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
and is the ground of believing and not where it is a meer condition of understanding If a Prince sends an Ambassadour about a match to a foraign Princess declaring that he will wholly rely upon his Testimony of her in this case there needs the greatest judgement and veracity in the Person trusted because the Prince resolves his judgement into his Ambassadours Testimony but if he only imploys a Person to bring her into the Room where he may see her and judge of her himself in this case there is no necessity of any other quality thâ—â— only obedience and fidelity So we say as the Church if the Churches Testimony to be relied upon as the Foundation of oâ— belief of the Scriptures then it is necessaâ— the Church should be infallible if there câ—â— be no faith without such a Testimony bâ— if all the office of the Church be only to prâ— pose the object of faith to be viewed and coâ— sidered by us then a common veracity mâ— be sufficient for it And in this case I granâ— faith is not to be resolved into the conditioâ— of applying the object of faith any moâ— than love is into the light whereby a mâ— sees Beauty or the burning of Fire into thâ— laying near of the fuel but if it be assertâ— that there can be no divine faith without â— infallible Testimony that this Testimony iâ— that of the Church and therefore upon thiâ— infallible Testimony we must build our saith he is blind that doth not see in this case thaâ— it must be resolved into this infallible testimony And therefore E. W. very impertinently charges me with this constant errour viz. making the motives of faith the Foundation of it and that hereby I confound thâ— judgement of credibility with the assent of faith by making the infallible testimony of the Church to those who believe it the formal object of faith For although the common motives of faith should do no more than â—ake the object of faith appear evidently â—edible and so the faith of such persons be â—eâ—olved into a further reason than those moâ—ves yet they who do believe upon the acâ—ount of the infallibility of the Churches â—estimony must resolve their faith into that which to them is the only infallible and adaequate Ground of Faith § 6. 2. To lay open the Foundation of all these mistakes about the nature of Faith I shall inquire into the influence which the motives of credibility have upon believing And therein give an account of these three things 1. What the motives of credibility are 2. How far they are necessary to faith 3. What influence they have upon the assent of Faith 1. What these motives of credibility are Suarez brings them under four heads 1. From the qualities of the Christian doctrine and those are 1. It s truth without any mixture of falshood but faith he if there be many things true and some false it is a sufficient sign that doctrine is not from God as it was among the Philosophers of old The way to judge of this quality he thus laies down those things which the Christian Religion speaks of which may be knowâ— by natural light are very agreeable to thâ— common reason of mankind those otheâ— things which are above it are not repugnanâ— to any principle of it but are agreeable tâ— the infinite and incomprehensible Majesty oâ— God 2. The sanctity and purity of this doctrine as appears by the excellency of the precepts of it the moral precepts not only agreeable to the Law of nature but tend much to the improvement of it the spiritual precepts have nothing contrary to the rules of morality and are suitable to the perfections of the Divine Nature 3. The efficacy of it which is seen by the strange and miraculous ways of its propagation by such instruments as were never like to effect their design without a Divine Power 2. The second Motive is from the number of witnesses of the whole Trinity at the Baptism of Christ of Christ himself in his holy and innocent life of Moses and the Prophets before him of the Apostles after him of the Devils themselves of the multitude of Martyrs of all kinds suffering with so much patience and courage and Christian Religion increasing by it 3. From the Testimony God gave to the truth of it by the Miracles which were wrought in confirmation of the Doctrine preached in which ought to be considered the nature the effects the frequency the manner of working them and the end for which they were wrought which must be not meerly for the benefit of the person on whom they are wrought but for a testimony to the truth of the Doctrine delivered otherwise he grants a Deceiver may work Miracles 4. From the continuance of this Doctrine in the world being so hard to believe the Doctrine and practice the precepts of it meeting with such multitudes of enemies of all kinds out of all which the credibility of the Christian Religion may be demonstrated a Divine Providence being supposed to take care of the affairs of mankind Greg. de Valentiâ reckons up these motives to 19. Michael Medina follows â—cotus and makes 10. or 11. of them on which he largely insists viz. the fulfilling of Prophesies the consent of Scriptures their Authority and truth the care and diligence of the first Christians in examining the Doctrine of Christianity the excellency of it in all its parts the propagation of it in the world the Miracles wrought for the confirmation of it the testimony of enemies the justice of providence and the destruction