A RATIONAL, Compendious way TO CONVINCE, Without any DISPUTE, All Persons whatsoever, Dissenting from the TRUE RELIGION.  
By J. K.  PSAL. IU. 7. 
Signatum est super nos lumen vultus tui, Domine.  
Printed in the Year 1674.   

THE PREFACE.  
THE variety of Sects, which daily swarm here in England, has forced me upon this way of ending Controversies in Religion. No body can confute in particular the proper Tenets of each Sect, unless he be first well informed what they are: and our Sects are so numerous, and so various, that to be well informed of the particular Tenets of each one of them, a man's life is not sufficient. Yea, even Those, who do profess to be all os the same Religion, are many times so different one from another, that we can scarce find Two among them, who do perfectly agree in the Articles of their Faith. Several Religions retain only the name of what they were when first broached; and should one be perfectly acquainted with the proper Tenets of the Sects which are now in Vogue, within a short time he would be to seek; when other new Heresies come into fashion. Besides, it is one thing to convince a man, that he is in a wrong way, which we may do by refuting the particular Errors of the Religion he professes; and another thing to show him which is the True way: which cannot be done, but by demonstrating unto him the True Religion.  
Wherefore I have endeavoured, without taking notice of the particular Errors of each Sect, to find out a Method, whereby to evidence, to all persons whatsoever, the True Religion. For, this being once evidenced unto them, whoever strays from it, may clearly see, not only that he is in the wrong, but also how he may put himself in the right-Certain it is, that if there be a True Religion in the world (as we shall evince there is) it may be found out by all such as are concerned therein; and consequently by all persons whatsoever; For they are all concerned in finding out the True Religion; since they are all bound to save their Souls: Nor can they save their Souls, unless they please God; nor please God, unless they embrace the True Religion: which is only able to teach them, what they are to do to please God. (Sine Fide impossibile est, placere Deo, Heb. 11.6.) Nor finally embrace the True Religion, unless they can find out, and be convinced which it is. And if all persons whatsoever may find out, which the True Religion is, there must needs be some way, whereby they may find it out: and this way also must be such, that it may be found out. For what matters it, that there be a way to find out such a thing, if no Body can find out which that way is? My endeavour therefore was to find out This way, of Convincing all persons whatsoever, concerning the True Religion.  
Now Natural Reason, and Experience teaches us, that it is not possible to convince any one by discourse, but out of what the person, with whom we deal, does admit. For all conviction by discourse must be grounded upon premises: and nothing can be convinced, or concluded out of premises, unless they be granted. If every Thing is to be proved, we shall never finish the proof of any Thing. The art therefore of convincing a person consists in discovering such premises granted by him, whence is inferred what we pretend to convince him of,  
And if the premises be not only granted by our Adversary, but also True in themselves, they may be effectual, both to convince our Adversary, and evince the Truth too. But if they be not True in themselves, yet granted to be so, they may convince him, but can never evince the Truth: And such Arguments are commonly styled Argumenta ad hominem. Since therefore my design was, not only to convince the persons, but to evince the Truth also, and to convince all persons whatsoever, concerning the True Religion, I further resolved, to seek out Principles True in themselves, pertinent to prove the intent, and such as no person whatsoever could deny, or question.  
But where shall we meet with such Principles? especially since we live in an Age, wherein a good wit, and a bold wit are accounted Synonima's; and those are held to be most ingenious, who can deny most. If we apply ourselves to the several Writers of each respective Sect, thinking to convince the professors of such Sects by the Testimonies of their own Doctors, we shall find, that some Fancy one Author, some another; though they all profess themselves to be of the same Religion. Neither will they stand to all the Author, whom they Fancy, asserts; but to what they please only, and in what sense too they please to interpret it. Yea; though they promise many times, at the Beginning, to stick to what such a Doctor, to whom they are devoted, does affirm, in reference to such a Debate; yet when they are pressed, they fly off, and say, That they will not pin their Faith upon the sleeve of Luther, Calvin, or any other particular Doctor of the Protestant Church.  
If we make our address to the ancient Fathers of the Church, endeavouring to evidence, by their Testimonies, the Truth of ours, and the Falsehood of our Adversaries Religion, this Topick is obnoxious to the same flaws, as the former. For our Adversaries admit, among the ancient Fathers, only whom they fancy, and of him only what they fancy, and this only in what sense they fancy: and though, to amuse the people, they often vapour, that the Fathers, for the first 600 years after Christ, did stand for them, yet when they are pinched with clear Testimonies produced out of them, destructive to their particular Sentiments, they plainly confess, that even the chiefest of the ancient Fathers were infected with Non-fundamental Errors, (and such Errors only they ascribe to Bellarmin and other Writers of the Roman Church) and with several Superstitions of Popery: or they come to slight them all, saying with some Germane Lutherans, that one Kemnitius is worth a thousand Augustine's, or (with their grand Patriarch Luther) that they do not value a Thousand Cyprians, a Thousand Augustine's; nay, nor the whole Universal Church, worth a straw. The same may be said of Tradition. For they admit the Tradition only of such men, and in such matters, as they think fit; or when they are urged, they slight it.  
If we appeal to the General Councils of the Church, showing that by their Canons our Tenets are established, and the Errors of our Adversaries condemned; of eighteen General Councils, they admit only four: Nay, they do not afford any absolute assent to the Definitions of any General Council whatsoever, but only a conditional, viz. as far only as they, guided by their own private Spirit, do judge, that what the Council defines, is agreeable to Scripture. And sure; they will not deny such an assent, even to what the Council of Trent has defined.  
If we betake ourselves to Scripture, producing thence many pregnant proofs in vindication of the Articles we defend in opposition to the Protestant Church, though Sectaries boast that Scripture is on their side, yet they allow only of such Scripture, of such Versions, and of such an Interpretation, as their private Spirit dictates unto them: So that if we will prove out of Scripture, as out of a principle admitted by our Adversaries, the Articles of our Faith, we must prove them out of Scripture, as interpreted according to their private Spirit; which is impossible. For how can it be possible to evince against a Zuinglian, for example, out of that place of Scripture, Matth. 26. This is my body, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, if we must take that place in the sense of a Zuinglian, viz. in a mere Figurative sense?  
And since Sectaries will not assent to any thing in matters of Religion, asserted by Doctors, Fathers, Tradition, or Councils, further than it is agreeable to Scripture; neither will they assent to Scripture, but as interpreted by their own private spirit, it follows manifestly, that the malice of our Adversaries has rendered all the forementioned Topics (though good in themselves) as admitted by them, and in the manner they admit them, insignificant, and ineffectual to prove out of them, as out of premises granted by our Adversaries, the Tenets of the true Religion; and that whoever makes use of them as of such, will often be at a loss. Yea, what shall we say to Les beaux Esprits of our Nation, (the Spawn of Heresy) who openly disavow Doctors, Fathers, Tradition, Councils, and Scripture?  
Wherefore to the end we may argue well against our Adversary, out of a Principle as granted by him; it is not enough, that such a principle be good, and pertinent in itself: but it is necessary, that it be granted by our Adversary, and in such a manner, as that it may be effectual to evince what we intent.  
If, finally we retreat to Natural Reason, endeavouring thereby to make out the True Religion; though there be no rational man, who will plainly confess that he renounces all Natural Reason, (for so he would renounce the being a Rational man, yea such as disallow all other Topics, do most vapour of Natural Reason) yet many confine it, in several matters, to their own private Notions, and Fancies.  
Notwithstanding, there are some Principles so manifest, and so general, that no man whatsoever can deny, or question them, without evidently rendering himself uncapable of conferring with any rational man. Such is this Principle, SOMETHING IS TRUE, which no Sceptic, though never so Extravagant, can call in question; and whoever should affirm, that NOTHING IS TRUE, would not only incapacitate himself for all humane conversation, but also grant the very thing he denies: This Proposition Nothing is True, being of the nature of such, as falsify themselves, and cut their own throats. Nay, if nothing be true, the Position our Adversaries pretend to maintain is not True, viz. That the Roman Church is infected with Errors, and Corruptions.  
Our present Method therefore is bottomed upon the forementioned Principle, Something is true; which I keep in reserve, to the end, that in case other Principles should fail me, I might have wherein to trust, and whereon to ground the Conviction of all Dissenters whatsoever from the true Religion. For this Principle being once agreed unto (as necessarily it must be) I deduce thence the truth not only of the Roman Catholic Religion, but also of whatsoever she delivers as an Article of Divine Faith.  
This Method is Rational, Compendious, Clear, Easie, and General.  
It is Rational; for not only the Foundation, but the Superstructures too, are squared out by natural Reason.  
It is Compendious: for, the whole substance of the Method is comprehended in six short points; which yet I draw into a narrower Circle.  
It is Clear: interwoven only with plain, and general notions, and devested from all Scholastical questions; which of purpose I have waved: For my persuasion always has been, That Polemical Debates, wherein we handle matters of Religion, which we cannot deny without forfeiting our Faith, are not to be involved with Scholastical Opinions; which we may promiscuously deny, or defend, without any prejudice to our Religion, For, then the contest comes to be, not between Catholic, and no-Catholick, but between Catholics and Catholics: neither do I see what necessity there is, that men should be made Thomists, Scotists, or Suarists, before they be made Christians, or Catholics: or why Those, who come to our Religion, should not have the same liberty, in order to opinions, as Those, who are of our Religion.  
