the Guide in Controversies about Infallibility and the Resolution of Faith THE State of the Controversie p. 295. The Principles of the Guide in Controversies p. 300. Those Principles Considered p. 304. Of Particular Divine Revelation as the Ground of Faith p. 308. The Resolution of Divine faith must agree to all p. 314. Of immediate assent p. 316. Of the assistance of the Holy Ghost p. 318. The absurdities of the Guides Principles 322. CHAP. II. The Principles of E. W. about Divine Faith laid down and considered E. W's Principles laid done p. 329. Some things premised to the State of the Question p. 340. Of the necessity of Grace and the sense of Moral certainty in this Controversie p. 346. 347. Gods veracity as the foundation of faith not received on divine Revelation p. 349. Of the notion of Divine faith p. 353. The true State of the Question p. 358. My first argument laid down and defended p. 361. Of the Motives of Credibility and their influence upon faith p. 369. Of the Grounds of Faith p. 376. Of the School-notion of the obscurity of faith p. 383. Of the Scripture notion of it p. 386. Of the power of the will in the assent of faith p. 395. The second argument defended against E. W. p. 400. Of the Circle in the resolution of faith not avoided by E. W. p. 423. CHAP. III. An enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church E. W's assertions about the miracles of the Roman Church p. 434. The ways proposed for examination of them p. 439. Of the miraculous translation of the Chappel of Loreto p. 441. Of the miracles wrought at the Chappel of Loreto p. 452. Of the miracles wrought by St. James at Compostella p. 465. Of St. Mary Magdalens vial and other Reliques p. 476. Of the miracles of St. Dominick p. 488. Of the miracles of the Rosary of the B. Virgin p. 493. Of the miracles of St. Francis p. 496. Of the miracles related of the British and Irish Saints p. 505. Of the Testimonies of St. Chrysostom and St. Augustin against the continuance of the power of miracles p. 567. Of the miracles of St. Vincentius Ferrerius p. 574. Of the Testimonies of their own Writers against the miracles of the Roman Church p. 585. Of the miracles reported by Bede and St. Gregory p. 589. Of the miracles wrought in the Indies p. 615. Of the Impostures and forgeries of miracles in the Roman Church in several examples p. 624. Of the insufficiency of this argument from their miracles to prove the Infullibility of their Church p. 663. Several conclusions about the proof of miracles p. 664. The miracles of Heathens and Hereticks compared with those of the Roman Church p. 670. ERRATA PAge 302. line 28. read ultimate p. 343. l. 15. â— asseâ—t p. 421. l. 13 r. signatures p. 437. l. 13. r. convince l. 18. r. dispâ—ssessed p. 493. l. 15. r. consiâ—â—ing p. 502. l. 24. r. several p. 508. l. 22. r. any better p. 549. after Saints insert than p. 590. l. 14. r. â—oâ—l p. 641. l. 11. r. Anglerius CHAP. I. An Answer to the Guide in Controversies about Infallibility and the Resolution of Faith § 1. THere are two great Pleas for the necessity of Infallibility in the Roman Church one to make an end of Controversies the other to lay a sufficient Foundation for divine Faith Having therefore fully examined the former Plea in the foregoing discourse I shall now proceed to the latter with a particular respect to those Adversaries who have undertaken the Defence of the Cause of the Church of Rome against me in this Controversie And because all this dispute refers to the Principles of Faith I shall undertake to shew 1. That the Principles laid down by them are false and fallacious 2. That the Protestant Principles defended by me are sound and true 1. For the better examination of their Principles I shall give a brief account of the Rise and State of this Controversie about the Grounds of Faith The Arch-Bishops Adversary in Conference with him asked how he knew the Scripture to be the Word of God hoping thereby to drive him to the necessity of owning the Infallible Testimony of the present Roman Church but he failed so much of his end that the Arch-Bishop fully proved that such a Testimony could not be the Foundation of that Faith whereby we believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God and that there are sufficient Grounds for Faith without it One of the great arguments whereby he disproved that way of Resolving Faith was that it was impossible to avoid a vitious circle in proving the Churches infallibility by Scripture and the Scripture by the Infallible Testimony of the Church This difficulty which hath puzled the greatest Wits of the Roman Church his Answerer thought to avoid by saying that the Churches Infallibility was not primarily proved by the Scripture but by the Motives of Credibility which belong to the Church in the same manner that Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles were proved to be Infallible Which bold assertion obliged me in a large discourse to shew these three things 1. That this way of resolving Faith was manifestly unreasonable 2. That supposing it true he could not avoid the circle by it 3. That it was false and built on no other ground but a daring confidence 1. The first I proved 1. Because an Assent is hereby required beyond all proportion or degree of evidence the Assent required being Infallible and the evidence only probable and prudential Motives 2. Because hereby they must run into all the Absurdities they would seek to avoid it being impossible to give a better account of Faith by the Infallibility of the Roman Church than we can do without it both sides acknowledging that those Motives of Credibility do hold for the Scriptures which are by us denied to belong to their Church and if faith as to the Scriptures be uncertain if it rely on them much more must it be so as to the Churches Infallibility If divine Faith as to the Scriptures can rest upon motives of Credibility there can be no necessity of the Churches Infallibility to a divine faith if it cannot how come those motives to be a sufficient ground for such a Faith as to the Church For the Churches Infallibility being the reason as to them of believing the things contained in the Scripture it ought to be believed with a faith equally divine with that whereby we are to believe the Scriptures which are the instrument of conveyinâ— the matters of Faith to us Besides thâ— leaves every mans reason to be judge in thâ— choice of his Religion because every maâ— must satisfie himself as to the credibility oâ— those motives And after all this way oâ— Resolving Faith by the Churches Infallibility doth unsettle the very Foundations oâ— Faith laid by Christ and his Apostles whâ— all supposed a rational certainty of the motives of Faith to be a sufficient Foundatioâ— for it but the pretence of Infallibility doâ—â—
overthrow the evidence of sense and reason and put the whole tryal of the Truth of Christianity upon the pitiful proofs which theâ— bring for the Church of Romes Infallibility And when they have brought men to it they cannot assure them what that Church is which they attribute this Infallibility to who in that Church are the proper subjects of it what kind of Infallibility it is noâ— when the Church doth define Infallibly so many things are to be believed without reason both as the persons who are to define and the manner of their definitions 2. Supposing this way true the Circle still remains which I proved by three things â— From the nature of the faith they enquire for a resolution of which is not humane but Divine Faith For the Question was not whether by another kind of Assent they could not escape the circle but whether they could â—o it in the resolution of Divine Faith or not Either then the Churches Infallibility is not to be believed with a Divine Faith or there may be a Divine Faith without an Infallible Testimony or this Divine Faith of the Churches Infallibility must be built on the Scripture and so the Circle returns 2. From the persons whose faith is to be resolved the way of resolving faith being a different thing from proving a matter of Faith to an Adversary granting then that to those who deny the Churches Infallibility but allow the Scriptures they may prove the one by the other yet this signifies nothing to the Resolution of their own Faith which is the thing enquired after and yet even in proving to â—dâ—ersaries the Churches Infallibility from Sciptureâ— they cannot avoid the Circle when the Question returns about the sense of those places for then they must run to the Church because the Church which is Infallible hath delivered this to be the sense of them 3. From the nature of that Infallibility which they attribute to the Church which being not by immediate divine Revelation but by a Supernatural Assistance promised in Scripture it is impossible to prove this Infallibility but by first proving the truth of thaâ— Scripture wherein these promises are contained and so the Circle still returns for the believe the Scriptures Infallible because oâ— the Churches Testimony and they belieâ—â— the Church Infallible because of the Promises of her Assistance recorded in Scripture 3. It is false that there are the same motive of credibility as to the Churches Infallibility which there were for the Infallibility of Mosâ—â— and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles which T. C. therefore very wisely declined tâ— prove and only said it was sufficient to sheâ— how he had escaped the Circle § 2. This is a brief account of that pan of the Resolution of Faith which hath beeâ— since assaulted by two several Adversarieâ— but in different ways The first of them iâ— the Guide in Controversies who ingenuouslâ— confesseth the Question about the Resolutioâ— of Faith upon their Principles to be intricatâ— so any one might easily guess by the intricacy and obscurity of his answer to it I shall endeavâ—ur to bring it to as much clearness aâ— possibly I can that I may the better represent the force and consequences of it The substance of what he saith may be reduced to these propositions 1. That the Church may be considered two ways 1. As a Society already manifested by Divine Revelation whether written or unwritten to be infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost 2. As a Society of men whose Testimony is to be received upon prudential motives 2. That the Church being considered in the former of the two acceptions the infallible authority and testimony thereof is not only an introductive into but one of the articles of divine faith and that so many as believe the Churches Infallibility in this sense may safely resolve their divine faith of other articles of their belief into its delivering them as such 3. That whatever this Infallible Authority of the Church be it is not necessary that every one for attaining a divine and saving faith be infallibly certain of this Infallible Authority or as he elsewhere expresseth it that it is not necessary for divine faith that it should always have an external rationally-infallible ground or motive thereto whether Church-authority or any other on his part that so believes or that he have some extrinsecal motive or proponent of which he is infallibly certain that it is infallible 4. There are two sorts of faith to be resolved divine and humane or infused and acquisite the one is always built upon divine Revelation the other needs no more than prudential motives or such as are sufficiently credible or morally infallible on which an acquired or humane faith securely rests 5. That there must be particular ultimate divine Revelation which may not be to all the same but to some one to some another viz. either Scripture or Churches Testimony or Apostolical Tradition or Miracles beyond which he can resolve his divine faith no further for proving or consirming which revelation he can produce no other divine revelution but there must end unless a process be made in infinitum or a running round 6. Divine Faith as to such altimate particular divine Revelation cannot be grounded meerly on Gods veracity but that God hath said this particular thing which we believe namely that the testimony of the Church or Apostles or Scriptures is true which must either be grounded that it may be the Foundation of a divine faith on some other divine Revelation and so in infinitum or else I must rest there with an immediate assent to it 7. The internal efficient of all Divine faith is the power or Grace of the Holy Ghost illuminating the understanding that the prime verity cannot lye in whatever thing it reveals and also that the particular articles of our faith are its Revelations and perswading and operating in the Will such a firm adherence unto these articles as many times far exceeds that of any humane science or demonstrations 8. The ultimate resolution of a Christians divine faith as to the extrinsecal prime motive ground reason or principle thereof that equals in certainty the faith built upon it can be no other than that particular divine Revelation which is first made known to him or from which in building his faith â—e proceeds to the rest as to the internal efficient it is into the Grace of the Holy Spirit 9. The motives of credibility or the rational evidence of the truth of Christianity do serve indeed antecedently for an introductive to or after it introduced for a confirmative of this divine faith i. e. to make it credible or acceptable to humane reason my own or others that this faith is true and no way liable to error that I am assured in it by the holy and no seducing Spirit but not to
constitute it in the notion of faith divine because the faith so stiled is supposed to rest always on an higher ground viz. Revelation Divine 10. That the infallibility of the Church grounded on Divine Revelation and believed by a divine faith is a main ground and pillar of a Catholicks faith for any other articles thereof that are established by the sam◠Churches Definitions where the Scriptures or Tradition Apostolick are to him doubtful Of which ground and assurance of such points believed by Catholicks from the Churches infallible Authority the Protestant◠faith is destitute § 3. These are the Principles upon which this Guide in Controversies undertakes to clear this intricate Question and to free their resolution of faith from the danger of a circle I have but two small things to object against this way 1. That it gives up the cause in dispute 2. That notwithstanding it doth not avoid the main difficulties 1. That it gives up the cause in Dispute◠which was whether the Infallible Testimony of the Church be the necessary Foundation of Divine Faith for upon occasion of the supposed necessity of this Infallibility the Question was first started this Infallibility being asserted to be necessary by T. C. and was the thing I chiefly opposed in the discourse of the Resolution of Faith Now this the Guide in Controversies freely yields to me and consequently the main Foundation of Faith asserted by my Adversary is destroyed as plainly appears by the third Proposition wherein he affirms that an external infallible proponent is not necessary to divine Faith But this he doth not barely affirm but he saith it is copiously proved by many learned Catholicks and to this purpose he cites Cardinal Lugo speaking of Divine Faith who saith that the infallibility of the Church cannot be the first Ground of Divine Faith because this Infallible Authority of the church by Assistance of the Holy Ghost is it self an article of Divine Faith And experience tells us that all Children or adult persons first coming to the Faith do not apprebend much less infallibly believe this Infallible Authority in the Church before any other article of Faith And in the Law of Nature and under the Law of Moses the Churches proposition was not necessary in order to faith but the instruction of Parents was sufficient in one and the doctrine of Moses and the Prophets in the other before their Prophecies were received by the Church He cites Estius likewise speaking of this Divine and Salvifical faith that it is not material to faith what medium God makes use of to bestow this gift of Faith upon men many having believed that knew nothing of the Churches infallibility He cites Layman asserting that it often comes to pass that other articles of our faith are explicitly believed before that of the Churches Infallibility and withal this Infallibility of the Church depends upon the promise of the spirit therefore men must first believe that there is a spirit of God and consequently the holy Trinity Farther saith he it is plain that the primitive Christians did believe with divine Faith not for the Authority of the Church which either was not founded yet when St. Peter believed Christ to be the Son of the living God or had not defined any doctrines of Faith Again he denies the Churches Authority to be the formal principle or motive of Faith and that for this very good reason because this infallible Authority of the Church is one of the things to be believed Nay he cites Fa. Knot himself in his reply to Chillingworth affirming Christians may have a true Infallible Divine Faith of which faith they have only a fallible proponent nor are infallibly certain thereof i. e. as to the proponent I now appeal to the indifferent reader whether the main thing contended for by me viz. that the infallible Testimony of the Church is not necessary in order to Faith be not here fully granted to me 2. But yet the account of Faith here given is very far from clearing the chief difficulties of it as will appear by these two things 1. That this resolution of Divine Faith is very unsatisfactory in it self ◠2. That it is liable to the absurdities which he seeks to avoid by it 1. That the resolution of Divine Faith laid down by him is very unsatisfactory in it self the principles of which are these 1. That Divine Faith must rest upon Divine Revelation 2. This Divine Revelation upon which faith is built is that which is first made known to the person and from which he proceeds to other matters of faith 3. This Divine Revelation is not one and the same to all but to some the Authority of the Scriptures to some the Authority of the Church to some Apostolical Tradition 4. Divine Faith must rest upon this Revelation with an immediate assent to it without enquiring further for if there be any further process there must be so in infinitum or a circle 5. That the Holy Ghost doth illuminate the understanding of him that believes both as to the veracity of God and the truth of his Revelation and causes such a firm adherence of faith as many times far exceeds that of any humane Science or demonstrations But in this way I can neither be satisfied 1. What that particular divine Revelation is which this divine Faith doth rest upon Not 2. How this Faith can equally rest in several persons upon several ways Nor 3. How it can rest with an immediate assent upon any way Nor 4. Wherein this way differs from resolving Faith into the Testimony of the Spirit § 4. I cannot understand what that particular divine Revelation is into which as into it◠prime extrinsecal motive Faith is here resolved The thing enquired after is the reason of believing the truth of what God hath publickly revealed to mankind as we say he hath done the Doctrines of Christianity the ultimate resolution of divine Faith as to this I am told is that particular divine Revelation which is first made known to a man i◠this particular divine Revelation the sam◠with Gods publick and general Revelation o◠distinct from it If it be the same it can offer no reason for my Faith unless the same thing may be proved by it self if it be different then God makes use of particular divine Revelations to men different from his publick into which they are to resolve their Faith Suppose then the Question be thus put why do you believe that Christ shall come to judge the quick and the dead The general Answer is because God that cannot lie hath revealed it but then the Question returns on what ground do you believe this Revelation to have been from God with such a divine Faith as must rest upon divine Revelation For such you assert to be necessary To this the Guide in Controversies Answers that the ultimate resolution of a Christians divine Faith is into that particular divine
Revelation first made known to him What particular divine Revelation I beseech him is that on which I ground the divine Faith of this Proposition that the Doctrine of Scripture is Gods Revelation For of that we enquire It cannot be understood of the rational evidence of the truth of the divine Revelation for that is asserted by him not to be a sufficient foundation for divine Faith which must rest upon nothing short of divine Revelation I would gladly be informed and directed by this Guide in Controversies since I must believe Gods Revelation with a divine Faith and this divine Faith must rest upon a divine Revelation what that particular divine Revelation is on which I am to believe with divine Faith the truth of Gods publick and general Revelation I have endeavoured to find out what his meaning herein is but I confess I cannot sometimes he seems to denâ— any resolution at all of this divine faith into anâ— further principles and quotes Layman with approbation who saith that the formal reason of believing what God saith is his veracity but that God hath revealed such thing to us cannot be any further resolved or prâ—ved by divine Faith In the next Section he saith That divine Faith doth not resolve into an extrinsecal even morally infalliblâ— motive thereof either as the formal cause oâ— always as the applicative introductive oâ— condition of this divine Faith From whence it follows that this divine Faith may be where there is neither infallible nor prudential motive i. e. it may be where no account at all can be given of it for all motives must be of one sort or other and yet this divine Faith doth rest upon a particular divine Revelation of which since no account can be given it is unreasonable to expect it But I will try yet further by an Instance of his own The Question put by him is why he believes the things contained in the Gospel of St. Matthew to be divinely revealed he Answers That he resolves his Faith of the truth of those contents not into the Churches saying they are true although he believe all that true the Church saith but into divine Revelation because God by his Evangelist delivereth them for truth Again he saith When he believes that all contained in St. Matthew's Gospel is true because the Church tells him iâ— iâ— so and then believes that the Church â—elleth him true because God hath revealed â—n some part of his Word that the Church in this shall not erre here his Faith he saith is ultimately resolved again not into the Churches Authority but the divine Revelaâ—ion concerning the Church This looks like something at first hearing if one do not press â—oo far in the examination of it but being â—hroughly searched into how profound soever it may seem it is scarce tolerable sense upon his own principles For it is agreed now on all hands that in the Question of the resolution of Faith the enquiry is not why we believe what God reveals but why we believe this to be a divine Revelation and the Question is now put particularly concerning the doctrine contained in St. Matthews Gospel his principles are That this must be believed by divine Faith and that this Faith must rest upon divine Revelation I now enquire upon what particular divine Revelation he doth build this act of divine Faith that St. Matthew's Gospel contains the Word of God He Answers first Though he believes it to be true because the Church saith it is so yet his Faith is not resolved into the Churches Testimony but into divine Revelation 〈◊〉 What divine Revelation doth he mean that which is in Question viz. That St. Matthew's Gospel is divine Revelation if so theâ— he doth not believe it because the Church saith it but if he doth believe it because of the Churches Testimony then it cannot be oâ— the account of Gods delivering it for truth by the Evangelist For doth he believe it because the Evangelist saith so or not If hâ— doth then he doth not believe it because the Church saith it if he doth not believe it because the Evangelist saith it then he must believe it because the Church saith it and so his Faith must be resolved into the Churches Testimony which if it be a divine Faith must according to his own principles suppose that the Churches Testimony is a divine Revelation and the formal object of divine Faith The same absurdity lies in the other Answer He believeâ— he saith that all contained in St. Matthew's Gospel is true because the Church telleth him so and then believes that the Church tells him true because God hath revealed in some part of his Word that the Church in this shall not erre And yet his Faith is not resolved into the Churches Authority but the divine Revelation concerning the Church This Answer must be understood either of St. Matthew's Gospel being proved by some other part of Scripture and then I grant the circle is avoided but that doth not answer the present difficulty which is concerning the ground of believing not some one part of divine Revelation but the whole Or else it must be understood of St. Matthew's Gospel being proved by some part of it self And then he resolves his Faith thus He believes what St. Matthew's Gospel saith concerning the Church because he believes St. Matthew's Gospel to be true and believes St. Matthew's Gospel to be true with a divine Faith because the Church tells him so Can any thing now be more plain than that he must resolve his Faith into that Authority upon which he believed St. Matthew's Gospel to be true which himself confesseth to be that of the Church Only if a man can be so foolish to believe first the truth of St. Matthew's Gospel because the Church saith it and at the same time believe the Church to say true because St. Matthew's Gospel saith so that mans Faith is to be resolved into nothing but the dancing of Fairies which have put him into such a circle that he can never find the way out of But if he mean any thing else I know not what to impute such an absurd way of proceeding to unless it be to a through intoxication of School Divinity which confounds all true notions and distinct conceptions of things and makes men have such swimming brains that all things turn round with them § 5. 2. But supposing I could understand what this particular divine Revelation meant into which this divine Faith must be resolved why may not one particular way serve all mankind for it Must there be several and all equal foundations of divine Faith I can easily satisfie my self of the reason of asserting itâ— but not of the reason of the thing in this way of resolving Faith The true reason of asseâ—ting it was the plain evidence that many persons had a true divine Faith without knowing any thing of the Churches Infallibility this made some men in the Church of Rome confess that it was not always necessary but least on the other side they should seem hereby to forego the Palladium of that Church they do withall say that sometimes Faith may
begin there and so run into the very same absurdities that the others do For if one man can resolve his Faith well so why not a hundred why not a thousand why not all Christians If all cannot do it without running into a circle neither can one for the process of Faith is alike in all Not that the same means are used to all persons for it is evident that men believe upon different grounds but what is absurd if a thousand do it is equally absurd if but one do it Although the Guide â—n Controversies doth not suppose it necessary â—or men to resolve their Faith into the Churches Infallibility yet he doth suppose â—hat some men may do it Well then we will put the case that any one person doth reâ—olve his Faith concerning Gods Revelation â—nto the Churches Infallibility as the ground of his divine Faith I desire to be informed by this worthy Guide whether he doth not run into the same absurdities which all would do if they proceeded that way i. e. whether it be any more possible for one to free himself from a circle than for all Is not the reason assigned by Canus and Layman and Lugo this viz. because the Churches Infallibility iâ— one of the things to be believed as revealed by God and therefore cannot be the ground of Faith to any And will not this reason exclude any one person from doing it that resolves his Faith as he ought to do So that if this hold in any one being drawn from the reason of the thing and not from the circumstances of persons it must equally hold against all persons and consequently no one person can reasonably establish his Faith as to Gods Revelation upon the Churches Infallibility § 6. 3. I am far from understanding this way of immediate asseâ—â—t to the divine Revelation I grant the reason against proceeding furtheâ— to be very good for the Guide could see nâ— passage that way but over rocks and precipices and therefore finds out a shorter cut by asserting an immediate assent to the Divinâ— Revelation But to what divine Revelation doth he mean The Authority of Soripture Churches Infallibility Apostolical Tradition or any of these It is all one to me which it is for it is equally unreasonable to alloâ— any of them For I look upon Faith aâ— an act of the mind which must always have a reason moving it to assent Even in self evident Propositions where the assent is most immediate yet there is the greatest and clearest reason for it viz. the evidence of the thing which makes the understanding never hesitate or doubt but yield a firm assent upon the first apprehension and proportionable to the reason and evidence of the thing or of the motive enclining to assent so is the readiness and firmness of it But to assert an assent in Faith so immediate of which no motive or reason can be assigned proportionable to it is a thing repugnant to the nature of our reasonable faculties and it is to make one of the noblest acts of our understandings a meer blind and bruitish assent All that we enquire for is a sufficient reason to move our minds to believe in the act of divine Faith which is seen in all the acts of humane Faith For no man can reasonably believe what another saith or that he hath said so but he is able to give an account of both of them And it would be very strange that in the most weighty matters of Faith on which mens eternal happiness and misery depend they should be obliged to assent in such an immediate manner that they can have no good account to give of their divine Faith Yes â—aith the Guide an account may be given â—o make this assent appear prudent by the moâ—ives of credibility But that is not the thing we enquire for but a sufficient foundation for divine Faith and as to this he asserts â—hat our Faith doth immediately rest upon divine Revelation without proceeding to another Revelation for the ground of it But now then can this divine Faith have a divine Revelation for its ground It may have it for its material object which comes not under our consideration but only the formal object on motive of that Faith as to this Revelation We will suppose the Churches Infallibility to be the matter believed I demand a reason why this is to be believed The Answer is because God hath revealed it in his Word there the Qâ—estion returns what reason have you to believe that to be the Word of God Here the Guide cries out stand there if you proceed a step further you are lost For if you say upon another Revelation then that upon another and so without end But say I you tell me I must believe this to be Gods Word with a divine Faith and this divine Faith must rest upon a divine Revelation as its formal cause assign me that or you overthrow the nature of divine Faith what divine Revelation is there for this Faith to rest upon None say you but here it must stop if so then it is certain by your own principles this either can be no divine Faith or else divine Faith doth not always need a divine Revelation So that this way of the resolution of Faith overthrows it self and needs no other opposition but of one part to another § 7. 4. It may be all this may be cleared by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost supplying the want of another Revelation by its illuminating and confirming the mind So the Tragoedians of old call'd down the Gods upon the Stage when they could extricate themselves by no other means Not that I do in the least doubt the efficiency of the divine Spirit in the act and exercise of Faith or that God by secret and unexpressible ways may strengthen and increase Grace in the hearts of men which thereby become better assured of the â—hings they believe But the Question now â—s whether our Faith as to the motive and â—eason of it can or ought to be resolved into â—he illumination of the Holy Ghost And in â—ruth after all his turnings and windings the Guide sits down at last in the grossest way of resolving divine faith into the Testimony of the Holy Ghost For he saith that doth â—lluminate the understanding that the prime verity cannot lie in whatever thing it reveals and also that the particular articles of our faith are its revelations Was ever any â—hing more fully said to this purpose by the highest Calvinists or Enthusiasts Have the â—isputants of the Church of Rome hitherâ—o charged them with a circle in this â—esolution of faith equal with theirs between the Church and Scripture and hath the very Guide in Controversies found no way to escape one whirlpool but by
falling into another But since I see no reason to believe this Guide in Controversies to be infallible any more than the Pope himself I hope I may have leave to ask him some few Questions Doth he in earnest believe that our assurance of Gods veracity and the truth of his revelations do flow from the immediate illumination of the Spirit of God I would fain know then 1. Why he troubleâ— himself about any other resolution of faith For by this way he resolves faith in all the parts of it If you ask the first Questionâ— why you believe that to be true which God reveals The Answer is ready the Holy Ghost illuminates my mind in the belief of this If you again ask why you believe these particular articles to be Gods revelations the answer is already given the same Holy Ghost illuminates my mind in that too What need Church-Infallibility Apostolical Tradition motives of credibility or any other way the work is compleatly and effectually done without the assistance of any of them 2. Is not this to tell unbelievers that we can give them no satisfaction as to the grounds of our divine faith It is true he grants something may be said for a dull kind of humane and acquisite faith which others are capable of understanding but for divine faith that depends upon such secret and private illuminations which no person can at all judge of but he that hath them nor he very well unless another revelation assures him that these are the illuminations of Gods Spirit and not the deceptions of his own Especially since it is a principle in the Roman Church that no man can attain any absolute certainty of Grace without a particular Revelation from God See then what a wilderness this Guide hath led us into We â—re to believe that what God hath revealed â—s true and that he hath revealed these things â—rom the illumination of the Holy Ghost â—ut we cannot certainly know that we have â—uch an illumination without another reveâ—ation to discover that and so we must run â—n without end or turn back again the same way we went to believe illumination by â—evelation and revelation by illumination 3. How he can possibly give himself any good account of his faith in this manner For since the fundamental principle of faith â—s the veracity of God and the belief of Gods veracity is here attributed to the illumination of the Holy Ghost we may see how excellent a Guide this is that thus stumbles in a plain way or must of necessity go forward and backward For I desire him to satisfie me according to this resolution of faith in this Question why he doth believe whatsoever God saith is true his Answer is because the Holy Ghost by his inward illumination assured me so But then I ask again why he is assured of the truth of what the Holy Ghost enlightens him his Answer must be if he speaks at all to the purpose because the Holy Ghost is God and cannot speak any thing but truth So that the veracity of God is proved by the Spirits Illumination and the Spirits Illumination by Goâ— veracity But there is yet another principlâ— which faith stands upon which is that Goâ— hath revealed the things we believe heâ— again I ask why he believes these articles aâ— Gods revelations his answer is the Holâ— Ghost by enlightening my mind hath assured me of it But then I ask how he is suâ— with a divine faith which in this case is necessary that there is a Holy Ghost and thaâ— this is the illumination of the Holy Ghostâ— Here he must return again to divine Revelation wherein the promise of the Holy Ghosâ— is made Judge now Reader whether thiâ— be not an admirable Guide in Controversies and whether he hath not given a very satisfactory account of the Resolution of Faith § 8. Besides that this way is thus unsatisfactory in it self I have this further charge against it that other ways are liable only to the single absurdities of their own particulaâ— opinions but this blind Guide hoping to cleaâ— himself of one great absurdity hath not only run into it the very way he seeks to escape it but into many more besides If there be any thing absurd in the Calvinists Resolution of Faith he hath taken in that if there be any thing absurd in resolving faith by the Infallibility of the Church he is liable to â—hat too because though he doth not think â—t necessary he allows it to be good and last of all that which he looks upon as the advantage of their faith above ours plungeth him unavoidably in as bad a circle as may â—e And that is That the Infallibility of the Church being once believed by a divine Faith from the Revelation of it in Scripture it is a ground of faith to him in all controversies that arise concerning the sense of Scripture I am not now to examine the falseness of the pretence which hath been done already and may be more afterwards that which at present I am to shew is that it is impossible for him in his resolution of Faith concerning the sense of Scripture to avoid the circle Let us see how he attempts it Suppose I be asked saith he concerning some article of faith defined by the Church though the same article doth not appear to me clearly delivered in the Scriptures why with a divine faith I believe it to be divine Revelation I answer because the Church which is revealed by the Scriptures to be perpetually assisted by the Holy Ghost and to be infallible for ever in matters delivered by her hath delivered it to me as such If again why with a divine faith I believe these Scriptures in general or such a sense of those texts in particular which are pretended to reveal the Churches infallibility to be divine Revelation I answer as before because Apostolical Tradition hath delivered them to be so which Apostolical Tradition related or conveyed to me by the Churcâ— I believe with a divine faith by the internaâ— operation of the Holy Spirit without haviâ—â— at all any further Divine Revelation froâ— which I should believe this Revelation to bâ— divine This is the utmost progress of divine faith with him I know not how mucâ— faith there may be in this way I am suâ— there is not the least shadow of reason Foâ— if a stop be made at last by the internal opâ—ration of the Holy Spirit what need so mucâ— ado to come thither Might not the samâ— answer have served as well to the first anâ— second Question as to the third When yoâ— were asked why with a divine faith you bâ—lieve such a sense of Scripture to be divinâ— Revelation Might not you have hindred aâ— further proceeding by saying I believe iâ— with a divine faith by the internal operatioâ— of the Holy Spirit without having at all anâ— further divine Revelation But if you though it necessary to assign another divine
