A SERMON PREACHED AT COLCHESTER, June 2. 1697. BEFORE THE Right Honourable and Reverend Father in GOD, HENRY Lord Bishop of LONDON, AT A Conference with his CLERGY UPON His MAJESTY'S late Injunctions.  
By H. De LUZANCY, B. D. Vicar of DOVERC. and HARWICH.  Printed by his Lordship's Special Command. 
To which are prefixed some Remarks on the Socinians late Answer to the Four Letters written against them by the same Author.  
LONDON, Printed by E. Holt for Tho. Bennet, at the Half Moon in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1697.   

To the Reverend Clergy at the Conference, June 2.  
Reverend Brethren,  
THis Discourse, when pronounced before our most Excellent Diocesan, had the Happiness to meet with so great an Approbation from you, that even in that respect you might have challenged its first appearing in the World: But by your unanimous Application to His Lordship, that he would be pleased to command me to make it public, it became entirely your own; and I could not without Injustice look for any other, or safer Patronage, than that of so many wise and learned Men, who did me the Honour to desire its Publication.  
But there is also a great mixture of Gratitude in the Offer which I humbly make to you of it. I am glad of so public an Opportunity to express to you the deep Sense which I have of your repeated Favours to my Parish, which for four Years last past you have honoured with a Lecture, wherein you proposed to yourselves no other Encouragement but that of doing Good; your pious Endeavours being like Virtue, which is a Reward to itself, and is abundantly satisfied if it can but advance the Great Ends of Religion I am,  
Reverend Brethren, Your most Humble, and Obedient Servant, LUZANCY,   

The PREFACE.  
HIs Majesty's late Injunctions are the Subject of the following Discourse: How wise they are in themselves, and how suitable to the Exigencies of the Church, is visible to any one, who is never so little acquainted with the Disputes of the present Age. The Socinians by opposing the Belief of the Holy Trinity, and the Divinity of Jesus Christ, having brought Religion into Danger, there appeared Writers of all sorts to defend the Grand and Common Concern of Christianity. But they being Men of different Education, Studies, and Inclinations, managed the Sacred Controversy in a different way from one another. Some excellently versed in Ecclesiastical Learning, and great Assertors, as well as Judges of Tradition, stuck firmly to the Decisions of the Sacred Councils, and the Determinations of the Fathers: Some addicted to the Speculations of the Schools, followed a more abstruse and metaphysical Method: Others used to a Philosophical way of arguing, would bring our Mysteries within the usual and received Principles of reasoning. But all this was not done with the same Abilities and Success. Some made the Judgement of the Catholic Church before, and after the great Council of Nice, to appear with a vast Clearness and Evidence: Some did show to the learned World, how Grapes may be gathered of Thorns; and the manner of speaking of the Schools become not only plain, but also florid, and eloquent: Others thought that God had stamped in us the Image of his incomprehensible Operations: Unhappy in this, that they gave to weak Similitudes the Name of Demonstrations, and justly angered the present, by ridiculing the Terms used by the Ancient Church.  
This, though indeed well designed of all hands, yet met not with all the Success which might have been hoped for. It inflamed the Socinians, and made them not so much to weigh the Truth itself, as to strive to find some Defect in every one of these ways. The first being most Matter of Fact, was very hard to be opposed; and whosoever reads seriously the Answer to the learned Doctor Bull, and is in any degree acquainted with Antiquity, must needs wish for more Exactness and Candour in the Author of that Writing. The second they have professedly misunderstood, owning Dr. South as exact and as close a Writer as ever was, to speak the Sense of the Church, but willing to mistake that Sense, and confounding it with Sabellianism, which the Church ever did, and does now detest. The third having given them great Advantages, they have crowded one Print upon the neck of another, and the Authority of the Divine Oracles laid aside, Philosophy becomes the Judge of Religion; and Aristotle or Des Cartes impeach Christ and his Apostles.  
But this is not all: Several learned Men amongst us could not bear with these new Notions, or think their Silence justifiable to God and his Church in this Matter: They expressed themselves warmly against those Vncatholick Terms and Explications, but were answered again with Heat and Clamour; and a War began of a strange and unaccountable Nature; all Parties agreeing in the same Design to maintain our Holy Mysteries, and yet divided in the way of pursuing it.  
The Injunctions obviated all this, by giving a check to a swarm of Socinian Prints, which with great Industry were dispersed over the Kingdom; and obliging Divines not only to treat these Sacred Matters calmly, but also to use no other Expressions in their Explications, but what the Churches of God have used themselves to: A wise and a truly Christian Expedient to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church! For of all the Societies which make up the Catholic Church, none ever pretended to say any new thing in this Matter; but as they received the Faith, so they delivered it to us: And to any rational Man, it is a mighty Argument against Socinianism, that those very Churches which have, and do differ amongst themselves in so many other Points, never differed in this; and that the great Variety of Superstructures never in the least affected the Foundation.  
I hope that this has in a very great measure laid the Heats raised amongst us: But it has not silenced the Socinians; though indeed it appears to me by their latest Prints since the publishing of the Injunctions, that they writ more out of a desire to have it said, that they have left no Book unanswered, than really to satisfy themselves and others concerning those substantial Arguments, which have been offered to them. This is the most charitable Construction which I can make of the Answers to Mr. Edward's, the Lords Bishops of Sarum and Chichester, and the incomparable Vindication of the Lord Bishop of Worcester. But I think the Answer to my Book to be a singular Instance of this. A Friend of mine, who is a Gentleman of that Persuasion, had often told me that there was one coming, and I expected it with some Impatience, desirous to see what they had to say to some plain Arguments, which I thought of great force, and how they would vindicate so many Places out of their own Books, which they owned I had cited with a great deal of Truth and Justice. At last my Friend shows me their latest Collection of Answers, amongst which there is one to the four Letters of M. H. de L. I hope it will not be taken amiss if I make some Remarks upon it.  
1. It is very diverting to see a Writing called an Answer to the four Letters; and not so much as a Page, or Line, or Tittle of the four Letters touched. I confess that this is an easy way of answering, and that at this rate any Book upon Earth may be answered. Any Body may have the Pleasure to be an Author. But I am not altogether satisfied, that this is consistent with that reputation of Learning and Eloquence which these Gentlemen men have so justly acquired. One or two more such Answers, will, I am afraid, sink, or at least endanger a part of it.  
