the distinction of the chief or supreme God and a true God These Advances seriously weigh'd methinks while we grant and acknowledge the subordination of the Son to the Father as his Original and Beginning with the unanimous Consent of the Ancients as Dr. Bull and Bishop Pearson have observed and that the Divine Perfections of the Father and the Son are in the Son not co-ordinately but subordinately and communicated to him from the Father and in that sence the Father may be said to be greater than the Son in that he is the Origo and Principal Methinks I say they should see reason enough to meet us and acknowledge the Son with the Nicene Fathers and the Catholick Church to be God of God Light of Light very God of very God I shall conclude this Argument with the pertinent and forcible Reasoning of Dr. B. in his Second Edition If we consider saith he the thing it self it appeareth much more credible that the Eternal Son of God should descend to the nature of Man than that a Man should be made God endued with a new Omnipresence to hear and Omnipotence to grant the Prayers of all the Supplicants that in all places of the World should invoke him Again saith he if we regard the Dignity of his Person it is plainly more Honourable to believe him God the Creator than a Creature Deified If we consider the Fruits our Thankfulness must be greater c. So that upon all accounts were the Scriptures doubtful we ought rather to carry our Byass towards our Lord's Eternal Divinity than against it VII Authority the Ground of Faith That Belief which hath no Authority but is against all Authority competent in that Case ought not only to be suspected but to be rejected as groundless and false This is not to be questioned for seeing Authority is the only Reason and Ground of Faith that Belief that hath no competent Authority is groundless and that which is against such Authority must needs be false But the Socinian Belief that the Son of God had no Existence or Being before he was conceiv'd and born of the Virgin Mary hath no Authority and is against all Authority competent in that Case therefore such Belief is groundless and false Now that such Belief that our Saviour had no Being before he was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary is without and against all competent Authority in the Case will easily appear by considering what is such Authority and the Socinian Concessions about it and the Evidence of the thing itself 1. What can be supposed competent Authority to ground the Christian Faith upon but the Holy Scriptures as they are in themselves or as they are expounded and understood by the Primitive Fathers Ecclesiastical Councils or the Vniversal Church 2. Now that the said Belief of Socinus and his Followers is without and against all this Authority 't is not my province to argue here which hath been done an hundred times invincibly by others only from the Socinians own Concessions and the Evidence of the thing itself 1. For the Holy Scriptures as they are in themselves tho' the Socinians make great Pretences that they are of their side yet 't is plain they dare not trust to them yea by two Observations 't is very apparent that they more than suspect they are against them The first Observation is That they pre-judge and indeed enervate all the Authority of the Holy Scripture by their bold and dear Proposition which they resolve shall serve them as an Asylum and Refuge where they cannot otherwise escape the Light and Force of the Text. The Proposition I mean is to this purpose That tho' the Holy Scripture speak a thing never so plainly i. e. that the true and proper sence cannot be evaded yet if the Matter thereof be contrary to their Sentiments or cannot be apprehended by them they are not bound to believe it but their own Reason To this purpose it is generally observed that Socinus and his Followers as particularly a late Socinian Pamphlet boldly consents declare themselves which if they were not jealous at least that the Scripture is plain against some of their Opinions such cunning Gamesters would not affirm to so great Reproach of their Profession and Scandal of the Christian Religion My other Observation is their playing and trisling with the Holy Scripture their straining their Wits and wracking their Fancies of which 't is confess'd they have good store to coin new and unheard-of Glosses for the wresting and bending of the Text to their new Hypothesis so strange to the plain Letter and Sence of the Text so impertinent to the Context so contrary to all ancient and other modern Expositions that we cannot have so much Charity for them as to think they believe themselves or have any Veneration or Respect to Divine Revelation Not here to dispute the Particulars or to enumerate all their finenesses of Criticism Wit and Fancy I shall only remark some Instances that carry a Confutation in their Foreheads When they tell us That in Joh. 1. in the Beginning is not in the Beginning of the World but of the Gospel When they interpret the Word was made Flesh it was so in the Infirmities i. e. Qualities of the Flesh not in the Substance When in the words following he is said to dwell among us they say it was after his Resurrection When upon the Text Before Abraham was I am they comment thus Before the Gentiles were actually called and became Abraham's Children When they observe that the words of St. Thomas My Lord and my God were spoken by way of admiration to God the Father and not to our Saviour when by Thrones Principalities in Heaven they would have us understand Men on Earth tho' the Text saith they are Invisible Col. 1. 