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
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
gives an admirable reason for it which is that this intrinsecally follows from the nature of a divine testimony as it is altogether infallible and can oblige to believe those things which God speaks as infallible for in speaking any thing he thereby declares his own veracity in what he affirms for by this means hâ— induces men to believe the truth of what he saith and consequently his own veracity a man being obliged to believe the testimony infallible and thereforâ— from the intrinsecal nature of such an act oâ— faith and such an object it follows that thâ— same testimony which suffices for the beliâ—â— of the thing revealed will likewise suffice tâ— believe Gods infallible veracity in revealing This reason I grant is very well accommodated to the mysteriousness of Faith but I do not know how it would satisfie any man that should doubt of Gods veracity in all his Revelations which ought to be the more considered since in the foregoing section he names some of their own Writers who assert that there is no intrinsecal evil in a falsity and therefore God may is he pleases reveal one so as to oblige manking to believe it I would willingly know then how the obligation on our parts to believe what God saith can satisfie any man of the infallible veracity of the revealer For all that there is in this reason is that God cannot oblige men to believe a falsity which it seems some of their own Schoolmen would not yield to But it is not enough that God hath declared he never will do it no Suarez himself plainly refutes that by saying that no man can be certain that God doth not make use of his absolute power in those declarations and if he can tell a lie he may not perform his own promise and therefore Gods ordinary power cannot serve the turn since by his absolute power he can act against it Cardinal Lugo although he saw all the reason in the world to reject the former opinion of Suarez yet he asserts That the assent to Gods veracity must be supernatural and elicited from the habit of infused faith which is not easie to understand since they all make this supernatural infused Faith to be an obscure inevident assent and himself grants this to be an evident assent from natural reason but how the same assent should be evident and inevident is a Question fit to be debated among the Schoolmen § 3. But all this perplexity and confusion among men of wit and subtilty arises from their false notion of divine and supernatural faith which as E. W. most Scholastically speaks essentially tending obscurely to its object like a blind man running at Tilt it makes them so much afraid of the least crevise of light or evidence lest the meritoriousness of it be utterly destroyed For it infinitely obliges God in their opinion to believe without evidence Therefore though a humane and acquisite faith such as Hereticks may have may be grounded on substantial reason yet this supernatural and meritorious faith much like a Mole works without light and expects the more wages for working in the dark I confess this essentiaâ— obscurity of faith suits very well with theiâ— Discourses about it which as E. W. speaks seems to have transfused its obscurity intâ— their writings concerning it But for us tâ— whom they will only allow a humane faith I wish they would afford a little more evidence for what they say and not overthrow the fundamental ground of all certainty oâ— Faith by deriving the perswasion of it from divine Revelation and not from the naturaâ— conceptions we have of God But I cannoâ— but commend the Ingenuity of one of theiâ— late School-men who yields That the verâ—city of God as it is the foundation of faitâ— must be known by natural light and to the objection that divine Faith must then be resolved into a natural assent he answers 1. That natural notices may be an inadaequate formal object of faith 2. That faitâ— properly goes not beyond a Testimony thâ— other being rather an act of knowledge thaâ— faith It is all one to me so the thing be granted by what name men call it That which I aim at is that the veracity of God which is the foundation of our assent to what God reveals must be received antecedently to divine Revelation And so the principles of natural Religion must be supposed true before it is possible for us to judge of revealed Religion and among those principles we â—ust allow of the veracity of God without which we cannot imagine any firm assent to â—e given to divine Revelation which is â—hat I understand by the name of Faith Wherein a divine Testimony being implyed â—hat assent which I give to any thing as true â—pon the account thereof may be called Diâ—ine Faith as that which I give to the Truth of a thing not upon knowledge or experience but the credit of another Person is â—ustly called humane faith i. e. when it goes â—o farther than meer humane Testimony but â—f that humane Testimony at last leads me to â—hat which is divine then the Faith must receive its denomination from that which it â—ests upon As suppose some persons in Persia at the time of our Saviours being in Judaea had been made acquainted with the Doctrine which he Preached and the holiness of his Life while these persons received all only upon the credit of their Friends we may call this a humane faith but if they were fully satisfied afterwards of the mighty works