ANTIDOTES AGAINST SOME infectious passages in a Tract, concerning Schism.  
LONDON, Printed for Thomas Vnderhill at the sign of the Bible in Woodstreet, 1642.   

Antidotes against some infectious passages in a Tract, concerning Schism.  
IT is a great pleasure, 
Pag. 5. Toward the end: poor 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 less credit and trust; But certainly his Argument doth not follow, That because they have failed in some lesser points, therefore their judgement is not competent in greater: This Argument being set against Barnabas, and Paul would have showed an ill face: Because Barnabas and Paul did not agree in the small Controversy of taking Mark with them, they were incompetent Judges of greater Controversies of Faith. It is a wise Dispensation of Divine Providence, That in this life we know but in part, and it is a great preservation of Humility, that it is so. Our blindness in lesser matters shows whence we 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 spiritual Commerce, while one man knowing but in part, hath need of another's help, who knows that part, which to himself was unknown. If this Author know more concerning the Controversy of Easter, surely I believe the Fathers knew more than he (before he 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 duly weighed, it must be acknowledged that the Spirit of Truth was powerful in them, and that they had the very mind 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 Schism to forbear that place, where this abominable wickedness is committed, which both offends God, and vexeth the souls of righteous Lots: and to go to another, where neither God, nor man is so offended. And it is considerable, whether thy voluntary, and indifferent using such places do not encourage such Idolaters in their Idolatry, yea, give some hint to a weak brother to think that it is approved by thee. Saint Paul's reason against eating things sacrificed to Idols, seems to lead us to such an opinion. Neither doth this example of the Israelites coming 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 repair to that place, it being settled, and peculiarly appointed for a great part of God's worship, which could not elsewhere be performed.  
It seems that the buyers of this Author inclines more to Arrianisme than to Macedonianisme, 
Pag. 9 Indeed Manichaisme, Valentinanisme, Macedonianisme, etc.  Manichaisme, etc. And certainly, if Socinians may be Judges, they will find reasons, why Arrianisme shall be accounted but a Schism, and the others Heresies: But indifferent Judges will perchance find such to be Judges of partial thoughts, and that not upright balances, but special favours are used in this partiality. For is it not a favour to undertake, that Valentinus, Manes, Macedonius did know their Errors to be lies, and Arrius did not? Again, though there be such a difference in these heads and roots of Errors (which I think this Author can hardly make good out of any acquaintance with their hearts) yet if he had carried an equal affection to each side, he might with equal favour have excused their followers, upon whom the names by him expressed (Arrianisme, Valentinianisme, Mahometism, etc.) are fixed: For though the first Authors of these Sects might differ, yet no question many of their followers were alike, and equal, that in simplicity of heart, and out of ignorance, not wilfulness, did embrace their Errors. Neither did these know, that the opinions, which they received, were lies. Yea, even at this day Mahometans generally do not think, that the Doctrine of Mahomet, which they believe, is a Lie: being seriously, and extremely zealous in it.  
Secondly, 
Deum verum & cum patre, unum Deum nolunt fateri, August. count. sect. Arianorum. Hi dictitant Nos creaturam quidem illum esse dicimus, etc. Epiph. Her. 49. Psal. 18.  is it not an high favour to affirm, that the Rents in the Church for the opinions of Arrius, and Nestorius were at worst but Schisms, and that upon matter of opinion? For is it merely matter of opinion (wherein is a safe freedom to opine one way or another) to believe, or not believe that Christ Jesus is not true God, but a creature? Doth not this look like a matter of salvation, or damnation, and not merely of opinion? Can that faith, which believes not Christ to be God, ingraff us into him, who is God? And can we be carried into union with him, further than our faith goes before and apprehends him? If our faith do 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 he 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 real dis-union between such a Misbeliever, and Christ; Is there not a real dis-union between such a Misbeliever, and the Members of Christ? He that is not in union with the Head, hath no union with the members, and this dis-union is not merely in matter of opinion, but in deed, and Truth.  
Thirdly, it seems a very scandalous favour allowed to Arrians to frame Liturgies, for their sakes, that we, and they might join in one Liturgy and one Congregation.  
For is not this in effect to say, That in all our Liturgy we must not say, Christ is very God of very God? nor call him, that which he is, nor pray to him as God? yea, 
Rom. 9.5. 1 john 5.2.  may we read those Chapters, wherein he is said to be God blessed for ever, or, This is the true God, and life eternal? Far be it from us in the least Atom to abate the Godhead of Christ, or the Glory, and worship due to that Godhead: to join 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, we 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 (through the faith which is in him, 
1 Tim 3.16.  as God manifest in the flesh) there is a true disunion both between 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 join 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 Heresy, which is the ancient term deservedly fastened to them. He cannot but know that misbelief in fundamental points was anciently accounted Heresy, and it was profitably done to put this misbelief under a fearful name, it being destructive to salvation, that men might shun and avoid it. To this end were the Rules and Sums 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 Author will needs have the name of Heresy taken away from these misbeliefs, yet he cannot thereby take away the kill nature of them: So are they still mortal, like Heresies, by what name soever they be called. Indeed the wilful holding of less and extrafundamentall Errors may be deadly, but not from the nature of the points, whereon the Error is fixed, but by reason of the pravity of the will, which affects a Lie, and hath not in it, the love of the truth. But Saint Augustine being a true believer in the greater points, and not loving Error in the lesser (much less in the greater) might well say, I may err, but I will not be an Heretic.  
Surely a Socinian may easily think that he may go to an Arrian Church, 
Pag. 10. Why may I not go to an Arrian Church?  but orthodox Christians have accounted it an abomination: Let us bring forth one example, instead of many, not unknown to this Author. 
Epiph. Tom. 2. advers. Haer. Haer. 48. since 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 sighs, tears, 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 reproachful against God) or that God would show some strange work; This Prayer shortly obtained his request: For Arrius going aside to a place of Retreat, broke 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 Son. And surely if a lose belief in Christ, and such as doth not reach home to his Godhead may be a ground of Communion, why may not this Author join in Communion with the Mahometans? whose Alcoran tells 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 spoke it as they were inspired with that universal Spirit, which breatheth into the Catholic Church. For the same Spirit, which animateth the Church, inspired the Prophets and Apostles. Now the Scripture saith of Christ, 
1 john 5.20.  This is very God: So indeed to deny Christ to be true God is a private fancy of Arrius and Socinus, but to confess him to be true God, and to pray unto him as such, is a Catholic verity. Wherefore let every true and Catholic Christian say unto Christ with converted, and believing Thomas. My Lord, 
john 20.28.  and my God.  
AMEN.