders of Mr. Dean's but not without naming them for fear the Reader should be so dull as not to apprehend them without notice One of them or rather All is That he makes St. Athanasius St. Hilary and St. Basil tho I cannot find either Hilary or Athanasius named by the Dean in that huddle of Fathers to write largely against those Heresies which former Councils had condemned whereas they all three died when there had but yet one Council sat This Blunder may I hope pass indeed but for a small Fault or rather as I take it for none at all For as to Hilary he is not mentioned by the Dean and then for Athanasius the Dean a line or two before that huddle of Fathers that sticks in our Author's throat says of him that he wrote against the Arians after they were condemned by the Council of Nice which I hope is no Blunder And then if St. Basil did dye after one Council only had sat did not the rest there named live and write after more Councils than one had sat And therefore if some here named writ after one Council and others after two or more what Blunder is it to say in general They writ against Heresies which former Councils had condemned Is not this agreeable to the common form of speech And yet it may be they might write against some things condemned by more Councils than one tho not General ones But however these Fathers he says are impertinently cited against him this I am sure is impertinently said for 't is evident enough that what they are cited for is directly contrary to what he would persuade us to for they wrote against Heresies condemned by former Câ—uncils and that it is for which the Dean cites them and the Antapologist if I can tell what to make of his Arguments has all this while been persuading us not to write against the Antitrinitarians because they were condemned by former Councils Now on which side the Impertinency lies let any other Stander by judge And thus much and more than enough as to his adhesion to the Authority of these Councils which I can make nothing else of but that he would have nothing added to the Determinations of these Councils But all this while how does this prove That Authority chiefly carried the Point or that we may not write in defence of what these Councils have determined And now our Author after all this tedious Harangue should come to vindicate his Reasons from those Exceptions which the Apologist has made against them but that is a Task which does not agree so well with him He He has not I suppose Leisure and Books enough about him being so many miles from his Study and his Adversaria for the proper Month it may be are not at hand and therefore let his Reasons shift for themselves as well as they can these hard times As to his Reflections on the Dean to whom he now wholly applies what he had formerly said in general against all who write in Defence of the True Faith and for whose sake alone I believe indeed he wrote for Contradicting and not being consistent with himself while he says he has made that Point plain and easy which he confesses difficult and incomprehensible they need no very long Answer for the Dean does not pretend to have made the Doctrine of the Trinity so easy and plain as that there is now nothing in the Nature of God incomprehensible Nor doth he say That so much of the Mystery as he has made plain is incomprehensible It is then no Contradiâ—tion to make it plain that there are and how also there may be without any Contradiction to the Nature of an Infinite and Eternal Spirit Three Persons and but one God and yet to confess that the Nature of God is Incomprehensible But now this Controversy is like to be at an end for says our Author Now I may set my heart at rest as to this Controversy if Mr. Dean will stand to the profession he has made That all that any man that he pretends to in Vindicating the Doctrine of the Trinity is to prove that this Faith is taught in Scripture This our Author adds is that which he would be
Authorized to Write in Defence of the Doctrine of the â—rinity It seems very hard that we may not Vindicate the Fundamentals of our Religion from Absurdities Contradictions and Falshoods impâ—ted to them till a Convocation can be called to do it Which in my apprehension is not easily practicable unless we could have a Convocation always fitting which he cannot think either feasible or convenient according to our Constitution And yet if they are not always sitting it will be very difficult and troublesome immediately to call them to Confute every Heretical Doctrine that in times of Liberty may be broach'd by Bold and Daring men When it may be fit to do thus I leave those to whom it belongs to judge but I am sure 't is neither reasonable nor practicable every time Hereticks oppose the Truth Now by this method he says All Sons of the Church would and must be concluded And are they not already concluded by the Articles Liturgy Homilies c. which he says our Adversaries cannot alter I suppose he would not have us obliged to Subscribe every Line and Tittle in such a Book revised and approved by a Convocation as a Fundamental of Christianity but only the Doctrines there defined as Fundamental And thus I think in the present Point All Sons of the Church are already concluded by Subscribing the Articles and Creeds and if this would do it as our Author imagines there would already be a due end put to these Controversies But according to his Peaceable Notion of Subscription by his proposed method All Sons of the Church would not be concluded any farther then to hold their Tongues for they might still believe and inwardly approve the Socinian Doctrines or any