which were done by him to attest his divine Commission on which account they believe him to be the true Messias their faith might now more properly be called a divine faith because it fixeth it self upon an immediate Testimony of God But then we are to consider 1. That there is no sixed and determinatâ— sense of a divine faith it being no termâ— used in Scripture but taken up by men to express thereby the difference between the assent we give to the Word of God and to the Testimony of men But then this Faith may be called divine either as it relates to the material object or the formal object or the divine effects of Faith that Faith may be said to be divine in one sense which may not bâ— in another For a man may believe thaâ— which God reveals and upon the account uâ— his Testimony and yet that Faith may neveâ— operate effectually and so be no effect oâ— divine Grace upon the mind of man Therefore one of the great mistakes of the Schoolmen in this matter hath been the making the belief upon a divine Testimony to be thâ— act of divine and supernatural Faith which the Devils and Judas might have and exâ—luding Faith built upon fallible grounds from being divine which yet might effectually lead men to the obedience of Faith and consequently was truly more divine than the other 2. The same Faith in several respects may be called both humane
revealed by God as the matter was capable of and such evidence we say ought to perswade any prudent person This is all which the description of faith so much alledged doth imply which was never intended for an accurate definition of it for as Hugo de sancto Victore saith of it non indicat quid est fides sed signat quid facit it doth not shew what faith is but what it doth by making things future and invisible to have as great power and influence on mens minds as if they were present and visible And when the Fathers speak of the obscurity of Faith they do not mean an assent without grounds but the belief of things out of our view and that obscurity is understood by them in comparison with the clearness of a future state or in opposition to the way of proving things by meer reason without Revelation So Cardinal Lugo truly answers the Testimonies of Fathers to that purpose by saying that when they exclude reason and arguments from faith they take them as they are opposed to Authority but in as much as they suppose the mysteries of Christian faith to be believed for the sake of Divine Revelation a discourse is thereby implied from the Authority of God revealing to the mysteries believed Neither is such discourse only requisite but that in the first place which doth assure men of the truth of this Revelation for upon that the other must proceed All mediums used for the proof of this must be extrinsecal to the nature of the thing and therefore cannot be repugnant to faith and in this I have the consent of some of the most learned of the Schoolmen who make evidentiam in attestante as they call it consistent with faith But saith E. W. No thanks to thee poor creature to assent hadst thou Evidence This it is now to hope to merit at Gods hands by a blind faith for so elsewhere he saith evidence is incompatible with that merit and obsequiousness of faith which God requires of his rational creatures who are to walk to Heaven by an humble and dutiful faith A very humble saith certainly that hopes to merit by believing And very dutiful in expecting so large a reward for doing it knows not what We think it our duty to believe firmly whatever God saith but withal we think it our duty to enquire carefully whether God hath said it or no before we believe and according to the evidence we have of this we assent to the former But this is not to proceed Nobly with God saith E. W. Brave man It hath been reported of a Hector in this Town that a little before his death he said he hoped God would deal with him like a Gentleman It seems E. W. would deal so with God We have often heard of works of super-erogation but our noble E. W. is not content with them he will have a faith of super-erogation too We poor creatures are contented to do our duties and take it as a great Favour for God to accept of the best we can do We dare not so much as think of such terms of kindness and favour from us to God as to proceed Nobly with him Neither do we believe that God is so hugely pleased with the blind and the lame when they are offered in sacrifice to him Whatever E. W. imagines it is no such Noble proceeding to believe infallibly upon confessedly fallible grounds For that is the present case he grants that the motives of credibility are not infallible and that there are no other motives in order to faith above these and yet he supposes we ought to oblige God by giving an infallible assent upon these Motives But the bottom of all is That our Faith ought to be suitable to Gods infallible veracity which Faith immediately rests upon and from whence and not â—rom the motives infallible certainty as E W. speaks is transfused into it This deep speculation by no means satisfies me for though I know it to be impossible for God to lie or to deceive yet our question is not about believing the truth of what God saith but about believing this or that to be revealed by him And while the Question is whether Gods veracity be concerned in the thing how is it possible for his Veracity to transfuse an Infallible Certainty into my Belief of it