when they have brought men to it they cannot assure them what that Church is which they attribute this Infallibility to who in that Church are the proper subjects of it what kind of Infallibility it is noâ— when the Church doth define Infallibly so many things are to be believed without reason both as the persons who are to define and the manner of their definitions 2. Supposing this way true the Circle still remains which I proved by three things â— From the nature of the faith they enquire for a resolution of which is not humane but Divine Faith For the Question was not whether by another kind of Assent they could not escape the circle but whether they could â—o it in the resolution of Divine Faith or not Either then the Churches Infallibility is not to be believed with a Divine Faith or there may be a Divine Faith without an Infallible Testimony or this Divine Faith of the Churches Infallibility must be built on the Scripture and so the Circle returns 2. From the persons whose faith is to be resolved the way of resolving faith being a different thing from proving a matter of Faith to an Adversary granting then that to those who deny the Churches Infallibility but allow the Scriptures they may prove the one by the other yet this signifies nothing to the Resolution of their own Faith which is the thing enquired after and yet even in proving to â—dâ—ersaries the Churches Infallibility from Sciptureâ— they cannot avoid the Circle when the Question returns about the sense of those places for then they must run to the Church because the Church which is Infallible hath delivered this to be the sense of them 3. From the nature of that Infallibility which they attribute to the Church which being not by immediate divine Revelation but by a Supernatural Assistance promised in Scripture it is impossible to prove this Infallibility but by first proving the truth of thaâ— Scripture wherein these promises are contained and so the Circle still returns for the believe the Scriptures Infallible because oâ— the Churches Testimony and they belieâ—â— the Church Infallible because of the Promises of her Assistance recorded in Scripture 3. It is false that there are the same motive of credibility as to the Churches Infallibility which there were for the Infallibility of Mosâ—â— and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles which T. C. therefore very wisely declined tâ— prove and only said it was sufficient to sheâ— how he had escaped the Circle § 2. This is a brief account of that pan of the Resolution of Faith which hath beeâ— since assaulted by two several Adversarieâ— but in different ways The first of them iâ— the Guide in Controversies who ingenuouslâ— confesseth the Question about the Resolutioâ— of Faith upon their Principles to be intricatâ— so any one might easily guess by the intricacy and obscurity of his answer to it I shall endeavâ—ur to bring it to as much clearness aâ— possibly I can that I may the better represent the force and consequences of it The substance of what he saith may be reduced to these propositions 1. That the Church may be considered two ways 1. As a Society already manifested by Divine Revelation whether written or unwritten to be infallibly assisted by the Holy Ghost 2. As a Society of men whose Testimony is to be received upon prudential motives 2. That the Church being considered in the former of the two acceptions the infallible authority and testimony thereof is not only an introductive into but one of the articles of divine faith and that so many as believe the Churches Infallibility in this sense may safely resolve their divine faith of other articles of their belief into its delivering them as such 3. That whatever this Infallible Authority of the Church be it is not necessary that every one for attaining a divine and saving faith be infallibly certain of this Infallible Authority or as he elsewhere expresseth it that it is not necessary for divine faith that it should always have an external rationally-infallible ground or motive thereto whether Church-authority or any other on his part that so believes or that he have some extrinsecal motive or proponent of which he is infallibly certain that it is infallible 4. There are two sorts of faith to be resolved divine and humane or infused and acquisite the one is always built upon divine Revelation the other needs no more than prudential motives or such as are sufficiently credible or morally infallible on which an acquired or humane faith securely rests 5. That there must be particular ultimate divine Revelation which may not be to all the same but to some one to some another viz. either Scripture or Churches Testimony or Apostolical Tradition or Miracles beyond which he can resolve his divine faith no further for proving or consirming which revelation he can produce no other divine revelution but there must end unless a process be made in infinitum or a running round 6. Divine Faith as to such altimate particular divine Revelation cannot be grounded meerly on Gods veracity but that God hath said this particular thing which we believe namely that the testimony of the Church or Apostles or Scriptures is true which must either be grounded that it may be the Foundation of a divine faith on some other divine Revelation and so in infinitum or else I must rest there with an immediate assent to it 7. The internal efficient of all Divine faith is the power or Grace of the Holy Ghost illuminating the understanding that the prime verity cannot lye in whatever thing it reveals and also that the particular articles of our faith are its Revelations and perswading and operating in the Will such a firm adherence unto these articles as many times far exceeds that of any humane science or demonstrations 8. The ultimate resolution of a Christians divine faith as to the extrinsecal prime motive ground reason or principle thereof that equals in certainty the faith built upon it can be no other than that particular divine Revelation which is first made known to him or from which in building his faith â—e proceeds to the rest as to the internal efficient it is into the Grace of the Holy Spirit 9. The motives of credibility or the rational evidence of the truth of Christianity do serve indeed antecedently for an introductive to or after it introduced for a confirmative of this divine faith i. e. to make it credible or acceptable to humane reason my own or others that this faith is true and no way liable to error that I am assured in it by the holy and no seducing Spirit but not to
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
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
Faith for if the Infallible assent of Faith do come from the power of the Will then to what purpose is any formal object of that assent enquired after For the formal object doth assign a reason of believing from the object it self of which there can be none if the Will by her own Power elicit that which is the proper assent of Faith And all other material objects of Faith may be believed in as infallible a manner by the same power of the Will But if the Will can command the understanding to assent beyond the degree of evidence why may not the understanding dictate to the Will to desire a thing beyond the degree of goodness appearing to it and by this means both those faculties would tend to their objects in a way disagreeing to their nature All these ways being found in sufficient Cardinal Lugo saith some had recourse at last to a mysterious elevation of the understanding beyond all connatural ways of its operation whereby it lays hold on the matters of Faith in a way wholly inexplicable and however the Cardinal slights this way and expresseth a great detestation of it as that which renders the matters of Faith incredible and imperceptible yet I think it absolutely the best for those of the Roman Church that hath yet been thought of and I would particularly commend it to E. W. who loves to talk so unintelligibly and confusedly as if he had this habit of believing infused already And thus much in vindication of the first argument I proposed against making the Infallible Testimony of the Church the foundation of Faith and yet that Infallibility to be only proved by the motives of credibility viz. that hereby an infallible assent must be built upon fallible grounds As to what E. W. saith by way of recrimination it shall be answered when I come to defend our own grounds of Faith § 10. The next Argument which afford◠any new matter to my Adversary whereb◠I shewed this way of resolving Faith to b◠unreasonable was because by making the Insallible Testimony of the Church necessary to Faith they make that necessary to Faith which was not made so by Christ or his Apostles What then say I will become of the Faith of all those who received Divine Revelations without the Infallible Testimony of any Church at all With what Faith did the Disciples of Christ at the time of his suffering believe the Divine Authority of the Old Testament was it a true Divine Faith or not If it was whereon was it built Not certainly on the Infallible Testimony of the Jewish Church which at that time consented to the death of the Messias condemning him as a Malefactor and Deceiver Or did they believe it because of the great rational evidence they had to convince them that those Prophesies came from God If so why may not we believe the Divinity of all the Scriptures on the same grounds and with a Divine Faith too With what Faith did those believe in the Messias who were not personally present at the Miracles which our Saviour wrought but had them conveyed to them by such reports as the womans of Samaria was to the Samaritans Or were all such persons excused from believing meerly because they were not spectators But by the same reason all those would be excused who never saw our Saviours Miracles or heard his Doctrine or his Apostles but if such persons then were bound to believe I ask on what Testimony was their Faith founded Was the woman of Samaria Infallible in reporting the Discourse between Christ and her Were all the persons Infallible who gave an account to others of what Christ did Yet I suppose had it been your own case you would have thought your self bound to have believed Christ to have been the Messias if you had lived at that time and a certain account had been given you of our Saviours Doctrine and Miracles by men faithful and honest though you had no reason to have believed them infallible I pray Sir answer me would you have thought your self bound to have believed or no If you affirm it as I will suppose you so much a Christian as to say so I pray then tell me whether persons in those circumstances might not have a true and divine Faith where there was no infallible Testimony but only Rational Evidence to build it self upon And if those Persons might have a divine Faith upon such evidence as that was may not we much more who have evidence of the same nature indeed but much more extensive universal and convincing than that was And how then can you stil◠assert an Infallible Testimony of the conveyers of divine Revelation to be necessary in order to a divine Faith Nay further yet how few were there in comparison in the first Ages of the Christian Church who received the Doctrine of the Gospel from the mouths of persons Infallible and of those who did so what certain evidence have men that all those persons did receive the Doctrine upon the account of the Infallibility of the Propounders and not rather upon the Rational evidence of the Truth of the Doctrine delivered and whether the belief of their Infallibility was absolutely necessary to Faith when the report of the evidences of the Truth of the Doctrine might raise in them an obligation to believe supposing them not Infallible in that delivery of it but that they looked on them as honest men who faithfully related what they had seen and heard and to which evidence of sense the Apostles and Evangelists appealed so that when there was certainly an infallible Testimony yet that is not urged as the only Foundation for Faith but Rational Evidence produced even by those Persons who were thus infallible If we descend lower in the Christian Church or walk abroad to view the several Plantations of the Churches at that time where do we read or meet with the least intimation of an Infallible Testimony of the Catholick Church so called from its Communion with that of Rome What Infallible Testimony of that Church had the poor Britains to believe on Or those Barbarians mentioned in Irenaeus who yet believed without a written Word What mention do we meet with in all the ancient Apologeticks of Christians wherein they give so large an account of the grounds of Christian Faith of the modern method for resolving Faith Nay what one ancient Father or Council give the least countenance to this pretended Infallibility much less make it the only sure Foundation of Faith as you do Nay how very few are there among your selves who believe it and yet think themselves never the worse Christians for it If then your Doctrine be true what becomes of the Faith of all these persons mentioned Upon your principles their Faith could not be true and Divine Faith that is let them all think they believed the Doctrine of Christ never so heartily and obey it never so conscientiously yet because they