It is Easy: For; that one may understand this Method, it is not necessary, that he be versed in Fathers, Councils, or Scriptures, nor that he has read Books of Controversy, nor that he be a Philosopher, or a Divine, nor that he be acquainted with the Latin, Greek, or Hebrew Tongue; nay, nor that he be so much as able to read. It is only necessary, that he be endowed with Reason, and that he be able to reflect upon his own Thoughts; which any rational man is able to do. For my Task, in this Method, only is, among so many general Notions, which either Nature, or Education, hath printed in the hearts of all men, to trace out such, as being rallied together, will certainly convey one to the True Religion. So that my design is, rather to show every one, how he may convince himself, than to convince him myself. And though few are willing to yield to others, in contests of great concern; yet no Body is unwilling to yield to himself, and his own Notions.  
Wherefore, laying aside all Animosities, and Feuds of Disputes, which many hate so much, we deal fairly, and freely, with our Adversary, making him his own Book, and only pointing out unto him, by way of an Interrogatory, such Principles as are material to our intent.  
Finally, it is General; for the Satisfaction of all persons, for the confirmation of all Articles of Faith, and for the confutation of all Errors against Religion. It is General for the satisfaction of all persons, whether they be learned, or unlearned, whether they be Christians, or no Christians, and whether they be of any Religion, or of no Religion. Yea it is General, as well for such as seek their own Satisfaction in matters of Religion, as for such as desire to satisfy others. Nor Those, who will make use of This Method, have any need of Books; much less of great Libraries: and whatever way our Adversary takes to attaque us, we may force him to our Method. So that whoever is well acquainted therewith, needs not any particular preparation to encounter any Adversary, of whatsoever Sect or profession he be.  
It is also General, for the Confirmation of all Articles of Faith. For we show at once the Truth of All such Articles: and not only of s●ch as are now Articles of Faith, but of such too, as shall hereafter be declared to be so. We insinuate also, how This Method may be applied to any particular point; wherein satisfaction is desired. Wherefore, when one is to dispute with another, of whatsoever Religion he be, if he will adjust himself to This Method, there is no need to advise him beforehand, of what particular Point they are to Dispute.  
Lastly, it is General for the Confutation of all Errors in Religion: not only of such as have been, or are, but also of such, as shall (perhaps) hereafter be hatched. So that, though the Heresies of these times should go out of fashion, (as probably they will) and others come into vogue, there will be no need of seeking a new Method, or way to confute them.  
Many spend much time in seeking out the True Religion, yet never find it: and the reason is, because they do not take the right way: yea they never inquire, whether the way they take be right, or not. And let a Thing be never so easy to be met with, yet if one takes the wrong way, he will never, or scarce ever, meet with it.  
The first enquiry therefore must be about the way, to find out the True Religion. Our Sectaries commonly run to Scriptures, as the only way so find it out; and to that Scripture which chance or Education has put into their hands, without ever examining whether it be true, and entire Scripture, or no. Others address themselves to the Doctors of the Religion established in the Country, where they were born; supposing, rather than proving, such a Religion to be true; and without reflecting, that men will be sure to prefer the Religion they profess, whether True, or False, before all others. And though I cannot deny, but that some persons have gotten into the True Religion by chance, or upon frivolous grounds; and that if they conform thereunto, they will be saved: yet certainly whoever comes to know, that the inducements he had to embrace the Religion he is a member of, were very slight, and insignificant, he will, if he tenders his own Salvation, endeavour to find out Solid Motives: which if he cannot find in the Religion he hitherto has professed, he is bound to seek them elsewhere.  
I believe, that the Fate of this Discourse will be the same, as that of other such Discourses, which are grounded upon Reason, viz. that there will be some, who when they have nothing else to say, will cry out Sophistry, Sophistry. But we must not be scared with mere words. Let them legally show, wherein the Sophistry, or Fallacy, of any of our Arguments does consist; or at least that they are Sophistical, and Fallacious: and they will do something. But if they be not able to do neither of these Things; according to the Laws of rational Discourse, they must confess themselves Non plust, and if to say only, without any legal proof, That an Argument is Sophistical, be enough to answer it, what Argument is there. though never so concluding, which may not easily be answered?  
And to put an end to this Preface, I entreat such, as shall take the pains to read this present method, that they would be pleased to peruse it with care, and diligence. For, even the clearest demonstrations are not understood, unless they be considered with attention, and that they would suspend their judgement thereof, till they have read it all over, we having set down after the six points, wherein the Method consists, several things, which contribute much, to clear the difficulties, that may occur against it. And since there is no Book so fortunate, as that it has been approved by all, especially if it treats of points controverted: nor none so unfortunate, as that it has not been approved by some: Such as shall approve of this Method, will at a very little expense have reaped a considerable Fruit, viz. a Compendious way to satisfy themselves, and others, in matters of Religion: and such as shall not approve of it, will have no just reason to complain of me, as if I had put them to any great expense either of Time or Money.   

A RATIONAL, Compendious way, TO Convince, without any Dispute, all Persons whatsoever Dissenting from the TRUE RELIGION.  
ALL persons whatsoever, that Dissent from the True Religion, (which we shall prove to be the Catholic) must be either of no Religion; or of a False Religion, as is manifest.  
If they be of no Religion, either they deny a True God, and consequently a true Religion, as Atheists: or they grant a True God, but deny a True Religion, as Deists.  
If they be of a False Religion, either they deny a Revealed Religion, but grant a natural Religion, as Libertines and Latitudinarians: or they grant a revealed Religion, but deny Christian Religion, as Jews, Turks, and Pagans: or they grant Christian Religion, but deny Catholic Religion; as rigid Protestants: or finally, they grant Catholic Religion to be a true Religion, and free from all Fundamental errors: but withal they affirm, that it teaches us Articles of Faith, several Errors, and Corruptions; and consequently, that it is not Free from all Errors and Corruptions whatsoever; as moderate Protestants.  
And because it is impossible to convince any one of his errors, but out of Principles, or Positions, which he himself does grant, as is evident: we suppose that there is no body, unless he be manifestly either a Mad man or a Fool, and by consequence uncapable to be discoursed with, who does not grant SOMETHING TO BE TRUE. For, if nothing be true, than it is not True, that he, with whom we Dispute, is in his wits; that he is rather a man, than a Block; that he affirms, or denies, or doubts: Nay, it is not true, that Nothing is True. For, if this be true, than Something is true.  
Upon this Supposition, viz. that there is something True, (which no rational man can question) I ground this present Method, to convince all persons whatsoever, dissenting from the true Religion. For, if there be something True, we shall prove that there is a true God; and if there be a true God, That there is some true Religion; and if there be some True Religion, that there is some true revealed Religion; and if there be some true revealed Religion, that Christian Religion is true; and if Christian Religion be true, that Catholic Religion; and by consequence Free from all Fundamental Errors, and finally, if Catholic Religion be true, and free from all Fundamental errors, that it does not teach as an Article of Faith, any error, or corruption; and consequently, that it is free from all errors, and corruptions whatsoever. For Catholic Religion, or Catholic Faith is taken here, as it comprehends all Those Doctrines, and only Those, which the Catholic Church Delivers, as Articles of Divine Faith. And thus we shall convince all persons whatsoever, dissenting from the true Religion and Faith, that is, from the Catholic Religion and Faith. For all Dissenters imaginable are comprehended in the forementioned Classes.  
I. If there be something True, I prove that there is a True God. For, if there be some Thing true, let's suppose that it is true, That there is something better than another; this being an evident Truth assented unto by all rational men: and whoever denies, that there is something better than another, must necessarily deny himself to be better than an ass or a block. For, if he be better, than there is something better, than another. And certainly, whoever comes to deny himself to be better than an Ass, or a Block, is either a madman, or a fool; and consequently unworthy to be discoursed with any further. Now, if there be something better than another, there is something the best of all Things. For one thing is better than another, because it comes nearer that, which is the best of all things. And how can it come nearer that, which is not? It is a common Maxim amongst Philosophers, Supremum in unoquoque genere est mensura reliquorum in eodem genere. The best, and greatest in each kind is the measure of the rest in the same kind. For one thing is said to be better than another in such a kind, because it comes nearer that, which is the best. A Duke is better in Dignity than an Earl, because he comes nearer the King; who is the best man of the Kingdom in Dignity. So that unless in each kind there be admitted something, that is the best, there can be no rule, nor measure, whereby one Thing may be judged better than another in such a kind. Wherefore if it be true, that there is something better than another, there must be something the best of all Things: and if so, then there is a True God. For the very notion of a true God is Ens Optimum Maximum, the Best and Greatest of all Things; as all, even Atheists do confess, as we suppose: for unless we agree about the notion of God, there can be no Dispute between us. Yea, what is the Best of all Things that exist, is also the best of all Things that are possible. For nothing possible can exist, or be produced, but by virtue of something, that does exist: and nothing can produce what is better than itself, Nemo dat, quod non habet. No body gives what he has not. I conclude therefore, that if it be true (as certainly it is) that there is something better than another, there is a true God.  