2. They give a rare reason for not meddling with the four Letters. I know not, says the Author, p. 47. whether we are concerned in them, till I know more certainly in what Sense he holds a Trinity of Divine Persons, and the Divinity and Satisfaction of our Saviour? I beg leave of these Gentlemen to assert, that they know as well as I do myself, what is my sense in those Matters. Obscurity is none of the many defects which the four Letters may be charged with: But they were not willing to entangle themselves in the discussion of so many Citations, or to make good the weak side of their Writings, which they were sensible could not be maintained. They have found of late a shorter Cut; and that is, the famous distinction of Real and Nominal Trinitarians: They steal away with this on all occasions, and still maintain a running Fight: It is their last refuge; and had it not been for the rare contrivance, there had been before this an end of the Socinian Controversy. To answer a solid Argument, is a hard, and generally an unfortunate Task: But if they can but bring you right or wrong within the Verge of the fatal Distinction, than they have always a large Field for Discourse: They act in this like ingenious, but whether altogether like conscientious Men, I am not willing to determine?  
3. They are so full of that beloved distinction, and so fond of meeting with any thing that looks like it, that in what they call an Answer to the Four Letters, they have done to themselves and to me a real Injury. To themselves by a flat contradiction in the space of four Pages; and to me, by charging me with that which I never said or thought: They make me say that the Divine Persons are Three Infinite Spirits. Pag. 43. He says Three Infinite Spirits each of them a God, are all of them but One God: I aver that there is nothing in the Four Letters which directly, or indirectly looks like that: It is not the Language of Scripture, nor that of the Catholic Church: It never was, and I hope shall never be mine. But this they have contradicted, Pag. 47. by desiring to know, in what Sense I hold a Trinity of Divine Persons. One would be apt to say that this betrays a great deal of Incogitancy.  
4. The Four Letters then are still sound and safe; but the Preface is engaged, and I must endeavour to bring it off. Two things in it are excepted against: The one, that I said, That the Consent of the whole Christian World must be a strong Inducement to a modest Socinian to mistrust all his Arguments, and that to oppose all that is great and good in the Church of God in a Point of Faith, which Word the Author of the Answer has overlooked, is too much for the most presuming Disputant. He says to this, p. 40. that the case is this; one side has Argument, the other has Authority and Number: And that in a Clash between Argument and Number, that whole World, and all that is great in it, when weighed against but one Argument, is as if you had put nothing at all into the Scale.  
I say that he absolutely mistakes the Case. We maintain that the Church has Reason, as well as Authority and Number; and that on this very Account a modest Socinian must lose much of his Confidence. By all that is great and good, I mean the Sacred Councils, the Holy and Learned Fathers, and the different Societies of Christians all the World over, who have been baptised in the Name of that Blessed Trinity, and look upon jesus Christ as the Author and Finisher of their Faith. In a Point of Faith, and much less in the Foundation, God will not suffer the Catholic Church to err. Had I said that it had been a Reason to a modest Socinian to mistrust all his Arguments, I had said nothing but what is exactly true: I confess I was too modest myself in calling it only an Inducement.  
5. The other Exception is against an Assertion, which I thought no Divine in the World would have disputed; That Faith and Reason are two different things; and, consequently, that that which is the Object of Faith, cannot be the Object of Reason. He calls this, p. 41. a very rash Proposition. He says some lines before, That the Apostle teaches, Heb. 11.1. not only that the Object of Faith and Reason is the same; but that there cannot be Faith without Reason; and that Faith is the Product of Reason. This Author should have considered, before he called the Proposition rash, that it is the Sense of all the Ancient and Modern Divines; and that though sometimes Faith and Reason are conversant about the same Object; as for instance, in the Existence and Unity of God, which Reason considers as well as Faith; yet for all that, their Object is different, and even in this very case, Reason assents to it, as it is naturally known; and Faith, as it is supernaturally revealed. The place of the Apostle should not have been mentioned at all. For what is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Evidence of things not seen, but a Revelation of those things which Reason cannot reach, or penetrate; and on this very account are said to be unseen, and is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that Demonstration, which rising from an higher Principle, is different from, and has a greater Certainty than Reason.  
But what this Author says, That there can be no Faith without Reason, and that Faith is the Product of Reason, shows plainly the misfortune of writing Answers in haste. If by the first of these Propositions he means that Faith is always rational, and that Reason never wants strong Inducements to believe, which the Schools in their rugged Language call Motives of Credibility, I say so too. But if he means, that we cannot believe, except we have a clear Notion of what is proposed to our Belief; I say, that it is against the Nature of Faith, which offers things above Reason, and expects the submission of our Judgements to the Authority of the Revelation.  
The second Proposition that Faith is the Product of Reason, is capable of a tolerable Sense, if by it is meant no more, than that Reason is an introduction to Faith: But if by it is meant, that it is the Cause of Faith, I must beg this Author's leave to say, that it is plain Pelagianism.  
6. This Gentleman asks me several Questions, wherein I must take the liberty to tell him that I am not at all concerned, and consequently not obliged to answer. He argues very smartly against Three Infinite Minds, Spirits, or Substances; though, at the same time, I doubt he makes his Adversaries to say more than really they do. I leave him and them to dispute it; yet one of them I think is a Question by no means to be offered, and takes off much of the respect due to the Sacred Writings, p. 42. This therefore, says he, is the first Question that I desire Mr. L. to resolve: Will he believe a Doctrine that seems to imply manifest and incontestable Contradictions, if such Doctrine or Proposition were indeed found in Scripture? To this, I answer, that the Question is unreasonable, because the Supposition on which it is grounded is impossible. God cannot contradict himself. A manifest and contestable Contradiction in Scripture, is a thing not so much as to be thought of from him, who is Light, and in whom there is no Darkness at all. But I well go farther with this Gentleman; and though I love and honour Reason as much as any Man in the World, yet I will affirm, that if it were possible that in any undoubted Scripture there should be in clear and express Terms a Proposition or Doctrine which seems to imply a manifest and incontestable Contradiction, I ought not to reject it, or make my Reason the Judge of God's Veracity: But my Duty is humbly to resign myself to him, and adore what I cannot understand.  
