no part of Religion can be repugnant to Reason whereunto you in particular subscribe unawares in saying From Truth no Man can by good Consequence infer Falshood which is to say in effect That Reason can never lead any Man to Errour And after you have done so you proclaim to all the World as you in this Pamphlet do very frequently That if Men follow their Reason and Discourse they will if they understand themselves be led to Socinianism And thus you see with what probable Matter I might furnish out and justifie my Accusation if I should charge you with leading Men to Socinianism Yet I do not conceive that I have ground enough for this odious Imputation And much less should you have charged Protestants with it whom you confess to abhor and detest it and who fight against it not with the broken Reeds and out of the Paper-Fortresses of an imaginary Infallibility which were only to make sport for their Adversaries but with the Sword of the Spirit the Word of God of which we may say most truly what David said of Goliah's Sword offered by Abimeleck Non est sicut iste There is none comparable to it Thirdly Though the Modern Arians and Socinians do speak of Tradition and not of Scripture only yet our Plea and theirs is not perfectly the same Touching the Holy Scripture we have a greater Veneration for it than many of them and for Tradition though we make it not the very Rule of our Faith nor place Infallibility in it yet in concurrence with Scripture it weigheth not so much with them as with us We have a greater Veneration for the Holy Scripture itself than the right Socinian For such a one makes Reason the Rule of that Rule and though he thinks a Doctrine is plain in Scripture yet if he believes it to be against his Reason he assents not to it Whereas a Man of this Church believes the Scriptures to be written by Inspiration from God And upon that account he assures himself that nothing contrary to true Reason can be contained in the Scriptures Therefore when he finds any thing in Holy Writ which to him is incomprehensible he does not say he believes it though it be impossible and irrational but he believes it to be rational though mysterious and he suspects not Reason itself but his own present Art of Reasoning whensoever it concludes against that which he reads and reads without doubting of the sense of the words And by Meditation he at last finds-his errour The Socinians challenge to themselves Petrus Abailardus as one of their Predecessors For this they cite St. Bernard and they strengthen their challenge with the Testimony of Baronius who says of Abailardus That he made Reason the Judge of Articles of Faith. It is true a Protestant judges whether his Faith be rational or whether it be founded on Divine Revelation but he will not allow his Reasonings to oppose any Principle in Holy Writ For that were either to deny it to be of God or with blasphemous irreverence to reproach the Almighty Wisdom with a Contradiction Yet after this manner Socinians argue though some of them use great caution and few make open profession of it Nay they sometimes tell us That the Scripture contains nothing contrary to manifest Reason However by their manner of objecting against the Doctrine of the blessed Trinity the Sagacious are convinc'd that they first think it to be against plain Reason and then rejecting it as an errour they colour their Aversion with forced Interpretations of Holy Writ The words of Ostorodius hint to us at what end they begin If Reason said he shews expresly that a Trinity of Persons in God is false how could it ever come into the Mind of an understanding Man to think it to be true and that it can be proved by the Word of God And further They own with us from the Principles of Reason that God is just and good but then with the Platonists they measure Justice and Goodness by particular Notions which are their Reasonings but not the Reason of Mankind And when any thing is said in the Scripture which is contrary to such measures they are ready to depart from it Upon this account it is that many of them deny the Doctrine of the Eternal Torments of the finally Impenitent not because it is not plain enough in Scripture but because it seems contrary to their Notions of Justice Goodness and Mercy though to the true Notions of them it may be reconcil'd Thus Ernestus Sonnerus lays it down as his Principle in the first place that the Eternal pains of the Wicked are contrary to Gods Justice and being prepossessed with this prejudice he can thenceforth find nothing in the Scripture which may over-rule his Opinion All this is not my private and as some Socinians may call it uncharitable conjecture there is a Romanist who has said the same thing and in very plain terms The Socinian saith he