Dr. STILLINGFLEETS PRINCIPLES OF PROTESTANCY Cleared, Confuted, and Retorted. AND THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE ROMAN-CATHOLIC CHURCH Asserted; And that the same Church alone is the whole CATHOLIC CHURCH.  
IN A Letter from a Catholic Gentleman to a Protestant Knight.  
Printed in the Year, 1673.   

THE PUBLISHER TO THE READER.  
NOtwithstanding the Multiplicity of Learned and solid Answers to Dr. Stillingfleets Principles of Christianity, I thought fit also to publish this Short and Substantial Piece (though neglected by the Author) as more particularly suited for men endowed with strength of Reason and Judgement, yet not much versed in Book-Learning.   


SIR,  
ACcording to your desire, I have perused Dr. Stillingfleet's Discourse of Idolatry and his Principles of Protestancy; To deliver my Opinion of either, seemeth to be superfluous, it being credible both are answered in England ere now. But because you press me to it, and the Answer may be as long expected here, as the Book hath been, I will venture to give my Judgement of Dr. Stillingfleet; and do confess ingeniously, that of all Protestant Writers I ever read, I take him to be not only the wittiest, but the wisest; especially where he rallies and endeavours to make the Roman Religion, ridiculous. For to imagine that rational men can be moved by serious Discourses, to believe, that God would send Martin Luther, John Calvin, Martin Bucer, Thomas Cranmer, etc. to reform Christianity (their lives having been so scandalous and un-christianlike) or that he would oblige the world to credit such vicious men, without showing any Credentials, or Miracles, to confirm their Testimony, and new sense of Scripture; is to make God take a new and unreasonable Method. Therefore Dr. Stillingfleet had very good Reasons not to insist upon this old and ordinary way of his Protestant Controversers; he fixed upon a better for his own purpose, which is, to rail at the Saints, and rally us out of their Religion and Miracles. But notwithstanding the judicious choice of his new Method, I humbly conceive he hath overshot himself by aiming so high, and letting his arrows fly against so ancient a Patriarch as St. Bennet, of whose supernatural gifts and Miracles, never any one doubted that believed so authentic an Author and Doctor of God's Church as 
* Bishop Godwin in his Catalogue of Bishops, etc. p. 3. saith, That blessed and holy Father, S. Gregory was the occasion of Re-planting the Christian Faith in our Country. The same saith D. Whitaker contra Durcum, lib. 5. p. 394. M. Bell in his Survey of Popery, p. 187. termeth him, S. Gregory surnamed the Great, the holy and Learned Bishop of Rome. D. Humphrey in his ●esuatism, par. 2. pag. 624. saith. Gregory both in Name, and in very Deed Great, was ind●ed with many Gifts of divine grace. S. Isidore de Script. Ecclesiast. c. 27. saith, Gregory Bishop of the Apostolic See of Rome, etc. was by the grace of the holy Ghost so greatly endued with light of knowledge, as no Doctor of this present Age or in tim●s p●●t was equal to him. S. John Damasken speaking of his Dialogues, and the life of S. Bennet, which S. Gregory writ, saith, Let Gregory that wrote the Book of Dialogues, Bishop of the elder Rome, be brought forth, a man as all know, that was renowned both for holiness of life and learning, etc.  St. Gregory the Great, who writ his Life; And truly Dr. Stillingfleet is the first Protestant Doctor I heard of did except against St. Gregory's sincerity or sufficiency in relating matters of fact or faith. He might think fit to make bold with S. Ignatius because he was Founder of the Jesuits with St. Dominick also because he invented the Inquisition; But to think that his Raillery could reach to discredit the Miracles and Sanctity of S. Bennet, and the Testimony of S. Gregory the Great is an unpardonable Crime. And yet D. Stillingfleets Friends (and his Enemies) may excuse the heinousness of this Crime, by the impossibility of Defending his Cause, otherwise then by facing us down, that all the Roman-Catholick Prelates and Preachers since the Primitive times, were either so witless, as to be seduced by foolish Saints and feigned Miracles; or so wicked, as to conspire (against Gods known Worship and plain Word) to damn themselves and posterity. And withal, were so obstinate in adhering to the Errors of Popery, that in whatsoever Age any Preachers began to reform that Doctrine, they were suddenly cried down and condemned as notorious Heretics, by the Prelates and Councils of the then visible Church. But leaving this to the Answerers of D. Stillingfleets Book, I will pass to his Principles.   

Dr. Stillingfleets PRINCIPLES Cleared, Confuted, and Retorted.  
Of his Six Principles pretended to be agreed upon on both Sides.  

TO his three first Principles I have nothing to say.   