16. When it is so frequently and plainly written That the Son of God made the Worlds and that all things are upheld and subsist by him they will have it meant only of Regeneration or the new Creation When our Saviour affirms I and my Father are one they say he meant so only in Will and Consent contrary directly to the scope and sence of the Context which speaks of their Power to keep his Disciples from Violence When upon that famous Scripture In him dwells all the fulness of the Scripture bodily they restrain it to his Doctrine and exclude his Person When by the Mystery of Godliness God manifested in the Flesh upon a Criticism they will have it the Gospel manifested in the Flesh which makes brave sence especially if you consider the words following And lastly to crown all when Socinus was puzzled with the frequent and plain Assertions that our Saviour came down from Heaven into the World he becomes Enthusiast and dreams of a Revelation he had That Christ after his Incarnation was taken up into Heaven to learn his Father's Will When I say we revolve and weigh these and such-like wild and unreasonable
be esteemed unus idemque cum Deo one and the same with God II. Christ is True God GOD the Father is the only True God Jesus Christ is true God therefore Jesus Christ and God the Father are one and the same God otherwise there would be two true Gods which would be repugnant to the only true God That God the Father is the only true God is expresly the Doctrine of our Saviour Joh. 17. 3. That Jesus Christ is true God is so plain in the Holy Scripture that Socinus and his Followers frequently they say an hundred times assert and maintain it The Argument therefore is as strong as our Saviour and Socinus can make it 1 Note To obviate some trisling Evasions when we say Jesus Christ is true God we consider him not strictly under those Denominations for his Name Jesus was given him as the Son of Mary and he is Christ as anointed to his Office by the Holy Ghost We do not say that in either of these sences Jesus Christ is true God but he is so as he is the Son by eternal Generation as he existed before his Incarnation as he was with God and was God in the beginning of Time and consequently from Eternity the Alpha and Omega the first and the last Rev. 1. 2 Note 2dly Jesus Christ as Man and Mediator may be distinguished though never divided from the Eternal Son of God So the Scripture speaks of him here as Jesus Christ sent by God and as he in 1 Cor. 8 was that one great Lord of Christians distinguish'd from One God the Father which sufficiently solves the Difficulties which Socinians raise from these two Texts especially considering that so many other Scriptures unanswerably prove the Deity of our Saviour 3. It must be noted 3dly and consess'd that the Socinians distinguish betwixt the true God by Nature and a true God by Office and that God the Father is the true God by Nature and our Saviour a true God by Office But the Text destroys the distinction for if God the Father be the only true God though so by Nature there is no room left for another true God by Office or any other way Who sees not the Term is exclusive sees nothing 2dly The Scripture is express that 't is Idolatry to worship those that by Nature are no Gods but 't is no Idolatry to worship our Saviour as Socinus himself desends therefore our Saviour is true God by Nature 3dly I must challenge Proof either from Reason or Scripture that a God by Office only is or ever was said to be true God as our Saviour is consessed ot be And seeing the Text before us speaks not of the Supreme God but of the only true God and makes them all one I must further challenge the great Distinction and only Refuge of the Socinians in this Controversie namely of the Supreme God and a true God and if neither Scripture asserts it nor Reason owns it as certainly they do not the Foundation of Socinianism is evidently subverted III. Cheist made the World The words were made by the Supreme God only This the Socinians generally assert and strenuously prove but the Son of God made the Worlds and this the Arrians unanimously maintain as and unndoubted Truth accordin to the Scriptures From these two Propositions so acknowledg'd and proved by our Adversaries what Conclusion can be more natural than this That the Son of God is one God with the Father i. e. the Supreme God 'T is confess'd that the Arrians say that God first made his Son and then by him made the Worlds Sol. But who told them so So fundamental a Point should have some ground either in Scripture or Reason the Scripture is silent in it and plain Reason abhors it Why should the great and wise God make one Creature to make the rest Was not his own Fiat sufficient to make an hundred Worlds Doth any Cause else appear at the Creation Let the Arrians prove as they do unanswerably that the Son of God did exist at the Creation of the World and the Socinians will acknowledge his Eternal Generation By their Reasons put together the Orthodox Truth is establish'd Indeed if all things were made by the Son of God himself is excluded he is not Deus factus but Deus natus and if he did exist in the Beginning as before he must exist from Eternity Nothing was behind the beginning of Time but Eternity IV. Christ Equal to his Father He that is not only like but equal to God in Power