judgeth the Bible to be the wisest and most Authentical Book that ever was Written such a one as no other humane Writing can contest with it yet not such a one as no slip nor errour may fall into it even in matters of importance and concerning our Salvation And therefore that where reason is absolutely against it he may leave it though for Civility sake he will rather choose to put a wrong Gloss upon it than plainly refuse it It cannot be pretended that Scripture is his Rule for seeing he supposeth Scripture to be Fallible and that upon all occasions he correcteth it by his discourse it is not Scripture but his discourse and his reasoning that is his true and Supreme Rule Which is the cause that they or some of their party did denominate themselves Sanarations from right reason And as we have a greater Veneration for the Scriptures than most Arians and Socinians so have we a truer regard to real Tradition which they use not so much as a witness of any great value as a fit weapon for the encountring those who dispute out of Antiquity to the end that they may overcome them with their own Arms. Socinus had consulted some of the Antient Writers He was one of the first in his Age who suspected some of those Epistles to be spurious which went under the Venerable Name of Ignatius the Martyr But I have not observed in any of his Writings that he puts a value upon any such Authority nay he writes in Divinity in such manner as if no Church-Writers had so gone before him as to give any considerable light to him He promiseth a Tract for the satisfaction of those who were moved in his opinion more than was fit with the Authority of the Fathers And though in this one point of the Father as the one Creator he cites the Antients by way of Argument to the Men who esteem them yet in other Articles he confesses that he stands
that when the Counsel on either side pleads Presidents and Statutes or Equity the Plaintiff pleads for the Defendent and the Defendent for the Plaintiff Both pretend to the same Rule but he that is in the right measures his Case by it the other would bend it towards his illegal Interests One has a Plea the other a Pretence If a Socinian will plead Scripture and plead it falsly it is so far not ours but his If Confidence in pleading may either carry or ballance a Cause then Pleas of Laws Scriptures Oral Tradition Fathers Councils may be urged contrary ways and each side be equally justifi'd For all such Pleas have been made by contrary Parties Mr. Lilburn pleaded Law as much as Judge Ienkins though not as well Some Dissenters in the Queens time wrote down their Arguments and gave their Book the Title of Sions Plea. It may be their Adversaries might call it the Plea of Babylon Whether it was the one or the other was to be tryed not by the Name of the Plea or the Persuasion of the Advocates but by the Merit and Nature of the Cause itself The Apostles pleaded before Magistrates of another Faith that it was better to obey God than Man. All Parties who dissent from the Establish'd Religion use the same Plea and generally in the same Words But does this make the Pleas equal Must they not joyn Issue upon the Reason of the Case and compare their Circumstances and those of the Apostles and observe wherein they agree and wherein they differ If Men who plead Scripture as their Rule of Faith make Apologie by so doing for all others who pretend to the same Rule then Catholick Councils themselves plead for Socinians For to give an example the General Council of Chalcedon and after it Evagrius testifies That the Intent of the Second Council was to make it appear by Scripture-Testimony That such as Macedonius err'd in that Opinion which they had advanc'd against the Lordship of the Holy Ghost The Council here us'd the like Plea with Socinus but to a contrary End and upon surer Reason In such Cases there will be no satisfactory Conclusion till the moment of the Scriptures be particularly weigh'd For Tradition that was pleaded by Valentinus Basilides Marcion who boasted of their following the Apostle S. Matthias And Irenaeus observ'd concerning Hereticks that being vanquish'd by Scripture they accused it and took Sanctuary in Tradition Thus after his time did the Nestorian Hereticks Their Epistle to the People of Constantinople begins on this manner The Law is not deliver'd in Writing but is placed in the Minds of the Pastors And when the Metropolitans and Bishops of the Third Council that of Ephesus had confuted Nestorius out of the Scripture in stead of answering he foam'd against them S. Cyprian pleaded Universal Consent against Appeals to Rome and that is part of our Plea too Yet the Romanists will not allow that he either pleads for our Church or against their own The Plea is to be consider'd