II. If there be a True God, I prove, that there is some True Religion. For, if there be a True God, we ought to worship him, in what manner he will be worshipped by us; and obey him, in what matters he will be obeyed by us. Subjects ought to reverence, and obey their Sovereign, and Servants their Masters, in what manner, and in what matters they require: and if there be a true God, the Best and greatest of all things, Ens optimum, Maximum, certainly he is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and Supreme Governor of the Universe: and we are his Subjects, and Servants; as no Body, who grants a True God, can deny. We ought therefore to respect, and obey God. Yea, what is to be respected, or who is to be obeyed, if God be not? the Best of All things, the universal Monarch? If we ought to worship God in what manner he will be worshipped by us, and obey him in what matters he will be obeyed by us; there must be some Doctrine teaching us, in what manner God will be worshipped by us, and in what matters he will be obeyed by us. For how can we worship or obey God, if we neither know in what manner we are to worship him, nor in what matters we are to obey him? For, whether God will assign, by Himself, the particular manner of the worship to be given to him, or will leave the assignation thereof to men (and he must necessarily do either the one or the other) we must obey his will; and to obey it, we must know it. And how can we know it, unless there be some Doctrine, that teaches it? If there be some Doctrine teaching us in what manner God will be worshipped by us, and in what matters he will be obeyed by us, there must be some true Religion. For by a true Religion we understand, according to the common notion thereof, a Doctrine, that teaches men, in what manner God will be worshipped by them, and in what matters he will be obeyed by them. Wherefore I conclude, that if there be a True God (as has been proved) there is some True Religion.  
III. If there be some True Religion, I prove, that there is some true revealed Religion. For, if there be some true Religion, there is some Doctrine teaching us, in what manner God will be worshipped by us, and in what matters he will be obeyed by us; for this is the notion of a true Religion, as we have seen. If there be some such Doctrine, it must be revealed unto us by God. For how can we know Gods will, unless he reveal it unto us, either immediately by himself, or mediately by others, commissioned by him? Natural Religion, or the Light of nature, teaches us only in general, That we are to worship God, in what manner he will be worshipped by us, and that we are to obey him in what matters he will be obeyed by us: But it does not tell us (as is manifest) the particular manner, wherewith he requires we would worship him, nor the particular matters, wherein he requires we should obey him: which doubtless may be very different. And of what concern is it, that we know we are to worship and obey God, if we neither know, how we are to worship him, nor in what we we are to obey him? Yea, should God be pleased to leave to every one the choice of the manner, wherein he is to worship him; yet since this would certainly be a very particular manner of worship, not intimated unto us by the Law of Nature, God must reveal it. God therefore must reveal unto us, in what particular manner he will be worshipped by us, and in what particular matters he will be obeyed by us. And if so; then there is some true revealed Religion; which is nothing else, but a Doctrine teaching men in what particular manner God will be worshipped by them, and in what particular matters he will be obeyed by them, revealed by God. Wherefore I conclude, that if there be some True Religion, (as has been proved, that there is) there is some true revealed Religion.  
iv If there be some true revealed Religion, I prove, that Christian Religion is true. For, if there be some true Revealed Religion, certainly, That among all Religions that pretend to be revealed by God, must be true, which can evidently show, that it has been miraculously propagated. For a miraculous propagation cannot be effected without true, and real Miracles; and True and Real Miracles are Gods Broad Seal, and manifest proofs of the Truth; in whose Confirmation they are wrought, and a certain kind of Divine Revelation; Because God can speak as well by works, as by words. All professors of revealed Religions either pretend to produce true, and real Miracles in confirmation of their respective Religions, or at least would be glad, if they could produce them. Yea even Atheists openly profess, that could they be convinced of a true, and real Miracle, done in Confirmation of a Truth, they should think themselves bound to submit unto it. Wherefore a true, and real Miracle, according to the unanimous consent of men, is a pregnant proof of the Thing, in whose confirmation it is wrought. If that Religion, among all that pretend to be revealed by God, be True, which can evidently show that it has been miraculously propagated, certainly, that must be true, which can evidently show, that though it contains several mysteries, far above the reach of Humane Reason, and divers severities, very contrary to humane inclination, yet has been propagated over a great part of the world, without the help of Arms, or humane Enticements, by men of themselves very unfit for so great a work; overcoming other Religions established in the world, which preached liberty and pleasures. For the propagation of such a Religion, and in such a manner, (to use St. Augustin's argument) 
Lib. 22. De Civitat. Dei, cap. 5.  either was effected with Miracles, or without them. If with them, than it was miraculously propagated: which is what we pretend. If without them; what greater Miracle than this, viz. that such a Religion should be propagated in such a manner, and that without any Miracle! If such a Religion propagated in the manner aforesaid, be true, then certainly Christian Religion is true. For it is evident, as even the enemies of Christianity do confess, that Christian Religion has been propagated over a great part of the world, that it contains several Mysteries, as the Trinity, Incarnation, Resurrection, and others, far above the reach of humane reason; and divers severities, as to embrace crosses, to love our enemies, to mortify our passions, and others, very contrary to humane inclination; that it overcame Paganism established in the world, which preached liberty and pleasures: and finally, that being such, it was propagated without the help of Arms, or humane Enticements, by the Apostles, and other Apostolical men, very unfit of themselves for so great a work. All this (I say) is granted even by the enemies of Christianity; and is manifest from Authentic History, and constant Tradition: and should our Adversaries deny any of the forementioned circumstances, they may be proved against them out of the same Topics, and with the same Evidence, as other ancient matters of Fact; which to deny, or question, even to them, would seem a madness. Wherefore I conclude, that if there be some true revealed Religion, (as has been proved) Christian Religion is true.  
V If Christian Religion be true, I prove, that Catholic Religion is true. By Catholic Religion I understand Roman Catholic, as will appear by my proofs: and there is no other Catholic Religion, but the Roman. If Christian Religion be true, it may solidly be proved against the enemies thereof; as we have proved it already, and as all professors of Christianity do grant. Otherwise, why should they preach it, if they cannot prove it? If Christian Religion may be solidly proved; a Religion, that has the same proofs as Christianity has, or any of them, that are Solid; must needs be true. For it is impossible, that there should be any solid, or real proof of a Falsity, according to that Principle, Ex vero tantum non sequitur falsum. From Truth alone no Falsity can be deduced. If a Religion that has the same proofs as Christianity has, be true, than Catholic Religion is true; for it has the same proofs as Christianity: which will manifestly appear, if one reflects upon the grounds, whereby Christians do commonly show the truth of Christianity against her enemies. And because our Adversaries in this point, do profess themselves to be Christians, we ask them, why they are, or what rational inducement they have to be Christians? or (which comes to the same) what solid proof can they produce to show the Truth of Christianity against the enemies thereof? advertising them, that it cannot be a solid proof of the Truth of Christianity, that which agrees to Judaisme, Paganism, or Mahometism, which we, as Christians, believe to be false Religions: And how can we persuade ourselves, that Christian Religion is true, if we have no better proofs for it, than are for a Religion, which we firmly believe to be false? And let's suppose, That our Adversaries choose the reason , of the miraculous propagation of Christianity; which is a common, solid, and evident proof: the same would be, should they produce any other solid proof of Christianity. For it may be easily applied to Catholic Religion. Now, if the truth of Christian Religion be solidly proved, because it was propagated in the manner above insinuated, the Truth also of Catholic Religion is solidly proved by the like propagation. For, the Roman Catholic Religion (as even our Adversaries do confess, who blame her upon that account) does contain, besides the general principles of Christianity , very hard mysteries above the reach of humane reason; as (for instance) Transubstantiation, which thwarts (as they say) all Sense and Reason; and very hard Precepts, and Counsels, contrary to humane inclination, as Vows, Fasts, Confession, Prohibition for Priests to Marry, etc.  
Moreover, the Roman Catholic Religion, even as containing such Doctrines as our Adversaries style errors, and corruptions, has been propagated over a great part of the world, without the help of Arms, or humane Enticements, by men, who were commonly Strangers, and very unfit of themselves, to reclaim, as they did, so vast a multitude of people from Paganism, established among them, which preached Liberty and Pleasures, to Christian and Catholic Religion, which preaches Mortification, and Severities. So St. Augustin the Monk converted England, and St. Xaverius divers Nations among the Indians; and several others have done the like in other Countries; who were Roman Catholics, and preached the Roman Catholic Religion: All which is granted by most of our Adversaries; and against such, as shall deny any of the  circumstances, they may be made as manifest out of Authentic History, and Tradition, as we, or they, can make manifest against Pagans, the like circumstances, in the propagation of Christian Religion: and whatever exception they make against this proof, or others commonly alleged for Catholic Religion, was, or might be made by the enemies of Christianity, against the like proofs alleged for Christian Religion: (and certainly there cannot be a solid exception made against a Truth:) and what they would answer the enemies of Christianity in that case, if they answer solidly, we answer the same. Now (to use St. Augustins' Argument) the propagation of the Roman Catholic Religion in the manner aforesaid, either was done with Miracles, or without them. If with them, than it was miraculously propagated, and consequently is true: if without them, what greater Miracle than this, viz. That such a Religion should be propagated in such a manner, and that without any Miracle? Wherefore since we have the same proofs, and grounds, for Catholic Religion, as for Christian; if we will proceed rationally, we must be both Catholics, and Christians; or otherwise we can neither be Christians, nor Catholics. And therefore I conclude, that if Christian Religion be true, as has been proved, Catholic Religion is true.  
