IN reading your Treatise (I deal franckly with you) I was much disappointed, for I did expect a discourse of the Origen, Nature, and Conveyance of Humane Reason to all the Ge­nerations [Page 2]of Men, and in order to this that you would have treated.

First, Of its primitive Inspira­tion and Descent from God him­self to Man at his Creation.

2 ^ly Of its Perspicacity and Ex­tent in the state of Innocency.

3 ^ly Of its impaired Condition in Adam himself and the first A­ges, before many of those vices, which so much weaken it now, were practised in the world.

4 ^ly, That you would by some new Ratiocinations have either confirmed that Opinion of the Conveyance of Humane Reason to all Adam's Posterity, which is generally agreed on to be the best account; or that you would have discovered some other more satisfactory to the Readers: Since the most prevalent Opi­nion is, That the Rational Soul [Page 3]doth not inherit this Degene­ration, etraduce or by descent; but that it is a Spirit infused, in­dued with greater purity and intelligence than can possibly be exerted in the humane Composi­tum, as it is now stated, from which some Scepticks take oc­casion to Cavil.

And lastly, That (for the be­nefit and amendment of men, and the vindication of our best Faculty) you would have made some acute and new Essay (at least) to remind us, that the ex­ercise of Humane Reason is so much obstructed and dulled by meer sloth in some, and injured and depraved by passions and Vices in others, that it seems to be fallen from the Glory and Splendor of the great Luminary in the Heavens, to the small ap­pearance of a Star in the Sky: [Page 4]For such was the proportion which Rationality bore in the uncorrupted Nature of Man, to that which is so much decayed and weakned not only by Adam's Fall, but also by the faults and ill management of his degene­rated Posterity ever since.

But in lieu of all this, I find a peremptory Claim made, and Pretensions to assert Humane Reason's Title not only to an Office of Inquisition, but also to a Power Judicial in Divine Mat­ters; for in searching out, it must likewise determine in its own Court (as you style it) which is the right Religion, and upon this account, that the Or­thodox Christian who is, or ought to be its Friend and Sub­ject upon the best and truest foundation, doth above all o­thers deny it its due station and [Page 5]dominion; but how valid this Title is, and the consequent Ac­cusation, must be discovered by examining the ensuing Trea­tise.

In the first Page, whereof you declare your inducement to make an inquiry into the nature and quality of your Religion, to be the duty of your private Condi­tion, and that your interest in humane society was the Cause of your offering to the view of others the effects of that search; which if beneficial to your self and others (as upon the score of Charity we may suppose you believe by your publishing it) is thanks and praise-worthy; but if otherwise, then upon a sight and acknowledgment of your mistake, a true Repentance, and all possible endeavours to pre­vent the spreading of your Er­rours, [Page 6]is only pardonable.

In the 2d. and 3d. Pages you have laid the foundation of all your opinion contained in the following Treatise; if therefore upon examination this shall be found faulty, your small Fabrick will with much more ease be totally demolished.

Here you acknowledge the History of Adam's Fall as it is stated in the Scriptures, and the miserable Consequence of it up­on him and his lapsed Posterity, as to the great vitiating and blur­ring the eye-sight of our under­standings, that (to use your own expression) One had great need of a better eye-sight than is left us by the fall of our first Fore-father, to guide us amongst many errone­ous, to the right way of Salva­tion. I question not but this will be allowed you as Orthodox; [Page 7]and if instead of your so anxious Debate and Consideration (in the next place) you had apply­ed your self to receive the dire­ctions, and obey the Precepts contained in the rest of the Scri­pture (according to the Prin­ciples of the Catholick Church) they would have convinced you, that Tradition, Revelation, Mi­racles, and the Grace of the Ho­ly Spirit, which teacheth the right use of the rest, are prepa­red by the Divine Providence, as the best Pilots to steer your Rea­son in this dubious Voyage, and would certainly have preserved you from so sudden a revolt from the Truth, and so direct a Con­tradiction to your own Notion (within four lines after) by pitch­ing upon your own Reason for that clear-sighted Guide, which it self so much wanted before: [Page 8]This is that irreparable flaw in your Foundation, which causes the ruine of your whole Super­structure.

You have penned the next Clause darkly for a blind (I sup­pose) to the contradiction in the former, If Reason takes such dire­ctions as it ought and may do before it sets forth: If you mean those Directions which I mentioned before (as indeed it may and ought) then the subject of the Question is altogether lost, for so Reason alone cannot be stated as the best Guide; but if you mean such Directions as Natural Reason shall give it self, then the same thing will both guide and be guided to the same end; Now a Guide subject to such Incon­gruities as these cannot but bring you into Errors, but not through them to happiness at last, which [Page 9]in this Clause also you as incon­gruously, as vainly assert.

In the next place you digress, by bidding defiance to those ma­ny Enemies which you expect should attack your Doctrine (ha­ving as you boast) Coup't up their Front and Reer in the Am­buscade of this Dilemma; That those who dispute most against the Power and Priviledges of Humane Reason, do it because their own rea­son perswades them to that belief, and so whether the Victory be on mine or on their side, are equally defeated. Yeur Argument is pa­rallel to this: He that is sick and from a true sence of his Disease acknowledgeth his weakness by that very acknowledment makes it manifest that he is well, and he that is in the like Condition, but is so insensible of his Di­stemper, that he conceits he is [Page 10]in health, is well also; whereas the indisposition of both remains, but the last labours under the most desperate Symptoms, (your own Case) see now your Vi­ctory or rather your plain De­feat either way.

Neither (in my weak opini­on) is your Answer to the Ac­cusation which you quote a­gainst the Wits more convincing than your Victory was trium­phant: for if lapsed Reason in its most accurate state (as it is possessed by the Wits) may be made a slave to the wills, inte­rests, or the prejudices of men, or be apt to be wanting in any part of its necessary duty for so ha­zardous a passage, (all which you acknowledge in your fourth page) then it cannot appear to judicious and considering men to be a Guide solely to be relyed on in [Page 11]this grand Affair; nor can even the weakest Understandings be so absolutely unbyassed, as to ren­der their Errors unblameable, as you have stated this Case, for every Sciolist knows that your advancing the humane Faculty into an Office too high, for it is the [...], which intails a just condemnation upon all such Errors as are consequential to that.

But if such fatal mistakes be the meed of the Wits, what Confusion shall we have when all sorts of people whether men, women, &c. (for you exempt none) shall be allowed the pri­viledge to govern themselves from within, without the least regard had either to Example or Authority, or any thing else whatsoever, especially since de­plorable Experience manifests [Page 12]that neither the Penalties of humane nor of divine Laws, nor the immediate Judgments of Gods own hand, can restrain some even of all degrees of men from perpetrating the greatest crimes, and falling into the most barba­rous Practices as well as Opini­ons? is it not plain before you in this Case, that more of God's glo­ry and regiment will be found among the Fowls of the Air, and Beasts of the Desart, than among those who shall practise your a­bominable doctrine? For even among such Animals, some foot­steps appear both of Authority and Example; nor can they com­mit either blasphemy or idolatry, the two inevitable, as well as un­controllable products of your de­testable opinions, while you phantastically pretend to pre­vent, I know not what universa­lity [Page 13]and perpetuity of Error, by broaching Myriads every day, so long as the minds of the Rab­ble shall continue injudicious and wavering.