and not meerly offer'd If for example sake a Church-man quotes the same S. Cyprian in favour of the Doctrine of the Unity in Trinity and Sandius the Arian cites the same Father as being against it are we not to have recourse to the Book itself and to examine the Pretences on both sides Or can any Man believe a Quotation is made good by the meer quoting of it And may not one Party be confuted without the Spirit of Infallibility It is evident it may be done for it is done on this manner Sandius cites the Book De Duplici Martyrio as not owning the Text in S. Iohn's Epistle There are three that bear Record in Heaven Now that Book is not S. Cyprians It would be a very Extraordinary Birth if he should be the Father of it for it makes mention of Dioclesians persecution And yet that spurious Book does not reject the place in S. Iohn though it does not exactly set down the Text And for the Genuine S. Cyprian he mentions the Text directly in his Book of the Unity of the Church And of this how are we sure Why Let us open the Book and read plain Words and their unwrested sense gives us satisfaction I conclude then that notwithstanding the Protestants and Socinians do both of them plead Scripture as the rule of Faith yet because Protestants plead the rule rightly in the point of the Divinity of the Son of God and the Socinians very falsly even in the opinion of the Arians and Romanists themselves the Plea of the former does not justifie the Plea of the latter and justifie is our Authors word For the Tryal of the Plea we must come to dint of Argument and Truth is great and will in time prevail CHAP. III. Particular Answers to the particular Branches of the Protestants Plea for a Socinian divided into five Conferences by the Author of it THIS Third Chapter needs not to be drawn into any very great length for after the general Considerations which answer the general Argument there wants little more than the Application of them to the respective Heads in the Dialogues Of the First Conference this is the Sum both Protestants and Socinians plead Scripture as the sole Rule of Faith. Both say the Scripture is sufficiently clear Both say it is clear in the Doctrine of the Nature of the Son of God. The Socinian professeth himself to be as Industrious in finding out the sense of the Scripture as the Protestant and he is as well assur'd in his persuasion therefore the Protestant in this Plea Iustifies the Socinian the latter saying the same thing for himself that the former does I answer First as before That though they pretend to the same Rule they Walk not alike by it One follows it the other wrests it And this ought not to be turn'd to the prejudice of him who is true to his Rule Let both Opinions be brought to it and then it will appear which is strait and which is crooked If Two men lay before them the same Rule of Addition and one works truly by it and the other either through want of due attention or out of unjust design shall cast up the Sum false there is no man who will tell us in good earnest that the first justifies the Second or that both of them needed an Infallible Arithmetician to be their Judg. Secondly Though this Author picks out this one point of the Divinity of Christ and represents it in the term of Consubstantiality which to the Vulgar here is more difficult than that of Homonsiety was to the Greeks and passes by many more easie Socinian Doctrines yet so it is that we find in St. Iohn this very Article plainly revealed For that Apostle who certainly was conscious of his own design wrote the History of his Gospel to this very purpose That we might believe that Iesus is the Son of God
inclined to believe that the way to Socinianism has been much open'd and widen'd by the Popish Doctors who have so vehemently urg'd the Obscureness of the Scriptures in the Doctrine of the Trinity and who at this very time furnish the Hawkers with their little Dialogues endeavouring to equal the new Doctrine of Transubstantiation with that of Three Persons in one incomprehensible Essence For to say that that invention of Paschasius is as reasonable to be believ'd as the great Mystery of the Trinity by all good Catholicks is in effect to say that neither of them is reasonable CHAP. II. Considerations touching the General Argument of the Protestants Plea for a Socinian shewing the weakness of it and that it is not of force enough to overthrow the Plea of the Reformed LET that which hath been said suffice for the Quality of this Writing I will proceed to the General Argument of it which may in brief be thus represented The Protestants and Socinians agree in their Plea they alledge Scripture they measure Faith by it as by a compleat and clear Rule They reject Councils and the Major part of Church