of its Adversaries To the same purpose Cardinal Lugo and others of the Schoolmen make an enumeration of theâ— motives of credibility but a late Jesuit haâ— reduced them all to the four chief Attribute of God His Wisdom Goodness Poweâ— and Providence but inlarges upon theâ— much in the same way that Suarez had donâ— Thus much may suffice for understandinâ— what these motives of credibility are whâ—â— are acknowledged to make up a demonstrâ—tion for the credibility of the Christian Religion 2. How far these are necessary to faith for that we are to consider that faith beinâ— an assent of the rational faculty in man muâ— proceed upon such grounds as may justifie thâ— assent to be a rational act which cannot bâ— unless sufficient reason appear to induce thâ— mind to assent which reason appearing â— all one with the creâ—â—bility of the object which doth not imply here what may be believed either with or without reason but whaâ— all circumstances considered ought to be believed by every prudent person And in thiâ— sense Suarez asserts the necessity of the evidence of credibility to the act of faith for saith he it is not enough that the object oâ— faith be proposed as revealed by God but iâ— is necessary that it be proposed with such circumstances as make it appear prudently crâ—dible in that way it is proposed For levilâ—
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
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
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
man born blind the raising the dead c. others are such as exceed the common power of nature although there may be some secret and hidden causes of them that may lie within the compass of nature The first sort he saith are the only undoubted testimonies of truth but the other may be wrought by the Devils power either by local motion or the application of the power of natural Agents Of this sort saith he are the miracles done by false Christs and false Prophets and by Antichrist and among these he reckons all manner of cures when the diseases are not wholly incurable 2. He saith that miracles of this later sort are equivocal signs and may be referred to different causes and therefore nothing can be determined by them considered in themselves because they may be done by a different power and for a different end When they are done for ostentation or delight or curiosity they cannot have God for their Author much less when they are wrought to confirm a false doctrine or for an evil end therefore when such miracles are wrought for confirmation of an error they have not God but the Devil for their cause For although they be aequivocal of themselves yet the determining of them to an evil end such as the confirmation of an error is takes away all aequivocalness in them 3. He asserts that true and proper miracles in the first sense although most commonly wrought by good men as Gods instruments yet may sometimes be done by wicked men and Hereticks and Infidels For which he instances in Balaam and those our Saviour mentions who should boast of the miracles they had wrought in his name which Christ doth not deny but only rejects them for being workers of iniquity and in Judas who wrought miracles with the other Apostles although we do not read that the Blessed Virgin or Joseph or John the Baptist ever wrought any He observes from St. Austin that God gives this power of miracles to evil men when he denies it to good 1. Lest the power should be attributed to the instrument or seem to take its vertue from thence 2. Because miracles are not wrought for the good of the efficient but for the good of others 3. Lest men should set a higher value upon miracles than upon true goodness and vertue For Saith he this is a false consequence such a man does miracles therefore he is approved or his doctrine such a place miracles are wrought in therefore such a place is approved for by this consequence wicked men Hereticks and Infidels would be approved of whom it is certain that they have wrought miracles 4. Such kind of miracles though they may be done by Hereticks can never be wrought sor the confirmation of error for that were to charge God himself with falshood but miracles of the other sort he grants may be wrought for the confirmation os errors because they are such as do not exceed the Devils power and in this case to know whether they come from God or the Devil must be taken from the end for which they are wrought as he shews from S. Austin From which discourse of Lingendes it follows â—hat since the confirmation of Christian Reâ—igion by miracles the only certain way of â—istinguishing true and deceitful miracles is from the end for which they were wrought For he grants that to all outward appearance Hereticks and false Christians may do as great â—s any nay God himself may use them as his Instruments to confirm Truth by but we are sure God cannot imploy his Power to confirm a falshood Since therefore we are forewarned that men shall appear with such signs and lying wonders as would if it were possible deceive the very Elect since no distinction can be made from the things themselves between the effects of a created invisible power and of a divine in most things which pass for miracles since Hereticks may be Gods instruments in the most divine miracles for a good end it necessarily follows that the pretence of miracles is far from proving the truth and