other which thouâ—â—â— he may think a due end of these Controversies yet few others will But after all How would this put an End to these Controversies If a Convocation should meet and determine on the side of our Articles and Write a Book to justifie the truth will this put an End to these Controversies Will the Socinians be generally Converted any more than they are by Learned mens Writings now I doubt they would hardly acquiesce in such a Book though drawn up by our Author who though he would be favourable enough to them yet I hardly believe would be able to satisfy them Which he thinks will not be till we can make things plain which are confessedly unsearchable if not as some pretend unintelligible The plain English of which I take to be That it is impossible to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity so as to satisfy even rational and sober men And then I cannot apprehend how his Method would put an End to these Controversies any other ways than by a Negative Belief though I very much question whether even upon such terms he could persuade the Socinians to be silent But still he cannot see any readier Expedient than this towards such an Vnion as in the present state of things may be adjudged possible Indeed I cannot tell whether a real Christian Union in the present state of things will be adjudg'd possible or no nor whether such an Vnion as our Author pleads for be necessary for our Affairs and would be effectual to keep out Popery and beat the King of â—rance but I hope both may be done without it But if such an Union as is indeed desirable and such as there ought to be in the Church of Christ be not possible I know the fault is not in the Church nor only in her professed Enemies who will not comply but in such pretended Friends as under the colour of Peace do openly affront and condemn the Faith of the Church and vilify her Constitutions thereby hardening and encouraging her Adversaries in their Obstinacy and giving them hopes that by their means they shall at length obtain the Terms they desire But of this Negative Belief enough has been said only I cannot but take notice of one thing here desired by our Author That no Praâ—tice be imposed upon any contrary to their Consciences The meaning of which I take to be as is plain from several other places of his Book and particularly from p. 10 of the Earn Suit That no Expressions should be allowed in the Liturgy which any one professes are against his Conscience nor any Rite or Ceremony required which all men are not satisfied in and so we must part with Episcopacy and all Order and Decency to satisfy mens pretences to Conscience This is a brave Protestant Reconciler and this is admirable arguing for a Church-of England-man and one who has read Fathers and Schoolmen This is such a loose and wild Principle as if duly adhered to we must tolerate most if not all Errors Schisms and Vices that were ever heard of in the world The next thing we are to answer is a Captious Question with which he pretends to answer the Dean who as he imagines had put such an one to him The Dean had ask'd him Whether he would allow us who as he grants are in possession of this Faith of the Trinity and Incarnation to keep possession of it and teach explain and confirm it to our people Now because he is resolved to be as captious as the Dean he asks him Whether he never saw certain Royal Injunctions assigning fit Subjects for Sermons No doubt but he has What then Why then Must they not be obeyed Yes But what of all this To discourse concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity is not there prohibited But is there not the same reason of it as of those things that are I believe not For as I take it the Trinity and Incarnation are more Fundamental Points than the Disputes about Predestination and more necessary to be believed by Christian People Besides the Controversy then was not only with such as wholly denied the Article but among those who differed in the sense of the Article while there was something contained plainly in the Article to which both sides agreed tho some would have more included in it than others could find or would allow to be there asserted Which Controversy Authority saw fit to silence at that time since both sides owned the Truth of the Article which asserted a Divine Predestination and would not let every one in their Pulpits run into nice useless and hurtful questions nor do we desire this should be allowed in the Doctrine of the Trinity And when he has Interest enough at Court to procure a Royal Injunction that no man shall write or speak concerning the Trinity we know what we have to do but till then his Royal Injunctions are no more to the purpose than his own Arguments But however he will not stand with us for this Point for notwithstanding this he yields that Ministers should at due season preach to their people the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation only let them do it plainly easily purely and sincerely according to
