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
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
of judgement and rashness of assent he makes â—nconsistent with divine faith and every man ought so to believe as to exclude all fear of the contrary and so as that he can never â—rudently disbelieve what he now believes but if a man believes upon bad grounds he may afterwards prudently reject those grounds But this is not all for he makes such a proposition of the object of faith necessary whereby it appears evidently credible as revealed by God and consequently as certain and infallible For which he gives this reason because an inclination of the will to assent must precede the assent of faith before which there must be a judgement determining that act of the will this judgement must either be certain or uncertain if uncertain it is not sufficient for divine faith if it be certain then there must be such an evidence of credibility in the objects of faith And although a practical certainty as to matters of humane faith may be sufficiently founded upon a judgement of probability i. e. a man may judge it fit for him to believe where he sees only a greater probability on one side than of the other yet in matters of divine faith a higher judgement than of meer probability is necessary viz. that which is founded upon the evidence of credibility for with a meer probability a prudent doubting is consistent which is not with divine saith and withal the certainty of faith is not meerly practical but speculative i. e. of the truth of the thing in it self and therefore requires a speculative evidence of the credibility of the object From whence he concludes that a bare credibility is not sufficient but a greater credibility of the doctrine believed than of any other contrary to it for if two doctrines appear equally credible there can be only a doubtful assent given to one of them and a man might choose which he would believe but in the assent of faith it is not only necessary that there be a greater credibility of one doctrine than of the other but that this be evident to natural reason which dictates that in matters of Salvation that doctrine is to be believed which appears more evidently credible than any other To the same purpose Cardinal Lugo determines that the will cannot command a prudent assent of faith where there precedes only a probable judgement of the credibility of the object because there must be the apprehension of a certain obligation to believe which must arise from the evidence of credibility in the object of faith And Aquinas himself had determined that no man would believe unless he saw that the things were to be believed either sor the evidence os miracles or something of a like nature which Cajetan interprets of believing truly and vertuously truly i. e. without fear of the contrary and vertuously i. e. prudently So that although men may rashly and indiscreetly believe things without sufficient evidence of their credibility yet no man can by the acknowledgement of the most learned of the Schoolmen yield a rational and prudent assent of faith without it 3. The main thing is to consider what influence the evidence of credibility hath upon the act of faith For E. W. asserts that all that results from thence is only a judgement of credibility but that the act of faith it self relies wholly upon other principles and by the help of the distinction of these two he labours to avoid the force of my arguments Thus then the matter stands it is agreed that faith must have rational proofs antecedent to it but these proofs he must say do not perswade men to believe or which is all one have no influence upon the act of Faith If all that were meant by this talk were only this that we are then said properly to believe when we fix our assent upon Gods testimony but that all acts of the mind short of this may not properly be called believing but by some other name this would presently appear to be a controversie about words which I perfectly hate But more must be understood by such men as E. W. or else they do not speak at all to the purpose for the Question is whether in requiring an infallible assent of faith to the Churches Infallibility upon motives confessedly fallible an assent be not required beyond all proportion or degree of evidence to this he answers that this argument proceeds upon ignorance of the nature of faith which doth not discourse as Science doth and he grants that the motives of credibility have not the same certainty that faith hath What then can hence follow but that faith is an unreasonable assent and hath no grounds or that it may be stronger than the grounds it proceeds upon But if it appear that faith must have grounds and that the assent of faith can be no stronger than the grounds are then it follows that they are very unreasonable in requiring an infallible assent of faith to the Churches Infallibility barely upon the motives of credibility § 7. 1. That faith must have grounds If a man had not to deal with persons who have confounded their own understandings with an appearance of subtilty one would think this as needless a task as to prove that man is a reasonable creature for if faith be an assent of the mind taking it as strictly and properly as they please it must have the nature of a rational act which it cannot have unless it proceeds upon reasonable grounds The grounds I grant are different in several assents but it must always have some Those which are accounted the most immediate assents have the clearest and most evident reason such as the assents to first principles are as that the whole is greater than the part c. and for conclusions drawn from them the readiness and firmness of the assent is proportionable to the evidence of their connexion with those principles from whence they are drawn In other things that depend upon the evidence of sense the reason of our assent to the truth of them is from the supposition of the truth of our faculties and that we are so framed as not to be imposed upon in matters that are plainly and with due circumstances conveyed to our minds by our Organs of sense But if there appear an evidence of reason overthrowing the certainty of sense Scepticism immediately follows and the suspension of all assent to the truth of things conveyed by our senses for no man can then be certain of any thing by the evidence of sense but only of the appearance of things I may be certain that things do appear with such difference of colours and tasts and smells but I cannot be certain that there are really such differences in the things themselves If therefore the Scepticks arguments should prevail upon any mans mind so far as to make him question whether sense be a certain medium to convey the truth of the things to his
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
cannot have any unquestionable assurance that there was such a Person as Christ in the world that he wrought such great miracles for confirmation of his doctrine that he died and rose again Is all this no more than the common consent of Jews Gentiles and Cbristians that Christ died on a Cross Was ever any man so senseless as to make only the belief of the death of Christ on the Cross the reason of believing his Divinity But I say his Miracles before and Resurrection aâ—ter gave abundant testimony that he was sent from God and therefore his doctrine must needs be true and when we believe the truth of his doctrine wâ— are bound to believe every part of it such are his being the only Messias the true God the Redeemer of mankind and all other divine verities contained therein Let the Reader now judge whether the Objection or the Answer savours of more ignorance and folly But it is the mischief of this School-Divinity that it adds confidence to Ignorance and it makes men then most apt to despise others when they most expose themselves I proceeded to shew that instead of setling faith on a sure foundation by the Churches Infallibility they bring it to greater uncertainties than it was in before because they can neither satisfie men what that Church is which they suppose Infallible what in that Church is the proper subject of this Infallibility what kind of Infallibility it is nor how we should know when the Church doth define Infallibly and yet I say every one of these Questions is absolutely necessary