infallibility of the Church wherein they are wrought till it be made appear that they are truly divine miracles that they are wrought for this end to prove this Churches infallibility and that the Churches infallibility doth not contradict any part of that doctrine which hath been already confirmed by the miracles of Christ and his Apostles 2. They can never prove that the miracles wrought in the Roman Church were wrought for no other end but to prove the Infallibility of their Church When Christ and his Apostles wrought miracles to prove their Infallibility they wrought the miracles themselves and declared that this was the end for which they were wrought that men might believe that they were Teachers sent from God but there is nothing like this in the miracles of the Roman Church They are generally pretended to be done at some Shrine or Monument or by a vision of some Saint and among the most credulous people but by no means for the satisfaction of Infidels or Hereticks whose very presence is enough to spoil a well contrived miracle but supposing the things true which are reported what doth a restored Leg to a poor Boy at Zaragosa in Spain signifie to the proof of the Roman Churches Infallibility or Father Marcellus his cure at Naples by a vision of Xaverius to the proof of Pius the fourths Creed If they will prove any thing by this way of miracles let their Missionaries here among us whom they account Infidels and Hereticks do the same things that Christ and his Apostles did for the conversion of Jews and Gentiles Let them heal all manner of diseases as pubâ—â—ckly as commonly as perfectly as suddenâ—y as they did and with no more art or cereâ—ony let us see them raise the dead and not â—hink we will be put off with painted Straws 〈◊〉 counterfeit Trances which we hope they â—re ashamed of themselves such things I asâ—â—ure them tend not to the credit of their â—ower of miracles among us and do not much â—elp our faith in the belief of things done at â— great distance and in such places where credulity and superstition reign If you do miracles in earnest do them before enemies as Christ and his Apostles did give us leave to stand by that we may be satisfied from the circumstances of them that they are true miracles and wrought to testifie that your Teachers are sent from God But you do not pretend to work miracles to confirm the Authority of your Teachers for then of all persons your Popes should work the greatest miracles and the Bishops who sit in General Councils among whom this Infallibility is lodged therefore there is no parallel between the miracles done in the Church of Rome and those which were wrought by Christ or his Apostles If all that had been pleaded in the Apostles times for their divine commission had been only that a poor Boy had his
Leg cut off and strangely restored or that some persons were suddenly cured of a dangerous disease by the vision of an Apostle would this have ever satisfied the world that the Apostles were Persons sent from God and assisted by an infallible Spirit Supposing the matters of Fact were true it might be reasonably demanded why God might not do such extraordinary cures in some rare cases without making that Company of men infallible among whom they are done For we see their own Writers acknowledge that God may do real miracles even among Pagans and Infidels to give testimony to his universal Providence And Suarez particularly distinguisheth in this case of miracles saying that a miracle may be wrought two ways 1. Without respect to any truth at all to be confirmed by it but only for the benefit of him that receives it as in case of a miraculous cure or such like 2. When it is wrought purposely to confirm the truth of a doctrine Now I say supposing I should grant all that E. W. contends for as to the truth of the two miracles he insists so much upon viz. the cure of F. Marcellus and the restored Leg at Zaragosa what can this prove as to their Churches infallibility if according to Suarez such miracles may be wrought only for the benefit of those who receive them Del-Rio saith this is no good consequence such a one wrought miracles therefore his faith is true because God may work miracles by Insidels but this consequence he saith is good such a one wrought miracles to confirm the faith which he professed therefore his saith is true because God cannot work miracles purposely to confirm a falshood But withall he saith elsewhere that the faith being now established there is little or no necessity of miracles to confirm it Supposing then some true miracles to be wrought in the Roman Church what consequence can be thence drawn for that Churches infallibility in doctrine if those miracles are not wrought for that end as E. W. never undertook to prove that they were And if the consequence will not hold as to a particular person for the truth of his faith from the bare working of miracles neither can it for the truth or infallibility of a Church for the same reason for if God may work miracles by Infidels he may likewise in a false or corrupt Church Maldonat another Jesuit confesseth that since the Christian Religion hath been confirmed by miracles in the Churches beginning there is no necessity of miracles for that end and quotes Gregory and Bede for it who compare the power of miracles to the watering of a plant which is only needâ—ul at first and is given over when it hath taken