7. I know that this Gentleman will take this very ill; and will say again, as he has already, p. 41. that I calumniate Reason, the Light set up in us by God himself. But that Light is not given us to impeach and reproach our Maker; and reject what he commands us to believe, or call it a manifest and incontestable Contradiction, because it is above its weak Perceptions: That Light ought to act in its due measure and proportion; if it goes farther, it is a Rebellion and an Attempt against the Majesty and Power of God. He calumniates Reason, who does detract from its Dignity and Energy in those things wherein it ought to be Judge. It is an Affront to Reason to be brought below itself: But he also calumniates Reason, who exalts it more than it deserves; as he no less maliciously injures a Man, who commends in him Qualities which he has not, than he who obscures and denies those which he has. There are some General Principles wherein Reason cannot err, and which Man ought to be guided by. None is more plain and evident than this, that he owes his submission and assent to what God proposes: Whether it be comprehensible, or not comprehensible, is no part of the Inquiry? Whether God has proposed it, is the true state of the Question? Reason has a Right to examine, Whether God has proposed it, or no? The danger of taking things upon Trust, is too great to deny Reason the power of examining. But that Point once cleared, to say that we ought not to submit, because it is incomprehensible, or appears to us manifestly contradictory, is an ill and an endless way of arguing.  
8. This Author cannot digest the Epithets of Narrow and Corrupt, which I gave to Reason. He complains of it in several places of his small Writing. But indeed is not our Reason such? Can he who denies this, pretend that he ever endeavoured to know himself? I have often wondered at the pains which some Men have taken to convince the Opposers of the Doctrine of Original Sin. The shortest and easiest Method was to send them to themselves, to find there the fatal consequences of the first Transgression. I appeal to my ingenious Adversary, who though certainly a great Master of Reason, yet upon second Thoughts will agree with me that the Reason of the best Men is very Narrow and Corrupt. Whence do proceed so many Mistakes and Errors, Misapprehensions and Inadvertencies, but from that very Principle? Is not this the Spring of so many hot and tedious Disputes? And what Reason but this can be given of so many Books and Opinions which have divided Mankind?  
In this the Excellency of Faith appears, and for this we ought to praise its Author, the Holy jesus, that it has rectified and improved Reason not only by making it more knowing, but also more humble, more sincere, and more obedient to God.  
I am sure that this is the Method of arguing of the Primitive Fathers in that mighty struggle with the Heathen Philosophers, some of whom did so exalt Reason as to pretend to decide of every thing; whilst others did so revile it, as to be positive that nothing could certainly be known; and consecrated that wild and extravagant Saying of Socrates, Hoc unum scio nihil scio. This I know that I know nothing. Both disputed admirably one against another. But when the Apologists for Christianity were obliged to take in hand the Cause of Religion; althô they had the true Notion of Reason, Res Dei Ratio, says elegantly Tertullian, and knew it to be the Light of God in us, yet they owned it to be narrow and corrupted, and consequently not Reason, but Faith and Revelation to be attended to. Thus Justin Martyr, Arnobius, Tertullian, Lactantius, St. Austin, and others: Tertullian de Anima, c. 1. Cui enim veritas comperta sine Deo? Cui Deus cognitus sine Christo? Cui Christus exploratus sine Spiritu Sancto? Cui Spiritus Sanctus accommodatus sine Fidei Sacramento: And St. Austin de morib. Eccl. Cath. c. 2. A Book never enough to be read; who speaks of Reason in Terms which must certainly please those Gentlemen, calling it, Perspicuitas, & sanctitas Rationis, the Clearness and Sanctity of Reason; yet says, that it is so much obscured by Sin, Passion, and Prejudice, that, Saluberrime comparatum est, ut in lucem Veritatis aciem titubantem, & velut ramis humanitatis opacatam inducat authoritas.  
9 This shows how much this Gentleman is in the wrong, when he says, p. 42. that I must be content to argue these Questions about the Trinity and Incarnation not from Scripture only, but from Reason also; nay, from Reason chief and ultimately. As far as Reason is subservient to find the Truth and Certainty of the Revelation, I confess that I must argue from Reason; and the Chief and ultimately is capable of a good Sense; because the belief of our Mysteries is at last resolved into this most rational Proposition, That I must believe what God has revealed; and that to find that it is so in the sacred and undoubted Scriptures, is certainly the Work of Reason. But if he means that, the Authority of God's Word laid aside, we must bring those Mysteries to the Scrutiny of Reason; and instead of Divine, use only Humane and Philosophical Disceptations, I say that it is a new, an unreasonable, and an unchristian Assertion.  
It is new: For this very Author is too much conversant with Antiquity, not to know, that in the long Contests between the Orthodox, and the Arrians, Nestorians, etc. the Scripture was appealed to on both sides: They never thought of pretended Impossibilities, manifest and incontestible Contradictions. The Certainty of the Revelation, was the only proof aimed at; That the Scripture plainly taught it, was affirmed by the Church; That it was not, was maintained by Heretics. Indeed Tradition had a share in the Dispute: For no Scripture being of private Interpretation, the Sense of the Primitive Doctors was strictly enquired after; but all still was resolved into the Testimony of God in the Sacred Writings. Yet these Times had their Orators, their Philosophers, their Critics; and it is strange, that none of them could perceive, that one, and one, and one, are not one but three; and that this manifest and incontestable Contradiction should only be a discovery of the Socinians in this Age.  
It is also unjust and unreasonable: For the manner of treating a Dispute, must have some proportion with the thing in Dispute. Physical Experiments are not searched into with Metaphysical Speculations; nor metaphysical Speculations cleared by Physical Experiments. Criticisms are unserviceable in Geometry, and an excellent Geometrician may be a lamentable Critic. Yet we have to deal with a sort of Men, who will have Reason to decide of Matters above Reason; will make Faith and Reason, knowing and believing to be the same thing; and under pretence of Reasoning, will rob God of his Power over us, and us of the Reward of our Obedience to him.  
It is unchristian. If you design to dispute with a Philosopher, then go and ransack Athens and Rome; out with your Reason as splendidly, and profusely as you can: But for me, who can say with Pacianus, Christian is my Name, and Catholic is my Surname, I can, I will hear nothing but out of the Sacred Scriptures: Whatsoever you intent to teach me of God, must be fetched from thence. I never built the hopes of my Salvation upon Aristotle, or Des Cartes: Their Writings are good in their kind; but to form Religion, they are those Cisterns spoken of by the Prophet, broken Cisterns that can hold no Water. In a Word, there we are to fix; and we cannot avoid disputing eternally, if this is not made the Touch stone of all our Arguments. When we have indulged our Reason to the utmost degree, it will prove an egregious Cheat to us, and we shall at last be obliged to return whence we came, and say as St. Austin, Epist. ad Volus. Dandum Deo aliquid posse, quod fateamur nos investigare non posse. We must agree that God can do those things, be capable of those Operations and Communications, which we must be forced to acknowledge to be above all our Inquiries.   

A SERMON  2 Tim. 1 13. 