D. Stillingfleets Fourth Principle is.  
That in order to man's obeying the Will of God, it is necessary that he Know what it is, for which some manifestation of the Will of God is necessary both that man may know what he hath to do, and that God may justly punish him if he do it not.  
Principle V.  
Whatever God reveals to man, is infallibly true, and being intended for the Rule of man's Obedience, may be certainly known to be his Will.  
HIs Fourth Principle must be examined before any Christian can agree with him in it: If he means that in order to man's obeying the Will of God, it is necessary that he know what it is, with clear or undeniable Evidence the Principle is false; it is sufficient that he knows what Gods Will is, by Credible Testimony, or public authority, though the infallible certainty thereof doth not clearly appear. So children are bound under pain of damnation to honour their Parents, and Subjects to obey their Sovereigns, though no infallible certainty appeareth that they are their Parents, or Sovereigns. In like manner though no undeniable certainty appears to us that God speaketh or declareth his Will by Scripture, or by his Church, yet we are bound under pain of damnation to believe, that what is proposed and commanded by them, is the Word and Will of God, and accordingly we aught to obey.  
The reason of this assertion is, that man's understanding being imperfect, its assent is more frequently directed by outward signs to the truth, than by any immediate sight of the same. And therefore, even in things of greatest concern, we are accustomed (and indeed for want of better evidence, forced) to rely upon the Tradition, Testimony, and Information of others; and thereupon to ground our judicial decrees, and Sentences both in Church and State. This Custom being agreeable to reason and the Law of nature, it cannot be against either to conform ourselves thereunto in supernatural Mysteries, or matters of Faith; seeing we understand less of these than of any others; Therefore not only the Fourth Principle, but the Fifth also which Dr. Stillingfleet pretends to be agreed unto on both sides, are false, inasmuch as they suppose that a clear and certain knowledge of God's Revelation and Will is necessary for believing the one and obeying the other.  
Besides, it is a prerogative due to Superiors, not to be obliged to signify their will and pleasure to their Subjects by themselves immediately, but may and do appoint their subordinate Officers to publish and proclaim their commands, either by word of mouth or writing And though Dr. Stillingfleet (in his seventh Principle) seems to grant, God ought to enjoy this Prerogative, yet (if he proceeds consequently) he must deny it, seeing there can be no clear undeniable certainty of Gods revealing or commanding, when he trusts his Revelations and Commands to the proposal and Ministry of others, though confirmed by such Miracles as Christ himself and his Apostles wrought; because such Miracles do not clearly demonstrate that themselves are supernatural (as is manifest by the obstinate lews, who artributed them to Beelzebub) or that the Doctrine confirmeed by them, is Divine; or that the words uttered or written by men, is the Word of God. If therefore a clear certainty or Demonstrative Evidence of Gods Will and Revelation be requisite for Christian Obedience and belief, we deprive God of that Prerogative which is inseparable from Sovereigns, and consists in the Obligation of their Subjects to believe and obey them, when they speak and command by subordinate Officers, though these show no clear or undeniable evidence for their office; some signs Gods Ministers must show as Seals of their Commission, which may create (even in the most serupulous) a moral certainty of Divine Truth and Trust reposed in them; but no such undeniable evidence of Gods revealing and commanding by them as D. Stillingfleet and all Protestants are forced to exact, by not contenting themselves with that moral certainty and evidence of supernatural signs which is visible in the Roman-Catholick Church.  
And truly by exacting greater evidence of God's Revelations then appears by the signs of the Roman-Catholick Church, Dr. Stillingfleet destroys all Religion, and the nature of Christian Faith, which according to S. Paul, Heb. 11. involves obscurity, or the Not-appearance of the Truth of Mysteries believed: And reason, dictates that belief or faith, being by its own nature and primitive notion but an imperfect sight, whereby we make a shift to supply the want of clearer knowledge, to make it compatible with a clearer certainty of the truth believed, or with more than a moral evidence of God's Revelation (which is certainly and clearly connected with the truth believed, because it cannot deceive, nor be deceived) is to maintain, that we want, and do not want that clearness of knowledge whereof Faith doth suppose us defective, and supplieth the defect: These Premises being thus proved, there can be no difficulty in discovering the fraud and falsehood of D. Stillingfleets Principles and Conclusions; and therefore granting his sixth, last, and common Principle, I will proceed to his particular Propositions, mentioning only such as I do impugn.    

Dr. Stillingfleets Faith of Protestants reduced to Principles, is False;  
The Roman-Catholick Faith Resolved into the Inconsistency of its Falsehood with God's Veracity.  