root So that whatever miracles they suppose to remain in the Church they do not look on them as wrought for the confirmation of any necessary part of Christian faith such as the Churches Infallibility is asserted to be by E. W. Andradius saith that miracles are oftimes false but always weak proofs of a true Church Ferus that the doctrine of a Church is not to be proved by miracles but miracles by the doctrine viz. because Christ hath forewarned us of false Prophets doing so many signs and wonders So that Acosta saith that in the time of Antichrist it will be a hard matter to discern true and false signs when these later shall be many and great and very like the true and he quotes it from Hippolytus whom he calls an antient Writer that Antichrist shall do far greater miracles than the cure of Marcellus or the restored Leg at Zaragosa viz. that be shall raise the dead as well as cure the diseased and have command over all the elements And I would understand from E. W. whether Antichrists Church will not then be proved as insallible in this way as the Church of Rome Cajetan determines that the Church hath no ground to determine any matter of doctrine now on the account of miracles because the Dâ—vil may do such things which we cannot distinguish from true miracles as in great cures c. and because signs were given for unbelievers but the Church â—ow hath the Revelation of Prophets and Apostles to proceed by and because miracles prove only a personal faith i. e. of one that saith he is sent from God and because the doctrine of the Scripture is delivered to us with so much certainty that if an Angel from Heaven should deliver any thing contrary to it we are not to believe him and lastly because the most authentick testimonies of miracles among them viz. in the Canonization of Saints are not altogether certain because it is written every man is a lyer and he supposes that faith must stand on a more infallible certainty than that of their miracles And many of their most learned Writers do assert that there can be no certainty of the truth of any miracles among them but from the Churches approbation which is in effect to say they do not believe the Church infallible because of their miracles but they believe their miracles to be true because they believe their Church to be infallible For which Paulus Zacchias gives this reason because wicked men and Devils may not only do miracles in appearance but such as are really so as the instruments of divine Power and because credulous people are very apt to be deceived with false miracles instead of true And after he hath laid down the conditions of a true miracle he hath a chapter on purpose to enquire why since miracles very rarely happen yet so many are still pretended to in the Roman Church One cause he assigns of it is the monstrous credulity of their people in this matter of miracles who make so many that he saith if they were to be believed miracles would be almost as common as the ordinary effects of nature for no odd or unusual accident happens but among them passes for a miracle no man escapes out of a dangerous disease especially if by the disturbance of his Fancy he imagines he had a vision of some Saint as Xaverius or the like but he gives out he obtained his recovery by a miracle no man avoids any great danger or trouble if he chanced to think of the Blessed Virgin in it or made any addresses to some Saint for I do not find that praying to God or Christ is so effectual for miracles as praying to the Saints is but this is cryed up for a miracle Riolanus gives the relation of a man that was hanged and his body delivered to the Physitians to be dissected who found there was some lise in him and by letting blood and other means they recovered him who afterwards returning to his own Country Oetingen where there was a celebrated image of the Blessed Virgin this very recovery was there painted for a substantial miracle But to return to Zacchias miracles saith he are made so common among
us as though God had nothing else to do with his Power but to pervert the course of nature by it at the beck of any idle fellow as it God did not manage his power as he does all things else with infinite wisdom as if God imployed his extraordinary power without great and most urgent causes For when it was necessary to shew his power for the confirmation of the Christian Religion and the Satisfaction of unbelievers then all persons might see the wonderful works of God but now saith he when the Truth of Christianity is known it would be to no purpose for God to shew so many miracles But whence then comes it that so many miracles are still talked of This arises saith he from the devotion of some who attribute ordinary effects of nature to a miraculous Power and from the Superstitious folly and fraud of others who will not endure any thing cryed up for a miracle should be ever questioned by any but say it is profane Atheistical and which is somewhat worse heretical to do it Whereas poor wretches they do not think what injury they do the Catholick cause while they go about to strengthen it with lies and forgeries when the Christian doctrine is already fully confirmed by the most true and undoubted miracles of Christ and his Apostles What need they then to feign any new miracles Doth God need your lies will ye talk deceitfully for him as I may justly use the words of Job saith he of these men Another