IT is a great pleasure, Pag. 5. Toward the end: poore spi­rited persons. and advan­tage to the Socinians, to lessen the estimation of the judgement of the Fathers, that so their mighty works against Arrians, and others of kin to Socinians, may have lesse credit and trust; But certainly his Argument doth not follow, That be­cause they have failed in some lesser points, therefore their judgment is not competent in greater: This Argu­ment being set against Barnabas, and Paul would have shewed an ill face: Because Barnabas and Paul did not agree in the small Controversie of taking Marke with them, they were incompetent Judges of greater Con­troversies of Faith. It is a wise Dispensation of Di­vine Providence, That in this life wee know but in part, and it is a great preservation of Humility, that it is so. Our blindnesse in lesser matters shewes whence wee have our Light in greater, and calls upon us to give the Glory of our Light to the Father of Lights. Again, this knits us the faster in a spirituall Commerce, while one man knowing but in part, hath need of ano­thers help, who knows that part, which to himself was unknowne. If this Authour know more concerning the Controversie of Easter, surely I believe the Fathers knew more then hee (before hee had read them) of the great Controversies of the Trinity, And certainly if the mighty Arguments taken out of the heart of Scripture, by Athanasius, Cyrill of Alexandria, and others, against those Heresies, which are now revived by Socinians, be [Page 3]duly weighed, it must be acknowledged that the Spirit of Truth was powerfull in them, and that they had the very minde of Christ: And so at worst, they were but like the Church of Thyatira, Revel 2. which the Spirit com­mends for Faith, and works, though with all the same Spirit saith, I have a few things against thee.

This passage hath need of Salt, Pag. 7. Towards the end. What if the gesture or adora­tion be used to the Altars? to make it savoury. If there be an idolatrous ado­ration to Altars in one place, and none in another, I think it is no Schisme to forbeare that place, where this abominable wickednesse is committed, which both of­fends God, and vexeth the souls of righteous Lots: and to goe to another, where neither God, nor man is so of­fended. And it is considerable, whether thy voluntary, and indifferent using such places doe not encourage such Idolaters in their Idolatry, yea, give some hint to a weak brother to think that it is approved by thee. Saint Pauls reason against eating things sacrificed to Idols, seems to lead us to such an opinion. Neither doth this example of the Israelites comming to Shiloh, Deut. 12.5, 11, 13, 14. 1 Sam. 1.3. (where were the corrupt manners of Elies sons) agree with this case: For there was a necessity at that time to repaire to that place, it being setled, and peculiarly appointed for a great part of Gods worship, which could not else­where be performed.

It seemes that the buyers of this Authour inclines more to Arrianisme than to Macedonia­nisme, Pag. 9. Indeed Mani­chaisme, Valentinanisme, Macedonianisme, &c. Manichaisme, &c. And certainly, if Socinians may [Page 4]be Judges, they will finde reasons, why Arrianisme shall be accounted but a Schisme, and the others Heresies: But indifferent Judges will perchance find such to be Judges of partiall thoughts, and that not upright ballances, but speciall favours are used in this partiality. For is it not a favour to undertake, that Valentinus, Manes, Macedo­nius did know their Errours to be lies, and Arrius did not? Again, though there be such a difference in these heads and roots of Errours (which I think this Author can hardly make good out of any acquaintance with their hearts) yet if he had carried an equall affection to each side, hee might with equall favour have excused their followers, upon whom the names by him expres­sed ( Arrianisme, Valentinianisme, Mahometisme, &c.) are fixed: For though the first Authors of these Sects might differ, yet no question many of their followers were a­like, and equall, that in simplicity of heart, and out of ignorance, not wilfulnesse, did embrace their Errours. Neither did these know, that the opinions, which they received, were lies. Yea, even at this day Mahometans generally doe not think, that the Doctrine of Mahomet, which they believe, is a Lie: being seriously, and ex­treamly zealous in it.

Secondly, Deum verum & cum patre, unum Deum no­lunt fateri, Au­gust. cont. sect. Arianorum. Hi dictitant Nos creaturam quidem illum esse dicimus, &c. Epiph. Her. 49. Psal. 18. is it not an high favour to affirme, that the Rents in the Church for the opinions of Arrius, and Ne­storius were at worst but Schismes, and that upon matter of opinion? For is it meerly matter of opinion (where­in is a safe freedome to opine one way or another) to be­lieve, or not believe that Christ Jesus is not true God, but a creature? Doth not this looke like a matter of salvation, or damnation, and not meerly of opinion? Can that faith, which believes not Christ to be God, ingraff [Page 5]us into him, who is God? And can wee be carried into union with him, further then our faith goes before and apprehends him? If our faith doe not believe him to be true God, our union will not be with him as true God, & being not united to him, as he is God, we can have no salvation from him. Christ as hee is God is that Rock, on which the Church being built hath safety and salva­tion, and in him is that saying of David verified. Who is a Rock but God alone? Again, if there be a reall dis-union between such a Misbeliever, and Christ; Is there not a reall dis-union betweene such a Misbeliever, and the Members of Christ? Hee that is not in union with the Head, hath no union with the members, and this dis-union is not meerly in matter of opinion, but in deed, and Truth.