Knowledge and Wisdom must have the same Essence or Nature with God But the Socinians generally assert That Jesus Christ is not only like but equal to God in Power Wisdom and Knowledge therefore by this Reason Jesus Christ must have the same Essence or Nature with God I know they will not grant the first Proposition but these men of Reason methinks should nor deny it They say indeed that this equal Power Knowledge and Wisdom is communicated by God to his Son But must there not be a Capacity and Faculty equal to God's to admit such equal Power c. and to exercise the same And consequently the Essence of God must be communicated which only hath Capacity and Faculty to hold and exercise Power Knowledge and Wisdom truly divine or equal to God's Is it not more agreeable to the Apprehension of a Man to conceive that the Root of all Power c. viz. the Divine Nature is communicated to the Son of God and with that all Power c. is communicated Can equal Power be in any Subject but God himself Will there not then be two Omnipotents and two Supremes Who can understand the Mystery or dare defend it from senceless Contradiction Minor But perhaps it may be doubted whether the Socinians do allow or affirm that Jesus Christ hath Equal Power Knowledge and Wisdom with God himself which is the second Proposition in this Argument I shall therefore prove it by some pertinent Instances Christ was made in Empire and Supreme Power in all things like to God immo aequalem yea rather equal to him saith one And they generally acknowledge that the Father hath communicated to Christ his own Divine Power and Divine Wisdom See Crell in Ro. 1. 15. Rac. Cat. c. 1. sect 4. p. 47. Stegman in Joh. 10. 32. Wolzogenius in Mat. 4. Schect in 1 Cor. 4 5. Volkelius tells us the Apostle Phil. 3. 21. attributes to Christ that most efficacious Power whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself Ver. Relig. 63. c. 34 and that He that can subdue all things to himself omnia potest i. e. est Deus omnipotens or Almighty as he is expresly called Rev. 1. and therefore true and supreme God or one with his Father in Power and consequently in Nature as our Saviour himself concludes I and my Father are One Not in Will and Consent only as they would gloss it directly contrary to the Context
but in Power which is inseparable from his Essence None shall pluck them out my Hand or John 10. 28 29 30. my Fathers I and my Father are one Accordingly Wolzogenius acknowledgeth that God made Christ in Authority Power and Wisdom like and equal to himself that he even equally as God might be omnipresent and be able to do what he will by his own Power and Spirit upon Earth So that he is omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent equally with God the Father which necessarily infers the Communication of the Divine Essence or Nature as the Subject or Seat of such Supreme and Divine Attributes or Qualifications 'T is confessed that Wolzog. in Mat. 28. 20. adds That though Christ be omnipresent as is said before 't is not necessary that we should understand it of his Essential Presence But we want a new Philosophy to prove that any thing yea God himself can act physically where he is not essentially present and hence we have a new Argument of our Saviour's Deity He is essentially present every where and therefore true God he is essentially present every where because he can do what he pleaseth every where I conclude this Argument with this note That the Socinians must dash and break upon one or both of these two hard Rocks that a meer man who is circumscribed is essentially present every where or really omnipresent or that a meer Man is able to do what he pleases by his own Power as Wolzeg affirms tho' communicated where he is not essentially that is really present which is one of the Phylosophical Mysteries of Socinianism V. Christ hath the Father's Glory He to whom the Father hath given his own Glory is the same God in Essence with the Father for God the Father protests he will not give his Glory to another But the Father hath given his own Glory to Christ this the Socinians generally acknowledge The Conclusion is necessary therefore Christ is the same in Essence with God the Father They tell us in answer that by another is meant an Idol or a false God Sol. Where the Law doth not distinguish in a Point of so great concernment who shall dare to do it Besides is not an Idol a Creature as well as they say our Saviour is And why should God give his Glory to one Creature rather than another What Scripture or Reason will warrant it Is it not Idolatry to give GOD's Glory to a Creature Or will God dispence with Idolatry in himself and not in us Or lastly how can we in reason imagine that God will frustrate his own ultimate End to glorifie himself above all by giving his own Glory to any Creature VI. Reason is Truth That which is most agreeable to Reason is the Truth This is the admired Maxim of the Socinians But that the Father communicateth his Divine Nature with his Divine Attributes to his Son is more agreeable to Reason i. e. more conceivable than that he should communicate them separately without or divided from his Nature Let us reflect upon their former Assertions that the Father hath communicated his own Wisdom his own Power his own Honour his own Glory and thereby made his Son not only like but equal to himself and let the Masters of Reason tell us any thing more absurd and inconsonant to Reason than to conceive such Qualities