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
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
Leg cut off and strangely restored or that some persons were suddenly cured of a dangerous disease by the vision of an Apostle would this have ever satisfied the world that the Apostles were Persons sent from God and assisted by an infallible Spirit Supposing the matters of Fact were true it might be reasonably demanded why God might not do such extraordinary cures in some rare cases without making that Company of men infallible among whom they are done For we see their own Writers acknowledge that God may do real miracles even among Pagans and Infidels to give testimony to his universal Providence And Suarez particularly distinguisheth in this case of miracles saying that a miracle may be wrought two ways 1. Without respect to any truth at all to be confirmed by it but only for the benefit of him that receives it as in case of a miraculous cure or such like 2. When it is wrought purposely to confirm the truth of a doctrine Now I say supposing I should grant all that E. W. contends for as to the truth of the two miracles he insists so much upon viz. the cure of F. Marcellus and the restored Leg at Zaragosa what can this prove as to their Churches infallibility if according to Suarez such miracles may be wrought only for the benefit of those who receive them Del-Rio saith this is no good consequence such a one wrought miracles therefore his faith is true because God may work miracles by Insidels but this consequence he saith is good such a one wrought miracles to confirm the faith which he professed therefore his saith is true because God cannot work miracles purposely to confirm a falshood But withall he saith elsewhere that the faith being now established there is little or no necessity of miracles to confirm it Supposing then some true miracles to be wrought in the Roman Church what consequence can be thence drawn for that Churches infallibility in doctrine if those miracles are not wrought for that end as E. W. never undertook to prove that they were And if the consequence will not hold as to a particular person for the truth of his faith from the bare working of miracles neither can it for the truth or infallibility of a Church for the same reason for if God may work miracles by Infidels he may likewise in a false or corrupt Church Maldonat another Jesuit confesseth that since the Christian Religion hath been confirmed by miracles in the Churches beginning there is no necessity of miracles for that end and quotes Gregory and Bede for it who compare the power of miracles to the watering of a plant which is only needâ—ul at first and is given over when it hath taken root So that whatever miracles they suppose to remain in the Church they do not look on them as wrought for the confirmation of any necessary part of Christian faith such as the Churches Infallibility is asserted to be by E. W. Andradius saith that miracles are oftimes false but always weak proofs of a true Church Ferus that the doctrine of a Church is not to be proved by miracles but miracles by the doctrine viz. because Christ hath forewarned us of false Prophets doing so many signs and wonders So that Acosta saith that in the time of Antichrist it will be a hard matter to discern true and false signs when these later shall be many and great and very like the true and he quotes it from Hippolytus whom he calls an antient Writer that Antichrist shall do far greater miracles than the cure of Marcellus or the restored Leg at Zaragosa viz. that be shall raise the dead as well as cure the diseased and have command over all the elements And I would understand from E. W. whether Antichrists Church will not then be proved as insallible in this way as the Church of Rome Cajetan determines that the Church hath no ground to determine any matter of doctrine now on the account of miracles because the Dâ—vil may do such things which we cannot distinguish from true miracles as in great cures c. and because signs were given for unbelievers but the Church â—ow hath the Revelation of Prophets and Apostles to proceed by and because miracles prove only a personal faith i. e. of one that saith he is sent from God and because the doctrine of the Scripture is delivered to us with so much certainty that if an Angel from Heaven should deliver any thing contrary to it we are not to believe him and lastly because the most authentick testimonies of miracles among them viz. in the Canonization of Saints are not altogether certain because it is written every man is a lyer and he supposes that faith must stand on a more infallible certainty than that of their miracles And many of their most learned Writers do assert that there can be no certainty of the truth of any miracles among them but from the Churches approbation which is in effect to say they do not believe the Church infallible because of their miracles but they believe their miracles to be true because they believe their Church to be infallible For which Paulus Zacchias gives this reason because wicked men and Devils may not only do miracles in appearance but such as are really so as the instruments of divine Power and because credulous people are very apt to be deceived with false miracles instead of true And after he hath laid down the conditions of a true miracle he hath a chapter on purpose to enquire why since miracles very rarely happen yet so many are still pretended to in the Roman Church One cause he assigns of it is the monstrous credulity of their people in this matter of miracles who make so many that he saith if they were to be believed miracles would be almost as common as the ordinary effects of nature for no odd or unusual accident happens but among them passes for a miracle no man escapes out of a dangerous disease especially if by the disturbance of his Fancy he imagines he had a vision of some Saint as Xaverius or the like but he gives out he obtained his recovery by a miracle no man avoids any great danger or trouble if he chanced to think of the Blessed Virgin in it or made any addresses to some Saint for I do not find that praying to God or Christ is so effectual for miracles as praying to the Saints is but this is cryed up for a miracle Riolanus gives the relation of a man that was hanged and his body delivered to the Physitians to be dissected who found there was some lise in him and by letting blood and other means they recovered him who afterwards returning to his own Country Oetingen where there was a celebrated image of the Blessed Virgin this very recovery was there painted for a substantial miracle But to return to Zacchias miracles saith he are made so common among
the Guide in Controversies about Infallibility and the Resolution of Faith THE State of the Controversie p. 295. The Principles of the Guide in Controversies p. 300. Those Principles Considered p. 304. Of Particular Divine Revelation as the Ground of Faith p. 308. The Resolution of Divine faith must agree to all p. 314. Of immediate assent p. 316. Of the assistance of the Holy Ghost p. 318. The absurdities of the Guides Principles 322. CHAP. II. The Principles of E. W. about Divine Faith laid down and considered E. W's Principles laid done p. 329. Some things premised to the State of the Question p. 340. Of the necessity of Grace and the sense of Moral certainty in this Controversie p. 346. 347. Gods veracity as the foundation of faith not received on divine Revelation p. 349. Of the notion of Divine faith p. 353. The true State of the Question p. 358. My first argument laid down and defended p. 361. Of the Motives of Credibility and their influence upon faith p. 369. Of the Grounds of Faith p. 376. Of the School-notion of the obscurity of faith p. 383. Of the Scripture notion of it p. 386. Of the power of the will in the assent of faith p. 395. The second argument defended against E. W. p. 400. Of the Circle in the resolution of faith not avoided by E. W. p. 423. CHAP. III. An enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church E. W's assertions about the miracles of the Roman Church p. 434. The ways proposed for examination of them p. 439. Of the miraculous translation of the Chappel of Loreto p. 441. Of the miracles wrought at the Chappel of Loreto p. 452. Of the miracles wrought by St. James at Compostella p. 465. Of St. Mary Magdalens vial and other Reliques p. 476. Of the miracles of St. Dominick p. 488. Of the miracles of the Rosary of the B. Virgin p. 493. Of the miracles of St. Francis p. 496. Of the miracles related of the British and Irish Saints p. 505. Of the Testimonies of St. Chrysostom and St. Augustin against the continuance of the power of miracles p. 567. Of the miracles of St. Vincentius Ferrerius p. 574. Of the Testimonies of their own Writers against the miracles of the Roman Church p. 585. Of the miracles reported by Bede and St. Gregory p. 589. Of the miracles wrought in the Indies p. 615. Of the Impostures and forgeries of miracles in the Roman Church in several examples p. 624. Of the insufficiency of this argument from their miracles to prove the Infullibility of their Church p. 663. Several conclusions about the proof of miracles p. 664. The miracles of Heathens and Hereticks compared with those of the Roman Church p. 670. ERRATA PAge 302. line 28. read ultimate p. 343. l. 15. â— asseâ—t p. 421. l. 13 r. signatures p. 437. l. 13. r. convince l. 18. r. dispâ—ssessed p. 493. l. 15. r. consiâ—â—ing p. 502. l. 24. r. several p. 508. l. 22. r. any better p. 549. after Saints insert than p. 590. l. 14. r. â—oâ—l p. 641. l. 11. r. Anglerius CHAP. I. An Answer to the Guide in Controversies about Infallibility and the Resolution of Faith § 1. THere are two great Pleas for the necessity of Infallibility in the Roman Church one to make an end of Controversies the other to lay a sufficient Foundation for divine Faith Having therefore fully examined the former Plea in the foregoing discourse I shall now proceed to the latter with a particular respect to those Adversaries who have undertaken the Defence of the Cause of the Church of Rome against me in this Controversie And because all this dispute refers to the Principles of Faith I shall undertake to shew 1. That the Principles laid down by them are false and fallacious 2. That the Protestant Principles defended by me are sound and true 1. For the better examination of their Principles I shall give a brief account of the Rise and State of this Controversie about the Grounds of Faith The Arch-Bishops Adversary in Conference with him asked how he knew the Scripture to be the Word of God hoping thereby to drive him to the necessity of owning the Infallible Testimony of the present Roman Church but he failed so much of his end that the Arch-Bishop fully proved that such a Testimony could not be the Foundation of that Faith whereby we believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God and that there are sufficient Grounds for Faith without it One of the great arguments whereby he disproved that way of Resolving Faith was that it was impossible to avoid a vitious circle in proving the Churches infallibility by Scripture and the Scripture by the Infallible Testimony of the Church This difficulty which hath puzled the greatest Wits of the Roman Church his Answerer thought to avoid by saying that the Churches Infallibility was not primarily proved by the Scripture but by the Motives of Credibility which belong to the Church in the same manner that Moses and the Prophets Christ and his Apostles were proved to be Infallible Which bold assertion obliged me in a large discourse to shew these three things 1. That this way of resolving Faith was manifestly unreasonable 2. That supposing it true he could not avoid the circle by it 3. That it was false and built on no other ground but a daring confidence 1. The first I proved 1. Because an Assent is hereby required beyond all proportion or degree of evidence the Assent required being Infallible and the evidence only probable and prudential Motives 2. Because hereby they must run into all the Absurdities they would seek to avoid it being impossible to give a better account of Faith by the Infallibility of the Roman Church than we can do without it both sides acknowledging that those Motives of Credibility do hold for the Scriptures which are by us denied to belong to their Church and if faith as to the Scriptures be uncertain if it rely on them much more must it be so as to the Churches Infallibility If divine Faith as to the Scriptures can rest upon motives of Credibility there can be no necessity of the Churches Infallibility to a divine faith if it cannot how come those motives to be a sufficient ground for such a Faith as to the Church For the Churches Infallibility being the reason as to them of believing the things contained in the Scripture it ought to be believed with a faith equally divine with that whereby we are to believe the Scriptures which are the instrument of conveyinâ— the matters of Faith to us Besides thâ— leaves every mans reason to be judge in thâ— choice of his Religion because every maâ— must satisfie himself as to the credibility oâ— those motives And after all this way oâ— Resolving Faith by the Churches Infallibility doth unsettle the very Foundations oâ— Faith laid by Christ and his Apostles whâ— all supposed a rational certainty of the motives of Faith to be a sufficient Foundatioâ— for it but the pretence of Infallibility doâ—â— overthrow the evidence of sense and reason and put the whole tryal of the Truth of Christianity upon the pitiful proofs which theâ— bring for the Church of Romes Infallibility And