Revelation for the foundation of that faith by thâ— Churches Infallibility why will not the samâ— reason hold for the last act which must havâ— as good a Foundation as the other or elsâ— how comes it to be a divine faith as well as â—he other But the subtilty of all this is â—ou have it seems by your office of Guide â—he opening of the Gate and you hold it â—pen so long as to let through all your Friends â—or Infallibility and Tradition must by any means be let through and when these are â—assed down falls the Gate in so rude a manâ—er as is enough to cripple any other that endeavours to get passage Can any man posâ—ibly assign a reason why the operation of the Spirit should not have as great force before the Churches Infallibility be let in But this it is to be a Guide in Controversies â—o direct Infallibility Tradition and the Hoâ—y Ghost to know their distance and to keep â—heir due places and it is a great favour â—hat the Holy Spirit is allowed to bring up the rear and to make all sure but by no means to offer to go before Infallibility or Tradition For these are capable of doing better service afterwards than the Holy Ghost is ever like to do them the greatest use of it being to make good a Pass that nothing follow to disturb the march of Infallibility and Tradition But if I may be so bold once more to presume to ask this wonderful Guide when the dispute is about the sense of Scripture why he doth believe such a particular sense which doth not appear clearly to him in Scriptures to be the infalliblâ— sense of it or to be divine Revelation Hiâ— answer is because the Church which is revealed in Scriptures to be infallible hath deliveâ—ed this to him as the sense of it Very well this is an Answer I understand though I seâ— no reason for it But I proceed why dâ— you believe this Infallibility to be the sensâ— of those places which speak of the Church since to me they are far from appearing tâ— be clearly delivered in those Scriptures Remember you believe this with divinâ— faith and this divine faith must have dâ—vine Revelation the Question then is uâ— on what divine Revelation do you believâ— the Infallibility of the Church to be prâ—mised in Scripture He Answers upon Apâ—stolical Tradition Is this Apostolical Tradition the same with the Scriptures or different from it If the same what greate clearness can there be in this than in thâ— Scriptures If different what divine Revelation is your faith of the Infallibility oâ— that built upon He ingenuously consesseâ— none at all for then there must be a process in infinitum or a circle And yet hiâ— principle is that divine revelation is neceâ—sary to divine faith but there can be nonâ— here by his own consession without process in insinitum or a circle which iâ— to acknowledge the absurdity of his own way as far as a man can desire Well but how comes this Apostolical Tradition to be known to him By the Church he saith but may the Church be deceived in delivering Apostolical Traditions No he saith she is infallible but do you believe her infallible with divine faith Yes he saith that must be done then at last there must be a divine Revelation again for this Infallibility and so the circle returns No he saith at last he believes the Churches Testimony infallible only with a humane and acquisite faith upon prudential motives but he believes the Apostolical Tradition related by the Church with a divine faith Was there ever such a perplexed Guide in Controversies The Infallibility of the Church is sometimes to be believed with a divine faith and sometimes not and yet when it is not to be believed with a divine faith it is the Foundation of the divine faith of Apostolical Tradition for he assigns no other ground or reason for it besides the Infallible Testimony of the Church But this infallibility he saith may be known two ways by promises of Scripture or prudential motives not to dispute now the possibility of proving the Churches Infallibility by prudential motives which I shall do at large afterwards the thing I now enquire after is since the Apostolical Tradition must be believed by divine faith and the belief of it comes by the Churches Infallibility whether any other Infallibility can secure such a faith besides the Infallibility by Promise for the Infallibility asserted being a security from error by divine Assistance and that assistance only supposed to be promised in Scripture there can be no other Infallibility here understood but that which Infallibility by his own assertion must be believed by divine faith which divine Faith must rest upon divine Revelation and so he believes the sense of Scripture because of the Churches Infallibility and the Churches Infallibility by Apostolical Tradition and Apostolical Tradition by the Churches Infallibility and the Churches Infallibility by the sense of Scripture See now what an admirable Guide in Controversies we have met with and with what skill and dexterity he hath escaped the circle And so I take my leave of this GUIDE finding nothing in him further material about Infallibility which I have not answered in the foregoing Discourse The Consideratoâ— urging so much the very same things and frequently in the same words that I now think he either was the same person or made very bold with him CHAP. II. The Principles of E. W. about the certainty of Divine Faith laid down and considered § 1. HAving met with so little satisfaction from the Guide in Controversies I now betake my self to the Rule no Fancies Toys Trifles or Fallible Glosses I assure you for those E. W. cries out upon almost in every page of his worthy work but Reason and Religion or The Certain Rule of Faith What can any man desire more unless it be to see Mr. Stillingfleet joyned in the Title-page with Atheists Heathens Jews Turks and all Sectaries And that he might own a greater obligation to him than all that Rabble he dispatches them all after a fashion in 30. pages and spends above 600 upon him O what a pestilent Heretick is this Stillingfleet that deserves so many lashes beyond Atheists Heathens Jews or Turks If he had been any one of those he might have been gently used for never were they fairlier dealt with by any man that undertook them But he is not so much their Friend to thank him for this kind usage and E. W. thinks he will have enough to do to defend himself I confess I think so too if either of his Books against me were to be thrown at my head for they are very thick and as heavy as is possible And to my great comfort I never yet saw two such bulky books whose substance might be brought into a less compass for setting aside Tautologies and tedious repetitions frequent excursions and impertinent digressions the pith and marrow of
both his Books lies in this one word Infallibility But it is time to fall to my business for fear of more Advertisements and Infallibility being the main design of his Books that shall be the subject of my present debate with him And because this E. W. is a great pretender to Principles the method I shall proceed in shall be first to consider his Principles and then to defend my own For which I shall chiefly make use of his last Book it being in effect but another edition of his former the other as I suppose being disposed of to better purposes than to be read for I never heard of one person in England that read it over However what there is material in it different from the last as to the present controversie I shall upon occasion take notice of The two main Principles he builds upon are these 1. That without an Infallible Church there can be no certainty of Faith 2. That the Roman-Catholick Church is this Infallible Church If he can prove these two he shall not need any more to establish their Religion or to overthrow ours And I will say that for his praise that he hath brought the controversie into a narrow compass for he confesses it is endless to dispute out of Scripture and Fathers since witty men by their fallâ—ble Glosses can turn and winde them which way they please but there is nothing so stiff and inflexible as a standing infallible Oracle in the Church which being once believed all Controversie is at an end But we may as soon hope to see all other controversies ended by dry blows as this Principle proved to the satisfaction of any reasonable man The main proofs for the necessity of the Churches Infallibility which he insists upon are these 1. That there can be no Divine Faith without it 2. There can be no certainty as to the Canon or edition or sense of Scripture 3. There can be as little certainty as to the sense of the Fathers or the Primitive Church 1. That there can be no divine Faith without it This he frequently insists upon in both his Books and with so much vehemency as to make the deniers of Infallibility to overthrow all Faith and Religion Which being a charge of the highest nature ought to be made good by the clearest evidence Whether that which E. W. produces be so I shall leave any one to judge when I have given an Account of his Principles as to this matter In his first Book called Protestancy without Principles he begins with this subject and lays down these assertions upon which all his Discourse is built 1. That Gods infallible Revelation requires an infallible Assent of Faith or an infallible verity revealed to us forcibly requires an answerable and correspondent infallible assent of Faith in us the contrary he calls wild Doctrine this subjective infallibility as he calls it he offers very wisely to prove from those places of Scripture which speak of the assurance which Christians had of the truth of their Religion 2. This infallible assent of Faith doth require infallible Teachers for infallible believers and infallible Teachers are correlatives And in the second Chapter he goes about to prove it because if Christs infallible Doctrine be only fallibly taught no man hath certainty what it is and seeing what is fallible may be false Christs Doctrine may not be taught at all which is infallible and cannot be false and he that should abjure this fallible Doctrine doth not deny therein Christs Doctrine and cannot be upon that account an Heretick But to make Faith Infallible he asserts That every Preacher sent by the infallible Church as a member conjoyned with it is infallible in his Teaching and on the contrary whosoever renounces an Infallible society cannot teach with certainty Christs infallible Doctrine From whence he saith follows an utter ruine of Christian Religion In his third Chapter he further proves That if the Church were fallible in her Teaching God would oblige us to believe a falsity because God commands men to hear the Church and if the Church may erre then men are obliged to believe a false Doctrine taught by her And all other means short of this Infallibility would be insufficient for preserving Christian Religion in the world In the fourth Chapter he comes to a particular consideration of divine Faith and from thence proves the necessity of infallibility Faith saith he requires two things essentially an object which is Gods Revelation and a Proposition of this object by Vertue of which the elicit act of Faith follows in a believer and intellectually lays as it were hold both oâ— Gods Revelation and the thing revealed Now to prove the necessity of such an infallible Proposition in order to divine Faith hoâ— lays down some abstruse Propositions 1. That Gods infallible Revelation availâ— nothing in order to Faith unless Christianâ— by their Faith lay hold on the certainly thereof or owne it as infallible and the assured ground of their Assent 2. That the measure and degrees of certitude in the assent are according to those which the Proponent gives to the Revelation If he teaches doubtfully the assent is doubtful if probably the assent is probable is infallibly the assent is infallible the reason which he gives of this is because an object revealed receives its light from the proposal as an object of sight doth from the light of the air As long therefore saith he as the infallibility of a Revelation stands remote from me for want of an undoubted application made by an infallible proponent it can no more transfuse certainty into Faith than Fire at a great distance warm that is no more than if it were not certain in it self or not at all in Being 3. From hence he saith it follows that Protestants can only doubtfully guess at what they are to believe and consequently never yet had nor can have Divine certain and infallible Faith Because they cannot â—ropose Faith infallibly Hence he proceeds Chapter fifth and sixth to disprove Moral Cerâ—ainty as insufficient in order to Faith and destroying as he saith The very being and â—ssence of Divine and supernatural Faith because the sole and adequate object of divine and supernatural Faith is Gods infinite veracity actually speaking to us but this infinite veracity when it is duly proposed transsuseth more certainty into the elicit act of Faith than any Moral Certainty derived â—rom inferiour motives can have For all Moral Certainty is at least capable of falsity and may deceive us Gods infallible veracity cannot be false nor deceive if Faith rest upon that Motive and if it rest not there it is no Faith at all Nay he asserts that supernatural Faith is more certain and infallible than all the Metaphysical Sciences which nature can give us For which he gives this plain reason Because the infinite veracity of God which only supporteth Faith with greater force energy and necessity transfuseth into it a supereminent
insallibility supereminent he saith and above all the Certainty which the principles of naturâ— can afford This is the substance of E. Wâ— principles of Faith in his first Book which is somewhat more enlarged in the second In one Chapter he designs to prove if the Roman Church be not infallible there is no truâ— Faith in the world the reason of which in his own easie terms is this For the meer possibility of deceiving Christians in one Article impossibilitates the Belief of all she proposeth In another Chapter That she is not only infallible but that the Adversaries of her infallibility destroy the very essence of Christian Religion And in the next That divine Faith in this present state of things necessarily requires a Church infallible because the infallibility of faith necessarily requires not only an Infallible Revelation but aâ— infallible Proponent Ruine one or the other Infallibility faith can be no more but an uncertain Assent and consequently can be no faith at all This reason he diversifies into many shapes and represents it in different words but it comes in at every turn So in the next Chapter he proves the Catholick Church Gods infallible Oracle because infallibility once taken away no man can have assurance so much as of one Christian verity the reason is no man can be assured of what is fallibly taught because what is so taught may by vertue of the Proposition be â—alse but a doctrine so far removed from inâ—allible certainly for want of a due application of its infallibility comes not near to the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles which was applied taught and proposed infallibly And in the same Chapter he saith It is utterly impossible that an infallible verity as revealed though fallibly proposed should have influence upon faith or work in believers a most firm assent Not long after he asserts That infallibility being taken away no man can tell but that Christian Religion is a fiction for these are his words A feigned and fallible Religion are near Coâ—sin Germans The one is a Fiction the other at least may be so and for ought any man can know is no better And in the same Chapter he saith That without infallibility Religion is meer Scepticism because all other means infallibility being set aside may be equally pleaded by Hereticks as Arians and such like as by any other To the same purpose in the following Chapter where he proposes that which he calls the last proof of the Churches Infallibility which is still the very same over and over for he out-does the Cook of Brundusium in serving up the the same meat in several dresses viz. That the denyal of it overthrows Christian Religion be pleased to observe his concise way oâ— reasoning If the infallibility of revealeâ— doctrine be lost as it were in the way between God and us If the Revelation appear not as it is in it self infallible wheâ— we assent to it by faith that is if it be noâ— infallibly conveyed and applied to all by aâ—â—nerring proponent as it subsists in its first cause infinitely infallible faith perishes wâ— are cast upon pure uncertainties and maâ— justly doubt whether such a doctrine separated from that other Perfection of Infallibility be really true or no In his third Diâ—course we meet with a convincing Argumenâ— as he calls it for Infallibility If all Authority imaginable whereupon faith can depend conveyed or delivered these verities both as infallible Truths and infallibly and I assent to the doctrine with a belief not infallible but only morally certain I leave by my fallible moral assent the true infallible teaching and conveying Oracles of Christian doctrine and believe upon a meer phansied Authority which was never impowered to convey Gods verities to any Before I come to examine these things it will be necessary to lay down his notion of faith in his own terms viz. That it essentially trends obsecurely to its own object no matter for understanding it but the words found well together and by this saith we lâ—y hold upon the most supream and all comprehending infallibility proper to God alone But withal we are to take notice of a twofold certitude in faith the one a certitude of Infallibility arising from the supernatural principles which concur to the very act of belief and these being not liable to error can never operate but when the divine Revelation really is and implies not only the meer truth of the act but moreover an infallible determination to Truth the other a certitude of adhesion not grounded on evidence but upon most prudent motives proposed to Reason which clearly discover'd the Will by her â—pious affection commands and determines the intellectual faculties to assent indubitably After all which he concludes that the plain and easie Resolution of Faith is into Gods veracity as speaking to men by an infallible Church Thus I have laid together so many parcels of E. W's rambling discourse as were necessary in order to the examination of it And indeed I cannot compare his reasoning to any thing better than his own pretty notion of faith for just as he saith Faith essentially tends obscurely to its object so his principles do to his conclusion But that I may proceed with the greater clearness I must premise these two things 1. § 2. That the Question is not concerning the necessity of any internal Assistance oâ— divine Grace but of an external insalliblâ— Proponent in order to divine Faith So thaâ— whatever certainty of saith is derived from the Spirit of God is no ways pertinent to ouâ— present debate I do not deny that a trulâ— divine faith doth suppose a divine and super natural assistance I do not deny that thâ— Holy Ghost may confirm mens minds to sucâ— a degree of certainty which may exceed thâ— rational grounds they are able to give tâ— others of their faith But I say all this iâ— very far from the purpose For I had expresly laid down this caution before that oâ— Question in the Resolution of Faith did noâ— relate to the workings of the divine Spirit oâ— our minds of which no satisfactory accounâ— can be given to others but to the externaâ— motives and grounds of faith whether theâ— must be infallible or not To what purposâ— is it then for E. W. to talk of a certitudâ— of Infallibility as he calls it arising from the supernatural principles which concur tâ— the very act of belief and these not liable tâ— error can never operate but when the divine Revelation really is Granting all thiâ— to be true yet what doth this prove concerning the necessity of an external infallible Proponent such as the Church is All that caâ— hence follow is that those whom the Spirit of God enables to believe cannot believe a falshood but what then Hath he proved that the supernatural principles of faith do never operate but where the Church first infalâ—ibly proposes No this
he never attempts either not understanding what was fit to be proved or knowing it impossible to be done But if the infallible certainty of Faith doth depend upon inward illumination and divine concurrence the Infallibility of Faith may be had without an external Infallible Proponent And so all his first principles signify nothing to his purpose for supposing an Infallible assent of Faith necessary to an Infallible Revelation yet that doth not prove the necessity of Infallible teachers unless it can be had no other way But here he tells us That Infallible certainty is derived from supernatural principles concurring to the act of Faith which he elsewhere calls The interior illustration of Grace imparted to a Soul which he saith is wholly necessary to make faith certain and after saith we come to an absolute certainty of Faith upon tbis interiour sacred Language of God or his internal illumination the necessity of which he proves from Scripture and Fathers But when he hath done all he hath most effectually confuted himself For if this inward illumination can as he saith supply the inefficacy of external motives How comes the Infallibility of an external proponent to be necessary in order to that certainty of Faith which may be obtained by divinâ— Grace making up what is wanting in the outward motives Did ever any man shew more kindness to his Adversary in helping him with weapons to destroy himself than this E. W. doth When after a most tedious endeavour to prove the necessity of an externaâ— Infallible Proponent in order to the certainty of Faith he sets down these words Now what we assert in this particular is that the Infallible certainty of faith comes from thâ— interior illumination as it more lively setâ— forth the formal object assented to or helpâ— to a clearer proposal of the divine mysteries Doth the Infallible certainty of Faith indeed come from this interior illumination What then becomes of the necessity of an Infallible Church We often hear of the great Assistance the Jesuits have in writing their Books I should rather have thought some enemy of E. W's had put in these things to overthrow all he had spent so many impertinent words about before But lest such expressions should be thought to have dropt from him unawares observe with what care he sums up the whole progress of Faith in this State First A natural Proposition of the mysteries precedes this begets a natural apprehension of their credibility after some consideration there may arise an imperfect judgement of credibility but should the will offer as yet to incline the mind to assent only upon what appears hitherto it could not move to a Faith which is an assent super omnia or most certain Therefore the illustration or powerful invitation of Grace by which as I said the object appears another way and more clearly is infused whereof the soul is recipient The Will now after other Preparatives thus strengthned a new commands boldly the understanding to Assert upon the safest Principles imaginable viz. upon Gods infallible Revelation accompanied with his own Divine Light which makes faith to grow higher in certainty than all the reason or knowledge in this life can arise to For as S. Thomas observes humane knowledge derives its certitude from mans natural Reason which may err but faith hath its infallibility ex lumine divinae scientiae from the light of divine wisdom which cannot deceive and therefore is most certain Who upon reading these words would not have thought this E. W. more conversant in Calvins Institutions than Aquinas his Sums For in all this Resolution of Faith how can a man edge in the necessity of an infallible Church in order to the certainty of Faith I will not say E. W. was wholly inapprehensive of this snare he had brought himself into but he takes the worst way imaginable to get out of it For to shew the difference between this way and that of Hereticks he makes the exterior humane proposition of Divine Revelation necessarily preceding the true light of Faith which cannoâ— be made but by one that makes the Proposition good by a Miracle or some supernatural wonder but no Protestant is able to do thus much And is any Papist think we I would withal my heart see some of the miracles wrought by their Preachers to convince me I profess the greatest readiness of mind to be perswaded by them in case they do but work such miracles as Christ and his Apostles did But of this subject at large afterwards At present it may suffice to take notice 1. That no proposition of Faith is supposed sufficient by E. W. but where the Proponent doth work Miracles and therefore we may safely question the Churches Proposition till we see such Miracles wrought by her as were by Christ and his Apostles For thus saith he Christ our Lord Sent by his Eternal Father thus the Apostles sent by Christ and the Church ever since all shewing wonders above the force of Nature proved their mission and withal evinced that God only impowred them to teach as they did And because the poor Protestant doth not pretend to miracles therefore the light he pretends to is a meer ignis fatuus vain and void of all reality I must say that of my Adversary that he puts the controversie upon the fairest issue that can be desired For if their Church work such miracles as Christ and his Apostles did to attest their divine commission the evidence from thence to believe her infallibility ought to over rule the opinions of such who say she hath erred in case the doctrine attested by Christ and his Apostles and that of the Roman Church do not directly contradict each other 2. Although this exterior Proponent prove himself so commissioned yet by the Progress of Faith laid down by E. W. this is not enough to beget an infallible certainty of Faith For he saith after the exteriour proposition only a natural apprehension of their credibility succeeds then a judgement of credibility then the inclination of the Will but yet no infallible certainty till the illustration of Divine Grace comes So that it evidently follows according to E. W. that an infallible Proponent cannot beget an infallible Assent of Faith but that doth arise from the inward illumination of the mind by the Holy Ghost Which I have already shewed doth lay men open to all the absurditieâ— the highest Calvinists were charged with in resolving Faith and is withal impertinent to our dispute which relates to the necessity of an external infallible Proponent in order to the Certainty of Faith But surely the Jesuiâ— are not so berest of all their subtilty to comply with their greatest Adversaries without some advantage to be gained by it Yes E. W. will shake hands with some old enemies the better to assault some later Protestants who seem to attribute he saith no other certainty to the very act of Faith than what is
and divine Humanâ— as it is first grounded upon the Testimony of men and Divine as it finally rests upon the Testimony of God And in the present condition of mankind it is not reasonable to suppose that any Faith should now immediately rest upon the Divine Revelation without some rational evidence antecedent to it For the thing to be believed being the Testimony which God gave at the distance of above one thousand six hundred years we must either suppose an immediate Revelation of it or it must be conveyed to them by the credit of others Which according to this notion can beget only a humane faith for to resolve the belief of one Divine Testimony into another is to proceed without end but this humane faith if it be so called satisfying a mans mind concerning the Testimony which God gave and thereupon assenting to what was delivered upon that Testimony this Faith proceeding in the same way of rational evidence becomes a divine Faith by resting upon the Testimony which God gave to those who declared his Will 3. The Faith whereby we must first embrace a Divine Revelation cannot in this sense be called a Divine Faith i. e. as divine Faith doth rely upon a divine Testimony For that Faith is built upon those two Foundations viz. That whatever God saith is true and that this is his Revelation Now neither of these two can be entertained at first oâ— the account of a Divine Testimony thâ— first I have shewed already cannot be withouâ— a circle neitheâ— can the second for still thâ— Question will return on what account you believe that Testimony So that although thiâ— be commonly calâ—ed an act of divine Faith yet if Faith be taken in this strict sense foâ— believing upon a divine Testimony we must find out some other name for this Assent noâ— thereby to take off from the certainty or excellency of it but to prevent that confusion which the not observing these things hatâ— caused in these Controversies And if thâ— Terms of Divine Supernatural Infallible Obscure and Inevident were banished thâ— Schools the School-men themselves would be forced to speak sense in these matters And it would be a pleasant sight to see how pitifully E. W's Discourses would look without them For the main force of all he saith lies in the misapplying those terms and thâ— rattling noise they make is apt to keep in awe a vulgar understanding especially that hath been bred up with some more than ordinary Reverence to these astonishing terms § 4. These things were necessary to be premised before we could come to the true State of the Question which we now plainly see doth not relate to that Assent whereby we believe whatever God saith to be true but to that whereby we believe this particular Revelation contained in the Scriptures to be from God And so the Controversie is brought to this issue Whether in order to the certainty of our faith concerning Gods Revelation an Infallible Testimony of the Church be necessary which he affirms and I deny For in order to the certainty of Faith we have already seen he frequently asserts the necessity of an Infallible Oracle and makes all degrees of certainty short of Infallibility insufficient for Divine Faith But that we may the better understand his opinion we must take notice of his own explications of it and the distinctions he thinks necessary for that end 1. He distinguisheth between the judgement of credibility necessary to faith and the act of faith it self and the Resolution of these two though they have a due subordination to each other yet depend upon quite different principles the judgement of credibility whereby the Will moves and commands the intellectual faculty to elicit faith relies not upon that object which finally terminates faith it self but upon extrinsecal motives which perswade and powerfully induce to believe super omnia 2. He distinguisheth between the nature oâ— Science and faith Science is worth nothing unless it prove and faith purely considered as faith these words he desires may be well marked is worthless if it prove For faith reasons not nor asks how these mysteries can be but simply believes Oâ— as he expresseth it in his former Book Faitâ— solely relies on Gods revealed Testimony without the mixture of reason for its motive And here he asserts That there is a more firm adhesion to the infallibility of that Divine Testimony for which we believe than the extrinsecal motives inducing to believâ— either do or can draw from us 3. He distinguisheth between the Humane and Divine Authority of the Church the Humane Authority being as such fallible is not sufficient to ground divine faith But the first act of faith whereby every one believes the Church to be Gods Oracle is built upon her infallible divine Authority manifested by miracles and other signal marks of Truth By the help of these distinctions we may better understand his Resolution of Faith which he delivers in this manner Demanded why we believe the mystery of the Incarnation it is answered Scripture asserts it Ask again why we believe the Divinity of that Book called Scripture It is answered the Church ascertains us of that But how do we know that the Church herein delivers truth It is answered if we speak of knowledge previous to faith then he brings the motives of credibility which make the Churches Infallibility so evidently credible that we cannot if prudent and manifest reason guide us but as firmly believe whatever this Oracle teaches as the Israelites believed Moses and the Prophets This one would think were enough of all conscience but he thinks otherwise for there is saith he but one only difference and that advantageous to them that in lieu of Moses they have an ample Church innumerable multitudes in place of one servant of God the incomparable greater Light the pillar and Ground of Truth the Catholick Church diffused the whole world over and a little after asserts That they have the very same way of Resolving faith which the Primitive Christians had in the time of Christ and his Apostles Here is enough asserted if it could be proved § 5. Against this way laid down by my first Adversary T. C. I objected these three things 1. That it was unreasonable 2. That it did not avoid the main difficulties 3. That it was notoriously false these three waies of attacking it of which a short account is given in the entrance of this Discourse I must now more largely defend I shewed this way to be unreasonable and that upon these grounds 1. Because an assent is hereby required beyond all proportion or degree of evidence for the act of Faith being according to E. W. an insallible assent and no other grounds assigued for it besides the motives of credibility he must make an Infallible assent only upon fallible grounds And it is not sufficient to say that the Infallibility of the Churches Testimony makes the Assent Infallible
for Assent is not according to the objective certitude of things but the evidence of them to our understanding For is it possible to assent to the truth of a Demonstration in a demonstrative manner because any Mathematician tells one the thing is demonstrable For in that case the assent is not according to the evidence of the thing but according to the opinion such a person hath of him who tells him it is demonstrable Nay supposing that Person Infallible in saying so yet if the other hath no means to be Infallibly assured that he is so his Assent is as doubtful as if he were not Infallible Therefore supposing the Testimony of the Roman Church to be really Infallible yet since the means of believing it are but probable and prudential ' â—he Assent cannot be according to the nature of the Testimony considered in it self but according to the reasons which induce me to believe such a Testimony Infallible And in all such cases where I believe one thing for the sake of another my Assent to the object believed is according to my Assent to the Medium on which I believe it As our light is not according to the light in the body of the Sun but that which presseth on our Organs of Sense So that supposing their Churches Testimony to be Infallible in it self if one may be deceived in judging whether it be Infallible or no one may be deceived in such things which he believes on that supposed Infallibility It being impossible that the assent to the matters of faith should rise higher or stand firmer than the assent to the Testimony upon which those things are believed But now to prove the Churches infallibility they make use only of the motives of credibility which themselves grant can be the foundation only of a fallible assent This was the reason I then urged I must now consider what E. W. saith in answer to it And the force of his answer lies in these things 1. That all this proceeds from ignorance of the nature of faith which Discourses not like to science For he grants that the article of faith which concerns Gods Revâ—lation cannot be proved by another believeâ— article of faith wholly as obscure to us â— that is for that would proceed in infinitum therefore all rational proofs avail tâ—â—get faith in any must of necessity be extrinsecal to belief and lie as it were iâ— another Region more clear yet less certain than the revealed mystery is we assent to by faith And so in that article of faith the Church is Gods infallible Oracle he saith that antecedently to faith it cannot be proved by arguments as obscure and of the same Infallible certainty with faith for then faith would be superfluous or rather we should believe by a firm and infallible assent before we do believe on the motive of Gods insallible Revelation which is impossible So that the extrinsecal motives of faith whereby the Churches Infallibility is proved independently on Scripture are not of the same certainty with supernatural faith it self and only prove the evident credibility either of the Scripture or the Church 2. That the force of this Argument will hold against our selves and those who believed in the Apostles times whose infallible assent of faitb doth as much exceed all proportion or degree of evidence as theirs does in believing the Churches Infallibility on the motives of credibility In order to the giving a clear and distinct Answer it will be necessary to enquire â— What those acts of Faith are we now Discourse of 2. What influence the moâ—ives of credibility have upon them 1. For the acts of Faith there are two assigned by E. W. 1. That whereby men beâ—elieve the Scripture to be the Word of God 2. That whereby men believe the Church to be Infallible both these he acknowledges â—re Articles of faith and to be believed with â—an Infallible assent But here mark the shuffling the first of these cannot be believed but by an Infallible Testimony viz. Of the Church for that end the Churches Infallibiâ—ity is made necessary that the Faith may be divine and infallible because divine faith can rest only upon Infallible Testimony but â—hen in the other act of faith whereby the Churches Infallibility is believed we hear no more of this infallible Testimony because then it is impossible to avoid the circle I propose therefore this Dilemma to E. W. Either it is necessary to every act of divine Faith to have an Infallible Testimony or it is not if it be not necessary then there is no necessity of asserting the Churches Infallibility in order to believing the Scriptures to be the Word of God and so the cause is gained if it be necessary then the faith whereby the Churches Infallibility is believed must have such a divine Testimony and so either a process in infinitum or a circle are unavoidable by him If he considered this and yet wriâ— two such Books to prove the necessity of Infallibility in order to faith he betrays too much insincerity for a man to deal with him if he did not he need not complain so much of others Ignorance he may easily find enough nearer home And therefore all the fault of these men does not lie barely in making the assent to be more certain than the motives of Faith but in requiring so strictly in one act of Faith a proportionable certainty to the assent and not in another For what is there I beseech E. W. in believing the Churches Infallibility which should not make it as necessary for that to be supported by an infallible Testimony as that whereby we believe the Divine Revelation If faith hath nâ— grounds and doth not Discourse as Science doth then I hope the case is alike in bothâ— and so the necessity of an Infallible Testimony must be affirmed of the one or equally denyed in the other But he seems to assert That faith whatever object it respects doth not Discourse as Science doth but solely relies on Gods revealed Testimony without the mixture of reason Grant this at present but then I hope both these acts of faith equally do so and still â—he Churches infallibility cannot be made â—ecessary to faith for if faith immediately â—elies on Gods Testimony what need any other to ascertain it or any other proposition than such as is sufficient to make known â—he object of faith to which end no infalliâ—ility in the proponent is necessary Any more than it is necessary for the act of love â—oward a desireable object that he that shews a Beauty should be infallible in the description of her If all the necessity of the Churches proposition be no more than to convey the Divine Testimony to us as E. W. sometimes â—mplies let him take pains to a little better purpose in proving that such a conditio applicans as he calls it must have infallibility belonging to it For Infallibility is then only necessary when it is relied upon
