Of justification four disputations clearing and amicably defending the truth against the unnecessary oppositions…

Such insinuations, as if it were to breed dissension between those Learned Brethren and my self, are not fair dealing. First, I do not remember one or two at most of all those Brethren, that in their Papers to me used that distinction! How then can you tell the world in print, that it seems I have met with a pack of Impostors, even them you mention? Did you ever see my Papers, or theirs? Did they ever tell you that this distinction is in them? I solemnly profess it was not in my thoughts so much as to intimate that any one of their Papers was guilty of that distinction. But if you will say so, what remedy But perhaps I intimate so much in my words; In what words? when I say, that [all that I have to do with, grant the Antecedent] and whats that to the question in hand? many a hundred may grant that this act is the fides quae, that assert not the other act to be the fides quâ, and allow not the use of the distinction which I resist. But perhaps its my next words that imply it [For the general cheat is by the distinction of fides qua and qua, &c.] But sure it cannot be understood, that its general with all the world, nor general as to all that I have had to do with: There is no such thing said or meant by me; for then it must extend to all that are of my own mind: and I told Mr. Blake enough of the contrary as to the persons he mentioneth, by telling him how they owned not the Instrumentality of faith, and then they cannot well maintain this use of this distinction. It is the general deceit or cheat of all that are deceived by it; and of most that in this point oppose me. But if Mr. Blake think either that all that vouchsafe me their writings, do it by way of opposition (when many do it but by explication and reconciliation) or that all that oppose me, do oppose me in that point, he thinks no truer then here he writes.

Such insinuations, as if it were to breed dissention between those Learned Brethren and my self, are not fair dealing. First, I do not remember one or two at most of all those Brethren, that in their Papers to me used that distinction! How then can you tell the world in print, that it seems I have met with a pack of Impostors, even them you mention? Did you ever see my Papers, or theirs? Did they ever tell you that this distinction is in them? I solemnly profess it was not in my thoughts so much as to intimate that any one of their Papers was guilty of that distinction. But if you will say so, what remedy But perhaps I intimate so much in my words; In what words? when I say, that [all that I have to do with, grant the Antecedent] and whats that to the question in hand? many a hundred may grant that this act is the fides quae, that assert not the other act to be the fides quâ, and allow not the use of the distinction which I resist. But perhaps its my next words that imply it [For the general cheat is by the distinction of fides qua and qua, &c.] But sure it cannot be understood, that its general with al the world, nor general as to all that I have had to do with: There is no such thing said or meant by me; for then it must extend to all that are of my own mind: and I told Mr. Blake enough of the contrary as to the persons he mentioneth, by telling him how they owned not the Instrumentality of faith, and then they cannot well maintain this use of this distinction. It is the general deceit or cheat of all that are deceived by it; and of most that in this point oppose me. But if Mr. Blake think either that all that vouchsafe me their writings, do it by way of opposition (when many do it but by explication and reconciliation) or that all that oppose me, do oppose me in that point, he thinks no truer then here he writes.