Authority if they are not convinc'd that they are founded on the Scriptures in finding out the sense of which both sides profess due Industry Both parties excuse themselves whatsoever Doctrines they advance whatsoever Wounds they open in the Church as uninfected with Hâ—…si and free from Schisan till their private Spirit be satisfi'd and before the Tribunal they erect in their own Heads they are self-accus'd and self-condemned Therefore Protestants make Apology for Socinians and are neither able to confute them upon these Principles and Methods nor to justifie themselves but are oblig'd to appeal to the Infallible Iudge or the Major part of the Bench of Iudges in the Roman Church where all such Controversies may be effectually ended The force of this specious Argument will be abated as all such Arguments may easily be whose force lays only in plausible appearance by a few plain Considerations First the Socinians will not allow their Plea to be perfectly the same with that of the Protestants especially those of the Established Church of England The Socinian Author of the Brief Disquisition proceeds upâ—…n a supposed difference and he endeavours to shew that unless the Evangelical quitted their own way of Resolving Faith and made use of the Methods of Socinus they could not Solidly and Evidently refute the Romanists and particularly the Judgment of Valerianus Magnus concerning the Protestant Rule of Believing Secondly Both Arians and Socinians plead Tradition though their Plea is not manag'd exactly after our better manner And when they plead Tradition why is not theirs then as much the Popish Plea as when they plead Scripture it is the Protestants for neither do they plead that just as this Church does Two Assertions may be here advanc'd First that the Arians and Socinians plead Tradition Secondly that some Papists have help'd the more Modern of them to Materials for the making of that Plea. First Arians and Socinians plead Tradition against the Divine Nature of Christ as the Romanists plead Tradition for it Artemon taught the Heresie of our Saviours being a meer Man. And we are assured by an unnamed but an antient and as appeareth by his Fragments a very sagacious Author that his Party declared that they follow'd Antiquiry that their Ancestors and the Apostles themselves were of the same belief that to the time of Pope Victor the true Doctrine of the Apostles was preserved and that it was corrupted in the times of his Successor Zephyrin These how unjust soever were their Allegations Socinus takes the boldness to affirm That the Romanists are not able to defend their Principles about the Trinity by the Authority of the Fathers And on the contrary that the Earlier Fathers who liv'd before the Council of Nice were firm in his belief He cites the Council of Ariminum Iustin the Martyr and S. Hilary He promiseth upon supposition of leisure to write a Tract on this Subject for the satisfaction of those who are moved with such Authority Crellius pretends that during 300 years after Christ the Doctors of the Church consented in this Faith That the Father was the most High God whilst the Son was a Diety different from the Creator of the World. He says of Grotius in upbraiding manner That he must needs know of this Historical Truth being a Man conversant in the Fathers He quotes Iustin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho as Evidence on his side He has the Confidence to say That the Men of his Way have demonstrated this and that the very Adversaries of the Unitarians have confessed this to be true in Tertullian and Origen He introduceth S. Hilary as a Patron of that Doctrine which denies the Divinity of the Spirit of God. He presumes to say That the nearer approaches we make to the Anti-Trinitarians the higher we come to the Apostolical Faith. Moscâ—…rovius charges his Adversaries with misrepresenting of the first Fathers when they bring them in as Witnesses of that Faith concerning the Trinity which they profess And he proceeds in telling of them That Ignatius the most antient of those Church-Doctors whose Writings are extant does openly say the contrary in his Epistle to those of Tarsus affirming that Christ is not the Deity who is God over all but only the Son of God. He goes on in citing Iustin Martyr Irenaeus Origen how much to the purpose it is not my business here to determine It is true Ignatius is not the most antient of those Doctors whose Writings are extant but when he wrote this Mr. Young had not published Clements Epistle nor Mâ—…rdus that of Barnabas It is also confess'd that he cites a spurious Piece of Tradition for Ignatius wrote not that Epistle Ad Tarsenses but in the mean time to Tradition he in part appeals Lubieniecius spends a Chapter in Demonstrating