In the 5th page you seem to be sensible that you have too ma­gisterially and rashly asserted Humane Reason's absolute abili­ty to judge of Spiritual Truths, by acknowledging, that the what and the how of religious Mysteries are out of its sight, and that it must make use of those helps which God hath prepared for us to that pur­pose, to make them visible as such. This is the true sense of your Clause, to which all Catholicks will agree, for it cannot be de­nied but if the Mysteries of Re­ligion are delivered down to us upon a supernatural account, but that our natural Capacity and Reason will need proportionable [Page 14]helps to enable it to apprehend them; how plain is it therefore that (from a high Conceit of your parts) you designed to im­pose phantastical Phrases for new Notions upon weak under­standings.

For a Close to this Paragraph, you are reduced to trifle with one of Democritus his Allegories, as if we shall find truth in our hearts, as we see Heaven in a Well; and this, you assert, is very applicable to your matter. If so, then accor­ding to your Metaphorical Do­ctrine, your Disciples must not only leave searching the Scrip­tures for the true Religion, and paying their Adoration to the Deity, for Eternal Happiness; but, on the contrary, they must look down into natural Reason, to find out the first, and conse­quently, worship themselves to [Page 15]obtain the second. These Prin­ciples, indeed, are entirely new, and suitable to the wretched Conceits of the forlorn Votaries in the Covent of Bethlehem.

In the sixth Page you have quoted so tragical an Objection (as you call it) that, notwith­standing your endeavours in 8 subsequent pages to give it an an­swer (in my mean opinion) you come very much short of it, viz. To allow this liberty, would beget as many Religions as there are several persons, and consequently draw af­ter it such disorder and confusion, as is inconsistent, not only with the Quiet, but the very Being of Hu­mane Society. Now, the truth of this Objection is so evident to all who have either seriously con­sidered the unsteady and vexati­ous condition of lapsed Humani­ty, or have read the past, or do [Page 16](at all) observe the present state of affairs in the World, that they need not expect any other Argu­ments to evince, that difference of Opinions (especially in Reli­gion) hath ever had ill effects in dividing of Affections, although not to the same degree in all Ages and Places: but yet, according to the circumstances of times and opportunities, the temper of pri­vate persons, as well as that of publick Government, the Ani­mosities which did arise from thence proved more or less mis­chievous to Humane Society.

Neither did those differing Sects of Philosophers (you quote) so peaceably agree (if you will trust History) as not to envy, scandalize, nay murther one ano­ther, which (possibly) might have occasioned publick Com­motions, had they not been pre­vented [Page 17]by the juncture of Affairs in those times, and prudence of Governors, which preserves Lon­don and Amsterdam in Peace at this day, notwithstanding the aptness of those Cities (as well as all others infested with Sects) to break out into Tumults, not to quote late instances.

But however this instance (as it is stated by your self) of seve­ral Opinions dividing Philoso­phers, and the Philosophers their Disciples; doth not amount to so wild and independent Frenzy, as to give every single person (how mean soever in degree, or incom­petent for parts) leave to become an uncontrollable Pope in Religi­on, or constitute himself an indi­vidual Church; and (in effect) to practice what Morals he lists, (so much the Consequences of Faith) by governi g himself [Page 18]from within, not having any re­gard either to Example or Au­thority (the grand ligaments of Order) or any thing else; which Position not only defaces the Forms and Superstructures of all Government both Ecclesiastical and Civil, but rases out all re­mains and foundations of Hu­mane Society; therefore no Hi­story can make mention of so li­centious a practice in the world, what ever ( page the 9th) you wrongfully affirm of the Hea­thens.

And now it would be but tri­fling and delaying the Reader to quote the particular and so well known Instances both in pro­phane and sacred Story, that op­position in Religion, nay separa­tions and Sects under the same general profession as well in the Wars betwixt the Gentiles and [Page 19]the Jews as either party among themselves, have caused the most inveterate Feuds and Mas­sacres, and the greatest destru­ctions to Cities and Common­wealths, before the Nativity of our Saviour, however you are pleased to scandalize Christi­ans.

It plainly appears also that in the heat of your project for this Treatise, you either forgot or slighted God's Precepts to his people (although you allow of the Scripture) to practice one Religion, and to endeavour the extirpation of all prophaneness and false worship, two unavoid­able Consequences of your good nature and liberty.

I shall not undertake to deter­mine what Church you design to defame in your 10.11, 12 and 14th Pages, as Author of all the [Page 20]miseries which have followed the variety of Opinions since the Reformation by tying Infallibili­ty to what they think truth, and Damnation to what ever they think error, but if you intend this Accusation against the Ca­tholick Church, give me leave to tell you, that it is most un­worthily framed; and it would be an injury to the Protestant Principles to deign it any other Answer, than to refer the Rea­der to the Practice of our Go­vernment both Ecclesiastical and Civil, in the several Condescen­tions to weak Consciences a­mong us; and this not only our Laws, but the difference we have ever had with the Church of Rome, in that Point makes apparent: A famed Instance of which is that of H. the Fourth of France, whom our Church [Page 21]lost upon the account of its Charity in that very Tenent.

Page 14. Another absurdity (you say) your Doctrine is ac­cused of, is, That we shall not only every one differ from every body else, but every one from himself: The truth of this Ob­jection is evident enough in the various delusions of the brain sick Phanaticks, who by following a wrong Guide also, their new Light (as they call it) are or­dinarily brought into the grossest Absurdities and Contradictions as well of themselves as others, both in opinion and practice.

Now to excuse the foregoing Absurdity, and the inconstancy (as you term it) which will be consequential to your Doctrine; you make as absurd and ground­less a supposition that those who decline the scandal of your way, [Page 22]must (on the contrary) be ob­liged to a blind and unalterable observance of those Laws and Opinions, which either the fate of their Birth and Education, or the fortune of other Accidents, (without any limitation) shall engage them in, which may be Ambition, worldly Interest, De­bauchery, or a pragmatick Fan­cy for a new fangled Treatise. To enumerate no more of those unaccountable infirmities and ac­cidents, which too often influ­ence the frailty of mens minds, who resist Instruction, and the Grace of the Holy Spirit, both which are abandoned by your licentious design; therefore this Accusation which you have fra­med against the Catholick Prin­ciples, is more applicable to yours than to any other Doctrine in the world.

But on the other hand, you could not have forged so vain a Supposition, had you observed as you ought, the just measures of Holy Church, which proposes nothing to its Votaries but what is both capable and worthy of a rational Assent, the best medium (without doubt) betwixt a blind obedience to Governours, and an absolute renouncing all Authori­ty and Example in Affairs of Re­ligion: Nay so wild and unac­countable are your Positions in this Paragraph, that it cannot be denied, but that even a blind Obedience to qualified Guides and Superiours (who are per­sons more concerned to Commu­nicate, and abler to find out the true Religion, than every private man) is much more safe and agreeable to Peace and Society, than to set up Panaticism, [...], [Page 24]by licensing every one in matters of Religion to gad whe­ther they list, like Brutes in Summer stung by the various in­sects of their own fancies.

But in your 16 and 17 Pages, you would seem something to regulate your foregoing Exorbi­tancy, by enjoyning your Disci­ples to make a long and serious in­quiry, whether they (I suppose you mean the former Obligati­ons) agree most with that light of their Ʋnderstanding which God hath infused into them for that end, according to the best extent of those means which are allowed by him to their understandings for this exa­mination. Now according to your style this may pass for an imbe­zel'd description of a compliance with the infusion of Grace, and plainly shews that it is a task too hard for the Natural Capa­city [Page 25]of man (upon its own ac­count) to make such a disquisiti­on; which both contradicts and confutes the whole design of your Treatise.