Hold fast the Form of sound Words.  
ALtho' the Church is a Divine Institution, the Mystical Body of Christ, and the Purchase of his Blood; Yet the Experience of all Ages has made it appear from the beginning of its happy Establishment, that evil Men and Seducers have attempted not only to ruin its Outworks, but even to blow up its very Foundation. This Christ had foreseen when he told his Apostles, Matth. 18.7. that it must needs be that Offences come. This St. Paul was not unacquainted with, when he said to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 11.19. There must be also Heresies among you: No Age or Society being without Men who love to abound in their own Sense; have not Justice enough to acknowledge their Weakness and Ignorance; and will rather yield to Passion and Prejudice, than be led by the plain Assertions of Scripture, and the calm and serene Dictates of Reason.  
So great an Evil could not but vehemently affect that zealous Apostle, who had incumbent on him the Care of all the Churches. A truly Episcopal Spirit cannot sit unconcerned, and see them perish for whom Christ died. Nor could any way be found more effectual to prevent this, than that Men should speak the same things, and agree in uniform Expressions, as well as in the same Profession of Faith, 1 Cor. 1.10. Now I beseech you, Brethren, by the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no Schisms among you; but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same Judgement.  
This is the ground of the excellent Direction given in the Text to Timothy, Hold fast the Form of sound Words. An Advice which, if necessary at any time, is certainly now of a vast Importance; when the Enthusiast on one side, and the Disputer of this World on the other, have rend Religion to pieces: When Men think it a Discredit to their Parts and Abilities, to think soberly: And instead of uniting against the Common Enemy, will rather suffer the War to be brought into their own Quarters, than part with their private, tho' crude and indigested Notions!  
In speaking to these Words, I will endeavour to show, 

I. What is the Form of found Words?  
II. How dangerous it is to departed from it.  
III. How we ought to behave ourselves in relation to them who have departed from it?    
First, Then, what is the Form of sound Words? It is nothing else but a Collection of the several Verities diffused through the whole Body of the Sacred Scriptures. An express Form, as some have rendered it, not much different in this from the Sense of the Greek Commentators: But more truly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a short Account, a Summary of Christian Doctrine, by which Men come to know what to embrace, and what to refuse. This St. Paul intends when he tells the Romans, Chap. 6.17. that they have obeyed from the heart that Form of Doctrine which was delivered to them. But more agreeably to the Original, into which they were delivered.  
A noble Expression, and elegantly treated by St. Basil in his Discourse of Baptism. This the Apostle calls in the Verse next to the Text, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that excellent Trust committed to the Shepherds of the Flock, Rom. 12.6. He will have no preaching, no establishing of any Doctrine, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. All Sciences have their Axiomata, their first Principles, the ground of all their Demonstrations. Christianity has its Axiomata 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, on which all the rest is built. Whatsoever we have to say, must be reduced to that, and without it ought not to be admitted.  
These Axiomata 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, these Fundamental Principles of Christianity are, 1st. the Apostolical Creed. 2dly, Those Enlargements on it, which the growth of Heresies made necessary in the first General Councils. These four which Gregory the Great professed to reverence next to the four Gospels.  
First, The Apostolical Creed, that unchangeable Rule of Faith, as Tertullian calls it. Cordis signaculum & Fidei nostrae Sacramentum. That which the Fathers understood by the answer of a good Conscience towards God; that is, a solemn Profession, Declaration of what Religion obliges us to believe, and from which we ought not to departed. This is the first Shield of Faith, which the Church opposed to the early Attempts of those Heretics who thought to have stifled her in her Infancy. This Confession of God the Father, of his only begotten Son Jesus Christ our Lord, and of the Holy Spirit, which is the Substance of that Creed, made unsuccessful the Endeavours of Simon, Cerinthus, Basilides, Menander, Carpocrates, and the swarm of impure Gnostics. By this every Christian was initiated to Religion, gave a reason of the Hope that was in him; and became a Member of that Society here on Earth, which after perseverance in well doing is to be rewarded in Heaven.  
I know that a Critic of this Age, a Person of the first rank in the Commonwealth of Learning, has disputed both the Antiquity and Universality of this Creed. A Notion too unadvisedly taken up by several Authors, who thought that the Socinians took too great an Advantage from the Simplicity of its Articles. He made it to be only a Creed of the Latin or Western Church, which the Catechumen were taught before their Admission to Baptism. He produces two of St. Irenoeus, three of Tertullian, one of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, three of Ruffinus, and insists on some difference even between the Fathers who have been the Expositors of this Creed, St. Austin, Chrysologus, Maximus, and others.  
But notwithstanding all this, whosoever will look into the Creeds of St. Irenoeus, and Tertullian; for that of St. Cyril was after the Nicene Council, and those which Ruffinus has compared, that is, the Roman, the Aquileian, and the Oriental Creeds, will find so mighty an agreement, and the variations so minute and inconsiderable, as to make impossible any substantial difference.  
And it is certainly a strange Fancy, that the Socinians should take an advantage from the Simplicity of these Articles, which being but a Compendium of the New Testament, are at last resolved into it. For the Sense of that Creed must be that of the Scriptures, of which it is an Epitome. And how can they argue against the Divinity of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, from their not being called God in the Creed, when the Scriptures are so full in asserting the Unity of God, and the Trinity of Persons in that one Adorable and Divine Nature? Are we not baptised in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Are there not Three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and are not these three one? Is not Christ declared to be, God blessed over all for ever? and God manifested in the Flesh? Are we not told that the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God, and that to lie to the Holy Spirit, is to lie to God?  
This Objection is of that Clearness and Evidence, is so far from giving them any Advantage, and they have found themselves so pressed by it, that they have been forced to split on another Rock, and say that the Form of Baptism is no part of Scripture, and is only an addition to St Matthew. That the Place of St. John is another, and that the Word God, is not to be found in the cited Scriptures. Shifts unbecoming learned Men! Which even Praxeas and Sabellius would have blushed at: The former opposed by Tertullian, who tells him, that this Rule of Faith is come down to us from the beginning of the Gospel. The latter by Dionysius of Alexandria, who tells him, apud Euseb. l. 7. c. 6. That the Persons of the Father, Son, and Holy spirit are indivisibly united in the same Divine Nature.  