Proposition IU.  
Nothing ought to be admitted for Divine Revelation, which overthrows the certainty of those Principles which must be antecedently supposed to all Divine Revelation, for that were to overthrow the m●ans whereby we are to judge concerning the truth of any Divine Revelation.  
Proposition V.  
There can be no other means imagined whereby we are to judge of the truth of Divine Revelation, but a faculty in us of discerning truth and falsehood in matters proposed to our belief, which if we do not exercise in judging the truth of Divine Revelation, we must be imposed upon by every thing which pretends to be so.  
Proposition VI.  
The pretence of Infallibility in any person or society of men must be judged in the same way that the truth of Divine Revelation is etc.  
DR. Stillingfleets first and second Proposition may pass, and his third also, if the word certain be rightly understood; but his Fourth Proposition, if therein he supposeth that every one is to be judge concerning the truth of Divine Revelation, is false; as also the Fifth, wherein he makes our humane Understanding a sufficient faculty, nay, the only means of discerning the truth and falsehood in matters proposed to our belief, and of Divine Revelations. For, the Objects of Divine Revelation are frequently Mysteries so sublime, that they far exceed all humane or natural capacity: how therefore can their truth or falsehood be judged of by natural reason, above its own reach? And as for the Divine Revelation itself, all Divines grant its Existence (and by consequence its truth) cannot be known by natural reason, and therefore say, that albeit you may prove the Existence of God by natural reason, yet you cannot by the same faculty prove the Existence of any one of his Revelations, because these, taking their denomination from the exercise of God's liberty, are no subject for humane demonstration, or concluding discourses, unlets you will confine God's free choice to one of those many contrary Decrees he might have fixed upon, ab aeterno. But of this Subject more in the Confutation of his sixth Conclusion.  
To make every man's private judgement the touchstone of what is Divine Revelation, for fear (forsooth) of being imposed upon by every thing which pretends to be so, is to take too much upon ourselves, and savours more of the private Spirit, then of that pious affection and profound submission, wherewith St. Paul bids us captivate our understandings to the obedience of faith. But surely Dr. Stillingfleet doth not consider what ill use himself makes of his discerning faculty, when he judges that the Protestant Reformation is Divine Revelation; let him reflect upon the incredibility of Gods permitting his Church to lurk in deserts, or to lie in Errors from the Primitive times until Martin Luther's appearance, Anno 1517. he will find there is very little judgement exercised in giving that man, or any of his Comrades so much credit, as to forsake the sense of Scripture, which the Church. Then, and for many preceding Ages held, for new fancies and inventions of Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, and other debauched Priests and Friars, without any other warrant for so great an undertaking but their own word, impudently pretending that they were sent and inspired by God to plant a Doctrine suitable enough to the lewdness of their own lives, and confessedly 
* Luther tom. 5. Witenb. in Galat. c. 1. fol. 290. & in Coll q. Mensal. fol. 273. & tom. 7. Witenb. An. 1558. in lic. de missa privata, fol. 443.228. saith, Dost thou O sole man take upon thee so great matters? What if thou being but one, offendert? If God permit so many, and all to err, why may he not permit thee to err? Hitherto appertain those Arguments, the Church, the Church, the Fathers, the Fathers, the Councils, the Customs, the multitudes and greatness of wise men, whom do not those clouds and doubts, yea, these seas of examples overwhelm?  contrary to the sense and practice of the greatest Doctors and Saints of God's Church. A man that can believe this, may be credulous enough to think he can persuade the world to look upon all Miracles as mistakes and upon the Saints that wrought them as fools and fanatics. But if Dr. Stillingfleet will secure him elf and all Protestants from impostures, let him inquire into the motives and Miracles which induce us to believe that the Roman-Catholick Church is infallibly assisted by God in delivering and interpreting his Word, and Revelations.  
He will not then presume to make every man's private Judgement (according to his 5. and 6. Proposition) the only balance of so weighty an affair, neither will he prefer his own particular opinion before the public Testimony and constant Tradition of Christendom for many Ages, especially if he will examine whether God's Veracity, Goodness and Providence be consistent with permitting fraud or falsehood in that Doctrine which a Church (in all appearance) miraculous, and supernaturally qualified, proposeth as divine: Whether the Miracles of the Roman-Catholick Church be true or false, we dispute not at present, but only aver, that seeing so many 
* See S. Aug. de Civit. Dei lib. 22. c. 8. where amongst other Miracles he telleth, how that in the presence of him and others, a devout woman called Palladia, was suddenly cured by praying to St. Stephen, and at his Monument his words are, Ad sanctum Martyem crare periexerat, quae mox ut cancellos attigit, sana surrexit. S. Malachias Miracles you may see in his life written by S. Bernard, who says, in what kind of old Miracles did not Malachias excel? he wanted not Prophecy, not Revelation, not the gift of healing; and to conclude, not raising of the dead; and relates them particularly, as also how himself assisting at Malachias his death, got his blessing; and after he expired, took his hand, and laying it on the withered and useless hand of a boy then present, he was restored to perfect health; because in the dead Saint saith S. Bernard, lived the grace of curing diseases. All these and other more ancient and modern Miracles (as those of S. Bernard himself) are by the Century Writers, Ostander, and most Protestant Authors, said to be cheats, delusions, or enchantments, See Ostander for one, in Epit. cent. 12. pag. 310. Partim permissione Dei praestigiis Satanicis effecta existimo; not, saith he, that I think S. Bernard was a Magician, but it is likely Satan wrought such Miracles to confirm Idolatry, and the worship of Saints, etc. See S. Xamir his Miracles wrought to convert the Indians and Japonians to Popery, himself being a Jesuit.  wise and wary men in every Age for at least a 1000 years, and after a severe Scrutiny and serious study, have judged our most authentic Miracles true, if all these men should be mistaken, none can be condemned for following their judgement; And all prudent and learned men must confess it is a mystery not intelligible, how the infinite Veracity of God can be infinitely averse from fraud and falsehood, if he permits both the one and the other to be countenanced and promoted by apparent Miracles, so plausibly fathered upon the Divine Omnipotency, that such as pretend them to be counterfeit, cannot discover the fraud nor disprove the fact; nor find out any natural cause to work such prodigious effects; and therefore are forced (im●●●ting the obstinate Jews) to attribute them to the power of Beelzebub, or to the craft of those very Monks which (they would have the world believe, were madmen; and yet now make them so witty, as to contrive the cheat so cunningly, and to counterfeit supernatural Miracles so naturally, that our Protestant Adversaries have been hitherto as unsuccessful in discovering any fallacy in them (I mean still those which moved the Popes to canonize Saints) as the first Reformers Luther and Calvin were unfortunate in being convicted of Folly and Forgery in imitating them, when the one attempted to cast out the devil in Germany, and the other to revive the dead in Geneva.   