It seems by your Instance of Chance-medley in this Paragraph likewise, that you are subject to mistakes in the Law, as well as in making of Comparisons, for to state any Fact, Chance-medley there must be a wilful and rash, or sud­den fury or purpose for the inci­tation to commit it, which is al­together omitted, as you have described the Crime, and makes your Instance but Homicide per infortunium: Your words are these; And if in this Permutation after all Industry and Humility therein, it shall be our ill fortune to give away a Truth for a False­hood, it will be (as killing a man against our will, is no murder) at [Page 26]the worst but an Error by Chance-medley, and I will both find (I had almost said Claim) mercy from God, and Pity from men.

But not to insist upon this mi­stake, we shall examine your Ar­gument as you have stated your Allegory; Homicide by misad­venture then, is when any person kills a man without malice pre­pense, foresight, or any act of his Will, as he is performing some lawful Employment; but the dif­ference is great, when one man shall kill another, after he hath put himself into any unwarranta­ble Condition, as an immoderate Fury, Drunkenness, and the like; or is exercised in any thing that is not allowable by Law, for such previous qualifications, state the subsequent Fact voluntary and criminal, which Case is parallel to that of your natural Reason, [Page 27]when it is employed in matters too high both for its Capacity and Station: What ground have you then (both these Instances consi­dered) to be so confident of finding or claiming mercy from God, and of deserving pity from men?

Your next Argument or Re­inforcement of your last (I know not well which) is another incom­petent Comparison betwixt Phy­sical Notions, and those in Theo­logy, which is regulated and answered thus; That (although in unscholastick and common Parleance, a man is said from his birth to his death to be the same person, because his body all along is informed by the same soul, yet it is with an allowance during the flux of that time, for his nutri­mental mutation; so that we do not Physically affirm that every [Page 28]particle of man's body continues numerically the same through all the successions of his natural Con­stitution, although he hath the same Appellation: But when we see the body of a man left uninfor­med and lifeless by the departure of his Soul; from that time we de­clare the being of that Compositum and peculiar denomination to be determined and cease, and if we could perceive the departed Soul, (according to Pythagoras his [...]) undertake the Informati­on of another body; we should as readily pronounce that to be a new Compositum, or another per­son; this is the case of your Disci­ples Conscience (which you call the Soul of his Faith) in its trans­migration from the System or Bo­dy of the Protestant Faith to that of the Papists, which from its dis­sonant Articles and Essentials to [Page 29]those of our Church, hath been ever distinguished by a different Appellation; so that these two neither in Name nor Essence are the same Faith, and consequently if one is true, the other is false: therefore I shall leave your Disci­ple to be informed by your self, after what manner with both these Faiths, he shall behold his Saviour; and thus you may ob­serve how easie it is for you to mistake an equal Sincerity of Con­science, for an Identity of Faith in your Allegorical Arguments.

From Page 20, to Page 26. you employ your confident Guide to assert its own Sufficiency by recri­minating ours, as not totally ex­empt from mistakes as well as its self, but of the validity of that sort of arguing, I shall leave the Reader to judge, and proceed to the Merits of the Cause.

Thus much then we acknow­ledge, that we do not think our selves obliged to believe the Pa­stors of Holy Church (upon the bare account of Humanity) to be absolutely infallible, neither do we attribute to them so high Illu­minations and Gifts as the first planting of the Gospel did require, and Christ's Conversation afford­ed his Apostles, who likewise was not altogether exempt from mi­stakes: but yet we rely upon the Spirit of Truth (which our Sa­viour promised to send to the A­postles and their Successors after his Ascension) to preserve them from teaching such Errors as are inconsistent with the Divine Oe­conomy in Affairs of Religion, and the harmony of the Scrip­tures.

And this in one of your lucid Intervals ( Page 24.) you in ef­fect [Page 31]affirm in these very syllables; And I verily believe if God had not stirred up some persons of excellent Abilities and worthy Spirits (for such surely they were, though not exempt from humane weakness) to examine by the Rules of their own Reasons, those Follies and dange­rous Errors in Religion, which, &c. Now in my poor Opinion it will neither blemish your style, nor in­jure your Notion to Pen it plainly thus, If God had not by the assist­ance of his Grace stirred up, &c. For that is the means (according to the Promise of our Saviour, and the Tenor of the Scripture) by which God stirs up and enables the Minds of men to all religious Performances whether private or publick. I choose to answer your Recrimination after this manner, rather than to rake into Antiqui­ty, by reviving the exceptions to [Page 32]the Constitutions of those Coun­sels you quote in this Paragraph, and therefore shall say no more to this Point, but that our Saviour's not promising the same measure of his Spirit to every private man, as to his Apostles and their Succes­sors, states the right Guides of Holy Church above the scandal of your Comparison, Page 25, & 26. You again tell us, that we are in much more danger of being drawn from the Christian Faith, by building our Belief wholly upon the Authority of past or present Ages, then to remit the Judg­ment of those things to our own Reasons; in this Assertion the term (wholly) altogether excludes a Rational Satisfaction on the Be­lievers part, and therefore doth not assault the Protestant Princi­ples for which only I am con­cerned.

You reinforce this Argument against the Authority of the Church with another absurd Al­legation, much of the same Class with the former, that the Chri­stian was neither the most ancient nor universal Religion in the world: As to the last I doubt not but you will agree with us, that immense Dominions or vast num­bers of Votaries, are not the inse­parable Characteristicks of the true Religion; for the greatest part of the World was inslaved to Idolatry and Gentilism, (as you observed) in the time of the Law, as well as of the Gospel, and you who own the Scriptures must ac­knowledge with us that the first was dictated by God the Father, and the other by his Son, the Su­pream Testimony for the truth of both.

2ly, As to the Antiquity of the Christian Faith, you cannot but know that the Contents of the Scriptures, and the Consent of learned men, assert the foundati­on of the Gospel to be laid in the Eternal Decree of a Messias before the Creation of the World, and that the first notice of it here be­low, was immediately after the Fall of our first Parents, when God promised a great Redeemer for the Relief of man, who should vanquish, and be avenged of the subtilty of the Serpent; and after this the Substance of the Christian Principles were existent in the Primitive Integrity of Abel and his Successors, until the time of Abraham, to whom it was revealed that the Messias should descend from his own Loins, and after­ward more particularly to Jacob, of what Tribe he should be born. [Page 35]After this manner the Christian Faith was preserved and conveyed down to the Penning of the Scri­ptures, and then the Types and Predictions under the Law were the Harbingers of its manifestation in the Incarnation, Doctrine, and Miracles of our Saviour, until he sealed it with his Passion: Upon this account you may very well conclude as you do (although against your foregoing Allegati­on in the same Page) that there is more and greater reason to be found for the Belief of a Christian, than for any other whatsoever.

In your 27, & 28 Pages, I find such a medley of vile Contradicti­ons as never before was vented by man; for here in your Allegori­cal Style you take it for granted, that there may be a thousand right Religions or ways of true Worship, although you have ac­knowledged [Page 36]the truth of the Scri­ptures, which admit but of one.

