A RATIONAL, Compendious way TO CONVINCE, Without any DISPUTE, All Persons whatsoever, Dissenting from the TRƲE RELIGION.

By J. K.

PSAL. IV. 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 mans life is not sufficient. Yea, even Those, who do profess to be all os the same Religion, are many times so different one from [Page]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 shew him which is the True way: which cannot be done, but by demonstrating unto him the True Religion.

Wherefore I have endeavoured, [Page]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 strayes 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 concern'd 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 [Page] 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.

[Page]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 [Page]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 commenly stiled 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 [Page]accounted Synonima's; and those are held to be most ingenious, who can deny most. If we apply our selves 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 press'd, they flie off, [Page]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 Falshood 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 [Page]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 Ger­man Lutherans, that one Kem­nitius is worth a thousand Au­stins, or (with their grand Pa­triarch Luther) that they do not value a Thousand Cyprians, a Thousand Austins; nay, nor the whole Universal Church, worth a straw. The same may be said of Tradition. For they admit [Page]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, shewing 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.

[Page]If we betake our Selves 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. [Page] 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 meer Figurative sense?

And since Sectaries will not assent to any thing in matters of Religion, asserted by Doctors, Fathers, Tradition, or Coun­cils, further then it is agreeable to Scripture; neither will they assent to Scripture, but as in­terpreted by their own private spirit, it follows manif [...]stly, that the malice of our Aduersaries has rendred all the forementioned Topicks (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 Aduersa­ries, [Page]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 He­resie) 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 it self: 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 intend.

If, finally we retreat to Na­tural Reason, endeavouring thereby to make out the True Re­ligion; [Page]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 Topicks, 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 rendring him­self uncapable of conferring with any rational man. Such is this Principle, SOMETHING IS TRUE, which no Sce­ptique, though never so Extra­vagant, can call in question; [Page]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 falsifie 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 bottom'd 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 [Page]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 Catholique 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 [Page]with plain, and general notions, and devested from all Scholasti­cal questions; which of purpose I have waved: For my perswa­sion 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 Catholick, and no-Catholick, but between Catho­licks and Catholiques: neither do I see what necessity there is, that men should be made Tho­mists, Scotists, or Suarists, be­fore they be made Christians, or Catholiques: or why Those, who [Page] come to our Religion, should not have the same liberty, in or­der to opinions, as Those, who are of our Religion.

It is Easie: For; that one may understand this Method, it is not necessary, that he be vers'd in Fathers, Councils, or Scri­ptures, nor that he has read Books of Controversie, 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 [Page]either Nature, or Education, hath printed in the hearts of all men, to trace out such, as being rallied together, will certainly conveigh one to the True Reli­gion. So that my design is, ra­ther to shew every one, how he may convince himself, than to convince him my self. 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 [Page]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 satis­fie 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 [Page] 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 shew 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 [Page]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 enquire, whether the way they take be right, or not. And let a Thing be never so easie to be met with, [Page]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 then 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 [Page]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 [Page]to say, will cry out Sophistry, So­phistry. But we must not be scar­red with meer words. Let them legally shew, 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, [Page]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 judgment 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 expence have reaped a considerable Fruit, viz. [Page]a Compendious way to satisfie 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 expence 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 Catho­lique) must be either of no Re­ligion; or of a False Religion, as is manifest.

[Page 2]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 Catho­lique Religion; as rigid Prote­stants: or finally, they grant Catholick 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 [Page 3]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 TRƲE. For, if nothing be true, then 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 [Page 4]this be true, then 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 Catholique Religion; and by consequence Free from all Fundamental Errors, and final­ly, [Page 5]if Catholique 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 Catholique Religi­on, or Catholique Faith is taken here, as it comprehends all Those Doctrines, and only Those, which the Catholique 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 Catho­lique Religion and Faith. For all Dissenters imaginable are com­prehended in the forementioned Classes.