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
us as though God had nothing else to do with his Power but to pervert the course of nature by it at the beck of any idle fellow as it God did not manage his power as he does all things else with infinite wisdom as if God imployed his extraordinary power without great and most urgent causes For when it was necessary to shew his power for the confirmation of the Christian Religion and the Satisfaction of unbelievers then all persons might see the wonderful works of God but now saith he when the Truth of Christianity is known it would be to no purpose for God to shew so many miracles But whence then comes it that so many miracles are still talked of This arises saith he from the devotion of some who attribute ordinary effects of nature to a miraculous Power and from the Superstitious folly and fraud of others who will not endure any thing cryed up for a miracle should be ever questioned by any but say it is profane Atheistical and which is somewhat worse heretical to do it Whereas poor wretches they do not think what injury they do the Catholick cause while they go about to strengthen it with lies and forgeries when the Christian doctrine is already fully confirmed by the most true and undoubted miracles of Christ and his Apostles What need they then to feign any new miracles Doth God need your lies will ye talk deceitfully for him as I may justly use the words of Job saith he of these men Another cause of so much talk of miracles in the Roman Church he saith is Ignorance whereby any extraordinary accident though such as might happen where Christianity was never known is extolled for a miracle Quorum operum causas nulla ratione videre Possunt haec fieri divino numine rentur From hence he proceeds to particulars and shews that most of those who are accounted possessed among them are Melancholy and Hypochondriacal men and Hysterical women and then examins the pretence to Inspiration and Prophecy to raptures and extasies to miraculous cures to prodigious fastings to incorruption of bodies to raising from the dead and shews under every one of these heads how very often the meer effects of nature pass for miracles in the Roman Church to whose learned discourses I refer the Reader and we may easily understand the meaning of such a person when he tells us after all this that the Church will not suffer men to be deceived about miracles but such as the Church approves are to be approved Now let any one judge whether such persons who receive no other miracles but such which the Church commands them to believe could ever imagine that the Infallibility of their Church was proved by such miracles which they would not believe to be true unless they first believed the Church which approved them to be infallible Fortunatus Scacchus a man of great Authority in Româ— grants that it is a very easie matter to take false miracles for true and that no certain argument can be taken from Tables which are hung up at Images or shrines that wicked men may do real miracles which he proves from Scripture and History and the continued practice in their Church from whence he concludes that no argument can be drawn for the sanctity of any Person but only from such miracles as are approved by the Roman Church For saith he it belongs only to the Authority of the Roman See and the Bishop of Rome to determine which are true miracles because the promise of infallibility is only made to the Roman Church and the Head of it From whence he concludes that no other Bishop hath any Power to approve miracles especially if they be supposed to be wrought by an uncanonized Saint For we are to understand that the great use of miracles in the Roman Church hath not been pretended to be for proving the faith or Infallibility of the Church but for an argument of Saintship of those who are to be Beatified or Canonized So Aquinas determines that miracles are either wrought to confirm the truth of a doctrine preached or for the demonstration of the Sanctity of a Person and therefore in the Process of Canonization one main enquiry is about the miracles wrought by the Person who stands for the preferment of Canonization In the Process about the Canonization of Andreas Corsinus presented to Paul 5. the Auditours of the Rota say that to the Being Canonized it is concluded by all to be necessary that the person have wrought miracles and there they agree that it is not necessary to a miracle to be wrought for the confirmation of faith seeing miracles may be done for another end viz. for the proof of the Sanctity of the Person And such miracles say they are those which are done among Catholicks for whose sake miracles would be necessary on no other account because miracles are a sign not to believers but to unbelievers whence as they well observe from Isidore St. Paul cured the Father of Publius by a miracle but presâ—ribed to Timothy a natural remedy And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many other processes of Canonization to the same purpose viz. to prove that it is not necessary to a miracle that it be done for the confirmation of any part of Christian faith Since therefore the far greatest number of the miracles in the Roman Church are such as are wrought for another end how can they from them prove the infallibility of their Church unless they can make it appear that where ever there are true Saints the Church is Infallible From which it appears that the miracles of the Roman Church ought no more to be compared with those of Christ and his Apostles as to the Testimony by them given to Infallibility than in point of credibility and that in both respects they are so infinitely short of them that nothing but the height of impudence could make any man pretending to be Christian to assert that as great nay greater miracles have been done by the Roman Church as ever were done by Christ or his Apostles in which subject I have taken the more pains not meerly to detect the frauds and impostures of the Roman Church but to preserve and vindicate the Honour of Christianity lest that should suffer by the intolerable rudeness of these comparisons The END Books sold by Henry Mortlock at his Shop at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard and at the White-Hart in Westminster Hall A Rational account of the grounds of Protestant Réligion being a Vindication of the Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterburies Relation of a conference from the pretended answer of T. C. by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. in Folio Cotgraves Dictionary French and English in Folio Sermons Preached by Anthony Farindon Folio House of Mourning in Folio Sheppards Practical Counsellor in Folio Animadversions on the 4. part of Cooks Institutes by William Prynne Esq Folio Observations upon Millitary and Political afairs by the Right
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
both his Books lies in this one word Infallibility But it is time to fall to my business for fear of more Advertisements and Infallibility being the main design of his Books that shall be the subject of my present debate with him And because this E. W. is a great pretender to Principles the method I shall proceed in shall be first to consider his Principles and then to defend my own For which I shall chiefly make use of his last Book it being in effect but another edition of his former the other as I suppose being disposed of to better purposes than to be read for I never heard of one person in England that read it over However what there is material in it different from the last as to the present controversie I shall upon occasion take notice of The two main Principles he builds upon are these 1. That without an Infallible Church there can be no certainty of Faith 2. That the Roman-Catholick Church is this Infallible Church If he can prove these two he shall not need any more to establish their Religion or to overthrow ours And I will say that for his praise that he hath brought the controversie into a narrow compass for he confesses it is endless to dispute out of Scripture and Fathers since witty men by their fallâ—ble Glosses can turn and winde them which way they please but there is nothing so stiff and inflexible as a standing infallible Oracle in the Church which being once believed all Controversie is at an end But we may as soon hope to see all other controversies ended by dry blows as this Principle proved to the satisfaction of any reasonable man The main proofs for the necessity of the Churches Infallibility which he insists upon are these 1. That there can be no Divine Faith without it 2. There can be no certainty as to the Canon or edition or sense of Scripture 3. There can be as little certainty as to the sense of the Fathers or the Primitive Church 1. That there can be no divine Faith without it This he frequently insists upon in both his Books and with so much vehemency as to make the deniers of Infallibility to overthrow all Faith and Religion Which being a charge of the highest nature ought to be made good by the clearest evidence Whether that which E. W. produces be so I shall leave any one to judge when I have given an Account of his Principles as to this matter In his first Book called Protestancy without Principles he begins with this subject and lays down these assertions upon which all his Discourse is built 1. That Gods infallible Revelation requires an infallible Assent of Faith or an infallible verity revealed to us forcibly requires an answerable and correspondent infallible assent of Faith in us the contrary he calls wild Doctrine this subjective infallibility as he calls it he offers very wisely to prove from those places of Scripture which speak of the assurance which Christians had of the truth of their Religion 2. This infallible assent of Faith doth require infallible Teachers for infallible believers and infallible Teachers are correlatives And in the second Chapter he goes about to prove it because if Christs infallible Doctrine be only fallibly taught no man hath certainty what it is and seeing what is fallible may be false Christs Doctrine may not be taught at all which is infallible and cannot be false and he that should abjure this fallible Doctrine doth not deny therein Christs Doctrine and cannot be upon that account an Heretick But to make Faith Infallible he asserts That every Preacher sent by the infallible Church as a member conjoyned with it is infallible in his Teaching and on the contrary whosoever renounces an Infallible society cannot teach with certainty Christs infallible Doctrine From whence he saith follows an utter ruine of Christian Religion In his third Chapter he further proves That if the Church were fallible in her Teaching God would oblige us to believe a falsity because God commands men to hear the Church and if the Church may erre then men are obliged to believe a false Doctrine taught by her And all other means short of this Infallibility would be insufficient for