and is the ground of believing and not where it is a meer condition of understanding If a Prince sends an Ambassadour about a match to a foraign Princess declaring that he will wholly rely upon his Testimony of her in this case there needs the greatest judgement and veracity in the Person trusted because the Prince resolves his judgement into his Ambassadours Testimony but if he only imploys a Person to bring her into the Room where he may see her and judge of her himself in this case there is no necessity of any other quality thâ—â— only obedience and fidelity So we say as the Church if the Churches Testimony to be relied upon as the Foundation of oâ— belief of the Scriptures then it is necessaâ— the Church should be infallible if there câ—â— be no faith without such a Testimony bâ— if all the office of the Church be only to prâ— pose the object of faith to be viewed and coâ— sidered by us then a common veracity mâ— be sufficient for it And in this case I granâ— faith is not to be resolved into the conditioâ— of applying the object of faith any moâ— than love is into the light whereby a mâ— sees Beauty or the burning of Fire into thâ— laying near of the fuel but if it be assertâ— that there can be no divine faith without â— infallible Testimony that this Testimony iâ— that of the Church and therefore upon thiâ— infallible Testimony we must build our saith he is blind that doth not see in this case thaâ— it must be resolved into this infallible testimony And therefore E. W. very impertinently charges me with this constant errour viz. making the motives of faith the Foundation of it and that hereby I confound thâ— judgement of credibility with the assent of faith by making the infallible testimony of the Church to those who believe it the formal object of faith For although the common motives of faith should do no more than â—ake the object of faith appear evidently â—edible and so the faith of such persons be â—eâ—olved into a further reason than those moâ—ves yet they who do believe upon the acâ—ount of the infallibility of the Churches â—estimony must resolve their faith into that which to them is the only infallible and adaequate Ground of Faith § 6. 2. To lay open the Foundation of all these mistakes about the nature of Faith I shall inquire into the influence which the motives of credibility have upon believing And therein give an account of these three things 1. What the motives of credibility are 2. How far they are necessary to faith 3. What influence they have upon the assent of Faith 1. What these motives of credibility are Suarez brings them under four heads 1. From the qualities of the Christian doctrine and those are 1. It s truth without any mixture of falshood but faith he if there be many things true and some false it is a sufficient sign that doctrine is not from God as it was among the Philosophers of old The way to judge of this quality he thus laies down those things which the Christian Religion speaks of which may be knowâ— by natural light are very agreeable to thâ— common reason of mankind those otheâ— things which are above it are not repugnanâ— to any principle of it but are agreeable tâ— the infinite and incomprehensible Majesty oâ— God 2. The sanctity and purity of this doctrine as appears by the excellency of the precepts of it the moral precepts not only agreeable to the Law of nature but tend much to the improvement of it the spiritual precepts have nothing contrary to the rules of morality and are suitable to the perfections of the Divine Nature 3. The efficacy of it which is seen by the strange and miraculous ways of its propagation by such instruments as were never like to effect their design without a Divine Power 2. The second Motive is from the number of witnesses of the whole Trinity at the Baptism of Christ of Christ himself in his holy and innocent life of Moses and the Prophets before him of the Apostles after him of the Devils themselves of the multitude of Martyrs of all kinds suffering with so much patience and courage and Christian Religion increasing by it 3. From the Testimony God gave to the truth of it by the Miracles which were wrought in confirmation of the Doctrine preached in which ought to be considered the nature the effects the frequency the manner of working them and the end for which they were wrought which must be not meerly for the benefit of the person on whom they are wrought but for a testimony to the truth of the Doctrine delivered otherwise he grants a Deceiver may work Miracles 4. From the continuance of this Doctrine in the world being so hard to believe the Doctrine and practice the precepts of it meeting with such multitudes of enemies of all kinds out of all which the credibility of the Christian Religion may be demonstrated a Divine Providence being supposed to take care of the affairs of mankind Greg. de Valentiâ reckons up these motives to 19. Michael Medina follows â—cotus and makes 10. or 11. of them on which he largely insists viz. the fulfilling of Prophesies the consent of Scriptures their Authority and truth the care and diligence of the first Christians in examining the Doctrine of Christianity the excellency of it in all its parts the propagation of it in the world the Miracles wrought for the confirmation of it the testimony of enemies the justice of providence and the destruction of its Adversaries To the same purpose Cardinal Lugo and others of the Schoolmen make an enumeration of theâ— motives of credibility but a late Jesuit haâ— reduced them all to the four chief Attribute of God His Wisdom Goodness Poweâ— and Providence but inlarges upon theâ— much in the same way that Suarez had donâ— Thus much may suffice for understandinâ— what these motives of credibility are whâ—â— are acknowledged to make up a demonstrâ—tion for the credibility of the Christian Religion 2. How far these are necessary to faith for that we are to consider that faith beinâ— an assent of the rational faculty in man muâ— proceed upon such grounds as may justifie thâ— assent to be a rational act which cannot bâ— unless sufficient reason appear to induce thâ— mind to assent which reason appearing â— all one with the creâ—â—bility of the object which doth not imply here what may be believed either with or without reason but whaâ— all circumstances considered ought to be believed by every prudent person And in thiâ— sense Suarez asserts the necessity of the evidence of credibility to the act of faith for saith he it is not enough that the object oâ— faith be proposed as revealed by God but iâ— is necessary that it be proposed with such circumstances as make it appear prudently crâ—dible in that way it is proposed For levilâ—
of judgement and rashness of assent he makes â—nconsistent with divine faith and every man ought so to believe as to exclude all fear of the contrary and so as that he can never â—rudently disbelieve what he now believes but if a man believes upon bad grounds he may afterwards prudently reject those grounds But this is not all for he makes such a proposition of the object of faith necessary whereby it appears evidently credible as revealed by God and consequently as certain and infallible For which he gives this reason because an inclination of the will to assent must precede the assent of faith before which there must be a judgement determining that act of the will this judgement must either be certain or uncertain if uncertain it is not sufficient for divine faith if it be certain then there must be such an evidence of credibility in the objects of faith And although a practical certainty as to matters of humane faith may be sufficiently founded upon a judgement of probability i. e. a man may judge it fit for him to believe where he sees only a greater probability on one side than of the other yet in matters of divine faith a higher judgement than of meer probability is necessary viz. that which is founded upon the evidence of credibility for with a meer probability a prudent doubting is consistent which is not with divine saith and withal the certainty of faith is not meerly practical but speculative i. e. of the truth of the thing in it self and therefore requires a speculative evidence of the credibility of the object From whence he concludes that a bare credibility is not sufficient but a greater credibility of the doctrine believed than of any other contrary to it for if two doctrines appear equally credible there can be only a doubtful assent given to one of them and a man might choose which he would believe but in the assent of faith it is not only necessary that there be a greater credibility of one doctrine than of the other but that this be evident to natural reason which dictates that in matters of Salvation that doctrine is to be believed which appears more evidently credible than any other To the same purpose Cardinal Lugo determines that the will cannot command a prudent assent of faith where there precedes only a probable judgement of the credibility of the object because there must be the apprehension of a certain obligation to believe which must arise from the evidence of credibility in the object of faith And Aquinas himself had determined that no man would believe unless he saw that the things were to be believed either sor the evidence os miracles or something of a like nature which Cajetan interprets of believing truly and vertuously truly i. e. without fear of the contrary and vertuously i. e. prudently So that although men may rashly and indiscreetly believe things without sufficient evidence of their credibility yet no man can by the acknowledgement of the most learned of the Schoolmen yield a rational and prudent assent of faith without it 3. The main thing is to consider what influence the evidence of credibility hath upon the act of faith For E. W. asserts that all that results from thence is only a judgement of credibility but that the act of faith it self relies wholly upon other principles and by the help of the distinction of these two he labours to avoid the force of my arguments Thus then the matter stands it is agreed that faith must have rational proofs antecedent to it but these proofs he must say do not perswade men to believe or which is all one have no influence upon the act of Faith If all that were meant by this talk were only this that we are then said properly to believe when we fix our assent upon Gods testimony but that all acts of the mind short of this may not properly be called believing but by some other name this would presently appear to be a controversie about words which I perfectly hate But more must be understood by such men as E. W. or else they do not speak at all to the purpose for the Question is whether in requiring an infallible assent of faith to the Churches Infallibility upon motives confessedly fallible an assent be not required beyond all proportion or degree of evidence to this he answers that this argument proceeds upon ignorance of the nature of faith which doth not discourse as Science doth and he grants that the motives of credibility have not the same certainty that faith hath What then can hence follow but that faith is an unreasonable assent and hath no grounds or that it may be stronger than the grounds it proceeds upon But if it appear that faith must have grounds and that the assent of faith can be no stronger than the grounds are then it follows that they are very unreasonable in requiring an infallible assent of faith to the Churches Infallibility barely upon the motives of credibility § 7. 1. That faith must have grounds If a man had not to deal with persons who have confounded their own understandings with an appearance of subtilty one would think this as needless a task as to prove that man is a reasonable creature for if faith be an assent of the mind taking it as strictly and properly as they please it must have the nature of a rational act which it cannot have unless it proceeds upon reasonable grounds The grounds I grant are different in several assents but it must always have some Those which are accounted the most immediate assents have the clearest and most evident reason such as the assents to first principles are as that the whole is greater than the part c. and for conclusions drawn from them the readiness and firmness of the assent is proportionable to the evidence of their connexion with those principles from whence they are drawn In other things that depend upon the evidence of sense the reason of our assent to the truth of them is from the supposition of the truth of our faculties and that we are so framed as not to be imposed upon in matters that are plainly and with due circumstances conveyed to our minds by our Organs of sense But if there appear an evidence of reason overthrowing the certainty of sense Scepticism immediately follows and the suspension of all assent to the truth of things conveyed by our senses for no man can then be certain of any thing by the evidence of sense but only of the appearance of things I may be certain that things do appear with such difference of colours and tasts and smells but I cannot be certain that there are really such differences in the things themselves If therefore the Scepticks arguments should prevail upon any mans mind so far as to make him question whether sense be a certain medium to convey the truth of the things to his
mind it is impossible that man should yield a firm assent to the truth of any thing on the account of the evidence of sense So that still assent proceeds upon the grounds of reason which satisfie the mind that all circumstances considered it ought not to suspend any longer Let us now consider such things which are not so evident of themselves nor conveyed by our senses and unless we distrust all mankind we have reason to believe some things to be which we never saw our selves and this is the fundamental ground of that we call believing which is nothing else but taking truth upon trust or receiving a thing as true upon such testimony which I see no reason to question If I see any reason to doubt either the skill or fidelity of those persons upon whose credit I am to rely it is impossible for me firmly to believe upon their Authority if I see none then on that account I believe what they say wherein it is as evident that my assent is according to the grounds I proceed upon as that two and two make four What is it then that hath thus confounded these mens minds to make them to contend that the act of divine faith is of such a nature that nothing like it is to be found in any other act of the mind Must we cease to be men by being Christians or where the strongest reason is most necessary must there be none at all to what end then were there arguments ever used to perswade men to believe Christianity were those arguments able to perswade men or not if they were then men did believe upon the strength of those arguments and is it possible for men to believe upon the strength of arguments and yet those arguments have no influence upon the act of faith This is horrible nonsense and fit only for those to write who believe contradictions for such an act of faith indeed can have no reason for it But to come closer yet to our matter The Churches infallibility is to be believed saith E. W. with divine faith is there any ground for that act of faith or not If there be none shew what obligation to believe there can be where there is no ground for it if there be I desire to know whether they are able to perswade me or not if not shew then why I ought to believe on insufficient grounds if they be may not I then believe upon those grounds and if I do doth not that act of faith rely upon those grounds Besides of those who plead for the necessity of the Churches infallibility I desire to know on what account they do it Is it not that faith may have a sufficient Foundation to be built upon which in their opinion cannot be without such infallibility and yet after all this must not faith stand upon this ground Why then are Scotus Durand Gabriel Medina and others charged by some of the Roman Church with resolving faith into the Churches testimony What is this else but only to make the Churches Testimony the ground of faith Nay why are there any disputes at all about the formal object of faith For the formal object is nothing but the reason of believing and what account can be given of the reason of believing if there be none at all But it may be all this while I mistake my profound Adversary it being hardly possible that a man of common sense should write such stuff To prevent any suspicion of this nature I shall lay down his assertions in his own words from several places of his worthy works Faith solely relies on Gods revealed Testimony without the mixture of Reason for ill Motive the previous Motives well pondered bring with them an obligation to believe and not faith it self For Faith reasons not but simply believes Faith contrary to science goes beyond the certainty of all extrinsecal inducements And afterwards where he attempts to answer the main difficulty as he calls it in the resolution of faith which in short is since the motives of credibility seem to leave the matter doubtful what that is which determines the assent to the objects of faith as infallibly true waving at present that answer that it is from the command of the will he seems to attribute so great an evidence to the Motives of credibility that they do infallibly prove the truth of divine Revelation there being an insiparable connexion between the Motives and divine Revelation but then he starts an untoward objection viz. that then the Revelation must appear evident and so faith would be evident to which he answers by denying the consequence because this assent is science and not faith now this evidence arising from the motives of credibility faith saith he as faith leaves or lays aside and firmly adheres to the Divine Revelation only for it self as contradistinct both from the Moral evidence of the Motives and their apparent connexion with the Revelation The reason is taken saith he from the notion of faith which essentially tends obscurely upon its own object as the most ancient Fathers assert From whence it is clear if you believe him that no evidence of the testimony assented to can move to faith not only because we should in the case of evidence be necessitated to believe but upon this account also that the certitude of faith taken from the supreamest verity iâ— of a higher strain and far surpasses all the certitude we find in nature or in the Motives inducing to believe But which is more pleasant he yet adds It is true the more evident these motives appear the better they induce to believe yet for that reason have less to do with the very act of faith which as he said rests upon and lays claim to no lower a verity than the most pure and supream only and if it rests not here it is no faith And yet after all this he asserts that the evidence of credibility apparent in those manifest signs and marks which illustrate true Christianity is abundantly sufficient to induce the most obdurate heart in the world to believe with such an Assent as suits Gods great Majesty i. e. with a faith most firm and infallible Here we have Motives such Motives as give evidence of divine Revelation such motives as are sufficient to induce the most obdurate person to an infallible assent of faith and yet after all this evidence by these motives in order to believing this believing hath nothing to do with them and the more they induce to believe the less influence they have upon faith for that fixeth on the divine Revelation solely for it self and hath a certainty beyond that of the greatest arguments that are used for believing He that hath the faculty of understanding these things ought to oblige mankind with a clearer discovery of them than E. W. hath made who doth not seem to understand what he writes himself and therefore it cannot be expected that
Faith for if the Infallible assent of Faith do come from the power of the Will then to what purpose is any formal object of that assent enquired after For the formal object doth assign a reason of believing from the object it self of which there can be none if the Will by her own Power elicit that which is the proper assent of Faith And all other material objects of Faith may be believed in as infallible a manner by the same power of the Will But if the Will can command the understanding to assent beyond the degree of evidence why may not the understanding dictate to the Will to desire a thing beyond the degree of goodness appearing to it and by this means both those faculties would tend to their objects in a way disagreeing to their nature All these ways being found in sufficient Cardinal Lugo saith some had recourse at last to a mysterious elevation of the understanding beyond all connatural ways of its operation whereby it lays hold on the matters of Faith in a way wholly inexplicable and however the Cardinal slights this way and expresseth a great detestation of it as that which renders the matters of Faith incredible and imperceptible yet I think it absolutely the best for those of the Roman Church that hath yet been thought of and I would particularly commend it to E. W. who loves to talk so unintelligibly and confusedly as if he had this habit of believing infused already And thus much in vindication of the first argument I proposed against making the Infallible Testimony of the Church the foundation of Faith and yet that Infallibility to be only proved by the motives of credibility viz. that hereby an infallible assent must be built upon fallible grounds As to what E. W. saith by way of recrimination it shall be answered when I come to defend our own grounds of Faith § 10. The next Argument which afford◠any new matter to my Adversary whereb◠I shewed this way of resolving Faith to b◠unreasonable was because by making the Insallible Testimony of the Church necessary to Faith they make that necessary to Faith which was not made so by Christ or his Apostles What then say I will become of the Faith of all those who received Divine Revelations without the Infallible Testimony of any Church at all With what Faith did the Disciples of Christ at the time of his suffering believe the Divine Authority of the Old Testament was it a true Divine Faith or not If it was whereon was it built Not certainly on the Infallible Testimony of the Jewish Church which at that time consented to the death of the Messias condemning him as a Malefactor and Deceiver Or did they believe it because of the great rational evidence they had to convince them that those Prophesies came from God If so why may not we believe the Divinity of all the Scriptures on the same grounds and with a Divine Faith too With what Faith did those believe in the Messias who were not personally present at the Miracles which our Saviour wrought but had them conveyed to them by such reports as the womans of Samaria was to the Samaritans Or were all such persons excused from believing meerly because they were not spectators But by the same reason all those would be excused who never saw our Saviours Miracles or heard his Doctrine or his Apostles but if such persons then were bound to believe I ask on what Testimony was their Faith founded Was the woman of Samaria Infallible in reporting the Discourse between Christ and her Were all the persons Infallible who gave an account to others of what Christ did Yet I suppose had it been your own case you would have thought your self bound to have believed Christ to have been the Messias if you had lived at that time and a certain account had been given you of our Saviours Doctrine and Miracles by men faithful and honest though you had no reason to have believed them infallible I pray Sir answer me would you have thought your self bound to have believed or no If you affirm it as I will suppose you so much a Christian as to say so I pray then tell me whether persons in those circumstances might not have a true and divine Faith where there was no infallible Testimony but only Rational Evidence to build it self upon And if those Persons might have a divine Faith upon such evidence as that was may not we much more who have evidence of the same nature indeed but much more extensive universal and convincing than that was And how then can you stil◠assert an Infallible Testimony of the conveyers of divine Revelation to be necessary in order to a divine Faith Nay further yet how few were there in comparison in the first Ages of the Christian Church who received the Doctrine of the Gospel from the mouths of persons Infallible and of those who did so what certain evidence have men that all those persons did receive the Doctrine upon the account of the Infallibility of the Propounders and not rather upon the Rational evidence of the Truth of the Doctrine delivered and whether the belief of their Infallibility was absolutely necessary to Faith when the report of the evidences of the Truth of the Doctrine might raise in them an obligation to believe supposing them not Infallible in that delivery of it but that they looked on them as honest men who faithfully related what they had seen and heard and to which evidence of sense the Apostles and Evangelists appealed so that when there was certainly an infallible Testimony yet that is not urged as the only Foundation for Faith but Rational Evidence produced even by those Persons who were thus infallible If we descend lower in the Christian Church or walk abroad to view the several Plantations of the Churches at that time where do we read or meet with the least intimation of an Infallible Testimony of the Catholick Church so called from its Communion with that of Rome What Infallible Testimony of that Church had the poor Britains to believe on Or those Barbarians mentioned in Irenaeus who yet believed without a written Word What mention do we meet with in all the ancient Apologeticks of Christians wherein they give so large an account of the grounds of Christian Faith of the modern method for resolving Faith Nay what one ancient Father or Council give the least countenance to this pretended Infallibility much less make it the only sure Foundation of Faith as you do Nay how very few are there among your selves who believe it and yet think themselves never the worse Christians for it If then your Doctrine be true what becomes of the Faith of all these persons mentioned Upon your principles their Faith could not be true and Divine Faith that is let them all think they believed the Doctrine of Christ never so heartily and obey it never so conscientiously yet because they
did not believe on the Infallibility of your Church their Faith was but a kind of guilded and splendid infidelity and none of them Christians because not Jesuits And doth not this principle then fairly advance Christianity in the world when the belief of it comes to be settled on Foundations never heard of in the best and purest times of it nay such Foundations as for want of their believing them their Faith must be all in vain and Christ dyed in vain for them And what now saith E. W. to all this First he saith I do not bring Instances enough Secondly That I bring too many 1. That I do not bring enough for he much wonders I omit to touch upon an instance far more difficult than any of these concerning rude and illiterate persons which I and all others are bound to solve Meâ— thinks he might have been contented with those I had brought unless he had answered them better and should not have blamed me for omitting that which I purposely take notice of and give a sufficient answer to in these words Although the Ignorance and carelesness of men in a matter of so great consequence be so great in all Ages as is not to be justified because all men ought to endeavour aster the highest ways of satisfaction in a matter so nearly concerning them and it is none of the least things to be blamed in your Church that she doth so much countenance this ignorance and neglect of the Scripture yet for such persons who either morally or invincibly are hindred from this capacity of examining Scripture there may be sufficient means for their Faith to be built upon For although such illiterate persons cannot themselves see and read the Scripture yet as many as do believe do receive the Doctrine of it by that sense by which Faith is conveyed and by that means they have so great certainty as excludes all doubting that such Doctrines and such matters of Fact are contained in these Books by which they come to the understanding of the nature of this Doctrine and are capable of judging concerning the Divinity of it For the Light spoken of in Scripture is not a light to the eye but to the mind now the mind is capable of this light as well by the ear as by the eyes The case then of such honest illiterate persons as are not capable of reading Scripture but diligently and devoutly hear it read to them is much of the same nature with those who heard the Apostles Preach this Doctrine before it was writ For whatever was an Argument to such to believe the Apostles in what they spake becomes an Argument to such who hear the same things which are certainly conveyed to us by an unquestionable Tradition So that nothing hinders but such illiterate persons may resolve their Faith into the same Doctrine and Motives which others do only those are conveyed to them by the ear which are conveyed to others by the eyes But if you suppose persons so rude and illiterate as not to understand any thing but that they are to believe as the Church believes do you if you can resolve their Faith for them for my part I cannot and am so far from it that I have no reason to believe they can have any Judge now Reader what measure I am like to meet with from such men who can so impudently charge me with omitting a difficulty which I give so punctual an answer to 2. But those instances I have brought are too many for him as will easily appear by the shuffling answers he makes to them My design was from them to prove that the Churches Infallibity was not necessary in order to Faith he puts it thus If the Infallibility of the Church be a sure Foundation of Faith c. Is not this a good beginning to put Sure in stead of Necessary or only sure For that may be sure which is not necessary and it was the necessity I disproved by these Instances To them however he attempts to give an Answer 1. In general That none make the Roman Catholick Church in all circumstances the only sure Foundation of Divine Faith For the first man that believed in Christ our Lord before the compleat establishment of his Church had perfect faith resting on that great Master of Truth without dependance on the Christian Church for Christ alone was not the Church but the Head of it Faith therefore in general requires no more but only to rely upon God the first verity speaking by this or that Oracle by one or more men lawfully sent to teach who prove their mission and make the doctrine proposed by them evidently credible In like manner the Apostles preached no doctrine in the name of the new Christian Church whilst our Saviour lived here on earth but testified that he was the true Messias by vertue of those signs and miracles which had been already wrought above the force of Nature A very fair concession which plainly destroys the necessity of the Churches infallibility in order to Faith For if no more be necessary in order to faith but to rely upon God the first verity speaking by this or that Oracle c. how comes the infallible testimony of the Church to be in any Age necessary to faith For God spake by Christ and his Apostles as his Oracles by whom his word is declared to us therefore nothing can be necessary to faith but to rely upon God the first Truth speaking by them And this we assert as well as they But he must prove that we cannot rely on God as speaking by them unless he hath an insallible Church in every Age if he will make this infallible testimony of the Church necessary to faith which I despair of ever seeing done while the world stands 2. In particular 1. To the instance of the disciples of Christ believing the divine Authority of the old Testament without any infallible testimony of the Jewish Church only upon the rational evidence they had to convince them that those Prophesies came from God he answers that it is hard to say where the force of it lies seeing there were innumerable Jews then dispersed all Jury over and the other parts of the world who most firmly believed the Divine Authority of those Books upon whose Testimony the Apostles might believe those Books to be divine A most excellent answer if we well consider it Have not they of the Church of Rome proved the necessity of infallibility in the Church from Deut. 17. 10 11 12. of which abundant instances might be produced and particularly the Considerator of my Principles which words if they imply any Infallibility at all do necessarily prove that it is lodged in the supream Ecclesiastical Judges and no where else so that if there were no infallibility in them it could not be supposed to be any where else therefore I proposed the case at that time when these Ecclesiastical Judges consented
to the death of Christ and my Question will not only hold of the Apostles but of any common Jews among them who might not believe Christ infallible any more than the Sanhedrin I ask whether such might not have seen sufficient ground to believe that the Prophesies came not in old time by the will of man but by the Will of God if such persons had reason sufficient for their faith without any infallible Testimony the same I say may all Christians have of the Divine Authority of the New Testament For if the concurrent Testimony of the dispersed Jews firmly believing the divine Authority of the Old Testament were a sufficient ground for a person then to believe the Divinity of those Books why may not the concurrent Testimony of all Christians afford as sufficient a ground to believe the Authority of the Books of the New though no Ecclesiastical Senate among Christians be supposed any more infallible than the Jewish Sanhedrin was at the death of Christ and by this I hope E. W. may a little better perceive what this objection aims at But saith he hence it follows not that then there was no Jewish Church which believed the divine verities of the old Scripture O the monstrous subtilty of Jesuits who is able to stand before their terrible wits What have we to do with a Churches believing the divine verities of the Old Scripture we only enquire for the Testimony of a Church as necessary in order to others believing it If they firmly believed and yet had no infallible Testimony of a Church at that time what can be more to our advantage than this seeing it hence follows that there may be a firm faith without any Churches infallible Testimony Well but he verily thinks I mistook one objection for another perhaps I would have said that the Apostles lost faith of our Saviours Resurrection at the time of his Passion but this difficulty is solved over and over And then falls unmercifully to work with this man of clouts he throws him first down and tramples upon him then sets him up again to make him capable of more valour being shown upon him then he kicks him afresh beats him of one side and then of the other and so terribly triumphs over him that the poor man of clouts blesseth himself that he is not made of flesh and bones for if he had it might have cost him some aches and wounds But I assure him I meant no such thing yet if I had I do not see but after all his batteries the argument such as it is would have stood firm enough for supposing the Infallible Testimony of the Church to rest in the Apostles after our Saviours death it must have prejudiced the faith of others who were to believe that article upon their Authority if they lost the faith of Christs Resurrection 2. I instanced in those who believed in Christ and yet were not personally present at the miracles which our Saviour wrought but had them conveyed to them by such reports as the womans of Samaria was to the Samaritans Of these I ask what infallible Testimony their faith was built upon And if those persons might have a Divine Faith meerly upon rational evidence may not we much more who have evidence of the same nature but much more extensive universal and convincing than that was To this he answers by distinguishing between the Motive or the natural Proposition of faith which comes by hearing and the infallible Oracle whereupon it relies and he thinks it strange I did not see the distinction It is far easier to see the distinction than the pertinency of it to his purpose for our Question is not about the necessity of an Infallible Oracle in order to Faith but of an infallible Proposition we still yield that which our faith relies upon to be an infallible Oracle of God but if a natural Proposition of that be sufficient for faith we have all we contend for But to what purpose the Legend of S. Photina and the dispute whether she were the Samaritan woman is here inserted is very hard to understand unless he thought it the best way by any means to escape from the business in hand Next he tells us what he might answer iâ— these instances by saying with good Divinâ— that all immediate Propounders or Conveyerâ— of Divine Revelation in such particular caseâ— need not to be infallible I am glad to hear of such good Divines among them only I would know why in these particular cases an infallible proposition was unnecessary to faith if in the general case of all Christians it be now become necessary But he saith although infallibility be not necessary for young beginners seldom molested with difficulties against saith yet it is not only convenient but absolutely necessary for others more learned who often struggle to captivate their understanding when the high mysteries of Christianity are proposed Never was there certainly a more senseless answer for who are molested with difficulties against faith if those who are to be converted to Christianity are not who have none of the advantages of education to recommend the doctrines of Christianity to their minds and are filled and prepossessed with contrary prejudices Never were there such happy Converters of Infidels as the Jesuits are if they meet with such Converts who are never molested with difficulties against faith only as they grow up they begin to grow Infidels again and then it is necessary to choke them with an Infallible Church I do not at all wonder that the more learned in the Church of Rome seeing the weakness of the grounds of Faith among them do struggle with themselves about believing the mysteries of their faith but I very much wonder if so unreasonable a pretence as that of Infallibility can ever satisfie them I desire to know of these more learned believers whether they believed the Churches Infallibility before those strugglings or not if they did not how came they to be believers since there can be no divine faith without an infallible testimony if they did how came they to question whether they were to believe the particular mysteries of faith if they did believe the Church Infallible which proposed them But I suppose these learned believers were such as questioned the Infallibility of the Church and Christ and his Apostles too of which sort I doubt not there are many in Rome it self But yet he hath two other ways to solve these difficulties 1. By Gods special illumination and that I hope may serve all as well as these and then let him shew the necessity of an infallible Proponent 2. That every particular proponent as a member conjoyned with Christs infallible Oracle may be said to teach infallibly A most admirable speculation and so may every one we meet with in the streets be infallible not as considered in himself but as a member conjoyned with truth or every Sectary as a member conjoyned with