as he imagin'd that God had not left his Church from the Apostles times to his without Witnesses of the Doctrine which denies the Trinity He glories in Artemon Samosatenus Photinus and others for Men are apt in all Factions to pretend to Number and Antiquity Christopher Sandius wrote his indigested Heap of Church-Story with this very design that in the several Centuries he might take especial notice of the Favourers of the Arian Doctrine And under the borrowed Name of Cingallus he gives himself the Honour of having made a most solid proof concerning all the Fathers of the three first Ages that they believed as Arius believ'd Mr. Biddle in the Appendix to his Book against the Holy Trinity endeavours to strengthen his Plea with the Testimonies of Irenaeus Iustin Martyr Novatian Theophilus Origen Arnobius Lactantius Eusebius of Caesarea and Hilary of Poictiers He pretends to the Fathers though he is guilty of false mustering Monsieur-Aubert du Versoy tells the World with great assurance That all
divided from them and rather Glories that he gives light to all the World than borrows from it The Author of the Brief Disquisition blames the Protestants for the great deference they pay to unwritten Tradition meaning by it that which is not Written in the Scriptures but in the Fathers although at the same time he makes them to ascribe to Councils and single Fathers a greater Authority than they really do notwithstanding they are very just to them Ruarus though he was a Man of extraordinary Candor yet in his Letters to Bergius he does not barely refuse but reject with derision his Catholick Interpretation of Scripture according to the Rule of Vincentius Lirinensis which admitteth That Sense which was every where always and of all beleived A Rule by which we help our selves And he further professeth that he should be much concern'd if the Interpretations of Calvin and Luther were not more solid and acute than those of the Fathers We of this Church consider in the Interpretations of the Fathers not so much the acuteness though in S. Chrysostome for instance sake and in Theodoret it is not wanting as we do the History and the light which they may give us into the consent of the Churches in the Primitive times We are not apt to believe that there was such an Universal Corruption and Apostacy as Socinians speak of immediately after the Apostles times We are not Strangers to the Testimony of Hegesippus of which they make use for the blackning of the Primitive Church He does not say that the Leprosy was spread throughout the Church but that it began early We do not undervalue the Fathers but proceed in the method of the Antients who begun first with the Holy Scriptures and then descended to those who wrote next after the Holy Pen-Men The Calvinists themselves Radon and Silvius in a Disputation at Petricow in Poland did not plead just after the manner of the Socinians They pleaded the Scriptures together with Councils and Fathers as Subordinate Witnesses Their Socinian Adversaries Gregorius Pauli and Gentilis mock'd at their way of arguing They profess'd they would admit of nothing but the pure Word of God as shiing sufficiently by its own Light. And they denied that there was contain'd in formal terms in the Holy Scriptures the Doctrine of Three Persons in one Divine Essence Again the Members of our Church do not imitate the Socinians in traducing Constantine the Great and preferring Constantius the Arian before him They celebrate his Memory as a Defender of the Faith so far are they from reviling him as a Perverter of it They do not joyn with Socinians in reproaching the Fathers of Nice as Mercinary and Flexible Men whom Constantine had gained to his party by interest or force They do not with Gregorius Pauli call the Explication of the Nicene Faith the Creed of Sathanasius They hate the irreverence as much as they despise the jingle They do not beleive that the Nicene Creed is forg'd as some Socinians do though at the same time they take this upon the modern Authority of Laurentius Valla whom they make to say that he read it in very Antient Books of Isidore who in his time was a Collector of Councils Such a Collector of Councils as Varillas of History a Father and a Collector together The truth is it is Valla's business to elude the sense of Isidore and to ascribe a twofold Creed to the Nicene Fathers the Apostolical and that which bears their Name Whereas Isidorâ—… distinguishes betwixt their Creed and that of the Apostles The Protestants repeat in their Liturgy the Creed of Nice in the form agreed on in the Council of Constantinople and would not do so if they did not beleive it Orthodox They do not say with some modern Arians that it was framed by Marcellus Ancyranus a Heretick or joyn