2dly, The Forms agreed upon in the Primitive Councils, at Nice, Antioch, Sardis, Ephesus, Constantinople, Chalcedon, etc. are no Additions to, but only Explications of the first Form. They are still the Form of sound Words. It is not in the Power of the Church to make new Forms, new Articles of Faith: And in this the Church of Rome is inexcusable, and guilty of a Schism, which she has charged others with. But to declare and explain the Faith, is an essential part of its Power. The growing Heresies were the occasion of the Apostolical Creed, the first Remedy applied to that raging Disease. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the vain and noisy Oppositions of a pretended Knowledge, obliged them to deliver the sacred System of Divine Verities. But when the old Heretics were worn out, leaving to the World a sad remembrance of their gross Follies and Immoralities; and a new sort sprung up, who did attempt to overthrow the Faith once delivered to the Saints by Blasphemous Heterodoxies. It was high time for the Church, to make the Creed more comprehensive than it was at first; give a greater extent to its Articles, and leave safe to future Ages the Depositum which they had received.  
And indeed it would have been very happy for the Church, if Men keeping to the Plainness and Simplicity of the Revelation, had not presumed to go farther. Oh, that an humble Faith had stifled Curiosity in its first Attempts to inquire into Divine Mysteries with weak Ratiocinations, and Philosophy never assumed to bring Divinity to be tried at the Bar of humane Reason! Then Mercy and Truth would have kissed each other, and God, even our God, would have given us his Blessing. But Man forgot that scrutator Majestatis opprimetur à Gloria, That the bold and daring Searcher into the Majesty of God will be oppressed and sink under the weight of his Glory. He launched into a Sea in which the Rocks and Sands on all sides threatened a sad and inevitable Ruin.  
God has revealed to us his Existence and the Unity of his Nature. He has told us, that in that one indivisible and inseparable Nature, are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He has asserted the Father to be God, the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God. He has taught us that the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father, nor the Holy Ghost Father or Son. He has informed us, that in the Fullness of times he sent his only Son to take our Nature: That the Word was made Flesh, and offered himself a Sacrifice for us. In such plain Propositions as these has he commanded us to acquiesce. Faith is the Duty of this; Intuition and Knowledge the Privilege of another Life. The Perceptions of our present State, have no proportion with so incomprehensible an Object. Had we stayed there, the Church would have been a City at Unity within itself. But Man not contented with this, strives to understand that which God has not been pleased to reveal; that is, the Nexus, or manner of in being of the Three Persons; The How, these three can be one; The Way of the Union of the two Natures in one adorable Person Christ Jesus; and having no other Guide but his Reason, entangles himself in inextricable Difficulties.  
Of this sort were Paul of Samosatum Patriarch of Antioch, Photinus' Bishop of Syrmium, Praxeas, Noëtus, Sabellius, Arrius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches, and in this very Age Socinus the Reviver of the Samosatenian, and Photinian Heresy. These have been the Incendiaries of the Church, and the great Disturbers of its Peace: The Men who have made it necessary to enlarge the Form of sound Words, and were the occasion of the Creeds made in the Councils of which they bear the Names.  
Sabellius owned the Unity of the Divine Nature; but struck with the Evidence of those Texts which speak the Son and the Holy Spirit to be God, could not deny a Trinity, but made it only to consist of mere Names, or Denominations, as St. Basil expresses it, Hom. 27. pag. 602. Or as St. Athanasius has it, one only Person, the Father acting under different Names. A Notion which the present Socinians seem too too willing to embrace. Arrius owned a Trinity of Persons, and not of Names. He saw that the poor shift of Sabellius was irreconcilable with that Oeconomy which so clearly appears in the Scriptures. But by admitting three Principles he destroyed the Unity of God, and was the first Author of the chimerical distinction of a God made and a God unmade, of a Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the like, but not of the same Substance. Apollinaris owned the Incarnation. The Word was made Flesh, was an Authority of that Weight and Clearness, as gave not the least ground to Primitive Ages for Allegories and little Criticisms so much used in this. But he destroyed the Union of the two Natures, by denying that Christ had a Soul, and leaving the Divinity to inform his Body. Nestorius' Patriarch of Constantinople, owned the two Natures, but denied their Union in one Person. He would have two Persons as well as two Natures. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Man. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eutyches acknowledged the Incarnation; but maintained a Singularity of Nature with that of a Person. He would have the Humanity to be absorped, and the God to have annihilated the Man. All these the Church of God condemned by the Form of sound Words contained in the several Creeds.  
The sober Church of England sensible that even in point of Reformation we are apt to outrun the Mark; and under pretence of forsaking old Errors really fall into new ones, has strenuously aimed at this, not to recede a Jot from the Form of sound Words, and stick close not only to the Sense, but even to the ways of speaking of the Primitive Church. It has made the Apostolical and Catholic Creeds a part of its Liturgy; and its very Articles concerning the Blessed Trinity, Incarnation, and Satisfaction of Jesus Christ are nothing else but a repetition of the Dogms of the Ancient Councils.  
But before I conclude this Particular, I must say something of that, which, tho' no part of the Form of sound Words, has yet a very near relation to it; and that is, the Expressions used by the Fathers in their Debates about these Sacred Doctrines; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. and since adopted by all the Divines, and become the Language of the Church. Concerning which I must presume to aver, 1st. that whosoever will be conversant in those Disputes, cannot without these Terms understand any part of them. 2dly, That they are proof against all the Subterfuges and Equivocations of Heretics. 3dly, That tho' it is much safer to keep to the Simplicity of the Form, and pretend to no Explication of that which we own to be incomprehensible; yet if any can be pretended to, it is that, and that only which results from these Terms: But I shall no longer insist on this, and come to the second part of this Discourse, How dangerous it is to departed from the Form of sound Words.  
I am apt to think that it will give a great Light to what I have to say on this head, if I endeavour to show beforehand which ways we departed from it. I conceive that it can be only these two. 1 st. By rejecting the Article itself, which is proposed to our Belief. 2 dly, By admitting the Article, but using other Words than the Church to express or explain it by. The one is absolutely to departed from the sound Words themselves: The other, from the Form in which they are put.  
The first has been done by the Heretics already mentioned. The unfortunate Attempt has been renewed by Socinus, and his Followers; but by none so wholly, as by a sort of pretended witty People, who ashamed of the inhuman and irrational Profession of unmanly Atheism, have under the Name of Deists endeavoured to explode all revealed Religion. To these Socinus has lent most of their Arguments: From that side who have opposed a part of the Revelation, these have learned to reject the whole. And tho' I should think it unjust and uncharitable to think that the present Socinians are Deists, or give the Deists any designed Encouragement; yet I will beg leave to assert, that taking an exact view of the Deistical and Socinian System, there will appear no very vast difference; Deism being nothing else but Socinianism improved; and Socinianism nothing else but Deism contracted.  