Gods word which I hope is an Oracle altogether as infallible as the Church But the question is whether such a one may be divided from Gods infallible Truth or not if not he is absolutely infallible if he may then what security hath any one to rely upon him upon such a conditional Infallibility which he can have no assurance of But still he hopes to retort the Instances upon me I never saw such a way of retorting in my whole life My design was to prove by these Instances that an infallible Testimony of a Church was not necessary in order to Faith he saith I must solve my own difficulties I confess I see none at all in my way that need to be answered for I assert that men may have sufficient Grounds of Faith without an infallible Proponent Well but he supposes all these Barbarians converted to Christ to have had true Faith and consequently prudent Motives to believe before they firmly assented to the Divine Revelation And so do I too But what were these motives To this Question he saith I return the strangest answer he ever heard for I seem to make the motives inducing to faith nothing but the Rational evidence of the Truth of the Doctrine delivered and therefore I grievously complain that they destroy the obligation which ariseth from the Rational evidence of the Christian Religion upon which he discourses as though by rational evidence the self-evidencing light of the doctrine and consequently all the miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles were to no purpose Have not I reason to applaud my good fortune that I have met with so ingenuous an Adversary But I see those who write Controversies must be true Nethinims not only hewers of difficulties and drawers of the waters of contention but bearers of burdens too even such as their Adversaries please to lay upon them Could any thing be further from my meaning than by the rational evidence of Christianity to understand the self-evidencing light of the Scriptures But it is not what I say but what E. W. finds in his Common-place-Books a little before when I had proposed an argument he had not met with in those terms he presently fancied I meant another arguâ—ent which he found under the title of Defectilility of the Church and then in comes that with the answers he found ready to it Now for the rational evidence oâ— Christian Religion he finds not that Head in his Note-Books and cannot therefore tell what to make of it But an argument he had ready against the self-evidenâ—ing lighâ— of the Scriptures and therefore the Seraphims seather must serve instead of St. Larence's Gridiron He might have been easily satisfied in that very Paragraph what I mean by the rational evidence of Christian Religion viz. the unquestionable assurance which we have of the matters of fact and the miracles wrought by Christ for confirmation of his Doctrine and this within four lines after the words by him produced And in the foregoing paragraph I insist very much on the evidence of sense as to the miracles wrought by Christ as a great part of the rational â—vidence of Christianity which is destroyed by the doctrine of the Roman Church while transubstantiation is believed in it For what assurance can there be of any object of sense such as the miracles of Christ were and his Body after his Resurrection if we are so framed not only that our senses may be but we are bound to believe that they are actually deceived in as proper an object of sense as any in the world And if such a thing may be false what evidence can we have when any thing is true For if a thing so plain and evident to our senses may be false viz. that what I and all other men see is bread what ground of certainty can we have but that which my senses and all other mens judge to be false may be true For by this means the criterium both of sense and reason is destroyed and consequently all things are equally true and false to us and then farewel sense and reason and Religion together These things I there largely insist upon which is all very silently passed over the Schools having found no answers to such arguments and therefore they must be content to be let alone But however though arguments cannot be answered I desire they may not be mis-represented and that when I fully declare what I meanby rational evidence such a sense may not be put upon my words as I never dreamt off There is nothing after which looks with the face of an answer to theâ—e Instances unless it be that he saith that none can have infallible assurance either of our Savâ—ours Miracles or of any other verity recorded in Scripture independent of some actual living actual infallible and most clear evidenced Oracle by signs above the force of nature which in this present state is the Church These are good sayings and they want only proving and by the Instances already produced I have shewed that Persons did believe upon such evidence as implied no infallible Testimony and if he goes about to prove the Church infallible by such Miracles wrought by her as were wrought by the Apostles I desire only not to believe the Church infallible till I be satisfied about these Miracles but of that afterwards But I demanded if we can have no assurance of the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles without an Infallible Church what obligation can lie upon men to believe them who see no reason to believe any such Infallibility And since the Articles of our Faith are built upon matters of fact such as â—he death and resurrection of Jesus Christ whether these matters of fact may not be conveyed down in as unquestionable a manner as any others are Cannot we have an unquestionable assurance that there were such persons as Caesar and Pompey and that they did such and such things without some Infallible Testimony If we may in such things why not in other matters of fact which infinitely more concern the world to know than whatever Caesar or Pompey did This his Margin calls an unlearned objection and in the body of his Book saith I might have proposed a wiser Question an â—asier I grant I might as appears by the answer he gives it For two things he saith may be considered 1. That the man called Christ dyed upon the Crâ—ss and this he saith both Jews and Gentiles yet assent to upon Moral Cerâ—ainty but therefore do not believe in Christ. 2. That the man called Christ dying for us was the only Messias truly God the Redeemer of mankind Here we have he saith the hidden verities of Christian Religion the certain objects of faith conveyed unto us by no moral assurance but only upon Gods Infallible Revelation A very wise answer I must needs say if intolerable shuffling be any part of wisdom Read over my words again and be ashamed If so then men
cannot have any unquestionable assurance that there was such a Person as Christ in the world that he wrought such great miracles for confirmation of his doctrine that he died and rose again Is all this no more than the common consent of Jews Gentiles and Cbristians that Christ died on a Cross Was ever any man so senseless as to make only the belief of the death of Christ on the Cross the reason of believing his Divinity But I say his Miracles before and Resurrection aâ—ter gave abundant testimony that he was sent from God and therefore his doctrine must needs be true and when we believe the truth of his doctrine wâ— are bound to believe every part of it such are his being the only Messias the true God the Redeemer of mankind and all other divine verities contained therein Let the Reader now judge whether the Objection or the Answer savours of more ignorance and folly But it is the mischief of this School-Divinity that it adds confidence to Ignorance and it makes men then most apt to despise others when they most expose themselves I proceeded to shew that instead of setling faith on a sure foundation by the Churches Infallibility they bring it to greater uncertainties than it was in before because they can neither satisfie men what that Church is which they suppose Infallible what in that Church is the proper subject of this Infallibility what kind of Infallibility it is nor how we should know when the Church doth define Infallibly and yet I say every one of these Questions is absolutely necessary to be resolved in order to the satisfaction of mens minds as to the Foundation of their Faith His Answer to these Questions refers us to his proofs of the Roman Churches Infallibility as the only society of Christians which hath power to define Infallibly by her representative moral Body which when I see proved I shall confess an Answer is given to those Questions Only one thing he thinks fit to give a more particular Answer to which is that this Infallibility should be the only Foundation of believing all things in Religion and yet so many things and some of them very strange ones must be certainly believed before it Here his common-place-Book again fails him and therefore wanting his Compass he roves and wanders from the point in hand He tells me it is hard to guess at my meaning for I name not one article thus assented to Perhaps I would say that the verities revealed in some Books of Scripture called Protocanonical known by their own proper signitures or motives as the Harmony Sanctity and Majesty of the Stile may be believed without this Testimony of an Infallible Church Well he doth not know what I meant but he knew an Argument he had an Answer ready to and therefore that must be my meaning But are not my words plain enough to any one that reads them And what a vast measure of faith say I is necessary to believe the Papal Infallibility for unless a man believes the particular Roman Church to be the Catholick Church unless he believes that Christ hath promised an infallible assistance to the Pastors of the Church and that not as separate but as assembled in Council and not in every Council but such as the Pope calls and presides in and confirms he cannot believe this Doctrine of Infallibility Nay further he must Infallibly believe the Church to be Infallible though no Infallible Argument be brought for it that this Church doth judicially and authoritatively pronounce her sentence in matters of Faith though we know not what that Church is which must so pronounce that he Infallibly know that this particular sentence was so pronounced though he can have no other than moral means of knowing it and lastly that the Infallibility must be the first thing believed although all these things must be believed before it Could any man well in his senses after reading these words imagine that I meant the self evidencing light of the Scriptures again But they write for those that believe them and that never dare look into the Books they pretend to consute Yet he hath a mind to prove the name of Roman Catholick Church to be no Bull which I said in a Parenthesis was like German universal Emperour This gives a new start another common-place Head is searched Title Catholick Church there he finds ready the old weather beaten Testimonies Rom. 1. 8. Your Faith is renowned the whole world over ergo Roman and Catholick are all one A plain demonstration What need they talk of the obscurity of Faith where there is such convincing evidence But what if it should have happened that S. Paul had said the same thing of the Faith of the Corinthians or Thessalonians would it not have been a most evident demonstration that the Church of Corinth was the Catholick Church at that time and was to continue so in following Ages But Scripture though never so plain cannot serve their turn they must have Fathers too So E. W. brings in St. Hierom St. Cyprian St. Athanasius St. Ambrose all evidently proving that the Church of Rome was once Catholick and what then I beseech him Were not other Churches so too But these very Testimonies as it unhappily falls out had been particularly and largely examined by me in a whole Chapter to that purpose But it is no matter for that I had not blotted them out of his Note-Books and there he found no answers and therefore out they come again § 11. 2. The second thing I objected against this way of resolving Faith was that it did not effect that which it was brought for for supposing that Chuch Infallible and that Infallibility proved by the motives of credibility they do not escape the circle objected against them Which I shewed 1. from the nature of divine Faith as explained by them 2. From the consideration of the persons whose Faith was to be resolved 3. From the nature of that Infallibility which is attributed to the Church I must now consider how E. W. attempts the clearing of these difficulties 1. As to the nature of divine Faith I ask whether a divine Faith as to the Churches Infallibility may be built upon the motives of credibility If it may then a divine Faith may rest upon prudential motives if not then this way cannot clear them from a circle in the resolution of divine Faith For I demanded why with a divine Faith they believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God Their answer is because the Church which is Infallible delivers them as such to us If I then ask why with a divine Faith they believe the Churches Infallibility I desired them to answer me if they can any other way than because the Scriptures which are Infallible say so It is a very pleasant thing to see how E. W. is miserably put to his shifts about this difficulty for although in his former Discourses he had
pressed the necessity of divine Faith so much that from thence he might introduce the necessity of Infallibility yet he now seems wholly to have forgotten any such distinction of Faith humane and divine although he could not but see that the force of my Argument did depend upon it The substance of his answer is That the first act of Faith whereby we believe the Churches Infallibility relies not on Scripture but upon the Church it self as the most known manisested Oracle Be it so but the Question is whether this first act be divine Faith or not if not it is nothing to the purpose if it be then divine Faith may want an Infallible Testimony for this first act of Faith concerning the Churches Infallibility hath nothing to rely upon but the fallible motives of credibility and consequently divine Faith may want an Infallible Testimony And I say still let them answer this if they can without apparent shuffling and running away from the Question in hand 2. From the consideration of the persons whose Faith is to be resolved for I say 1. The Question is not which way they will prove the Insallibility of their Church against those who deny it but which way they resolve their own Faith of the Churches Infallibility 2. In disputing against their Adversaries they cannot avoid the circle for while they prove Infallibility from Scripture the Question arises how they come to know Infallibly that this is the sense of those places for which they must again appeal to the Churches Infallibility in delivering the sense of Scripture which if it be not a circle I say there is hardly such a figure in Mathematicks To this he answers 1. That they both resolve and prove but then if they do resolve their Faith into this Infallibility it is no sufsicient answer to say they only prove it to Adversaries which was all I intended by that first particular But what answer doth he give to the second concerning tbe sense of Scripture Here again he makes use of his distinction of the first and second act of Faith the first he saith is not at all founded upon the sense of Scripture but upon the Churches own Infallible Testimony made by it self and for it self immediately credible Now if we speak saith he of another distinct consequent and more explicit act of Faith when we believe the Churches Infallibility upon this ground that she declares the Scriptures genuine sense which proves her an Infallible Oracle there is no difficulty at all because this very Exposition or Interpretation of Scripture is ultimately resolved into and therefore again believed upon the same Infallible Authority of the Church or rather upon Scripture and the Churches Interpretation together For thus joyntly taken they ground Faith and not like two disparate principles as if we first believed the Scriptures sense independently of the Churches Interpretation and then again believed the Churches interpretation to be Infallible because the sense of Scripture known aliunde or without depending on Church Authority saith she is Infallible This cannot bâ— if Scripture and the Churches interpretation indivisibly concur to this latter act of Faith whereof we now speak Here then is a Dilemma that clears all and frees us from the least shadow of a circle we either know or believe the Scriptures sense independently of the Churches interpretation or receive it upon her Infallible Authority grant the first there is no danger of a circle grant the latter there are 〈◊〉 two imaginable propositions to make a circle of whilst that sense internal to the letter cannot be Infallibly propounded otherwise than by the Church I have set down these words more at large to let the Reader try his faculty upon them what tolerable sense he can make of them My objection was plain and easie they offer to prove the Churches Infallibility by Scripture at least as to the second act of Faith which is alone pertinent to our purpose I asked what way they come to believe Infallibly themselves and assure others this is the sense of those places and in this case they are forced to return to the Churches Infalliâ—ility judge now Reader whether here be not a plain circle because they believe the Church Infallible because the true sense of Scripture saith she is so and again they believe this to be the Infallible sense of Scripture because the Infallible Church saith so No saith E. W. Here is not the least shadow of a circle I would he had told us first what a circle was and then applyed what he had said to the description given of it But for all that I can see by his answer he had a mind to amuse his Reader by seeming to say something but no great matter what Is not that a circle when the Argument made use of to prove another thing by must it self be proved by that very thing which it is made use of to prove For in this case the mind hath nothing to fix it self upon and therefore must suspend all assent which must have some certain foundation to proceed upon on which it may rest it self As the will could not love Physick for the sake of health if it loved health for the sake of Physick so neither can the understanding assent to one truth for another if it assent to that other only for the sake of the former For then the same Proposition would be more certain than the other as it is the antecedent by which the other is proved and less certain as it is the consequent proved by the other as it's antecedent and so in different respects would be more and less certain than it self Let us now apply this to our present case The thing to be proved is the Churches Infallibility the Argument to prove it by is the Infallible sense of Scripture but if the Infallible sense of Scripture can be proved by nothing but the Churches Infallible interpretation then it is plain that is assumed as an Argument to prove Infallibility by which cannot be otherwise known than by this Infallibility Now let any man attend to the answer he gives he saith there is no difficulty at all in believing the Churches Infallibility upon this ground that she declares the Scriptures genuine sense which proves her an Infallible Oracle No difficulty at all Nay that is a little strange that there should be no difficulty at all in believing the Churches Infallibility upon the sense of those Scriptures whose sense could not be insallibly known without the supposal of that Infallibility which is to be proved by them But how comes there to be no difficulty at all in this matter Because this very Exposition or Interpretation of Scripture brought to its last principle is ultimately resolved into and therefore again believed upon the same Infallible Authority of the Church or rather upon Scripture and the Churches interpretation together What a strange thing the difference of mens understandings is That which
he thinks makes it no difficâ—lty at all makes it to me the greatest in the world For by the Exposition or Interpretation I suppose he means the Infallible sense of Scripture and if this be resolved into and believed upon the same Infallible Authority of the Church then I still enquire how this Infallible Authority of the Church comes to be proved by this Exposition of Scripture the Infallibility of which doth suppose the thing to be proved viz. the Churches Infallibility And if the sense internal to the letter cannot be infallibly propounded otherwise than by the Church I would fain know what assurance any man can have of this sense but from the belief of this Infallible Interpreter But saith he Scripture and the Churches Interpretation indivisibly concur to this latter act of Faith This indivisible concurrence is to me an odd piece of mystical Divinity the meaning must be if there be any that I believe the Church Infallibility by those Scriptures from the Churches Infallibility appearing in the Infallible sense of those Scriptures But whence say I doth this appear to be the Infallible sense of them For if the sense of any places of Scripture be doubtful theirs is since their meaning is so doubtful how come men firmly to believe this to be the true and Infallible sense of those places and none else Can men come to an Infallible sense of Scripture without an Infallible Church if so what need of any such Infallibility if not then the Infallible sense of these places cannot be known but from the Churches Infallibility and therefore the Circle unavoidably follows viz. that they must prove the Churches Infallibility by the Infallible sense of Scripture and the Infallible sense of Scripture by the Churches Infallibility And any man might easily guess that E. W. was in a Circle by his Conjuring and speaking things which neither he nor any one else can understand 3. I shewed that they avoided not the circle by this way from the nature of the Infallibility which they attribute to the Church Which is not by an immediate Revelation but but by Divine assistance promised in Scripture and therefore the utmost the motives of credibility can do in this case is only to notifie or distinguish the Church but still the formal reason of believing this Infallibility cannot be from those Motives but from those promises which are supposed in Scripture to imply it So that still the circle returns for they believe the Scriptures Infallible because of the Churches Testimony and the Church Infallible because of the promisâ— of Scripture This he gravely calls aâ— unlearned objection That is even as iâ— pleases him but I have no reason to take him for an Infallible judge of Learning how ever it is no great matter learned oâ— unlearned it is more than he gives any tolerable answer to But I see no reason why he calls it so unless it be because he saith it is in effect the same objection repeated again And he thinks a man may be allowed to call his Creditor Roguâ— or Rascal that comes a second time because he could get no good answer at first However such is the civility of E. W. that he will not send it away without a sufficient answer and yet after all we have nothing for payment but the first general act of Faith one would have thought it had been the Act of Publick Faith by the badness of the payment And this first general act of Faith he saith wâ—olly relies upon the Churches own Infallible Testimony without depending on Scripture But what is this to that divine Faith we enquire after and which he saith must rest upon an Infallible Authority For since Faith must rest upon its motives and those motives are confessed to be fallible this cannot be that assent of Faith which himself makes to be necessary and we have made appear notwithstanding all his shusfling unavoidably brings them into a Circle CHAP. III. An Enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church § 1. THE next thing which I objected against this way of resolving faith was that it was notoriously false viz. that there are the same motives of credibility for the Infallibility of the Roman Church that there were for the Infallibility of Moses and the Prophets or of Christ and his Apostles The natural consequence I said of affirming this was that there is as great danger in not believing the Church of Rome insallible as in not believing Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles to have been sent from God For where there is an equal obligation to believe there is an equal sin in not believing and where the sin is equal it stands to reason that the punishment should be so too So that the denial of the Roman Churches Infallibility must be accounted by them as high a piece of Infidelity as calling in Qâ—estion the Infallibility of Christ himself or denying the Scriptures This doth not in the least startle E. W. for he boldly asserts that there are equal motives of credibility as to their Church and Christ and his Apostles he frequently challenges me to shew the disparity nay he puts the whole issue of his cause upon it As may be seen by these words of his The main argument of T. C. he saith was this As Christ and his Apostles proved themselves Oracles sent from God by their Works signs and Miracles again as the Primitive Christians induced by such signs believed Christ and the Apostles upon their own Testimony to be Infallible Teachers so we having ever had the very like Works Signs and Miracles manifest in the Church are prudently induced to believe her as an Infallible Oracle upon her own Infallible Testimony To solve this plain and pressing argument saith E. W. one of these two things must be done either a disparity is to be given between those first Signs and Miracles of the Apostles and the later of the Church or it must be shewn wherein the Inference made is defective or unconcluding viz. that the Church evidenced by her signs is not proved Gods Infallible Oracle as the Apostles were proved by their signs to be Infallible Teachers Afterward he saith he hath proved that the Church hath wrought Miracles every way equal with those which the Apostles wrought In those Chapters to which he refers us for the proof of this I find this assertion in the beginning I say first clear and unquestionable Miracles of the like quality with those which Christ and his Apostles wrought have been ever since most gloriously manifest in the Roman-Catholick Church and in no other Society of Christians Afterwards he calls their Miracles glorious Miracles standing upon inslubitable record and for the proof of these Miracles he appeals to the lives of the Saints and certain Church-history Besides the Testimonies of some Fathers of Miracles done in their time not at all to his purpose as shall afterwards appear he appeals to the
Leg cut off and strangely restored or that some persons were suddenly cured of a dangerous disease by the vision of an Apostle would this have ever satisfied the world that the Apostles were Persons sent from God and assisted by an infallible Spirit Supposing the matters of Fact were true it might be reasonably demanded why God might not do such extraordinary cures in some rare cases without making that Company of men infallible among whom they are done For we see their own Writers acknowledge that God may do real miracles even among Pagans and Infidels to give testimony to his universal Providence And Suarez particularly distinguisheth in this case of miracles saying that a miracle may be wrought two ways 1. Without respect to any truth at all to be confirmed by it but only for the benefit of him that receives it as in case of a miraculous cure or such like 2. When it is wrought purposely to confirm the truth of a doctrine Now I say supposing I should grant all that E. W. contends for as to the truth of the two miracles he insists so much upon viz. the cure of F. Marcellus and the restored Leg at Zaragosa what can this prove as to their Churches infallibility if according to Suarez such miracles may be wrought only for the benefit of those who receive them Del-Rio saith this is no good consequence such a one wrought miracles therefore his faith is true because God may work miracles by Insidels but this consequence he saith is good such a one wrought miracles to confirm the faith which he professed therefore his saith is true because God cannot work miracles purposely to confirm a falshood But withall he saith elsewhere that the faith being now established there is little or no necessity of miracles to confirm it Supposing then some true miracles to be wrought in the Roman Church what consequence can be thence drawn for that Churches infallibility in doctrine if those miracles are not wrought for that end as E. W. never undertook to prove that they were And if the consequence will not hold as to a particular person for the truth of his faith from the bare working of miracles neither can it for the truth or infallibility of a Church for the same reason for if God may work miracles by Infidels he may likewise in a false or corrupt Church Maldonat another Jesuit confesseth that since the Christian Religion hath been confirmed by miracles in the Churches beginning there is no necessity of miracles for that end and quotes Gregory and Bede for it who compare the power of miracles to the watering of a plant which is only needâ—ul at first and is given over when it hath taken root So that whatever miracles they suppose to remain in the Church they do not look on them as wrought for the confirmation of any necessary part of Christian faith such as the Churches Infallibility is asserted to be by E. W. Andradius saith that miracles are oftimes false but always weak proofs of a true Church Ferus that the doctrine of a Church is not to be proved by miracles but miracles by the doctrine viz. because Christ hath forewarned us of false Prophets doing so many signs and wonders So that Acosta saith that in the time of Antichrist it will be a hard matter to discern true and false signs when these later shall be many and great and very like the true and he quotes it from Hippolytus whom he calls an antient Writer that Antichrist shall do far greater miracles than the cure of Marcellus or the restored Leg at Zaragosa viz. that be shall raise the dead as well as cure the diseased and have command over all the elements And I would understand from E. W. whether Antichrists Church will not then be proved as insallible in this way as the Church of Rome Cajetan determines that the Church hath no ground to determine any matter of doctrine now on the account of miracles because the Dâ—vil may do such things which we cannot distinguish from true miracles as in great cures c. and because signs were given for unbelievers but the Church â—ow hath the Revelation of Prophets and Apostles to proceed by and because miracles prove only a personal faith i. e. of one that saith he is sent from God and because the doctrine of the Scripture is delivered to us with so much certainty that if an Angel from Heaven should deliver any thing contrary to it we are not to believe him and lastly because the most authentick testimonies of miracles among them viz. in the Canonization of Saints are not altogether certain because it is written every man is a lyer and he supposes that faith must stand on a more infallible certainty than that of their miracles And many of their most learned Writers do assert that there can be no certainty of the truth of any miracles among them but from the Churches approbation which is in effect to say they do not believe the Church infallible because of their miracles but they believe their miracles to be true because they believe their Church to be infallible For which Paulus Zacchias gives this reason because wicked men and Devils may not only do miracles in appearance but such as are really so as the instruments of divine Power and because credulous people are very apt to be deceived with false miracles instead of true And after he hath laid down the conditions of a true miracle he hath a chapter on purpose to enquire why since miracles very rarely happen yet so many are still pretended to in the Roman Church One cause he assigns of it is the monstrous credulity of their people in this matter of miracles who make so many that he saith if they were to be believed miracles would be almost as common as the ordinary effects of nature for no odd or unusual accident happens but among them passes for a miracle no man escapes out of a dangerous disease especially if by the disturbance of his Fancy he imagines he had a vision of some Saint as Xaverius or the like but he gives out he obtained his recovery by a miracle no man avoids any great danger or trouble if he chanced to think of the Blessed Virgin in it or made any addresses to some Saint for I do not find that praying to God or Christ is so effectual for miracles as praying to the Saints is but this is cryed up for a miracle Riolanus gives the relation of a man that was hanged and his body delivered to the Physitians to be dissected who found there was some lise in him and by letting blood and other means they recovered him who afterwards returning to his own Country Oetingen where there was a celebrated image of the Blessed Virgin this very recovery was there painted for a substantial miracle But to return to Zacchias miracles saith he are made so common among