preserving Christian Religion in the world In the fourth Chapter he comes to a particular consideration of divine Faith and from thence proves the necessity of infallibility Faith saith he requires two things essentially an object which is Gods Revelation and a Proposition of this object by Vertue of which the elicit act of Faith follows in a believer and intellectually lays as it were hold both oâ— Gods Revelation and the thing revealed Now to prove the necessity of such an infallible Proposition in order to divine Faith hoâ— lays down some abstruse Propositions 1. That Gods infallible Revelation availâ— nothing in order to Faith unless Christianâ— by their Faith lay hold on the certainly thereof or owne it as infallible and the assured ground of their Assent 2. That the measure and degrees of certitude in the assent are according to those which the Proponent gives to the Revelation If he teaches doubtfully the assent is doubtful if probably the assent is probable is infallibly the assent is infallible the reason which he gives of this is because an object revealed receives its light from the proposal as an object of sight doth from the light of the air As long therefore saith he as the infallibility of a Revelation stands remote from me for want of an undoubted application made by an infallible proponent it can no more transfuse certainty into Faith than Fire at a great distance warm that is no more than if it were not certain in it self or not at all in Being 3. From hence he saith it follows that Protestants can only doubtfully guess at what they are to believe and consequently never yet had nor can have Divine certain and infallible Faith Because they cannot â—ropose Faith infallibly Hence he proceeds Chapter fifth and sixth to disprove Moral Cerâ—ainty as insufficient in order to Faith and destroying as he saith The very being and â—ssence of Divine and supernatural Faith because the sole and adequate object of divine and supernatural Faith is Gods infinite veracity actually speaking to us but this infinite veracity when it is duly proposed transsuseth more certainty into the elicit act of Faith than any Moral Certainty derived â—rom inferiour motives can have For all Moral Certainty is at least capable of falsity and may deceive us Gods infallible veracity cannot be false nor deceive if Faith rest upon that Motive and if it rest not there it is no Faith at all Nay he asserts that supernatural Faith is more certain and infallible than all the Metaphysical Sciences which nature can give us For which he gives this plain reason Because the infinite veracity of God which only supporteth Faith with greater force energy and necessity transfuseth into it a supereminent
insallibility supereminent he saith and above all the Certainty which the principles of naturâ— can afford This is the substance of E. Wâ— principles of Faith in his first Book which is somewhat more enlarged in the second In one Chapter he designs to prove if the Roman Church be not infallible there is no truâ— Faith in the world the reason of which in his own easie terms is this For the meer possibility of deceiving Christians in one Article impossibilitates the Belief of all she proposeth In another Chapter That she is not only infallible but that the Adversaries of her infallibility destroy the very essence of Christian Religion And in the next That divine Faith in this present state of things necessarily requires a Church infallible because the infallibility of faith necessarily requires not only an Infallible Revelation but aâ— infallible Proponent Ruine one or the other Infallibility faith can be no more but an uncertain Assent and consequently can be no faith at all This reason he diversifies into many shapes and represents it in different words but it comes in at every turn So in the next Chapter he proves the Catholick Church Gods infallible Oracle because infallibility once taken away no man can have assurance so much as of one Christian verity the reason is no man can be assured of what is fallibly taught because what is so taught may by vertue of the Proposition be â—alse but a doctrine so far removed from inâ—allible certainly for want of a due application of its infallibility comes not near to the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles which was applied taught and proposed infallibly And in the same Chapter he saith It is utterly impossible that an infallible verity as revealed though fallibly proposed should have influence upon faith or work in believers a most firm assent Not long after he asserts That infallibility being taken away no man can tell but that Christian Religion is a fiction for these are his words A feigned and fallible Religion are near Coâ—sin Germans The one is a Fiction the other at least may be so and for ought any man can know is no better And in the same Chapter he saith That without infallibility Religion is meer Scepticism because all other means infallibility being set aside may be equally pleaded by Hereticks as Arians and such like as by any other To the same purpose in the following Chapter where he proposes that which he calls the last proof of the Churches Infallibility which is still the very same over and over for he out-does the Cook of Brundusium in serving up the the same meat in several dresses viz. That the denyal of it overthrows Christian Religion be pleased to observe his concise way oâ— reasoning If the infallibility of revealeâ— doctrine be lost as it were in the way between God and us If the Revelation appear not as it is in it self infallible wheâ— we assent to it by faith that is if it be noâ— infallibly conveyed and applied to all by aâ—â—nerring proponent as it subsists in its first cause infinitely infallible faith perishes wâ— are cast upon pure uncertainties and maâ— justly doubt whether such a doctrine separated from that other Perfection of Infallibility be really true or no In his third Diâ—course we meet with a convincing Argumenâ— as he calls it for Infallibility If all Authority imaginable whereupon faith can depend conveyed or delivered these verities both as infallible Truths and infallibly and I assent to the doctrine with a belief not infallible but only morally certain I leave by my fallible moral assent the true infallible teaching and conveying Oracles of Christian doctrine and believe upon a meer phansied Authority which was never impowered to convey Gods verities to any Before I come to examine these things it will be necessary to lay down his notion of faith in his own terms viz. That it essentially trends obsecurely to its own object no matter for understanding it but the words found well together and by this saith we lâ—y hold upon the most supream and all comprehending infallibility proper to God alone But withal we are to take notice of a twofold certitude in faith the one a certitude of Infallibility arising from the supernatural principles which concur to the very act of belief and these being not liable to error can never operate but when the divine Revelation really is and implies not only the meer truth of the act but moreover an infallible determination to Truth the other a certitude of adhesion not grounded on evidence but upon most prudent motives proposed to Reason which clearly discover'd the Will by her â—pious affection commands and determines the intellectual faculties to assent indubitably After all which he concludes that the plain and easie Resolution of Faith is into Gods veracity as speaking to men by an infallible Church Thus I have laid together so many parcels of E. W's rambling discourse as were necessary in order to the examination of it And indeed I cannot compare his reasoning to any thing better than his own pretty notion of faith for just as he saith Faith essentially tends obscurely to its object so his principles do to his conclusion But that I may proceed with the greater clearness I must premise these two things 1. § 2. That the Question is not concerning the necessity of any internal Assistance oâ— divine Grace but of an external insalliblâ— Proponent in order to divine Faith So thaâ— whatever certainty of saith is derived from the Spirit of God is no ways pertinent to ouâ— present debate I do not deny that a trulâ— divine faith doth suppose a divine and super natural assistance I do not deny that thâ— Holy Ghost may confirm mens minds to sucâ— a degree of certainty which may exceed thâ— rational grounds they are able to give tâ— others of their faith But I say all this iâ— very far from the purpose For I had expresly laid down this caution before that oâ— Question in the Resolution of Faith did noâ— relate to the workings of the divine Spirit oâ— our minds of which no satisfactory accounâ— can be given to others but to the externaâ— motives and grounds of faith whether theâ— must be infallible or not To what purposâ— is it then for E. W. to talk of a certitudâ— of Infallibility as he calls it arising from the supernatural principles which concur tâ— the very act of belief and these not liable tâ— error can never operate but when the divine Revelation really is Granting all thiâ— to be true yet what doth this prove concerning the necessity of an external infallible Proponent such as the Church is All that caâ— hence follow is that those whom the Spirit of God enables to believe cannot believe a falshood but what then Hath he proved that the supernatural principles of faith do never operate but where the Church first infalâ—ibly proposes No this
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
for Assent is not according to the objective certitude of things but the evidence of them to our understanding For is it possible to assent to the truth of a Demonstration in a demonstrative manner because any Mathematician tells one the thing is demonstrable For in that case the assent is not according to the evidence of the thing but according to the opinion such a person hath of him who tells him it is demonstrable Nay supposing that Person Infallible in saying so yet if the other hath no means to be Infallibly assured that he is so his Assent is as doubtful as if he were not Infallible Therefore supposing the Testimony of the Roman Church to be really Infallible yet since the means of believing it are but probable and prudential ' â—he Assent cannot be according to the nature of the Testimony considered in it self but according to the reasons which induce me to believe such a Testimony Infallible And in all such cases where I believe one thing for the sake of another my Assent to the object believed is according to my Assent to the Medium on which I believe it As our light is not according to the light in the body of the Sun but that which presseth on our Organs of Sense So that supposing their Churches Testimony to be Infallible in it self if one may be deceived in judging whether it be Infallible or no one may be deceived in such things which he believes on that supposed Infallibility It being impossible that the assent to the matters of faith should rise higher or stand firmer than the assent to the Testimony upon which those things are believed But now to prove the Churches infallibility they make use only of the motives of credibility which themselves grant can be the foundation only of a fallible assent This was the reason I then urged I must now consider what E. W. saith in answer to it And the force of his answer lies in these things 1. That all this proceeds from ignorance of the nature of faith which Discourses not like to science For he grants that the article of faith which concerns Gods Revâ—lation cannot be proved by another believeâ— article of faith wholly as obscure to us â— that is for that would proceed in infinitum therefore all rational proofs avail tâ—â—get faith in any must of necessity be extrinsecal to belief and lie as it were iâ— another Region more clear yet less certain than the revealed mystery is we assent to by faith And so in that article of faith the Church is Gods infallible Oracle he saith that antecedently to faith it cannot be proved by arguments as obscure and of the same Infallible certainty with faith for then faith would be superfluous or rather we should believe by a firm and infallible assent before we do believe on the motive of Gods insallible Revelation which is impossible So that the extrinsecal motives of faith whereby the Churches Infallibility is proved independently on Scripture are not of the same certainty with supernatural faith it self and only prove the evident credibility either of the Scripture or the Church 2. That the force of this Argument will hold against our selves and those who believed in the Apostles times whose