And secondly, That your in­fallible Guide by wandring up and down in this multiplicity of Paths, will by a long, troublesom, and tedious Voyage bring you to happiness at last. Now for the ap­plying this Allegory, you should have made a new Demonstration, That there are so many right ways to Eternal Salvation; otherwise if you will measure your Meta­phor by the Rules of Holy Writ, it is a thousand to one but your Guide will deceive you.

As to the Contents of your 29, 30, 31, & 32 Page, I acknowledge that it is not only an Act of Cha­rity, but the absolute duty of Christians to allow the Gate of Heaven to be as broad as the Scri­ptures have stated it; And on the other side, you know the doom [Page 37]of those who shall attempt to press it more open than they have set it; but in them the Way is said to be streight, and the Gate narrow, and that few shall enter therein: Is it not plain therefore, that leaving the right and fol­lowing your wrong and natural Guide, you are brought into a streight between two excesses? that to shun Austerity (as you term it) on the one side, you are put up­on that profane and wretched belief of an equal possibility for the Salvation of Turks, Heathens, and Jews, with that of the Chri­stians, nay of Atheists themselves, (if there be any such) now if you will believe the Scriptures, the fool hath said in his heart there is no God. And amongst the Hea­then Philosophers, not to mention single Instances, the whole Sect of the Epicureans could be no less, [Page 38]who whilest they could not track the Methods of Divine Power and Providence, denyed the Dei­tie's Creation and his Govern­ment of the World.

After all therefore it seems much safer to suspend your belief, concerning the Fate of those Peo­ple who are out of the Pale of Christianity, and leave them (as you acknowledge some do) in the hands of the Creator, than to descant (in the least) on his ex­traordinary Disposals not revealed to our Understandings.

But above all, how heretical and horrid is your Conceit about the possibility of the Salvation of Devils from the excessive kind­ness of the Judge, which contra­dicts all Divine Declarations? nor is there any colour on their part, to plead either invincible Igno­rance, or the Merits of a Redeem­er, [Page 39]the two grand means even ac­cording to your own Doctrine, for the obtaining of Pardon. Thus you see to what extravagancies your Natural Reason is brought by a high Conceit and Partiality to its self, under a pretence of Charity to the World.

As to your Discourse, Page 33. That although Christ is the onely Source and Cause of Eternal Fe­licity, yet you may very well be­lieve that there are secret and won­derful ways by which God may be pleased to apply his Merits to Mankind, besides those direct, open, and ordinary ones of Bap­tism and Confession; let it suffice those ways are not revealed, and therefore ought not to be pryed into by the Rules of Christianity.

Page 34. In defiance of the Churches Anathemaes, you assert, That all sorts of Christians shall be [Page 40]saved, except their Lives disagree from their Doctrines, which like­wise is a Disobedience to their Reasons; and this also you in ef­fect have affirmed of men of the worst Religions, for brevity sake: Therefore I shall endeavour to answer them both together, That it is obvious enough, to those who have any insight into the vast dif­ferences in the profession of Chri­stianity at large, that many pass under the Title of Christians, be­cause they in general profess the Mission of the Messias, yet hold many Tenents heretical and dero­gatory both to his Nature and Office; and those Opinions (as an additional mischief) so much influence their Actions, that they lead ill Lives suitable to the Errors of their Understandings: And this also is most true of the strictest Professors of the worst Religions; [Page 41]and it is observable that those sorts of men who after this manner oppose the Catholick Church, and the Precepts of the Scriptures, are such as pay too much Obedience to their Natural Reasons in Di­vine Matters; the Instances are too frequent and obvious in all Ages, to need particular Quota­tions.

Page 35. Your discovery and stating of Heresie is as insignifi­cant as the rest of your Opinions; for if any one shall stubbornly set up his own private Reason and Judgment against that of the Pub­lick, and shall upon that incom­petent account broach Positions contrary to the Principles and Authority of the Catholick Church, or Practice accordingly: doubt­less our Ecclesiastical Guides in these later Ages may pronounce the Censures of the Church, a­gainst [Page 42]such persons according to the pattern of Primitive Gover­nours, who did as little as ours, pretend to the Deities Title of [...], or as you phrase it, to have a perfect sight of the whole Contexture of mens thoughts and actions.

Lastly, as to your feigned Law about Murder, and its qualifying Circumstances to make the sen­tence Conditional, I shall only an­swer, that as a Comparison (at best) is no good argument of it self, so neither can you deduce any from this for mens disobe­dience to the Church in matters of belief. For the foundation of the Catholique Faith deduced from the Notions and Usage of Primitive times, backed by the Scriptures, is the highest accompt which the nature of the Subject is capable of; therefore whoever it [Page 43]is proposed to, may give their ra­tional assent, and is the best ground for an unqualified sen­tence upon all stubborn opposers.

Page 36. Thus much for Heri­sy (as you say) now for Schism; but your way, The remedy for that, is the disease it self; for Schism is defined to be a volun­tary seperation from the Church upon a trivial account, without a­ny mention either of censure or connivance, (the first of which you say makes, the other cures it) but if this difinition be true, then your individual Sects (however allowed) will be guilty of it after a most intolerable manner; nei­ther can your absolute Indepen­dency in affairs of Religion, ad­mit of any thing more than a ci­vil Compliance in mens outward conversation, but utterly ravels that continuity of Faith which is [Page 44]necessary to preserve that unity of the Church you your self mention; nay should such a Licence be but admitted in Temporals, in which Reasons Plea is much stronger to intitle it to an Independency, than in matters of Religion, it will utterly rase out all Society and Government in them, as all order and communion in Spirituals.

You endeavour to reinforce this Argument for Independency in Religion, from the great variety which God hath constituted in mans material parts & their moti­ons, as if he may be delighted with no less variety (not only) in mans immaterial Parts, but even in the most immaterial Actions of those Parts, the Worship and Adora­tion of a Deity, when the very nature of Truth, and the Words of Holy Writ plainly informs us that it can be but one, sutable [Page 45]to the unity of the object; be­sides, if a comparison altogether feigned by a wild supposition on­ly (without any demonstration) betwixt beings of most dissimular natures, may pass for an Argument, what Proposition or Truth can be established among men?

Page 38. Of what weight or advantage to your Cause can you imagine your next Allegation can be; that God (without any di­stinction) receives neither hurt nor advantage from the worship of man? when this is a plain truth that his Essence (indeed) is not concerned at the operations of the Creature, but his Glory is, as it relates to the Creation, and therefore for the magnifying of that here below, he made man, and instituted Divine Worship, and hath expressed his delight in the uniformity of that devotion which [Page 46]himself hath commanded, as a­greeable to Truth, and most conducible to his Honour, and to the bond of Peace among men; I hope this may convince any one who acknowledges Divine Re­velation.

As to your subsequent Objecti­on, concerning the uncertainty in the interpretation of Scripture, the Catholique Church declares that the Essentials of Faith, and all things of necessary obedience, are set down positively and plainly enough in the Scriptures, for the understanding of all such who di­ligently observe them, and make a right use of those aides, which God hath prepared for that end. Consistent with this also is our Di­vines asserting a literal and typi­cal sence, from a simple and a compound signification of the same Text; This latter is appli­cable [Page 47]to the Types and Sacra­ments in the Old Testament, which as they were of present use in the Worship of the Jews, so it cannot be denyed, but that they had a prospect and a reference to the coming of our Saviour; And the same Text also may con­tain in it an Analogical Sence in relation to another, and all this according to the intent of the Spi­rit of Unity that penned them; which the same Divines will tell you, hath ever been accounted the best medium to comprehend, and preserve the harmony of Holy Writ.