us as though God had nothing else to do with his Power but to pervert the course of nature by it at the beck of any idle fellow as it God did not manage his power as he does all things else with infinite wisdom as if God imployed his extraordinary power without great and most urgent causes For when it was necessary to shew his power for the confirmation of the Christian Religion and the Satisfaction of unbelievers then all persons might see the wonderful works of God but now saith he when the Truth of Christianity is known it would be to no purpose for God to shew so many miracles But whence then comes it that so many miracles are still talked of This arises saith he from the devotion of some who attribute ordinary effects of nature to a miraculous Power and from the Superstitious folly and fraud of others who will not endure any thing cryed up for a miracle should be ever questioned by any but say it is profane Atheistical and which is somewhat worse heretical to do it Whereas poor wretches they do not think what injury they do the Catholick cause while they go about to strengthen it with lies and forgeries when the Christian doctrine is already fully confirmed by the most true and undoubted miracles of Christ and his Apostles What need they then to feign any new miracles Doth God need your lies will ye talk deceitfully for him as I may justly use the words of Job saith he of these men Another cause of so much talk of miracles in the Roman Church he saith is Ignorance whereby any extraordinary accident though such as might happen where Christianity was never known is extolled for a miracle Quorum operum causas nulla ratione videre Possunt haec fieri divino numine rentur From hence he proceeds to particulars and shews that most of those who are accounted possessed among them are Melancholy and Hypochondriacal men and Hysterical women and then examins the pretence to Inspiration and Prophecy to raptures and extasies to miraculous cures to prodigious fastings to incorruption of bodies to raising from the dead and shews under every one of these heads how very often the meer effects of nature pass for miracles in the Roman Church to whose learned discourses I refer the Reader and we may easily understand the meaning of such a person when he tells us after all this that the Church will not suffer men to be deceived about miracles but such as the Church approves are to be approved Now let any one judge whether such persons who receive no other miracles but such which the Church commands them to believe could ever imagine that the Infallibility of their Church was proved by such miracles which they would not believe to be true unless they first believed the Church which approved them to be infallible Fortunatus Scacchus a man of great Authority in Româ— grants that it is a very easie matter to take false miracles for true and that no certain argument can be taken from Tables which are hung up at Images or shrines that wicked men may do real miracles which he proves from Scripture and History and the continued practice in their Church from whence he concludes that no argument can be drawn for the sanctity of any Person but only from such miracles as are approved by the Roman Church For saith he it belongs only to the Authority of the Roman See and the Bishop of Rome to determine which are true miracles because the promise of infallibility is only made to the Roman Church and the Head of it From whence he concludes that no other Bishop hath any Power to approve miracles especially if they be supposed to be wrought by an uncanonized Saint For we are to understand that the great use of miracles in the Roman Church hath not been pretended to be for proving the faith or Infallibility of the Church but for an argument of Saintship of those who are to be Beatified or Canonized So Aquinas determines that miracles are either wrought to confirm the truth of a doctrine preached or for the demonstration of the Sanctity of a Person and therefore in the Process of Canonization one main enquiry is about the miracles wrought by the Person who stands for the preferment of Canonization In the Process about the Canonization of Andreas Corsinus presented to Paul 5. the Auditours of the Rota say that to the Being Canonized it is concluded by all to be necessary that the person have wrought miracles and there they agree that it is not necessary to a miracle to be wrought for the confirmation of faith seeing miracles may be done for another end viz. for the proof of the Sanctity of the Person And such miracles say they are those which are done among Catholicks for whose sake miracles would be necessary on no other account because miracles are a sign not to believers but to unbelievers whence as they well observe from Isidore St. Paul cured the Father of Publius by a miracle but presâ—ribed to Timothy a natural remedy And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many other processes of Canonization to the same purpose viz. to prove that it is not necessary to a miracle that it be done for the confirmation of any part of Christian faith Since therefore the far greatest number of the miracles in the Roman Church are such as are wrought for another end how can they from them prove the infallibility of their Church unless they can make it appear that where ever there are true Saints the Church is Infallible From which it appears that the miracles of the Roman Church ought no more to be compared with those of Christ and his Apostles as to the Testimony by them given to Infallibility than in point of credibility and that in both respects they are so infinitely short of them that nothing but the height of impudence could make any man pretending to be Christian to assert that as great nay greater miracles have been done by the Roman Church as ever were done by Christ or his Apostles in which subject I have taken the more pains not meerly to detect the frauds and impostures of the Roman Church but to preserve and vindicate the Honour of Christianity lest that should suffer by the intolerable rudeness of these comparisons The END Books sold by Henry Mortlock at his Shop at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard and at the White-Hart in Westminster Hall A Rational account of the grounds of Protestant Réligion being a Vindication of the Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterburies Relation of a conference from the pretended answer of T. C. by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. in Folio Cotgraves Dictionary French and English in Folio Sermons Preached by Anthony Farindon Folio House of Mourning in Folio Sheppards Practical Counsellor in Folio Animadversions on the 4. part of Cooks Institutes by William Prynne Esq Folio Observations upon Millitary and Political afairs by the Right
Imprimatur Sam. Parker R. in Christo Patri ac D no. D no. Gilberto Arch. Episc. Cantuar. Ã sac Dom. April 15. 1673. A SECOND DISCOURSE IN VINDICATION OF THE Protestant Grounds of Faith Against the Pretence of INFALLIBILITY In the ROMAN CHURCH In Answer to The Guide in Controversies by R. H Protestancy without Principles AND Reason and Religion or the Certain Rule of Faith by E. W. With a particular Enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church By Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty LONDON Printed by R. W. for H. Martlock at the Sign of the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard and at the White Hart in Westminster Hall 1673. To the Right Honourable ANTHONY Earl of SHAFTSBURY Lord High Chancellour OF ENGLAND c. My Lord I HOPE it will not be thought unseasonable to make an Address of this nature to Your Lordship in the Beginning of Term since the great Cause at present in Your Court as one of late pleasantly said is thaet between the King and the Pope between our Church and the Church of Rome And while so many Witnesses are daily sworn of the Kings and the Churches side it may not be improper to lay open to Your Lordship the Nature and Merits of the Cause A Cause My Lord which was at first set on Foot by Ambition carried on by Faction and must therefore be maintained by the like means but can never hope to prevail among us again till subjection to a Forreign Power can be thought our Interest and to part at once with Reason and Religion be esteemed our Honour It is a Cause much of the nature of some others depending before Your Lordship more vexatious than difficult and managed by such Advocates who being retained in the Cause though they have nothing material to say for it yet are ashamed to be silent Who are alwayes disputing about an end of Controversies but at the same time do their utmost to increase and perpetuate them and are ready to foment our differences that they may make use of them to their own advantage While we have such restless Adversaries to deal with part of our danger lyes in being too secure of the Goodness of our Cause and methinks there can be little satisfaction in lying still or quarrelling with each other when we know our common enemies to be at work undermining of us But whatever repose others enjoy my Adversaries seem to deal with me as some do with those whom they suspect of Witchcraft they think by pinching me so often and keeping me from taking rest to make me say at last as they would have me But the comfort is as long as I am secure of my senses I am of my Religion against theirs if I once lose them or my understanding I know not whether it may be my fortune to be carried to Rome or some more convenient place And in my opinion they deal with those under their care as if they believed them not to be in their right senses for they keep them alwayes in the dark and think nothing more dangerous than to let in light upon them Wherein I cannot deny but considering the nature of their Cause they take the most effectual course to maintain it for it not being capable of enduring a severe tryal nothing can preserve its reputation but Ignorance and Credulity which are therefore in so great esteem among them that if it were a Custome to Canonize Things as well as Persons we might find those sacred names in their Litanies and addresses as solemn made to them as ever were to Faith and Vertue among the elder and wiser Romans I need not go far for an Instance of their design to advance even in this Inquisitive Age the Honour of these two great Pillars of their Church For if your Lordship shall be pleased to cast Your eye on the following Discourse especially that part which concerns the Miracles of the Roman Church You will find fufficient evidence of it almost in every Page When I first engaged in this Controversie I could hardly believe what I now see that they would ever have brought it to this issue with me viz. That they would renounce all claim to Infallibility if they did not produce as great Miracles wrought in their Church to attest it as ever were wrought by Christ or his Apostles The boldness of which assertion and the pernicious influence of it upon Christianity it self hath made me take the more pains in the examination of it Which I have done with so much care in consulting their own approved Authors that I hope at last they will grow ashamed of that groundless calumny that I do not deal fairly in the citing of them A calumny so void of proof that I could desire no better argument of a baffled Cause than such impertinent Clamours But if impudent sayings will serve their turn they need never fear what can be written against them Do they indeed think me a man so void of common sense as to expose my self so easily to the contempt of every one that will but take pains to compare my citations Have I the Books only in my own keeping or are they so rare that they cannot get a sight of them How then come they to know them to be false quoted But alas they are men of business and have not leisure to search out and compare Books and therefore the shortest way is to say that without doubt they are all false Their numbers certainly are not so small nor their business so great but they might have spared some to have undertaken this task particularly if I had been faulty and in my mind it had been of some consequence to have freed their Church from those heavy imputations of Fanaticism and destroying the necessity of a good life from the Testimony of their own Authors But if these could not move them I desire them not to spare me in this present subject of Miracles wherein I profess to relye on the Testimony of their own Writers if they shew me any wilful mistakes therein I will endeavour to give them publick satisfaction Were I not well assured My Lord of the Strength of my Evidence as well as of the Goodness of my Cause I should never have appeared in it before a Person of so sharp and piercing a Judgement as Your Lordship But I have the rather presumed to offer this Discourse into Your Lordships hands and to send it abroad under the Protection of Your Name not only thereby to acknowledge the particular Favours I have received from Your Lordship but to thank You on a more publick Account I mean for Your late generous owning the Cause of our Religion and Church in so Critical a time which not only gives a present Lustre to Your Name but will preserve it with Honour to Posterity I am My Lord Your Lordships most obliged and faithful Servant Edward Stillingfleet The Contents CHAP. 1. An answer to
others should But the Foundation of all this Nonsense is a strange apprehension of the nature of faith which the School-doctrine hath so rivited into him that it seems to be of the nature of a first principle with him which must be supposed as the Basis of all his discourse which is that faith is an obscure and inevident assent or that it essentially tends obscurely to its object and therefore no motives or arguments how clear or strong soever can have any influence upon faith For he imagines as great an opposition between arguments and faith as between light and darkness he first conceives faith to be a kind of deep Dungeon of the soul full of darkness and obscurity and then bids men have a care of bringing any light into it for if they do it ceaseth to be what he described it A light may serve a man very well to shew him the way to this Dungeon nay it may direct him to the very door but then farewel to all light noâ— the least crevise must be left to let in any to the mind that is once entred it but the excellency of it is that the soul fixes more certainly on its object in this state of darkness than it could do being environed with the clearest light Just as if a man should say there is a particular way of seeing with ones eys shut which is far more admirable and excellent than all the common ways of beholding things being far more certain and piercing than seeing by the help of eyes and light is for the light and sight may both fail in the representation of an object but this seeing without eyes is an infallible way to prevent all the fallacies of sense Much in this way doth E. W. talk for all arguments are fallible and therefore by no means must faith proceed upon them O but this believing without or above or it may be against arguments is the most infallible thing in the world for that man need never fear being deceived with reason that disowns the use of it Upon these grounds a skilful Painter may make a shift to bungle and to draw some rude uneven strokes by the help of his Pencil and a good light but if he would be sure not to miss making an excellent Piece he ought to shut his eyes or darken his Room for then to be sure that fallible thing called light can never deceive him An indifferent person that only consulted the nature and reason of things could never have fallen into these dotages but it hath been the interest of some men to cry down light that have had false wares to put off But of all things I wonder if this be the whole nature of Christian faith to believe no man knows why nor wherefore for if he doth his faith ceases to be faith being built upon reason why all this ado is kept about an infallible Church and motives of credibility cannot a man believe without reason at first as well at last cannot faith fix upon Gods Revelation for it self without troubling those motives of credibility to no purpose If a man hath a mind to leap blindfold from a Precipice why cannot he do it without so much ceremony must he have all his attendance about him and his Gentleman-usher to conduct him to the very brink of the Rock and there bid him Goodnight If all these motives of credibility contribute nothing to the act of believing what use are they of in such a Religion where Faith is look'd on as the great Principle of practice and the means of salvation If the judgement of credibility would save men they might still be useful but this will be by no means allowed for nothing in their opinion but this blind Guide which they call faith can conduct men to Heaven § 8. But what is it that hath made meâ— so in love with nonsense and contradictions Hath the Scripture given any countenance to this notion of faith Yes doubtless they are such lovers of Scripture that they daâ—e not take up any opinion in these matters without plain Scripture Then I hope Scripture may be plain in clear things if it be so in the description of so obscure a thing as they make faith to be But doth not the Scripture say that Faith is the Substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen and is not this all one as if it had been said that faith essentially tends obscurely to its object and that it is an inevident assent and therefore cannot make use of arguments This I know is all the pretence they have for this notion of faith but is it not very pretty because faith is called an evidence therefore iâ— must be inevident or to follow the vulgaâ— Latine because it is called an argument therefore it can use none No man is so senseless to deny that we believe things we do not see and things which cannot be seen we believe some things which might have been seen and were seen by some whose credit we rely upon as the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ we believe other things which are uncapable of being seen by our senses as the Joys of Heaven and the Torments of Hell and as to such things faith supplies the want of the Evidence of sense to us and by it our minds are assured of the truth of them though we do not or cannot see them Which is all that is intended by this description of faith but how doth it hence follow that our faith must be an immediate inevident obscure assent on which all the arguments that perswade men to believe can have no influence May not I believe that Christ died and rose again and will come to judge the quick and the dead because I see all the reason in the world to perswade me to believe it from the testimony of those who saw him and have delivered his doctrine to us and have given the greatest evidence of their fidelity Doth the strength of the argument hinder me at all from believing what I did not see I had rather thought the more obscure the object had been for it is little better than nonsense to call an act of faith obscure the greater necessity there had been of strong evidence to perswade a man to believe not such evidence as doth arise from the nature of the thing for that is contrary to the obscurity of the object but such as gives the greatest reason to believe from the Authority of those on whose Testimony I rely So that the greatest clearness and evidence as to the Testimony is not repugnant to the nature of Faith this only shews that in Christian Religion we do noâ— proceed by meer evidence of sense or rigorous demonstrations in the things we assent to but that the great things we believe are remote from sense and received upon the Authority of the Revealer yet so as that we assert we have as great evidence that these things were
common sense viz. That no assent of divine Faith can have any greater true and rational certainty than the assent of the medium hath by which the object of Faith is applied to the understanding For whatever certainty we can attribute to an intellectual assent upon the Authority of God revealing it is necessary it should come from and depend upon the certainty of the medium by which this Authority of God revealing is conveyed to the understanding For as it is impossible that a man should believe or yield assent to any thing because it is revealed by God unless he thinks and knows that God hath revealed it so it is impossible that he should believe the things revealed by God with greater true and rational certainty than that by which he knows that God revealed them For whatever degree of uncertainty or doubt there is in the mind of a believer of the certainty and truth of the medium there must be the same in that assent whereby he believes the things which are proposed by that medium Because with what degree a man doubts whether God hath revealed this or that he cannot but doubt in the same degree of that which is said to be revealed by God For what man in his wits doth not presently perceive that no man can be more certain of that thing which God is said to reveal than he is certain that God hath revealed it as no man can be more certain of the things done by Caesar than they are that Caesar was or of the mysteries revealed by Christ than that Christ was This he saith he had never mentioned unless some later Divines such as E. W. discoursing vainly and Sceptically and not considering the true reason of believing had feigned to themselves he knew not what kind of divine and supernatural certainty in Christian Faith passing by the true and rational which it is clearer than noon day is but an idle and imaginary thing Good Reader observe the power of reason over an ingenuous mind I know not what entertainment Dr. H. might have given E. W. on other accounts but it is plain by this Discourse he thought a dark Room the fittest for him since he pronounces that no man in his senses can assert the things which he confidently doth Although therefore he thought this needless to be proved yet I must proceed to shew § 9. 2. That the Assent of Faith can be no stronger than the Grounds are For if it doth proceed upon Grounds those are of the nature of Premises and the assent of faith as the conclusion drawn from them and therefore must be stronger or weaker according to them In every act of Faith which hath a particular Revelation for its object there must be two distinct premises conceived from whence that which is the proper act of believing follows As suppose the Question be concerning the Resurrection of the dead why I believe that article of Faith to be tâ—ue the present Answer is because God hath revealed it but therein lies the force of a Syllogism by which it will appear that the act of Faith follows as the conclusion from the premises Whatsoever God reveals is true but God hath revealed the Resurrection of the dead therefore it is true Now since the force of a conclusion depends upon the premises the assent of Faith cannot be supposed stronger and firmer than the Premises are from which it results For however it may hold in other causes in those which are moral and final it is an undoubted Maxim of reason That which makes an other thing to be so must be much more so it self As that end which makes any thing desirable for its sake is much more desirable it self because it is that which moves the Soul to desire the means and so it is likewise in whatever moves the understanding to assent as well as the will to desire but the Premises do move the understanding to assent to the conclusion therefore the consent to the conclusion must be agreeable to that of the Premises This difficulty hath so racked and tormented the minds of the Schoolmen that Arriaga relates he hath heard the most Learned and Ingenious among them profess they could find no way through it While they did require an infallible assent in the conclusion when there could be no infallible assent to one of the Premises viz. that God hath revealed this Which some have thought they got over when they asserted the necessity of the Churches Infallibility as the foundation of that assent But granting them the truth of that yet they have given the difficulty but one remove by it for it speedily returns again concerning the belief of the Churches Infaâ—libility which they agree must be believed infallibly and yet here again they offer at no more than motives confessed to be fallible to prove it And so at last they are fain to take up with other Answers which make the Churches Infallible Proposition of no use at all in this matter for if the assent be said to be immediate to the Revelation if the strength of it arises either from the Spirit of God or the pious inclination of the Will and not from the motives of Faith if any of these waies can solve the difficulty then however from hence it follows that all these will equally do it without ever so much as supposing the necessity of the Churches infallible Testimony I shall not now trouble my self with others but consider my Adversary who after making several attempts this way and that at last bethinks of a good Friend in a corner called the Power of the Will and to this he is willing to attribute the strength of the assent when it exceeds the motives of Faith which he thinks the more plain and easie way and therefore asserts that after the previous judgement of credibility the Will works by hâ—r pious affection and that moves the understanding to elicit the infallible assent of Faith For saith he if it be demanded how the understanding dares rest most firmly on an object not evidently seen we pass â—rom that Power to the Will and say she can by her pious affection command the intellectual faculty to captivate it self in Obsequium fidei and believe most undoubtedly This is the last Reserve in this matter which is as weak as any of the former For if the Will can determine the understanding to assent beyond the strength of the motives it may determine it to assent without any motives at all because that degree of assent which doth exceed the evidence of the motives hath nothing to incline or move it besides the meer power of the Will and if it can command the highest and most Infallible assent withouâ— Infallible grounds it may equally command a fallible assent without fallible grounds and by this means there will be no need of any motives of credibility at all Besides this takes away any such thing as the formal object of divine
known Miracles of those two admirable Saints Blessed St. Dominick and the Seraphical St. Francis and St. Vincentius Ferrerius reported by the pious and learned St. Antoninus Arch-Bishop of Florence From whence he infers that the Miracles wrought in the Roman-Catholick Church are not inferiour to those done by the Apostles and a little after Iâ— the Miracles of Christ and the Apostles rationally proved against Jews and Gentiles the credibility of Apostolical Doctrine the very like signs and supernatural effects most evident in the Roman-Catholick Church as rationally prove against Sectaries the credibility of our now professed Catholick-Doctrine for which he gives this reason The same signs and marks of Truth when equal in Majesty worth quality and number ever discover to reason the same Truth wherefore if the Roman-Catholick Church most clearly gives in evidence of her Miracles equal in worth quality and number with those wrought by Christ and his Apostles it follows that as those first Apostolical wonders were sufficient to convice Jews and Gentiles of the Truth of Christianity so these later also wrought in the Church are of like force and no less efficacious to convince Sectaries of whatever Doctrine she teaches Now ponder well what the Apostoles did they cured the sick dispossed Devils raised the dead converted nations c. but these very Miracles have been done in the Roman-Catholick Church yea and greater too Ergo we have the like evidence of Truth in both the Primitive Age and this consequently with it the same Truth The sequel is undeniable After this for particular instances he appeals to the undeniably authentick monuments and testimonies of that one sacred house of Loreto to the continual Miracles done at the Reliques of St. James at Compostella in Spain to the Sacred Vial of St. Mary Magdalen in France wherein saith he very gravely the precious blood gathered by that penitent Saint at our Saviours passion is yet preserved and visibly boyls up on the very day he suffered after the reading of the Passion to the undoubted Miracles wrought by the intercession of our Blessed Lady at Montaigu for which he calls in the testimonies of Lipsius and Putean and at large relates a Miracle wrought by St. Xaverius upon F. Marcellus a Jesuit at Naples and then answers some few Objections and concludes with the vindication of the Miracle at Zaragosa in Spain This is the substance of E. W's discourse upon this subject which in the proper consequence of it doth more really enervate the proofs of Christianity than establish the infallibility of the Roman Church For I do not think an Atheist would desire more advantage against the Christian Religion than to have it granted that the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles were no other than such as are wrought in the Roman Church and that the proofs of them are no more authentick and undeniable than those of the Miracles done at Loreto Compostella or Montaigu and that Christ and his Apostles gave no more illustrious evidences of their being sent from God than St. Dominick or St. Francis and that there was no greater evidence of Christs Resurrection from the dead than there is of the boyling up of the blood of Christ in the Vial of St. Mary Magdalen in the Church of St. Maximin in France Therefore not only to invalidate the Testimony drawn from hence for the Roman Churches Infallibility but to preserve the honour of Christianity I am obliged to enquire into these two things 1. Whether the Testimony upon which the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles and those of the Roman Church are delivered be equally credible 2. Whether the Miracles of the Roman Church be so equal to abate him what he saith of greater in worth quality and number with those of Christ and his Apostles that the Roman Churches Infallibility is as much attested by them as Christ and his Apostles was by theirs 1. I shall enquire into the credibility of the Testimony on both sides Two things are agreed to make up sufficient credibility in a Testimony viz. the knowledge and fidelity of the persons who deliver it If they speak nothing but what they were certain witnesses of and never gave suspicion of fraud and deceit and offered the highest ways of proof concerning their own fidelity then it is an unreasonable thing to disbelieve them This is the case of those who recorded our Saviours and his Apostles Miracles they were persons who either saw them wrought themselves or had them delivered to them immediately by them who saw them they published them to the world in that Age wherein they werecapable of being disproved by persons then living in the same places where they were wrought and were notorious enemies to the persons who did them who were concerned to discover for their own justification the least fraud or imposture in those matters But besides this to take away all suspicion of design the â—nesses of these things freely quitted all exâ—ectations of worldly advantages they ran themselves upon the greatest hazards to attest the truth of what they said and at last sacrificed their lives to confirm the truth of their own Testimony But on the other side if I can prove 1. That the greatest number of the Miracles in the Roman Church have been believed upon the credit of Fables and uncertain reports 2. That the Testimony of those who deliver them hath been contradicted by men of greater Authority than themselves 3. If upon strict and careful examination notorious forgeries and impostures have been discovered and never any persons laid down their lives to attest the truth of any of their Miracles then it can be nothing but the greatest impudence in any to parallel the Testimony of the Primitive Church concerning the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles with that of the Miracles wrought in the Church of Rome 1. That the greatest number of Miracles in the Roman Church have been believed upon the credit of Fables and uncertain reports For the proof of this I shall make choice of his own instances of Loreto in Italy Compostella in Spain St. Maximins Church in France and the lives of his two admirable Saints to which I shall add some nearer home that we may have a proof of the credibility of these miracles in the most considerable places of Europe § 2. Let us first go on pilgrimage to our Lady of Loreto to view the undeniably Authentick publick monuments and Testimonies of Miracles there wrought The first to be seen there in a Table hanging up for that purpose is the wonderful Miracle in the translation of that Chappel first from Nazareth to Dalmatia and from Dalmatia into those parts of Italy where it now stands The story cannot be better told than it is in the Authentick Table it self which may be thus Translated The Church of our B. Lady of Loreto was a Chamber of the House of the B. Virgin Mary Mother of our Lord Jesus
Miracles to convert them bâ—â— withal saith that the conversion of Infidels 〈◊〉 not so necessary now as in the Apostles times and therefore God doth not in this ordinarily bestow this gift on men although he mâ—â— do it in some extraordinary cases Whâ—â— shall we say now to the Testimony of thiâ— learned Bishop had he never heard 〈◊〉 St. James of Compostella and the Miraclâ—â— pretended to be wrought there and could 〈◊〉 believe them and write these things Haâ— he never heard of St. Vincentius Ferreriâ—â— who lived in some part of the same time witâ— him and if he had believed the Miracles reported of him he would neither have pâ—â— the Question nor answered it so as he diâ— After him I shall produce the Testimony 〈◊〉 Fisher Bishop of Rochester in his Answer tâ— Luther who to prove the necessity of interpreting Scripture by the continued sense 〈◊〉 the Church and not by the bare Letter offeâ— to produce such words of Christ in which bâ—sides the matter of fact and the commanâ— there is a promise annexed and yet saith he in our dayes no effect of this promise iâ— seen and then brings the words of Scriptuâ—â— wherein it is said that Christ cured tâ—â— blind and the lame and cast out Devils and he commanded his Disciples to do 〈◊〉 same and makes a promise to them that â—hould believe in Christ. Mark 16. that many â—â—gns should follow them and yet this promise saith he hath no effect now for no man â—ow casts out Devils nor heals diseases and yet no one questions but there are many that believe But what then was the promise of Christ of no effect no saith he Christ intended it only for the first Ages of the Church but when the Christian faith was dispersed over the world there was no longer need of miracles Can any Testimony be more plain or weighty in our case than this it being from one who undoubtedly knew all the pretences to miracles that were then made Erasmus expresly saith that the gift of miracles which was necessary to the first Ages of the Church for the conversion of Infidels as speaking with strange Tongues miraculous Cures Prophesying and such like miracles is is now ceased Stella not only saith that the power of miracles is ceased but he saith that the receiving it would do more hurt than good for men would say that the Christian faith was not sufficiently confirmed before Of all cases we might most reasonably suppose that God should if ever renew this gift in the conversion of Infidels and yet Franciscus à Victoria saith that he heard of no miracles or signs that were wrought for the conversion of the Indians Josephus Acostâ— at large debates this case why God doth nâ—â— now give the power of miracles among those who preach to Infidels as he did of old anâ— he offers at several reasons for it of which this is the chief That miracles were necessary in the beginning of Christian Religion but not now And if the Church be defective in the power of miracles where it is the most necessary what reasonable ground can there be to think that God should imploy his power not for the satisfaction of Infidels but of the credulous and superstitious As God never works miracles to convince obstinate Atheists so neither doth he to gratifie the curiosity of old Women and Pilgrims but if ever he doâ—â— it it is to lay a sufficient foundation for those to believe who are otherwise destitute of the means of faith But if such persons who are imployed upon the work of converting Infidels do want the Testimony of miracles I know no reason to believe that he imployâ—â— it for other ends And if these persons had believed that the power of miracles had been any where else in the Church they would have made that considerable objection to themselves why God should give it where there was less need and deny it where there was greatest But what then shall we say to the miracles pretended to be wrought by Xaverius and others in the East-Indies I say that if they were sufficiently attested we might be much more inclined to believe the Truth of those miracles than of the Lady of Loretto or St. James of Compostella or any of the rest which E. W. refers us to For if it were at any time reasonable to expect a power of miracles it would be for the conversion of Infidels and Xaverius and his companions going upon so generous a design might be favoured in it by some extraordinary effects of Divine Power But then in all reason the miracles would be such as were most accommodated to that design as the speaking with the Tongues in which they were to preach the Christian Religion but by the letters of Xaverius himself we find that he was extreamly put to it for want of this gift of Tongues both on the Coast of Commorin and especially in Japan for in one of his Letters he laments his condition very much because the people being willing to learn and he as willing to instruct them for want of the language they conversed with each other like Statues and when they asked him questions he could give them no answer but by degrees he said he learnt to prattle like a Child among them Can any one now imagine that God had bestowed the gift of miracles upon Xaverius for propagating Christianity and yet should deny him that without which all other miracles would be to no purpose if he could not deliver the doctrine those miracles were to confirm so as to be understood by the people But in truth I do not find that Xaverius himself in any of his Epistles did make any pretence to the power of miracles after his death indeed the Jesuits in those parts to increase the glory of their Society and their Brethren in these parts as readily concurring to such a design published some miracles which they said were wrought by him So Melchior Nunezius in his Epistle to Ignatius Loyola where he gives an account of the death of Francis Xaverius saith that many things were discovered since his death that were not known while he was alive and is not this a very probable circumstance that he had a power of miracles Would the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles have converted Infidels if they had not been known while they were living And yet these miracles he reports are very few and delivered on the single testimonies of no very considerable men the rest he faith for brevity's sake he omits which is not very probable considering how long he insists upon the story of the miraculous incorruption of his Body after his decease Which Bellarmin likewise magnifies viz. That his Body being cast into Lime was preserved fifteen months entire and free from corruption What will not these men make miracles of when they have a mind to it When Maffeius saith that the Relicks of St. Thomas at