Suppose E. W. be acquainted with as honest a man as ever lived and one comes and tells him from him that such a Friend of his was dead and gave him five hundred pound I would fain know whether the unquestionable veracity of the Friend from whom the Messenger saith he received it can transfuse an unquestionable certainty in his mind of the truth of the thing while he is yet in doubt whether his faithful Friend said it or no If his assent here be not according to the veracity of his Friend unless he be first assured of the fidelity of the reporter No more can it be in the present case of believing For no one questions what God saith but our only doubt is whether God hath said it and whilst one gives no infallible assent to the one he cannot infallibly rest upon the other But may not credible arguments as to the Messenger be sufficient for infallible belief of the thing upon the Authority of the other For that I appeal to E. W. whether his belief of the thing would not in that case be according to the grounds he had to believe the Messenger and the Authority of his Friend would make him so much the more Question whether his name might not be abused by a Person that had a design to put a trick upon him especially if that Messenger challenged to himself so much credit that he ought to be believed without any dispute at aâ—l For in this case the over eager affirming would give a man cause to question the more the truth of the person if his evidence bear no proportion with his confidence So it is in our present case it is granted on all sides if God reveals any thing it must be true our enquiry is how far we are to believe that God hath said such a thing upon the credit of those who convey it to us if they desire no more credit with us than they give sufficient evidence for then we are bound to believe them but if they exact an infallible assenâ— and offer only fallible grounds we have reason to mistrust their design and so long as we do so we must question the thing which we are to believe upon their credit If they require only an assent suitable to their evidence it would be unreasonable to deny it but still the degree of our assent to the Revelation is proportionable to the degree of evidence that it is a divine Revelation Which Dr. Holden thinks to be so evident that he accounts it lost labour for a man to go about to prove it to any one that hath
Moral which doctrine he saith if it be defensible it 's impossible to declare how Faith it self or the illustration previous can proceed from the Holy Ghost For did the Spirit of God work with a soul when it believes the certainty of Faith would without all doubt go beyond that assurance which is only humane moral and fallible I think that I escape well that E. W. hath not transcribed a great part of Bradwardin de Causâ Dei against me for I plainly see he takes me for an Absolute Free Willer and a denier of the Grace of God It is true indeed I set aside the consideration of Divine Grace in this matter but I assure him not that I questioned the Truth or necessity of it but because it was not pertinent to â—his business For to what purpose should we argue about that which can only serve for â—he satisfaction of those which have it and â—eaves men entangled in the same difficulties they object to others But the Question was plainly put by me concerning the outward inducements to faith viz. whether an infallible Testimony of the Church were necessary in order to it or whether a certainty short of that which I called Moral were sufficient for Divine Faith Not opposing this Moral Certainty to the concurrence of Divine Grace but to an external infallible Proponent I took it then for granted on both sides that the Grace of Faith doth not come meerly from our selves but that it is the Gift of God that whereever God doth immediately concur he doth direct the mind to the belief of what is certainly True that there might be unaccountable ways whereby an inward certainty might be produced and so firm an adherence to the Truth believed which all the arguments and torments in the world could never shake of which the Primitive Martyrs were undeniable Instances But this internal perswasion could be made no matter of debate nor any argument to convince another any further than the effects of it did manifest that it came from God yet withal I did not Question but faith being an act of the mind of man which is rational and discursive had sufficient grounds to proceed upon and such which without any absurdity might justifie mens belief to any prudent or considerative men and to the severest enquiries of a mans own mind Now concerning these Grounds the Question was put by me taking in then the efficiency oâ— Divine Grace this is the true state of the Controversie whether the spirit of God may not by moral arguments work in mens minds such a certain assent of Faith as the Scripture requires for Salvation or whether in order thereto an Infallible Testimony of the Church be necessary But because the inserting the operation of the Holy Ghost doth rather perplex the controversie than explain it since this was granted on both sides I thought it better to leave it out and to manage the dispute as it ought to be only concerning the necessity of an infallible Testimony of the Church which is asserted by my Adversaries and denied by me 2. The Question is not concerning that Foundation of Faith whereby we believe what