Your next is such an Argument as was never heard of before. I say that the Commands of God con­cerning Religion, are equally obey­ed and fulfilled by all the various kinds of obedience which the Con­sciences of men conceive themselves [Page 48]bound to pay unto them, how er­roneous or senceless soever, for so your Assertion ought to be un­derstood, as if nonsence and er­ror were as agreeable to his Di­vine Will and Pleasure, as what is Right and the Truth: Thus while your natural Guide bids defiance to all Authority of others, it sets up its own, and most stupidly out-faces God's own Declara­tions.

In the next place, you would deduce from the Suns melting the Wax, and hardning the Mud; that Faith is properly one, though according to the divers receptions of it, it produceth not only divers, but contrary effects: That is, that the same Faith may be the Cause of Godliness, and Profaneness, Piety and Irreligion, of the true Worship and Idolatry, the own­ing of one God, and Polutheism [Page 49]and Atheism, for all these lie couched under that futilous So­phism of contrary effects, and your suitable similitude of a hard and soft temper: but I hope I shall not need to Advertise any Reader, that these inconsistent Notions are the effects of your new Humane Reason.

Page 40, 41, 42, 43. you Phan­tastically accumulate inveighing Similitudes against too austere and uncharitable censuring of Members infirm or weak in mat­ters of Faith; but as they are al­together unapplicable to the Me­thods and Tenents of our Church, as hath been made evident; so neither are they in the least avail­able for the defence of your Do­ctrine, which by an extream on the other hand much more mis­chievous and destructive to all [Page 50]Order in Religion, doth not ad­mit of any Censures at all.

Page 44, & 45. How ever o­thers as you guess (with proba­bility enough) may accuse you of Pride and Vanity, for attribu­ting so much to your own reason, yet I will not pretend to have so clear a sight into the whole Con­texture of your Thoughts and Actions, as to judge whether it was Pride and Vanity, or humi­lity and Charity most scandalously mistaken, which induced you first to embrace, and then to publish this Doctrine so absolutely new to the World; but I hope I may (without any tyrannical Assump­tion) let you know that (in my apprehension) wise men will hardly be perswaded to allow that for a good natured or peaceable opini­on, which encourageth every one stubbornly and inhumanely to [Page 51]undertake to govern himself from within in opposition to all Au­thority and Example, especially since the Creator hath instituted Subordination and Order, for the prime and original Cement not only of all Societies Celestial and Terrestrial, but also of the Fabrick of the material World.

As for your so often reiterated Accusation of such who claim an Infallibility for their Party, by saying, That who ever is not of my opinion, is in the wrong, and whoever is in the wrong, is to perish eternally for his Error. It cannot be at all applyed to the practice of the Protestant Church (for which I am only concerned) for that steers a rational and moderate Course betwixt the two Extreams of their Opinion and yours, as hath been manifested before.

But let me remind you also, [Page 52]that your Doctrine might more reasonably deserve the Encomium you give it in this Paragraph, for allowing its Disciples to lay down an Opinion, when Cause shall ap­pear for so doing, if it did also advise them to renounce the Guide that brought them into it, which is all the reason in the World.

Page 46, & 47. As to your Quarrel with Mr. Hobbs, I am not concerned to maintain his Opini­ons, or to reconcile them with yours, yet (in my weak appre­hension) you will find it a Task too hard for your Natural Rea­son, to make good that Position by which you design his Defeat: That men ought not to think those Worships dishonourable to God, that are not practised by themselves: For whoever shall hold this Assertion, must either want sincerity and deceive their [Page 53]own Souls by practising one sort of Worship, and approving of others, or else they must believe that all sorts of Worship are right which are practised among men; or that the Deity equally approves of both the right and the wrong: all which is not only contradictory to Divine Revelation, but also re­pugnant to the Fundamentals and Systems of all the Religions in the World, and consequently your Doctrine, by broaching an univer­sal Dissention amongst all mortal Votaries, would introduce a va­riety in Divine Worship, more un­accountably ridiculous than any that ever was heard of in this or former Ages, however you abuse them.

In the next place you alledge, That if ignorant or malicious Phy­sicians (in this violent Fever) did not apply new Heats instead of Ju­lips, [Page 54]they might by Writing, Dis­puting, Preaching, and Living Charitably (which is all the for­mer) reduce the World in a short time to its ancient healthful and natural temper: But what Cohe­rence or Alliance hath the natural temper of the World with its an­cient and healthful state in Reli­gion: Therefore to make better sense of this Clause we will rectifie it thus; That we allow Writing, Preaching, Disputing, and living Charitably to be the chief out­ward means, as well to Confute Errors in Notion as to reclaim evil Doers, and so reduce the Christian World to the Primitive Integrity of Life, and Purity of Doctrine: But let me remind you though, that the Exercise and Ef­fects of these Performances, chief­ly depend upon Example and Au­thority, both which your Doctrine [Page 55]most irrationally disavows, nei­ther can we possibly agree with you, that this ancient and health­ful Temper of the World, was a general Idolatry among the Sons of men; which (within six Lines after) you affirm, was the onely Religion for 4000 years: O men! O manners! so barbarous Contra­dictions was never yet published by any one who was Master of common sense, or had the least in­sight into the Accounts of pro­phane or sacred Story.

Page 50, to follow your abrupt, tautological, and prevaricating Pe­riods, you say, you ought not to abstain from the Christian Wor­ship among Pagans, for fear lest their Mockery and Contempt should on a sudden (you know not how) Convert it into sin and blasphemy; but all sober Christi­ans will tell you, that if you per­form [Page 56]the true Christian Worship amongst Infidels with such Pru­dence and Decency, as its own Nature and Principles, and the Circumstances both of the time and place do require, and they shall causlessly deride and blas­pheme it, the sin lies at their own doors, and your endeavour­ing to promote the Honour of our Saviour, by confessing him before men, shall be rewarded with his Confessing you before his Father that is in Heaven: Thus this Text as well as many more in the Scripture, makes it plainly ap­pear, that the spreading or advan­cing of the outward Honour of God, doth very much consist in the Opinion of others; notwith­standing some Miscreants by their folly and prophaneness may abuse those things which most of all de­serve to be approved and admired.

Page 51, 52. You cannot with any pretence of Reason infer from your next instance, of the difference betwixt the Capacity of men (who judge thoughts according to outward appea­rances and actions) and that of the Deity (wholly an exertion of his Omniscience, without any mediate and extrinsick means) perfectly knows the Hearts of all Men; that outward Worship is of so little concernment to the Ho­nour of God, that men may perform it by any Rituals or Ce­remonies whatsoever; or to use your own words, they would find no more hurt from the use of dif­ferent Ceremonies (without any li­mitation) than of different Tongues in the same City. Now the pur­port of this inference is so immo­dest and impious, that I dare not quote particular instances to [Page 58]quash and confute it, but advise you to recollect your self from these Generals. First, that the chief end of Divine Worship here below, is the magnifying Gods Honour in the Rational world, for which purpose he hath distinguished mans Duty, from Crimes; Piety, from Vice; Prayers and Allelujahs, from Cursing and Blasphemy, and words and gestures (of which External Worship consists) are Characterized accordingly, as out­ward evidences of both: Who­ever therefore shall dare to use Blasphemous, or obscene Speeches or Actions, in the Worship of the Deity (which will undoubt­edly come to pass, when the Rab­ble are let loose to Natural Rea­son for their guide, as the Abomi­nations of the Gentiles have suffi­ciently manifested) must certain­ly [Page 59]become Anathema to him, and a much worse Barbarian to Chri­stian Congregations, than he that speaks in an unknown Tongue, which you so justly Condemn as a Phantastical Usage in the Reli­gion of the Papists.