to be resolved in order to the satisfaction of mens minds as to the Foundation of their Faith His Answer to these Questions refers us to his proofs of the Roman Churches Infallibility as the only society of Christians which hath power to define Infallibly by her representative moral Body which when I see proved I shall confess an Answer is given to those Questions Only one thing he thinks fit to give a more particular Answer to which is that this Infallibility should be the only Foundation of believing all things in Religion and yet so many things and some of them very strange ones must be certainly believed before it Here his common-place-Book again fails him and therefore wanting his Compass he roves and wanders from the point in hand He tells me it is hard to guess at my meaning for I name not one article thus assented to Perhaps I would say that the verities revealed in some Books of Scripture called Protocanonical known by their own proper signitures or motives as the Harmony Sanctity and Majesty of the Stile may be believed without this Testimony of an Infallible Church Well he doth not know what I meant but he knew an Argument he had an Answer ready to and therefore that must be my meaning But are not my words plain enough to any one that reads them And what a vast measure of faith say I is necessary to believe the Papal Infallibility for unless a man believes the particular Roman Church to be the Catholick Church unless he believes that Christ hath promised an infallible assistance to the Pastors of the Church and that not as separate but as assembled in Council and not in every Council but such as the Pope calls and presides in and confirms he cannot believe this Doctrine of Infallibility Nay further he must Infallibly believe the Church to be Infallible though no Infallible Argument be brought for it that this Church doth judicially and authoritatively pronounce her sentence in matters of Faith though we know not what that Church is which must so pronounce that he Infallibly know that this particular sentence was so pronounced though he can have no other than moral means of knowing it and lastly that the Infallibility must be the first thing believed although all these things must be believed before it Could any man well in his senses after reading these words imagine that I meant the self evidencing light of the Scriptures again But they write for those that believe them and that never dare look into the Books they pretend to consute Yet he hath a mind to prove the name of Roman Catholick Church to be no Bull which I said in a Parenthesis was like German universal Emperour This gives a new start another common-place Head is searched Title Catholick Church there he finds ready the old weather beaten Testimonies Rom. 1. 8. Your Faith is renowned the whole world over ergo Roman and Catholick are all one A plain demonstration What need they talk of the obscurity of Faith where there is such convincing evidence But what if it should have happened that S. Paul had said the same thing of the Faith of the Corinthians or Thessalonians would it not have been a most evident demonstration that the Church of Corinth was the Catholick Church at that time and was to continue so in following Ages But Scripture though never so plain cannot serve their turn they must have Fathers too So E. W. brings in St. Hierom St. Cyprian St. Athanasius St. Ambrose all evidently proving that the Church of Rome was once Catholick and what then I beseech him Were not other Churches so too But these very Testimonies as it unhappily falls out had been particularly and largely examined by me in a whole Chapter to that purpose But it is no matter for that I had not blotted them out of his Note-Books and there he found no answers and therefore out they come again § 11. 2. The second thing I objected against this way of resolving Faith was that it did not effect that which it was brought for for supposing that Chuch Infallible and that Infallibility proved by the motives of credibility they do not escape the circle objected against them Which I shewed 1. from the nature of divine Faith as explained by them 2. From the consideration of the persons whose Faith was to be resolved 3. From the nature of that Infallibility which is attributed to the Church I must now consider how E. W. attempts the clearing of these difficulties 1. As to the nature of divine Faith I ask whether a divine Faith as to the Churches Infallibility may be built upon the motives of credibility If it may then a divine Faith may rest upon prudential motives if not then this way cannot clear them from a circle in the resolution of divine Faith For I demanded why with a divine Faith they believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God Their answer is because the Church which is Infallible delivers them as such to us If I then ask why with a divine Faith they believe the Churches Infallibility I desired them to answer me if they can any other way than because the Scriptures which are Infallible say so It is a very pleasant thing to see how E. W. is miserably put to his shifts about this difficulty for although in his former Discourses he had
Revelation first made known to him What particular divine Revelation I beseech him is that on which I ground the divine Faith of this Proposition that the Doctrine of Scripture is Gods Revelation For of that we enquire It cannot be understood of the rational evidence of the truth of the divine Revelation for that is asserted by him not to be a sufficient foundation for divine Faith which must rest upon nothing short of divine Revelation I would gladly be informed and directed by this Guide in Controversies since I must believe Gods Revelation with a divine Faith and this divine Faith must rest upon a divine Revelation what that particular divine Revelation is on which I am to believe with divine Faith the truth of Gods publick and general Revelation I have endeavoured to find out what his meaning herein is but I confess I cannot sometimes he seems to denâ— any resolution at all of this divine faith into anâ— further principles and quotes Layman with approbation who saith that the formal reason of believing what God saith is his veracity but that God hath revealed such thing to us cannot be any further resolved or prâ—ved by divine Faith In the next Section he saith That divine Faith doth not resolve into an extrinsecal even morally infalliblâ— motive thereof either as the formal cause oâ— always as the applicative introductive oâ— condition of this divine Faith From whence it follows that this divine Faith may be where there is neither infallible nor prudential motive i. e. it may be where no account at all can be given of it for all motives must be of one sort or other and yet this divine Faith doth rest upon a particular divine Revelation of which since no account can be given it is unreasonable to expect it But I will try yet further by an Instance of his own The Question put by him is why he believes the things contained in the Gospel of St. Matthew to be divinely revealed he Answers That he resolves his Faith of the truth of those contents not into the Churches saying they are true although he believe all that true the Church saith but into divine Revelation because God by his Evangelist delivereth them for truth Again he saith When he believes that all contained in St. Matthew's Gospel is true because the Church tells him iâ— iâ— so and then believes that the Church â—elleth him true because God hath revealed â—n some part of his Word that the Church in this shall not erre here his Faith he saith is ultimately resolved again not into the Churches Authority but the divine Revelaâ—ion concerning the Church This looks like something at first hearing if one do not press â—oo far in the examination of it but being â—hroughly searched into how profound soever it may seem it is scarce tolerable sense upon his own principles For it is agreed now on all hands that in the Question of the resolution of Faith the enquiry is not why we believe what God reveals but why we believe this to be a divine Revelation and the Question is now put particularly concerning the doctrine contained in St. Matthews Gospel his principles are That this must be believed by divine Faith and that this Faith must rest upon divine Revelation I now