<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2012-08-09</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>John Pas</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Proofed and reviewed as part of batch B120616.pdcc.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A75473">
<STC T="W">A3499</STC>
<STC T="T">E142_12</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99860566</BIBNO>
<VID>156579</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>ANTIDOTES AGAINST SOME infectious pa&s;&s;ages in a Tract, concerning Schi&s;me.</P>
<P>LONDON, Printed for <HI>Thomas Vnderhill</HI> at the &s;igne of the Bible in Wood&s;treet, 1642.</P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="tract">
<PB N="2" REF="2">
<HEAD>Antidotes again&s;t &s;ome infectious pa&s;&s;ages in a Tract, concerning Schi&s;me.</HEAD>
<P>IT is a great plea&s;ure,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag. 5.</HI> Toward the end: poore &s;pi|rited per&s;ons.</NOTE> and advan|tage to the <HI>Socinians,</HI> to le&s;&s;en the e&s;timation of the judgement of the Fathers, that &s;o their mighty works again&s;t <HI>Arrians,</HI> and others of kin to <HI>Socinians,</HI> may have le&s;&s;e credit and tru&s;t; But certainly his Argument doth not follow, That be|cau&s;e they have failed in &s;ome le&s;&s;er points, therefore their judgment is not competent in greater: This Argu|ment being &s;et again&s;t <HI>Barnabas,</HI> and <HI>Paul</HI> would have &s;hewed an ill face: Becau&s;e <HI>Barnabas</HI> and <HI>Paul</HI> did not agree in the &s;mall Controver&s;ie of taking <HI>Marke</HI> with them, they were incompetent Judges of greater Con|trover&s;ies of Faith. It is a wi&s;e Di&s;pen&s;ation of <HI>Di|vine Providence,</HI> That in this life wee know but in part, and it is a great pre&s;ervation of Humility, that it is &s;o. Our blindne&s;&s;e in le&s;&s;er matters &s;hewes 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 fa&s;ter in a &s;pirituall Commerce, while one man knowing but in part, hath need of ano|thers help, who knows that part, which to him&s;elf was unknowne. If this Authour know more concerning the Controver&s;ie of <HI>Ea&s;ter,</HI> &s;urely I believe the Fathers knew more then hee (before hee had read them) of the great Controver&s;ies of the <HI>Trinity,</HI> And certainly if the mighty Arguments taken out of the heart of Scripture, by <HI>Athana&s;ius, Cyrill</HI> of <HI>Alexandria,</HI> and others, again&s;t tho&s;e Here&s;ies, which are now revived by <HI>Socinians,</HI> be
<PB N="3" REF="2">duly weighed, it mu&s;t be acknowledged that the Spirit of Truth was powerfull in them, and that they had the very minde of Chri&s;t: And &s;o at wor&s;t, they were but like the Church of <HI>Thyatira,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Revel 2.</NOTE> which the Spirit com|mends for <HI>Faith,</HI> and works, though with all the &s;ame Spirit &s;aith, <HI>I have a few things again&s;t thee.</HI></P>
<P>This pa&s;&s;age hath need of Salt,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag. 7.</HI> Towards the end. What if the ge&s;ture or adora|tion be u&s;ed to the Altars?</NOTE> to make it &s;avoury. If there be an idolatrous ado|ration to Altars in one place, and none in another, I think it is no <HI>Schi&s;me</HI> to forbeare that place, where this abominable wickedne&s;&s;e is committed, which both of|fends God, and vexeth the &s;ouls of righteous <HI>Lots:</HI> and to goe to another, where neither God, nor man is &s;o of|fended. And it is con&s;iderable, whether thy voluntary, and indifferent u&s;ing &s;uch places doe not encourage &s;uch Idolaters in their Idolatry, yea, give &s;ome hint to a weak brother to think that it is approved by thee. Saint <HI>Pauls</HI> rea&s;on again&s;t eating things &s;acrificed to Idols, &s;eems to lead us to &s;uch an opinion. Neither doth this example of the <HI>I&s;raelites</HI> comming to <HI>Shiloh,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Deut. 12.5, 11, 13, 14. 1 Sam. 1.3.</NOTE> (where were the corrupt manners of <HI>Elies</HI> &s;ons) agree with this ca&s;e: For there was a nece&s;&s;ity at that time to repaire to that place, it being &s;etled, and peculiarly appointed for a great part of Gods wor&s;hip, which could not el&s;e|where be performed.</P>
<P>It &s;eemes that the buyers of this Authour inclines more to <HI>Arriani&s;me</HI> than to <HI>Macedonia|ni&s;me,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag. 9.</HI> Indeed Mani|chai&s;me, Valentinani&s;me, Macedoniani&s;me, &amp;c.</NOTE> <HI>Manichai&s;me,</HI> &amp;c. And certainly, if <HI>Socinians</HI> may