The second, that is to keep to the Article, but put it in other Words, has been done by some amongst ourselves. Whether this has been the Effect of a too much indulged Curiosity, or of an imprudent Zeal: Whether the Heat of the Dispute, and the pressing Efforts of the Enemy has driven them from their Anchors? Whether they have been too fond of the Offspring of their own Brains; or whether a mixture of all these together has been the occasion of it, is difficult to judge: But it is certain that the Press has groaned under the burden of new Discoveries; brought forth a swarm of Answers and Replies fuller of Heat than Light; and made it necessary for the Peace of the Church, that a Curtain should be drawn over abundance of Writings, where Learning, Modesty, and Candour should have had a greater share than really they can pretend to.  
Of the first of these, it is easy to show, how dangerous it is to departed from the Form of sound Words. For what greater danger can we fall into, than to make Shipwreck concerning the Faith? A State so much the more dangerous, because it destroys the very ground of our hopes. For he that believes shall be saved▪ He that does not believe is condemned already. To differ from an Orthodox Church, of which we are Members, though in point of Ceremony, is very sinful, if the difference is carried so far as to make a Schism: Toleration, tho' it secures us from the Laws of Men, not acquitting us at all in the sight of God. But how much deeper is that Gild, which lays the Axe to the Root of the Tree; and having corrupted our Minds, makes us reprobate concerning the Faith? An Enormity which the best and earliest Ages showed their detestation of by their frequent anathemas against it.  
But of the second, it does not seem so easy to pronounce. For if Men in the Fundamental Articles of our Holy Religion keep really, and unfeignedly to the truth of what is proposed, as in the Trinity and Incarnation; shall we quarrel with them for using such Words as are either unknown to Antiquity, or rejected by the Doctors of the present Church? May not God reveal to us what the Fathers of Nice or Chalcedon were ignorant of? And as long as we own the Substance of the Article as strictly as our strictest Opposers, can any Fault be found with any Explication? Yet this will prove a wretched piece of Sophistry, if the following Inconveniencies are seriously considered: 1 st. That to departed from the Form which the Church has used herself to, is against her Unity and Peace. 2dly, That it is the way to unsettle pious Minds. 3dly, That it can never be done without giving the Adversaries a mighty Advantage.  
First, It is against the Unity and Peace of the Church. Words are the Interpreters of our Thoughts, and the only way we have to know one another's Minds: A Communication which Nature has taught, Experience improved, and the mutual Commerce of Mankind raised to an absolute necessity. But if this is true in relation to the Affairs of this World, and is the Foundation of all Arts and Sciences; how much more will it hold in respect to Religious Matters, where every Error is dangerous, and draws along with it so many fatal Consequences? Religion, the grand Duty of Man, is conveyed into the Soul by hearing, and comes short of its Energy, if the Terms which it is expressed by, are unusual, and do not in a great measure answer both its Nature, and the end which it proposes. And Christianity being to be disseminated, and the Gospel to sound to the Ends of the World; a Happiness to be offered to the Jew and Gentile, to the Groecian and Barbarians, to all Nations, Ages, Sexes, and Capacities, it was highly wise to deliver it in as short a compass, and in as settled a manner of Expression as the Nature of the thing could bear, and the difference of Men's Understandings agree with.  
The Apostles having left us the Form of sound Words, it became the Care of the Bishops their Successors to preserve it entire. But they saw an utter Impossibility of doing it, and a door open to all manner of Schisms, if Men were not confined to such and such Words, as well as such and such a sense: And I dare presume to say, that this sunk so deeply into these holy and learned Men's Minds, that what we call in this Age Heats and Animosities, or the Platonic and Aristotelian Philosophy brought into the Church, was nothing else but an indefatigable Care and Industry to declare the Faith after such a manner, as should in after-Ages be kept inviolate.  
So afraid were the Fathers of new Words, new Lights, new Expressions, new Explications, as that which naturally brings in a new Sense, that they ever looked on them with a kind of Jealousy; and would never admit them, till they were clearly understood, and authorised by the common Consent of the Christian World. There is an eminent Instance of this in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which tho' the most expressive Words that could be, the one in relation to the Unity of the Divine Nature, the other in relation to the Subsistencies of the Divine Persons; yet met with a vast opposition, the one in the Greek, the other in the Latin Church, till a long canvasing, and at last the determination of the Sacred Councils had fixed both their Use and their Sense.  
Innovation brings in Heresy, and Heresy shelters Innovation. The Apostle concludes the first to Timothy, by charging him pathetically to keep that which is committed to his Trust, and to avoid profane and vain Babble, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vain and empty Sounds. The Latin Interpreter reads more agreeably to the old Copies, profanas vocum novitates. I say more agreeably to the ancient Copies: For St. Basil, and St. Chrysostom read not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, new Sounds, new Words; which shows that it was so in the Exemplaries used by those Fathers: Expressions which by being new are both suspicious and dangerous.  
The Fathers of the third Council of Constantinople, which is the sixth General, and in which Pope Honorius, and the Monothelites were condemned, were so sensible of the Evils occasioned by this, that they concluded their last Action, by subjecting to deprivation, if they were Bishops or Clerks; or to Excommunication, if they were Laics, whosoever did bring in any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, new Words, and new Explications: It being the Infirmity of Humane Nature to be strangely affected with Novelty; and an Argument seldom wanting them, who take the glittering for the solid and weighty part of it. But when an Innovator, who has catched a bright Cloud instead of the Sun, comes to be encountered by the Orthodox, whose Zeal is so much the warmer, because it is inflamed by the Sense of an old Truth, than what Devastations, what Tragedies, what Schisms, what Contentions are seen in the Church?  
Secondly, It unsettles pious Minds. New Explications are like Meteors, which set Men on gazing, and always portend Ruin to Religion. When by an humble and settled Reverence for what God has proposed to us by the Ministry of his Church, we have used ourselves to a Form of Doctrine; whatsoever is foreign to it, offers our Minds an incredible Violence; Pious Ears are offended at it; and they who know better how to feel the Power of Religion, than to talk of it, are horribly scandalised. They have used themselves to an awful Belief and Adoration of Mysteries. They have acquiesced in the received Expressions of the Universal Church; more secure in their rest on the Breasts of their Mother, than if all the Guards in the World were placed round about them; and consequently strangely astonished, when an Innovator strives to tear them out of their Sanctuary.  