infallible assent of faitb doth as much exceed all proportion or degree of evidence as theirs does in believing the Churches Infallibility on the motives of credibility In order to the giving a clear and distinct Answer it will be necessary to enquire â— What those acts of Faith are we now Discourse of 2. What influence the moâ—ives of credibility have upon them 1. For the acts of Faith there are two assigned by E. W. 1. That whereby men beâ—elieve the Scripture to be the Word of God 2. That whereby men believe the Church to be Infallible both these he acknowledges â—re Articles of faith and to be believed with â—an Infallible assent But here mark the shuffling the first of these cannot be believed but by an Infallible Testimony viz. Of the Church for that end the Churches Infallibiâ—ity is made necessary that the Faith may be divine and infallible because divine faith can rest only upon Infallible Testimony but â—hen in the other act of faith whereby the Churches Infallibility is believed we hear no more of this infallible Testimony because then it is impossible to avoid the circle I propose therefore this Dilemma to E. W. Either it is necessary to every act of divine Faith to have an Infallible Testimony or it is not if it be not necessary then there is no necessity of asserting the Churches Infallibility in order to believing the Scriptures to be the Word of God and so the cause is gained if it be necessary then the faith whereby the Churches Infallibility is believed must have such a divine Testimony and so either a process in infinitum or a circle are unavoidable by him If he considered this and yet wriâ— two such Books to prove the necessity of Infallibility in order to faith he betrays too much insincerity for a man to deal with him if he did not he need not complain so much of others Ignorance he may easily find enough nearer home And therefore all the fault of these men does not lie barely in making the assent to be more certain than the motives of Faith but in requiring so strictly in one act of Faith a proportionable certainty to the assent and not in another For what is there I beseech E. W. in believing the Churches Infallibility which should not make it as necessary for that to be supported by an infallible Testimony as that whereby we believe the Divine Revelation If faith hath nâ— grounds and doth not Discourse as Science doth then I hope the case is alike in bothâ— and so the necessity of an Infallible Testimony must be affirmed of the one or equally denyed in the other But he seems to assert That faith whatever object it respects doth not Discourse as Science doth but solely relies on Gods revealed Testimony without the mixture of reason Grant this at present but then I hope both these acts of faith equally do so and still â—he Churches infallibility cannot be made â—ecessary to faith for if faith immediately â—elies on Gods Testimony what need any other to ascertain it or any other proposition than such as is sufficient to make known â—he object of faith to which end no infalliâ—ility in the proponent is necessary Any more than it is necessary for the act of love â—oward a desireable object that he that shews a Beauty should be infallible in the description of her If all the necessity of the Churches proposition be no more than to convey the Divine Testimony to us as E. W. sometimes â—mplies let him take pains to a little better purpose in proving that such a conditio applicans as he calls it must have infallibility belonging to it For Infallibility is then only necessary when it is relied upon
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
known Miracles of those two admirable Saints Blessed St. Dominick and the Seraphical St. Francis and St. Vincentius Ferrerius reported by the pious and learned St. Antoninus Arch-Bishop of Florence From whence he infers that the Miracles wrought in the Roman-Catholick Church are not inferiour to those done by the Apostles and a little after Iâ— the Miracles of Christ and the Apostles rationally proved against Jews and Gentiles the credibility of Apostolical Doctrine the very like signs and supernatural effects most evident in the Roman-Catholick Church as rationally prove against Sectaries the credibility of our now professed Catholick-Doctrine for which he gives this reason The same signs and marks of Truth when equal in Majesty worth quality and number ever discover to reason the same Truth wherefore if the Roman-Catholick Church most clearly gives in evidence of her Miracles equal in worth quality and number with those wrought by Christ and his Apostles it follows that as those first Apostolical wonders were sufficient to convice Jews and Gentiles of the Truth of Christianity so these later also wrought in the Church are of like force and no less efficacious to convince Sectaries of whatever Doctrine she teaches Now ponder well what the Apostoles did they cured the sick dispossed Devils raised the dead converted nations c. but these very Miracles have been done in the Roman-Catholick Church yea and greater too Ergo we have the like evidence of Truth in both the Primitive Age and this consequently with it the same Truth The sequel is undeniable After this for particular instances he appeals to the undeniably authentick monuments and testimonies of that one sacred house of Loreto to the continual Miracles done at the Reliques of St. James at Compostella in Spain to the Sacred Vial of St. Mary Magdalen in France wherein saith he very gravely the precious blood gathered by that penitent Saint at our Saviours passion is yet preserved and visibly boyls up on the very day he suffered after the reading of the Passion to the undoubted Miracles wrought by the intercession of our Blessed Lady at Montaigu for which he calls in the testimonies of Lipsius and Putean and at large relates a Miracle wrought by St. Xaverius upon F. Marcellus a Jesuit at Naples and then answers some few Objections and concludes with the vindication of the Miracle at Zaragosa in Spain This is the substance of E. W's discourse upon this subject which in the proper consequence of it doth more really enervate the proofs of Christianity than establish the infallibility of the Roman Church For I do not think an Atheist would desire more advantage against the Christian Religion than to have it granted that the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles were no other than such as are wrought in the Roman Church and that the proofs of them are no more authentick and undeniable than those of the Miracles done at Loreto Compostella or Montaigu and that Christ and his Apostles gave no more illustrious evidences of their being sent from God than St. Dominick or St. Francis and that there was no greater evidence of Christs Resurrection from the dead than there is of the boyling up of the blood of Christ in the Vial of St. Mary Magdalen in the Church of St. Maximin in France Therefore not only to invalidate the Testimony drawn from hence for the Roman Churches Infallibility but to preserve the honour of Christianity I am obliged to enquire into these two things 1. Whether the Testimony upon which the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles and those of the Roman Church are delivered be equally credible 2. Whether the Miracles of the Roman Church be so equal to abate him what he saith of greater in worth quality and number with those of Christ and his Apostles that the Roman Churches Infallibility is as much attested by them as Christ and his Apostles was by theirs 1. I shall enquire into the credibility of the Testimony on both sides Two things are agreed to make up sufficient credibility in a Testimony viz. the knowledge and fidelity of the persons who deliver it If they speak nothing but what they were certain witnesses of and never gave suspicion of fraud and deceit and offered the highest ways of proof concerning their own fidelity then it is an unreasonable thing to disbelieve them This is the case of those who recorded our Saviours and his Apostles Miracles they were persons who either saw them wrought themselves or had them delivered to them immediately by them who saw them they published them to the world in that Age wherein they werecapable of being disproved by persons then living in the same places where they were wrought and were notorious enemies to the persons who did them who were concerned to discover for their own justification the least fraud or imposture in those matters But besides this to take away all suspicion of design the â—nesses of these things freely quitted all exâ—ectations of worldly advantages they ran themselves upon the greatest hazards to attest the truth of what they said and at last sacrificed their lives to confirm the truth of their own Testimony But on the other side if I can prove 1. That the greatest number of the Miracles in the Roman Church have been believed upon the credit of Fables and uncertain reports 2. That the Testimony of those who deliver them hath been contradicted by men of greater Authority than themselves 3. If upon strict and careful examination notorious forgeries and impostures have been discovered and never any persons laid down their lives to attest the truth of any of their Miracles then it can be nothing but the greatest impudence in any to parallel the Testimony of the Primitive Church concerning the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles with that of the Miracles wrought in the Church of Rome 1. That the greatest number of Miracles in the Roman Church have been believed upon the credit of Fables and uncertain reports For the proof of this I shall make choice of his own instances of Loreto in Italy Compostella in Spain St. Maximins Church in France and the lives of his two admirable Saints to which I shall add some nearer home that we may have a proof of the credibility of these miracles in the most considerable places of Europe § 2. Let us first go on pilgrimage to our Lady of Loreto to view the undeniably Authentick publick monuments and Testimonies of Miracles there wrought The first to be seen there in a Table hanging up for that purpose is the wonderful Miracle in the translation of that Chappel first from Nazareth to Dalmatia and from Dalmatia into those parts of Italy where it now stands The story cannot be better told than it is in the Authentick Table it self which may be thus Translated The Church of our B. Lady of Loreto was a Chamber of the House of the B. Virgin Mary Mother of our Lord Jesus
Christ which House stood in the country of Judea in a City of Galilee whose name was Nazareth in which Chamber the B. Virgin Mary was born and bred up and afterwards there received the salutation of the Angel Gabriel and in the same Chamber she educated her Son Jesus Christ to the Age of twelve years After the Ascention of Christ to Heaven the Virgin Mary remained upon earth with the Apostles and other Disciples of Christ who seeing many divine Mysteries performed in the said Chamber did by the common consent of them all decree to make a Church of that Chamber to the honour and memory of the B. Virgin Mary which they did and the Apostles and Disciples consecrated that Chamber to be a Church and there celebrated divine offices and St. Luke the Evangelist with his own hands made an Image to the likeness of the B. Virgin which is there to this day Afterwards that Church was inhabited and honoured with much devotion by the Christian people in those parts in which it stood as long as the people remained Christian. But after they renounced the Christian faith and embraced Mahometism the Angels of God took away the said Church and carried it into the parts of Sclavonia and there placed it by a certain Castle called Fiume where it met not with that honour which the B. Virgin desired Therefore the Angels came and took it from thence and carried it clear over the Sea into the parts of the territory of Recanati and there placed it in a Wood which belonged to a Noble Lady who had the command of the City of Recanati and was Owner of the Wood whose name was Loreta and from her the Church took its name of St. Maria de Loreto In that time by reason of the great concourse of all people to that Wood in which the Church remained abundance of robberies and mischiefs were committed there and therefore the Angels again took up the Chappel and carried it to a Hill belonging to two Brothers where the Angels set it down these Brothers getting a vast revenew by the resort of Pilgrims thither and the oblations by them made fell to a great discord Upon which the Angels came again and took away the Chappel from that place and carried it into the High-way and there placed