A view of that part of the late considerations adderest to H.H. about the…A view of that part of the late considerations addrest to H.H. about the…

And if (as this Author quotes) we are compelled by the Christian Verity so to speak, I wonder it should not compel him, as it is Christian Verity, or at least as it is Verity, as well as the rest of Christians, or Mankind. Why hath he only the privilege of exemption from being compelled by truth? Athanasius his word is [Greek or Hebrew], we are necessitated; and if the Considerator's own Translation grieve him, he might relieve himself by considering that all Necessity is not compulsive.

And if (as this Author quotes) we are compelled by the Christian Verity so to speak, I wonder it should not compel him, as it is Christian Verity, or at least as it is Verity, as well as the rest of Christians, or Mankind. Why hath he only the privilege of exemption from being compell'd by truth? Athanasius his word is 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, we are necessitated; and if the Considerator's own Translation grieve him, he might relieve himself by considering that all Necessity is not compulsive.

And because he hath brought me to Athanasius, I shall take the occasion to say, I cannot apprehend him to have any sentiment contrary to this Hypothesis. His business was against the Arians, or the Ariomanites (as he often called them, as symbolizing also with Manes.) And because with them the Controversy was, whether the Son and Spirit were Creatures, in opposition hereto he constantly asserts their consubstantiality with the Father, never intending (for ought that appears) that their Being was numerically the same with his; but of the same kind, uncreated, coessential, coeternal with his own. For so he expressly speaks in his other (or additional) Questions, ¹i. e. asking (Quest. 6.) How many Essences [Greek or Hebrew], i. e. How many sorts of Essence (as the Answer will direct us to understand it) do you acknowledge in God?

And because he hath brought me to Athanasius, I shall take the occasion to say, I cannot apprehend him to have any sentiment contrary to this Hypothesis. His business was against the Arians, or the Ariomanites (as he often called them, as symbolizing also with Manes.) And because with them the Controversy was, whether the Son and Spirit were Creatures, in opposition hereto he constantly asserts their consubstantiality with the Father, never intending (for ought that appears) that their Being was numerically the same with his; but of the same kind, uncreated, coessential, coeternal with his own. For so he expresly speaks in his other (or additional) Questions,