<PB N="4" REF="3">be Judges, they will finde rea&s;ons, why <HI>Arriani&s;me</HI> &s;hall be accounted but a <HI>Schi&s;me,</HI> and the others Here&s;ies: But indifferent Judges will perchance find &s;uch to be Judges of partiall thoughts, and that not upright ballances, but &s;peciall favours are u&s;ed in this partiality. For is it not a favour to undertake, that <HI>Valentinus, Manes, Macedo|nius</HI> did know their Errours to be lies, and <HI>Arrius</HI> did not? Again, though there be &s;uch a difference in the&s;e 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 &s;ide, hee might with equall favour have excu&s;ed their followers, upon whom the names by him expre&s;|&s;ed (<HI>Arriani&s;me, Valentiniani&s;me, Mahometi&s;me,</HI> &amp;c.) are fixed: For though the fir&s;t Authors of the&s;e Sects might differ, yet no que&s;tion many of their followers were a|like, and equall, that in &s;implicity of heart, and out of ignorance, not wilfulne&s;&s;e, did embrace their Errours. Neither did the&s;e know, that the opinions, which they received, were lies. Yea, even at this day <HI>Mahometans</HI> generally doe not think, that the Doctrine of <HI>Mahomet,</HI> which they believe, is a Lie: being &s;eriou&s;ly, and ex|treamly zealous in it.</P>
<P>Secondly,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Deum verum &amp; cum patre, unum Deum no|lunt fateri, <HI>Au|gu&s;t.</HI> cont. &s;ect. Arianorum. Hi dictitant Nos creaturam quidem illum e&s;&s;e dicimus, &amp;c. Epiph. Her. <HI>49. P&s;al. 18.</HI></NOTE> is it not an high favour to affirme, that the Rents in the Church for the opinions of <HI>Arrius,</HI> and <HI>Ne|&s;torius</HI> were at wor&s;t but <HI>Schi&s;mes,</HI> and that upon matter of opinion? For is it meerly matter of opinion (where|in is a &s;afe freedome to opine one way or another) to be|lieve, or not believe that Chri&s;t Je&s;us is not true God, but a creature? Doth not this looke like a matter of &s;alvation, or damnation, and not meerly of opinion? Can that faith, which believes not Chri&s;t to be God, ingraff
<PB N="5" REF="3">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, &amp; being not united to him, as he is God, we can have no &s;alvation from him. Chri&s;t as hee is God is that Rock, on which the Church being built hath &s;afety and &s;alva|tion, and in him is that &s;aying of <HI>David</HI> verified. <HI>Who is a Rock but God alone?</HI> Again, if there be a reall di&s;-union between &s;uch a Misbeliever, and Chri&s;t; Is there not a reall di&s;-union betweene &s;uch a Misbeliever, and the Members of Chri&s;t? Hee that is not in union with the Head, hath no union with the members, and this di&s;-union is not meerly in matter of opinion, but in deed, and Truth.</P>
<P>Thirdly, it &s;eemes a very &s;candalous favour allowed to <HI>Arrians</HI> to frame <HI>Liturgies,</HI> for their &s;akes, that we, and they might joyn in one <HI>Liturgie</HI> and one Congregation.</P>
<P>For is not this in effect to &s;ay, That in all our <HI>Liturgie</HI> wee mu&s;t not &s;ay, <HI>Chri&s;t is very God of very God?</HI> nor call him, that which hee is, nor pray to him as God? yea,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Rom. 9.5. 1 Iohn 5.2.</NOTE> may we read tho&s;e Chapters, wherein hee is &s;aid to be <HI>God ble&s;&s;ed for ever,</HI> or, <HI>This is the true God, and life eter|nall?</HI> Far be it from us in the lea&s;t Atome to abate the Godhead of Chri&s;t, or the Glory, and wor&s;hip due to that Godhead: to joyne with unbelieving men, that di|mini&s;h both his Godhead, and his Glory. If they have not unity with us in the Head, I know no rea&s;on, why in the name, or for the &s;ake of that Head, wee may, or &s;hould have Communion with them. It is Chri&s;t (God with us) that unites Chri&s;tians, who believe in that God Chri&s;t: And if men are not united to him, and in him
<PB REF="4">(through the faith which is in him,<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Tim 3.16.</NOTE> as God manife&s;t in the fle&s;h) there is a true di&s;union both betweene Chri&s;t, and them, and between them and true Chri&s;tian. And where there is &s;uch a Di&s;-union, and likewi&s;e a Di&s;-union in the very object of wor&s;hip, how can they fitly joyn in one wor&s;hip, who do not wor&s;hip, one, and the &s;ame God?</P>