it where it is now with many signs and innumerable gifts and miracles Then all the people of Recanati went to see the Church which stood upon the Earth without any Foundation and being astonished at such a Miracle and fearing left it should come to ruine they compassed it about with a good thick Wall and a strong Foundation as it iâ— seen at this day and yet no one knew from whence that Church came into those parts until in A. D. 1290. the blessed Virgin appeared in a Dream to a certain maâ— much devoted to her to whom she revealed the foregoing things and he presently divulged them to certain honest men of that Country who immediately resolved to know the truth of these matters and therefore determined to send sixteen notable good men to Nazareth to find out the truth of them Who carried with them the measure of the said Church and there they found exactly the Foundations of it and the just measure and to make all sure they found it written upon a Wall that such a Church had been there and was gone from thence and these persons upon their return certified the truth of all these things and from that time it was known that that Chappel was the Chamber of the blessed Virgin Mary and the Christian people shewed great devotion towards it for the blessed Virgin there every day doth infinite Miracles as experience shews There was a certain Eremite that was called Brother Paul of the Wood who dwelt in a small Cottage in that Wood and every morning went to divine offices in that Chappel and wâ—s a man of a great abstinence and a holy Lifâ— who said that ten years before or thereabouts on the day of the Nativity of the blessed Virgin bâ—ing the 8th of September two hours before day in a clear Air going out of his Cottage towards the Church he saw a light descend from Heaven upon the Church twelve â—oot long and six broad and when it was upon the Church it vanished upon which he said it was the blessed Virgin which there appeared on the day of her Nativity and came to see her Feast observed but no man saw her besides this Holy man To confirm the Truth and certainty of all these things two honest men of this Village reported them several times to me Teremanus the Over-seer and Governour of the said Church one of them was called Paulus Renaldatii the other Francis Prior. The said Paul told me that his Grandfathers Grandfather saw when the Angels carried the said Chappel over the Sea and placed it in the Wood and that he and other persons oftimes went to the said Chappel And the said Francis oftimes said to me that his Grandfather being one hundred and twenty years old said that he went often to the said Church in the Wood. Moreover the said Francis averred that his Grandfathers Grandfather had a House and dwelt there and that in his time the Chappel was removed by Angels from the hill of the two Brothers to the High-way Deo gratias Imprinted at Venice by Benedictus de Bindonis A. D. 1499. In the Italian Copy it is only added that this Narration was taken out oâ— an Original Authentick M. S. belonging to the said Chappel March 20. A. D. 1492. And is not this a very pleasant story to be matched in point of credibility with the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles What do these men think in their hearts of Christian Religion that dare avouch such ridiculous fictions as these are and impose them on the credulity of mankind But we are not to imagine this to be only a Legend hung up at Loreto for the comfort of devout Pilgrims but it is delivered in the same manner by men who should have had more wit or more honesty Cardinal Baronius in his Annals cannot let it escape but relates the miraculous translation of this Chappel from Nazareth to Dalmatia from thence to Loreto much after the same way All the Argument â—e brings for the truth of it is taken from Gods omnipotency as though as Is. Casauâ—on truly answers him all the Rabbinical and Mahumetan Fables might not be believed on the same ground And he observes from some of the Fathers that Gods omnipotency is the Sanctuary of Hereticks whither they betake themselves when they are basfled with reason But Baronius refers us to Canisius for a fuller account of this admirable story who very wisely brings the stories of the Prophet Elias Habakkuk and Philip in the Acts to confirm the truth of this as though the dispute were whether God could do it and not whether the thing were really done But if we offer to Question
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
thing I desire may be observed viz. that I have not raked their Kennels nor made use of the Authorities of Jacobus de Voragine Petrus de Natalibus Claudius Rota Cantiprataâ—us and such like no nor yet of Caesarius ab Heisterbach Dauroultius Marulus Gononus or such as have made Collections to my hands but have taken their most approved and late writers and such whose Authorities themselves make use of in other things Capgrave is supposed to have taken most of his lives out of John of Tinmouths Sanctilogiâ—â— whom Pits commends for his excellent learning and that work particularly for his diligence exactness wit and judgement which he shewed in it that he cut off many superfluous things with discretion and if Capgrave took out of him we may suppose that aftâ—â— so many strainings we have only the best left considering the Character that is given of Capgrave an excellent Divine saith Possevin the chief of his time for piety and learning saith Harpsfield the most learned man that ever was of his order in England say Josephus Pamphilus and others in Pits a man of such excellent parts and wit saith Pits himself that he had scarce any equal none superiour in England in his time and among other things he commends him for his judgement and therefore his Authority will not be rejected as mean and contemptible among themselves Colganus his first Tome of the Acts of the Saints of Ireland which I have only made use of was published at Lovain A. D. 1645. with great approbations from the General of his order at Rome from the Professors of Lovain from the Ordinary Censor Librorum from four Jesuits and by commendatory Epistles from Vernulaeus and Erycius Puteanus who highly applauds him for his industry piety and faithfulness therefore my Adversaries cannot pretend that I have picked up some old wormâ—aten stories with which to disgrace their miracles No they are such as are thought fit to be published with as great approbation as ever any Books come forth among them And for the Jesuits Collection at Antwerp which I have sometimes made use of begun by Bollandus and continued by Henschenius and Papebrochius it was published since A. D. 1642. and with as much ostentation of care and judgement as ever any thing was set forth in that kind the last volume I have yet seen came forth A. D. 1668. with sufficient approbations So that whatever judgement be passed upon the miracles they cannot deny the Books I have made use of to be of greatest Authority of any extant in this kind and yet after all I am apt to think they will meet with a great deal of infidelity from all that have not captivated their understandings to the obedience of the Roman Faith § 9. Having thus far shewed how much the miracles boasted of in the Roman Church fall short in point of credibility of those of Christ and his Apostles from the different nature of the testimonies and of the miracles themselves I now proceed to the second thing viz to shew that the credibility of the Wilnesses in the Roman Church is taken away by the Testimony of persons much more credible than themselves For if the most impartial Witnesses utterly deny that there is any comparison to be made between the miracles wrought in the Church in latter-ages with those wrought by Christ and hls Apostles If persons living in the communion of that Church have asserted such things concerning their miracles as sufficiently discover that their Testimony is not to be relied upon then I appeal to the judgement of any man whether it be not intolerable impudence in any to parallel the mlracles of that Church with those of Christ and his Apostles 1. The most impartial Witnesses have asserted the direct contrary to E. W. viz. by affirming that no comparison is to be made between the miracles of after-ages of the Church and those of Christ and his Apostles The most impartial Witnesses in this case must be men of approved sanctity on both sides persons of great judgement and experience and that lived at such a time when no interest could byass them to favour one side more than the other And such in all respects were St. Chrysostom and St. Augustin to them therefore we appeal in this matter St. Chrysostom not once or twice but several times and upon very different occasions delivers his opinion upon this subject In his Commentaries upon the first Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians and the five first verses puts this Question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for whose sake is the power of miracles now forbidden which he at large discusses in that place The substance of his answer is this either the persons who put that Question do believe the miracles wrought by Christ or his Apostles or they do not if not let them give an account how the Christian Religian which is so contrary to the present interests of men should prevail so much in the world as it hath done for if they believed without miracles that would appear to be a far greater miracle But saith he because no miracles are wrought now make not that an evidence that none were wrought then for then it was useful there should be miracles and now it is useful there should not Can any Testimony be plainer and more express than this Is it possible he should believe as great miracles were done in the Church afterwards as by Christ and his Apostles that not only asserts that there were none but saith it would not be useful to the Church there should be any Because as he adds immediately after those who preach now do not preachly Inspiration as the Apostle did but only that doctrine which they receivâ—d from them and therefore make use of their miracles to confirm the truth of what they spake But why saith he were miracles useful then and not now because the continual working of miracles would lessen faith and our Saviour saith Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed But if thou wilt not be convinced without signs thou maist see signs although not such as Christ and his Apostles wrought viz. the accomplishment of prophesies several of which he there mentions Why then saith he do not all believe now to which he gives this answer that the first Christians did not believe only on the account of the miracles they saw but by seeing the holy and exemplary lives of those who wrought them It is saith he therefore the want of the primitive sanctity rather than miracles which makes men yet continue in their insidelity let those that have a mind to be saved search the Scriptures wherein they will find both the miracles they wrought and the holy conversations which they led But if a man be found that hath any foot-steps left of the ancient wisdom he presently leaves the City and conversation and betakes himself to the mountains a fair pretence is made for this to