Secondly, I cannot but admire, that Gods own Prescription of a Ceremonial Law in the Theocra­cy of the Jews, as well as the ge­neral Usage of Primitive Chri­stians, doth not above all things Convince you, that a consent in outward decency is both harmo­nious and necessary in Divine Worship.

Page 53. I had almost forgot one of your Metaphorical In­stances: As words are the Images of our thoughts, so our thoughts are of the things themselves, & as well may differing thoughts truly represent the Worship of one God and his Son Je­sus [Page 60]Christ, as differing words can represent the same thoughts. Not to create a Prolixity, by a strict Exa­mination of all the plain defects in this Comparison, let it suffice to re­mind you, that if mens practices in Adoration, shall be agreeable to their several, and unaccountable apprehensions and belief of a De­ity (which you require in your Disciples) then the Worships of one God (for they cannot be the same) will be as different and in­glorious, as the injudicious and unbridled fancies of all the sorts of men can possibly invent, and how suitable such a Confusion of Worships can be to the Nature and Purity of the only true God, I leave the Reader to judge.

In the next place, If the Ex­positions of learned men, or the plain words of the Text are to be credited, your taking humane [Page 61]Reason for a Guide in matters too high for it, is the same Er­rour with that of the Greeks, which St. Paul bids so high a defy­ance to, in the beginning of his first Epistle to the Corinthians; where upon the account of Grace, supernaturally infused into his in­ward parts by the Divine Spirit, enabling him to apprehend and believe the mystery of Christs In­carnation and Passion, altogether hid from the best and clearest humane Reason (as you well ac­knowledge, page 57.) he Con­demns the Natural, Moral, and Political knowledge of the Phi­losophers, Orators, and Princes a­mong them, and seems upon that account to call it the Wisdom of the Princes of the World, which plainly evinces, that he intended this accusation against humane Wisdom in its truest State, as it [Page 62]was different from the Spiritual knowledge of the Gospel, decla­ring to them that the things which are not, that is, of no value amongst them viz. the Doctrine of the Gospel, should confound the thing that are, that is most highly esteemed by them, which was humane Reason in its vigour as it was possessed by those per­sons great and learned in their generations, as their Writings make manifest even to this day.

Page 58. Against the common Principles of Christianity you assert, that for the discovery of Divine Truths, Grace did not al­ter the Eye-sight of Humane Reason, but only draw the ob­ject nearer to it. Now the false­hood of this Opinion will in some measure appear. First by ex­amining your assertion upon a natural account, in which expe­rience [Page 63]informs you, that the near­er those Objects approach whose appearances are too intense for the reception of the Organ, the more they dazle and confound, in­stead of being discerned, as they are by the unqualified Optick, the exact state of your Humane Rea­son in this Case, according to the best Christian Principles.

But 2ly, A more apt and genu­ine Confutation of your Error, may be drawn from your own subsequent Instance of the new state of things, which shall be re­vealed at the second Coming of our Saviour; when our mortal Capacity shall receive such a qua­lification and change, as shall enable it to behold and stand be­fore that Grand Appearance: And in Analogy to this, as his Om­nipotence then will make a pre­parative Change, for the support­ing [Page 64]of our Nature, at that most high and amazing Tribunal, so he administers his Grace now for the illuminating of our Minds, to apprehend and embrace his Spiri­tual manifestation.

Page 59. Notwithstanding your great pretence to a peaceable al­lowance of every man's Opinion in matters of Religion, you can­not forbear Carping at, and assu­ming to Correct the Translation of the Bible, but altogether with­out Cause; for whoever Consults the Text will find, that Animalis there signifies à divinis alienus, and so is intended of the rational man, and is distinguished from sensualis, as, [...] from [...], and this, Commentators upon the place, affirm to be agreeable to the Context, the most approved way for stating Controverted Scriptures.

Page 61. To justifie your for­mer mistake of the Scriptures, you hazard another, by affirming that when the Apostle speaks of his fighting with Beasts at Ephesus, he means Disputations with sen­sual men; but certainly you can­not be ignorant, that you have considerable Antagonists in this Point also, who understand the Place according to the Letter, be­cause to be exposed to wild beasts, was a punishment in those times, to which the Christians were de­plorably subject, from whence the Outcry upon any publick Discon­tent, Christiani ad leones: Beside, whether the words literally under­stood, shall be interpreted to con­tain in them a direct Affirmation, that he had really fought; or as a Supposition only, if, or in case he had fought with beasts at Ephe­sus (of which he might have been in [Page 66]some hazard at least, and as some think was prevented by his Asso­ciates) they are alledged to be either way more forcible to de­monstrate, what the Apostle in­tended to prove at that time, his belief of the Resurrection, than if they shall be understood of a Metaphorical Combate. I only hint this to remind you how un­suitable this Magisterial and Ca­papricious Project is to your de­sign of an universal peaceable li­berty, and that you may collect from your own miscarriages in laying the Plot, what is likely to prove the common fate of your Disciples.

Page 62. You would be at your Victory both ways again; I shall transpose your words, but not vary the sense: That it is impossi­ble for Humane Reason to lose any thing in one place, without [Page 67]gaining as much in some other; for by our Reasons being guided, conquered, and inslaved, theirs are become Guides, Conquerors, and Masters; which when they have done, then they will lose what they contend for: But you here forget that such a Conquest cannot be made upon so impreg­nable Principles; and on the other side, if this Supposition could be made an Experiment, that way also your uncontroulable liberty will be utterly quashed, which is all we contend for. Nay, had you well weighed the Contents of your foregoing Paragraph, that St. Paul by true reason overcame and captivated the false ones, and that by right of Conquest, you must necessarily have seen in this Assertion as strong an Argument, as can be for Example and Autho­rity grounded upon reason, which [Page 68]might happily have prevented your publishing to the World so many Impertinencies and Contra­dictions, as are contained in this Treatise.

In the next place you under­take to fortifie your Project with three Arguments (as you style them) but they are rather Tau­tologies, for they are nothing more in effect than the former Po­sitions in other Similies and Phra­ses; but I will cursorily examine them for full satisfaction: Your first Argument, like the Trojan Horse, contains in its Bowels six monstrous Reasons to make good the Combate.

Page 63. For your first Reason you aver, that we have no more warrantable ground for our Obe­dience to Authority, than the Fanaticks and Enthusiasts have for following the Ignis fatuus of their [Page 69]own brains, or that of evil Spirits; and that our happening into the right by following it, is meerly good fortune, &c. but if you in­tend this Derogation against the Authority of the Church, deduced upon a rational account from the Contents of Holy Writ and Pri­mitive usage, as it hath been sta­ted before, then I doubt not but all sober men will agree, that you ought with much more justice and correspondence to your own Concessions, have compared their pragmatick and haughty Presum­ptions to that of your own Rea­son; for you have acknowledged that your Guide as well as theirs, will lead its followers into Errors; but to solve this Phoenomenon, you are reduced most absurdly to give us your single Authority, that the Errors of you and your Guide are safe, but theirs unpardonable; but [Page 70]it hath already been made good against you, that your Guide, as well as theirs, ingages in an Office without any warrant, which makes the Errors on both parts conse­quential to that Assumption e­qually blameable.