Proposition XIV.  
To suppose the Books so written to be imperfect, i. e. that any things necessary to be believed or practised are not contained in them, is either to charge the first Author of them with fraud, and not delivering his whole mind; or the Writers with insincerity in not setting down, and the whole Christian Church of the first ages with folly in believing the fullness and perfection of the Scriptures, in order to salvation.  
Proposition XV.  
These Writings being owned as containing in them the whole Will of God, so plainly revealed, that no sober Enquirer can miss of what is necessary for salvation, there can be no necessity supposed of any infallible Society of men either to attest or explain these Writings, etc.  
Proposition XVI.  
There can be no more intolerable usurpation upon the faith of Christians, then for any person or Society of men to pretend to an assistance as infallible in what they propose as was in Christ or his Apostles, without giving any equal degree of evidence that they are so assisted, as Christ and his Apostles did, viz. by Miracles as great, public and convincing as theirs were, by which, I mean, such as are wrought by these very persons who challenge this Infallibility, and with a design for the conviction of those who do not believe it.  
The 7.8.9.10.11.12. and 13. Propositions, and but so many Prefaces to induce us to believe the 14. which says, that if all things necessary to be believed or practised, are not contained in the Holy Scriptures of the New and Old Testament, it followeth that God was fraudulent in not delivering his whole mind, or that the Writers were insincere in not setting it down, and the whole Christian Church of the first ages, fools, for believing the fullness and perfection of the Scriptures, in order to Salvation. These consequences suppose (but 'tis not proved) that God promised or decreed to deliver his whole mind so plainly in the Scriptures concerning all things necessary for Salvation, that every one may easily understand his meaning, and that the Primitive Church believed so: But this agreeth not with the Records of Antiquity, nor with the words of S. Peter, 2 Pet. 3.16. saying, that in S. Paul's Epistles there were some things hard to be understood, and easily wrefted by men to their damnation: And is further demonstrated to be false, by the continual contestations of Protestants against the Roman-Catholick sense of Scripture about Image-worship (whether it be prohibited in the Second Commandment) and many other Controversies, as the Real Presence, etc. For if Scripture (or God's meaning therein) were as plain as is pretended in the 15. Proposition, conscientious, sober and learned men could not differ so irreconcilably in the true sense thereof. Wherefore nothing is more clear to men in Scripture, than that Scripture is not clear, and that God did not intent it for the only Rule of Salvation; and by consequence, that it is not repugnant to the wisdom and goodness of God, not to set down all his will in writing in the Law of grace, or not agreeable to the same, that God make men insallible in writing so much of his will as is contained in Scripture (or even all that is necessary for Salvation;) though that writing be not clear to every sincere and sober person, 'tis sufficient it may be explained to every man by the Doctors and Pastors of the Church; according to that of Deut. 17.8. Thou shalt go to the Priests to inquire, and they shall show thee. Deut. 33.10. They shall teach thy Law. Neh. 8.8. They caused the people to understand the Law. And Mat. 23.2. They sat in Moses chair, all things therefore, etc. which last Text doth not agree with the Proposition, saying, that for some ages before Christ there was no body infallible among the Jews, to attest or explain to them the Writings of Moses, or the Prophets. As for the Testimonies of the New Testament, see Mat. 7.24. and 13.19. and 24.14.16. and 28.19. and Mark 16.15. and Matth. 18.17. etc.  
But Dr. Stillingfleet will demonstrate by his 16. Proposition, That the Roman-Catholick Church is intolerable by its pretending to God's infallible assistance in proposing matters of faith. And why so? Because forsooth every Preacher of that Church doth not work as great Miracles as Christ and his Apostles. Doth every Protestant Preacher work such Miracles? Did you Dr. Stillingfleet? Did any of your Church, or Reformation, ever work a Miracle? If not, why do you expect or exact that any should believe your Reformation, or that your Church is assisted by the holy Ghost? If all rational persons must grant, that Miracles are necessary to plant any new Doctrine pretended to be divine, how much more necessary must they be to reverse the old, and reject Doctrine held for many ages as Divine and confirmed as such by so many Prodigies, against whose supernaturality our adversaries have no other Arguments than their own arbitrary Interpretations of Scripture, and those things which the Jews objected against the Doctrine and Miracles of Christ and his Apostles? This much we may at least exact and expect from Dr Stillingfleet, that he will either confess the truth of our Doctrine and Miracles, or confute them by some better reason than by a bare supposition, that they are against Scripture; or by rashly averring they are but tricks of covetous Monks and crafty 
* Dr Field in his Treatise of the Church, lib. 3. cap. 48.  Jesuits. Other Protestant Writers confess ingeniously that our Massing Priests and Jesuits have wrought many true Miracles in the Indies, Japan, Congo, and China, converting those Nations to Popery. And Mr. Hartwell 
‖ M. Abraham Hartwell in his Report of the Kingdom of Congo, edit. An. 1597. in his Epistle to the Reader. Simon Lythus in Respons. altera ad alteram. Gretseri Apol. pag. 331. Daneus contra Bellar. pag. 781.  speaking of the Conversion of the Kingdom of Congo, saith, Shall this Action, which tendeth to the Glory of God, be concealed, and not committed to memory, because it was performed by Popish Priests, and Popish means? God forbidden.  
If Dr. Stillingfleet thinks that his Church, or the Reformation by not pretending to Miracles, or Infallibility in proposing matters of Faith, be a more certain and safe Guide to Salvation, than the Roman-Catholick Church, that with undeniable moral evidence pretends to both, few considering and conscientious persons will be of his opinion; it being a clear principle in Moral Theology, That in matters of Eternity we are bound to choose the surest way; and no prudent man will deny, but that it is a surer way to Heaven, to be directed by a Guide that pretends to be certain of that way, and produceth moral evidence for that certainty, then to follow a guide that plainly confesseth his own uncertainty of the way, and hath nothing to say against the moral evidence and assurance of the other, but railing Raillery, or turning to Ridicule such forged and incredible Miracles as we ourselves discover, and punish.  
To conclude, it is not necessary that every particular Doctor or Preacher of the Faith, show or work a Miracle, 'tis sufficient that any one of that Faith do it, or did it, to prove the Faith and Infallibility of the Roman Church: If this be credibly reported to the dissenters, they are bound to believe it and become Roman Catholics. Herod never did see any of Christ or the Apostles Miracles, at least many of the Jews did not, and yet they who heard them credibly reported, were obliged under pain of damnation to believe the Christian doctrine, because they were credibly informed that it was confirmed by Miracles; So that it is a rash mistake to maintain, that no Protestant is bound to submit to the Authority and Doctrine of the Roman-Catholick Church, unless he be convinced first by seeing a Miracle; Such things as are owned to be Miracles by our Church, are so well examined, and so authentically proved, that any one may prudently believe them; for though perhaps none now living did see them, yet many credible persons that lived when they were wrought, did see them, and we may rely upon their sight and search with as much Reason and more Religion, then upon our own, according to Christ's saying to S. Thomas, Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet believed.   