<P>Fourthly, it &s;eems a favour to the <HI>Arrians,</HI> to &s;ave them from the title of Here&s;ie, which is the ancient terme de|&s;ervedly fa&s;tned to them. Hee cannot but know that misbelief in fundamentall points was anciently accoun|ted Here&s;ie, and it was profitably done to put this mi&s;|beliefe under a fearfull name, it being de&s;tructive to &s;al|vation, that men might &s;hun and avoid it. To this end were the Rules and Summes of Faith commonly u&s;ed, and carried about, that men might take the contrary be|liefs to be Here&s;ies:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Opt. lib. <HI>1.</HI></NOTE> So <HI>Optatus, Haeretici veritatis exules, &s;ani &amp; veri&s;simi Symboli de&s;ertores.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Tertull. de pro|&s;er cap. <HI>14.</HI></NOTE> And <HI>Tertullian</HI> long before him. <HI>Haec Regula [Fidei] a Chri&s;to ut probabitur in|&s;tituta, nullas habet apud nos quae&s;tiones, ni&s;i quas haeretici infe|rant aut haereticos faciant.</HI> And if this Authour will needs have the name of Here&s;ie taken away from the&s;e mi&s;|beliefs, yet he cannot thereby take away the killing na|ture of them: So are they &s;till mortall, like Here&s;ies, by what name &s;oever they be called. Indeed the wilfull holding of le&s;&s;e and extrafundamentall Errours may be deadly, but not from the nature of the points, wheron the Errour is fixed, but by rea&s;on of the pravity of the will, which affects a Lye, and hath not in it, the love of the truth. But Saint <HI>Augu&s;tine</HI> being a true believer in the greater points, and not loving Errour in the le&s;&s;er (much le&s;&s;e in the greater) might well &s;ay, I may erre, but I will not be an Heretick.</P>
<PB N="7" REF="4">
<P>Surely a <HI>Socinian</HI> may ea&s;ily thinke that hee may goe to an <HI>Ar|rian</HI> Church,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag. 10.</HI> Why may I not goe to an <HI>Arrian</HI> Church?</NOTE> but orthodox Chri|&s;tians have accounted it an abomination: Let us bring forth one example, in&s;tead of many, not unknowne to this Author.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Epiph. Tom. <HI>2.</HI> adver&s;. Haer. Haer. <HI>48.</HI> &s;inc <HI>68.</HI></NOTE> When <HI>Alexander</HI> the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tanti|nople</HI> &s;hould be enforced to admit <HI>Arrius</HI> into his Com|munion by <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> a favourite Bi&s;hop of the Court, he fled to &s;ighes, teares, and prayers, de&s;iring of God, that he would take him out of this life, that he might not be polluted with the contagion of <HI>Arrius</HI> (a man reproach|full again&s;t God) or that God would &s;hew &s;ome &s;trange work; This Prayer &s;hortly obtained his reque&s;t: For <HI>Arrius</HI> going a&s;ide to a place of Retreat, brake in &s;under like <HI>Judas,</HI> and in that unclean place ended his life.] So <HI>Epiphanius.</HI> Their prayers and their per&s;ons are an abo|mination to that God the Father, who is not well plea|&s;ed with any prayers or per&s;ons, that are not pre&s;ented to him in the name of God the Sonne. And &s;urely if a loo&s;e belief in Chri&s;t, and &s;uch as doth not reach home to his Godhead may be a ground of Communion, why may not this Authour joyne in Communion with the <HI>Mahometans?</HI> who&s;e <HI>Alcoran</HI> tels them, that Chri&s;t was a good man, though not God, which is not much &s;hort of the <HI>Arrians.</HI></P>
<P>To call the difference between us and the <HI>Arrians</HI> private fancies,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag. 10.</HI> Private fancies upon which we differ.</NOTE> is an untrue, and &s;candalous expre&s;sion. The Scripture I am &s;ure, is neither of private in&s;pirati|on, nor fancy, but men of God &s;pake it as they were in|&s;pired with that univer&s;all Spirit, which breatheth into
<PB N="8" REF="5">the Catholike Church. For the &s;ame Spirit, which ani|mateth the Church, in&s;pired the Prophets and Apo&s;tles. Now the Scripture &s;aith of Chri&s;t,<NOTE PLACE="marg">1 Iohn 5.20.</NOTE> <HI>This is very God:</HI> So indeed to deny Chri&s;t to be true God is a private fancie of <HI>Arrius</HI> and <HI>Socinus,</HI> but to confe&s;&s;e him to be true God, and to pray unto him as &s;uch, is a Catholike ve|rity. Wherefore let every true and Catholike Chri&s;tian &s;ay unto Chri&s;t with converted, and believing <HI>Thomas. My Lord,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Iohn 20.28.</NOTE> <HI>and my God.</HI></P>
<CLOSER>AMEN.</CLOSER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