2ly, To reinforce this Argu­ment, you quote Eves pleading the Authority of the Serpent, and Adam hers, yet all were punished; but this Instance is as unapplicable as their Pleas were unwarrantable, and plainly shews that your Rea­son is so far from being a good Guide in Divine matters, that it is an ill one in common sence; for the degrees of that Seduce­ment rising by a Climax, (the in­feriour all along influencing the superiour) is the method of true Authority absolutely reverst: but I admire also that you did not correct your Error, by consulting [Page 71]the Text, The woman that thou ga­vest (not to be over me but) with me, as the expression in the Hebrew imports.

Page 65. You as absurdly give us again your own Affirmation only, That the followers of your Guide, if they commit them­selves wholly to it, are as safe in their Errors as others are in em­bracing the truth; and whether it takes its Voyage to the Artick or Antartick, to the left, or the right, it will bring them to the wished end of their Journey, Hap­piness at last; as if Errors and what is false, were Mediums as safe and prevalent, as the Truth for the obtaining of Bliss, which contradicts the general Oeconomy of the World and the Natural and Common Reason of all Men.

Page 66. After a most imper­tinent [Page 72]imbezelling both of Words and Sense, you at last assert; Now He (that is God) that bids you search, is cruel and barbarous in his mockery, if he knoweth you have no power or faculty so to search as he commands you, there is therefore in man a natural ability of searching spiritual Truths. Now as your Supposition is groundless, so is your Conclusion, and directly op­posite to a Position of your own, that natural reason of it self seeth neither the what, nor the how of Spiritual Verities: Therefore as I have demonstrated before, God hath ordained and administred means peculiarly appropriate to the Condition of every Age, for the enabling the Humane Faculty to search according to his Com­mands, much better than it possi­bly can upon the score of lapsed Nature, which fully acquits him [Page 73]of your blasphemous Supposition, and shews you the falshood of your Hetrodox Assumption.

Your second Reason hath been often confuted before; for your Natural Reasons, setting it self up for a Guide in matters too high for it, in that commits an error, which otherwise is avoidable; and upon that score also cannot possi­bly make a search that is truly mature, which gives a just Pro­vocation to the Deity, to con­demn such ill Beliefs and ill Acti­ons as proceed from that Pre­sumption.

In your third Reason, you are at your large Principles of Chari­ty again, for the Salvation of all, who have the fortune to be Mis­believers, which hath I hope been sufficiently spoken to in the whole Series of these Remarks, and therefore needs no other answer.

As to your fourth Reason, if your Considering-men in that will but observe what Errors in Be­lief are consequential to this Pre­sumption of their Natural Rea­son, and such others which arise (as this doth) from the Depra­vity of the Will, it will serve them for a Catalogue of all Er­rours that are damnable, and prove very instrumental to help them to find out Salvation.

As to your fifth Reason, a di­ligent Observation also of this plain distinction of Errors, into wilful and unwilful, joyn'd with a general Compunction for such as are unobserved or forgotten (ac­cording to the Principles of the Catholick Church) I will at once take off that vain Imputation of Cruelty which you would lay up­on God, and also cure your own pretended Incapacity to repent, [Page 75]for want of a knowledge of your faults, by clearing to your Un­derstanding, what Actions or Be­liefs are truly Culpable, which will direct your Devotion to the proper Subjects for Repentance.

As to your most vain Objection in your sixth Reason, concerning Man's Incapacity to find out the Truth, as it hath been fully an­swered before, so it can have no other Fund, beside that impious and colluding Doctrine of Pro­bability framed by the Jesuits, to patronize a Sinners living in sin: Your own words are these; — If that be probable which all, or most men, or many, or the most wise, or some wise men receive for truth, what Doctrine is there which in the whole Compass of Religions, may not pass for probable. But for a short Answer to this. If there be so great a probability of erring by [Page 76]following wise men; how much more liable are the Ignorant then to erre, when left to their own Conduct?

As to your second Argument, to avoid tediousness, I shall not examine all those defective and incongruous Instances in the first part of it, because ordinary Ca­pacities may discover their being unapplicable, as well as untrue, by their own experience; but to shun the Censure of affirming this Gratis, I shall hint at one of them, viz. The seeming Crookedness of a streight Stick, part in the Air, and part in the Water, the streight­ness of which may be discovered by an Appeal to the Touch, but I shall proceed to the Objection which you make against them your self; for if that can be made good against your own Answer, it will most genuinely confute the [Page 77]whole Paragraph, you object thus; That the sight though it be subject to some particular Impediments, yet it is generally by its own nature much more certain and exact in the judgment of Colours, than the Ʋnderstanding can ever be made (even without accidental hinder­ances) in the knowledge of things spiritual. Your Answer to it is this; That if such things are the proper Objects of such a Faculty, we are herein to be governed by the Dictates of it, without considering whether that Faculty be as quick and perfect as God could make it in Apprehension of its Objects, nei­ther ought we to give less trust to our Ʋnderstanding in supernatural Truths, because it is so much infe­riour to that of Angels, than we do to our Eye-sight in things visible, though it be so far short of that of Eagles. Briefly that which makes [Page 78]your Objection too strong for your Answer, is that Angelical Intuition, & Truths supernatural, are of the same state, and so also is the Eye-sight and visible Ob­jects here below (although the Organs of Creatures may be dif­ferently qualified for, as well as improved by, the different occa­sion of their lives) but our natural Understanding, and Spiritual Things or Truths Supernatural, are not of the same state, and therefore in a true sence cannot be said to be its proper Objects, which evinces that it needs Su­pernatural Helps to enable it to apprehend them: I would gladly here have ended my Answer to this Argument; but that I can­not but remind you of a gross failance in your Memory, for you formerly, in effect, affirmed, that the Worship of man is of no [Page 79]Concern to the Deity. But here Page 76. You tell us, that when God had Created all things else, he thought the World im­perfect as yet, whilest there was nothing made that could Con­template, Thank and Worship the Maker of it, which plainly states the Worship of Man to be of high Concern both to the Creation, and the Creator: But you imme­diately to these Premisses joyn a most incongruous Conclusion, that the mannners and kinds of doing it are accidental; but cer­tainly you cannot hope to per­swade any rational man (when all means are proportioned to their ends by the order of the Uni­verse) that so considerable an end should have such inconsiderable ways to it; or that the true Re­ligion and its reward should be like no other valuable thing, or [Page 80]end in the World, to be utterly destitute of all certain Rules and Means to attain them: Therefore I shall leave this Clause to the re­dargution of the Satyrist, Desinit in piscem mulier formosa superne.

Your third Argument to gain your Opinion an allowance in the World, is an Affirmation, that it is not only most safe, and most na­tural for every man in particular, but likewise most agreeable to the good and interest of Humane Society: for all Wars of late ages have been, either really for Reli­gion (or at least) that hath been one of the chief Pretences, which if it were quite taken away, it would be difficult for those men who disguise their ambition with it, to draw the People into the mi­series and uncertainties either of a civil or a foreign War; but it had been very requisite that you [Page 81]should have explain'd your self here, whether you would have the pretence of fighting for it, or Religion it self quite taken away; for not only this Clause, but in­deed your whole Treatise seems to aim at that end; for if all Forms and Ligaments of any Bo­dies whether Ecclesiastical or Civil shall be destroyed and broken, their Fabricks must fall, and this the admittance of your unlimited Liberty will effect in the Systems of all the Governments and Re­ligions established in the World.