enquire upon what particular divine Revelation he doth build this act of divine Faith that St. Matthew's Gospel contains the Word of God He Answers first Though he believes it to be true because the Church saith it is so yet his Faith is not resolved into the Churches Testimony but into divine Revelation 〈◊〉 What divine Revelation doth he mean that which is in Question viz. That St. Matthew's Gospel is divine Revelation if so theâ— he doth not believe it because the Church saith it but if he doth believe it because of the Churches Testimony then it cannot be oâ— the account of Gods delivering it for truth by the Evangelist For doth he believe it because the Evangelist saith so or not If hâ— doth then he doth not believe it because the Church saith it if he doth not believe it because the Evangelist saith it then he must believe it because the Church saith it and so his Faith must be resolved into the Churches Testimony which if it be a divine Faith must according to his own principles suppose that the Churches Testimony is a divine Revelation and the formal object of divine Faith The same absurdity lies in the other Answer He believeâ— he saith that all contained in St. Matthew's Gospel is true because the Church telleth him so and then believes that the Church tells him true because God hath revealed in some part of his Word that the Church in this shall not erre And yet his Faith is not resolved into the Churches Authority but the divine Revelation concerning the Church This Answer must be understood either of St. Matthew's Gospel being proved by some other part of Scripture and then I grant the circle is avoided but that doth not answer the present difficulty which is concerning the ground of believing not some one part of divine Revelation but the whole Or else it must be understood of St. Matthew's Gospel being proved by some part of it self And then he resolves his Faith thus He believes what St. Matthew's Gospel saith concerning the Church because he believes St. Matthew's Gospel to be true and believes St. Matthew's Gospel to be true with a divine Faith because the Church tells him so Can any thing now be more plain than that he must resolve his Faith into that Authority upon which he believed St. Matthew's Gospel to be true which himself confesseth to be that of the Church Only if a man can be so foolish to believe first the truth of St. Matthew's Gospel because the Church saith it and at the same time believe the Church to say true because St. Matthew's Gospel saith so that mans Faith is to be resolved into nothing but the dancing of Fairies which have put him into such a circle that he can never find the way out of But if he mean any thing else I know not what to impute such an absurd way of proceeding to unless it be to a through intoxication of School Divinity which confounds all true notions and distinct conceptions of things and makes men have such swimming brains that all things turn round with them § 5. 2. But supposing I could understand what this particular divine Revelation meant into which this divine Faith must be resolved why may not one particular way serve all mankind for it Must there be several and all equal foundations of divine Faith I can easily satisfie my self of the reason of asserting itâ— but not of the reason of the thing in this way of resolving Faith The true reason of asseâ—ting it was the plain evidence that many persons had a true divine Faith without knowing any thing of the Churches Infallibility this made some men in the Church
of Rome confess that it was not always necessary but least on the other side they should seem hereby to forego the Palladium of that Church they do withall say that sometimes Faith may begin there and so run into the very same absurdities that the others do For if one man can resolve his Faith well so why not a hundred why not a thousand why not all Christians If all cannot do it without running into a circle neither can one for the process of Faith is alike in all Not that the same means are used to all persons for it is evident that men believe upon different grounds but what is absurd if a thousand do it is equally absurd if but one do it Although the Guide â—n Controversies doth not suppose it necessary â—or men to resolve their Faith into the Churches Infallibility yet he doth suppose â—hat some men may do it Well then we will put the case that any one person doth reâ—olve his Faith concerning Gods Revelation â—nto the Churches Infallibility as the ground of his divine Faith I desire to be informed by this worthy Guide whether he doth not run into the same absurdities which all would do if they proceeded that way i. e. whether it be any more possible for one to free himself from a circle than for all Is not the reason assigned by Canus and Layman and Lugo this viz. because the Churches Infallibility iâ— one of the things to be believed as revealed by God and therefore cannot be the ground of Faith to any And will not this reason exclude any one person from doing it that resolves his Faith as he ought to do So that if this hold in any one being drawn from the reason of the thing and not from the circumstances of persons it must equally hold against all persons and consequently no one person can reasonably establish his Faith as to Gods Revelation upon the Churches Infallibility § 6. 3. I am far from understanding this way of immediate asseâ—â—t to the divine Revelation I grant the reason against proceeding furtheâ— to be very good for the Guide could see nâ— passage that way but over rocks and precipices and therefore finds out a shorter cut by asserting an immediate assent to the Divinâ— Revelation But to what divine Revelation doth he mean The Authority of Soripture Churches Infallibility Apostolical Tradition or any of these It is all one to me which it is for it is equally unreasonable to alloâ— any of them For I look upon Faith aâ— an act of the mind which must always have a reason moving it to assent Even in self evident Propositions where the assent is most immediate yet there is the greatest and clearest reason for it viz. the evidence of the thing which makes the understanding never hesitate or doubt but yield a firm assent upon the first apprehension and proportionable to the reason and evidence of the thing or of the motive enclining to assent so is the readiness and firmness of it But to assert an assent in Faith so immediate of which no motive or reason can be assigned proportionable to it is a thing repugnant to the nature of our reasonable faculties and it is to make one of the noblest acts of our understandings a meer blind and bruitish assent All that we enquire for is a sufficient reason to move our minds to believe in the act of divine Faith which is seen in all the acts of humane Faith For no man can reasonably believe what another saith or that he hath said so but he is able to give an account of both of them And it would be very strange that in the most weighty matters of Faith on which mens eternal happiness and misery depend they should be obliged to assent in such an immediate manner that they can have no good account to give of their divine Faith Yes â—aith the Guide an account may be given â—o make this assent appear prudent by the moâ—ives of credibility But that is not the thing we enquire for but a sufficient foundation for divine Faith and as to this he asserts â—hat our Faith doth immediately rest upon divine Revelation without proceeding to another Revelation for the ground of it But now then can this divine Faith have a divine Revelation for its ground It may have it for its material object which comes not under our consideration but only the formal object on motive of that Faith as to this Revelation We will suppose the Churches Infallibility to be the matter believed I demand a reason why this is to be believed The Answer is because God hath revealed it in his Word there the Qâ—estion returns what reason have you to believe that to be the Word of God Here the Guide cries out stand there if you proceed a step further you are lost For if you say upon another Revelation then that upon another and so without end But say I you tell me I must believe this to be Gods Word with a divine Faith and this divine Faith must rest upon a divine Revelation as its formal cause assign me that or you overthrow the nature of divine Faith what divine Revelation is there for this Faith to rest upon None say you but here it must stop if so then it is certain by your own principles this either can be no divine Faith or else divine Faith doth not always need a divine Revelation So that this way of the resolution of Faith overthrows it self and needs no other opposition but of one part to another § 7. 