REMARKS UPON A TRACT, ENTITLED, A TREATISE OF HUMANE REASON.  
AND Upon Mr. Warren's late Defence of it.  
By Sir George blundel.  
LONDON, Printed for Jacob Tonson, at the Judge's Head in Chancery-Lane, near Fleetstreet: 1683.   

AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER.  
I Had no Intentions until lately to expose these REMARKS, (which were made in the year 76, for my private Diversion) to the Public Censure of an Age so much distracted in Opinions; but finding that the Approbation of this Treatise, (after some men's endeavours to refute it) doth still remain in the minds of many, upon whose Inclinations to Novelty (it may be hoped) that the Variety, as well as force of Arguments, may prevail to make a new Answer serviceable: and seeing likewise the Enemies of the poor Protestant Religion increase so much both in numbers and audacity, as to attack it on every side, by most graceless and inhuman attempts: I thought it the Duty of an Orthodox (tho' an unworthy) Professor, to put my Mite into the Corban to help to support it.  
But if it shall be further objected, that I have not well timed the publishing of these Remarks, in regard the Author of the Treatise may possibly be dead; to this I shall only answer, That no Books in any Age have been privileged from being Confuted or Suppressed (after the death of their Authors) if their Contents were offensive to our Laws or Religion.   

REMARKS UPON A TREATISE OF HUMANE REASON.  
To the Author of the Treatise.  
SIR,  
IN reading your Treatise (I deal frankly 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 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.  
2ly Of its Perspicacity and Extent in the state of Innocency.  
3ly 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.  
4ly, 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 doth not inherit this Degeneration, etraduce or by descent; but that it is a Spirit infused, endued with greater purity and intelligence than can possibly be exerted in the humane Compositum, as it is now stated, from which some Sceptics 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 mere sloth in some, and injured and depraved by passions and Vices in others, that it seems to be fallen from the Glory and Splendour of the great Luminary in the Heavens, to the small appearance of a Star in the Sky: For such was the proportion which Rationality bore in the uncorrupted Nature of Man, to that which is so much decayed and weakened 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 aught to be its Friend and Subject upon the best and truest foundation, doth above all others deny it its due station and 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 yourself and others (as upon the score of Charity we may suppose you believe by your publishing it) is thanks and praiseworthy; but if otherwise, then upon a sight and acknowledgement of your mistake, a true Repentance, and all possible endeavours to prevent the spreading of your Errors, 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 Fabric 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 eyesight of our understandings, that (to use your own expression) One had great need of a better eyesight than is left us by the fall of our first Forefather, to guide us amongst many erroneous, to the right way of Salvation. I question not but this will be allowed you as Orthodox; and if instead of your so anxious Debate and Consideration (in the next place) you had applied yourself to receive the directions, and obey the Precepts contained in the rest of the Scripture (according to the Principles of the Catholic 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 clearsighted Guide, which itself so much wanted before: This is that irreparable flaw in your Foundation, which causes the ruin 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 aught) 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 itself, than 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 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) Couped up their Front and Rear in the Ambuscade of this Dilemma; That those who dispute most against the Power and Privileges of Humane Reason, do it because their own reason persuades them to that belief, and so whether the Victory be on mine or on their side, are equally defeated. Your Argument is parallel to this: He that is sick and from a true sense 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 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) than it cannot appear to judicious and considering men to be a Guide solely to be relied on in this grand Affair; nor can even the weakest Understandings be so absolutely , 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, etc. (for you exempt none) shall be allowed the privilege 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 that neither the Penalties of humane nor of divine Laws, nor the immediate Judgements 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 Desert, 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 fantastically pretend to prevent, I know not what universality and perpetuity of Error, by broaching Myriad 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 Catholics 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 helps to enable it to apprehend them; how plain is it therefore that (from a high Conceit of your parts) you designed to impose fantastical 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 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 (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 public 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, scandalise, nay murder one another, which (possibly) might have occasioned public Commotions, had they not been prevented 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 yourself) 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 practise what Morals he lists, (so much the Consequences of Faith) by governi g himself 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 races 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 profane 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 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 scandalise 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 practise one Religion, and to endeavour the extirpation of all profaneness 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 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 intent this Accusation against the Catholic 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 Condescensions 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 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 fanatics, 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, 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 pragmatic Fancy for a new fangled Treatise. To enumerate no more of those unaccountable infirmities and accidents, which too often influence the frailty of men's 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 Catholic 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 Governors, 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 Superiors (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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by licensing every one in matters of Religion to gad whether they list, like Brutes in Summer stung by the various infects of their own fancies.  