VI If Catholic Religion be true, I prove, that it teaches nothing whatsoever, as an Article of Faith, which is not True, or which is an error, or corruption. For, if Catholic Religion be true, it is free from all Fundamental, and Essential Errors, as is manifest: all such Errors being destructive to the very Being of a True Religion. If Catholic Religion be Free from all Fundamental Errors, it does not err against any Fundamental point of Religion. For a Fundamental error in Religion is nothing else, but an error against a Fundamental point of Religion. If Catholic Religion does not err against any Fundamental point of Religion, than it does not err against this point, viz. That God is not the Author of any error, or corruption whatsoever; this being, doubtless, a Fundamental point of Religion; as all, who admit any Religion, do confess. If Catholic Religion does not err against the  point, it does not teach God to be the Author of any error, or corruption, whatsoever, or of any thing whatsoever, which is either an error, or corruption: for to teach this, is to err against the forementioned point; as is evident. If Catholic Religion does not teach God to be the Author of any error or corruption whatsoever, it does not teach any thing whatsoever as an Article of Faith, which is either an error, or corruption. For to teach a Thing as an Article of Faith, is to teach God to be the Author of it, or that it has been delivered by God; as all do grant. Now since it is manifest, according to the unanimous consent of both Catholics, and Protestants, (who blame us upon this account) that the Roman Catholic Religion teaches, as Articles of Faith, Purgatory, Transubstantiation, Invocation of Saints, Veneration of Images, Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist, Infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church, its perpetuity to the end of the world, our Canon of Scripture, and other Doctrinal Points controverted between us, and them; it must needs follow, that none of these Points are either errors or corruptions. In the like manner we may conclude the same of any particular Point, which comes under debate: as (for instance) I prove Transubstantiation to be no error, nor corruption. The Roman Catholic Religion does not teach any thing as an Article of Faith, which is either an error, or a corruption; as has been shown; otherwise it would not be a True Religion. But the Roman Catholic Religion does teach, as an Article of Faith, Transubstantiation, as all do confess. Therefore Transubstantiation is no error, nor corruption. Wherefore I conclude, That if Catholic Religion be true (as has been proved) it teaches nothing as an Article of Faith, (neither does it, as here it is taken, teach any thing, but what it teaches as such) which is either an error, or a corruption: and consequently it is free from all errors, and corruptions whatsoever: which is what we pretended to prove.  
And to draw into a closer Circle all the forementioned proofs, supposing that it is true, That there is something better than another, the proof of a true Deity runs thus. If there be something better than another, there is something the best of All Things. If there be something the Best of All Things, there is a True God. Therefore if there be something better than another, as certainly there is, there is a true God.  
A True Deity supposed, the proof of a True Religion is framed in this manner. If we ought to Worship God in what manner he will be worshipped by us, and obey him in what matters he will be obeyed by us, there must be some Doctrine, teaching us, in what manner God will be worshipped by us, and in what matters he will be obeyed by us. If there be some such Doctrine, than there is some true Religion. Therefore if we ought to worship God, in what manner he will be worshipped by us, and to obey him, in what matters he will be obeyed by us, (as, a True Deity supposed, doubtless we ought) there is some True Religion.  
Supposing that there is some True Religion, the proof of some true revealed Religion, is as follows. If there be some Doctrine teaching us, in what manner God will be worshipped by us, and in what matters he will be obeyed by us, it must be revealed by God: if there be some such Doctrine revealed by God, there is some true revealed Religion. Therefore, if there be some Doctrine teaching us, in what manner God will be worshipped by us, and in what matters he will be obeyed by us, (as evidently there is, a True Religion being supposed) there is some true revealed Religion.  
Supposing that there is some true revealed Religion, the proof of Christian Religion goes thus. If among all Religions which pretend to be revealed by God, that must be true, which has been miraculously propagated; certainly, that must be true; which, though containing several Mysteries, far above the reach of Humane Reason, and divers severities very contrary to Humane Inclination, yet has been propagated over a great part of the world, without the help of Arms, or humane Enticements, by men very unfit of themselves for so great a work; and has overcome other Religions established in the world, which preached liberty and pleasures: If such a Religion, propagated in such a manner, be true, than Christian Religion is true. Therefore, if among all Religions, which pretend to be revealed by God, that must be true, which has been miracuculously propagated; (as certainly it must, supposing that there is some true revealed Religion) Christian Religion is true.  
Supposing that Christian Religion is true, and that the forementioned reason is solid, as doubtless it is; the proof of Catholic Religion is thus. If Christian Religion be true, because propagated in the manner aforesaid, a Religion, that though containing as high Mysteries, and as hard Precepts as Christianity, yet has been propagated in the like manner, must needs be true. If so, than Catholic Religion is True. Therefore, if Christian Religion be true, because propagated in the manner aforesaid (as beyond Debate it is in the forementioned supposition) Catholic Religion is True.  
Finally, supposing Catholic Religion to be true, we proved, That it does not teach any thing as an Article of Faith, which is not true, in this manner. If Catholic Religion be true, it does not err against any Fundamental Point; if so, it does not teach any Thing as an Article of Faith, which is not true. Therefore, if Catholic Religion be true, as it is in the present supposition, it does not teach any thing as an Article of Faith, which is not true; or which is an error or corruption.  
All these particular Propositions have been expounded more at large in the former six Points.  
But because many of our Adversaries do admit several of the forementioned points; and because it is not necessary to prove what our Adversary of his own accord does admit, you may begin with the sixth, and last point, and ask your Adversary, whether he grants the Roman Catholic Religion to be a true Religion? If he grants it, then prove, according to the manner there set down, that it teaches nothing as an Article of Faith, which is not true; or which is an error, or corruption. If he denies it, then ask him, whether he grants Christian Religion to be true; If he grants it, then prove, in conformity to the way contained in the fifth Point, that Catholic Religion is true. If he denies it, then ask him, whether he grants any revealed Religion to be true? If he grants it, then show, according to the Argument framed in the fourth Point, that Christian Religion is true. If he denies it, then ask him, whether he grants any true Religion? If he grants it, then prove, according to the Discourse form in the third Point, that there is some true revealed Religion. If he denies it, then ask him, whether he grants a True God? If he grants it, then prove, according to the Argument proposed in the second Point, that there is some true Religion. If he denies it, then ask him in the last place, whether he grants that there is something true? as (for example) that there is something better than another? which he must grant, unless he be a Mad man, or a Fool; and consequently uncapable to be dealt with by Discourses: and then prove, according to the Argument couched in the first Point, that there is a true God: proceeding always forwards, till you have shown, that the Roman Catholic Religion is exempt from all errors and corruptions whatsoever: which is the drift of this short Discourse.  
And since no Body does, or can descent from the Catholic Religion, but upon the account of some Doctrine taught by it as an Article of Faith, which the Dissenter judges to be an error, or corruption; what more can be required to convince the judgement of all Dissenters whatsoever from the True and Catholic Religion, than to prove (as we have done, in the  points) that it does not teach any Thing whatsoever, as an Article of Divine Faith, which is either an error, or corruption.  
From the  Method we may infer by several consequences, (since one error produces another) that whoever denies the Catholic Religion to be free from all errors, and corruptions whatsoever, must needs deny himself to be better than a Mad man, or a Fool. For, if Catholic Religion be not free from all errors and corruptions whatsoever, it must teach something as an Article of Faith, which is either an error, or corruption. If it does teach something as an Article of Faith, which is either an error, or corruption, it is not Free from all Fundamental Errors: if it be not Free from all Fundamental Errors, it is not True: if it be not true, Christian Religion is not True: if Christian Religion be not True, no revealed Religion is True: if not revealed Religion be true, no Religion is True: if no Religion be True, there is no True God: if there be no True God, there is nothing the Best of All Things: if there be nothing the Best of all Things, there is nothing better than another: and finally, if there be nothing better than another, the person, with whom we dispute, is no better than a Mad man, or a Fool. So that, whoever denies the Catholic Religion to be free from all errors and corruptions whatsoever, will be forced, unless he recants, to deny himself to be better than a Mad man, or a Fool: which before any rational man will be forced to do, certainly, he will recall the error, from which such vast absurdities are deduced; and openly confess, that the Catholic Religion, or Faith, is free from all errors, and corruptions imaginable. And though the last Proposition be deduced from several precedent consequences; yet this Method is common even among Mathematicians, who are thought by all to proceed a most concluding, and demonstrative way.  
Moreover, according to the same Method, we may show the Truth of any Point, delivered by the Roman Catholic Religion, as an Article of Faith, whether it be speculative or practical; of little, or great moment, hard and above the reach of Natural Reason; or easy and suitable to Humane understanding. For the Catholic Religion (as we have proved) does teach nothing as an Article of Faith, which is not true: and sure, it is against the very essence of a true Religion, (such as the Catholic Religion is) to father upon God any thing that that is not true, speculative or practical, little or great, hard or easy; and to teach a Thing as an Article of Faith, is to father it upon God. And though Catholics be commanded many Things by their Ecclesiastical Superiors, (as Fasting upon Fridays, annual Confession, and such like) which are no Articles of Faith; yet 'tis an Article of Catholic Faith, that we are bound to obey our lawful Superiors, whether Ecclesiastical or Civil.  
And as concerning the hardness of some Mysteries, taught by the Roman Catholic Religion as Articles of Faith, it can be no Argument to prove that it is not a true Religion. For, certain it is, that God does know very high, and hard Mysteries, far above the reach of humane understanding, and contrary to the notions of Things here below. If he does know them, he may reveal them. If he may reveal them, than a true Religion (since it must be revealed by God) may contain such mysteries. And if a True Religion may contain such Mysteries, it can be no good argument that a Religion is not true, because it does contain very high, and hard Mysteries, above the reach of humane understanding, and contrary to the notions of Things, which humane reason comprehends. Yea, the harder the Mysteries are, which the Roman Catholic Religion does contain, the more miraculous is the propagation thereof. For easy Things are believed with ease; but hard Things are not believed without great difficulty: And the more miraculous the propagation of the Roman Catholic Religion is, the more reason there is to believe, that it is a true Religion.  