which are acknowledged by themselves to be truly and properly Divined to be actually separated from the Divine Substance seeing they also acknowledge that there is nothing in God that is not God himself and his Proprieties can only ratione inadaequato conceptu be distinguisht from his Essence Is it not more agreeable to Reason to conceive that seeing the Father hath communicated his own Wisdom c. to his Son he hath also communicated his own Nature to him forasmuch as we cannot conceive how they should be actually divided for his Attributes and Nature are really one and God's own Wisdom Knowledge Power Presence and Glory are nothing really but himself Thus it is if we consider the nature of God but more grosly absurd and unreasonable it appears if we consider the nature of Man which they would make the Subject of these Divine Qualities How monstrous is it to imagine that a meer Man as they say our Saviour is should be wise as God powerful as God omnipresent as God have equal Worship and the same Glory with God himself and be a meer Man still where is the Capacity the Powers the Seat of these Divine Excellencies of a true God as they acknowledge our Saviour to be in meer Man as they say he is Activity beyond the proper Sphere of the Agent Qualities and Endowments without a capable Subject are as fit for men of Reach and Reason to conceive as to imagine Reason and Religion in a Brute with all the Attributes of the Humane Nature and yet to be a Brute still Let them follow Reason but one step farther and acknowledg that what the Father communicateth to his Son carries the Essence of God with it according to Reason as well as the Scripture and we are agreed in a great Point And now what should put a stop to them seeing their Principles bring them so near us and so much Reason invites them home They acknowledge the necessity of believing Christ to be true God according to the Scriptures They say he is equal to God the Father and Socinus is angry that it should be doubted whether they believed so or not his words are remarkable Falsissimum est c. He saith It is most false that we do not affirm Christ to be true God yea we profess the contrary publickly and in our own both in the Latin and Polonian Tongue in not a few publick Writings And again as if we did deny Jesus Christ tho' he is Man yet to be God and equal to God or the proper Son of God and equal to his Father According to Smalcius our God and the true God summo jure he is so to be called and is so indeed They do generally own his Title Ro. 9. God over all blessed for ever Schlectingius in Joh. 4. 23. saith We must understand by it that Christ is Lord and God not over some things only but over all God and Lord of Heaven and Earth as Stigmannus adds in Joh. 10. 33. I confess Schlect his gloss hereupon is He is true God as true is opposed to false not as it is opposed to non summo or the Supreme God but if the Text be well consider'd and its proper sence allow'd I see not how he can be better signified to be the God of Israel than by the usual appellation of the God of Israel as the Learned note God blessed for ever or how the Supreme God can in other words be more fitly exprest than by these words God over all blessed for ever especially seeing as we have noted before that there is no ground either in Reason or Religion for
Father the Son and the Holy Ghost that these are Three and that the Father is the God of Christians the Son is the God of Christians and the Holy Ghost is the God of Christians Certainly the Socinians as well as the Arrians may apprehend the matter so far And further That they are all True God for we are not baptized in the Name to the worship of any false God And lastly That as the Apostle saith To us Christians there is but one true God Yes all this they can apprehend as 't is revealed but they know not how to understand three in one and one in three Here I cannot give them better Advice than not to lean to their own Vnderstandings but to believe the Revelation and with Modesty and Humllity to adore the Mystery Quomodo Pater genuit Filium nolo discutias St. Hierom. Yet I must remark that the Mystery as to the Matter of it was conceivable and upon a plain Text not then disputed believed too before the Council of Nice and though I know such Authorities weigh little with our Adversaries and Dr. Bull and Dr. Whitby might have spared their Excellent Pains in evincing such Authorities seeing they protest against them I mean as to them yet I have some reason to mention Two of them The first is that of Tertullian Ex Conscientia scimus c. Of Conscience we know that the Name of God and Father and Son and Spirit do agree so as the Connexion of the Father in the Son and of the Son in the Paraclete makes Three cohering alterum ex altero which Three are One Vnum non unus as it is said I and my Father are One for Unity of Substance not for Singularity of Number De anima c. 14. The other is St. Cyprian De Vnitate c. The Lord said I and my Father are One. And again Of God the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit it 's written And these Three are One Hanc unitatem Those that hold not this Unity hold not the Truth to Salvation These I have noted to shame the Scoffer that shall say We had but two Gods before the Council of Nice as well as to shew that wise and good men of old understood the Object and Rule of our Christian Faith in this great Article and what was then thought of the Oppugners of it Obj. So