Proposition XVII.  
Nothing is more absurd then to pretend the necessity of such an infallible Commission and assistance to assure us of the truth of these Writings, and to interpret them, and at the same time to prove that Commission from those Writings from which we are told nothing can be certainly deduced, such an assistance not being supposed; or to pretend that Infallibility in a body of men, is not as liable to doubts and disputes as in those Books from whence only they derive their Infallibility.  
The 17. Proposition is a gross or wilful mistake of the Roman-Catholick Doctrine; We do not ground the Infallibility of the Church upon the words of Scripture which assert it, but upon an impossibility or incredibility, that God would permit such a Church as the Roman-Catholick, qualified with so many seeming supernatural signs of his favour and seals of his Divine Commission, as our Miracles, Sanctity. Conversion of Nations to Christianity, etc. upon an Impossibility: I say, that God would permit a Church so apparently qualified with supernatural Marks of Divine 
* See Father Thomas barton's Treatise of Religion and Government, edit. 1670. where he cleareth this point, as also the obscurity of Christian faith.  Authority, to lead men into any error, when it pretends to propose and declare God's Revelation; This we say is not compatible with God's Veracity, or with his infinite sincerity or inclination to truth, and averseness from falsehood, whether in fundamental, or not fundamental points of faith. For, even amongst men he that is very sincere, or much inclined to truth, and averse from falsehood, will not permit any one (if he can help it) to abuse his name or authority by counterfeiting his Commissions or Seals, much less can it be imagined by any sober person that God who is sincerity and truth itself, would permit (he being omnipotent) the Roman-Catholick Church to abuse his sacred Name and assume his authority by counterfeit Seals, or false Miracles, and thereby to seduce the world for so many ages as that Church hath been prudently taken to be the sole true Church of God. So that you must grant 1. The Roman-Catholick Miracles (approved of in the Bulls of Canonization of Saints) to be true, and by consequence itself to be infallibly assisted by God, independently of, and antecedently to any words of Scripture; and if the Miracles be true, there can be no dispute of the Truth of its Doctrine, or of the authenticness of its Commission. 2. You must grant, that if its Miracles were false, there could be no proof or faith of God's Veracity, this being inconsistent with the permission of a cheat so apparently supernatural. We resolve therefore Christian and Catholic Faith into this Assertion or Assent and Assurance; God's Veracity being Infinite, I do most firmly and undoubtedly believe, that God will never permit any falsehood to be proposed as his Word or Revelation, with such appearance of Miracles, and such signs of his approbation, as the Roman-Catholick Church proposeth its Doctrine and Infallibility: And therefore whatsoever the same Church doth propose as God's Word or Revelation, I do most firmly and undoubtedly believe as the real Word and Revelation of God. To this universal Assent or Assertion are reduced all the particular Assents or Articles of Catholic Faith, without any kind of that circle which Schoolmen so much dread in the resolution of faith: Neither is there any circle in proving the evident credibility of the Roman-Catholick Church by its Miracles, and the truth of its Miracles by the approbation of the same Church. 1. Because we prove the Credibility of the Church by the sole moral appearance that our Miracles are Divine, before they are believed to be Divine by supernatural faith. 2. Because both the truth of our Miracles, and the Infallibility of our Church are proved by the Infiniteness of God's Veracity, which is not consistent with a permission of our Miracles being false, or of our Church being fallible, as hath been hitherto declared.  
As to the Second part of the 17. Proposition, it's manifest to common sense, that doubts and disputes are with more ease and clearness resolved by an infallible body of men, then by an obscure (though infallible) Writing: Men may hear, and answer difficulties and doubts, a Book (even the Bible) cannot, because we prove it is obscure (even after all conferences of texts, and Examinations of the able Scripturists) by reason of the differences in opinion concerning the true sense thereof.  
The 18. Proposition is grounded upon the falsehood of the 17. and therefore needeth no other confutation; but as to what it says, God had promised to particular men who endeavour to understand Scripture, that either they shall not err, or if they shall, they shall not be damned for it, is but a fancy of Dr. Stillingfleet, without any proof or colour of truth, and contrary to Christ's commands of hearing and obeying the Church.  
The 19 Proposition contains only a false supposition confuted in the 17. and an inclination in D. Stillingfleet to the private spirit, against the public Testimony of the Church.   

Proposition XX.  
No man's faith can therefore be infallible, merely because the Proponent is said to be infallible, because the nature of Assent doth not depend upon the objective infallibility of any thing without us, but is agreeable to the evidence we have of it in our minds; for Assent is not built on the nature of things, but their evidence to us.  
The 20. Proposition wants explanation: There are two sorts of Assent, one is grounded upon clear evidence of the truth assented unto, and is an intellectual sight thereof, the other is grounded upon authority, that is, upon the Author or Speakers Veracity or Inclination to truth: The first kind of assent is agreeable, and bears proportion with the evidence we have of it in our minds, and is infallible if the evidence be clear, as it is in some undeniable principles, and in their immediate Conclusions: But the assent built upon authority (which is Faith) dependeth in its Infallibility upon the infallibility of the Infallible Author or Proponent apprehended to be so by us and this independently of any Evidence we have of the truth or nature of things without us; and therefore this 20. Proposition is absolutely false.   