cause of so much talk of miracles in the Roman Church he saith is Ignorance whereby any extraordinary accident though such as might happen where Christianity was never known is extolled for a miracle Quorum operum causas nulla ratione videre Possunt haec fieri divino numine rentur From hence he proceeds to particulars and shews that most of those who are accounted possessed among them are Melancholy and Hypochondriacal men and Hysterical women and then examins the pretence to Inspiration and Prophecy to raptures and extasies to miraculous cures to prodigious fastings to incorruption of bodies to raising from the dead and shews under every one of these heads how very often the meer effects of nature pass for miracles in the Roman Church to whose learned discourses I refer the Reader and we may easily understand the meaning of such a person when he tells us after all this that the Church will not suffer men to be deceived about miracles but such as the Church approves are to be approved Now let any one judge whether such persons who receive no other miracles but such which the Church commands them to believe could ever imagine that the Infallibility of their Church was proved by such miracles which they would not believe to be true unless they first believed the Church which approved them to be infallible Fortunatus Scacchus a man of great Authority in Româ— grants that it is a very easie matter to take false miracles for true and that no certain argument can be taken from Tables which are hung up at Images or shrines that wicked men may do real miracles which he proves from Scripture and History and the continued practice in their Church from whence he concludes that no argument can be drawn for the sanctity of any Person but only from such miracles as are approved by the Roman Church For saith he it belongs only to the Authority of the Roman See and the Bishop of Rome to determine which are true miracles because the promise of infallibility is only made to the Roman Church and the Head of it From whence he concludes that no other Bishop hath any Power to approve miracles especially if they be supposed to be wrought by an uncanonized Saint For we are to understand that the great use of miracles in the Roman Church hath not been pretended to be for proving the faith or Infallibility of the Church but for an argument of Saintship of those who are to be Beatified or Canonized So Aquinas determines that miracles are either wrought to confirm the truth of a doctrine preached or for the demonstration of the Sanctity of a Person and therefore in the Process of Canonization one main enquiry is about the miracles wrought by the Person who stands for the preferment of Canonization In the Process about the Canonization of Andreas Corsinus presented to Paul 5. the Auditours of the Rota say that to the Being Canonized it is concluded by all to be necessary that the person have wrought miracles and there they agree that it is not necessary to a miracle to be wrought for the confirmation of faith seeing miracles may be done for another end viz. for the proof of the Sanctity of the Person And such miracles say they are those which are done among Catholicks for whose sake miracles would be necessary on no other account because miracles are a sign not to believers but to unbelievers whence as they well observe from Isidore St. Paul cured the Father of Publius by a miracle but presâ—ribed to Timothy a natural remedy And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 many other processes of Canonization to the same purpose viz. to prove that it is not necessary to a miracle that it be done for the confirmation of any part of Christian faith Since therefore the far greatest number of the miracles in the Roman Church are such as are wrought for another end how can they from them prove the infallibility of their Church unless they can make it appear that where ever there are true Saints the Church is Infallible From which it appears that the miracles of the Roman Church ought no more to be compared with those of Christ and his Apostles as to the Testimony by them given to Infallibility than in point of credibility and that in both respects they are so infinitely short of them that nothing but the height of impudence could make any man pretending to be Christian to assert that as great nay greater miracles have been done by the Roman Church as ever were done by Christ or his Apostles in which subject I have taken the more pains not meerly to detect the frauds and impostures of the Roman Church but to preserve and vindicate the Honour of Christianity lest that should suffer by the intolerable rudeness of these comparisons The END Books sold by Henry Mortlock at his Shop at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard and at the White-Hart in Westminster Hall A Rational account of the grounds of Protestant Réligion being a Vindication of the Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterburies Relation of a conference from the pretended answer of T. C. by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. in Folio Cotgraves Dictionary French and English in Folio Sermons Preached by Anthony Farindon Folio House of Mourning in Folio Sheppards Practical Counsellor in Folio Animadversions on the 4. part of Cooks Institutes by William Prynne Esq Folio Observations upon Millitary and Political afairs by the Right