But in your 16 and 17 Pages, you would seem something to regulate your foregoing Exorbitancy, by enjoining 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 Understanding 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 shows that it is a task too hard for the Natural Capacity 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 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, 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 Parlance, 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 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 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 yourself, after what manner with both these Faiths, he shall behold his Saviour; and thus you may observe how easy 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 ourselves 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 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, etc. 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, etc. 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 public. I choose to answer your Recrimination after this manner, rather than to rake into Antiquity, by reviving the exceptions to 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 Judgement 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 Characteristics of the true Religion; for the greatest part of the World was enslaved 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 Supreme 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 Messiah 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 subtlety 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 Messiah should descend from his own Loins, and afterward more particularly to Jacob, of what Tribe he should be born. 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 the truth of the Scriptures, which admit but of one.  
And secondly, That your infallible Guide by wand'ring up and down in this multiplicity of Paths, will by a long, troublesome, 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 of those who shall attempt to press it more open than they have set it; but in them the Way is said to be straight, 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 straight 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, who whilst they could not tract the Methods of Divine Power and Providence, denied 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, 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 only 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 pried into by the Rules of Christianity.  
Page 34. In defiance of the Churches Anathemaes, you assert, That all sorts of Christians shall be 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 Messiah, yet hold many Tenants 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; and it is observable that those sorts of men who after this manner oppose the Catholic 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 Heresy is as insignificant as the rest of your Opinions; for if any one shall stubbornly set up his own private Reason and Judgement against that of the Public, and shall upon that incompetent account broach Positions contrary to the Principles and Authority of the Catholic Church, or Practise accordingly: doubtless our Ecclesiastical Guides in these later Ages may pronounce the Censures of the Church, against such persons according to the pattern of Primitive Governors, 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 men's 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 itself, so neither can you deduce any from this for men's disobedience to the Church in matters of belief. For the foundation of the Catholic Faith deduced from the Notions and Usage of Primitive times, backed by the Scriptures, is the highest account which the nature of the Subject is capable of; therefore whoever it 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 itself; for Schism is defined to be a voluntary separation 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 definition be true, than 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 men's outward conversation, but utterly ravels that continuity of Faith which is necessary to preserve that unity of the Church you yourself mention; nay should such a Licence be but admitted in Temporals, in which Reasons Plea is much stronger to entitle it to an Independency, than in matters of Religion, it will utterly raze 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 man's material parts & their motions, as if he may be delighted with no less variety (not only) in man's 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, suitable 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 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 Catholic 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 sense, from a simple and a compound signification of the same Text; This latter is applicable 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 denied, 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 Sense 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 bound to pay unto them, how erroneous or senseless soever, for so your Assertion ought to be understood, as if nonsense 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 outfaces God's own Declarations.  
In the next place, you would deduce from the Suns melting the Wax, and hardening 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 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 Fantastically 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 Tenants 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 extreme on the other hand much more mischievous and destructive to all 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 persuaded to allow that for a good natured or peaceable opinion, which encourageth every one stubbornly and inhumanely to 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 Fabric 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 applied to the practice of the Protestant Church (for which I am only concerned) for that steers a rational and moderate Course betwixt the two Extremes of their Opinion and yours, as hath been manifested before.  