God saith to be true but that whereby we believe this to be revealed by God For those two Propositions must be supposed to any particular act of Faith viz. that whatever God saith is true and that God hath said this â—articular thing which I am bound to believe Concerning the first of these there is no dispute between us for Gods veracity founded â—pon â—his Infinite Wisdom and Goodness is agreed to be the ultimate reason of our assent â—o whatsoever God reveals Only E. W. to â—phold the supernatural certainty of Faith will not have the veracity of God to be the Foundation of Faith as it is known by natural Reason for if it were saith he Faith would at last be resolved into one natural â—rinciple thus I believe God to be the highâ—st verity imaginable not because he saith so â—ut because I know this great Truth scientiâ—ically Now saith he no science gives the â—ast or least degree of intrinsick certitude to â—aith This is profound reasoning but which â— dare say no faith can be built upon For â—ither I must be convinced of Gods veracity â—y natural reason from the consideration of â—he divine nature and attributes or by Reâ—elation from God but if by Gods revelaâ—ion then see what an excellent way this Scholastick Divine hath found for resolving Faith as to this Principle for as it is a matâ—er revealed it is an immediate object of â—aith If you then ask him why he believes any thing to be true which is revealed by God his answer is because he believes Gods supream verity or that he neither can nor wiâ— deceive but if you ask him again why hâ— believes this veracity of God he answers because God hath revealed it And is nâ— this a likely man to escape circles thâ— makes them where any common understanding would avoid them But besides supposing God had never discovered his own veracity in Scripture I would fain know of E. â— whether there could have been any sucâ— thing as Divine Faith or no if there coulâ— then this principle of Gods veracity muâ— have been the Foundation of divine faith â— known by natural Reason And supposinâ— Gods veracity not to be embraced antecedently to a divine Revelation it is impossible to suppose there should be any argumenâ— sufficient to perswade me to believe any Divine Revelation For the greatest Miracle cannot convince me of Gods Truth though they may of his Power and theâ— may perswade me to believe that God seâ— such men who work Miracles but they cannoâ— perswade me to believe that all they say is true For if God can deceive men he may imploy men as his messengers and deceive the world by them and if this opinion be rooted in a mans mind it is impossible he should yield a firm assent to any thing because it is revealed by God But E. W. saith Divines say so as he doth I suppose he means School Divines and then I grant they do and a great â—any silly things besides wrapt up under the â—ame of subtilties If any one hath a mind â—o try the truth of what I say he need do no more than read their unintelligible subtilties â—bout the nature and resolution of Faith Which Cardinal Lugo himself complains of and saith they make the doctrine of the Schools â—ard and unintelligible and in this particuâ—ar of believing Gods veracity on the account of Divine Revelation he saith it carries men into an inexplicable circle Suarez finding no better way to clear this difficulty â—uns to a mystery in it and makes it a great part of the mysteriousness of faith that although it doth not clearly see its object nor the things revealed yet it receives it by its own light and this act of faith he saith is wholy supernatural he might have said unintelligible But he
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
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—
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
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
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
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
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
told the formal story of his being delivered at Nazareth out of prison by calling upon his Countrywoman the Lady of Loreto who thereupon appeared to him with her woman called Lucia waiting upon her whom she bid to knock off his chains and opened the prison doors and led him to the Sea side and shewed him a ship ready for his passage and bid him make hast to Loreto and be there baptized And we may think he obeyed her will for he told Riera that he came to Ancona in two days Yet this man was received with great joy and the Miracle highly magnified and which was more for all that we can find verily believed And no doubt the Venetian Courtesan was a person of great credit who having spent many years in that Trade came to Loreto full of a very strange Miracle viz. That she was set upon in her way thither by her companion who desperately wounded her in many places and cut her throat and she just in the very nick of expiring called upon the Lady of Loreto for help who presently appeared to her and took her in her lap and stroked her wounds and immediately cured her body and filled her soul with heavenly Joy Was not the blessed Virgin very kind to a Courtesan But all this was presently believed at Loreto and as an impregnable evidence of the Truth of it she shewed a shining list about her neck upon the skin which was a demonstration she was healed by a divine hand For St. Winifred and others