cured a man of the Palsie The Gardiner of the Monastery being troubled with a Thief that came over the hedge and stole his herbs commanded a Serpent to follow him and to lie just cross in the way he was wont to come over the Serpent presently obeyed the Thief was taken and the Serpent released From hence afterwards he scarce deserved the name of a Saint of whom they could not tell some extravagant stories of the power he had over Serpents of which multitudes of Instances may be seen in Colganus and Capgrave besides many other more ancient than they The story of St. Equitius in Gregory and St. Elias in Capgrave as to tâ—â— way of their being delivered from all lustâ—â— thoughts by an Angel appearing in the nigâ—â— and seeming to castrate them is the very same by which we see out of what Magazineth later Legendaries took their materials whiâ—â— they altered and adorned with such varietiâ—â— of circumstances as would best go down wiâ—â— the people Methinks then Baronius mighâ—â— have let alone Canus in this matter and noâ— provoked others to give an account of thâ— soppish miracles contained in that Primitivâ— Legend such as the Devils entring into Nun because she eat a Lettice in the gardâ—â— without crossing it and when St. Equitiâ— demanded of him what he did there the Dâ—â— answered he was sitting upon the Lettice aâ—â— she came and eat him up but it was well fâ— her that St. Equitius sent him going withoâ—â— prescribing her a vomit as Nonnosus 〈◊〉 removing a stone by his prayers which fifâ—â— Yoke of Oxen could not stirr and all this fâ— no other end but only to make way for a littâ— Kitchin garden for the Monks as the saâ— mans praying the pieces of a glass Lamp whâ—â— again only for fear of the displeasure of 〈◊〉 superior which was a substantial reason foâ— so pretty a miracle And his multiplying oâ— by a miracle rather than the lazy Monks shoul◠〈◊〉 out to gather Olives as Boniface's reâ—iving 12. Crowns by a miracle because his â—ephew complained be had opened his Chest â—nd had taken a way so many from him to give 〈◊〉 the poor and his adjuring all the Erue's 〈◊〉 his garden in the name of Christ to be gone â—nd â—ot eat up his herbs which they immeâ—iately did and not one remained and â—aking the Fox by his prayers bring back the â—â—llet he had stollen because he complained 〈◊〉 God Almighty in the Church whither he â—un upon this sad disaster that he could eat â—one of his Mothers Poultry as Martirius 〈◊〉 signing the cake in the embers with the sign â—f the cross without touching it only making 〈◊〉 towards the fire at which it gave a great â—â—ack and was perfectly signed with the cross â—hen they took it out These may serve only for a â—ast of the kind of these miracles out of his first Book that men may judge with what reason Canus made such exceptions to Gregories Auâ—hority in this point of miracles It would be too â—edious to give an account of the miracles in his â—hree other Books but they are so much alike â—hat by seeing these we may judge of the rest Thus we see the opinion of Vives and Canus about the Testimony on which miracles are believed in the Roman Church but we must not think these persons were singular in this opinion for in several ages men of any honesty and judgement have complained of tâ— pious frauds which have been used in the matters and that some thought them laâ—â— to be used as long as they were for the honoâ— of the Church or the Saints So Petrus Dâ— miani saith there were some who thought thâ— honoured God by making lies to extoll the â—â—tues of his Saints which words he uses upâ— this occasion of miracles and goes aboâ— seriously to confute them by telling them thâ— God doth not stand in need of our lies 〈◊〉 to the same purpose he speaks in the presâ— to the lives of St. Maurus and of Dominiâ— Ferratus written by him What secuâ—â— can there be then of the miracles reponâ— by them who think it lawful to invent lies 〈◊〉 the Honour of the Church or of the supposâ— Saints who live and dye in it If the Primitiâ— Church had made lying for the sake of Châ—â—stianity lawful it would have been the moâ—â— reasonable pretence for infidelity that coâ—â— be supposed For how can any man thiâ— himself obliged to believe another that doâ—â— not think himself obliged to speak truth 〈◊〉 the Primitive Christians had made lying 〈◊〉 indifferent thing all their sufferings could havâ— given no security of the truth of their Testâ—mony for notwithstanding the falshood 〈◊〉 their Testimony they might then hope however to be rewarded in another world anâ— consequently might suffer any thing here â—t when they declared at the same time that â—ing was utterly unlawful and yet ventured suffer the utmost extremity to attest the â—uth of their Testimony this gives the highâ—â— credibility to the things asserted by them â—t we have no satisfaction as to either of â—â—ese things in the witnesses of the miracles in â—e Roman Church no man hath ever lost much as a finger to give Testimony to one â—iracle among them and supposing they â—â—ould suffer we have no assurance but they â—ight think it lawful to lie for their Religion â—â—d therefore all their sufferings could not â—ove the truth of their Testimony We have 〈◊〉 sentence or declaration of their Church â—â—ainst pious frauds but we have large conâ—ssions from their own Writers of the practice them and the good end they are designed 〈◊〉 viz. to keep up the devotion of the people â—â—n Gerson honestly confesses this to be the â—d of the Legends and miracles of the Saints â—nd their visions and revelations so much â—lked of in the Roman Church viz. to stirr up â—piety and good affections of the people for â—ese things saith he are not proposed by 〈◊〉 Church to be believed as true but they are â—ther to consider them as things that might done than as things that were done And iâ— no matter saith he if some things that are really false are piously believed so that thâ—â— be not believed as false or known to be false the same time And I wish he had added oâ— condition more viz. that the infallibilitâ— of the Church be not to be proved by them for in that case I hope it is of some littâ—â— concernment whether they be true or false Bâ— are we not like to meet with credible Testâ— monies in such things where the most honeâ— and learned among them think it is no greâ— matter whether they be true or false Nâ— wonder then that Lyra complains of tâ—â— frauds used by the Priests in the Churches 〈◊〉 make the people believe that miracles woâ— wrought no wonder that Cajetan so muâ—â— slights the argument drawn from modern miracles and revelations and saith
evidence of the truth of them as may apparently distinguish them from all false pretences For if they give no other answers to such pretences of miracles as they condemn in others but what will destroy the Authority of the miracles asserted by themselves then they can prove no more the Churches infallibility by their miracles than either Philosophers Heathens or Hereticks could do by theirs If the bare pretence of miracles would serve for all that I know Pythagoras might deserve at least as much esteem as St. Francis or St. Dominick for the Scholars of the one delivered as unanimously the report of his miracles as the Disciples of the other could do Pythagoras his taming the Daunian Bear reported saith Porphyrie in his life by ancient Writers of good credit and charging him never after to hurt any living Creature was to my understanding as great a miracle as St. Francis his taming the Wolf And his whispering the Tarentine Bull in the ear and perswading him to eat no more bean's who for his great abstinence afterwards was called the sacred Bull was altogether as good an argument of the restoring the State of Innocency to him as the command over brute Creatures was to St. Francis or any other Legendary Saints The Rivers saluting him whether it were called Caucasus as Porphyrie hath it or Nessus as Laertius and Jamblichus or Cosas as Aelian or what ever were the true name of it was as great an argument of his Sanctity as the Trees in Tursellinus howing to the Chappel of Loreto were of the miraculous sanctity of it Why should not his being seen at the same time at Metapont in Italy and Tauromenium in Sicily be as great a wonder as the being seen in several places at once has being reported of several of the Romish Saints Why should not his golden thigh be as miraculous as the restored Leg at Zaragosa unless the Priest Abaris be proved a falser witness than Hieronimus Brizids or the people of Zarogosa less suspected of partiality than the Greeks at the Olympick games at which some Authors tell us Pythagoras shewed his Golden thigh Why should St. Francis his Asse that stood still to hear him preach be more miraculous than the Asse which Suidas reports heard Ammonianus his Lectures Why should the speaking of Images in the Roman Church prove the infallibility of the Church of Rome more than it did in old Heathen Rome for as the Roman Breviary saith that an Image spake to Aquinas and commended his writings so the old Roman Writers say that the Image of Fortune spake not once but twice to the Matrons and commended their dedication of her and so did the Image of Juno Moneta at Veij to the Souldier that asked her whether she would go to Rome to whom she answered shâ— would Why may not Aesculapius his cure of the woman in his Templeat Epidaurus mentioned by Aelian be thought as strange as Xaverius his appearing to Fr. Marcellus Mastrilli at Naples and curing him upon his promise to go to the Indies which is another of the miracles so much magnified by E. W. If there be any difference that of Aesculapius seems the greater miracle Why should not the miracles attributed to the Emperours Vespasian Adrian and Aurelian related by Tacitus suetonius Spartianus and Vopiscus have as much credit at least as those of the Legendary Saints since the Writers of them are looked on as men of more sincerity and integrity by those of their own Church than the Authors of the Lives of the Saints are But to come yet nearer how can their pretended miracles prove the Church they are wrought in to be the true Church and infallible since by their own confession miracles to all appearance as great have been wrought among hereticks and in a false Church And by the Answers they give to these we shall easily judge how far they can give evidence of the truth of their own miracles The Ecclesiastical Historians report several miracles that have been wrought by Hereticks and Schismaticks Philostorgius attributes the power of miracles to the Arian Bishops to Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia to Agapetus Bishop of Synada of whom he saith that he raised the dead and healed all sorts of diseases to Theophilus to Aëtius Eunomius Leontius Candidus Evagrius Arrianus and Florentius Socrates attributes the same power to the Novatians as to Paulus the Bishop of that party when he was to baptize the Jewish Impostor and the water miâ—â—aculously disappeared And Sozomen to Eutychianus of the same party And the Donatists to Pontius and Donatus as we have already seen from St. Augustin Now if the tryal of the Church in those day 's had been by miracles I would fain know on which side the advantage had been St. Chrysostom disowns any such thing as a continuance of the power of miracles in the Bishops of the Catholick Church as besides the places already produced to that purpose may be seen in several others wherein he supposes that there is not so much as a foot step of that power of miracles left in the Church which was in the Apostles he asserts that God hath put a stop to miracles that he doth not give it to the most worthy persons that they were intended only for unbelievers and that there is no need of them where the Christian faith is settled What now should be said in this case for it is just the same as between us and the Church of Rome the Catholick Bishops pretended no more to a Power of miracles than the Protestant Bishops do now but the Arians Eunomians Novatians and Donatists all challenged this power of miracles to themselves therefore it is a plain case if the Church of Rome be now in the right then so were these Heretical and Schismatical parties if the Protestants be mistaken so were St. Chrysostom and the Bishops of the Caâ—holick Châ—râ—h But what answer now do these men give to these instances even such as very easily returns upon â—hemselves and upon the very same grounds we may oveâ—throw the Authority of their miraclâ—s 1. They say the testimony of the writers ought to â—e suspected of parâ—â—ality to their own side So Mâ—laerus answers the Testimony of Socrates saying that he either fâ—igned or related these miracles to the honour of his own party but this answer is both false and destrâ—ctive to tâ—emselves It is false becauâ—e notwithstanding what Bâ—ronius Labbè and otâ—ers have said Socrates â—as no Novatian as Henri Valesius hath well proved in his preface to his History But suppose he were must the Authority of all Persons be taken away that relate things to the honour of their own Church what then becomes of all the miracles of the Roman Church are they attested by any but such who are well wishers to the truth of them and that may go a great way in the belief of them Were not Gabriel de Aldama the Vicar General