But let me remind you also, 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 Worship's dishonourable to God, that are not practised by themselves: For whoever shall hold this Assertion, must either want sincerity and deceive their 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 Dissension 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 allege, That if ignorant or malicious Physicians (in this violent Fever) did not apply new Heats instead of Julips, 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 rectify 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, chief depend upon Example and Authority, both which your Doctrine 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 only 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 profane 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 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 profaneness 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 extrinsic 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 quash and confute it, but advise you to recollect yourself from these Generals. First, that the chief end of Divine Worship here below, is the magnifying God's Honour in the Rational world, for which purpose he hath distinguished man's Duty, from Crimes; Piety, from Vice; Prayers and Allelujahs, from Cursing and Blasphemy, and words and gestures (of which External Worship consists) are Characterised 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 lose to Natural Reason for their guide, as the Abominations of the Gentiles have sufficiently manifested) must certainly 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 Fantastical 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 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 men's practices in Adoration, shall be agreeable to their several, and unaccountable apprehensions and belief of a Deity (which you require in your Disciples) than 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 Reason for a Guide in matters too high for it, is the same Error with that of the Greeks, which St. Paul bids so high a defiance 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 Christ's 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 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 Eyesight 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 informs you, that the nearer those Objects approach whose appearances are too intense for the reception of the Organ, the more they dazzle and confound, instead of being discerned, as they are by the unqualified Optic, 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 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 justify your former mistake of the Scriptures, you hazard another, by affirming that when the Apostle speaks of his fight 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 public 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 some hazard at least, and as some think was prevented by his Associates) they are alleged 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 Combat. 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 gaining as much in some other; for by our Reasons being guided, conquered, and enslaved, theirs are become Guides, Conquerors, and Masters; which when they have done, than 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  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 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 fortify 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 Similes 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 Combat.  
Page 63. For your first Reason you aver, that we have no more warrantable ground for our Obedience to Authority, than the fanatics and Enthusiasts have for following the Ignis fatuus of their own brains, or that of evil Spirits; and that our happening into the right by following it, is merely good fortune, etc. but if you intent 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, than 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 pragmatic 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 it hath already been made good against you, that your Guide, as well as theirs, engages in an Office without any warrant, which makes the Errors on both parts consequential to that Assumption equally .  
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 shows that your Reason is so far from being a good Guide in Divine matters, that it is an ill one in common sense; for the degrees of that Seducement rising by a Climax, (the inferior all along influencing the superior) is the method of true Authority absolutely reversed: but I admire also that you did not correct your Error, by consulting 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 Arctic or Antarctic, 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 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 itself seethe neither the what, nor the how of Spiritual Verities: Therefore as I have demonstrated before, God hath ordained and administered 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 of your blasphemous Supposition, and shows you the falsehood of your Hetrodox Assumption.  
Your second Reason hath been often confuted before; for your Natural Reasons, setting itself 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 Errors 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, joined with a general Compunction for such as are unobserved or forgotten (according to the Principles of the Catholic 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, 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 patronise 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 following wise men; how much more liable are the Ignorant then to err, 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 straight Stick, part in the Air, and part in the Water, the straightness of which may be discovered by an Appeal to the Touch, but I shall proceed to the Objection which you make against them yourself; for if that can be made good against your own Answer, it will most genuinely confute the 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 judgement of Colours, than the Understanding can ever be made (even without accidental hindrances) 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 Understanding in supernatural Truths, because it is so much inferior to that of Angels, than we do to our Eyesight in things visible, though it be so far short of that of Eagles. Briefly that which makes your Objection too strong for your Answer, is that Angelical Intuition, & Truths supernatural, are of the same state, and so also is the Eyesight 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 sense 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 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, whilst 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 Premises join a most incongruous Conclusion, that the mannners and kinds of doing it are accidental; but certainly you cannot hope to persuade 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 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 Satirist, 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 should have explained yourself here, whether you would have the pretence of fight for it, or Religion itself 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 Fabrics 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 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 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 Toils 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 show 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 Logic can you state it our sole and infallible Guide without any thing else in matters of Religion? Secondly, If to avoid this, you shall allege 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 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, 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 itself without further examination; that is, without a rational account which no Catholic 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 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 chief 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 ad volutabrum; therefore I shall choose to join 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 Veil of an Allegorical Style, and incompetent Similes (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 adequate Subject of the Title prefixed 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 Supreme Court of Appeal and highest Judicatory, as well concerning the true Religion itself, as all Methods and means of finding it out, and yet (so unfortunate 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 intrinsic 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 Doctrine) may be Idolatry, Paganism, Blasphemy, etc. 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 endued with it in a high degree, as their Writings make manifest.  
