A vindication of the Animadversions on Fiat lux

Pag. 27. You proceed to vindicate your unreasonable Paragraph about Reason, or rather against it. What reason we are to expect in a dispute against the use of Reason in and about the things which are the highest and most proper object of it, is easy for any one to imagine. For by Reason in Religion we understand not merely the Ra•ocination of a man, upon and according to the inbred Principles of his nature, but every acting of the understanding of a man about the things of God, proceeding from such Principles, or guided by any such ⟨p. 363⟩rule, as no way impeach its rationality. To vindicate your discourse in your Fiat upon this subject you make use of two mediums. (1.) You pretend that to be the whole subject of your Discourse about Reason, which is but a part of it: and (2.) You deny that to be the Design and aim of your Book which your self know, and all other men acknowledge so to be.

PAg. 27. You proceed to vindicate your unreasonable Paragraph about Reason, or rather against it. What reason we are to expect in a dispute against the use of Reason in and about the things which are the highest and most proper object of it, is easie for any one to imagine. For by Reason in Religion we understand not meerly the Ra•ocination of a man, upon and according to the inbred Principles of his nature, but every acting of the understanding of a man about the things of God, proceeding from such Principles, or guided by any such ⟨p. 363⟩rule, as no way impeach its rationality. To vindicate your discourse in your Fiat upon this subject you make use of two mediums. (1.) You pretend that to be the whole subject of your Discourse about Reason, which is but a part of it: and (2.) You deny that to be the Design and aime of your Book which your self know, and all other men acknowledge so to be.

On the first head you tell me that your Discourse concerned Reason to be excluded from the employment of framing Articles of Religion. It is true, you talk somewhat to that purpose; and you were told that Protestants were no way concerned in that Discourse. And it is no less true, that you dispute against the use and exercise of Reason in our choice of or adhering unto any Religion, or any way or practice in Religion; that is the Liberty of a mans rational judgement in determining what is right, and what is wrong, what true, what false, in the things that are proposed unto him, as belonging unto Religion, guided, bounded, and determined by the only Rule measure and last umpire in and about such things; This you oppose and that directly; and that to this end, to show unto Protestants that they can come unto no certainty in Religion by this exercise of their Reason, in and about the things of God. That men should by the use of Reason endeavour to find out and frame a Religion, is fond to imagine. They who ever attempted any such thing, knew it was not Religion but a pretence to some other end, that they were coining. To make the reason of a man proceeding and acting upon it its own light and inbred Principles, the absolute and Sovereign judge of the things that are proposed to be believed or practised in Religion, so as that it should be free for him to receive or reject