4. It may be all this may be cleared by the Assistance of the Holy Ghost supplying the want of another Revelation by its illuminating and confirming the mind So the Tragoedians of old call'd down the Gods upon the Stage when they could extricate themselves by no other means Not that I do in the least doubt the efficiency of the divine Spirit in the act and exercise of Faith or that God by secret and unexpressible ways may strengthen and increase Grace in the hearts of men which thereby become better assured of the â—hings they believe But the Question now â—s whether our Faith as to the motive and â—eason of it can or ought to be resolved into â—he illumination of the Holy Ghost And in â—ruth after all his turnings and windings the Guide sits down at last in the grossest way of resolving divine faith into the Testimony of the Holy Ghost For he saith that doth â—lluminate the understanding that the prime verity cannot lie in whatever thing it reveals and also that the particular articles of our faith are its revelations Was ever any â—hing more fully said to this purpose by the highest Calvinists or Enthusiasts Have the â—isputants of the Church of Rome hitherâ—o charged them with a circle in this â—esolution of faith equal with theirs between the Church and Scripture and hath the very Guide in Controversies found no way to escape one whirlpool but by
insallibility supereminent he saith and above all the Certainty which the principles of naturâ— can afford This is the substance of E. Wâ— principles of Faith in his first Book which is somewhat more enlarged in the second In one Chapter he designs to prove if the Roman Church be not infallible there is no truâ— Faith in the world the reason of which in his own easie terms is this For the meer possibility of deceiving Christians in one Article impossibilitates the Belief of all she proposeth In another Chapter That she is not only infallible but that the Adversaries of her infallibility destroy the very essence of Christian Religion And in the next That divine Faith in this present state of things necessarily requires a Church infallible because the infallibility of faith necessarily requires not only an Infallible Revelation but aâ— infallible Proponent Ruine one or the other Infallibility faith can be no more but an uncertain Assent and consequently can be no faith at all This reason he diversifies into many shapes and represents it in different words but it comes in at every turn So in the next Chapter he proves the Catholick Church Gods infallible Oracle because infallibility once taken away no man can have assurance so much as of one Christian verity the reason is no man can be assured of what is fallibly taught because what is so taught may by vertue of the Proposition be â—alse but a doctrine so far removed from inâ—allible certainly for want of a due application of its infallibility comes not near to the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles which was applied taught and proposed infallibly And in the same Chapter he saith It is utterly impossible that an infallible verity as revealed though fallibly proposed should have influence upon faith or work in believers a most firm assent Not long after he asserts That infallibility being taken away no man can tell but that Christian Religion is a fiction for these are his words A feigned and fallible Religion are near Coâ—sin Germans The one is a Fiction the other at least may be so and for ought any man can know is no better And in the same Chapter he saith That without infallibility Religion is meer Scepticism because all other means infallibility being set aside may be equally pleaded by Hereticks as Arians and such like as by any other To the same purpose in the following Chapter where he proposes that which he calls the last proof of the Churches Infallibility which is still the very same over and over for he out-does the Cook of Brundusium in serving up the the same meat in several dresses viz. That the denyal of it overthrows Christian Religion be pleased to observe his concise way oâ— reasoning If the infallibility of revealeâ— doctrine be lost as it were in the way between God and us If the Revelation appear not as it is in it self infallible wheâ— we assent to it by faith that is if it be noâ— infallibly conveyed and applied to all by aâ—â—nerring proponent as it subsists in its first cause infinitely infallible faith perishes wâ— are cast upon pure uncertainties and maâ— justly doubt whether such a doctrine separated from that other Perfection of Infallibility be really true or no In his third Diâ—course we meet with a convincing Argumenâ— as he calls it for Infallibility If all Authority imaginable whereupon faith can depend conveyed or delivered these verities both as infallible Truths and infallibly and I assent to the doctrine with a belief not infallible but only morally certain I leave by my fallible moral assent the true infallible teaching and conveying Oracles of Christian doctrine and believe upon a meer phansied Authority which was never impowered to convey Gods verities to any Before I come to examine these things it will be necessary to lay down his notion of faith in his own terms viz. That it essentially trends obsecurely to its own object no matter for understanding it but the words found well together and by this saith we lâ—y hold upon the most supream and all comprehending infallibility proper to God alone But withal we are to take notice of a twofold certitude in faith the one a certitude of Infallibility arising from the supernatural principles which concur to the very act of belief and these being not liable to error can never operate but when the divine Revelation really is and implies not only the meer truth of the act but moreover an infallible determination to Truth the other a certitude of adhesion not grounded on evidence but upon most prudent motives proposed to Reason which clearly discover'd the Will by her â—pious affection commands and determines the intellectual faculties to assent indubitably After all which he concludes that the plain and easie Resolution of Faith is into Gods veracity as speaking to men by an infallible Church Thus I have laid together so many parcels of E. W's rambling discourse as were necessary in order to the examination of it And indeed I cannot compare his reasoning to any thing better than his own pretty notion of faith for just as he saith Faith essentially tends obscurely to its object so his principles do to his conclusion But that I may proceed with the greater clearness I must premise these two things 1. § 2. That the Question is not concerning the necessity of any internal Assistance oâ— divine Grace but of an external insalliblâ— Proponent in order to divine Faith So thaâ— whatever certainty of saith is derived from the Spirit of God is no ways pertinent to ouâ— present debate I do not deny that a trulâ— divine faith doth suppose a divine and super natural assistance I do not deny that thâ— Holy Ghost may confirm mens minds to sucâ— a degree of certainty which may exceed thâ— rational grounds they are able to give tâ— others of their faith But I say all this iâ— very far from the purpose For I had expresly laid down this caution before that oâ— Question in the Resolution of Faith did noâ— relate to the workings of the divine Spirit oâ— our minds of which no satisfactory accounâ— can be given to others but to the externaâ— motives and grounds of faith whether theâ— must be infallible or not To what purposâ— is it then for E. W. to talk of a certitudâ— of Infallibility as he calls it arising from the supernatural principles which concur tâ— the very act of belief and these not liable tâ— error can never operate but when the divine Revelation really is Granting all thiâ— to be true yet what doth this prove concerning the necessity of an external infallible Proponent such as the Church is All that caâ— hence follow is that those whom the Spirit of God enables to believe cannot believe a falshood but what then Hath he proved that the supernatural principles of faith do never operate but where the Church first infalâ—ibly proposes No this