And as you have not stated what size and degree of Humane Reason (whilst 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 yourself 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 Christian by your Cheveril Commendation of Christianity at large, yet such a lose 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  Eyesight than is left us by the Fall of our first Forefather, to direct us in this search.  
I bid you adieu.   

A Postscript, or Appendix.  
AFter the preceding Advertisement and Remarks had lain by me sometime wholly finished as they are, there came to my hands (in March last) a Tract Entitled, An Apology for the Discourse of Humane Reason, Written by Mat. Clifford, Esq; being a Reply to Plain Dealing, which I never heard of until then: In which the Apologizer declares, That he writ this Defence at Mr. Clifford's request (who died soon after) If so, than I suppose the first designed to publish the Treatise, and the other the Apology, as their last Wills and Testaments; In which they have bequeathed to the World a Confusion of Common Sense, and of all Method and Rules of Unanimity and Order: Therefore after I had perused it, I thought it more seasonable and requisite than ever before to publish these Remarks, (if they may haply) contain in in them any thing advantageous to the Truth, or the Vindication of our Religion, which I ought to refer to the Censure of the unprejudiced Reader.  
I shall not trouble either him or myself, to run another Wild-Goose Chase after all the Particulars contained in this Apology, as I have done heretofore, after those of the Treatise.  
First, In regard this Reply is directed to another man's Answer.  
2ly, I hope that the Impartial Reader may find all Arguments material for the Defence of the Treatise anticipated in the Remarks; therefore I shall but cursorily touch upon some very few Passages in this Reply, which did not fall under my Province before.  
Page 3. I humbly conceive that the Apologist is mistaken, in which he affirms, that his Author's Position amounts to no more, than that every man must follow right Reason, which is his direct way: For his Author, Page 2. declares, That after a long and serious Debate about a Guide, that Consideration brought no other to him, besides his own Reason. Now I hope he will not lift up his celebrated Author so high above the state of Humanity, as to assert that he is endued with the Gift of right Reason, or that by using such Care and Constancy only, as is within the power of his own Reason; he is able to follow or exert that which is so much above it.  
Page 34. The Apologist uses this expression; Mine own Reason that is my Conscience.  
And Page 73. His words are these; Every Humane Excellency resolves into Reason, or shrouds under its umbrage, Reason, which (as a light Divine) governed the World before that Metaphorical word Conscience was known. But how shall we understand or reconcile these two places? for if he intends here, that right Reason is his Conscience, by which the Deity (indeed) did govern the World before Conscience was named, and likewise ever since; then all sober men will inform him, that his Reason, or his Conscience, whether he fancies them to be one, or distinct, cannot be of the same state with that of the Deities; so that this Notion must prove but a Fanatic Chimaera of his own Brain: But if on the other hand he means that lapsed Reason is his Conscience, than (how young soever the Name is) Conscience itself is as old as that, and Transgression; witness the Fear and the Shame of our first Parents in Paradise.  
To these two Contradictions, we may add another in this Case, Page 136. the sum of it is this, without varying the sense, Conscience is more subject to Error than Reason, and that Reason (to speak humanely) must be the elder; if so, then with full as good sense it may be said, He speaks inhumanely who asserts they are the same.  
But not to leave weak Capacities betrayed thus to Confusion, the Offices of Reason and Conscience are generally different; for by the first, we examine and understand the nature and state of all Acts whatsoever, that fall under the Cognizance of our rational Faculty; and as to such as relate to Innocence and Gild, Conscience by a distinct and superadded reflection, condemns or approves of their omission or performance.  
Page 46. The first part of this Paragraph is touched on before in the Remarks; the second Part is an Argument with two handles, the sum of it is this; If Luther had not followed his own Reason, the Reformation (in all humane probability) had not been effected; for either it was Reason which satisfied him then, and his Followers ever since, or they are all unreasonable; your Conclusion is something too quick: Therefore let us examine the force of this Argument by turning the Tables (if you please) by this Rule then; If Luther was guided by Humane Reason in his departure from Rome, and so to the right Religion (and that ours is so you have not hitherto denied) then those that stayed behind must be endued with little or none of it, which no wise man (with reverence to your parts) will venture to affirm; for the great worldly Policy, and outward Prosperity of that Church in its station, makes it evident enough, that many of its Members did then, and their Successors now, do possess as great a share of Humane Reason, as Luther himself, which (to stop all your Muces) must necessarily have put them upon as strict an exertion of diligence and enquiry upon a natural account only, as Luther's did him: according to your own Principle, that the Will irresistably follows the last dictates of the understanding. I doubt here your Natural or Humane Reason is in such an extricable straight, that it must be relieved by this Orthodox Solution; viz. That Luther's Reason in this work did submit to the guidance of more sublime Aids which enlightened and fortified his Spirit against those Seducements and Corruptions which theirs did embrace.  