In the like manner, following the same Method, we may evince, that the Roman Catholic Religion is, not only a True Religion, but the true Religion; and that the Roman Catholic Church is, not only a True Church, but the true Church: (By a true Church we understand a Congregation of men that profess a true Religion; and by the true Church we understand the Congregation of all such, as profess the true Religion; and a true Church and a true Religion are taken, as con-distinguished from a false Church, and a false Religion:) That out of the Roman Church there is no Salvation, and that no Church, which is not a Member of the Roman Church, is a Member of the True Church: For all these Points are delivered as Articles of Faith by the Roman Church; as both we, and our Adversaries do confess. That it is, not only a True Religion, but also a sound Religion. For, what more can be required for the soundness thereof, than that it should not teach any corruption whatsoever? as we have proved it does not. That it is entirely a true Religion, containing all Things necessary to be believed, and all Things necessary to be done, in order to Salvation; either necessitate medii, or necessitate praecepti. For this also it delivers as an Article of Faith. Yea, half a Religion is not a true Religion; as half a man, viz. the Body alone of a man, is not a true man. That it is, not only True, whatsoever the Roman Church delivers as an Article of Faith, and as revealed by God, but also 'tis true, That it is an Article of Faith, and revealed by God: as for example, not only the Mystery of the Trinity is true; but also 'tis true, that it is revealed. For it is an Article of Faith, that those Books, wherein the Mystery of the Trinity is contained, and declared to be so, are the True Word, and Revelation of God. So that one would be an Heretic, not only if he should deny the Mystery of the Trinity, but also if he should deny it to be revealed: and as one cannot be a true, and loyal Subject, who counterfeits the King's Hand and Seal; so that Religion cannot be true, which Counterfeits God's Word, delivering (in order to authorise any Thing whatsoever) Things as revealed by him, which he never revealed. Finally, that whatsoever the Roman Catholic Religion, or Church, teaches as an Article of Faith, is not only true, but infallibly true. For, among other Points, that it delivers as Articles of Faith, (and consequently are true) one is its own Infallibility in matters of Faith; as all do grant. It is therefore true, that the Roman Religion is Infallible in such matters: and if so, than it must necessarily follow, that whatsoever it declares as a matter of Faith, is infallibly true. For, it is impossible, that the Sentence of an Infallible Judge should be false.  
Besides, since we have shown that the Roman Catholic Church is free from all Fundamental errors, it is inferred,  
1. That it does not err against any Fundamental Point whatsoever, either mediately, or immediately. For, an error does not cease to be Fundamental, because it is only mediately, and by consequence, opposite to a Fundamental Point. For to be mediately opposite to a point, is to be opposite to that point, and another point also, whereon the Truth of the former depends. A Disease, or Wound does not cease to be mortal, because it infers only mediately the death of a man, destroying immediately only the Dispositions necessary for the conservation of his life; which being once destroyed, there follows the separation between the Body and the Soul; wherein the Death of man formally consists.  
2. That it cannot be said, That the Roman Catholic Religion does not err against any Fundamental point, precisely because it holds all the Fundamental points of the True Religion. For a Religion may contradict itself, and err against that very point, which it holds. Certainly, a Religion, which should deny Christ to be God, would err Fundamentally; and consequently, would be no true Religion; though it should, contradicting itself, hold at the same time; that Christ is God, and all other positive points of the True Religion. To the truth therefore of a Religion it is requisite, not only that it holds all Fundamental points of the true Religion; but also, that it does not deny any of them, neither mediately, nor immediately; observing, what is related of St. John Baptist, [Joan. 1.30] Confessus est, & non negavit: He confessed, and did not deny.  
3. That it cannot be affirmed, That a Religion is true, and consequently, that it does not err against any Fundamental point, because some, who profess it, are excused by Invincible Ignorance. For, invincible ignorance, though it excuses him, who has it, from erring maliciously, yet it does not excuse him from erring; nor the Religion, which should contain such an error, from being erroneous, and heretical too, if the point, against which it errs, be an Article of Faith. Sure, a man that should say That Christ is not God, would err Fundamentally, whether he said it out of ignorance, or malice: and a Religion, that should teach such an error, would be an Heretical Religion, and err against a Fundamental point, viz. the Divinity of Christ.  
4. That a Religion, which teaches God to be the Author of any Thing, that is really an error, must needs err against a Fundamental point, though it teaches such a Thing as a Truth. For, to err, is to teach a Thing as a Truth, which really is an error. The Arrians, doubtless, erred against a Fundamental point, by teaching that Christ was not God; which was really an error, though they thought it to be a Truth. Wherefore the Roman Catholic Religion cannot be free from all Fundamental errors, unless whatsoever it teaches as an Article of Faith be really true; and not only judged by the Church to be so.  
According to the same Method we convince at once the Truth of all our Articles of Faith. For we have showed, that whatsoever the Roman Church teaches as an Article of Faith, is true; otherwise, it would not be a true Church; and that there is no Article of Faith, which is not delivered as such by the Roman Church; otherwise it would not be entirely true. Whence we avoid the tedious way of Treating Controversies, (for which the whole life of man is scarce sufficient) viz. of proving each point of Controversy by itself, and out of its own proper reasons: though I do not hinder, but that we may prove some particular points this way also; yet we have insinuated above in the sixth Point, how we may apply this general way, to decide any particular question concerning matters of Faith; wherein the party, with whom we deal, desires satisfaction.  
Again, the same Method will teach us, how we may, with ease, discover all Heresies whatsoever. For it is easy to know, what Doctrines are delivered by the Roman Catholic Church, (which we have proved to be, not only a true, but the true Church) as Articles of Faith; either out of the Canons of General Councils, admitted by that Church, or out of the Authentic Catechisms, or Professions of Faith, used among Catholics; or finally out of the unanimous consent of Catholic Doctors: and if there be a Debate among Catholic Writers, whether such a Doctrine be delivered by the Roman Catholic Church as an Article of Faith; we oblige no Body to look upon it as an Article of Faith of that Church: nay, the contest between Catholics and no Catholics is not, whether such Doctrines be Articles of the Catholic Faith, or not, but whether they be errors or truths. Now, if one knows, what Doctrines are delivered by the Catholic Church, as Articles of Faith, he may easily know, what Propositions are immediately opposite to such Doctrines. As for example, if one knows, that Purgatory is delivered as an Article of Faith by the Catholic Church, he cannot but see, that No-Purgatory, (or the denial of Purgatory) is immediately opposite to such an Article. And if one knows, what Propositions are immediately opposite to such Doctrines, as the Catholic Church delivers as Articles of Faith, he knows also, what Propositions are Formal Heresies. For all Formal Here sies whatsoever are immediately opposite to some Doctrine, taught by the True Church (i. e. the Catholic) as an Article of Faith.  
Moreover, if one knows; what other Propositions do necessarily infer any Formal Hetesie, he knows also, what Propositions are virtual Heresies. For all virtual Heresy must necessarily infer a Formal Heresy. And because the Roman Catholic Church is, not only now the True Church, but will be till the world's end; (for among other things, which she delivers as Articles of Faith, one is her own perpetuity) by help of this Method we are taught, not only what Heresies now are, or have been; but also what Heresies shall be hereafter: if it happens, that any new Heresies be broached. For all Heresies whatsoever must, necessarily be contrary to some Doctrine delivered by the Catholic Church, as an Article of Faith.  
Yet further, by the means of this Method we may solve all Objections against the Truth of the Roman Catholic Church, or any Doctrine delivered by it as an Article of Faith; showing in general, That whatsoever is, or can be objected against us in this kind, either from Reason, or Authority, is false, or Incouclusive. For, if the Roman Catholic Church be a True Church, and if whatsoever she teaches as an Article of Faith, be True, as we have evinced; it follows evidently, that what ever is, or can be, objected against our Church, or any Article thereof, must necessarily be either False, or Inconclusive. For it is a manifest principle of Logic, That there can be no True, Solid, and Real Proof against a Truth, or of a Falsity. True it is, that this Method doth not instruct us, how we are to answer in particular every. Objection against the Truth of the Roman Church, and of the Doctrines which she delivers as Articles of Faith. But this is not necessary, to the end we may remain fully satisfied, concerning the Falsity or Inconclusiveness of whatsoever is objected against her, or her Articles. All men are firmly persuaded, that there is Local Motion, and that we move from one place to another, as reason, and experience, do evidently demonstrate; and consequently, according to the Principle just now insinuated, they are cervain, that whatsoever is objected against Local Motion, although it seem never so hard, is either False, or Inclusive. Yet very few can show directly, even with probability, and perhaps no Body with evidence, how and why each Objection in particular against Local Motion, is either False, or Inconclusive. And generally speaking, one may be certain (as several obvious instances do evince) that such a Thing is so, without knowing, or being able to assign, either the particular manner, how it is so; or the direct and proper reason, why it is so: and consequently one may be fully satisfied, that such an objection is either False, or Inconclusive, though he be not able to give the proper, and direct reason why it is so.  
And although I must needs confess, that there are several other ways, to demonstrate the Truth of the Roman Catholic Religion; as there may be many reasons, and all of them very good, to prove the same Truth: yet it is easy to force our Adversary to come to this Method. For, all Methods whatsoever, to prove the true Religion, or any other verity, are grounded, either upon Reason, or Authority. If our Adversary will be tried by Reason, the way we have taken in this Method, in order to find out the true Religion, is built upon Reason. For Reason shows us, that there is something better than another; and that if there be something better than another, there is a God, and that if there be a God, there is a True Religion: and thus Reason guides us downwards, through the forementioned Points, till it has proved, That the Roman Catholic Religion delivers nothing as an Article of Faith, which is not true: and that then we are to believe her in whatsoever she teaches as such.  
