But here I would not be mistaken, and must therefore be so bold as
to borrow a distinction from the writers on the other side, when
they make a difference betwixt nominal and real Trinitarians. I
hope no reader imagines me so weak to stand up in the defence of
real Christianity, such as used in primitive times (if we may
believe the authors of those ages) to have an influence upon men's
belief and actions. To offer at the restoring of that, would
indeed be a wild project: it would be to dig up foundations; to
destroy at one blow all the wit, and half the learning of the
kingdom; to break the entire frame and constitution of things; to
ruin trade, extinguish arts and sciences, with the professors of
them; in short, to turn our courts, exchanges, and shops into
deserts; and would be full as absurd as the proposal of Horace,
where he advises the Romans, all in a body, to leave their city,
and seek a new seat in some remote part of the world, by way of a
cure for the corruption of their manners.

Therefore I think this caution was in itself altogether unnecessary
(which I have inserted only to prevent all possibility of
cavilling), since every candid reader will easily understand my
discourse to be intended only in defence of nominal Christianity,
the other having been for some time wholly laid aside by general
consent, as utterly inconsistent with all our present schemes of
wealth and power.

But why we should therefore cut off the name and title of
Christians, although the general opinion and resolution be so
violent for it, I confess I cannot (with submission) apprehend the
consequence necessary. However, since the undertakers propose such