Page 66. The Apologist pretends that he cannot apprehend what Ignorance can be wilful, nor what is free Will, the Will always following and being acted by the last dictate of the Understanding. To the first, I shall answer him briefly, That whoever is negligent to inform himself in any matter, that it is his duty to know, his Ignorance consequential to that negligence, the Casuists (from the nature of the Cause) term vincible and voluntary: but here it is observable, that the Apologist proves a very treacherous Second, by turning his Point upon his Principal, who allows of this distinction in several places of his Treatise: And as to his denying the freedom or rather the liberty of the Will; because as he allegeth, it always follows, and of necessity is acted by the last Dictate of the Understanding: He answers it in this Paragraph, by contradicting himself in these very syllables, Men cannot therefore believe what they please, nor think what they please that such or such an opinion or thing, is true or false. Indeed a man may act contrary to his understanding which is hypocrisy, and which if the Gent. pleases, he may call wilful hypocrisy. And he, if he pleases, may likewise take notice that this act of hypocrisy, which he saith, is contrary to men's understandings, whilst such men's judgements and persuasions disallow of their practice, must be an effect of, and can have no other cause, than the freedom or liberty of the Will: But if he be unwilling to be Convicted from his own contradiction, I refer him to the words of the Sorceress in Ovid.  
Video meliora proboque,  
— Deteriora sequor.  
Page 82. He gives (as he fancieth) sage Counsel to the Clergy, by advising them not to meddle with the Government in the Pulpit, but forgot to observe it himself, in Composing this Apology, in which he hath made many pert and bold Essays, to admonish our Governors (like an Atheist, or a Pagan) to suffer our Religion to truckle to our Trade, by hinting that the fanatics, as a Pack of formidable Heroes, should not be disturbed; but Experience informs us, That the due execution of our Laws, will prove this Pretence to be as groundless and false, as the rest of his Apology: however we will agree with him, That the direful sparks which heretofore have set the Kingdom in a flame, have flown from the Pulpit, as well as from Pamphlets.  
Page 84. He Combats his Principal again in these words; I think it is best to be of the Religion of a man's Country externally: (He means hypocritically) at least; and sure I am, there is nothing morally evil in ours: and for external Worship in Religion, as to time and place, it is determinable by the Supreme Magistrate. But, how can this be Consistent with the Fundamental Doctrine of the Text (as he styles it) that every one ought to have leave to govern himself from within, not having any regard to Example or Authority, or any thing else; there can be no Salvo for this Contradiction, but that he being a very great Wit, may have a very ill memory.  
In the next place, I acknowledge I cannot make sense of this Expression, Page 92. I mean all Protestants of what Species soever here in England. For how can those Votaries who differ specifically in their Worship and Religion, be comprehended under the same Denomination; our Laws also owning but one sort of Protestants, as agreeable to the Principles of the true Protestant or Catholic Church, whose Members are obliged to hold and confess the same Doctrine and Faith, and to be of the same Communion; but (it seems) you have found out some Centaurs in Religion, who have coined a new Name for themselves very suitable to this Fiction; viz. Protestant Dissenters, a Title very agreeable also to the rest of their and your Notions, being a Contradiction in terms.  
Thus much for your Apology.  
Now I come to your Review and Appendix, made upon so long Consideration; wherefore I did expect in it an absolute Retraction, or at least a general amendment of the vain and impertinent Errors and Contradictions in your precedent Reply: But instead of that, I find it full gorged with a Pragmatic Censure (to call it no worse) of the Conversation and Deportment as well of the Gentry as Clergy, of the Writings of worthy Authors, and of the Affairs of Public Government, an excursion so much above your Capacity and Station, and so foreign to your Province, and the subject of your Discourse, that (doubtless) all sober men will agree, that it deserves the severest blame and reprehension, rather than the honour of an Answer.  