But if our Adversary will be tried by Authority, either of Scriptures, or General Councils, or ancient Fathers, or Modern Writers, This Trial, if it be well managed, must depend upon the knowledge of the True Church, and True Religion. For certainly, no Body, in matters of Religion, is bound to be tried by the Scriptures, Councils, or Doctors of a False Religion. We cannot in prudence require of a Christian to stand, in Debates of Religion, to the Decisions of the Koran, the Scripture of the Turks; or to the Decrees of their Councils, and Doctors. Wherefore, when men appeal to Scriptures, Councils, or Doctors, for the determination of Religious Debates, doubtless, their intention is to appeal to such Scriptures, and Councils (and such alone, and to all such) as are admitted by the True Church; and to such Doctors only, as are Members of the True Religion. And how can we know, what Scriptures, or what Councils, are admitted by the True Church; or what Doctors are Members of the True Religion; unless we know, which is the True Church, and which is the True Religion? For what Saint Augustin said of the Church in order to the Scripture, Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me Ecclesiae Catholicae commoveret authoritas; [Aug. lib. Epist. count. Manich. cap. 5.] may be extended to Councils, and Doctors. For the present True Church decides, not only what ancient Councils, and Doctors have been Orthodox, but also what modern Councils, and Doctors are so. We force therefore our Adversary to the investigation of the True Religion; and then we may set upon him, according to the Method .  
Moreover, when one appeals to Scriptures, Councils, or Fathers, sure he appeals to them as rightly understood. For who will be tried by Scriptures, Councils, or Fathers, understood in a wrong sense? Now if there arise a contest, as commonly there does, between us and our Adversaries, concerning the right meaning of the places, alleged out of Scripture, (the same is of places alleged out of Councils, or Fathers) certainly the Judge to decide this Debate, must appertain to the True Religion. For, who will make his application to an Atheist, to decide matters of Religion? or what Christian will go to a Turk, or a Jew, to determine matters belonging to Christianity?  
In like manner, when one appeals to the private Spirit in matters of Religion, sure he will not appeal to the private Spirit of an Atheist; or, if he be a Christian, to the private Spirit of a Jew, a Turk, or an Heretic. His intention therefore is to appeal to the private Spirit of such as are of the True Religion: and we cannot be ascertained, who, or what appertains to the True Religion, unless we be informed which the True Religion is.  
And thus we force our Adversary again, to make enquiry into the True Religion; and then we may attack him after our own way: ask him, whether he grants the Roman Catholic Religion to be a true Religion? if he grants it, we may show, according to what we hinted above, That the Roman Catholic Religion is the true Religion; and if so, that to her appertains the judgement of Controversy, and of the true, and genuine sense of Scriptures, Councils, and Fathers. Whence I conclude, that till we have found out, which is the true Religion, scarce any other Thing under Debate, appertaining to Religion, can be proved. And when that is found out, all other Things appertaining to Religion are proved without difficulty.  
And here I cannot but reflect upon the unreasonableness of our Adversaries, who will tie us to certain Topics, without giving us leave to make use of others, of no less force. Some will have us show them in the First Four General Councils, or in the Fathers of the First 600 years after Christ, in express terms, all the Points, which we defend in opposition to the Protestant Church; and unless we can do it, they proclaim the victory against us. And why might not we, in the same manner, require of them to show us in the Apostles Creed all their Thirty Nine Articles? or in the First Chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, all the Mysteries of Christian Religion? we admit, beside the Four First General Councils, several others of equal Authority: and beside, the Fathers of the First 600 years, other Fathers, and Doctors.  
Others will have All Controversies decided by express Scripture, and by their Scriptures only, and with their versions, and interpreted according to their sense, without harkening either to Councils, or Fathers, or any other Topics, though very solid and effectual: whereas any good, and solid argument, let it be drawn from any Topick whatsoever, is sufficient to evince a Truth: and no Body can, with reason, require more of his Adversary, than that he should prove solidly the Thesis, which he undertakes to defend. Neither is it necessary, That all Truths should be evidenced out of every place.  
Wherefore it is not Prudence to permit; that our Adversary should prescribe us the manner, wherein we are to attack him: it is better to force him to fight our way. For though, perhaps, the way he proposes unto us, may be apt enough; yet another may be more advantageous: and an adversary may, with more ease, find, in a way wherein he is versed, Cavils, wherewith to elude our Arguments, though never so good; then if he be brought into a road, wherein he is not acquainted.  
Yet because they may have no occasion to quarrel with us, as if we did refuse to be tried by Scripture, we profess, that we are not unwilling to be tried by it. But than it must be with These Conditions; which not rational man can look upon as absurd, viz. By True Scripture, By the whole Canon of Scripture, By the True Versions thereof, and by Scripture rightly understood. The same may be said of Councils, and Fathers.  
We have made frequent mention in this Discourse, of Fundamental points of the True Religion, yet we do not require of our Adversaries (that which they are loath to do) to exhibit unto us a Catalogue of all such Points. What we require of them is only, That they grant this point to be Fundamental, and Essential, to a True Religion, viz. God is not the Author of any error, or corruption, whatsoever, or, whatsoever God reveals, is true. And sure, no Body, who grants any true Religion, yea any True Deity, can refuse to grant This position. For it is certain, that there are some Points determinately Fundamental, and Essential to a true Religion: and if there be and such, why not this? The very Foundation of Divine Faith consists in this Principle, That God does neither deceive, nor is deceived, in any Thing whatsoever: and consequently, that he is not the Author of any error, great or little, and that what ever he reveals is true. Otherwise one might say, Though God has revealed such a Thing, perhaps it is not so, as he has revealed it: which doutbless would be a manifest Blasphemy. Yea, the reason, why we ought to believe God, before man, is, because men do many times deceive, and are many times more deceived. But God does never deceive, nor is deceived.  
We have mentioned also several times, Natural and Revealed Religion. By Natural Religion we understand Those necessary common Principles of Morality, relating to our duty towards God, ourselves, and our Neighbour, which Nature has printed in the hearts of men; and are usually styled The Law of Nature. Such are these Principles. Do as you would be done by. Worship God. Honour your Parents. Obey your Superiors. Fly Evil. Do Good, and such like. Natural Religion also does inform us concerning several Attributes of God, as that he is Supreme Governor of the Universe, That he is not idle in the world, That he complies with his Character, and consequently that he rules and governs the world; That he is just and merciful; and consequently, that he will reward those, who do well, and punish such as do ill. By a revealed Religion is signified a Religion, that contains either some high Mysteries, seated above the, Sphere of Humane Reason, or some particular manner of worshipping God, or some particular matters, wherein we are to obey him; freely revealed unto us by God.  
Now God may manifest his will unto men divers ways, either by Writings, Words, or other Signs, by positive Injunctions, or by Silence (as men also may manifest their will) by himself, or by others Commissioned by him, whether Angels, or Men: or he may manifest his will partly by Writing, and partly in Words; or by Writings, or Words so clear, that any one may understand them; or so obscure, that to understand them there is need of an Expositor. He may also determine by himself the particular manner, wherein he will be worshipped, and the particular matters, wherein he will be obeyed; or he may assign others to determine them: and though it be Free for God to choose this, or that way of governing men, yet supposing there are men, he must needs lay hold of some way, or other, to manifest unto them his pleasure: otherwise he would not comply with this Character of being Governor of the world: and consequently there must be some Religion freely revealed by God.  
Besides, out of that common notion of God, assented unto by All Ens Optimum Maximum, the Best of all Things, (though we may prove the Existency of a Deity by other Notions, agreed upon by the parties) we may easily deduce several Attributes of God. For God is the Best of all Things in all kind of Perfections: Because, as there is one better than another in Wisdom, Goodness, Power, and other Perfections; so there must be something the Best of all, in All kind of Perfections; which we term God.  
If God be the Best of all in Wisdom, Power, Goodness, and in all kind of perfections, it follows that he is Free from all kind of imperfections. For an imperfection, in any kind whatsoever, consists in a deficiency from what is best in that kind: and therefore imperfection is commonly defined Defectus a summo. Since therefore it is impossible, That what is the Best in all kind of perfections, should be deficient from being the Best in any kind, we conclude, that God is free from all imperfections whatsoever: and if so, than he is infinitely perfect in all kind of perfections. For all limitation in perfection must proceed from some imperfection in that kind. If therefore God be free from all imperfection in what kind soever, it necessarily follows, that he is infinitely, and without limitation perfect in all kind of perfections, and consequently that he is not constituted of Things imperfect: and hence may be inferred the simplicity of the Divine Essence.  
Moreover, since one thing is better than another, because it comes nearer that, which is the Best; and since 'tis impossible, that any thing should come nearer that which is the Best, than what really, and by identity is the Best; we conclude, that what is the Best, cannot increase; and what cannot increase, is infinite. For, whatsoever is finite, and limitated, may increase.  
Notwithstanding it is not necessary, before we have found out the True Religion, that we should know any other Attributes of God, or any other properties of the True Religion, besides Those only, the knowledge whereof is precisely requisite for the Discovery of the True Religion, and are admitted by such as we deal with: the rest the True Religion will teach us.  
If one desire to know, why should one Thing be said to be better than another, because it comes nearer what is the best, rather than because it goes further from what is the worst, the reason is, because perfection consists in Positives; imperfection in Negatives: and according to the Natural Order of Things, Negatives are to be explicated by their Positives, and not on the contrary: as Darkness is expounded by Light, and not Light by Darkness. So that the worst is rightly expounded by the greatest distance from the Best: whereas the Best is explained by the Greatest conjunction with that, which contains all perfection. Yea, if there must be something the worst of all Things, why must there not he something the Best of All Things? and consequently a True God? which is what we pretended to prove in the First point.  
