52 a2eCíOUo fan. mentii, not confiflent with reafon? íhall its dim eyes pry into the Ark,, I mean, into that great myflery,God in the flejh;. and there, becaufe it cannot fee how two fuch natures as mortal and immortal, temporal and eternal, mutable and immutable can come together into one perfon, throw itaway,as Smalcius doth,with this,ratio- niPane repugnat,it is repugnant to right reafon? When reafon thus exalts it felf in the things of God,it finks below it Pelf into brutith irratio- nality. Secondly, Let us compare the fallibility of Reafon,with the infallibility of Scripture.When the Papifis lift up the Pope as fupream judge in matters of Religion, it is a fiifficient anfwer to tell them, the firJt Clement held the Platonical community of all things,even of wives.Marcelli- nus facrificed to Idols.Liberius fubfcribed to Ari- anifm. Innocent the firfl taught that little ones could not be faved without the Eucharift. Vigi- liur was an Eutychian. Honorius a I'1onothelite. Hildebrand a brand of hell, and impioufly dia- bolical. John the 2 3 th was accufed in the Coun- cil of Co s_ance of this opinion,That the fouls of men dye with their bodies, even as the fouls of brutes ; and íhould fuch be judges in matters of Religion ? When the Socinian,by fubjeCing articles of Faith unto Reafon,makes not one,but as many Popes as men , we need fay no more to him,but humanum eft errare, reafon is a fallible thing. The Philofophers were the Patriarchs of heretiques ; Platonical Philofophy in the Fathers, and Ariftotelical in the Schoolmen, bath much debafed
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=