[Page 6]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, then 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 mad-man, 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 [Page 7]Things. For one thing is better then 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 [Page 8]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 [Page 9]what is better than it self, 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 [Page 10]optimum, Maximum, certainly he is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and Supreme Governour of the Ʋniverse: 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 [Page 11]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 worshiped 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 [Page 12]manner God will be worship'd 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 worship'd 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 [Page 13]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 worship'd 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 [Page 14]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 [Page 15]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 shew, 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; [Page 16]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 [Page 17]can evidently shew that it has been miraculously propagated, certainly, that must be true, which can evidently shew, 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 [Page 18]was effected with Miracles, or without them. If with them, then 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 diverse severities, as to em­brace [Page 19]crosses, to love our ene­mies, to mortifie 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 Authentick History, and constant Tradition: and should our Adversaries de­ny any of the forementioned circumstances, they may be pro­ved against them out of the same Topicks, and with the same [Page 20]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 Catholique Religion is true. By Catholique Religion I understand Roman Catholique, as will appear by my proofs: and there is no other Catholique 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 [Page 21]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, then Catholique 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 shew the truth of Christianity against [Page 22]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 shew 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 Judaism, Paganism, or Ma­hometism, which we, as Chri­stians, believe to be false Reli­gions: And how can we per­swade our selves, that Christian Religion is true, if we have no better proofs for it, than are for a Religion, which we firm­ly [Page 23]believe to be false? And let's suppose, That our Adversaries chuse the reason above-menti­oned, 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 Ca­tholique Religion. Now, if the truth of Christian Religion be solidly proved, because it was propagated in the manner above insinuated, the Truth also of Catholique Religion is solidly proved by the like propagation. For, the Roman Catholique Re­ligion (as even our Adversaries do confess, who blame her up­on that account) does contain, besides the general principles of [Page 24]Christianity before-mentioned, 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, Consession, Prohi­bition for Priests to Marry, &c.

Moreover, the Roman Ca­tholique Religion, even as con­taining such Doctrines as our Adversaries stile 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, [Page 25]established among them, which preached Liberty and Pleasures, to Christian and Ca­tholique 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 Catho­liques, and preached the Roman Catholique Religion: All which is granted by most of our Ad­versaries; and against such, as shall deny any of the above­mentioned circumstances, they may be made as manifest out of Authentique History, and Tradi­tion, as we, or they, can make manifest against Pagans, the like circumstances, in the propagati­on [Page 26]of Christian Religion: and whatever exception they make against this proof, or others commonly alledged for Catho­lick Religion, was, or might be made by the enemies of Chri­stianity, against the like proofs alledged 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 Catholique Religion in the manner aforesaid, either was done with Miracles, or without them. If with them, then it was miraculously propa­gated, and consequently is true: [Page 27]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 Catholique Re­ligion, as for Christian; if we will proceed rationally, we must be both Catholiques, and Chri­stians; or otherwise we can neither be Christians, nor Ca­tholiques. And therefore I con­clude, that if Christian Religi­on be true, as has been proved, Catholique Religion is true.

VI. If Catholique 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 [Page 28]corruption. For, if Catholique 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 Catholique 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 Catholique Reli­gion does not err against any Fundamental point of Religion, then 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 [Page 29]any Religion, do consess. If Catholique Religion does not err against the fore-mentioned 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 Catholique 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 [Page 30]manifest, according to the una­nimous consent of both Catho­liques, and Protestants, (who blame us upon this account) that the Roman Catholique Re­ligion teaches, as Articles of Faith, Purgatory, Transubstan­tiation, Invocation of Saints, Veneration of Images, Adorati­on of Christ in the Eucharist, Infallibility of the Roman Ca­tholique 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) [Page 31]I prove Transubstantiation to be no error, nor corruption. The Roman Catholique Religion does not teach any thing as an Article of Faith, which is ei­ther an error, or a corruption; as has been shewn; otherwise it would not be a True Religion. But the Roman Catholique 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 Catholique 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 [Page 32]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 [Page 33]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, then 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, [Page 34]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 [Page 35]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, then 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) [Page 36] Christian Religion is true.

Supposing that Christian Re­ligion is true, and that the fore­mentioned reason is solid, as doubtless it is; the proof of Catholique 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, then Ca­tholick Religion is True. There­fore, if Christian Religion be true, because propagated in the manner aforesaid (as beyond Debate it is in the foremention­ed supposition) Catholique Re­ligion is True.

[Page 37]Finally, supposing Catholick Religion to be true, we prov'd, That it does not teach any thing as an Article of Faith, which is not true, in this manner. If Catholique 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 Catholique 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.

[Page 38]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 Catholick 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 Catholick [Page 39]Religion is true. If he denies it, then ask him, whether he grants any revealed Religion to be true? If he grants it, then shew, 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 for­med 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 [Page 40](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 shewn, that the Roman Catholick R [...]ligion is ex­empt from all errors and cor­ruptions whatsoever: which is the drift of this short Discourse.

And since no Body does, or can dissent from the Catholick 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 [Page 41]more can be required to con­vince the judgment of all Dis­senters whatsoever from the True and Catholick Religion, than to prove (as we have done, in the fore-mentioned points) that it does not teach any Thing whatsoever, as an Article of Di­vine Faith, which is either an error, or corruption.