And because we desire to deal fairly, and freely with our Adversaries; when we Dispute with such as profess themselves to be Christians, we give them leave to assign any solid inducement whatsoever, why they are Christians, with the Advertisement insinuated, Point the fifth, I do not ask them, what it is to be Christians, but why they are so: and sure, no Christian will be ashamed to tell any one, what inducement he has to be a Christian. And to propose this question to them, may contribute much to ground them well in Christian Religion. For there are Christians, who have scarce ever reflected, not only what it is to be Christians, but neither why they are so.  
Some will tell us, that they are Christians, because they were bred, and born amongst Christians, or because they live under a Christian Prince. But these Motives are frivolous. For though such circumstances have been the occasion, why many are Christians, yet they cannot be a prudent Motive, why they are so. For a Turk, who is born a Turk, and lives under the Turkish Government, has the same reason to be a Turk.  
Others, who have never reflected, why they are christians, ask me, what inducements I have to be a Christian: and though this be not to answer the question themselves, but to have me answer for them; yet to satisfy them, I may propose the forementioned miraculous propagation, or some other solid Reason; which being once approved of by them, may easily be applied to Catholck Religion.  
Others will say, That they are Christians, (and this is the common answer of Protestants) because such Books, which they believe to be the Word of God; interpreted in such a sense, as they believe they are to be interpreted in, inform them of the Divinity of our Saviour, and of other Mysteries of Christianity. But a Jew has the same reason to be a Jew; because such Books, which he believes to be the Word of God, interpreted in such a s●nse, as he believes they are to be interpreted in, tell him, that Christ is not God, nor the Messiah.  
Besides, it cannot be a good rule to arrive to the right sense of Scripture, to interpret it according to each ones private reason. For if it were a good rule, who ever should adjust himself thereunto, would interpret Scripture in a right sense: which is manifestly false. For Two, who interpret Scripture in contradictory senses, may Both follow their own private reason, as is evident: and yet it is certain, that either the one, or the other of these Two would not interpret Scripture in a right sense. For it is impossible, that Two Contradictory senses should Both be right, and intended by the Holy Ghost; who cannot contradict himself: and that only is the true sense of Scripture, which was intended by the Holy Ghost. We challenge therefore our Adversaries to produce any solid inducements for one to be a Christian, which does not prove that he should be a Catholic: So that with Truth we may say, No Catholic, No Christian.  
Wherefore my main Task in this work, is, to show, that what proofs are alleged for Christian Religion, may be alleged for Catholic Religion; and by consequence that we have the same inducements to be Catholics, as to be Christians; and that what Objections are made against Catholic Religion, are, or may be, made against Christian Religion: and accordingly that we have the same Motives to be No Christians, as to be No Catholics. And it would be absurd to say, That we ought not to urge Sectaries upon this Topick, for fear, lest they should deny Christian Religion to be true, rather than grant the Truth of Catholic Religion. For in the like manner they might say, That we ought not to urge Sectaries out of Scripture (or any other Principle granted by them) for sear, lest ●hey should deny Scripture, ra●her than assent to the Tenets of our Church. By Christian Religion, I understand the Religion preached by Christ and his Apostles: which, among other Things, taught as an Article of Faith, that it would continue to be the true Religion till the world's end: and consequently, if it was ever true, it is still true: and since, certainly, it cannot be found but among Christians, I conclude, that only among Christians, the true Religion is to be found.  
Neither can I omit here to take notice of a certain kind of men, who term themselves Virtuosos, or the Wits of the Nation, that deny all matters of Fact, unless they perceive them by their own senses; and admit nothing else, but what Natural Reason does demonstrate unto them. So that they deny both Divine and Humane Faith, all the Mysteries of Christianity, and all revealed Religions. But the Absurdity of this opinion is manifest. For, as concerning what they assert in reference to matters of Fact, we may tell them, that, according to their Principles, we cannot believe, That they think what they say, neither can they believe, That we think what we say. For their Thoughts to us, and our Thoughts to them, are matters of Fact, seated beyond the pale of the Senses; and consequently, if their Principles be good, no Body ought to treat with them, nor they with any Body: For no Body ought, in prudence, to deal with him, whom he can never believe, that he thinks what he says. Whence all Humane Conversation would be cast off; which is against the very nature of man. For man is defined, by Philosophers, Animal Sociabile. Yea, the signification of Words, Characters, and other arbitrary Signs, wherewith we expound to others our Thoughts, do depend upon Humane Faith, and upon the persuasion we have, that the First Inventors, and Masters of Languages, intended, that by such words such Things should be signified; and so, by denying all Humane Faith, they render void the Instruments of Humane Conversation. Moreover, no Servant ought to obey their commands, no Body ought to condescend to their requests. For, no Body, according to their Maxims, can believe that they intent, what they seem to command; nor that they desire what they ask, the actual intentions, and desires of men, being matters of Fact, which do not fall within the verge of our Senses. And sure, no Body ought in reason, to obey the commands of a Superior, unless he believe, that he seriously intends what he commands; nor condescend to the request of a Friend, unless he believes, that he desires what he asks.  
Again, such men as These, if they stand to their Tenets, cannot believe, that they have any right, or title, to the Estates, or Prerogatives, which they possess. For the right to such Estates, and Prerogatives, does (as we suppose) consist, in that they descend from such Ancestors, who entailed upon their Heirs, such Lands, or Titles: and according to their Maxims they cannot believe that they descend from such Ancestors. For they never perceived it with their Senses. Why therefore may not one take away their Estates, since they can plead no right to them? Finally, their actions do manifestly contradict This their assertion. For they scarce do, or say any thing, great or little, wherein they do not govern themselves by the humane Faith of some thing or other; as they Themselves may easily be convinced of, if they will be pleased to reflect upon their own actions.  
Now concerning what they affirm of Natural Reason, to which they will needs seem to be so much devoted; there can be nothing more contrary to Natural Reason, than to persuade ourselves, that we ought to believe nothing above it. For though Natural Reason does not demonstrate unto us Those Mysteries, which are above its reach, yet it does demonstrate that there are such Mysteries. For, what is more clear to our Natural Reason, than that God does know things above our Natural Reason? Otherwise he would not be infinitely Wise; as he would not be infinitely Powerful, if he could not do Things above our Natural Forces. If he knows such Mysteries, Natural Reason Demonstrates, either that he may reveal them unto us immediately by himself, or that he may Commission men to that intent; otherwise he would not be infinitely Powerful: and that if he does reveal them unto us, either by himself, or by men, whom he has commissioned to that purpose; we ought to believe them; otherwise he would not be of infinite Authority.  
Whence I conclude, out of the Principles of Nature, that we may be bound to believe Mysteries above the reach of Natural Reason. For if God does reveal them, we are bound to believe them: But he may reveal them; therefore we may be bound to believe them. Hence it follows, that his consequence is Null, (though so common in the mouths of the Virtuosos) viz. Such a Mystery is above the reach of Natural Reason; Therefore we are not not bound (or we cannot be bound) to believe it. Again, if God can commission men to preach unto us Mysteries, above the reach of our Natural Reason, he may attend them with such Marks and Signs, as may evidence unto such as are concerned therein, that they are commissioned by God unto them. For, of what value is a Commission, unless the Authenticateness thereof may be made evident? And here I leave these Authors to think with themselves, what Signs, or Marks they would prudently require, to be persuaded, that such men have been commissioned by God to preach a Religion; and we engage to evince, That such Marks did concur in Christ, and his Apostles, and several other Preachers of Christian, and Catholic Religion; with this Advertisement, that they cannot rationally require a greater evidence of God's commands, to think themselves bound to obey them, than of the King's Commands, in order to submit unto them, even in matters, wherein their Lives, and Fortunes are concerned: For the greater Obligation of obeying God before men, does not necessarily consist in the greater evidence of his Commands, but in the greater Dignity and Authority of his Person.  
Perhaps, some may object, That if we can find out the True Revealed Religion by the light of Nature, without being guided therein, by the True Religion, or Church, why may we not find out All the Articles of the True Religion, and Church, without being guided thereby, and without the previous knowledge thereof, by the light, only, of Natural Reason?  
To this I answer, that with as much reason I might ask our Adversaries, why we may not build the Superstructures without laying first the Foundation, as we can lay the Foundation, without laying first another Foundation? or, as we can go by ourselves to a Master to be taught by him, why can we not learn by ourselves, what ever such a Master can teach us? or, as by o●r selves we make application to the Judges, constituted by the King, to know the True Sense of the Law, in intricate places; why may we not understand the True sense of those places, without making any such application? Certainly, there is no Body, who does not plainly see, that such questions are frivolous.  
And such, doubtless, is the forementioned question our Adversary proposes unto us. For the True Church is the Pillar, and Foundation of Faith, the. Mistress of what we are to believe, and of what we are to do, in order to salvation; and the Judge in Controversies of of Religion. Yea, we might ask our Adversaries, why they might not find out all Mysteries of Faith, without the help of Scripture, as they find out Scripture without the previous knowledge thereof.  
And because our Adversaries will have Scripture to be the Sole Judge of all Religious Controversies, let them reflect, that as, without all question, there would be a great Confusion in a Kingdom, wherein every one must decide all pleas relating unto him, by the written Law, understood according to his private reason, without being bound to submit to the Sentence of any living Judge, constituted by the Supreme Governor: So, doubtless, there cannot but be a horrid confusion in a Church, where every one is permitted to decide all Debates in Religion by Scripture, (or the Written Law of God) understood according to his private Reason; without being bound to submit to the Decision of any living Judge.  