However, I cannot but take notice of two Passages in it, which are two other sorts of Ingredients that make it distasteful and nauseous to all Catholic Christians.  
The first is your lose Question to the Parson of Bocking, Page 130. Whether if I believed in God and Christ, I were obliged to be a Member of any particular Church, or no? I shall answer it in short; You know very well, that you may believe in, as well as worship the true God and our Saviour, after a wrong and false manner, as the various and opposite Subdivisions under Christianity at large, make too much manifest; and than what satisfaction and assurance you can have out of the Communion of the Catholic Church (which worships the true God after the true manner, according to his revealed and ordinary Declarations, (not to meddle with his extraordinary Dispensations) I leave you to consider.  
And as to the Parson of Bocking's Golden Answer (as you call it) That if you were one of God's Universal Church, 'twas no great matter whether you were joined to any petty Church policy here on earth, or no. He might make use of this Saying, to palliate a Compliance with the several Changes in the Times, as if any or no Discipline at all were very indifferent; therefore to come up close to him, I do not understand what Church can be termed God's Church Universal, except that which from its holding and professing all the Fundamentals of Doctrine and Faith contained in the Gospel, is truly called Catholic, which hath had power in all Ages to establish its own Discipline, Rites and Ceremonies, to all which its Member are obliged to Conform for the sake of Unity and Communion, the two grand external Demonstrations and Accomplishments of the true Worship and Religion.  
The next Passage is pag. 139. by which (viz. Reason) and by no other mediation, it is possible for a man of good understanding, and not clogged with false Principles, to be satisfied that the natural Dictates of God (Reason) carry no repugnancy in them to the Law and Will of God revealed in the Scripture, etc. This Averment (notwithstanding all your palliating Circumstances) must necessarily be understood of Reason corrupted; for right Reason being above our degenerated Capacity, and likewise not the Province to defend, can neither be the Subject of the Question in this Clause, nor of any other part of your discourse: Now than if lapsed Reason is so perfectly righteous, and that the Will cannot but follow the last dictate of that (as you have declared heretofore) than no man can offend or need any repentance; a Principle so profane, and of so heinous a tincture, that we never hear of it mentioned by the most barbarous Heathens. Nay had you but considered that in the short Epoch of Innocence, when Adam was endued with Humane Reason in its highest and most perspicacious degree; it was not so perfectly fixed, as to guide him in his obedience to one Command of the Deity, for his preservation in Paradise, you must either out of shame or dread have been discouraged to have offered such Sentiments to the World.  
But for an entire and final convincement of this Apologist, let him own or disallow the Authority of the Scriptures, it cannot (on the one hand) be denied, but that the imbecility of our Understanding (according to the tenor of Holy Writ) is a just and genuine punishment for our first Parent's Ambition to obtain a knowledge against the Command of the Deity, and above the state of a Creature; and on the other, every days experience evinces (without revelation) that Fancy and Humour usurp a very great share in the Regiment here below, of Humane Transactions, which Reason claims to be its proper Sphere of activity and natural dominion.  
To this it may be added for the confirming of this Argument, that Infallibility is the peculiar as well as the inseparable Attribute of an Omniscient Being, which admits of no higher Understanding to oppose or confute it; And since this cannot be truly affirmed of any being that is created, the Creature of itself must (consequently) labour under a general subjection to error from its general imperfection, and the highest instance to prove this, is the fall of those Angels who revolted from the Worship as well as from their Allegiance to the Deity.  
Therefore I leave the Reader to judge, whether this Apologists fantastic Expression and Censure which he puts upon others, is not due to himself, That he ought to be reckoned among the number of the delirious, for attempting to defend the Infallibility of Humane Reason, without the least evidence to support it either Humane or Divine. After all this advertisement, if he shall be given to rescribling (as he hath vaunted to Plaindealing) I hope the highest Bigots to Novelty (from a luxuriancy of Wit) will for the future be convinced, that such wretched discourses as these can only deserve a public Reprimand.  
FINIS.