Proposition XXI.  
It is therefore necessary in order to an Infallible Assent, that every particular person be infallibly assisted in judging of the matter proposed to him to be believed, so that the ground on which a necessity of some external infallible Proponent is asserted must rather make every particular Person infallible, if no divine faith can be without an infallible Assent, and so renders any other infallible useless.  
The 21. Proposition is also false, it being only a consequence from the former. A fallible person may give an infallible assent in matters of faith, because the truth and assurance of such an Assent is not to be measured by any inward evidence the Assenter hath of the matter of Mystery believed; but (supposing the outward appearance of the supernatural signs of the Church) by the grace that God gives to assure us, that himself is the Author of the Doctrine so proposed: And though the appearance of the signs of the Church exceeds not a moral certainty of God being the Author of the Church's Doctrine, yet our assurance of that same truth is more than moral, because we build not the assurance and certainty of our Catholic faith, or of the Infallibility of the Church, upon those motives of eredibility, and the outward appearance of their connexion with the Truth, but upon God's Veracity, Goodness, and his averseness from any falsehood; which is so great, that we do as firmly believe he will no more permit a Church so likely to be his, as the Roman-Catholick Church is, to err, and lead us into any falsehood, than he would own himself Author or Countenancer of that falsehood and fraud.   

Proposition XXII.  
If no particular person be infallible in the assent he gives to matters proposed by others to him, than no man can be infallibly sure that the Church is infallible, and so the Church's Infallibility can signify nothing to our infallible assurance, without an equal Infallibility in ourselves in the belief of it.  
The 22. Proposition signifies nothing, if you will reflect upon what hath been now said; every faithful is infallible inasmuch as he agreeth with the Doctrine of the Church, and the Church's Infallibility is one point of that Doctrine.  
The 23. Proposition is composed of absurd sequels from the former.  
The 24. 25. and 26. Propositions have not any thing worth our taking notice of.   

Proposition XXVII.  
The nature of certainty doth receive several names, ei●●●● according to the nature of the proof, or the degrees of 〈…〉 Thus moral certainty may be so called either etc.  
〈◊〉 the 27. Proposition the Author declares, that christianity is morally certain, that is, it implys a firm As●ent upon the highest evidence that moral things can receive: This seems to involve a contradiction; How can our Assent be sufficiently firm for Faith, and exclude all doubts and fears of Falsehood (as Christian Faith must) if its certainty be only moral, though in the highest degree of moral certainty? For, the highest degree of moral certainty doth not include an absolute impossibility of the contrary; So that Dr. Stillingfleet must confess 'tis possible his Faith may be false, and the Scriptures a Fable, though he be morally certain in the highest degree it is not so.  
Hence followeth against the 28. Proposition, that a Christian having no more than moral certainty in the Highest degree that the Scriptures are the Word of God, his Faith cannot be resolved into the Veracity of God, as the ground of his believing; because the Veracity of God excludes all Fallacy and possibility of Falsehood, and includes not only the highest degree of moral, but of Metaphysical certainty, and by consequence every assent of Faith grounded thereupon, and reduced thereunto, must be of the same nature.  
The 29. Proposition confines Gods Revelations to Scripture only without proof or pretext for so bold an assertion, as we have manifested in confuting the 14. Proposition.   

Proposition XXX.  
There can be no better way to prevent men's mistakes in the sense of Scripture (which men being fallible are subject to) than the considering the consequence of mistaking in a matter wherein their salvation is concerned; and there can be no sufficient reason given why that may not serve in matter of faith which God himself hath made use of, as the means to keep men from sin in their lives, unless any imagine, that Errors in opinion are more dangerous to men's souls then a vicious life is and therefore that God is bound to take more care to prevent the one than the other.  
This 30. and last Proposition doth not agree with the 15. and 18. For in the 15. the Author maintains, that no sober Enquirer into the Scriptures, can miss of what is necessary for salvation, and from thence concludes there can be no necessity supposed of any infallible Society of men (or of the Church of England) to attest or explain Scripture; To what purpose then are Bishops, Deans Chapters and Pastors, or at least their Revenues and Tithes? May not this bring Dr. Stillingfleet, under the suspicion and censure of being rather a Prevaricator then Assertor of the Church of England, and an Impugner of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy? His 18. Proposition also destroys this 30. as you may see by comparing both: in the 18. he says. God hath promised to them who use their best endeavours or means to understand the Scriptures, that either they shall not err, or they shall not be damned for it. From whence it follows.  
1. That Scripture is obscure even in matters necessary for salvation, contrary to the 15. Proposition.  
2. That they need not fear being damned, and therefore need not be concerned for erring, which is contrary to this 30. Proposition, and indeed to all Christianity, whereof St. Paul says, it is one of the first principles, that without faith it is impossible to please God, and that Faith is the substance and foundation of Religion, and hopes of salvation: In this sense it's certain, that errors in opinion are for more dangerous than a vicious life is, both because here ie is the worst of vices, and because it is more difficult to recover true Faith once lost, then to repent of any other sins. You have seen D. Stillingfleets ●rinc●ples cleared and confuted; Now you shall see them retorted against himself in his own Conclusions.    