with those Spanish Iesuites who it seems charg'd this Creed with the Heresie of Photinus the Master of Marcellus They pay a more just Duty to the Emperour and the Nicene Fathers than to say with the Enemies of the Holy Trinity that setting Council against Council they chuse rather to follow those of Sirmium and Rimini than those of Nice Our Church-Men do not with the Socinians disregard the Fathers who liv'd after that famous Council and acknowledge that those Fathers are against it and bid defiance to their opposition But so does Socinus so does Crellius so does Pisecius for thus he discourseth Do they say Theology knows nothing of this It is enough if the Apostles do S. Austin damns this Christ approves it The same Pisecius is more severe in his censure than Socinus himself and he agrees with Scaliger if Scaliger be by him rightly cited in accusing all the Fathers up to S. Austins time of ignorance in another Doctrine about the Receipt of departed Souls not Martyrs and in affirming that the Errours of the first Fathers prepared the way for Antichrist In fine Though the Church of England does not make the Councils her Rule of Faith or make her last Appeal to them yet she believes that in times of Controversie when the Heads of Men are apt to be disturb'd even in Matters otherwise plain enough by the Heats and Distempers of the Age they live in they are of special use The Authority of them tends to the quelling of the Party And then when the Faction cools it tends to the fixing and further strengthning of the weak and interrupted Faith of many For as in a Ballance one Scale may descend more or less below the Level so there may be Faith and Assent without adding the weight of Fathers and Councils and yet in unquiet Times especially and disputing Ages such Testimonies may give some further strength to Minds made feeble either by publick Distractions or the private Attacks of Crafty Seducers Thus our Church gives to the Scripture the things that belong to the Scripture and to Tradition the Dues of Tradition And it gives more even to the former than generally Socinians do and more also to the latter though with just Caution and Subordination So that their Plea and ours is not in a strict way of speaking the very same But Fourthly If we admit that the Plea of the Protestant and Socinian is the same for the general nature of it we cannot be truly said to plead for them unless the general Plea be with Truth and Pertinence as well as Boldness applied to the very merit of the Cause If two Men will plead the same thing with equal Assurance but not with equal Reason in Truth and Merit 't is not the same If the Confidence of Men in pleading might weigh against the Right of others they that were in the wrong would be in the right For what was wanting in the Reason of the Case would be supply'd by Impudence But is it said by any of the Robe
not by forcing of Assent destroy the Nature and Virtue of it and he hath declar'd that he will permit Heresies that those who are approved and excellent Christians may be distinguished from those who are not This Expedient of the Romanists is like that of the Atheist Spinoza who has left the following Maxim to the World as his Legacy for Peace viz. That the Object of Faith is not Truth but Obedience and the quiet of human Society And they say in effect Shut all your Eyes and agree in one who shall lead you all and you will all go one way But the difficulty lies in getting them to agree It is not difficult to say a great deal more upon this Subject but in stead of that which might be here offer'd from myself I will refer the Reader to a Book lately publish'd and call'd A Discourse concerning a Iudge in Controversies if he be not satisfi'd with that which Mr. Chillingworth hath said long ago and to which this Author has here said nothing You say again confidently That if this Infallibility be once impeach'd every Man is given over to his own Wit and Discourse By which if you mean Discourse not guiding itself by Scripture but only by Principles of Nature or perhaps by Prejudices and popular Errors and drawing Consequences not by Rule but by Chance is by no means true If you mean by Discourse Right Reason grounded on Divine Revelation and common Notions written by God in the Hearts of all Men and deducing according to the never-failing Rules of Logick consequent Deductions from them If this be it which you mean by Discourse it is very meet and reasonable and necessary that Men as in all their Actions so especially in that of greatest importance the choice of their way to Happiness should be left unto it And he that follows this in all Opinions and Actions and does not only seem to do so follows always God whereas he that followeth a Company of Men may oft-times