he never attempts either not understanding what was fit to be proved or knowing it impossible to be done But if the infallible certainty of Faith doth depend upon inward illumination and divine concurrence the Infallibility of Faith may be had without an external Infallible Proponent And so all his first principles signify nothing to his purpose for supposing an Infallible assent of Faith necessary to an Infallible Revelation yet that doth not prove the necessity of Infallible teachers unless it can be had no other way But here he tells us That Infallible certainty is derived from supernatural principles concurring to the act of Faith which he elsewhere calls The interior illustration of Grace imparted to a Soul which he saith is wholly necessary to make faith certain and after saith we come to an absolute certainty of Faith upon tbis interiour sacred Language of God or his internal illumination the necessity of which he proves from Scripture and Fathers But when he hath done all he hath most effectually confuted himself For if this inward illumination can as he saith supply the inefficacy of external motives How comes the Infallibility of an external proponent to be necessary in order to that certainty of Faith which may be obtained by divinâ— Grace making up what is wanting in the outward motives Did ever any man shew more kindness to his Adversary in helping him with weapons to destroy himself than this E. W. doth When after a most tedious endeavour to prove the necessity of an externaâ— Infallible Proponent in order to the certainty of Faith he sets down these words Now what we assert in this particular is that the Infallible certainty of faith comes from thâ— interior illumination as it more lively setâ— forth the formal object assented to or helpâ— to a clearer proposal of the divine mysteries Doth the Infallible certainty of Faith indeed come from this interior illumination What then becomes of the necessity of an Infallible Church We often hear of the great Assistance the Jesuits have in writing their Books I should rather have thought some enemy of E. W's had put in these things to overthrow all he had spent so many impertinent words about before But lest such expressions should be thought to have dropt from him unawares observe with what care he sums up the whole progress of Faith in this State First A natural Proposition of the mysteries precedes this begets a natural apprehension of their credibility after some consideration there may arise an imperfect judgement of credibility but should the will offer as yet to incline the mind to assent only upon what appears hitherto it could not move to a Faith which is an assent super omnia or most certain Therefore the illustration or powerful invitation of Grace by which as I said the object appears another way and more clearly is infused whereof the soul is recipient The Will now after other Preparatives thus strengthned a new commands boldly the understanding to Assert upon the safest Principles imaginable viz. upon Gods infallible Revelation accompanied with his own Divine Light which makes faith to grow higher in certainty than all the reason or knowledge in this life can arise to For as S. Thomas observes humane knowledge derives its certitude from mans natural Reason which may err but faith hath its infallibility ex lumine divinae scientiae from the light of divine wisdom which cannot deceive and therefore is most certain Who upon reading these words would not have thought this E. W. more conversant in Calvins Institutions than Aquinas his Sums For in all this Resolution of Faith how can a man edge in the necessity of an infallible Church in order to the certainty of Faith I will not say E. W. was wholly inapprehensive of this snare he had brought himself into but he takes the worst way imaginable to get out of it For to shew the difference between this way and that of Hereticks he makes the exterior humane proposition of Divine Revelation necessarily preceding the true light of Faith which cannoâ— be made but by one that makes the Proposition good by a Miracle or some supernatural wonder but no Protestant is able to do thus much And is any Papist think we I would withal my heart see some of the miracles wrought by their Preachers to convince me I profess the greatest readiness of mind to be perswaded by them in case they do but work such miracles as Christ and his Apostles did But of this subject at large afterwards At present it may suffice to take notice 1. That no proposition of Faith is supposed sufficient by E. W. but where the Proponent doth work Miracles and therefore we may safely question the Churches Proposition till we see such Miracles wrought by her as were by Christ and his Apostles For thus saith he Christ our Lord Sent by his Eternal Father thus the Apostles sent by Christ and the Church ever since all shewing wonders above the force of Nature proved their mission and withal evinced that God only impowred them to teach as they did And because the poor Protestant doth not pretend to miracles therefore the light he pretends to is a meer ignis fatuus vain and void of all reality I must say that of my Adversary that he puts the controversie upon the fairest issue that can be desired For if their Church work such miracles as Christ and his Apostles did to attest their divine commission the evidence from thence to believe her infallibility ought to over rule the opinions of such who say she hath erred in case the doctrine attested by Christ and his Apostles and that of the Roman Church do not directly contradict each other 2. Although this exterior Proponent prove himself so commissioned yet by the Progress of Faith laid down by E. W. this is not enough to beget an infallible certainty of Faith For he saith after the exteriour proposition only a natural apprehension of their credibility succeeds then a judgement of credibility then the inclination of the Will but yet no infallible certainty till the illustration of Divine Grace comes So that it evidently follows according to E. W. that an infallible Proponent cannot beget an infallible Assent of Faith but that doth arise from the inward illumination of the mind by the Holy Ghost Which I have already shewed doth lay men open to all the absurditieâ— the highest Calvinists were charged with in resolving Faith and is withal impertinent to our dispute which relates to the necessity of an external infallible Proponent in order to the Certainty of Faith But surely the Jesuiâ— are not so berest of all their subtilty to comply with their greatest Adversaries without some advantage to be gained by it Yes E. W. will shake hands with some old enemies the better to assault some later Protestants who seem to attribute he saith no other certainty to the very act of Faith than what is
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
pressed the necessity of divine Faith so much that from thence he might introduce the necessity of Infallibility yet he now seems wholly to have forgotten any such distinction of Faith humane and divine although he could not but see that the force of my Argument did depend upon it The substance of his answer is That the first act of Faith whereby we believe the Churches Infallibility relies not on Scripture but upon the Church it self as the most known manisested Oracle Be it so but the Question is whether this first act be divine Faith or not if not it is nothing to the purpose if it be then divine Faith may want an Infallible Testimony for this first act of Faith concerning the Churches Infallibility hath nothing to rely upon but the fallible motives of credibility and consequently divine Faith may want an Infallible Testimony And I say still let them answer this if they can without apparent shuffling and running away from the Question in hand 2. From the consideration of the persons whose Faith is to be resolved for I say 1. The Question is not which way they will prove the Insallibility of their Church against those who deny it but which way they resolve their own Faith of the Churches Infallibility 2. In disputing against their Adversaries they cannot avoid the circle for while they prove