to the death of Christ and my Question will not only hold of the Apostles but of any common Jews among them who might not believe Christ infallible any more than the Sanhedrin I ask whether such might not have seen sufficient ground to believe that the Prophesies came not in old time by the will of man but by the Will of God if such persons had reason sufficient for their faith without any infallible Testimony the same I say may all Christians have of the Divine Authority of the New Testament For if the concurrent Testimony of the dispersed Jews firmly believing the divine Authority of the Old Testament were a sufficient ground for a person then to believe the Divinity of those Books why may not the concurrent Testimony of all Christians afford as sufficient a ground to believe the Authority of the Books of the New though no Ecclesiastical Senate among Christians be supposed any more infallible than the Jewish Sanhedrin was at the death of Christ and by this I hope E. W. may a little better perceive what this objection aims at But saith he hence it follows not that then there was no Jewish Church which believed the divine verities of the old Scripture O the monstrous subtilty of Jesuits who is able to stand before their terrible wits What have we to do with a Churches believing the divine verities of the Old Scripture we only enquire for the Testimony of a Church as necessary in order to others believing it If they firmly believed and yet had no infallible Testimony of a Church at that time what can be more to our advantage than this seeing it hence follows that there may be a firm faith without any Churches infallible Testimony Well but he verily thinks I mistook one objection for another perhaps I would have said that the Apostles lost faith of our Saviours Resurrection at the time of his Passion but this difficulty is solved over and over And then falls unmercifully to work with this man of clouts he throws him first down and tramples upon him then sets him up again to make him capable of more valour being shown upon him then he kicks him afresh beats him of one side and then of the other and so terribly triumphs over him that the poor man of clouts blesseth himself that he is not made of flesh and bones for if he had it might have cost him some aches and wounds But I assure him I meant no such thing yet if I had I do not see but after all his batteries the argument such as it is would have stood firm enough for supposing the Infallible Testimony of the Church to rest in the Apostles after our Saviours death it must have prejudiced the faith of others who were to believe that article upon their Authority if they lost the faith of Christs Resurrection 2. I instanced in those who believed in Christ and yet were not personally present at the miracles which our Saviour wrought but had them conveyed to them by such reports as the womans of Samaria was to the Samaritans Of these I ask what infallible Testimony their faith was built upon And if those persons might have a Divine Faith meerly upon rational evidence may not we much more who have evidence of the same nature but much more extensive universal and convincing than that was To this he answers by distinguishing between the Motive or the natural Proposition of faith which comes by hearing and the infallible Oracle whereupon it relies and he thinks it strange I did not see the distinction It is far easier to see the distinction than the pertinency of it to his purpose for our Question is not about the necessity of an Infallible Oracle in order to Faith but of an infallible Proposition we still yield that which our faith relies upon to be an infallible Oracle of God but if a natural Proposition of that be sufficient for faith we have all we contend for But to what purpose the Legend of S. Photina and the dispute whether she were the Samaritan woman is here inserted is very hard to understand unless he thought it the best way by any means to escape from the business in hand Next he tells us what he might answer iâ— these instances by saying with good Divinâ— that all immediate Propounders or Conveyerâ— of Divine Revelation in such particular caseâ— need not to be infallible I am glad to hear of such good Divines among them only I would know why in these particular cases an infallible proposition was unnecessary to faith if in the general case of all Christians it be now become necessary But he saith although infallibility be not necessary for young beginners seldom molested with difficulties against saith yet it is not only convenient but absolutely necessary for others more learned who often struggle to captivate their understanding when the high mysteries of Christianity are proposed Never was there certainly a more senseless answer for who are molested with difficulties against faith if those who are to be converted to Christianity are not who have none of the advantages of education to recommend the doctrines of Christianity to their minds and are filled and prepossessed with contrary prejudices Never were there such happy Converters of Infidels as the Jesuits are if they meet with such Converts who are never molested with difficulties against faith only as they grow up they begin to grow Infidels again and then it is necessary to choke them with an Infallible Church I do not at all wonder that the more learned in the Church of Rome seeing the weakness of the grounds of Faith among them do struggle with themselves about believing the mysteries of their faith but I very much wonder if so unreasonable a pretence as that of Infallibility can ever satisfie them I desire to know of these more learned believers whether they believed the Churches Infallibility before those strugglings or not if they did not how came they to be believers since there can be no divine faith without an infallible testimony if they did how came they to question whether they were to believe the particular mysteries of faith if they did believe the Church Infallible which proposed them But I suppose these learned believers were such as questioned the Infallibility of the Church and Christ and his Apostles too of which sort I doubt not there are many in Rome it self But yet he hath two other ways to solve these difficulties 1. By Gods special illumination and that I hope may serve all as well as these and then let him shew the necessity of an infallible Proponent 2. That every particular proponent as a member conjoyned with Christs infallible Oracle may be said to teach infallibly A most admirable speculation and so may every one we meet with in the streets be infallible not as considered in himself but as a member conjoyned with truth or every Sectary as a member conjoyned with
excuse for their Insidelity that his works did bear witness of him And his Evangelist declares that this was the end for which these miracles are recorded that men might believe that Jesus was the son of God Afterwards when he was risen from the dead and he sent abroad his Disciples to preach the Gospel he told them that God would bear them witness by divers signs and miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost of which we have a full account in the Books of the new Testament As to all which miracles we have not the least ground of suspicion of any fraud or imposture being publickly done in the presence of enemies and written in a time when the Testimony of Writers might be easily contradicted and when all imaginable way 's were used to make the first Witnesses of these things to recant their Testimonies by the greatest severities and persecutions in stead of which they persisted with great resolution and laid down their lives rather than weaken the Testimony which they had given Thus we see such great and extraordinary effects of Divine Power which we ought to call miracles were wrought by Christ and his Apostles on purpose to confirm their own Authority that they were Persons sent from God and therefore could not deceive the World in the doctrine delivered by them 2. The Authority and Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles being thus confirmed by the miracles wrought by them there cannot be any such necessity in succeeding Ages to confirm the same doctrine by miracles For if it were once fully proved by those miracles then wrought there can want nothing further to establish the faith of succeeding Ages than a certain conveyance of those miracles to them Those miracles being wrought for the benefit of succeeding Ages as well as of that present Age And if those miracles would not serve for the Ages following as well as that present time it might with as much reason be said that then they did serve only for those who saw them For on the same ground that Persons then in regard of distance of Place were bound to believe although they did not see them wrought so likewise are others in regard of distance of time only supposing the certainty of conveyance to be equal But it is with much advantage to us by the concurrent Testimony of so many Ages and the effects of the doctrine confirmed by those miracles upon so many nations of the World not with standing all the Power and subtility which were used against it 3. The less the necessity and the greater the pretence to miracles so much more reason there is to suspect them Because God we are certain doth not imploy his Power in going beyond the common effects of nature to little or no purpose When we see that in all the writings of Scripture miracles were very sparingly wrought unless it were for the confirmation of a new Religion as that of Moses and Christ if asterwards we find such abundance of miracles pretended to that no Age or Country of one sort of men but give out that multitudes of these are done among them what must we think that God hath changed the Method of his Providence and not rather that God is true but such men are liars or through ignorance and credulity take those for miracles which are not so 4. Those cannot be true miracles which are pretended to be wrought to confirm a doctrine contrary to what is already confirmed by miracles For God will never imploy his power to contradict himself he may in the establishing of one Religion foretel the comming of another afterwards in its room by his own appointment as in the Gospel succeeding the Law but the latter miracles in this case do not contradict but rather confirm the doctrine of the former but when he hath declared that no other Religion shall come into the world after that which is confirmed by miracles as it is with the Christian Religion then to suppose miracles wrought to confirm any doctrine contrary to that is to suppose that God by miracles should contradict himself Therefore although in the beginning of a Religion the doctrine is to be proved by miracles yet that being once supposed miracles afterwards are to be tryed by the doctrine And then though an Angel from heaven should preach or offer to confirm any other doctrine by miracles than that which was first confirmed by Christ and his Apostles we are bound to reject that doctrine and to suspect those miracles not to be from God 5. Where false and lying miracles are foretold by a doctrine confirmed by true miracles there can be no reason to believe upon such miracles till they are evidently distinguished from such as are deceitful Now this is plainly the case in the Christian Religion Christ himself hath foretold that men shall arise doing such great wonders in imitation of him as should deceive if it were possible the very elect and his Apostles that his greatest enemies should appear with all power and signs and lying wonders Can any thing be now more reasonable than after such forewarnings for us to examine all pretences of miracles by trying whether they can be evidently distinguished from all deceitfull appearances of miracles which may be wrought by a power less than divine For in this case the evidence must be such as the persons concerned are to judge by to tell them any distinctions which they cannot proceed by in the judgement of miracles is to speak impertinently where rules of Judgement are required 6. If the continuance of the power of miracles be asserted to prove the Churches infallibility in every Age there must not only evident proof be given that such miracles are wrought but that they are wrought for this very end For if God may work miracles for another end either to shew his Providence in general or particular Regard to some men then the meer proving miracles cannot be sufficient but it must be shewed that these miracles could be wrought for no other end but to prove the Church infallible These things being premised I now come to shew 1. That in the Roman Church they cannot give any evident distinction between the miracles they pretend to and such which we are bid to beware of 2. That they can never prove that the miracles wrought in their Church could be wrought for no other end than to prove the infallibility of their Church 1. That in the Roman Church they cannot give any evident distinction between their miracles and such as we are bid to beware of For which we are to consider that scarce any Religion or superstition hath obtained in the world but it hath pretended to be confirmed by some kind of miracâ—es which in it self is no more a prejudice to true miracles than sophistical arguments are to true reasoning But those who pretend to miracles in a Church which is founded on a doctrine confirmed by undoubted miracles must give such