much for the Trinity but the Eternity of the Son of God and his Co-essentiality with the Father they say is unintelligible But can they conceive how God should be a Father from Eternity without a Son Can they not conceive that which their Brethren the Arrians believed according to abundance of Scriptures that our Saviour did exist before his Incarnation And then that being supposed their own Reason assures them that He must from Eternity as before was observed Can they not conceive that if all things were made by him and without him nothing was made that was made that he existed before any thing was made and therefore was a God born and not made Can they not apprehend that seeing whatsoever is in God is God and therefore the Wisdom and Power in God is the Divine Nature and that if God communicate his own Wisdom c. to his Son he communicates with it his Divine Nature Can they conceive that God was ever without his Wisdom Can they not conceive that Thought is the proper issue of a Mind and that God's Mind is eternal and Thought or Wisdom and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Son of God are eternally begotten of him Have these men peculiar and distinct Faculties from all Mankind The World is divided into Jews Turks Infidels Hereticks and the Church of God 1. As to our Saviour's Eternal Divinity the Apprehension and Faith of the Church of God is sufficiently manifest for Fifteen hundred years after our Saviour before Socinianism was formed And 't is well observed that those supersine Colours that Socinus and his Followers put upon those Texts by which the Catholick Church ever defended the Eternal Divinity of our Saviour were at least most of them never thought on by the Ancient Hereticks and never heard of before Socinus's time 2. The Jewish Doctors hold that the Messias is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Jehovah is a Name given to him that he is the Eternal Character of God therefore the Eternal Divinity of our Saviour was no inconceivable Mystery to them 3. As for the wiser Heathen Philosophers they speak a great deal plainer tho' it is fairly supposed they had their Light from the Jews The Indefatigable and Learned Dr. Whitby after the famous Dr. Cudworth hath given us a great deal to this purpose and observes what Socinus himself insinuates when he tells us we have our Doctrine out of Plato's School That the words of St. John c. 1. taken in their familiar and proper sence do exactly agree with the Sayings of the Platonists and Pythagoreans and other Philosophers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about the Word 1. The Philosophers acknowledge a Second Hypostasis which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mind Word and Son of the First 2. That this Second Hypostasis did exist from Eternity and declared him to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sempiternal Word Mens temporis expers sempiterna 3. They pronounced this Word to be a Second God to denote his dependance upon the First 4. They asserted him to be the Cause Principal and Maker of all things such Conceits had these great Philosophers who we may imagine were Masters of as much Reason as the men we deal with Thus our Faith in our Saviour's Divinity was not abhorrent from the Reason of the learned Jews and wisest Philosophers 3. What Apprehension hath the Mahumetan part of the World in this mysterious Article Indeed I was much taken with some Passages in The Turkish Spy when I first saw his Letters which I shall transcribe out of his 31st Letter of Vol. 2. to the Mufti ' Tell me saith he why it is Blasphemy to say that God hath already taken Flesh since our holy Prophet avoucheth that GOD shall assume a Body at the Resurrection If a Body be competible with the Divine Essence it seems not to me a Blasphemy to assert the Incarnation of the Word whom our Prophet calls the Breath of God If this Breath or Word of God be not of the Essence of the Divinity why is that part of the Christian Gospel had in such reverence by the faithful Mussulman In the beginning was the word and the Word was with God and God was the Word If the Word be of the Essence of God then it will necessarily follow that God has taken a human Body since our holy Prophet calls him the Word of God whom the Christians adore for God Incarnate Thus we have the sence of the Turkish Religion itself not the Authority of the Spy whoever he was but Reason grounded upon the very Alcoran Now seeing
Catholick Faith not but that they may be within the Mercy of God in some secret or extraordinary way I see no reason to take the Sentence so strictly whatever Athanasius thought as to damn every one that believes not every word in his Creed There is a large and lax-sence that may be admitted to save the Charity of our Church from denouncing Damnation against the Greek Church for want of the word Filioque He that doth not believe faithfully he doth not say literally or every Word or Saying in 't but rather the Substance of our Christian Faith touching the Trinity and the Incarnation of the Son of God This seems to be better allow'd us because though it bear the Name of Athanasius's Creed yet 't is no formal Creed as the other Creeds are which begin thus I believe c. but only a Declaration or Exposition of those two great Articles In which sence our Church may be supposed to say this Creed may be proved by the Holy Scripture In this large sence I doubt not but as we are bound to repeat it so