and Hieronymus Brizids and the rest of the subscribers as great Friends to the Church of Rome and as much conceâ—ned for the honour of it as Soâ—rates could be for the Novatians why then should their testimony for the restored Legat Zâ—ragosa be more creditable than Socrates his for Paulus the Novatian Bishop So that if interest takes away all authority in these matters then we cannot safely believe the Testimony of any in the Church of Rome for the miracles wrought in it if notwithstanding that the Authority of witnesses stands good then miracles may be wrought in heretical or schismatical Churches and consequently can prove nothing as to the truth or infallibility of the Church But neither the Novatians nor Arians nor Donatists were convicted of so many forgeries in this matter of miracles as those of the Church of Rome have been they never thoâ—ght it lawful that we can find to teâ—l lies for the honour of their Church both which we have already proved concerning the reporters of miracles in the Roman Church and therefore their Testimony ought more to be suspected in this matter than that of honest Heathens or Hereticks 2. They answer that notwithstanding all the outward appearance of miracles the things done by them might be no true miracles So Malderus goes on saying that the pretended miracle of Paulus the Novatian Bishop was not such as did exceed the power of the Devil And Bellarmin grants that there can be no infallible certainty of the truth of a miracle before the approbation of the Church the reason he gives is this because though the Devil can do no true miracles yet he can do the greatest to appearance Now I would sain understand this how miracles can prove the truth and infallibility of the Church if the truth of miracles depends upon the Churches approbation i. e. whether I must not first believe the Church to be true before I can possibly be certain whether a miracle be true or not I know Bellarmin saith that the Church is proved by miracles not as to infallible certainty but as to the evidence of credibility But what evidence of credibility can there be from miracles where no one can be certain whether they be miraclâ—s or not For the making faith credible by miracles doth suppose those miracles to be first certainly known to be such but in this case if the power of the Devil can extend so far as that no certain difference can be assigned between true and apparent miracles but from the Churches approbation how is it possible the Church should be certainly known by miracles if the miracles cannot be certainly known but by the Church So that for us to distinguish the miracles done by Hereticks and those in the Catholick Church we must appeal to the judgement of the Catholick Church and yet our way to know which is the Catholick Church saith E. W. and his Brethren must be by miracles i. e. we must know a man by such marks which we cannot know to be the marks of such a man till we first know the man But it may be others speak more consistently and reasonably in this matter and therefore 3. They answer that although Hereticks may do real miracles yet not for the confirmation of their heresie but of some common truth So the same Malderus saith that the Novatian miracle being granted to be true doth not confirm the errour of the Novatians but the truth of the Sacrament for the Jew was baptized before by the Arians and Macedonians So 〈◊〉 Medina salves the miracles wrought among the Pagans that they did give testimony to divine providence and not to their particular superstitions Fevardentius confesses the Church hath never determined that Hereticks cannot work true miracles and that those who hold the affimative have plain Testimonies of Fathers for them which he there mentions If this be true then miracles now can prove nothing as to the Truth or infallibility of the Church when the communions of Christians are different from each other for the miracles wrought may only be for the attestation of some common truths received among all Christians or to manifest the Providence of God to the world Among their late writers none hath considered this difficulty with more care and diligence than Father Lingendes hath done both with a respect to the miracles of Heathens and Hereticks To which he thus answers 1. That for the most paâ—t they were false and counterseit at least they were not true miracles if the name of miracle be taken strictly and properly for saith he either they were meer illusions of the senses or they did not exceed any created power either in the substance or the manner of them and therefore the Devils might easily effâ—ct them 2. That some circumstances did discover the imposture when true miracles were wrought in opposition to them as in Pharaohs Magicians and Simon Magus otherwise God would not permit evil men to work miracles 3. That God hath given a most certain rule for the tryal of miracles viz. God is faithful and cannot deny himself and therefore he cannot be the Author of miracles whereby things contrary to each other are confirmed Wherefore saith he if a saith once established by miracles be impugned by other miracles we are to believe the latter miracles to be meer imposture For the Apostle tells us that Jesus Christ is not yea and nay but a Yea and Amen and although we or an Angel from heaven preach another Gospel let him be Anathema See the wisdom of the Apostle He brings us back to the first preaching which was not lightly established but with innumerable miracles which were most certain and most manifest from whence he concludes that all others that are brought to confirm any doctrine contrary to this ought to be rejected But of what sort even though an Angel or an Apostle should preach another doctrine for saith he among things impossible that is the most impossible that God should lie which is far more impossible than that an Angel should and consequently what God hath once attested by miracles can be less salse than when an Angel hath attested or the Apostle spake this that by this means we may discover the Devil when he transforms himself into an Angel of light 4. If any true miracles were wrought among Heathens and Infidels as it may be some were yet none were ever wrought to confirm any falshood or error but for some truth or some benefit to mankind among which he reckons the miracles of Claudia the Roman Lady and of the vestal virgin to give testimony to their innocency After this he descends to a more particular examination of the miracles of Hereticks and false Christians and as to these he lays down these propositions 1. That miracles are of two kinds some strictly and properly so called which are effects exceeding all created Powers either as to the substance or the manner of them as the curing a
man born blind the raising the dead c. others are such as exceed the common power of nature although there may be some secret and hidden causes of them that may lie within the compass of nature The first sort he saith are the only undoubted testimonies of truth but the other may be wrought by the Devils power either by local motion or the application of the power of natural Agents Of this sort saith he are the miracles done by false Christs and false Prophets and by Antichrist and among these he reckons all manner of cures when the diseases are not wholly incurable 2. He saith that miracles of this later sort are equivocal signs and may be referred to different causes and therefore nothing can be determined by them considered in themselves because they may be done by a different power and for a different end When they are done for ostentation or delight or curiosity they cannot have God for their Author much less when they are wrought to confirm a false doctrine or for an evil end therefore when such miracles are wrought for confirmation of an error they have not God but the Devil for their cause For although they be aequivocal of themselves yet the determining of them to an evil end such as the confirmation of an error is takes away all aequivocalness in them 3. He asserts that true and proper miracles in the first sense although most commonly wrought by good men as Gods instruments yet may sometimes be done by wicked men and Hereticks and Infidels For which he instances in Balaam and those our Saviour mentions who should boast of the miracles they had wrought in his name which Christ doth not deny but only rejects them for being workers of iniquity and in Judas who wrought miracles with the other Apostles although we do not read that the Blessed Virgin or Joseph or John the Baptist ever wrought any He observes from St. Austin that God gives this power of miracles to evil men when he denies it to good 1. Lest the power should be attributed to the instrument or seem to take its vertue from thence 2. Because miracles are not wrought for the good of the efficient but for the good of others 3. Lest men should set a higher value upon miracles than upon true goodness and vertue For Saith he this is a false consequence such a man does miracles therefore he is approved or his doctrine such a place miracles are wrought in therefore such a place is approved for by this consequence wicked men Hereticks and Infidels would be approved of whom it is certain that they have wrought miracles 4. Such kind of miracles though they may be done by Hereticks can never be wrought sor the confirmation of error for that were to charge God himself with falshood but miracles of the other sort he grants may be wrought for the confirmation os errors because they are such as do not exceed the Devils power and in this case to know whether they come from God or the Devil must be taken from the end for which they are wrought as he shews from S. Austin From which discourse of Lingendes it follows â—hat since the confirmation of Christian Reâ—igion by miracles the only certain way of â—istinguishing true and deceitful miracles is from the end for which they were wrought For he grants that to all outward appearance Hereticks and false Christians may do as great â—s any nay God himself may use them as his Instruments to confirm Truth by but we are sure God cannot imploy his Power to confirm a falshood Since therefore we are forewarned that men shall appear with such signs and lying wonders as would if it were possible deceive the very Elect since no distinction can be made from the things themselves between the effects of a created invisible power and of a divine in most things which pass for miracles since Hereticks may be Gods instruments in the most divine miracles for a good end it necessarily follows that the pretence of miracles is far from proving the truth and infallibility of the Church wherein they are wrought till it be made appear that they are truly divine miracles that they are wrought for this end to prove this Churches infallibility and that the Churches infallibility doth not contradict any part of that doctrine which hath been already confirmed by the miracles of Christ and his Apostles 2. They can never prove that the miracles wrought in the Roman Church were wrought for no other end but to prove the Infallibility of their Church When Christ and his Apostles wrought miracles to prove their Infallibility they wrought the miracles themselves and declared that this was the end for which they were wrought that men might believe that they were Teachers sent from God but there is nothing like this in the miracles of the Roman Church They are generally pretended to be done at some Shrine or Monument or by a vision of some Saint and among the most credulous people but by no means for the satisfaction of Infidels or Hereticks whose very presence is enough to spoil a well contrived miracle but supposing the things true which are reported what doth a restored Leg to a poor Boy at Zaragosa in Spain signifie to the proof of the Roman Churches Infallibility or Father Marcellus his cure at Naples by a vision of Xaverius to the proof of Pius the fourths Creed If they will prove any thing by this way of miracles let their Missionaries here among us whom they account Infidels and Hereticks do the same things that Christ and his Apostles did for the conversion of Jews and Gentiles Let them heal all manner of diseases as pubâ—â—ckly as commonly as perfectly as suddenâ—y as they did and with no more art or cereâ—ony let us see them raise the dead and not â—hink we will be put off with painted Straws 〈◊〉 counterfeit Trances which we hope they â—re ashamed of themselves such things I asâ—â—ure them tend not to the credit of their â—ower of miracles among us and do not much â—elp our faith in the belief of things done at â— great distance and in such places where credulity and superstition reign If you do miracles in earnest do them before enemies as Christ and his Apostles did give us leave to stand by that we may be satisfied from the circumstances of them that they are true miracles and wrought to testifie that your Teachers are sent from God But you do not pretend to work miracles to confirm the Authority of your Teachers for then of all persons your Popes should work the greatest miracles and the Bishops who sit in General Councils among whom this Infallibility is lodged therefore there is no parallel between the miracles done in the Church of Rome and those which were wrought by Christ or his Apostles If all that had been pleaded in the Apostles times for their divine commission had been only that a poor Boy had his
or undeniable authentick Testimonies For the whole World bears witness to it by the honors they give her and the presents they sâ—nd for the cures they have received For many have been strangely cured by her help who have been given over by Physitians and and many blind and lame have been healed by her Let E. W. produce more Authentick Testimonies than these are if he thinks so much credit to be given to these Tables or any Argument can be drawn from a Catholick reputation or great presents Neither was this only in Egypt but Tibullus mentions the same at Rome too speaking of Isis. Nunc Dea nunc succurre mihi nampossé mederi Picta docet templis multa tabella tuis The same may be seen in the Temples of Aesculapius especially that of Epidauruâ— of which Strabo speaks and saith It was full of the Tables of such as had recovered from diseases by his help as likewise were his Temples at Co and Tricca The like may be observed of the Temple of Aesculapius near Rome in the Isle of Tyber of which some of the Tables have been preserved in Rome by the Maphaei and are published by Mercurialis And Cicero speaking of an Image of Ceres at Enna in Sicily saith That many prodigies were done by her which shewed her power and Divinity that in many most difficult cases persons have found her help and not only the Sicilians but other Nations flock th ther And that the Statue of Hercules was in so great esteem there that his very Chin was worn with the salutations which were given him To the same purpose as Tursellinus somewhere speaks of the Image at Loreto So that the Arguments drawn from the Tables from general reputation and the concourse of people will equally hold for a Religion directly opposite to Christianity But we have not followed any cunningly devised Fables the proofs of our Religion do not depend upon the fraud of Priests or the superstition and credulity of the people nor upon any extraordinary accidents and rare occurrences but the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles were publick and frequent wrought by their own words while they were conversant among men not at Shrines or Altars or in dark andobscure places and only among persons prepossessed before hand with sufficient readiness to believe what ever shall be related as a Miracle These are the circumstances of the Miracles wrought in the Roman Church but as vastly different from those of Christ and his Apostles as light is from darkness or Truth from uncertain reports or a well grounded Faith from superstitious credulity And thus much for the Authentick Testimonies of Miracles in the sacred House of Loreto § 4. Having performed one Pilgrimage we must begin another to St. James of Compostella and there take notice of the Miracles done at his Relicks there But what if St. James have no Relicks at all there What if he never were in Spain how can his Relicks there ever then perform any Miracles But what ever we believe it is infidelity in Spain to question it it is fit therefore we should have the story as they relate it who think they should know it best and it is this That James the Son of Zebedee having passed through Judea and Samaria came into Spain to Preach the Gospel and having converted some there he returned to Hierusalem carrying his Disciples with him where he was slain by Agrippa and his Body afterwards was carried to Compostella where it is solemnly worshipped by Pilgrims flocking thither from all parts of the World This is the substance of what the present Roman Breviary allows and is truly more kind to the story than it hath been formerly for I am much mistaken if Clement the 8th did not insert into his Breviary That he came into Spain according to the Tradition of that â—rovince For we must know the Court of Rome hath been very jealous of such pretences as those are of receiving the Faith at first from any of the Apostles besides St. Peter or those sent by him lest under such a pretence they might one time or other plead for their exemption from the Popes Authority This made Cardinal Baronius so much to set himself against this tradition of St. James his Preaching in Spain and disproves it from the Testimony of Rodericus Ximenius Arch-bishop of Toledo who in the Lateran Council under Innocent the third denied that ever St. James came into Spain and that not unadvisedly but in a solemn debate between him and the Bishop of Compostella He consesses indeed that when he was a Boy he heard the story of it but it was only from some Religious women saith Baronius some Nuns and Religious Widows saith Rodericus himself but as Baronius observes he did not think it worth inserting into his History and the Bishop of Compostella could not produce one ancient Author for that tradition though he came provided to the Council for the managing this debate Besides he saith that the Church of Compostella could then boast but of the antiquity of one hundred and nine years one hundred wanting nine saith Baronius for then Pope Calistus translated the Bishoprick of Merida to Compostella before which there was only a small Oratory there To this testimony he adds two Popes Innocent the first and Gregory the seventh affirming that Spain first received the Faith from Rome But the present Breviary hath excellently accommodated this difference by making seven of St. James his Disciples to be ordained by St. Peter at Rome and thence sent into Spain This it is to serve a turn though it be without the least pretence from Antiquity But now is not this tradition of St. James his being in Spain confirmed by undeniable and Authentick Testimonies What shall we say then to the Miracles wrought by him For we are to consider although the story be so lean and bare in the present Breviaâ—y yet the learned and worthy Arch-bishop St. Antonin besides others have it much improved For he tells us how St. James after his return to Judea was much opposed by Hermogenes a Magician who sent his Disciple Philetus to confound him we must never ask from whence they had this story it is fully enough that the name of Hermogenes and Philetus are in the New Testament Well Philetus becomes a Disciple of St. James at which Hermogenes was so enraged that he enchanted him so that he could not move Nâ—w we will see saith he if St. James can release you Philetus sendâ— word to St. James who sent him his hand kerchief and by that was released Hermogenes commands the Devils to bring St. James and Philetus both bound to him when they came near him the Devils cryed out they were bound by Angels of Heaven and beg'd St. James to release them be did so and commanded them to bring Hermogenes bound which they immediately did with his hands tyed behind him and then St. James bid
would despise his Work for whatever is written in it is Authentick and confirmed by great Authority and decrees that the miracles should be read in the Refectories on Festival days He could not have decreed better for in truth they are an excellent entertainment In A. D. 1090. saith Calixtus certain Germans were going to St. James and in the City of Tholouse they were made drunk by their Host who put two silver Cups into the Portmantues of two of them next morning he ran after them and cried Thieves they knowing their own innocency desired to be examined the Cups were found in the Porlmantues of Father and Son the Judge determined that but one of them should be hanged and after much complementing between them the Son was executed the Father goes on his Pilgrimage and after thirty six days returning by the place he goes to the body of his Son and there wept bitterly over him On a sudden his Son bâ—gan to comfort him and said O my Father weep not but rejoyce for I never was so well in my whole life For to this time St. James hâ—th supported me and comforted me with Heavenly pleasure at which his Father being overjoyed ran to the City and the people flocking thither took him down safe and sound and hanged up the Host in his Room Was our Saviours raising Lazarus after only four days to be compared to this In the year 1100. a certain French man avâ—iding the morâ—ality then in France resolved to go in Pilgrimage with his Wife and Children to St. James of Compostella at Pampelona his Wife dyed and the Host seized upon his Beast and his Mony The man went on however with his Children and at the Towns end one meets â—im with an Ass which he lends him to carry his Children When he was come to Compostella one night as he was praying St. James appeared to him and asked him if he knew him he told him no then he said I am James the Apostle who met thee at Pampelona and lent thee my Ass and now I lend him thee home again and I tell thee thou shalt find thy Host dead which happened accordingly and as soon as ever he took his Children off from the Ass he disappeared This is an instance of his kindness by Land but Calixtus tells us he was as kind by Sea too Witness the Sea Captain that tumbled to the bottom of the Sea with his armour on to whom St. James there appeared and taking him by the hand brought him safe to his ship again Witness the Pilgrim that fell into the Sea whom St. James held by the hair of his head and kept him above water for three days till he came to his Port These were pretty odd things at Sea but if we come to Land again what shall we think of his making a man leap from a Tower forty cubits high without any hurt Nay which is a much greater and a more courteous miracle what shall we say to a high Tower stooping to the ground that a man might go off without any danger from a leap yet this is related by the same Pope to have happened A. D. 1106. These are pleasant tasts of the kind of St. James his miracles related by no meaner a person than the Head of the Roman Church but these are too luscious to be insisted on Only for a warning that men should observe his Feast he saith that a Country man in Spain presuming to thresh on that day and at night going into a Bath the skin of his back parts from his shoulders to his thighs went off from him and stuck to the Wall and so the poor man died for an example If these things do not prove that the miracles wrought by St. James at Compostella are equal to those wrought by Christ and his Apostles in Judea truly I do not know what will § 5. We must now proceed to the Vial of St. Mary Magdalen and the Church of St. Maximin in France into which she put the Blood of our Saviour which visibly boyls up every year on the day of our Saviours Passion It would astonish a man to seeâ— such fopperies as these are compared with the miracles of Christ and his Apostles If they had done no more than shewed such tricks to convince the world it might have remained under Paganism to this day The miracles wrought by Christ or his Apostles tended to the great benefit and advantage of mankind and were not cunningly managed in a corner for a solemn shew at a certain season of the year but the gift of healing the sick and the gift of tongues in which consisted chiefly the Testimony God gave to his Apostles were things of real advantage to the world and lay open to the observation of every one But the world is apt to suspect and not without reason these useless and secret miracles if they be true they signifie no good to the world if they be false they do unspeakable mischief to Religion Our Saviours Blood was never shed to shew tricks with and Mary Magdalen was hardly at leasure at our Saviours passion to gather up his Blood as it dropt from him But what will not these men say and profess to believe too Certainly there were never more shameful impostures than about Reliques and Miracles in the Roman Church and when some of the wiser men of their own communion abroad shake their heads and are ashamed of them our S. C's and E. W' s magnifie them still as though the people of England were as capable of being made Fools as ever I pity the weakness and credulity of some but I abhor the hypocrisie and fraud of those who do not believe these things themselves and yet would make others believe them Gentlemen Religion is a grave and serious thing and a severe account must be given to God of any thing we say about it God will never think himself honoured by the falshood and hypocrisie of men and that Church of all others in the world shall never draw me to its communion which cannot be upheld without abusing mankind and the most excellent Religion in the world If you have any miracles to shew do them as Christ and his Apostles did in the midst of their enemies and upon them too can you do them for a better end than our conversion was not this the end God designed miracles for and how comes he to change his patent among you with whom they are only done among Friends and in corners Where they may be shewed with advantage among ignorant people who have no skill in Opticks nor judgement to know the difference between the boyling of a thing from a natural cause and by a miracle For truths sake if your Church hath such a power of miracles as Christ and his Apostles had never send us to Loreto or Compostella or St. Maximins Church in France nor refer us to your Tables and Legends those
are things in no request among us whatever they be with you but we have many sick and wounded persons and many dead come and cure all manner of diseases with a word in an instant perfectly and openly raise those who have died of a known incurable disease and are carried out to be buried or have lain in their Graves as Christ did or else out of honour to Christ and Truth and for meer shame avoid such rude and impudent comparisons of the miracles of your Church with those of Christ and his Apostles If we must believe St. Mary Magdalens Vial why not as well all the rest of the Glorious Reliques of your Church for there are few of them but have as good Authority as that of Spondanus which E. W. produces for this Miraculous Vial Why not the Foreskin of Christ about which no meaner a man than Cardinal Tolet saith great miracles were wrought at Calcata in Italy A. D. 1559. after it had been stolen from the Latâ—ran Church in Rome by a certain Souldier A. D. 1527. and lay undiscovered till after his death and yet Ferrandus tells us that Germany Flanders Lorain and France all boast that they have it â—ollandus or rather Roswayd tells us that these of Antwerp pleaded a possession of it for almost 500. years and the testimonies of Pope Eugenius A. D. 1446. and Clement the eighth A. D. 1599. Pope Innocent the third notwithstanding his pretence to Infallibility thought it fit that so weighty a cause should be left to God himself to determine Symphorianâ—â— Campegius in Bollandus saith that it is at Anicium le Puy in France together with Aarons Miter others say that it was carried by an Angel to Charles the great and he placed it at Aken Now the same worship is given at all these places where it is supposed to be and I suppose miracles equally wrought at them I desire to know when false and counterfeit Reliques do work miracles what we are to think of the Testimony given by such miracles and of the nature of them It is a pleasant thing to see the accounts given by these men of the same Reliques being in several places at once Ferrandus hath found out very subtil ways to solve this difficulty and particularly concerning this Foreskin of Christ. 1. By a multiplication of it which being in Gods power to do no question is to be made but he does it 2. By a wonderful replication of it the terms I consess are not very easie but I suppose he means that the same body may be in several places at once He tells us that Suarez and Collius see no cause for so great a miracle but he thinks there is as much reason for it as for the multiplication of the Wood of the Cross and I think so too But yet he hath another reserve which is that these several Prepuces are really nothing but so many parts of the Umbilical Vessels which are sent up and down for the consolation of the faithful And no doubt they tend very much to it especially when they mistake one thing for another And why may not then that which goes for the Blood of Christ be the blood of some other person especially since the blood of Christ is shewn in so many other places besides But that we may not however doubt of the truth of both these St. Brigit saith in her Revelations that the Virgin Mary told her that a little before her assumption she committed the Sacred Prepuce to the care of St. John with some of the Blood which remained in the wounds of Christ. Et jam lice at dubitare Saith Ferrandus by no means But it is good to understand where it is Yet he tells us some are of opinion that there is no other blood of Christ upon earth besides that in the Eucharist and others that all the blood of Christ which was shed in his passion was resumed at his resurrection and therefore he rather inclines to think it is some of the blood he shed in his Agony which is preserved in so many places But was St. Mary Magdalen there with her Vial to gather it up No it is said it was at the time of his Passion and therefore this answer cannot serve How then come such great quantities of this Blood to be seen not only in St. Maximins Church but at Paris at Rome at Mantua and several other places mentioned by Ferrandus To this he answers with Biel that Christ had a whole legion of wounds 6666. and Alanus de Rupâ— hath undertaken to cast up just how many drops he shed viz. 547500. And can there be any reason in the world to question the credibility of the Testimonies of such persons who are so exact and punctual in their calculations Far be it from us in the least to derogate from that inestimable love which the Son of God expressed in shedding his Blood as a Sacrifice of Propitiation for us We adore and celebrate that sacred mysterie of our Redemption by the Blood of that immaculate Lamb. It is the Blood of Christ we glory in and hope for Salvation by but not as kept for Reliques or preserved in Vials to make a shew of much less to abuse mankind with a pretence of that Sacred Blood when there is not the least shadow of reason to believe it But thus it hath been in the Church of Rome they have turned the most wise and holy and reasonable Religion in the world into a matter of shew and ceremony And for this end they have made use of all manner of devices to get any thing into their hands that seemed to have any relation to the bodies or garments of Christ or his Disciples And thus while they sleight their words and corrupt their Doctrine and pervert their institutions no persons can contend more than they for the hair or nails that belonged to any of their bodies although they destroy each others Testimonies by so many pretending to the same things The very Tears of Christ are pretended to be kept in two several places in France and those put into a Vial too by the blessed Virgin if we believe the Jesuit Ferrandus It is a pretty competent Miracle to preserve Tears so long but what cannot they shew who have some of the hair of Christ when an Infant at St. Denis in France as Spondanus assures us and some of the swadling clouts he was wrapt in in the Manger And as good an Author every whit as Spondanus relates that at Courchiverni a place near Bloys the breath of Joseph is kept in a Vial too which the Angel took while he was cleaving Wood. What a shame would it be now for us to question the truth of any other Relicks among them Why should we dispute the vast quantity of the blessed Virgins Milk so learnedly defended by Ferrandus to be seen in Judea in Italy in Spain and in many
places in France What doubt can be made of the several Locks of her Hair For although they believe her Body assumed up into Heaven yet no doubt saith Ferrandus by frequent combing enough would fall off to furnish the several Churches in Rome in Spain in France and other places with it What if so many places pretend to have the true Seamless Coat of Christ is it possible they should be any of them mistaken although there could be but one true one For it is a very weak defence of Ferrandus to say that there were many made after the likeness of the true one for all places contend that they have the true It were endless to give an account of multitudes of other Relicks which Ferrandus confesses to be equally challenged by many places and which he pitifully defends by such shifts as these are But it is not enough to shew in general that there can be no sufficient credibility in the Testimony given to the Relicks of the Roman Church but I shall now shew it more particularly concerning this Vial of St. Mary Magdalen This Vial is supposed to be of her own bringing into France and it is worth the while to know how she came thither Thus the story is related in the Roman Breviary After Christs Ascension to Heaven Martha with her Sister Mary whom they suppose to be Mary Magdalen and with her Brother Lazarus and their servant Marcella and Maximinus one of the seventy Disciples of our Lord with many other Christians were put into a Ship by the Jews without any Sail or Oars that they might perish by Shipwrack but by the Providence of God the Ship came safe to Marseilles by which Miracle and Preaching the inhabitants of Marseilles and of Aix and the neighbour people were converted and Lazarus was made Bishop of Marseilles and Maximinus of Aix But Mary Magdalen having accustomed her self to prayer and a contemplative life retired into a hollow Cave of a very high Mountain where she continued thirty years separated from all conversation with men and every day was carried up by Angels to hear the Choire of Angels Sing This is contained in the fourth and fifth Lessons on July 29. in the present Roman Breviary but we are to consider that this story was not always in the Roman Breviary for those who reformed it under Pius the fifth had left it out but since it hath been thought fit to be restored again it being much for the edification of the people to hear such Legends For there is not the least pretence in Antiquity for any part of it as a Learned Doctor of the Sorbon hath at large proved shewing in a set Discourse that for a thousand years after Christ it was the constant tradition of the Greek and Latin Church that Lazarus Martha and Magdalen all dyed in the Eastern parts and not a word said of Maximinus that the whole story is taken out of a very fabulous Book pretended to be Written by Marcella the servant to Martha in the Hebrew Tongue and Translated by one Synthex into Latin and preserved by Vincentius in his History It may not be amiss to set down some of the Miracles contained in this story one is of the Persons who accompanied them and the places assigned to them as Trophimus was sent to Arles Paulus to Narbon Eutropius to Aurange Austregesilus to Eourges Irenaeus to Lyons Ferrutius to Bezanâ—on and Dionysius is placed over all France Was there eveâ— better company put together when Irenaeus dyed A. D. 205. Eutropius A. D. 464. Austrâ—gistlus A. D. 629. and Trophimus Paulus Martialis Saturninus and Dionysius are by the most Learned Writers of France cast back as far as the time of Decius and Ferrutius was a Disciple of Irenaeus It would be too tedious to relate Mary Magdalens Preaching at Marseilles notwithstanding St. Pauls prohibition which the Author saith she had not heard of but assoon as she did she retired into her Cave the manner of the conversion of the Governour of Marseilles and his Lady their going towards Hierusalem her death upon the birth of her Child in the passage St. Peters conducting him to Hierusalem seeing the badge of the Cross on his shoulders the miraculous education of the Child by sucking the breasts of his dead Mother who was found by his Father on the shore after two years playing with stones and running upon all four the Resurrection of the Mother their return to Marseilles where they found Mary Magdalen Preaching to a multitude of people the monstrous Dragon tamed by Martha with a little holy water and the sign of the Cross which was thicker than an Oxe longer than a Horse had the head of a Lyon and the strength of twelve Lyons and was supposed to be of the race of the Leviathan mentioned in Job and came by Sea from Galatia being bâ—gotten of the Leviathan on a strange beast of that Country which kills by its scent the length of an acre and what ever it touches it burns like fire these and several other such pleasant Miracles I purposely omit which Launoy calls more than old wives Tales by which Christian Religion is dishonoured and men are abused which make the enemies of Christianity despise it and fill its friends with indignation to hear so holy a Religion so horribly corrupted by the impudent lies of idle men But after all these things thus laid together can we do otherwise than believe that the Blood of Christ is kept in the Vial of St. Mary Magdalen in the Church of St. Maximin and that it boyls up every year on the day of our Saviours Passion § 6. The next thing we are to consider is the Miracles recorded in the lives of those two admirable Saints B. St. Dominick and Seraphical St. Francis The first Miracle we read of concerning St. Dominick was the miraculous prediction concerning him in the two pictures in St. Marks Church in Venice reported by no meaner a person than St. Antonin E. W's pious and learned Arch-bishop of Florence One in the likeness of St. Paul with those words over it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and under these Per istum itur ad Christum over the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and under Facilius itur per istum it seems St. Paul was but a very ordinary Preacher if compared wtth the Founder of the order of Preaching Fryers But this prediction did not so plainly set him forth as the Vision his Mother had near her time of travel with him viz. that she bore a Whelp which carried a fire-brand in his mouth which set the whole World on Fire which had its full accomplishment by his being the first Author of the blessed Inquisition for he was a true fire brand having not near so much light as heat in him Jansenius tells us that he had no kind of mercy upon Hereticks that he was rather a Lyon than a