follow a Company of Beasts And in saying this I say no more than S. Iohn to all Christians in these words Dearly Beloved believe not every Spirit but try the Spirits whether they be of God or no And the Rule he gives them to make this tryal by is to consider whether they Confess IESUS to be Christ that is the Guide of their Faith and Lord of their Action not Whether they acknowledge the Pope to be his Vicar I say no more than S. Paul in exhorting all Christians To try all things and hold fast that which is good Than S. Peter in commanding all Christians To be ready to give a reason of the hope that is in them Then our Saviour himself in forewarning all his Followers that if they blindly followed blind Guides both Leaders and Followers should fall into the Ditch And again in saying even to the People Yea and why of your selves judge ye not what is right And though by Passion or Precipitation or Prejudice by want of Reason or not using what they have Men may be and are oftentimes lead into Error and Mischief yet that they cannot be misguided by Discourse truly so called such as I have described you yourself have given them security For what is Discourse but drawing Conclusions out of Premises by good Consequence Now the Principles which we have setled to wit the Scriptures are on all sides agreed to be Infallibly true And you have told us in the Fourth Chapter of this Pamphlet That from Truth no Men can by good Consequence infer Falshood Therefore by Discourse no Man can possibly be led to error but if he erre in his Conclusions he must of Necessity either err in his Principles which here cannot have place or commit some error in his Discourse that is indeed not Discourse but seem to do so 13. You say Thirdly with sufficient confidence That if the true Church may err in defining what Scriptures be Canonical or in delivering the sense thereof then we must follow either the private Spirit or else natural Wit and Iudgment and by them examine what Scriptures contain true or false Doctrine and in that respect ought to be received or rejected All which is apparently untrue neither can any proof of it be pretended For though the present Church may possibly err in her Judgment touching this matter yet have we other directions in it besides the private Spirit and the Examination of the Contents which latter way may conclude the Negative very strongly to wit that such or such a Book cannot come from God because it contains irreconcileable Contradictions but the Affirmative it cannot conclude because the Contents of a Book may be all true and yet the Book not Written by Divine inspiration other direction therefore I say we have besides either of these three and that is the Testimony of the Primitive Christians 14. You say Fourthly with convenient boldness that this Infallible Authority of the Church being denied no Man can be assured that any parcel of the Scripture was Written by Divine Inspiration Which is an untruth for which no proof is pretended and besides void of Modesty and full of Iniquity The First because the Experience of Innumerable Christians is against it who are sufficiently assured that the Scripture is Divinely inspired and yet deny the Infallible Authority of your Church or any other The Second because if I have not ground to be assured of the Divine Authority of Scripture unless I first believe your Church Infallible then can I have no ground at all to believe it Because there is no ground nor can any be pretended why I should believe the Church Infallible unless I first believe the Scripture Divine 15. Fifthly and lastly You say with confidence in abundance that none can deny the Infallible Authority of your Church but he must abandon all infused Faith and True Religion if he do but understand himself Which is to say agreeable to what you had said before and what out of the abundance of the Heart you speak very often that all Christians besides you are open Fools or concealed Atheists All this you say with notable Confidence as the manner of Sophisters is to place their Confidence of Prevailing in their Confident manner of Speaking but then for the Evidence you promis'd to maintain this Confidence that is quite vanished and become invisible Hitherto I have been arguing against our Author but now in the close I cannot but joyn with him in his Protestants Exhortation to Humility It is an Admirable Virtue and may God grant to me and to all Men a greater Measure of it It is a Virtue proper even for Guides in Religion that they may humbly help the Faith of others and not exercise Dominion over it And because a late Writer has been pleas'd to suffer this severe censure to drop from his Pen it is the less to be admir'd that our Author is such a stranger to that Spirit of