Infallibility from Scripture the Question arises how they come to know Infallibly that this is the sense of those places for which they must again appeal to the Churches Infallibility in delivering the sense of Scripture which if it be not a circle I say there is hardly such a figure in Mathematicks To this he answers 1. That they both resolve and prove but then if they do resolve their Faith into this Infallibility it is no sufsicient answer to say they only prove it to Adversaries which was all I intended by that first particular But what answer doth he give to the second concerning tbe sense of Scripture Here again he makes use of his distinction of the first and second act of Faith the first he saith is not at all founded upon the sense of Scripture but upon the Churches own Infallible Testimony made by it self and for it self immediately credible Now if we speak saith he of another distinct consequent and more explicit act of Faith when we believe the Churches Infallibility upon this ground that she declares the Scriptures genuine sense which proves her an Infallible Oracle there is no difficulty at all because this very Exposition or Interpretation of Scripture is ultimately resolved into and therefore again believed upon the same Infallible Authority of the Church or rather upon Scripture and the Churches Interpretation together For thus joyntly taken they ground Faith and not like two disparate principles as if we first believed the Scriptures sense independently of the Churches Interpretation and then again believed the Churches interpretation to be Infallible because the sense of Scripture known aliunde or without depending on Church Authority saith she is Infallible This cannot bâ— if Scripture and the Churches interpretation indivisibly concur to this latter act of Faith whereof we now speak Here then is a Dilemma that clears all and frees us from the least shadow of a circle we either know or believe the Scriptures sense independently of the Churches interpretation or receive it upon her Infallible Authority grant the first there is no danger of a circle grant the latter there are 〈◊〉 two imaginable propositions to make a circle of whilst that sense internal to the letter cannot be Infallibly propounded otherwise than by the Church I have set down these words more at large to let the Reader try his faculty upon them what tolerable sense he can make of them My objection was plain and easie they offer to prove the Churches Infallibility by Scripture at least as to the second act of Faith which is alone pertinent to our purpose I asked what way they come to believe Infallibly themselves and assure others this is the sense of those places and in this case they are forced to return to the Churches Infalliâ—ility judge now Reader whether here be not a plain circle because they believe the Church Infallible because the true sense of Scripture saith she is so and again they believe this to be the Infallible sense of Scripture because the Infallible Church saith so No saith E. W. Here is not the least shadow of a circle I would he had told us first what a circle was and then applyed what he had said to the description given of it But for all that I can see by his answer he had a mind to amuse his Reader by seeming to say something but no great matter what Is not that a circle when the Argument made use of to prove another thing by must it self be proved by that very thing which it is made use of to prove For in this case the mind hath nothing to fix it self upon and therefore must suspend all assent which must have some certain foundation to proceed upon on which it may rest it self As the will could not love Physick for the sake of health if it loved health for the sake of Physick so neither can the understanding assent to one truth for another if it assent to that other only for the sake of the former For then the same Proposition would be more certain than the other as it is the antecedent by which the other is proved and less certain as it is the consequent proved by the other as it's antecedent and so in different respects would be more and less certain than it self Let us now apply this to our present case The thing to be proved is the Churches Infallibility the Argument to prove it by is the Infallible sense of Scripture but if the Infallible sense of Scripture can be proved by nothing but the Churches Infallible interpretation then it is plain that is assumed as an Argument to prove Infallibility by which cannot be otherwise known than by this Infallibility Now let any man attend to the answer he gives he saith there is no difficulty at all in believing the Churches Infallibility upon this ground that she declares the Scriptures genuine sense which proves her an Infallible Oracle No difficulty at all Nay that is a little strange that there should be no difficulty at all in believing the Churches Infallibility upon the sense of those Scriptures whose sense could not be insallibly known without the supposal of that Infallibility which is to be proved by them But how comes there to be no difficulty at all in this matter Because this very Exposition or Interpretation of Scripture brought to its last principle is ultimately resolved into and therefore again believed upon the same Infallible Authority of the Church or rather upon Scripture and the Churches interpretation together What a strange thing the difference of mens understandings is That which
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
mind it is impossible that man should yield a firm assent to the truth of any thing on the account of the evidence of sense So that still assent proceeds upon the grounds of reason which satisfie the mind that all circumstances considered it ought not to suspend any longer Let us now consider such things which are not so evident of themselves nor conveyed by our senses and unless we distrust all mankind we have reason to believe some things to be which we never saw our selves and this is the fundamental ground of that we call believing which is nothing else but taking truth upon trust or receiving a thing as true upon such testimony which I see no reason to question If I see any reason to doubt either the skill or fidelity of those persons upon whose credit I am to rely it is impossible for me firmly to believe upon their Authority if I see none then on that account I believe what they say wherein it is as evident that my assent is according to the grounds I proceed upon as that two and two make four What is it then that hath thus confounded these mens minds to make them to contend that the act of divine faith is of such a nature that nothing like it is to be found in any other act of the mind Must we cease to be men by being Christians or where the strongest reason is most necessary must there be none at all to what end then were there arguments ever used to perswade men to believe Christianity were those arguments able to perswade men or not if they were then men did believe upon the strength of those arguments and is it possible for men to believe upon the strength of arguments and yet those arguments have no influence upon the act of faith This is horrible nonsense and fit only for those to write who believe contradictions for such an act of faith indeed can have no reason for it But to come closer yet to our matter The Churches infallibility is to be believed saith E. W. with divine faith is there any ground for that act of faith or not If there be none shew what obligation to believe there can be where there is no ground for it if there be I desire to know whether they are able to perswade me or not if not shew then why I ought to believe on insufficient grounds if they be may not I then believe upon those grounds and if I do doth not that act of faith rely upon those grounds Besides of those who plead for the necessity of the Churches infallibility I desire to know on what account they do it Is it not that faith may have a sufficient Foundation to be built upon which in their opinion cannot be without such infallibility and yet after all this must not faith stand upon this ground Why then are Scotus Durand Gabriel Medina and others charged by some of the Roman Church with resolving faith into the Churches testimony What is this else but only to make the Churches Testimony the ground of faith Nay