From the fore-mentioned Me­thod we may infer by several consequences, (since one error produces another) that who­ever denies the Catholick Reli­gion to be free from all errors, and corruptions whatsoever, must needs deny himself to be better then a Mad man, or a Fool. For, if Catholick Reli­gion be not free from all errors [Page 42]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 no 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 [Page 43]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 Catholick 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 recal the er­ror, from which such vast ab­surdities are deduced; and o­penly confess, that the Catho­lique 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 [Page 44]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 shew the Truth of any Point, delivered by the Roman Catholique 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 easie and suitable to Humane understand­ing. For the Catholick 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 Catholick Religion is) to father upon God any thing that [Page 45]that is not true, speculative or practical, little or great, hard or easie; and to teach a Thing as an Article of Faith, is to father it upon God. And though Ca­tholicks be commanded many Things by their Ecclesiastical Superiours, (as Fasting upon Fridays, annual Confession, and such like) which are no Articles of Faith; yet 'tis an Article of Catholique Faith, that we are bound to obey our lawful Su­periours, whether Ecclesiastical or Civil.

And as concerning the hard­ness of some Mysteries, taught by the Roman Catholick 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, [Page 46]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, then 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 Catholick Re­ligion does contain, the more miraculous is the propagation thereof. For easie Things are [Page 47]believed with ease; but hard Things are not believed with­out great difficulty: And the more miraculous the propagati­on of the Roman Catholick 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 Catho­lick Religion is, not only a True Religion, but the true Religion; and that the Roman Catholick 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 [Page 48]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 [Page 49]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 [Page 50]be so, are the True Word, and Revelation of God. So that one would be an Heretick, 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 Kings Hand and Seal; so that Religion cannot be true, which Counterfeits Gods Word, delivering (in order to autho­rize any Thing whatsoever) Things as revealed by him, which he never revealed. Fi­nally, that whatsoever the Ro­man Catholick 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 [Page 51]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, then 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 shewn that the Roman Catholick 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, [Page 52]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 Catholick Re­ligion does not err against any [Page 53] Fundamental point, precisely be­cause it holds all the Fundamen­tal points of the True Religi­on. For a Religion may con­tradict it self, 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 it self, 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 [Page 54]is related of St. John Baptist, [Joan. 1.30] Confessus est, & non negavit: He confest, 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, [Page 55]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 Catholick Religion can­not [Page 56]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 shewed, 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 Controver­sie [Page 57]by it self, 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 easie to know, what Doctrines are delivered by the Roman Catholick 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 [Page 58]that Church, or out of the Au­thentick Catechisms, or Pro­fessions of Faith, used among Catholicks; or finally out of the unanimous consent of Ca­tholick Doctors: and if there be a Debate among Catholick Writers, whether such a Do­ctrine be delivered by the Ro­man Catholick 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 Ca­tholicks and no Catholicks is not, whether such Doctrines be Articles of the Catholick Faith, or not, but whether they be errors or truths. Now, if one knows, what Doctrines are de­livered by the Catholick Church, as Articles of Faith, [Page 59]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 Catholick 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 Catho­lick 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 Catholick) as an Article of Faith.

[Page 60]Moreover, if one knows; what other Propositions do ne­cessarily infer any Formal He­tesie, he knows also, what Pro­positions are virtual Heresies. For a'l virtual Heresie must ne­cessarily infer a Formal Heresie. And because the Roman Catho­lick Church is, not only now the True Church, but will be till the worlds 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 [Page 61]by the Catholick 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 Catholick Church, or any Doctrine delivered by it as an Article of Faith; shewing 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 Catho­lick 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 [Page 62]principle of Logick, 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 per­swaded, 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 [Page 63]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 shew 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, [Page 64]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 Catholick Religion; as there may be ma­ny reasons, and all of them ve­ry good, to prove the same Truth: yet it is easie 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 shews us, that there is [Page 65] 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 Catholick 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, [Page 66]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 Alchoran, 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 [Page 67]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. cont. 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; [Page 68]and then we may set upon him, according to the Method above-mentioned.

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, alledged out of Scri­pture, (the same is of places alledged 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 [Page 69]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 Heretick. His intention there­fore is to appeal to the private Spirit of such as are of the True Religion: and we cannot be ascertain [...]d, 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 [Page 70]then we may attack him after our own way: asking him, whether he grants the Roman Catholick Religion to be a true Religion? if he grants it, we may shew, according to what we hinted above, That the Roman Catholick Religion is the true Religion; and if so, that to her appertains the judg­ment of Controversie, 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.