Thirdly, it seemes a very scandalous favour allowed to Arrians to frame Liturgies, for their sakes, that we, and they might joyn in one Liturgie and one Congregation.

For is not this in effect to say, That in all our Liturgie wee must not say, Christ is very God of very God? nor call him, that which hee is, nor pray to him as God? yea, Rom. 9.5. 1 Iohn 5.2. may we read those Chapters, wherein hee is said to be God blessed for ever, or, This is the true God, and life eter­nall? Far be it from us in the least Atome to abate the Godhead of Christ, or the Glory, and worship due to that Godhead: to joyne with unbelieving men, that di­minish both his Godhead, and his Glory. If they have not unity with us in the Head, I know no reason, why in the name, or for the sake of that Head, wee may, or should have Communion with them. It is Christ (God with us) that unites Christians, who believe in that God Christ: And if men are not united to him, and in him [Page](through the faith which is in him, 1 Tim 3.16. as God manifest in the flesh) there is a true disunion both betweene Christ, and them, and between them and true Christian. And where there is such a Dis-union, and likewise a Dis-union in the very object of worship, how can they fitly joyn in one worship, who do not worship, one, and the same God?

Fourthly, it seems a favour to the Arrians, to save them from the title of Heresie, which is the ancient terme de­servedly fastned to them. Hee cannot but know that misbelief in fundamentall points was anciently accoun­ted Heresie, and it was profitably done to put this mis­beliefe under a fearfull name, it being destructive to sal­vation, that men might shun and avoid it. To this end were the Rules and Summes of Faith commonly used, and carried about, that men might take the contrary be­liefs to be Heresies: Opt. lib. 1. So Optatus, Haeretici veritatis exules, sani & verissimi Symboli desertores. Tertull. de pro­ser cap. 14. And Tertullian long before him. Haec Regula [Fidei] a Christo ut probabitur in­stituta, nullas habet apud nos quaestiones, nisi quas haeretici infe­rant aut haereticos faciant. And if this Authour will needs have the name of Heresie taken away from these mis­beliefs, yet he cannot thereby take away the killing na­ture of them: So are they still mortall, like Heresies, by what name soever they be called. Indeed the wilfull holding of lesse and extrafundamentall Errours may be deadly, but not from the nature of the points, wheron the Errour is fixed, but by reason of the pravity of the will, which affects a Lye, and hath not in it, the love of the truth. But Saint Augustine being a true believer in the greater points, and not loving Errour in the lesser (much lesse in the greater) might well say, I may erre, but I will not be an Heretick.

Surely a Socinian may easily thinke that hee may goe to an Ar­rian Church, Pag. 10. Why may I not goe to an Arrian Church? but orthodox Chri­stians have accounted it an abomination: Let us bring forth one example, instead of many, not unknowne to this Author. Epiph. Tom. 2. advers. Haer. Haer. 48. sinc 68. When Alexander the Bishop of Constanti­nople should be enforced to admit Arrius into his Com­munion by Eusebius a favourite Bishop of the Court, he fled to sighes, teares, and prayers, desiring of God, that he would take him out of this life, that he might not be polluted with the contagion of Arrius (a man reproach­full against God) or that God would shew some strange work; This Prayer shortly obtained his request: For Arrius going aside to a place of Retreat, brake in sunder like Judas, and in that unclean place ended his life.] So Epiphanius. Their prayers and their persons are an abo­mination to that God the Father, who is not well plea­sed with any prayers or persons, that are not presented to him in the name of God the Sonne. And surely if a loose belief in Christ, and such as doth not reach home to his Godhead may be a ground of Communion, why may not this Authour joyne in Communion with the Mahometans? whose Alcoran tels them, that Christ was a good man, though not God, which is not much short of the Arrians.

To call the difference between us and the Arrians private fancies, Pag. 10. Private fancies upon which we differ. is an untrue, and scandalous expression. The Scripture I am sure, is neither of private inspirati­on, nor fancy, but men of God spake it as they were in­spired with that universall Spirit, which breatheth into [Page 8]the Catholike Church. For the same Spirit, which ani­mateth the Church, inspired the Prophets and Apostles. Now the Scripture saith of Christ, 1 Iohn 5.20. This is very God: So indeed to deny Christ to be true God is a private fancie of Arrius and Socinus, but to confesse him to be true God, and to pray unto him as such, is a Catholike ve­rity. Wherefore let every true and Catholike Christian say unto Christ with converted, and believing Thomas. My Lord, Iohn 20.28. and my God.

AMEN.