that of the Image of St. Francis for to convince a certain Frier from the mark of the wound in his side fresh blood was seen to run from which time he most firmly believed them And can we think that St. â—homas his putting his hands into the wounds of our Saviours side was half so strong an evidence of the truth of Christs resurrection as the bleeding of an Image was of the wounds of St. Francis No no although a Body may deceive a Picture cannot Are not these now doughty miracles and attested with such uncontrolable evidence that they ought to be compared with those of Christ and his Apostles § 8. Before I dispatch this first head in shewing upon what uncertain reports miracles are received and believed in the Roman Church I shall give an account of some of them nearer home by which we may judge how far the Miracles boasted of by E. W. ought in point of credibility to be compared with those of Christ and his Apostles I hope none will deny that there are some bounds to be set to our belief of reports concerning miracles for although Gods omnipotency hath no bounds yet we are not to think that God doth equally imploy his power in all things nor at all times nor as often as men shall please to say he doth it In many cases it is very hard to determine the farthest extent of the power of nature and punctually to shew what is a miracle and what not for the power of meer natural causes may lie secret and hidden from us yet from a continual observation of the course of nature a certain sphere may be fixed within which the effects of nature are contained As that a body being once truly dead cannot of it self come to life again that there are some diseases at such a height as to be incurable by natural means in these cases the raising of such a body to life the curing of such diseases being done frequently publickly and in an instant are great arguments of a miraculous and divine power And this we say was the case of the miracles of Christ and his Apostles but from hence men ought not to abuse mankind and because the power of God is unlimited therefore to say that the most extravagant foolish and idle imaginations of men because they have passed without proof for miracles among credulous people must still be received for such For is it reasonable that because we believe that nothing is impossible with God therefore we must not question that so many Saints walked with their heads off or did such extravagant things as the makers of the lives of the Saints tell us For it was not only St. Denis of France of whom that is reported but our own Ecclesiastical stories will acquaint us with many other Instances of a like nature So Mr. Cressy tells us of St. Justinian the martyr that when his head was cut off his body presently rose and taking the head between the two arms went down to the Sea shore and walking thence on the Sea passed over to the port called by his name and being arrived in the place where a Church is now built to his memory he fell down and was there buried by St. David with admirable hymns and canticles So the same grave historian relates of St. Ositha that as soon as her head was cut off her body presently rose and taking up the head in the hands by the conduct of Angels walked firmly the straight way to the Churches of St. Peter and St. Paul about a quarter of a mile distant from the place of her suffering and when it was come there it knocked at the door with the bloody hands as desiring that it might be opened and thereon left marks of blood Having done this it fell there down to the ground To the same purpose he tells of St. Clarus whose head being cut off presently after arose and with his hands taking up his head by the assistance of Angels carried it to a fountain not far distans into which he cast it and then carried the same back to the Oratory of his Cell and going on a little further towards a Village seated near the River Epta he there consummated his course and transmited his blessed soul to Heaven And of St. Decumanus he writes that when his head was cut off from his Body the trunk raising it self up took the head which it carried from the place where he was slain to a spring not far of which flowed with a most Christalline water in which with the hands it washed the blood away So St. Juthwara with her own hands took up her head being cut off and to the astonishment of all as we may easily imagine carried it back steadily into the Church These are pretty good instances for one that takes it so ill that his History should be called the great Legend What can be imagined more absurd and be supposed to be done to less purpose than such foppish miracles as these But I extreamly wonder at his niceness in omitting some others of a like nature delivered by a late infallible Author called Oral Tradition As St. Maxentia's being beheaded and carrying her head in her hands for which Capgrave quotes nothing less than infallible Oral Tradition for saith he faithful people have received this from their Fathers by certain tradition And have their late men better any argument than this for transubstantiation invocation of Saints c. Why forsooth can it be imagined that Fathers should go about to deceive their Children did not they who saw it know the truth of what they saw would not they speak truth to their Children how could then any errour or mistake come into the belief of the faithful None certainly Why then it is a demonstration that St. Maxentia did after her â—ead was cut off from her body carry it in her bâ—nds Can any thing be more demonstrative than this And by the same arguments we are assured that the Head of St. Melorus being cut off out of great pity to Cerialtanus his murtherer being in a great thirst bad â—im thrust his staff into the ground and he should immediately see a spring to arise thence with which he might plentifully quench his thirst Was not the head of this Saint very charitable and kind to his murtherer Now this which was a principal part of the story Mr. Cressy seems in a very sullen humour to leave out although he takes the rest from Capgrave of which I can only give this account for I have no reason to question Mr. Cressy's faith or good will that Alford from whom he translates his history only refers to Capgrave and doth not relate enough for Mr. Cressy to make up the Legend The like omission he is guilty of about another miracle concerning him viz. that when by the command of his Uncle his right hand and left foot were cut off and he had a
bad them hoyse their sails and let God drive them whither he pleased after 40. days their provision was quite spent and then they espied a high rocky Island in which after three days they went on shore and found a spacious hall furnished with beds and seats and water to wash with and all sorts of utensils of several metals horses bits and horns done with Silver Here one of the Brethren could not hold his hands but although expresly against St. Brendaâ—s command he had secretly put up a silver bitt but upon strict examination he confessed his fault and threw it before them then a little black Devil went out of him and railed'at St. Brendan for dispossessing him but he commanded him to hurt no one till â—â—e day of judgement Being refreshed here â—hey put to sea again and came to another â—sland and after that to one called the Paraâ—ise of Birds and for three months after saw â—othing but sea at last they came to the â—sland of Silence where the Monks never â—pake but at prayers only the Abbot gave an â—ccount to the strangers of their miraculous â—way of living for every day they had twelve â—oaves sent them from Heaven and upon â—estivals and Sundays twenty four every one â—hen having a whole loaf which custom had continued for eighty years with them ever since the dayes of St. Patrick and they never felt cold or heat and the lamps in their Church were kindled from Heaven and never diminished with burning the Altars and all the Vessels were made of Christal When any of the Monks wanted any thing they went and kneeled before the Abbot but spake nothing The Abbot by Revelation knew what they desired and writ down his answer in a Table-book and in all that eighty years the Abbot protested to St. Brendan he had not heard the voice of a man but only at prayers and they had none of them felt any infirmity of body or mind since their coming thither While they were thus discoursing a fiery Arrow came from Heaven and kindled all the Lamps Many other Islands they came at with great variety of accidents too many to be transcribed As their meeting with a great Whale that caâ—â— out fire and water out of his mouth which St. Brendan killed by his prayers and gave them a third part of him to eat which I suppose by the fire and water that came out of him they believed to be well sodden already the strange Bird that brought them a bunch of grapes as big as apples the Griffin that was destroyed by that Bird the Glass Sea in which they could see to the bottom the Christalline Pillar that reached up to the Sky covered with so thin a Canopy that their Ship passed through one of the holes of it every side of which Pillar contained 1400. cubits the Island of Black-Smiths where they heard the Anvils as loud as thunder which proved at last to be the suburbs of Hell as they guessed by the howlings they heard and the stench they smelt the Island of Paul the Eremit where he lived for forty years without food and was all hairy and as white as snow In the seventh year saith the life of S. Machutes they came to a certain Island where they found a Tomb of a wonderful length then because of the infidelity of some who would hardly believe that there ever was a man of that prodigious height St. Brendan and the â—est desired St. Machutis to raise him out of â—is Grave which when he to satisfie their â—uriosity had courteously done they asked â—im who he was he told them he was a Giâ—nt which I suppose they were convinced of â—y their eyes and that his name was Milâ—â—â— that he had lain in Hell so long but now â—e was a Christian and desired to be baptiâ—ed which was performed by St. Machutis â—f it were by dipping it must be done in the â—ea doubtless This Giant gave them the first discovery â—f the Island of Paradise for once walking â—n the Sea he said he had seen it that it was compassed about with a Golden Wall and â—et as clear as Christal but he being a Heaâ—hen could see no entrance into it They deâ—ired him to conduct them thither he takes the Cable of the Ship and walks into the Sea and drew the Ship after him which as the Author of St. Machutis his life well observes â—s a thing one would hardly believe but Joh. à Bosco thinks he hath fully cleared all in â—is Notes to which I refer the Reader for his â—urther satisfaction presently a mighty storm arose so that they were forced back to â—he same Island where the Giant died While â—hey were now debating about their return home they beheld a small Island in the Sea when they were landed upon it they desireâ— St. Machutis to say Mass and when they camâ— to Pater noster they found the Island give a terrible shrug which put them all into a fright aâ— last they discovered their Island to be a greâ—â— Whale or as the most judicious among them thought the Leviathan we may well thinâ— they made hast with their Mass and wisheâ— themselves well off of this new Island upon St. Machutis his prayers Leviathan diâ— not sport himself in the waters but stood still till the Monks were got clear of him theâ— they sung jubilate in their Ship and as that Author saith returned home But he waâ— certainly mistaken for Capgrave saith theâ— did at last find the Island of Paradise and aâ—â— things answerable to St. Barinthus's description and staid there forty days and then 〈◊〉 young man bid St. Brendan load his Shiâ— with Jewels and return home for that Islaâ—â— was reserved for their successors when timâ—â— of persecution should happen Now to proâ—â— the truth of this story for it seems theâ— were some Infidels that presumed to question it Colganus reckons up abundance of the Acts of the Saints wherein it is mentioned and not only so but a Book of Litanies above 800. years old wherein the companions oâ— St. Brendâ—n in seeking the Land of promisâ— are solemâ—ly invocated and the very day is seâ— down in their ancient Martyrologie and when St. Brendan was returned he gave an account of his voyage to St. Abban which he did by the command of an Angel saith the Author of his life which Colganus calls an illustrious testimony of the truth of it Thus having given an account of this miraculous voyage and despairing to meet with any thing like it I here give over my enquiry into the Miracles which have been received and believed in the Roman Church in the most considerable parts of Europe And now without farther reflections upon them I leave the Reader to judge whether the Testimony on which they have been received ought to be compared in point of credibility with that Testimony on which the Christian Church hath believed the miracles of Christ and his Apostles Only one
thing I desire may be observed viz. that I have not raked their Kennels nor made use of the Authorities of Jacobus de Voragine Petrus de Natalibus Claudius Rota Cantiprataâ—us and such like no nor yet of Caesarius ab Heisterbach Dauroultius Marulus Gononus or such as have made Collections to my hands but have taken their most approved and late writers and such whose Authorities themselves make use of in other things Capgrave is supposed to have taken most of his lives out of John of Tinmouths Sanctilogiâ—â— whom Pits commends for his excellent learning and that work particularly for his diligence exactness wit and judgement which he shewed in it that he cut off many superfluous things with discretion and if Capgrave took out of him we may suppose that aftâ—â— so many strainings we have only the best left considering the Character that is given of Capgrave an excellent Divine saith Possevin the chief of his time for piety and learning saith Harpsfield the most learned man that ever was of his order in England say Josephus Pamphilus and others in Pits a man of such excellent parts and wit saith Pits himself that he had scarce any equal none superiour in England in his time and among other things he commends him for his judgement and therefore his Authority will not be rejected as mean and contemptible among themselves Colganus his first Tome of the Acts of the Saints of Ireland which I have only made use of was published at Lovain A. D. 1645. with great approbations from the General of his order at Rome from the Professors of Lovain from the Ordinary Censor Librorum from four Jesuits and by commendatory Epistles from Vernulaeus and Erycius Puteanus who highly applauds him for his industry piety and faithfulness therefore my Adversaries cannot pretend that I have picked up some old wormâ—aten stories with which to disgrace their miracles No they are such as are thought fit to be published with as great approbation as ever any Books come forth among them And for the Jesuits Collection at Antwerp which I have sometimes made use of begun by Bollandus and continued by Henschenius and Papebrochius it was published since A. D. 1642. and with as much ostentation of care and judgement as ever any thing was set forth in that kind the last volume I have yet seen came forth A. D. 1668. with sufficient approbations So that whatever judgement be passed upon the miracles they cannot deny the Books I have made use of to be of greatest Authority of any extant in this kind and yet after all I am apt to think they will meet with a great deal of infidelity from all that have not captivated their understandings to the obedience of the Roman Faith § 9. Having thus far shewed how much the miracles boasted of in the Roman Church fall short in point of credibility of those of Christ and his Apostles from the different nature of the testimonies and of the miracles themselves I now proceed to the second thing viz to shew that the credibility of the Wilnesses in the Roman Church is taken away by the Testimony of persons much more credible than themselves For if the most impartial Witnesses utterly deny that there is any comparison to be made between the miracles wrought in the Church in latter-ages with those wrought by Christ and hls Apostles If persons living in the communion of that Church have asserted such things concerning their miracles as sufficiently discover that their Testimony is not to be relied upon then I appeal to the judgement of any man whether it be not intolerable impudence in any to parallel the mlracles of that Church with those of Christ and his Apostles 1. The most impartial Witnesses have asserted the direct contrary to E. W. viz. by affirming that no comparison is to be made between the miracles of after-ages of the Church and those of Christ and his Apostles The most impartial Witnesses in this case must be men of approved sanctity on both sides persons of great judgement and experience and that lived at such a time when no interest could byass them to favour one side more than the other And such in all respects were St. Chrysostom and St. Augustin to them therefore we appeal in this matter St. Chrysostom not once or twice but several times and upon very different occasions delivers his opinion upon this subject In his Commentaries upon the first Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians and the five first verses puts this Question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for whose sake is the power of miracles now forbidden which he at large discusses in that place The substance of his answer is this either the persons who put that Question do believe the miracles wrought by Christ or his Apostles or they do not if not let them give an account how the Christian Religian which is so contrary to the present interests of men should prevail so much in the world as it hath done for if they believed without miracles that would appear to be a far greater miracle But saith he because no miracles are wrought now make not that an evidence that none were wrought then for then it was useful there should be miracles and now it is useful there should not Can any Testimony be plainer and more express than this Is it possible he should believe as great miracles were done in the Church afterwards as by Christ and his Apostles that not only asserts that there were none but saith it would not be useful to the Church there should be any Because as he adds immediately after those who preach now do not preachly Inspiration as the Apostle did but only that doctrine which they receivâ—d from them and therefore make use of their miracles to confirm the truth of what they spake But why saith he were miracles useful then and not now because the continual working of miracles would lessen faith and our Saviour saith Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed But if thou wilt not be convinced without signs thou maist see signs although not such as Christ and his Apostles wrought viz. the accomplishment of prophesies several of which he there mentions Why then saith he do not all believe now to which he gives this answer that the first Christians did not believe only on the account of the miracles they saw but by seeing the holy and exemplary lives of those who wrought them It is saith he therefore the want of the primitive sanctity rather than miracles which makes men yet continue in their insidelity let those that have a mind to be saved search the Scriptures wherein they will find both the miracles they wrought and the holy conversations which they led But if a man be found that hath any foot-steps left of the ancient wisdom he presently leaves the City and conversation and betakes himself to the mountains a fair pretence is made for this to
cured a man of the Palsie The Gardiner of the Monastery being troubled with a Thief that came over the hedge and stole his herbs commanded a Serpent to follow him and to lie just cross in the way he was wont to come over the Serpent presently obeyed the Thief was taken and the Serpent released From hence afterwards he scarce deserved the name of a Saint of whom they could not tell some extravagant stories of the power he had over Serpents of which multitudes of Instances may be seen in Colganus and Capgrave besides many other more ancient than they The story of St. Equitius in Gregory and St. Elias in Capgrave as to tâ—â— way of their being delivered from all lustâ—â— thoughts by an Angel appearing in the nigâ—â— and seeming to castrate them is the very same by which we see out of what Magazineth later Legendaries took their materials whiâ—â— they altered and adorned with such varietiâ—â— of circumstances as would best go down wiâ—â— the people Methinks then Baronius mighâ—â— have let alone Canus in this matter and noâ— provoked others to give an account of thâ— soppish miracles contained in that Primitivâ— Legend such as the Devils entring into Nun because she eat a Lettice in the gardâ—â— without crossing it and when St. Equitiâ— demanded of him what he did there the Dâ—â— answered he was sitting upon the Lettice aâ—â— she came and eat him up but it was well fâ— her that St. Equitius sent him going withoâ—â— prescribing her a vomit as Nonnosus 〈◊〉 removing a stone by his prayers which fifâ—â— Yoke of Oxen could not stirr and all this fâ— no other end but only to make way for a littâ— Kitchin garden for the Monks as the saâ— mans praying the pieces of a glass Lamp whâ—â— again only for fear of the displeasure of 〈◊〉 superior which was a substantial reason foâ— so pretty a miracle And his multiplying oâ— by a miracle rather than the lazy Monks shoul◠〈◊〉 out to gather Olives as Boniface's reâ—iving 12. Crowns by a miracle because his â—ephew complained be had opened his Chest â—nd had taken a way so many from him to give 〈◊〉 the poor and his adjuring all the Erue's 〈◊〉 his garden in the name of Christ to be gone â—nd â—ot eat up his herbs which they immeâ—iately did and not one remained and â—aking the Fox by his prayers bring back the â—â—llet he had stollen because he complained 〈◊〉 God Almighty in the Church whither he â—un upon this sad disaster that he could eat â—one of his Mothers Poultry as Martirius 〈◊〉 signing the cake in the embers with the sign â—f the cross without touching it only making 〈◊〉 towards the fire at which it gave a great â—â—ack and was perfectly signed with the cross â—hen they took it out These may serve only for a â—ast of the kind of these miracles out of his first Book that men may judge with what reason Canus made such exceptions to Gregories Auâ—hority in this point of miracles It would be too â—edious to give an account of the miracles in his â—hree other Books but they are so much alike â—hat by seeing these we may judge of the rest Thus we see the opinion of Vives and Canus about the Testimony on which miracles are believed in the Roman Church but we must not think these persons were singular in this opinion for in several ages men of any honesty and judgement have complained of tâ— pious frauds which have been used in the matters and that some thought them laâ—â— to be used as long as they were for the honoâ— of the Church or the Saints So Petrus Dâ— miani saith there were some who thought thâ— honoured God by making lies to extoll the â—â—tues of his Saints which words he uses upâ— this occasion of miracles and goes aboâ— seriously to confute them by telling them thâ— God doth not stand in need of our lies 〈◊〉 to the same purpose he speaks in the presâ— to the lives of St. Maurus and of Dominiâ— Ferratus written by him What secuâ—â— can there be then of the miracles reponâ— by them who think it lawful to invent lies 〈◊〉 the Honour of the Church or of the supposâ— Saints who live and dye in it If the Primitiâ— Church had made lying for the sake of Châ—â—stianity lawful it would have been the moâ—â— reasonable pretence for infidelity that coâ—â— be supposed For how can any man thiâ— himself obliged to believe another that doâ—â— not think himself obliged to speak truth 〈◊〉 the Primitive Christians had made lying 〈◊〉 indifferent thing all their sufferings could havâ— given no security of the truth of their Testâ—mony for notwithstanding the falshood 〈◊〉 their Testimony they might then hope however to be rewarded in another world anâ— consequently might suffer any thing here â—t when they declared at the same time that â—ing was utterly unlawful and yet ventured suffer the utmost extremity to attest the â—uth of their Testimony this gives the highâ—â— credibility to the things asserted by them â—t we have no satisfaction as to either of â—â—ese things in the witnesses of the miracles in â—e Roman Church no man hath ever lost much as a finger to give Testimony to one â—iracle among them and supposing they â—â—ould suffer we have no assurance but they â—ight think it lawful to lie for their Religion â—â—d therefore all their sufferings could not â—ove the truth of their Testimony We have 〈◊〉 sentence or declaration of their Church â—â—ainst pious frauds but we have large conâ—ssions from their own Writers of the practice them and the good end they are designed 〈◊〉 viz. to keep up the devotion of the people â—â—n Gerson honestly confesses this to be the â—d of the Legends and miracles of the Saints â—nd their visions and revelations so much â—lked of in the Roman Church viz. to stirr up â—piety and good affections of the people for â—ese things saith he are not proposed by 〈◊〉 Church to be believed as true but they are â—ther to consider them as things that might done than as things that were done And iâ— no matter saith he if some things that are really false are piously believed so that thâ—â— be not believed as false or known to be false the same time And I wish he had added oâ— condition more viz. that the infallibilitâ— of the Church be not to be proved by them for in that case I hope it is of some littâ—â— concernment whether they be true or false Bâ— are we not like to meet with credible Testâ— monies in such things where the most honeâ— and learned among them think it is no greâ— matter whether they be true or false Nâ— wonder then that Lyra complains of tâ—â— frauds used by the Priests in the Churches 〈◊〉 make the people believe that miracles woâ— wrought no wonder that Cajetan so muâ—â— slights the argument drawn from modern miracles and revelations and saith
it is only 〈◊〉 for old women could any man have doâ— this that had believed them to be any othâ—â— than cheats and impostures Especially in 〈◊〉 solemn a matter as the immaculate conceptioâ— and in a discourse addressed to Leo 10. anâ— prepared for the Lateran Council By whicâ— we see that the learned and wise men amonâ— themselves when they are put to declare theâ—â— minds speak as freely of these matters as wâ— can do but still they think it fit the commoâ— people should be cheated and deceived by them so a learned and ingenuous writer oâ— the French Church and Doctor of the Sorboâ— tells us that he was so far from receiving â—anks from many for laying open the fables â—â—d impostures of the Monks that they reâ—â—rred him to Polybius his judgement about â—â—ese matters who determines that allowance â—â—ght to be given to those Writers who invent â—iracles and stories to keep up the devotion of â—he People The occasion of Polybius delivering â—is judgement of his was this It seems the â—eathen Priests made almost as many and as â—oolish stories of miracles about their Images â—s they are wont to do in the Church of Rome â—mong the rest it was verily believed among â—he Bargelietae that the Image of Diana being â—xposed to the air could receive no injury eiâ—her by snow or rain and the same was beâ—ieved of the Image of Vesta among the Jassiâ—ns and these miracles were written by their Historians But Polybius declares his great oppoâ—ition to these follies such saith he as the miâ—acle Theopompus relates of Jupiter's Temple in Arcadia that the bodies of those who are in â—t never cast any shadows Yet he yeilds that something of this nature must be done to keep up the devotion of the people but he would have it within bounds although he saith it be very hard to determine those bounds Now saith Launoy this saying of Polybius I have been often told of by all sorts of men who pretended hereby to secure Christian piety but I found them worse than Polybius for he would have bounds set but these will allow none For they judge of all things by the absoluteness of Gods power and regard not whether the things were done or no as long as they might be done But as he excellently adds a false Religion indeed according to Polybius stands in need of such cheats and trickâ— to support it but true Religion wants no such helps the more simple pure and innocent it is it is so much the greater and more glorious it is corrupted when it hath any thing unlike it self mixed with it They who think otherwise of Christian Religion do not know it but design to make a Religion out of truth and falshood Thus far that ingenuous man By whom we see what the opinion is which the more sagacious Persons in the Roman Church have of these Monkish tales and impstoures yet they generally are for keeping them up in as much credit with the people as they can and discountenance those who go about to undeceive them But is not the Testimony of these things by their own confession very credible the mean while and fit to be compared with the Testimony upon which the miracles of Christ and his Apostles is received in the Christian Church It is hard to think that such men do believe Christianity in their hearts that dare publish such impudent comparisons When the impostures of this nature in the Church of Rome have been like Astrology in old Rome alwaies complained of and always practised as will easily appear to any one that will peruse the Testimonies brought by Launoy in that discourse concerning counterfeit Saints Relicks and miracles which I shall not transcribe The whole Christian World is obliged to the Ingenuity of such men who have taken pains in the discovery and confutation of such Impostures as the Monks have abused the people with But we are not only beholding to such learned men who have purposely done this but to those who have lately published such writings of the middle Ages whereby we understand their History far better than we could do before As for instance to our present purpose among other very useful things published by Lucas D'achrey we have the works of Guibert Abbot of Nogent in France who lived in the beginning of the 12. Century a time brim full of miracles and superstition in his works we have a discourse of the Relicks of the Saints which was occasioned by a pretence the Monks of St. Medard made to a tooth of our Saviour wherein he begins with a complaint of the dishonour which is put upon the Saints by the false stories which are made of them and then proceeds to the false Saints which were worshipped by them as Saint Piron whom upon enquiry he found to have fallen drunk into a Well and so dyed yet this man was worshipped he saith both in Britain and in France and after telling some ridiculous miracles which he was willing however to believe to be true he falls upon the false and counterfeit ones of which he saith that they who ascribe to God that which he never thought to do as much as lies in them make God a Lyer and he produces this instance of his own knowledge a certain boy that belonged to a Souldier happened to dye upon good Friday the people were ready to attribute great Sanctity to him for dying upon that day and of a sudden great resort was made to his tomb and many oblations were made and wax Candles offered and his tomb compassed about with great devotion the people coming out of Britain to it The Abbot and Monks seeing the people make such resort thither were willing to have it believed that miracles were wrought there And presently some of the people feigned themselves deaf others mad and others lame to bring greater credit by their cures to the young Saint that was but newly set up and the good Abbot gave encouragement to them But Guibert detests his Nebulonity for it as he calls it a word though hardly to be met with elsewhere yet very fitly expresses such horrible cheating and deluding the people Another instance he gives immediately after done in his presence viz. a Preacher in a famous Church had a mind to draw custom to it and finding it necessary to tell them what excellent Relicks they had he produces a box and shews it to the people and tells them they were to understand that within that box was kept a piece of the bread which Christ himself did eat and if you do not believe this behold a very learned Person among you pointing to Guibert will bear witness if it were needful to the Truth of what I say Guibert saith he blushed at the mans impudence and had a good mind to have contradicted him but he stood too much in awe of the Persons about him who were his abettors in so advantagious a lie to them But he saith
Correctors In the Roman Martyrologie on the twenty fourth of January in the Edition corrected by Galesinius and approved by Gregory 13. with his Buâ—â— before it these words were inserted Atque Aâ—tiochiae Sanctae Synoridis Martyris And Bâ—ronius in his learned Anotations upon this Place saith that St. Chrysostom speaks of her Homil. 4. de Lazaro and St. Hierom of another of that name a woman famous for Nobility and Piety How can they ever want Martyrs in the Roman Church that can turn Words into Martyrs For this Mâ—rtyr Synoris in those Authors is no more than the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a Pair joyned together or a Chariot drawn by a Pair and so St. Chrysostom there uses it of Juventius and Maximus calling them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and St. Hiâ—rom of Juliana and Proba calling them Sanctam Christi Synoridem This was Baronius his Noble Martyr Synoris it was ill for her that she happened to be first known in so unlucky a time when some learned men of France as I take it sent Baronius notice of this new Martyr who being ashamed of her expunged her out of all Editions of the Martyrologie since A. D. 1586. notwithstanding the Popes Bull in approbation of that Edition But if it had been her good fortune to have been heard off a little sooner by this time we might have had an excellent Legend of her distributed into several Lessons in the Breviary and the Office of a Martyr to be performed for her we might have heard many pretty stories of her Childhood and of her very early devotion to the Blessed Virgin for the sake of her Sex how many strange Miracles she had wrought and without doubt she had been at least the daughter of a Prince and it may be the youngest daughter of King Costus But so unhappy a thing it is to come into the worlâ— out of due time for she appeared but for â— little time and then vanished quite out of sight Whereas if she had come abroad somâ— Ages before who knows what a world of Good she might have done by this time being solemnly invocated and might have beeâ— thought as proper for all that go in Coacheâ— especially with two Horses as St. Antony 〈◊〉 for stollen Goods or St. Apollonia for the Toothache or St. Viarius for the Loym. This St. Viarius was another very pretty Saint solemnly worshipped near Ebora for 〈◊〉 Bishop and a Martyr especially for the Cuâ—â— of the Loyns when God knows it was only the name of an antient Roman Curator of the High-wayes which they had mâ—â— with in some inscription as Andreas Râ—sendius tells us Who having the curiosity to search the Antiquities of the Church where this High-way Saint was worshipped a grave Priest told him all the Legend of his Martyrdom Resendius desired to see what Monuments of it they had he presently produces a Roman Inscription wherein were these words VIARUM CURANDARUM Now said the cunning old Priest VIARUM that is plain his name was Viarius and CURANDARUM is as much as if he should have said Cura curarum and that belonging only to a Bishop it was evident this Martyr Viarius was a Bishop Resendius kept his countenance and complained he saith to the Bishop of this worshipping the Roman Curator for a Saint but the people cursed him sufficiently for it they having received much help from him But methinks they should have set out his life with all the circumstances of it as well as have known for what disease he was proper to be invocated And Beatus Rhenanus tells us how such a thing might have been ingeniously done for a certain Monk published the life of St. Beatus and called him Suetonius and described many passages of his life and said he had a companion called Achates Beatus Rheâ—anus being more than ordinarily inquisitive after his name-sake goes to the man and asks him whence he had this information supposing he had some good Authority for it but upon enquiry he told him that he called him Suetonius because he heard he came out of Sweden and he called his companion Achates because that was the name of Aeneas his Fellow Traveller and yet this admirable story Rhenanus saith was not only printed but painted in Churches too And which adds something more of Grace to it Dempster in his Ecclesiastical History derives the antient and Noble Family of the Setons in Scotland from this St. Suetonius But what if after all these pretences to Miracles in the Roman Church some of their own members that must know them and were no way inconsiderable either for Authority judgement or learning should declare that they believe no such thing as the continuance of the Power of Miracles in the Church Can any thing more invalidate the Testimony of those who assert these Miracles than this There was hardly a greater man for learning and judgement in his time than Tostatus Bishop of Avila in Spain and he purposely discusses this Question about the continuance of the Power of Miracles in several places In his Commentaries upon Leviticus he shews that God made use of the Power of Miracles in the beginning of an Institution as of the Aaronical Priesthood by fire coming from Heaven to consume the Sacrifices but when the Priesthood was already confirmed there was no need of any more Miracles in the consecration of the following Priests So saith he was it in the New Law for in the beginning of it many Miracles were wrought by and upon the New Converts but now there are no such things â—â—n The reason whereof is because at first be faith of the Gospel was not confirmed in be minds of believers as it is now and few â—elieved in Christ therefore to bring men to â—â—ith this power of Miracles was necessary be matters of faith being uncapable of deâ—onstration but now the Christian faith is â—fficiently confirmed there is no need at all 〈◊〉 Miracles The same he asserts more largeâ—y in his Commentaries on St. Matthew and â—one place puts this Question Why the Biâ—â—ops and Preachers of the Church who sucâ—eed the Apostles do not work Miracles as â—e Apostles did since Miracles are for the â—onfirmation of the Christian faith To â—hich he answers That Christ doth not beâ—ow the gift of Miracles but when it is neâ—â—ssary or at least very useful but now the â—ift of Miracles in these persons is neither â—rofitable nor useful because we have arguâ—ents enough to perswade us to believe withâ—ut that and therefore he determines that Miracles now would not be for the profit of â—e Church but only for curiosity and saith â—at it is not meet that God should give this â—ower of Miracles nor doth he Nay he â—â—ls the case of Heathens to be converted to â—â—e faith and to that he answers That it â—ight â—e either through their demerits or of those who go to them that God dâ—nies thiâ— power of