why are there any disputes at all about the formal object of faith For the formal object is nothing but the reason of believing and what account can be given of the reason of believing if there be none at all But it may be all this while I mistake my profound Adversary it being hardly possible that a man of common sense should write such stuff To prevent any suspicion of this nature I shall lay down his assertions in his own words from several places of his worthy works Faith solely relies on Gods revealed Testimony without the mixture of Reason for ill Motive the previous Motives well pondered bring with them an obligation to believe and not faith it self For Faith reasons not but simply believes Faith contrary to science goes beyond the certainty of all extrinsecal inducements And afterwards where he attempts to answer the main difficulty as he calls it in the resolution of faith which in short is since the motives of credibility seem to leave the matter doubtful what that is which determines the assent to the objects of faith as infallibly true waving at present that answer that it is from the command of the will he seems to attribute so great an evidence to the Motives of credibility that they do infallibly prove the truth of divine Revelation there being an insiparable connexion between the Motives and divine Revelation but then he starts an untoward objection viz. that then the Revelation must appear evident and so faith would be evident to which he answers by denying the consequence because this assent is science and not faith now this evidence arising from the motives of credibility faith saith he as faith leaves or lays aside and firmly adheres to the Divine Revelation only for it self as contradistinct both from the Moral evidence of the Motives and their apparent connexion with the Revelation The reason is taken saith he from the notion of faith which essentially tends obscurely upon its own object as the most ancient Fathers assert From whence it is clear if you believe him that no evidence of the testimony assented to can move to faith not only because we should in the case of evidence be necessitated to believe but upon this account also that the certitude of faith taken from the supreamest verity iâ— of a higher strain and far surpasses all the certitude we find in nature or in the Motives inducing to believe But which is more pleasant he yet adds It is true the more evident these motives appear the better they induce to believe yet for that reason have less to do with the very act of faith which as he said rests upon and lays claim to no lower a verity than the most pure and supream only and if it rests not here it is no faith And yet after all this he asserts that the evidence of credibility apparent in those manifest signs and marks which illustrate true Christianity is abundantly sufficient to induce the most obdurate heart in the world to believe with such an Assent as suits Gods great Majesty i. e. with a faith most firm and infallible Here we have Motives such Motives as give evidence of divine Revelation such motives as are sufficient to induce the most obdurate person to an infallible assent of faith and yet after all this evidence by these motives in order to believing this believing hath nothing to do with them and the more they induce to believe the less influence they have upon faith for that fixeth on the divine Revelation solely for it self and hath a certainty beyond that of the greatest arguments that are used for believing He that hath the faculty of understanding these things ought to oblige mankind with a clearer discovery of them than E. W. hath made who doth not seem to understand what he writes himself and therefore it cannot be expected that
done by Christ or his Apostles No I confess they understood nothing of the miraculous virtue of the Rosary that was reserved for a new discovery to help these latter Ages of the World We read only of their casting out Devils by Fasting and such Prayer as Christ instructed them in but they were to seek in the way of tying Beads about their necks or exorcising with one hundred and fifty Ave Marys But all the vertue of this admirable Rosary doth not lie only in tormenting Devils for very extraordinary things are reported of it in another way Bzovius saith That a Lady in Spain being carried prisoner into Africa and there put to lie in among the Cattel falls to the Rosary of the blessed Virgin and presently the blessed Virgin appeared and performed the office of a Midwife to her and Christ in the habit of a Priest came and baptized the Child not long after an Angel came and invited her to the Churching and led her to an unknown Church with St. Anne and St. Magdalen the blessed Virgin being present and Christ again in person performed the office Are not these fit things to be inserted in Ecclesiastical Annals But something must be allowed to Bzovius for the honour of St. Dominick and the Rosary invented by him He that can believe all these Miracles already reported of St. Dominick need not stick at any of the rest as his Books being preserved dry in the midst of the water his walking dry in the midst of storms his raising forty Englishmen out of the water at Tholouse his blessing a Cup of Wine so that it served one hundred and four persons and not a drop of it missing his turning the Worm that came out of the Womans breast at Rome into a rich Jewel his raising the Cardinals Nephew from the dead his being lifted up from the ground at his devotion he that sees sufficient reason to believe the reporters of these things upon their bare words must rest satisfied that St. Dominick wrought Miracles § 7. But the Seraphical St. Francis did not come much behind him in this pretended gift of working Miracles I do not find that he had such a power over Devils as St. Dominick had but however he did wonderful things in his way It seems St. Francis himself was not so terrible to Devils as Br. Juniper was for St. Francis used to threaten the Devils that if they would not go out of persons he would bring Br. Juniper to them at whose name they presently flew away saith Wadding For they had so great a consternation upon them at the approach of Juniper that a possessed person perceiving at a quarter of a miles distance his coming towards him ran away for seven miles together crying and howling as the same grave and late Author relates Yet one time the Devil who owed him a spight was like to have been too hard for him when he was condemned to be hanged for a Spy and was upon the Rack and there confessed himself a Traytor but by good fortune the F. Guardian espying him and knowing his simplicity for Wadding confesses he was commonly accounted a Fool procured his release But the Devil if the Franciscans Annalist may be credited was not so much asraid of coming near St. Francis for finding him once in the Cave of Monte d' Alverno he was like to have tumbled him down headlong from thence had not the Rock miraculously yielded to his hands so that he left the impression of his fingers in the place he laid hold on which saith Wadding were to be seen many years after but were at last cut away for fear any person should go thither to confute him But although St. Francis had not that power over him that goes about like a roaring Lyon yet he had an extraordinary power over a devouring Wolf as appears by the story of his miraculous conversion by him Wadding relates the story very briefly having a mind to be at the end of it but he agrees in substance with the rest and refers us particularly to the Speculum vitae Sti Francisci wherein it is related at large in short it is this there was a terrible Wolf not far from Eugubium that spared neither man nor beast which kept the people in so much fear that they durst not stir out of the gates of the City St. Francis moved with a pious zeal not to kill but to convert this Wolf out he goes at the gates of the City with no other Armour than what he could presently make with his fingers viz. the sign of the Cross the people were got upon the tops of their Houses to see the issue of this encounter the Wolf comes with open mouth towards him St. Francis presently shuts his mouth with the sign of the Cross see here saith Spoelberch the wonderful vertue of the sign of the Cross After this St. Francis comes to parly with the Wolf in a familiar