we ought to believe it 2dly As Ministers Let it be well considered that Socinian Principles being once suck'd in how trouble some and uneasie they will be and what inward Gripes they will cause as so much Poyson in our Bowels as inconsistent and repugnant to the Obligations that lye upon us Not here to insist upon the 39 Articles which we have read before our People and subscribed ex animo which some take to be only Articles of Peace and Concord though that Consideration should be a Bridle to the loose and extravagant Railery of some among us Did not we declare our unfeigned assent and consent to the use of every thing contained in the Book of Common Prayer at our Institution Were we not admitted into our Office and unto the Profits of our Places upon these Terms Is not the Common Prayer the Rule and Measure of our publick Duties Now let it be considered how agreeable such Principles as we have discours'd of are with our necessary publick Offices in the Book of Common Prayer how a Socinian can satisfie himself with so frequent a Repetition of Gloria Patri c. how he can in Conscience say the Nicene Creed which he if a Minister of our Church is bound to do every Lord's-day c. how he can then also with any Peace in himself say the Letany wherein he is to call upon God the Father Son and Holy Ghost as Three Persons and One God how he can give Thanks upon Trinity-Sunday for Grace by confession of a true Faith to acknowledge the Glory of the Eternal Trinity and to worship the Vnity and pray that God would keep us stedfast in this Faith or administer the Holy Communion upon that day when we are commanded to say Everlasting God who art one God one Lord not one only Person but three Persons in one Substance c. Besides I have noted above Twenty Collects that occur to us in their proper turns that conclude with express mention and Honour of the Holy Trinity that we are bound to read as they come in their courses Yea lastly how shall such Principles suffer us to do our Duty to Children whom we are bound to teach that by the Common Creed they believe in God the Father and in God the Son and in God the Holy Ghost Now my Brethren if we are or hereafter shall be tainted with such Principles as are light with our Offices and Obligations we see our Case for while we continue in our Places and under the Obligations of our Ministry we must either read the Creeds Catechise our People according to the Form prescribed and say the Prayers according to the Rubricks or we must refuse to do so If we refuse I do not here censure many mens too frequent Omissions of some parts of our Service for which they think they have some necessity but if we constantly refuse to discharge our Duty upon Principle especially in the great Parts or Members of it as we have instanced before I must pronounce this is a plain Neglect of our Duty a horrid Schism in our Church a great Scandal and Temptation to our People and Neighbourhood and an unaccountable breach of our Trust and the Vows Promises and Obligations formally made by us and resulting from the nature of our Offices a forfeiture of all the Profits of our Places into which we were inducted upon Conditions of Conformity and cannot consist with a quiet or good Conscience On the other side if we do continue to perform all the Offices of our Ministry outwardly contrary to our inward Principles we prevaricate with Heaven We cannot justifie what some men dare to say that we read the Service as we would read an Act of Parliament or as the Burden of our Places for we are at our Devotion in solemn Applications and Addresses to the Divine Majesty and God and Angels and Men are Witnesses of our Hypocrisie and Dissimulation Thus we are entangled in a Snare and how we should break it and deliver our selves I know not but either by a voluntary leaving our Places or by being deprived of them by Authority as Criminals Dissenters Apostates or Nonconformists Hitherto we have proceeded to caution you upon a Supposition that the Attempts of Socinians may prove ineffectual or not gain much ground among us but if they should which the good God avert the Consequences thereof give a sad Prospect to all the true Friends of this Church though Her Enemies may please themselves with the premeditation of it What Alterations Distractions Confusions would Socinianism bring with it This duly pondered I hope will provoke all good men to Watch and Guard against all approaches of it Who sees not as this Novel-Heresie advances our Faith our Worship and Ecclesiastical Government is in danger If this prevail we must have new Articles of Religion new Creeds and our Prayers and Common Service must be almost all new and our Church must be quite another thing than now it is if it shall then deserve that Name when its Pillars are shaken and its Foundation rased which is laid in the Doctrine of the Trinity upon which it stood firm in Communion with the Catholick as before I observed ever since it was a Christian Church But that Good GOD who by his wise and watchful Providence hath hitherto so wonderfully preserved this Church of Ours from all the subtile Designs and violent Attacks of Her other Enemies and doth yet preserve it I hope will never suffer us to be swallowed up in the bottomless Gulph of Socinianism for the sake of his Dear Son and our Blessed Saviour JESUS CHRIST to whom with thee O Father and the H. Ghost Three Persons and One God be Honour and Glory in all the Churches World without End FINIS