Conclusion I.  
There is no necessity at all or use of an infallible society of men to assure men of the truth of those things which they may be certain of without it, and cannot have any greater assurance supposing such Infallibility to be in them.  
Conclusion II.  
The Infallibility of that society of men who call themselves the Catholic Church, must be examined by the same faculties an man, the same Rules of trial, the same motives by which the Infallibility of any Divine Revelation is.  
Conclusion III.  
The less convincing the Miracles the more doubtful the Marks, the more obscure the sense of either what is called the Catholic Church or declared by it, the less reason hath any Christian to believe upon the account of any who call themselves by the name of the Catholic Church.  
Conclusion IU.  
The more absurd any Opinions are, and repugnant to the first Principles of sense and reason, which any Church obtrudes upon the faith of men, the greater reason men still have to reject the pretence of Infallibility in that Church as a grand Imposture.  
Conclusion V.  
To disown what is so taught by such a Church, is not to question the Veracity of God, but so firmly to adhere to it, as to what he hath revealed in Scriptures, that men dare not out of love to their souls reject what is so taught.  
THe First Conclusion hath been retorted in the 30. Proposition against the Church of England (which Dr. Stillingfleet undertakes to maintain) because if an infallible Church be superfluous, much more superfluous must the Church of England be, that is confessedly fallible. Nay it must be dangerous, because by the Laws of the Land which confirm it, and by the Benefices and Revenues that every it, men may be induced to follow false doctrine, whereunto (as a fallible Church) it may lead them.  
The 2. Conclusion deprives the Church and State of England of all hopes of peace and quiet; because if a Church pretending (with good grounds) to Infallibility, must be judged and censured by every private man's 〈◊〉 and discretion, much more a Church that acknowledgeth to be fallible, and yet both reason and experience demonstrate, that no Church or Commonwealth can be peaceable, wherein every private person is permitted to be a Judge of its Laws, or of its Religion.  
The 3. Conclusion absolutely destroys the Church of England because it doth not as much as pretend to Miracles, nor supernatural visible marks, nor to the name of the Catholic Church; and by D. Stillingfleets consequence no Christian ought to believe upon the account of 〈◊〉 Church.  
The 4. Con●●●sion is also destructive to the Church of England because nothing is more repugnant to the first principles of sense and reason, then that a Church confessedly fallible should pretend to direct men to the infallible certainty of Christian Faith; and that men 〈◊〉 be compelled by Laws and penalties to hazard their salvation by following a guide that owns not to be fully assured whether his own Doctrine be the right way to Heaven.  
The 5. Conclusion makes it lawful for every man to reject the authority of the Church of England, and to make himself sole Judge of the Scriptures, and all this out of love to his soul, and out of reverence to God's Veracity, which is (in equivalent terms) to make Dr. Stilling fleets Religion inseparable from Heresy and Rebellion, and inconsistent with the safety of any State or Sovereign.   