But to pass by this Peccadillo, and to come to the body of your Argument, if Unity in Religion will produce a general Amity a­mongst men, which you seem to acknowledge, Page 79. then the nearer the Constitution of the Universe approaches to this Uni­ty, the fewer occasions will arise [Page 82]of Discord and War; and on the contrary, when Differences in Re­ligion shall be unaccountable and numberless, they will consequent­ly administer many more oppor­tunities for Ambitious and turbu­lent men (and such you confess there will be among the Herd of your Libertines) to engage the People in Blood and War; so that except you were endued with a Power to change the lapsed Nature of Man, you will never find so good natured Disciples as to practise your Doctrine peace­ably in this state.

Your last defence of this Clause which (you say Pag. 80.) needs not the assistance of any other (in my poor Opinion) is a plain de­sertion of it; for although at first, you as vainly as confidently assert, That it is impossible that ever any man should have been, is, or can be [Page 83]hereafter guided by any thing else, but his own reason, as in other things, so in matters of Religion: Yet when you come to prove this, you presently fall into the Toyls of a threefold Contradicti­on, (these are your words) For whatsoever way we take, we shall find, that the last Element into which our Faith is resolved (and therefore it is compounded of the same) is only reason. (I omit your Instance of an Anchor as one of your Allegorical Tautologies) but shall shew you your Absurdities in your most material Metaphor and its terms. First then, if your Reason is only a single Element or Ingredient, of which among others, our Faith is compounded, by what Logick can you state it our sole and infallible Guide with­out any thing else in matters of Religion? Secondly, If to avoid [Page 84]this, you shall alledge that our Faith is compounded of our Rea­son alone, as of one single Ele­ment only, then (according to all the Rules of reasoning and sense) this is no Composition. Thirdly, Neither can the parts of this notional Composition be so resolved into one elemental last, as to enable it to perform the Of­fice of the whole; for if the Com­position be good, every part hath its use, and therefore to support it, must be of equal duration; but you might have been convinced of these Vanities also by the sub­sequent Series or Composition of our Faith, which you have set down in a tedious Catalogue of Syllogistical Fragments.

As to the other part of this Clause; true it is, Rationality not being wholly extinguished by the Fall of our first Parents, Man [Page 85]still is capable of living eternally, but its perspicacity and vigour is so much impaired by it, that Hu­mane Reason is become dim-sight­ed in all things; but especially in those matters of Religion, which you style Celestial Mysteries and Verities (as Objects too high for it) and therefore even according to the terms of your own notion, as well as Humane Reason's best Measures, it needs proportionable helps to enable it to understand and acquiesce in their Truths.

Now after my best examinati­on, I can find no ground why you should boast of this Argu­ment, except it be for your dex­terity, in packing up two or three Contradictions in the same Clause; therefore to end all De­bates concerning this Point, I shall leave the Reader to judge whether it looks like the last De­fence, [Page 86]or the last Gasp of your Cause.

The purport of your next As­sertion in this Paragraph, is, that no Authority is obeyable or be­lievable of it self without further examination; that is, without a rational account which no Ca­tholick denieth.

You extravagantly tell us in the next place, that our Reason not only prescribes Obedience and Belief to us, but also searcheth and establisheth the bounds of both, setting up some solid and appa­rent Notions, by which we know our ne plus ultra: Now the best sense that I can make of this my­stical Periphrasis is, that we must obey and believe upon a rational account, which we assert all along; but if you have any further aim beside this, I assure you that the not appearing of your apparent [Page 87]Notions, puts a ne plus ultra, as well to my Understanding, as my Design of answering them.

Page 86. In this short Para­graph you promise to omit, that is, as I hoped, not to trouble us with that which by a breach of your Promise you make the Con­tents of your next: but it had been much more Civility and Ju­stice to have performed your en­gagement; for it is only a Com­pilation or Summary of all the grand Errors that lie dispersed in your Treatise, and seems to be chiefly composed out of your old Pieque to Christianity, to insi­nuate over again, that the Chri­stian Religion wants both Anti­quity and Universality for its Ju­stification: All which hath been discussed in the foregoing Re­marks, and is but a beating the Air, or rather a return Cum suae [Page 88]ad volutabrum; therefore I shall choose to joyn issue with you up­on the sufficiency of my former Answers, rather than by a need­less and tedious rehearsal to nause­ate the Reader.

By this time possibly it may appear, that fewer Arguments might have been sufficient to have answered your whole Treatise, but I thought it requisite to examine it throughly (although forced in some places to a repetition of things, by following your Tauto­logies) lest that thin Vail of an Allegorical Style, and incompe­tent Similies (which you have all along spread over the many de­formities both of your Arguments and Doctrine) should in some place or other deceive the inarti­ficial reasonings of ordinary ca­pacity, for whose sake only it deserves an Answer.

And now I have finished my task of examining the validity of the particular Objections and Argu­ments contained in your Treatise, I shall for a Close give you a Sum­mary (as well as I can) of the grand defects both of your Doctrine and Design.

First then, you have not dire­cted your Discourse to the most proper and adaequate Subject of the Title prefixt to your Trea­tise.

2ly, By stating Humane Rea­son, the sole Judge of and Guide to the true Religion, you have attributed to that (whose Office it is to be only subservient as a Minister to our Faith) the Su­pream Court of Appeal and high­est Judicatory, as well concern­ing the true Religion it self, as all Methods and means of finding it out, and yet (so unfortunate [Page 90]are you) that many of your Con­cessions plainly oppose it, as hath been made evident.

3ly, According to your Do­ctrine of an Unlimited Liberty, these Guides will prove rather numberless than one, for the ex­ercise of Humane Reason is of so different degrees in the minds of Individuals, that no two persons in the world do entirely acquiesce in the same intrinsick Standard and Rule of their Thoughts and Opinions, and yet every man's search must be according to his Capacity.

These Guides (for so we must call them) you (upon the score of your own authority) affirm, will conduct their Followers through Errors to the true Reli­gion, and its reward, Eternal Hap­piness at last; which Errors (so unlimited and barbarous is your [Page 91]Doctrine) may be Idolatry, Paga­nism, Blasphemy, &c. to which Na­tural Reason hath already led great part of the world, as you have observed; although it can­not be denied, but that the Learn­ed men of the Gentiles were indu­ed with it in a high degree, as their Writings make manifest.

And as you have not stated what size and degree of Humane Reason (whilest so many are exercised) is to be pitched upon, for this so infallible, yet erring Guide; so neither have you gi­ven us any good definition or de­scription of the true Religion, nor any the least assurance that you your self have been led to it by your own Guide: For although we may possibly suppose (by a Charity not much unlike that which you have for the Devils) that you may be some sort of [Page 92]Christian by your Cheveril Com­mendation of Christianity at large, yet such a loose Declara­tion is not distinctive enough to point out the true Religion, from those that are erroneous, in regard many who generally own (with you) the Mission of our Saviour, hold Doctrines derogatory both to his Office and Nature.

In fine therefore, I am apt to believe, that your Readers will only agree with you in this Po­sition (against the rest of the Treatise) That we have great need of a beter Eye-sight than is left us by the Fall of our first Forefather, to direct us in this search.

I bid you adieu.