he does not particularly know this which it is certain might have passed without any of their Consents and how many dissented I never enquired his Opinion Belief or Disbelief must be owing only to his Inclination And if we could suppose what God be thanked there is no danger of the Majority of the Lords anâ— Commons to have as little understanding of and Zeal for the Catholick Faith as our Author has we might have a Socinian Creed made without the Assent of one English Bishop or at least such Articles of Communion framed as would admit all manner of Hereticks into the Bosom of the Church and allow all to be Orthodox Christians that believe but as well of Christ as the Mahometâ—ns do And this our Author at least as far as concerns those Hereticks for whom alone he is Advocate at present hopes to see done for he hopes that Authority namely King and Parliament will in time relax what more is necessary for such an Vnion as is possible to be patched up by a Latitude of Faith and a Negative Belief I hope they will not and think there is reason to conclude from some late Proceedings that they will not But we must not pass by his Reflections on the Dean's wonted Civility in Taxing him with pretending to give an account of Acts of Parliament as he doth of other Books without seeing them This is indeed very uncivil not to believe a man except he produces Witnesses that heard or saw him read the Act and since he thinks this a hardship I will not give him the trouble but I must needs say there was no reason for the Dean to think otherwise before for by the account which he gives of this Act no man that thought that he had either Sense or Sincerity or Modesty could imagine that he had ever seen it but was imposed upon by hear-say or by a hasty conclusion that because it was an Act of Indulgence to Dissenters it must certainly Indulge the Innocent and true Protestant Socinians among the rest This would have been his best excuse and much more allowable than still to stand to it That other Dissenters have benefit by that Act who do not renounce Sociâ—ianism contrary to the express words of the Act. But let us see how he makes it good What then do you think of a tâ—cit connivance at their stay at home I think there is no such Connivance allowed by the Act nor can I believe it is the meaning of the words of the â—ct or the design of those who made it And I am sure this Melancholy Dream of a tacit Connivance is a very scandalous representation of the Bishops and of the whole Parliament for this is to tolerate Atheism Deism and Profaneness and to give men free Liberty not only to be of what Religion they will but of none at all if they like that better But then What do you think of a tacit Connivance quietly to come to our Congregations This I think is no new favour but what was always openly allowed to all who were not Excommunicate and is very far from a Tacit Approbation or â—oleration of their Erroneous Opinions to let them come thither where they cannot join with us but they must be supposed to renounce these Errors for I am sure there is no allowance in the Act for them to join with us only in such parts of our Worship as do not expresly relate to the Holy Trinity any more than to hold separate Assemblies of their own without declaring their Faith in the Holy Trinity And then for his Vetuit inquiri I wonder where he will find it there is no such thing in the Act and I believe any Lawyer will satisfy him that what Law was in force against Socinianism before is so still and the same Inquisition may be made after them but if any whose business it is to discover such Offenders or punish them when known will neglect their Duty 't is their Connivance and not the Law that affords Impunity But I wonder what makes him Dream of a tacit Connivance for Socinians because they are expresly excepted ' â—is just as if he should say the Articles of the Church of England give a tacit Connivance to them because they require every man to renounce their Errors and to Confess his Faith in the Holy Trinity This is an excellent Argument to prove all Hereticks true Church of England men even though they should Write Earnest Suits and enter their Protests against Her But if this will not do he now has and then had in his head though he had not occasion to out with it another favour shown by the Parliament to Dissenters not by this Act indeed but by a former Statute which took away the Writ de Haeretico Comburendo which it seems he was afraid might hurt his Socinâ—an Friends in case some such of their Friends as Mr. â—ean were in the place they affect but now he says he hopes this custom here is in a fair way to be aboliâ—â—ed This is so silly that I can hardly call it spiteful for its silliness is an Antidote against its spite every one knows that Writ was taken away to secure the Church of England against the fears of a Popish Successor which was the only danger of reviving that Writ which had been so long out of use that it was hardly known among Protestants Which argues no great tendernâ—ss in him for the Church of England to insinuate so vile an Accusation as if this practice of Burning Hereticks had been so very customary that he can still only hope that an Act of Parliament can put a stop to it His Conclusion is so Rambling and so very Furious that I begin to fear his Melancholy has some spice of Frenzy in it and therefore it is time to leave off Disputing without returning the Compliments or Advice which he has given the Dean at Parting FINIS Earn Suâ— p. 7. Antap. p. 1. Ant. p. 11. p. 2. Ant. p. 3. Sect. 2. P. 4. Ant. p. 5. Ant. Sect. 3. Ant. p. 5. Ant. p. 5. P. 8. P. 11. P. 12. Sect. 7. p. 18. Sect. 8. p. 20. P. 2â— Sect. 9. p. 21. P. 23. P. 23. P. 25. p. 27. Sect. 11. P. 27. p. 28. p. 28 29. Sect. 12. p. 30. Apol. p. 8. Antap. p. 30. p. 3â— p. 31. p. 31. p. 31. p. 31. P. 31. Sect. 14 p. 33 Sect. 15 p. 34. P. 3â— p. 39. p. 39. p. â—â— p. 41. pâ— 42. p. 43. Pâ— 43. P. 44. Eâ—rn Suit p 7. Antap p. 44. Sect. 19. p. 45. P. 31. Ant. p. 51. Ant. p. 51. Ant. p 51. Earn Sâ—â—â— P. 10. Ant. P. 51. Ant. p. 52. P. 52. Apol. p. 26. Ant. p. 52. P. 53. P. 53. Apol. p. 26. Ant. p. 53. P. 54. Ant. p. 55. Sect. 25. Ear. Suit p. 11. Ant. p. 55. P. 54. Sect. 125. P 55.