had just such a one when their heads were joyned to their bodies again And are not these Authentick Testimonies and undeniable Monuments Is the Testimony of the whole Christian Church to be compared to that of a Jew and a Courtesan But supposing the persons who delivered these things to them were such as had a great credit and so they had need to be when the reputation of a Miracle depends upon their single Testimony yet is it not possible to suppose that the Priests for the reputation of their House may help out a lame Miracle with an advantagious circumstance or two it being for so good a Cause as the honour of their Church Especially when such infinite riches come by it as may be seen by Tursellinus his History of the Lady of Loreto whose Book is made up of Miracles and Riches and in truth the greatest Miracle there is the riches of that Chappel since it gained reputation in the World They had need of a very untainted credit to have their Testimony taken on their bare words when there is such a reward for Lying Men need not ask Cassius his Question cui bono For any one may easily discern that that compares the Tables of Miracles and the vast riches accruing by them together The honest Heathens thought a persons Testimony was then to be relyed upon when there was no reward for falsehood Cum sunt praemia falsâ— Nullae ratam debet testis habere fidem Tacitus thought it was a good argument of mens fidelity if they affirmed a thing postquam nullum mendacio pretium when there was no advantage to be got by it But I am sure this can never hold in these Authentick Testimonies of the Miracles of the Roman Church Rich Jewels Silver shrines presents of all sorts and vast endowments may tempt men to strain a little in such trifles as a few circumstances which can easily change an ordinary accident into a Miracle Nay persons of great honour and reputation beyond ten thousand such Priests whose interest is so deeply concerned in the belief of these things have affirmed that they have seen Tables hanging up in one of the Churches mentioned by E. W. of a miraculous cure wrought upon a lame person whom themselves have seen immediately aster so lame as to use crutches Therefore I hope such Testimonies as these for meer shame will never more be compared with the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles who had no Diana's to attend upon nor expected any silver shrines Not that I compare the blesfed Virgin to a Heathen Goddefs but I may safely enough the nature and reward of the attendance on both and the means to draw riches to their Temples Can any one imagine if all the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles had been done in this manner and the Testimony of them only taken from Tables hanging upon Walls that ever Christianity would have prevailed upon the ingenuous part of mankind No it was because these Miracles were wrought publickly by Christ and his Apostles in the view of enemies and they who attested them did not fit to receive presents and tell tales but ventured their lives as well as fortunes to give testimony to the truth of these things and offered as much satisfaction as sense and reason could require in these matters But if they had nothing to shew but Tables hanging upon the Walls of their Temples the Heathens would have told them they had as good evidence for Miracles among them For 3. Such Authentick Testimonies as these have been among the greatest enemies to Christianity And I hope E. W. will not say that Christianity hath no better proofs than Paganism If we search but a little into the practices of this nature among the Heathens we shall find that Polydore Virgil had reason of his side when he said this custom of hanging up Tables was taken from them among whom nothing was more usual than upon any extraordinary deliverance to set up their votivae tabulae in the Temples of those Gods they were most addicted to some to Isis some to Neptune some to Aesculapius especially in the case of escape from Shipwrack to Isis and Neptune and in case of recovery from dangerous diseases to Isis or Aesculapius Lambin saith the very same custom continues still only instead of the Heathen Gods they do it to the Virgin Mary or some Saint This custom is mentioned not only by Horace but by Virgil Ovid Tibullus Juvenal Persius and others And all know the saying of Dionysius upon seeing these Tables of those who had made vows and escaped but what is become saith he of those who made vows and were drowned And the very same Question may be asked of these modern vows as well as theirs I shall only mention the Tables of those who had as they thought miraculous deliverances from sicknesses of which kind there are so many in the Tables of Loreto and elsewhere It is a remarkable testimony to this purpose which Diodorus Siculus gives of Isis in Egypt where he saith of her That being now advanced to immortality she takes great delight in the cure of men and that to any who deâ—ire her help she manifests her presence to them in sleep as it is in very many of those of Loreto and her great readiness to help them For the proof of which they do not bring Fables as the Greeks do but the evidence of matters of fact
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
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
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
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