[Page 71]And here I cannot but reflect upon the unreasonableness of our Adversaries, who will tie us to certain Topicks, without giving us leave to make use of others, of no less force. Some will have us shew 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 shew 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, [Page 72]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 hearkening either to Councils, or Fathers, or any other Topicks, 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. [Page 73]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 [Page 74]by Scripture, we profess, that we are not unwilling to be tried by it. But then it must be with These Conditions; which no 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 loth 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, [Page 75] 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 [Page 76]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, our selves, and our Neighbour, which Nature has printed in the hearts of men; and are usually stiled The Law of Nature. Such are these Prin­ciples. Do as you would be done by. Worship God. Honour your [Page 77]Parents. Obey your Superiours. Fly Evil. Do Good, and such like. Natural Religion also does inform us concerning seve­ral Attributes of God, as that he is Supreme Governour of the Ʋniverse, 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 [Page 78]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 [Page 79]be obeyed; or he may assign others to determine them: and though it be Free for God to chuse 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 Governour 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 [Page 80]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 defi [...]iency 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, [Page 81]should be deficient from being the Best in any kind, we con­clude, that God is free from all imperfections whatsoever: and if so, then 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 [Page 82]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: [Page 83]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 [Page 84]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 [Page 85]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.

[Page 86]Others, who have never re­flected, why they are Christi­stians, 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 satisfie 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 [Page 87] 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 Messias.

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 [Page 88]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 Catholick: So that with Truth we may say, No Catholique, No Christian.

Wherefore my main Task in this work, is, to shew, that what proofs are alledged for Christian [Page 89]Religion, may be alledged for Catholick Religion; and by con­sequence that we have the same inducements to be Catholicks, as to be Christians; and that what Objections are made a­gainst Catholick 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 Catholicks. 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 Catholick Religion. For in the like manner they might say, That we ought not to urge Sectaries out of Scri­pture (or any other Principle [Page 88] [...] [Page 89] [...] [Page 90]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 worlds 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 Vir­tuosi, or the Wits of the Nation, that deny all matters of Fact, [Page 91]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; [Page 92]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 perswasion we have, that the First Inventers, and Masters of Languages, intended, that by [Page 93]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 intend, 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 Superiour, unless he believe, that he seri­ously intends what he com­mands; [Page 94]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 [Page 95]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 per­swade our selves, that we ought to believe nothing above [Page 96]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: [Page 97]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 Virtuosi) viz. Such a Mystery is above the reach of Natural Reason; Therefore [Page 98]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 perswaded, that such men have been commissi­oned by God to preach a Re­ligion; and we engage to evince, [Page 99]That such Marks did concur in Christ, and his Apostles, and se­veral other Preachers of Chri­stian, and Catholick Religion; with this Advertisement, that they cannot rationally require a greater evidence of Gods commands, to think themselves bound to obey them, than of the Kings 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.

[Page 100]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 [Page 101]by our selves to a Master to be taught by him, why can we not learn by our selves, 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. Mistris of what we are to be­lieve, [Page 102]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 [Page 103]being bound to submit to the Sentence of any living Judge, constituted by the Supreme Governour: 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 [Page 104]the help of any Expositor, or living Judge, manifestly un­derstand whatsoever is necessary to be believ'd, 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 perswaded 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. [Page 105]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 [Page 106]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 [Page 107]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 [Page 108]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 it self, 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 [Page 109]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 [Page 110]employment of their Pastours; 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 it self 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 perswaded, that the voice of the Church is clearer in such points, than Scripture. For no Body can in prudence [Page 111]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 shew of probability, object against us a [Page 112] vicious Circle, wherewith they pretend to puzzle many Ca­tholick Writers; as if they did prove the Scripture by the Church, and the Church by the Scripture. For though we shew the Truth of Scri­pture, and all other Articles of the Roman Faith by the Truth of the Roman Church, yet we shew 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 shews, That the Roman Catholick Religion [Page 113]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 perswade our selves, that the Roman Catholick 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 [Page 114]avoid Scholastick Nicities, I answer (supposing, that such as propose this Question, do profess themselves Christians) that the Connexion between the Inducements we have to be Catholicks, and the Truth of Catholick 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 Catholick Church, and the particular Tenets there­of, [Page 115]as concerning the Truth of Christian Religion, and the general Tenets of Christianity: and the same question may be proposed to any professour of Christianity; yea, to the pro­fessours 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 fore-mentioned 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 [Page 116]manner, as it is morally cer­tain, that there have been in the world such men, as Ju­lius Caesar, William the Con­querour, 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 look'd 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 Conquerour, per­haps he never was in England, perhaps he did not subdue Eng­land by his Arms: So in like [Page 117]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 Catholick 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 Catholick Reli­gion, [Page 118]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 Catholicks. 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 Con­querour, 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 [Page 119]Agent of them, nor more rare in themselves, than the famous Exploits of William the Con­querour, 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 [Page 120] 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 Catho­lick Religion delivers as an Article of Faith, is [Page 121]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 [Page 122]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. [Page 123]If (I say) the Minor of the fore-mentioned Syl­logism be granted, or shewn 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 [Page 124]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.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.