their names Melchior Caspar and Balthasar of theâ—â— Kingdoms and how their Bodies came to be carried to Cologn which was much for the Great Mogols edification to know the mâ—racle of the letter Vau blotted out by old Simeon which he found in the word afterwards the check the Angel gave him and how thereby he came to owne the Messias the care Anna had over the young Virgins in the Temple and the manner of observing her Feast with Wax Candles the miracles wrought in Aegypt at Christs being there the miracle of the Pool of Bethesda being caused by the wood of the Cross being hid there by King Solomon which floated in our Saviouâ—â— time and when they took it out for the crucifying Christ then the Pool lost its vertue and abundance of other interpolations and corruptions of the story of the Gospel but by these few we may guess what sincerity we are to expect from such men in the relating the miracles of their own order who cannot keep their hands off from forgery and imposture in relating the story of the Gospel And after the same manner Xavier hath published the History of St. Peter But lest any should imagine that these Books were framed and set forth by some enemies to the Jesuits to the disgrace of their Order Alegambe confesses they were both written in the Persian Language by Hierome Xavier and faithfully translated into Latin by Lud. de Dieu some very few faults he takes notice of but they are so slight that they confirm his Authority in all the rest Let now any impattial man judge whether such Persons deserve any faith in relating other miracles that dare so horribly to adulterate and corrupt the very story of the Bible but they little thought these abominable frauds would ever have come to light in these parts to make us truly understand what kind of Gospel it is which they propagated in the Indies and how unlikely it is that God should give the attestation of miracles to such lewd forgeries And thus much may suffice for comparing the credibility of the Testimony on which miracles are received in the Roman Church with that upon which we believe the miracles of Christ and his Apostles Enough one would think not only to stop the mouth of E. W. for the future but even of Impudence it self § 11. 3. I now come to shew the notorious frauds and impostures which have beeâ— discovered in the Roman Church in this point of miracles It was an easie matter in an Age oâ— Credulity and Ignorance to set up for a power of miracles for few men were inquisitive into the nature and circumstances of things and those who understood generally the best iâ— those times were either Contrivers or Friends yet it so fell out that some notorious impostures have been discovered which have differed in nothing from those which have passed for true miracles among them but only in the fortune of being discovered Glabâ—â— Rodulphus in his History tells a story of his own knowledge of a certain Person that went up and down pretending to do great wonders after the great feats he had done in France he goes into the Alps and there pretends to have found the Relicks of St. Justus the Martyr the Countrey people flocked in to him and they who came whole and sound were sorry they had no Disease or Lameness to be cured But certain it is saith the Historian strange Cures were wrought there the Bishops in whose Diocesses these things were done instead of making strict enquiries demanded money to give licence to deceive the People At last one Maâ—sred a Great man in those parts caused the Body which wrought these miracles to be taken away and placed in a Monastery of his own erecting and this Relick-Finder grew into great request with him promising to discover more precious Relicks than these and he told him the names of the Martyrs and manners of suffering very exactly Some persons among whom the Historian himself was one asked him how he knew these things he told them that an Angel appeared to him in the night and told him all the things he desired to know and lifted him out of his bed and after many discourses they parted very lovingly Although some of them suspected the imposture yet the Bishops who consecrated the Church with great Pomp and applause of the People who were innumerable solemnised the translation of these Relicks And although afterwards the wiser sort found out the cheat and that the Body was taken at a venture in the night out of a Grave yet the work of miracles went on as well as if the Martyr had been there and the People still continued in the belief of it This the Historian saith he purposely inserted to discover the imposture of those pretended miracles Gulielmus Neubrigensâ—s gives an account of a seditious person in London in the time of Richard the first called William Longbeard who stiled himself the Saviour of the Poor and had gotten so great an interest among the People that he had two and fifty thousand men at his command at last he was seized on and executed bâ—â— after his death the people cryed him up for â— Martyr and a Priest got one of his Chains and gave out that he cured one sick of â— Fever by it the people being encourageâ— by this took away the very Gallows where he hung in the night and all the earth about it where any of his blood was supposed to be spilt and they digged so far as to make â— Pitt with carrying away the earth for the Cure of Diseases By these instances we see what a disposition the people were in to be deluded under a pretence of Relicks and Miracles But it may be said that such impostors may be in any Religion and this reflects no moâ—â— dishonour on the Roman Church than Simon Magus did upon the Apostles I proceed therefore to shew that Persons who have been countenanced and encouraged in that Church have been found guilty of imposture At the latter end of the twelfth Century appeared one Fulco a man very famous for the great miracles wrought by him and his extraordinary way of preaching He was saith Jacobus de Vitriaco a plain Countrey Priest very simple and illiterate who had been a â—oose and dissolute man but being now reâ—ormed to the University of Paris he goes â—o get some Authorities and Moral Docuâ—ents in his Note-books which saith he he â—â—â—nished himself with as so many smooth â—â—ones to destroy Goliah Being thus far armed â—e pretends a Commission from Heaven to go â—broad to preach in all places and gave out â—hat the Blessed Virgin appeared to him and â—ad fitted him for that work and bad him go â—â—each repentance in all places and that she â—ad bestowed the Gift of Healing upon him â—s Otto de Sancto Blasio tells us Upon this â—e preaches at Paris to the great admiration â—f
discovery by these persons whom they disposed of in several places and fed with money and promises and kept from their Friends and sometimes threatning them that if they confessed any thing the Devil would possess them worse than before and withal told them that without an Oath they might say any thing to excuse themselves but Harrington a Priest that had taken to himself one of the Wenches afterwards under pretence of marrying her told Friswood Williams which was her right name that if she were examined upon Oath the Church did dispence with her so as she might answer what she thought good notwithstanding because an Oath did not bind her to confess any thing that might tend to the dishonour of their Priesthood or of the Catholick Church Before this imposture was discovered it did the Priests very great service for Anthony Tyrrell one of the Priests in his examination confessed that in the compass of half a year they had gained five hundred persons to their Church and some said three or four thousand And the Priests had written several Books concerning the miracles wrought by them full of most notorious forgeries as appeared by the particular examination of the Persons pretended to be dispossessed by them Tyrell said that Weston the Provincial of the Jesuits had written a Quire of Paper of the Visions of Mainey one of the persons out of whom he said he had cast out Devils and another Book to prove the continuance of this power in their Church and to shew the vertue of holy Relicks especially of their late Tyburn Saints Campian Sherâ—in Brian and Coltam This business making so much noise put the Persons in Authority upon enquiring more strictly into it and having at last seized upon some of the Persons concerned in it in their several examinations upon oath they confessed the whole cheat as I have delivered it from them Their examinations were entred upon Record in the Court of High-commission and afterwards published A. D. 1604. with a particular declaration of the whole imposture In which any person may satisfie himself of the Truth of what I have reported and abundance of circumstances which I have omitted Tyrell the Priest upon his oath June 15. 1602. declared in his consession written with his own hand that having perused the examinations of Sara Williams and Friswood her sister of Anne Smith and of Richard Mainey he was fully perswaded that they have deposed the truth in such points whereof they were examined belonging to their pretended possession or dispossession The effect whereof saith he is that they were drawn by our cunning carriage of matters to seem as though they had been possessed when as in truth they were not neither were any of the Priests ignorant in my Conscience of their dissimulatino nor the parties themselves as now it appeareth of our dissembled proceeding with them And afterwards adds a very material thing viz. For although both my self and so I think of the rest did know that all was but counterfeit yet for as much as we perceived that thereby great credit did grow to the Catholick cause and great discredit to the Protestants we held it lawful to do as we did For the general conceit saith he among all the Priests of that Order is that they may deny any thing which being confessed doth turn to the dishonour of the Catholick Church of Rome and concludes his confession with saying that they do not account it evil as I verily think to câ—lumniate the Protestants by any device whatsoever that may carry any probability with it nor make any Conscience at all to tell and publish any untruths which they think being believed may advance and promote such points and matters as they take upon them to defend for the honour of the Church of Rome and dignity of their Priesthood Judge now Reader whether such persons do not deserve the highest credit in all their stories of Miracles who think it lawful both to cheat and lie for the sake of their Church Not twenty years after the discovery of this imposture â—e find them at the same work again when they writ the faithful narration of the proceedings of the Catholick Gentlemen with the Boy of Bilson with this sentence at the beginning and end of it Non nobis Domine non nobis sed Nomini tuo da Gloriam Whereas the history of this imposture is so particularly laid open by the confession of the Boy himself that it would make any others but such as have the impudence to compare their frauds and impostures with the miracles of Christ and his Apostles be ashamed ever to mention or own it Such another imposture Thuanus at large relates concerning Martha Brossier A. D. 1599. which gave great disturbance in France happening so soon after the edict of â—ants One James Brossier being weary of his poor imployment at home wanders from place to place with his three Daughters and this Martha pretended to be possessed with an evil Spirit and although the cheat was discovered in other places yet at Paris they hoped to meet with some who would be ready to make use of such a counterfeit possession for their own ends accordingly there the Capuchins presently lay hold upon her and perswade the people she was really possessed the Arch-Bishop of Paris disliking the Capuchins proceedings appointed some of the ablest Physicians in Paris to watch and examine her who presently suspected the imposture but desired further time and advice In the mean while Fr. Seraphin very solemnly falls to his Exorcisms and she acted her part so artificially with writhing her body rolling her eyes and trembling of all her joynts as caused great astonishment in the Spectators but at these words Homo factus est she moved her whole body in so strange a manner from the Altar to the doors of the Chappel that Fr. seraphin cried out if there be any Infidel yet among you let him come and try his strength with this Spirit At which Marescot the Physitian said he would do it then the cunning Gypsie cried that the Spirit had left her wherein she was seconded by the Exorcist While the Physitians were by she lay very still but she no sooner thought them gone but she was at her old tricks Then these Physitians were shut out and others brought in who would be more favourable to the design and by these a certificate was drawn up attested by themselves that she was really possessed and an Abbot affirmed that when she was held by six men she got above their heads four foot into the air and there stood When this account of her was published Marescot confuted it answering all their arguments and giving an account of all the strange Symptoms which were sâ—en in her But so much were the people moved by this that there was great danger of a tumult the King therefore gave order to the Parliament to prevent riotous meetings and to commit the pretended possessed person to
the care of Physitians who returned this answer that they could find nothing praeternatural in her then great clamours were made by the people and â—editious Preachers that the priviledges of the Church were infringed and that all this was done in favour of the Hugonots to take away from the Catholick Church the glory of her Miracles after severe animadversion on these factious Preachers and Friers Martha was sent home with her Father and Sisters and confined thither But the Bishop of Clermont and his Brother carried her away to Avignon and refused to obey the summons sent them by the Parliament and the King sent to Cardinal Ossat his Ambassador at Rome to acquaint the Pope with the whole matter before they came thither It happened that sirmondus was then with Cardinal Ossat him he imploys to the General of the Order of Jesuits who were suspected to be friends to the Brothers who had been bred up in their Society that if they medled in this matter it would be their greatest hindrance to their restitution in France which they had then good hopes of Upon this the Jesuits for sook them and they were forced to submit to the King and so poor Martha was quite dispossessed Thus we see what intrigues and designes are carried on by such impostures in the Roman Church that when such things escape examination they pass for Miracles but when they are throughly searched into they appear to be meer cheats and impostures I shall conclude this discourse of impostures with these passages out of the Lord Herberâ— History of Henry 8. The King having issue Male proceedeâ— more confidently in his designs and because he knew that the pretended and false miracles of Priests had seduced many ignorant people to a superstitious obedience to the Romish See and reverence of Monasteries he resolved to detect them at least as many as he could for divers were so cunningly represented as they had kept their crediâ— for some ages the manner of these times being if a man were restored to his health upon a Pilgrimage or obtained any thing he desired upon a vow to some Saint never to study other cause And here out of ouâ— Records I shall mention some of the Imageâ— and Relicks to which the Pilgrimages oâ— those times brought devotion and offerings as our Ladies girdle shewed in eleven several places and her Milk in eight the Belâ— of St. Guthlac and the Felt of St. Thomaâ— of Laneaster both remedies for the Headâ— ach the Pen-knife and Boots of St. Thomas of Canterbury and a piece of his Shirt much reverenced by great-bellied women the Coals that roasted St. Laurence two or three heads of St. Ursula Malcus his Ear and the pairing of St. Edmonds Nails the Image of an Angel with one Wing which brought hither the Spears head that pierced Christs side an Image of our Lady with a Taper in her hand which burned nine years together without wasting till one forswearing himself thereon it went out and was now found to be but a piece of wood our Lady of Worcester from which certain veils and dressings being taken there appeared the statue of a Bishop ten foot high these and others were now brought forth and with great ostentation shewed to the people Among which were two notable Trumperies I cannot omit One was the Rood of Grace at Boxley in Kent which being made with divers vices to turn the eyes and move the lips was shewed publickly at St. Pauls Cross by John Bishop of Rochester and there broken and pulled in pieces The other was at Hales in Gloucestershire where the Blood of Christ brought from Jerusalem being kept as was affirmed for divers Ages had drawn many great offerings to it from remote places and it was said to have this property that if a man were in mortal sin and not absolved he could not see it otherwise very well Therefore every man that came to behold this Miracle confest himself first to a Priest there and then offering something to the Altar was directed to a Chappel where the Relick was shewed the Priest who confest him in the mean while retiring himself to the back part of the said Chappel and putting forth a Cabinet or Tabernacle of Chrystal which being thick on the one side that nothing could be seen through it but on the other side thin and transparent they used diversely For if a rich and devout man â—entred they would shew the thick side till he had paid for as many Masses and given as large Alms as they thought fit after which to his great joy they permitted him to see the thin side and the blood Which yet as my Author a Clerk of the Council to Edward the sixth and living in those times affirms was proved to be the blood of a Duck every week renewed by the Priests who kept the secret betwixt them Besides which the Images of our Lady of Walsingham of Ipswich of Fenrise of Islington and St. John of Osulston called otherwise Mr. John Shorn who was said to shut up the Devil in a Boot and divers others were publickly burnt And by this means the Monasteries grew infamous where most of these Images were kept and divers were undeceived who before held a Reverend opinion of these pretended Relicks and Miracles After which he relates how the King discovered the Forgery of the Miracles pretended to be wrought at Thomas Beckets shrine and that the Scull which the People did so much venerate was not his own that being found together with his body in the Tomb. I leave it now to the judgement of the Reader what credit such Miracles deserve which are reported by Persons who think it lawful to lie in these matters and which where strict examination hath been made have been discovered so often to be notorious impostures And this may abundantly suffice for the first particular which was the comparing the Miracles of the Roman Church with those of Christ and his Apostles in point of credibility § 12. 2. I come to compare them as to the Testimony given by them to Infallibility i. e. whether the Miracles supposed to be wrought in the Roman Church do equally prove that Church Infallible as those wrought by Christ and his Apostles did prove them Infallible For clearing of this I shall premise these particulars 1. That it is agreed on both sides that the miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles did sufficiently prove that they were Teachers sent from God For we are assured by the universal Testimony of all Christians not contradicted by their greatest Adversaries that the first Preachers of the Christian Religion did work so many so publick so great miracles that all impartial Persons could not but look upon them as persons immediately sent by God And Christ himself declared that this was the end for which he did those miraculous works that men might believe by them that God had sent him that without these men might have had an
excuse for their Insidelity that his works did bear witness of him And his Evangelist declares that this was the end for which these miracles are recorded that men might believe that Jesus was the son of God Afterwards when he was risen from the dead and he sent abroad his Disciples to preach the Gospel he told them that God would bear them witness by divers signs and miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost of which we have a full account in the Books of the new Testament As to all which miracles we have not the least ground of suspicion of any fraud or imposture being publickly done in the presence of enemies and written in a time when the Testimony of Writers might be easily contradicted and when all imaginable way 's were used to make the first Witnesses of these things to recant their Testimonies by the greatest severities and persecutions in stead of which they persisted with great resolution and laid down their lives rather than weaken the Testimony which they had given Thus we see such great and extraordinary effects of Divine Power which we ought to call miracles were wrought by Christ and his Apostles on purpose to confirm their own Authority that they were Persons sent from God and therefore could not deceive the World in the doctrine delivered by them 2. The Authority and Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles being thus confirmed by the miracles wrought by them there cannot be any such necessity in succeeding Ages to confirm the same doctrine by miracles For if it were once fully proved by those miracles then wrought there can want nothing further to establish the faith of succeeding Ages than a certain conveyance of those miracles to them Those miracles being wrought for the benefit of succeeding Ages as well as of that present Age And if those miracles would not serve for the Ages following as well as that present time it might with as much reason be said that then they did serve only for those who saw them For on the same ground that Persons then in regard of distance of Place were bound to believe although they did not see them wrought so likewise are others in regard of distance of time only supposing the certainty of conveyance to be equal But it is with much advantage to us by the concurrent Testimony of so many Ages and the effects of the doctrine confirmed by those miracles upon so many nations of the World not with standing all the Power and subtility which were used against it 3. The less the necessity and the greater the pretence to miracles so much more reason there is to suspect them Because God we are certain doth not imploy his Power in going beyond the common effects of nature to little or no purpose When we see that in all the writings of Scripture miracles were very sparingly wrought unless it were for the confirmation of a new Religion as that of Moses and Christ if asterwards we find such abundance of miracles pretended to that no Age or Country of one sort of men but give out that multitudes of these are done among them what must we think that God hath changed the Method of his Providence and not rather that God is true but such men are liars or through ignorance and credulity take those for miracles which are not so 4. Those cannot be true miracles which are pretended to be wrought to confirm a doctrine contrary to what is already confirmed by miracles For God will never imploy his power to contradict himself he may in the establishing of one Religion foretel the comming of another afterwards in its room by his own appointment as in the Gospel succeeding the Law but the latter miracles in this case do not contradict but rather confirm the doctrine of the former but when he hath declared that no other Religion shall come into the world after that which is confirmed by miracles as it is with the Christian Religion then to suppose miracles wrought to confirm any doctrine contrary to that is to suppose that God by miracles should contradict himself Therefore although in the beginning of a Religion the doctrine is to be proved by miracles yet that being once supposed miracles afterwards are to be tryed by the doctrine And then though an Angel from heaven should preach or offer to confirm any other doctrine by miracles than that which was first confirmed by Christ and his Apostles we are bound to reject that doctrine and to suspect those miracles not to be from God 5. Where false and lying miracles are foretold by a doctrine confirmed by true miracles there can be no reason to believe upon such miracles till they are evidently distinguished from such as are deceitful Now this is plainly the case in the Christian Religion Christ himself hath foretold that men shall arise doing such great wonders in imitation of him as should deceive if it were possible the very elect and his Apostles that his greatest enemies should appear with all power and signs and lying wonders Can any thing be now more reasonable than after such forewarnings for us to examine all pretences of miracles by trying whether they can be evidently distinguished from all deceitfull appearances of miracles which may be wrought by a power less than divine For in this case the evidence must be such as the persons concerned are to judge by to tell them any distinctions which they cannot proceed by in the judgement of miracles is to speak impertinently where rules of Judgement are required 6. If the continuance of the power of miracles be asserted to prove the Churches infallibility in every Age there must not only evident proof be given that such miracles are wrought but that they are wrought for this very end For if God may work miracles for another end either to shew his Providence in general or particular Regard to some men then the meer proving miracles cannot be sufficient but it must be shewed that these miracles could be wrought for no other end but to prove the Church infallible These things being premised I now come to shew 1. That in the Roman Church they cannot give any evident distinction between the miracles they pretend to and such which we are bid to beware of 2. That they can never prove that the miracles wrought in their Church could be wrought for no other end than to prove the infallibility of their Church 1. That in the Roman Church they cannot give any evident distinction between their miracles and such as we are bid to beware of For which we are to consider that scarce any Religion or superstition hath obtained in the world but it hath pretended to be confirmed by some kind of miracâ—es which in it self is no more a prejudice to true miracles than sophistical arguments are to true reasoning But those who pretend to miracles in a Church which is founded on a doctrine confirmed by undoubted miracles must give such
evidence of the truth of them as may apparently distinguish them from all false pretences For if they give no other answers to such pretences of miracles as they condemn in others but what will destroy the Authority of the miracles asserted by themselves then they can prove no more the Churches infallibility by their miracles than either Philosophers Heathens or Hereticks could do by theirs If the bare pretence of miracles would serve for all that I know Pythagoras might deserve at least as much esteem as St. Francis or St. Dominick for the Scholars of the one delivered as unanimously the report of his miracles as the Disciples of the other could do Pythagoras his taming the Daunian Bear reported saith Porphyrie in his life by ancient Writers of good credit and charging him never after to hurt any living Creature was to my understanding as great a miracle as St. Francis his taming the Wolf And his whispering the Tarentine Bull in the ear and perswading him to eat no more bean's who for his great abstinence afterwards was called the sacred Bull was altogether as good an argument of the restoring the State of Innocency to him as the command over brute Creatures was to St. Francis or any other Legendary Saints The Rivers saluting him whether it were called Caucasus as Porphyrie hath it or Nessus as Laertius and Jamblichus or Cosas as Aelian or what ever were the true name of it was as great an argument of his Sanctity as the Trees in Tursellinus howing to the Chappel of Loreto were of the miraculous sanctity of it Why should not his being seen at the same time at Metapont in Italy and Tauromenium in Sicily be as great a wonder as the being seen in several places at once has being reported of several of the Romish Saints Why should not his golden thigh be as miraculous as the restored Leg at Zaragosa unless the Priest Abaris be proved a falser witness than Hieronimus Brizids or the people of Zarogosa less suspected of partiality than the Greeks at the Olympick games at which some Authors tell us Pythagoras shewed his Golden thigh Why should St. Francis his Asse that stood still to hear him preach be more miraculous than the Asse which Suidas reports heard Ammonianus his Lectures Why should the speaking of Images in the Roman Church prove the infallibility of the Church of Rome more than it did in old Heathen Rome for as the Roman Breviary saith that an Image spake to Aquinas and commended his writings so the old Roman Writers say that the Image of Fortune spake not once but twice to the Matrons and commended their dedication of her and so did the Image of Juno Moneta at Veij to the Souldier that asked her whether she would go to Rome to whom she answered shâ— would Why may not Aesculapius his cure of the woman in his Templeat Epidaurus mentioned by Aelian be thought as strange as Xaverius his appearing to Fr. Marcellus Mastrilli at Naples and curing him upon his promise to go to the Indies which is another of the miracles so much magnified by E. W. If there be any difference that of Aesculapius seems the greater miracle Why should not the miracles attributed to the Emperours Vespasian Adrian and Aurelian related by Tacitus suetonius Spartianus and Vopiscus have as much credit at least as those of the Legendary Saints since the Writers of them are looked on as men of more sincerity and integrity by those of their own Church than the Authors of the Lives of the Saints are But to come yet nearer how can their pretended miracles prove the Church they are wrought in to be the true Church and infallible since by their own confession miracles to all appearance as great have been wrought among hereticks and in a false Church And by the Answers they give to these we shall easily judge how far they can give evidence of the truth of their own miracles The Ecclesiastical Historians report several miracles that have been wrought by Hereticks and Schismaticks Philostorgius attributes the power of miracles to the Arian Bishops to Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia to Agapetus Bishop of Synada of whom he saith that he raised the dead and healed all sorts of diseases to Theophilus to Aëtius Eunomius Leontius Candidus Evagrius Arrianus and Florentius Socrates attributes the same power to the Novatians as to Paulus the Bishop of that party when he was to baptize the Jewish Impostor and the water miâ—â—aculously disappeared And Sozomen to Eutychianus of the same party And the Donatists to Pontius and Donatus as we have already seen from St. Augustin Now if the tryal of the Church in those day 's had been by miracles I would fain know on which side the advantage had been St. Chrysostom disowns any such thing as a continuance of the power of miracles in the Bishops of the Catholick Church as besides the places already produced to that purpose may be seen in several others wherein he supposes that there is not so much as a foot step of that power of miracles left in the Church which was in the Apostles he asserts that God hath put a stop to miracles that he doth not give it to the most worthy persons that they were intended only for unbelievers and that there is no need of them where the Christian faith is settled What now should be said in this case for it is just the same as between us and the Church of Rome the Catholick Bishops pretended no more to a Power of miracles than the Protestant Bishops do now but the Arians Eunomians Novatians and Donatists all challenged this power of miracles to themselves therefore it is a plain case if the Church of Rome be now in the right then so were these Heretical and Schismatical parties if the Protestants be mistaken so were St. Chrysostom and the Bishops of the Caâ—holick Châ—râ—h But what answer now do these men give to these instances even such as very easily returns upon â—hemselves and upon the very same grounds we may oveâ—throw the Authority of their miraclâ—s 1. They say the testimony of the writers ought to â—e suspected of parâ—â—ality to their own side So Mâ—laerus answers the Testimony of Socrates saying that he either fâ—igned or related these miracles to the honour of his own party but this answer is both false and destrâ—ctive to tâ—emselves It is false becauâ—e notwithstanding what Bâ—ronius Labbè and otâ—ers have said Socrates â—as no Novatian as Henri Valesius hath well proved in his preface to his History But suppose he were must the Authority of all Persons be taken away that relate things to the honour of their own Church what then becomes of all the miracles of the Roman Church are they attested by any but such who are well wishers to the truth of them and that may go a great way in the belief of them Were not Gabriel de Aldama the Vicar General
935. n. 4. 5. Capgr f. 92. Id. f. 163. F. 194. Id. f. 170. F. 1â—2 Colgan 15. Jan. â— 15. P. 71. Joâ—elin vit S. Patricâ—i c. 82. C. 78. C. 24. Colgan 13. Maâ—ii vit S Gerald 1. 6. Id. 16. Maâ—tii vit S. Abban â— 23. Id. 20. Jan. n. 31. 42. vit St. Fechini p. 136 138. Id. ib. â— 14. N. 34. Coâ—gan 5. Martii p. 468. lect 9. Martyrolog Aâ—gliâ— ad â— Maii. Quaresm eluâ—id terrae sectae l. 7. c. 3. Colgan 1. Jan. vit S. Fancheae n. 8 9. Colgan 2. Jan. vit S. Schotini n. 5 6. N. 7. N. 8. Colgan 31. Jan. vit Maidoci n. 20. Capgr f. 54 Id. f. 188. Colgan 20. Jan vit S Molaggae n. 17. Id. 4. Fâ—â— vit Câ—annae n. 12. Id. p. 149. Id. 16. Martii vit S. Abbani n. 15. N. 10. Colgan 51. Jan. n. 41. Capgrave f. 296. Capgr vit S. Modwennae f. 237. Capgr vit S. Decum f. 86. Id. f. 37. Colgan 4. Feb. vit S Cuannae n. 7. Colgan 23. Feb. vit Guigneri n. 12. Jocelin in vit S. Patricii c. 27. David Roth Elâ—cid in Jocel c. 1. Colgan vit S. David 1. Martii n. 18. Colgan 22. Martii p. 721. Capgr vit S. Brendani f. 45. Johâ—a Bosco Bibliotheca Floriac viis S. Machut c. 6 7. Vit. St. Machut c. 6. C. 7. Colgan 16. Martiâ— vit St. Abbani n. 43. Pitseus de-Scrâ—ptoribus Angliae A. D. 1366. Possevin in Apparatu v. Capgrave Harpsfield sect 15. c. 17. Pits descrip Ang. A. D. 1484. Of the Testimonies of St. Chysost and St. August against the continuance of the power of Miracles Chrysost. in 1. Ep. ad Corinth Hon. 6. Tom. 3. ed Savil. p 275 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost. in 1. ad Tim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. p. 288. De Sacerdot l. 4. p. 37. Auctor impersect oâ— in Matth. hom 49. Nunc autâ—m sigâ—oâ—â—m operatio om nino levata â—st magis aâ—â—em apud eos inveâ—itur qui salâ—â— sâ—nt Christiaâ—i fiâ—ri ficta Carol. Scribanii Orthodox Fidâ—i Contâ—oâ— l. 4. c. 2. David Râ—â—h â—lucid in Jocâ—lin p. 120. Baron A. D. 370. n. 56. Caâ—grave vit St. Thel f 281. Colgan vit St. David n. 20. Capgrave vit St. Goodric f. 144. Lud Bail Bibliothec a Coâ—cionatorum p. 3. c. 65. Raynald A. D. 1414 n. 20. Mariana dâ— r. bus Hisp. l. 19. c. 12. Ribadinâ—ira Flos Sectorum 13. Junii Vita St. Antoâ—ii c. 15. 17. ed. dâ— la Haye 1641. Scâ—â—idâ— 6. at mundiâ—t Seduli tract de Saâ—ctis Or. Ribaden 16. Junii 114. St. Antonin Chroâ— Ton. 3. tit 24. Sâ—ct 2. Spondan A. D. 1403. n. 7. Nicol de Clemangis â—p 113. Rauzan vit St. Vincentii apud Bzov. A. D. 1419. Sect 20. apud Surirum 5. Aprilis Joh. Gerson c. Sectam se sâ—agâ—llaâ—â—â—â— Tom. 1. p. 641. Chrysost. in Paâ—y◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 August de verâ Relig c. 25. De â—tilit cred c. 15. 16. Retract l. 1. c. 13. Ib. c. 14. De Civit. Dâ—i l. 22. c. 8. In Psal. 130. v 1. De unit Eccles c. 10. Tract 14 in Joh c. 3. De verbis Dom. Scrm. 18. Quaest. ex Novo Tesâ—an c. 63. Of the Testimâ—nies of their own Writers against the miracles of the Roman Church Lud Viâ—es detrad Discipl l. 5. Mâ—lâ—â— Caâ— lo. Th ol l. 11. c. 6. Loc. Thâ—o log l. 12. pâ—ooeâ— Reason and Religion Disc. 2. c. 8. n. 6. S. Cuthberti vita Auctore Bedâ— tom 3. apâ—â— Colg 20 Martii Bollaâ—d 3. tom Martii C. 2. C. 4. C. 7. C. 20. C. 45. 〈◊〉 not in Martyr Decemb. 23. Greg. Dialog l. 1. c. 1. Capgr f. 92. 1. Greg. l. 1. c. 2. C. 3. C. 4. Ib. C. 7. Ib. Ib. C. 9. C. 11. Pet. Damiani vit St. Romuaâ—di prolog Joha Gerson declar Lyra in c. 14. Dan. Cajetan opâ—â—c trac 10. de concept B. V. ad Lcon 10. c. 5. Joh. Launoy de curd Eâ—â—lâ— pro. 〈◊〉 ss aâ—t 30. Coâ—oll 1. Po yb Hâ—stor l. 16. p. 732. Ed. Casaub. Guibert Abbas de Pignoribus Sanctorum l. 1. c. 1. C. 2. sâ—ct 5 Sect. 6. Cap. 3. Sect. 1. Sect. 2. Lucas D'achery not in Guibert p. 567. Nicol. vit St. Godefridi l. 2. c. 26. Sect. 3. Hugo Menard not in Coâ—câ—â—d Regul c. 3. p. 125. Greg. Turon hist. l. 9. c. 6. Lib 3. c. 1. C. 3. s. 4. C. 5. s. 1 3 4. Sect. 5. Joh. Launoy dâ—sq disquis de Magdal Massil p. 157. Andreas Resend de Martyr Eborens Ep. ad Barth Kebed p. 1007. To. 2. Râ—rum Hispanic Beaâ— Rhâ—â— r. r. Gâ—rmaâ— l. 3. p. 161. Dempster Eccles. Hist. l 2. n. 159. Tostatus in Levit. c. 9. q. 14. Comâ—â—ent in Matth. c. 3. q 12 in Matth. 10. q. 21. Rosâ—â—â—â—s c. Luthâ—r de caâ—ivit Babylâ— 10. Sect. 4. Erasm. in 1. Ep. ad Corâ—â—th 13. 13. Stella in Luc. 11. 29. Victoria Relect. 5. p. 200. Acosta de procurandâ— Indorum Salute l. 2. c. 9 10. Epistol Japan 3. p. 30. Eâ—ist Japan 8. p. 91. Bellarm. de not is Eccl. l. 4. c. 14. Maffei Hist. Indic l. 8. Paâ—l Zacchiae Quaest. Medico lâ—gales l. 4. tit 1. q. 10. n. 24. Kirchman de funeribus Rom. l. 1. c. 8. Korman de mira ulis Mortâ—orum p. 3. c. 6. Alâ—gambe Biblioth Soâ—iet Jâ—sâ— p 188. Hâ—storia Christi Persic à Xaverio â—â—atine Edita à Lud. de Diâ—u p. 536 Erasm. Schol. in â—p Hiâ—r Baron Apparat n. 39 44. Cani Loc. Th olog l. 11. c. 6. Sixtus Senenj Bâ—blioth l. 2. in Matth. Historia Christi p. 17 Xaver p. 22 Rayeaud Diptych Mariaâ— n. 10. Bened. Gonon Chronicon Dâ—iâ— p. 6. Xaver p 25 p. 26 c. p. 30. ibid. p. 34. p. 37. p. 41. p. 62. p. 74. p. 89. p. 94. p. 98. p. 101. p. 198. Of the Impostures and Forgeries of Miracles in the Roman Church Glaâ—â—â—â—odâ—lpi Hist. l. 4. c. 3. Guil. Neubrigens de râ—bus Aâ—glicis l. 5. o. 20 21. Jacob. de Vitriaco Histor. Occidental c. â— Otto de Sancto â—lasio aâ—pend ad Otton Frising c. 47. Jaâ— de Vitr c. 8. Matth. Wâ—stmonast A. D. 1197. Knighton l. 2. p 2412. apud 10. Scriptores Hoveden Annal. p. post p. 448. Jac. de Vitriaco c. 8. D'aâ—herii Spicilâ—g Tom. 9. p. 520. Raynald ad A D 1198. â— 38. Rigord de Gâ—sâ— is Philippi A D. 1198. Jac. de Vitriaco c. 8. Hist. Occid Rob. Aâ—tissiod Chron. ad A. D. 1198. Jac. de Vltriaco â— 10. Siâ—on de Regno Iâ—aliâ— l. 17. Fulgos. l. 1. tiâ— de Relig. culâ—â— C. 1. Spondan Annal. Eccl. A. D. 1233. n. 10. Viâ—nieâ— Histor. de l'Egâ—â—se A. D. 1264. Mat. Paris in Hen. 3. A. D. 1238. Odoric Raynald A. D. 1233. n. 35 37 38. Pelri de Valle-clausâ diatrib advers Cyriacos Sect. 11. Joh. Casalas Candor Lilii Vindicatus p. 431. Bzov. Annales A. D. 1232. n. 2. De 4. Haeresiarchis Ordinis Praedicatorum c. apud Suitcâ—ses in Civitate Berneâ—si combustis A D. 1509. Trithem Chroâ—icoâ— Sponheim A. D. 1509. Petr. Mart. â—p 341 402. Basel addit ad Naucler Sâ—ri Comment 〈◊〉 gest Del Rio disquisit Magic l. 4. c. 1. q. 3. sect 4. Spondan Aâ—n A. D. 1508. n. 5. Petrus 〈◊〉 Valle-clausâ— sect 99. Candor Liâ—il Vindicat. p. 421. Sleidaâ— Comment l. 9. A. 1534. Ribadincira de vit Ignatii l. 5. c. 10. Del-Rio disquis Mag. l 2. q. 18 25. Benzo Hist. Novi orbis l 3. c. 16. Ribadinâ—ir vit Ign. Loâ—lae l. 5. c. 10. Hasen Muller Histor. Jâ—suitici Ordinis c. 8. Tâ—uan â—ist l. 123. Hâ—rberts Hist of Hâ—â—â—y 8. A. D. 1538. p. 431. P. 437 438. Their Miracles being granted do not prove their Churches Infallibility Matt. 11. 5. John 5. 36. 15. 24. 20. 30 31. Mark 16. 17 18. Heb. 2. 4. Matth. 24. 24. 2 Thess. 2. 9. Porphyr vit Pythag. Sâ—id v. Anâ—moâ—â—â—â— Val. Max. l. 1. c 8. â— 3. 4. Aelian de animal l. 9. c. 33. Tacit. Hist. 4. Sueton. Vâ—sp c. 7. Spartian iâ— Adrian Voâ—iscus in Aâ—â—l Philostorg apâ—d Phot. Cod. 40. apud Nicâ—tam Choniat l. 5. c. 7. Philostorg l. 2. tom 8. l. 3. tom 4. l. 4. n. 7. l. 9. n. 1. Soâ—rat l. 7. c. 17. Sozoâ— l. 1. c. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrys. de sacerd l. 4. p. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Maâ—th hom 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom. 5. p. 277. Tom. 6 p. 148. Maldâ—r iâ— Thoâ— 2. 2. q. 1. art 5. sect 6. Bellarm. de noâ—is Eccl. l. 4. c. 14. Mich. Medina de rectâ in Detâ—n fide l. 2. c. 7. p. 53. Fevardent not in Iren. l. 2. c. 56. Liaâ—endes â—oâ—cion in Quadrag Tom. 2. 〈◊〉 2. Cor. 1. 19 20. Gal. 1. 8. 〈◊〉 dâ— Fi◠〈◊〉 Sect. 3. â— 10 Del. Rol. disquis Magic l. 2. c. 7. L. 4. c. 4. quaest 5. sect 2. Malâ—at in Mâ— 16 17. Andrad defâ—l fiâ— Trid. l. 2. Fer. in Math. 24. v. 23 24. Acosta de teâ—p noviss l. 2. 6. 9. C. 18. Caiâ—t de câ—pt virciaus c. 1. Paul Zaâ—chiae Quaest Medico Legalâ—s l. 4. tit 1. q. 1. n. 5 6 10. q. 4. n. 3. Riola Arth opograâ—â— l. 1. c. 15. N. 7. N. 9. Quaest. 5. 6 7 8 9 10 11. Fortun. Scacch de notis signis saâ—ctitatis sâ—ct 8. c. 1. Aqâ—in 2. 2. quaest 178. art 2. Procâ—ssus Canoâ—iz B. Andrâ—ae Coâ—sini part 2. sect 3. Contelor de Canoniz Sanctorum Cap. 17. n. 7.