No Answer can be made to this, but a pretence of Necessity, that the Socinians have made it unavoidable in their Disputes against the blessed Trinity and Incarnation, to run on a new Method; and that St. Austin has taught us, and before him St. Cyprian; and of their Words a Canon has been made, That Melius est ut scandalum oriatur quam Veritas relinquatur. It is more tolerable to give an occasion of scandal, than that Truth should be left undefended.  
But where does the Necessity appear? Are we not sensible, that the Arguments against our Mysteries are neither new nor invincible? Were not the Arrians much better Disputants than the Scholars of Socinus, who are forced to give Socinianism the Face of Arrianism, or else it is unreasonable to the utmost degree. Has the old way of answering been yet worsted? Have not the decisions of the Councils been like a Rock, on which indeed these proud Waves have beat; but have been forced back, broken, and dispersed? I humbly beg leave to ask, whether the received way of debating these sacred Doctrines can support itself or no? If it can; where is the necessity of any new one? And if it cannot; how comes that to be now so unsuccessful, which the Church has been victorious by in all Ages and Places of the Christian World?  
It fills learned Men with Grief and Indignation to see some of our late Authors strive to entangle an Elephant in a Spider's Web, and expect the lamentable Issue of their Proceeding, who, as Gregory the Great expresses it, lib. 6. mor. c. 17. Wanting Humility to be Disciples of the Truth, become at last the Patrons of Error. The Ecclesiastical History observes that the Great Basil of Seleucia, and Gregory of Nazianzum, before they offered to exercise their Episcopal Function, did give themselves for thirteen years together, in the Retirement of a private Life, to the Study of the Holy Scriptures. Illarum sententiam non ex proprio ingenio, sed ex majorum ratione & authoritate interpretantes. Not interpreting them as they pleased, says the Historian, but conforming their Interpretations to the Sense and Authority of the Ancients. A safe and an excellent Rule to us; and a noble Proof, by the way, of the Sense of the Ante-nicene Fathers: These two eminent Bishops having been so zealous of the Nicene Faith, which they had learned from the Reasons and Authority of the Ancients in their Interpretations of Scripture.  
Thirdly, It cannot be done without giving the Adversaries a mighty Advantage. By Adversaries I mean all the Opposers of the sacred Truths: But most particularly the Socinians; of whom it must be acknowledged, that in their first Prints they managed this Controversy in a dull and languishing sort of a way; and were really at a loss, till the unwary manner of writing of some amongst us, set them again on a full Cry, and made them more eager and vehement. Till then, their Objections were stolen, and their Answers to ours strained and unnatural. But some must pretend to explain things inexplicable, and understand things incomprehensible. The Socinians sensible of the Advantage, remove all their Batteries, and place them against that weak side; and what work they were like to have made, if more accurate Writers had not stepped in, learned Men see and grieve. Only disingenuous in this, that when they have exposed a Writer, they think to have overcome the Church; as if the Church did warrant all their Inadvertencies, who pretend to write in her Defence; or espouse private Notions, which she never knew, nor ever will own.  
This eminently appears in one of their latest Prints, called A Discourse concerning the Real and Nominal Trinitarians. This they take to be the lucky hit. If you believe them, the Church is made up either of Tritheists, who really assert three Gods; or of Sabellians, who mean no more by three Persons, than three mere Modes or Denominations; and this Notion they have carried so far, and so throughly persuaded themselves of the Truth and Strength of it, that it has swallowed up all their other Topics. Whereas there never was perhaps a more unjust way of arguing in the World: For the Church is so far from being divided into such Real and Nominal Trinitarians, as they are pleased to represent us, that there is no such thing in Nature. There is no Church, or part of the Church, which believes any more than one Infinite and Eternal God. There is no Church, or part of the Church, which ever placed the Trinity of Persons in mere Modes, Relations, Names, or Offices. There is no Church, or part of the Church, but what has admitted a Real Unity in Trinity, and a Real Trinity in Unity, but has declared the Modus, or manner, to be altogether incomprehensible.  
But where than have the Socinians met with a ground for this bold Assertion? Truly from some unhappy Expressions of Men, who have not been judicious and exact enough to see all the Consequences which flow from their Principles; and have not perceived that an Adversary could not be obliged to be so equitable, as not to carry those Consequences further than ever they were intended. The Socinians did hear some talk of Three Infinite Minds and Spirits; an Expression indeed harsh and new! And an Infinite Mind, or Spirit, being the definition of God, they have concluded that they asserted Three Gods. But they have not had the Justice to consider, that they who asserted Three Infinite Minds and Spirits, asserted them in one altogether indivisible and inseparable, that is, in a Numerical Nature. On the other side, they have heard that the Three Persons were the several Modes, and Relations of the Divine Nature. They presently run upon the Notion of Modes in created Being's, which are only the several Affections of Substances; and concluded that such a sort of a Trinity is only of Modes and Denominations: But they have not had the Justice to consider that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Modes of Subsistence, are quite of another Nature; That whatsoever is in God, is God; That the Subsistences and Relations are all substantial; and that the Church never pretended, nor these Authors themselves, that they could give any adequate representation of an Object incomprehensible.  
In the mean time they have made a diversion; heated several great and learned Men one against another; and by equally misrepresenting both, have given us a sad Instance how dangerous it is to departed from the Form of sound Words.  
I draw now to a Conclusion; and come to show, how we ought to behave ourselves in relation to them who have departed from it. Our behaviour must be limited by so many several Rules, as there are Persons who have done it. First, Those without, who have departed from the Article itself. Secondly, Those within, who have departed from the Terms which the Church expresses it by.  
The only Adversaries of the Sacred Doctrine in this Age, are the Socinians. I humbly conceive, that that part of the Injunctions which concerns the Angels of the Church, the most Reverend the Archbishops and Bishops, is no part of our business: We must not presume to prescribe to them from whom we ought to receive Laws: They are the Principle of Order and Unity in the Church: They are Stars of the first Magnitude, and in that Elevation of Zeal and Knowledge, that as they see farther, and move in a far larger extent than we do; so they cannot be wanting to themselves, when grievous Wolves enter in amongst us, not sparing the Flock. I confine myself to us, who, by the Trust committed to our Care, may come to be engaged in these Disputes.  
Of the Socinians, several are Persons of Learning and Conscience, acquainted with all the fine sort of Literature, and who have done for and in a bad Cause as much as Men can do: It is an Honour to the Church to have such Adversaries to deal with. Truth never appears with more force, than when it is most strongly opposed. In our late Disputes against Popery, a small Stock of Learning and Common Sense was enough to show its Folly. In the wrangling War with the Dissenters, we have been forced to argue with a sort of Writers who scarce understood good Language. But in this, we meet with a subtle and strong Enemy, well fitted with all Materials for War; and I look upon it as a Providence of God, who turns all things to the good of his Servants, that this Controversy will put us of the Clergy upon finer, better, and more comprehensive Studies.  