Yea, the very Constitution, and practice of the Church of England, and of other Protestant Churches, does evidently prove, That Scripture is not the Judge of Controversies, nor so clear, that any one, who reads it, or hears it read, may, without the help of any Expositor, or living Judge, manifestly understand whatsoever is necessary to be believed, or done by him, in order to Salvation: and that whatsoever any one, by reading of Scripture, or hearing it read, does not clearly understand, it is no matter whether he understands it, or not. For it is a common practice amongst the Members of the Church of England, who are persuaded that their Church is a True Church, in difficulties that arise about the true meaning of Scriptures, to make their address, (and to think they ought to do so) to the Doctors of their Church, to receive from them the solution of such Difficulties. Now if every one by himself clearly understands, in Scripture, whatsoever is necessary unto him for his salvation; and whatsoever he does, not by himself, clearly understand in Scripture, 'tis no matter whether he ever understands it, or not, what need has he to make his address to the Doctors of his Church, to be instructed by them concerning the meaning of Scriptures? For he needs not their instruction, for what he understands clearly by himself, as is manifest; nor for what he does not clearly understand by himself: For, according to their Doctrine he needs not understand such Things at all. The same may be applied to their writing so many Volumes, to prove out of Scripture several chief Mysteries of our Faith. For what need is there of such Writings, if Scripture be clear to every one, in all Things necessary to Salvation?  
The Church also of England, and other Protestant Churches, do Constitute Ministers, and Doctors, to Preach unto the People, and to teach them such Things, as are necessary unto them, for to save their Souls; and vast Revenues are allowed them upon this account. Now, if Scripture does teach all Things necessary to Salvation, so clearly, that any one, without the assistance of a Teacher, may manifestly understand them; and what he does not manifestly understand, without the assistance of a Teacher, 'tis no matter, whether he understands it or not, why should they Constitute Preachers, and Teachers? or why should they assign such vast Revenues, for an employment, which, whether he who has it, does ever exercise, or not, 'tis no matter? The Practice therefore, and Constitution of the English Church, and of other Protestant Churches, does evidently evince, That Scripture is not so clear that any one, without the help of an Expositor, may with ease understand whatever is necessary in order to Salvation; and that what he does not understand so, he never needs to understand it at all. And if Scripture cannot decide clearly, by itself, all Debates concerning matters necessary to Salvation, certainly the chief and ultimate Decision of such Debates belongs to the Church: from whom we may expect a new Declaration, and Definition (if occasion requires) to make clear those Things, which before were doubtful: Whereas we can never expect any new Scripture to that purpose.  
Besides, it is certain, that God never intended to write such a Scripture, as No Body should depend of another for the right intelligence thereof: otherwise he would have penned it in all vulgar Languages, or in a Language, that all should understand: which, certainly, he did not. As therefore they must depend upon the Skill, and Fidelity of the Translator in order to have the True Scripture; why may they not depend also upon the honesty, and learning of an Expositor, in order to attain the right Sense thereof?  
Wherefore, unless Protestants will condemn the common Practice, and even the very Constitution of their own Churches, and render insignificant the main, and almost only employment of their Pastors; they cannot believe Scripture to be so clear, even in necessary Points, as they seem to make it: especially since they are not ignorant, that Scripture itself does plainly tell them, 2 Pet. 3.16. that many hard and obscure Things are contained in Scriptures; wherein the very Salvation of men is deeply concerned. And since Protestants make their address, as daily experience does teach us, to their Church, and to the Doctors thereof, in Points controverted, 'tis an evident sign, that they are persuaded, that the voice of the Church is clearer in such points, than Scripture. For no Body can in prudence seek out the right, and clear intelligence, of a Thing that is obscure, by what is as much, or more obscure.  
And since moreover, Natural reason does teach us, that we ought to begin with what is clear, to arrive to the right Intelligence of what is obscure, I conclude, that the natural order of Things does require, that we should seek out the True Scripture, and True Sense thereof, by the Church; rather than the True Church by the Scripture.  
From what has been set down in the progress of this Discourse, 'tis manifest, that our Adversaries cannot, with any show of probability, object against us a vicious Circle, wherewith they pretend to puzzle many Catholic Writers; as if they did prove the Scripture by the Church, and the Church by the Scripture. For though we show the Truth of Scripture, and all other Articles of the Roman Faith by the Truth of the Roman Church, yet we show the Truth of the Roman Church, not by the Scripture, but by its miraculous propagation; and its miraculous propagation, by the common consent of our Adversaries, by constant Tradition, and by Natural Reason. For our Adversaries grant, and constant Tradition shows, That the Roman Catholic Religion is a hard Religion; and yet that it has been propagated in the manner abovesaid: and then Natural Reason does teach us, That such a propagation of such a Religion could not be effected without the particular, and miraculous assistance of God.  
Some perhaps will desire to know, what connexion we admit between the Motives, and Inducements, which we have to persuade ourselves, that the Roman Catholic Religion is True, and between the Truth thereof? or what Certainty we have of the Existency of such Motives and Inducements? and whether this Connexion and Certainty, be Moral or Metaphysical? To avoid Scholastic Niceties, I answer (supposing, that such as propose this Question, do profess themselves Christians) that the Connexion between the Inducements we have to be Catholics, and the Truth of Catholic Religion; and the Certainty we have concerning the Existency of such Inducements; is the same, as the connexion between the Inducements we have to be Christians, and the Truth of Christian Religion; and the certainty concerning the existency of such Inducements. So that we have the same kind of Certainty concerning the Truth of the Roman Catholic Church, and the particular Tenets thereof, as concerning the Truth of Christian Religion, and the general Tenets of Christianity: and the same question may be proposed to any professor of Christianity; yea, to the professors of any revealed Religion. So that the difficulty is not proper unto us, but common to all such, as allow any revealed Religion; and consequently they are all equally bound to solve it.  
I answer again, that the  Connexion, and Certainty, is at least Moral, (I do not say, that it is not Metaphysical) and such, as to deny, or question it, would be a madness: in the same manner, as it is morally certain, that there have been in the world such men, as Julius Caesar, William the Conqueror, and Henry the Eighth, and that they did such, and such Actions, as are constantly reported by the writers of their Lives, and commonly believed without any hesitation, and whoever should call in question any of These Things, would be looked upon as a Mad man. Wherefore as it would be a madness to say, perhaps, there has never been in the world such a man as William the Conqueror, perhaps he never was in England, perhaps he did not subdue England by his Arms: So in like manner, it would be a folly to affirm, perhaps, there have never been in the world such men, as Christ and his Apostles, perhaps they never preached Christianity, perhaps they never Converted Nations from Paganism to Christianism, perhaps they never did any of Those Miracuous Actions, which are commonly recorded of them, and constantly believed by Christians.  
The same may be applied to several Preachers of Catholic Religion. So, doubtless, it would be a madness to question, whether there has ever been such a man as Saint Francis Xaverius, or whether he ever preached Catholic Religion, or ever converted any people to it, or whether he ever did any of Those stupendious actions, which are commonly related of him, and credited by Catholics. For we have at least as much evidence, or the same kind of evidence, for these latter actions of Christ, his Apostles, and other Apostolical men, as for those former actions of William the Conqueror, Henry the Eighth, or Julius Caesar. Neither were the Miracles of Christ, his Apostles, and other Apostolical men, less palpable to such, as were standers by, and from whom they were handed down to us: nor so hard to God, the principal Agent of them, nor more rare in themselves, than the famous Exploits of William the Conqueror, and others; and consequently they are not less credible.  
Now whoever comes to deny, or question Things morally certain, (which to deny, or question, is a madness) he will come also to deny, or question, Things Metaphysically certain. For, what is there, that a Mad man will not deny, or question? So that, if one will not be Mad, nor Obstiante, Moral Certainty will be enough to convince him. But if one is resolved to be Mad, or Obstinate; neither Physical, nor Metaphysical certainty will suffice. And so we see, that as some have denied, or questioned Things Morally Certain, so others have denied, or questioned Things Physically or Metaphysically certain: For, there is no Madness without a Patron. Nulla fotuitas absque patrono.  
Besides, our Adversaries (sure) will never confess, That it is Morally certain, that whatever the Roman Catholic Religion delivers as an Article of Faith, is True; or that the Mysteries of Transubstantiation, Purgatory, and the like, are as certainly true, as that there has been such a man as Henry the Eighth. Wherefore, it will be enough, if we can bring Sectaries to grant, that all the Mysteries of our Faith are morally certain. Yea, if in this Syllogism (so frequent in Disputes concerning the Resolution of Faith) viz.  
Whatsoever God has revealed, is True, and cannot in any case possible be otherwise.  
But God has revealed the Mysteries of the Incarnation, the Transubstantiation, the Real Presence, and the other Articles of our Faith.  
Ergo, the Mysteries of the Incarnation, and the other Articles of our Faith, are True, and cannot in any case possible be otherwise. If (I say) the Minor of the  Syllogism be granted, or shown to be, at least morally certain, it will be a madness to deny, or question, not only the Truth of the Articles of our Faith; but also their incapacity to be false, in any case imaginable. And what more, than this, can rationally be required, to evidence the Truth of our Faith, and Religion?  
And, to close up the whole Discourse; I am confident, that nothing material can be objected against This Method, which has not been answered: though, perhaps, more compendiously, than some would desire. Whatever else may occur, contrary unto it, any moderate wit will be able to solve.  
FINIS.   

Imprimatur,  
G. Jane R. P. D. HEN. Episc. Lond. à Sac. Dom. March 20. 1676./ 7.