A brief reply to a late answer to Dr. Henry More his Antidote against idolatry Shewing that there is nothing in the said answer that does any ways weaken his proofs of idolatry against the Church of Rome, and therefore all are bound to take heed how they enter into, or continue in the communion of that church as they tender their own salvation.

His Answer to the Argument from Logick in this sixth Paragraph.

This, says he, is the same in effect with the former and requires no new Answer. Because these his trisling expressions if applied to the separated species are false, if to Christs Body then they proceed upon a false supposition, as hath been declared in my An∣swer to the third Objection.

The Reply.

That this Argument stands upon the same sup∣position that the former, I grant, But that the supposition is false I may well deny, having pro∣ved it true in my Reply to his former Answer. Nor is this Argument altogether the same in

effect, because it illustrates the grand absurdity of the opinion it oppugns from new Maximes. So little tri••ling is the argumentation which I have here produced. But it is the Policy of my Anta∣gonist to slight and make himself merry with such things as are too solid to be really Answered. For this is succedaneous to a real Confu••ation in the eyes of the Vulgar, and it may be of more conse∣quence with them, that are taught not to examine but believe: In which Method he shows himself an egregious Artist in his attaque upon my next Objection, where he begins with some few scoptical and undervaluing Reflections as he calls them. But a Man of his parts and wit cannot but know that they are insignificant to any but the Vulgar, before whom he thinks it very conducing to seem to trample on his Antagonist right loftily acting his part as it were on a Stage.