But there is another sort of Socinians; and they are they who pretend to make a Bustle in the World; Men, who, after a long course of Atheism and Debauchery, come at last to think of Religion; not because they design to pursue the ends, or submit to the Duties of it, but because in an Age where so many Religions are allowed, it is not handsome to be without one. They live still as they did before, with as little care as ever of their Eternal Concerns; but think Religion only to consist in talking at random of Religious Matters. These Heroes scorn to fall upon some part of the Discipline and Liturgy of the Church, as other Mortals have done, but presently impeach its Faith, its Articles; stare Mankind in the face; and with that mouth used before to blaspheme and reproach their Maker, they dare to deny the Lord that bought them. Every Club, Coffee-house, or Tavern, is the Scene of the Tragedy; and Religion, the most serious and grave business of Man's Life, the Exercise of the Church, Family, or Closer, is villainously prostituted over a Dish of Coffee, or a Bottle of Wine.  
The way to deal with these, is not to dispute: An evil heart of Unbelief has turned them aside, that they cannot say there is a Lie in my right hand: They are to be the Object of our Prayers, and Tears to God for their Conversion. The last Argument that remains, is by our good Examples to bring them to some Sense of Morality.  
But against the others, we ought to dispute and to write: When Error is always ready to speak, Truth ought not to be silent. We cannot be afraid of a Cause, which the Glorious Company of the Apostles has taught, the Noble Army of Martyrs maintained, and the Holy Church throughout all the World so solemnly acknowledged. But it is diligently to be observed, that few Reasons, and these good; Authorities, and these not contested; an exact and accurate way of writing, are the means to stop a Controversy. Above all things, Heat and Passion ought to claim no part in the Dispute: Ill Language is a bad Introduction for the best Argument. Either we design to confute, instruct, and persuade them, or we do not: If we do not, we detain the Truth of God in Hypocrisy, and make it subservient to mean and inglorious Ends: And if we do, we cannot but be sensible, that Truth, Gravity, Exactness, and Strength of Reason, are strangely obstructed by a sordid and malicious way of writing.  
But if we are to be so just to them without, how much more to them within? It is one of the Excesses which God reproaches the Wicked with, Ps. 50.20. to sit and speak against his Brother, to slander his own Mother's Son. A Sin not allowable in the Jewish, much less in the Christian Church; not pardonable in a Laic, much less in a Clerk. It has been observed of the old Romans, that they scarce ever felt any Convulsion in their State, till their victorious Arms were turned against themselves, and destroyed in very few years the Prosperity of many Ages. It has appeared all along, our Adversaries themselves being Judges, that the great Piety, mighty Genius, vast Parts, profound Learning, and flowing Eloquence of the Clergy of this Nation, has made the Church of England venerable to all the World: They have brought the Clamouring Papist to shame and despair of Success: They have silenced the buzzing Nonconformist. No Argument has fallen into their hands, but what they have exhausted with an incredible Felicity of Thought and Expression; and must we turn those never foiled Weapons into our own Bowels? Is this a time to become the Contrivers of our own ruin, whilst the Enemy takes breath, and has nothing left to do, but to inflame our unhappy Contentions?  
I am not for stifling the Truth. God forbidden! It would be in vain; for it is great, and it must prevail. I would have Zeal to take its course, and our mouth to be open, and our heart enlarged to all Men: But at the same time I would have fervent Charity amongst ourselves; and think it insufferable to by't and devour one another, till we are consumed of one another.  
To avoid so dangerous an Excess, let us take leave of our Passions when we begin to speak or write about these Sacred Matters. Passion hinders us from taking the real Advantages of an Argument, and makes us to administer Poison instead of a Medicine. It generally puts us on the wrong side of the Question; and the Man does sadly expose the Writer. It has the same Effect on him against whom we writ: It hurries him to a retaliation; and between two hot Spirits, Truth vanishes, and only the wrangling part remains. It is that which we abhor in Conversation, and is not suffered amongst civilised People. We wrangle in Print, and stamp on Paper the lasting marks of Fury and Prejudice. In the mean time the Judicious Reader pities Humane Weakness; wants a stock of Patience to read the Book through, and leaves us at last to the Judgement of the great Judge. But a judicious Reader is somewhat rare. The lose witty People swallow greedily the sarcastical, and leave the serious part. By this Religion is exposed, and cruelly misrepresented. This has been the ground of many Canons taken from the grave Admonitions of the Fathers, and in particular the 53 of our Church.  
Let us unanimously return to the Form of found Words. That which shows the Vanity and Unpracticableness of Explications beyond the Power of Contradiction, is, that there is none but what is liable to invincible Objections; and indeed how can it be otherwise, when the Subject transcends all our Apprehensions? Man who is scarce acquainted with himself, will pretend to decide of the Nature of God A poor, finite, and limited Being, will become a Judge of Eternity, and Immensity! One who does not know the least of his Soul's Operations, will presume to understand the several ways of Communication of the Divine Nature! Away with this pretended Knowledge, which at the bottom is nothing but Noise and Talk! Away with that glittering Nonsense, which is not worthy to take up a serious Man's leisure! For my part I am resolved to Adore, and to Believe. I will give an unfeigned Assent to what is revealed; and come to God with the Homage and Submission of my Understanding, concerning what he is pleased to conceal from me. I will have mean Thoughts of this present Life, since in it we know so little; and a mighty desire of that which is to come, since in it we shall know so much. In the mean time, I shall conclude this Discourse with the excellent Prayer of St. Hilary, in his 12th. Book of the Trinity, and doubt not, my Reverend Brethren, but you will join with me in it. Conserva hanc Conscientiae meae vocem, ut quod in regenerationis meae symbolo baptizatus in Patre, Filio, & Spiritu Sancto professus sum, semper obtineam. Preserve in me, O Lord, that Answer of a good Conscience, that I may ever hold fast what I have professed at my Regeneration, when I was baptised in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  
To these Three Coeternal, Coessential, Consubstantial Persons, in that one Adorable, Indivisible, and Incomprehensible Nature.  
To the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth.  
To the only Begotten Son Jesus Christ our Lord, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God.  
To the Holy and Eternal Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son,  
All Honour and Glory now and for evermore.  
Amen.  
FINIS.