Conclusion VI.  
Though nothing were to be delivered as the Will of God, but what is by the Catholic Church declared to be so, yet this doth not at all concern the Church of Rome, which neither is the Catholic Church, nor any sound part or member thereof. From all which it follows, that it can be nothing but wilful Ignorance, weakness of judgement, strength of prejudice, or some sinful passion, which makes any one forsake the Communion of the Church of England, to embrace that of the Church of Rome.  
This 6. Conclusion I shall endeavour to confute by proving that the Roman-Catholick Church alone, is the whole Catholic Church: In order whereunto I will set down these few Propositions.  
1. That there is. and always hath been, upon earth, a visible Catholic Church, otherwise Christ would not have commanded us to repair to it in our differences, nor the Apostles have made it an Article of our Creed.  
2. The Catholic Church must have some visible and supernatural signs (far exceeding all others in the appearance of being such) whereby it may be discerned from all ●agan and Heretical Congregations pretending to be a part, or the whole Catholic Church. If this be not granted, no man is obliged to be of any Church, nay rather all men are obliged to be of no Church, because not having any signs to prefer one Church before the other, none could know which is the true one, and therefore it's a hundred to one, at least, they would fall into some Heretical Congregation, there being so many, and the true Church or Congregation but one.  
3. That no supernatural signs or Miracles can be visible and wrought for conrfimation of doctrine in any Congregation but in that one which is the true Church, because the signs or Miracles which Christ said would follow the Believers, Mark 16. or the true Church, are of the same nature of Christ's Miracles, and in order to gain credit for the testimony it gives of itself and his doctrine: and God being the Author of truth and concord, cannot give supernatural signs of his trust or truth to any two or more dissenting Churches, for if he did, the wisest course (as I said) learned and pious men could take, would be, to turn Sceptics, and not believe in God. Hence also it followeth  
4. That the Catholic Church cannot be composed of any two Congregations dissenting in any one point, which either holds to be an Article of Faith fundamental, or not fundamental: the reason is, because if they be of equal authority men ought rather to suspend then submit their judgements to either of those Congregations: and though both should agree in fundamental Articles, yet because God (being truth itself) is as contrary to small as great untruths or errors, he can no more permit the Testimony of his Church and his Miracles, to confirm a little than a great untruth, and so it must be infallible as well in not fundamentals, as in fundamentals.  
5. God's being of infinite Veracity (as hath been proved in my confutation of Dr. Stillingfleets 6, 16, 17. Propositions) cannot permit any false Church to have or show so credible an appearance of true Miracles, as hath been always and now is pretended to be in the Roman-Catholick Church; They are so convincing, that our adversaries can as little prove the fraud, as deny the fact; They are so frequent, that there is scarce a Country in Christendom, wherein they have not been wrought: They are so authentic (I speak only of such as are approved by the Bishops of Rome, in order to the canonisation of Saints) that there cannot be a more narrow scrutiny into the nature and cure of the disease, nor into the sincerity and sufficiency of the Witnesses, and the severity of our judgements against such as we find to be cheats and Impostors, is notorious; even in Ireland, where our Ecclesiastical discipline is restrained by the Laws, we have ventured to silence James Finanghty (a simple ignorant Priest) because himself and he who caused them to be printed, were so weak as to fancy they were true Miracles.  
I know Dr. Stillingfleet may object against this Proposition, the Miracles of Antichrist, but his Miracles will not be of the same nature with the Miracles of Christ, and ours; he will not convert Nations to Christianity, by imitating the Apostles humility, poverty and chastity, as the Apostolical men of our Church have done in all former ages, and even in this; Witness both the Indies, Brasile, Ethiopia, Persia, Japan, and China. Besides, though Antichrist's Miracles could be in appearance as palpable, and as plausible as ours; yet (besides the precedency and prediction of ours as true) the particular circumstances wherewith Scripture hath described that man of sin, and the warning it hath given us, not to believe his Miracles, do so discredit him and them, that no man who will reflect upon the Scriptures words and recur to God for help will be deceived by Antichrist's Impostures, and lying Prodigies.  
True it is, that according to 
* See D. Stilling fleets Answ. pag. 469.  D. Stillingfleets Principles (making every particular person Judge of Divine Revelation, and admitting nothing as such that he thinks doth contradict sense in its proper object) Antichrist's Miracles must be judged true Miracles, and by consequence his Doctrine must be embraced as Divine Revelation: For upon this account alone doth Dr. Stillingfleet deny the Miracle and Mystery of Transubstantiation, notwithstanding the clearness of Scripture for it; being impossible to express that Truth, or any other, in more clear terms, then by Christ's saying, This is my body; so likewise it must be concluded from Dr. Stillingfleet, Principles, that though Christ tells you clearly. Antichrist's Miracles will not be true Miracles, yet if your eyes tells you (that is if you see a man lie like dead, and afterwards see him stand and move by Antichrist's command) you must prefer this evidence of sense in its proper object, before Christ's clear words and Revelation: For, the proper object of sense goes no further than to the outward appearance or accidents; it doth not penetrate to the substance of bread or wine, much less to the life or soul of a seeming dead man; and by consequence men may be mistaken in the substance of both, though they rely upon senses evidence in its proper object, which is only the species, or outward appearances, or (if you will follow the modern opinion) certain impressions made upon the Organs of our senses; and this may be performed by Antichrist, or by any other that the devil hath a kindness for, without any concurrence or real existence of the Object you fancy to see hear, smell, touch, or taste; and of this we have sufficient proofs and examples in visions and apparitions both of good and bad spirits, both in sacred and profane History.  
We ought not therefore to attribute so much to the evidence of sense in its most proper Object (it cannot have evidence in any other) as to wrest the words of Scripture from their literal and plain sense, in the Mystery of Transubstantiation, seeing we must confess that Antichrists false Miracles will have no other colour of truth but what will be grounded upon the Evidence of sense in its most proper Object; and if this Evidence ought not to prevail in favour of Antichrists Miracles, I see no reason why it ought to prevail against Christ's words, This is my body.  
As for matters of faith that suppose matters of fact, the certainty of their belief doth not depend so much upon the sense's evidence of the fact, as D. Stillingfleet imagines, pag. 469. For, we do not believe that any of the Apostles, or others, did see Christ in the very act or instant of his Resurrection, though they did see him a little after, but they did not see the Resurrection itself; and though they had seen it, the assurance of their faith must have been grounded upon divine Revelation, not upon that sight, So that not only succeeding ages, but the Apostles themselves believed Christ's Resurrection with Christian faith, not because they did see him revived, but because he told them, he was the very same Christ that had been dead, and this his assertion is confirmed by the same signs and testimonies whereby the other mysteries of Faith are.    

Conclusion.  
SEeing therefore the whole Catholic Church cannot be composed of many or any two dissenting Congregations in any point of Faith, whether fundamental, or not fundamental, and that the same Catholic Church must have supernatural signs and Miracles whereby it may be discerned from all Heretical Congregations; and that no other 
* D. Do● ham in 〈◊〉 Treatise● Antichr● l. 1. c. 7. p● 111. sait● Neither Turks, n● Jews, no● any other Church of Christian but only th● Pope and Church of Rome do vaunt of Miracles.  Christian Congregation, but the Roman-Catholick doth as much as pretend to supernatural signs and Miracles, and that this pretence of Miracles in the Roman-Catholick Church is so well grounded, that the wisest and wariest men of the world for many ages (and in this also) did take it to be good and sufficient evidence to build thereupon their hopes of salvation, and that such as deny the sufficiency of this evidence cannot dispute it otherwise then by saying (contrary to universal Tradition and to the Testimony of all Histories) that they who believed and wrought our Miracles were cheats or madmen, and that there can be no greater madness than so rash an assertion; seeing, I say, all this hath been made out in my Propositions, I hope it may be evidently concluded, that the Roman-Catholick Church, and only the Roman-Catholick Church, is the whole Catholic and true Church of God. From whence must follow the quite contrary of D. Stillingfleets Principles and Conclusions.  
This Sir, is my Opinion of a Book so much applauded by those that understand not its Principles, nor the inconveniencies it may draw upon the Religion and Revenues of the Church of England, by making that Church as useless for saving souls, as its Revenues are thought by Statesmen necessary for supporting the State: I am,  
March 17. 1671. Yours, J.W.    
FINIS.  

Errata.  
In the Page on the backside the Title, line 3. for Principles of Christianity, read Principles of Protestancy. page 6. line 14. read confirmed, p. 10. l. 10. r. which the Church then, and for. p. 12. l. 5. r. S. Xavier.