manner and says to him Brother Wolf I command thee in the name of Christ that thou hurt neither me nor any one else Upon which he immediately falls on the ground in the posture of a penitent St. Francis takes him to confession laying open before him the horrid cruelties he had committed but at last offers terms of agreement between him and the City the Wolf by the moving of his tail and ears plainly shewed that he understood and accepted his offer St. Francis then tells him he knew he did all this to satisfie his hunger therefore he would take care he should be provided for if he would promise he would never hurt any body again The Wolf bows his head in token of consent and when St. Francis held out his hand to make the bargain sure the Wolf put his right foot into his hand very well understanding the way of contracts Upon this the Wolf quietly walks along with him towards the City the people seeing that flocked in great abundance about him St. Francis makes an excellent Sermon on the occasion and at last assures them of the conversion of Brother Wolf and acquaints them with the promise he had made for his maintenance the Wolf renews his promise before them all as formerly The People were filled with great joy and the Wolf lived very innocently and neighbourly among them all the rest of his days and the people much lamented his death This story I confess I did not expect to have met with any where else than in the Golden Legend or the ingenious Book of Conformities but not only finding it in other more creditable Authors among them but inserted into their Books of Annals by Wadding and defended by Hen. Sedulius who writ an Apology for the Book of Conformities I thought I had reason to produce it not knowing but that E. W. might reckon this among the miracles of St. Francis which might be parallel'd with those of Christ and his Apostles Cardinal Bonaventure doth
not particularly relate the story but he mentions his taming of Wolves among his extraordinary acts and tells us of St. Francis his great kindness to all sorts of creatures calling them Brothers and Sisters And although Christ and his Apostles thought it enough to preach only to men and women St. Francis his charity was so much beyond theirs that he preached to Birds and Beasts as St. Anthony of Padua his Disciple did to Fishes and I assure you with no small success For Wadding tells us that St. Fancis was in dispute with himself whether it were fitter for him to spend his time in praying or preaching being in a great perplexity about it he sends to Brother Sylvesâ—er the same who saw the Golden Gross come out of St. Francis his mouth and Sister Clara that they should seek God for resolution they both agree that he was to Preach being thus satisfied in his Call the next morning early he goes towards Bevagna and seeing a place where multitudes of several kinds of Birds were gathered together he makes hast thither and salutes the Birds as if they had been reasonable creatures The Birds being big with expectation turned themselves and bowed their heads towards him then he admonished them all to hear the word of God and then said to them My Brethren ye ought to praise your Creator that hath given you Feathers and Wings and good air and that provides for you without your care At which excellent instructions the devout Birds stretched out their Necks and clapt their Wings opened their Bills and looked earnestly upon him Then he walked in the midst of them and not one of them stirred till he gave them the blessing and made the sign of the Cross over them and then they all flew away together Thus Cardinal Bonaventure and Wadding both gravely relate the story of his first Preaching after it was revealed that he ought to preach but that was not all but they tell us that being returned to his Disciples he blamed himself for so long neglecting the duty of Preaching to the Birds From hence he went forward in his work and the Swallows not being I suppose at his former Sermon were very troublesom in making a noise to the disturbance of the Auditory to whom he thus spake Sisters Swallows it is now time that I speak for you have tatled enough already Hear the word of God and hold your peace till that be done which they presently did and all the people were astonished at the miracle as well they might A Scholar of Paris having heard the fame of this miracle say the same Authors and being very much troubled at the chattering of a Swallow commanded him in the name of St. Franciâ— to come to him and hold his peace which the Swallow immediately did Another time as St. Francis was passing through the Marshes of Venice he heard a great number of Birds singing pleasantly together he told his companion he would go and sing prayers among them which he did but because the noise was so great they could not hear prayers he bid them leave off singing till he had done Which they did as readily as if they had made the vow of obedience But this spirit of devotion did not fall upon the Birds alone for he instructed a Sheep to attend prayers which she constantly did kneeling and bleating before the Altar of the Blessed Virgin which was her way of saluting her O but at the elevation of the Host she fell down upon her knees in token of her profound reverence We need not now wonder at the devout Dog of Lisbon whose story is told with so much circumstance by Eusebius Nierembergius that belonged to a Cook of Lisbon and constantly followed the Sacrament whereever it went and could by no means be drawn off from his attendance and not only so but would let no persons be quiet if they did not pay their devotion to the Sacrament I think it would be a hard case to determine whether St. Francis his Sheep or the Lisbon Dog or St. Anthony's Mule had the greatest devotion to the Host it is certain they were all very extraordinary in their severy kinds But it was not only such mild creatures as Sheep that were thus obedient to St. Francis but being once to preach at Trevi in the market place the young Fole of an Ass ran up and down and very much disturbed him at last St. Francis with a pleasing Countenance said to him Brother Ass I desire thee to stand still and not interrupt the word of God which I am now Preaching to this thirsty people Upon which the Ass moved belike to see the humility of this good man in owning his poor kindred fell upon his knees and heard the Sermon quite out Was any miracle like these ever done by Christ or his Apostles But did St. Francis work no other kind of miracles Yes we are told of many more and of another nature but they are all delivered by the same persons and upon the same credit so that if we believe some upon their words we ought to take all if we reject some and take others we believe not upon their testimony but our own judgement One thing more is so remarkable that we ought not to omit it viz. that St. Antonin applying that place of the Psalms to him he sus upon the Cherubim and rides upon the wings of the wind makes it plain from thence that St. Francis being above the Cherubim was of the order of â—eraphim for which reason or for none E. W. calls him the Seraphical St. Francis and to make this out they tell us that he appeared in a Chariot of Fire among his Disciples but what was moâ—e miraculous he and his Brother Massaeus going to Preach he was so set on fire with zeal and devotion that he seemed to cast flames out of his mouth and called his Br. Massaeus to him crying A. a. a. with the force of which breath Frier Massaeus was carried up into the air many cubits saith Wadding Nay it was no extraordinary thing with St. Francis himself to be so raised up for Frier Leo who was permitted to be with him in his retirement to Monte d' Alverno found him sometimes so high in the air in a rapture that he could just kiss his feet sometimes up to the middle of the trees and sometimes so high that he could hardly discern him especially in a dark night But the most glorious miracle of St. Francis was that of the bleeding wounds of Christ in his side and hands and feet as to which it is observable that they were so wonderfully concealed that no man could ever fully discern them in his life time only Frier Ruffin once thought he spied the wound in his side And although many ways were used to convince men of the truth of these wounds after his death yet to me there was none like