constitute it in the notion of faith divine because the faith so stiled is supposed to rest always on an higher ground viz. Revelation Divine 10. That the infallibility of the Church grounded on Divine Revelation and believed by a divine faith is a main ground and pillar of a Catholicks faith for any other articles thereof that are established by the sam◠Churches Definitions where the Scriptures or Tradition Apostolick are to him doubtful Of which ground and assurance of such points believed by Catholicks from the Churches infallible Authority the Protestant◠faith is destitute § 3. These are the Principles upon which this Guide in Controversies undertakes to clear this intricate Question and to free their resolution of faith from the danger of a circle I have but two small things to object against this way 1. That it gives up the cause in dispute 2. That notwithstanding it doth not avoid the main difficulties 1. That it gives up the cause in Dispute◠which was whether the Infallible Testimony of the Church be the necessary Foundation of Divine Faith for upon occasion of the supposed necessity of this Infallibility the Question was first started this Infallibility being asserted to be necessary by T. C. and was the thing I chiefly opposed in the discourse of the Resolution of Faith Now this the Guide in Controversies freely yields to me and consequently the main Foundation of Faith asserted by my Adversary is destroyed as plainly appears by the third Proposition wherein he affirms that an external infallible proponent is not necessary to divine Faith But this he doth not barely affirm but he saith it is copiously proved by many learned Catholicks and to this purpose he cites Cardinal Lugo speaking of Divine Faith who saith that the infallibility of the Church cannot be the first Ground of Divine Faith because this Infallible Authority of the church by Assistance of the Holy Ghost is it self an article of Divine Faith And experience tells us that all Children or adult persons first coming to the Faith do not apprebend much less infallibly believe this Infallible Authority in the Church before any other article of Faith And in the Law of Nature and under the Law of Moses the Churches proposition was not necessary in order to faith but the instruction of Parents was sufficient in one and the doctrine of Moses and the Prophets in the other before their Prophecies were received by the Church He cites Estius likewise speaking of this Divine and Salvifical faith that it is not material to faith what medium God makes use of to bestow this gift of Faith upon men many having believed that knew nothing of the Churches infallibility He cites Layman asserting that it often comes to pass that other articles of our faith are explicitly believed before that of the Churches Infallibility and withal this Infallibility of the Church depends upon the promise of the spirit therefore men must first believe that there is a spirit of God and consequently the holy Trinity Farther saith he it is plain that the primitive Christians did believe with divine Faith not for the Authority of the Church which either was not founded yet when St. Peter believed Christ to be the Son of the living God or had not defined any doctrines of Faith Again he denies the Churches Authority to be the formal principle or motive of Faith and that for this very good reason because this infallible Authority of the Church is one of the things to be believed Nay he cites Fa. Knot himself in his reply to Chillingworth affirming Christians may have a true Infallible Divine Faith of which faith they have only a fallible proponent nor are infallibly certain thereof i. e. as to the proponent I now appeal to the indifferent reader whether the main thing contended for by me viz. that the infallible Testimony of the Church is not necessary in order to Faith be not here fully granted to me 2. But yet the account of Faith here given is very far from clearing the chief difficulties of it as will appear by these two things 1. That this resolution of Divine Faith is very unsatisfactory in it self ◠2. That it is liable to the absurdities which he seeks to avoid by it 1. That the resolution of Divine Faith laid down by him is very unsatisfactory in it self the principles of which are these 1. That Divine Faith must rest upon Divine Revelation 2. This Divine Revelation upon which faith is built is that which is first made known to the person and from which he proceeds to other matters of faith 3. This Divine Revelation is not one and the same to all but to some the Authority of the Scriptures to some the Authority of the Church to some Apostolical Tradition 4. Divine Faith must rest upon this Revelation with an immediate assent to it without enquiring further for if there be any further process there must be so in infinitum or a circle 5. That the Holy Ghost doth illuminate the understanding of him that believes both as to the veracity of God and the truth of his Revelation and causes such a firm adherence of faith as many times far exceeds that of any humane Science or demonstrations But in this way I can neither be satisfied 1. What that particular divine Revelation is which this divine Faith doth rest upon Not 2. How this Faith can equally rest in several persons upon several ways Nor 3. How it can rest with an immediate assent upon any way Nor 4. Wherein this way differs from resolving Faith into the Testimony of the Spirit § 4. I cannot understand what that particular divine Revelation is into which as into it◠prime extrinsecal motive Faith is here resolved The thing enquired after is the reason of believing the truth of what God hath publickly revealed to mankind as we say he hath done the Doctrines of Christianity the ultimate resolution of divine Faith as to this I am told is that particular divine Revelation which is first made known to a man i◠this particular divine Revelation the sam◠with Gods publick and general Revelation o◠distinct from it If it be the same it can offer no reason for my Faith unless the same thing may be proved by it self if it be different then God makes use of particular divine Revelations to men different from his publick into which they are to resolve their Faith Suppose then the Question be thus put why do you believe that Christ shall come to judge the quick and the dead The general Answer is because God that cannot lie hath revealed it but then the Question returns on what ground do you believe this Revelation to have been from God with such a divine Faith as must rest upon divine Revelation For such you assert to be necessary To this the Guide in Controversies Answers that the ultimate resolution of a Christians divine Faith is into that particular divine
and Hieronymus Brizids and the rest of the subscribers as great Friends to the Church of Rome and as much conceâ—ned for the honour of it as Soâ—rates could be for the Novatians why then should their testimony for the restored Legat Zâ—ragosa be more creditable than Socrates his for Paulus the Novatian Bishop So that if interest takes away all authority in these matters then we cannot safely believe the Testimony of any in the Church of Rome for the miracles wrought in it if notwithstanding that the Authority of witnesses stands good then miracles may be wrought in heretical or schismatical Churches and consequently can prove nothing as to the truth or infallibility of the Church But neither the Novatians nor Arians nor Donatists were convicted of so many forgeries in this matter of miracles as those of the Church of Rome have been they never thoâ—ght it lawful that we can find to teâ—l lies for the honour of their Church both which we have already proved concerning the reporters of miracles in the Roman Church and therefore their Testimony ought more to be suspected in this matter than that of honest Heathens or Hereticks 2. They answer that notwithstanding all the outward appearance of miracles the things done by them might be no true miracles So Malderus goes on saying that the pretended miracle of Paulus the Novatian Bishop was not such as did exceed the power of the Devil And Bellarmin grants that there can be no infallible certainty of the truth of a miracle before the approbation of the Church the reason he gives is this because though the Devil can do no true miracles yet he can do the greatest to appearance Now I would sain understand this how miracles can prove the truth and infallibility of the Church if the truth of miracles depends upon the Churches approbation i. e. whether I must not first believe the Church to be true before I can possibly be certain whether a miracle be true or not I know Bellarmin saith that the Church is proved by miracles not as to infallible certainty but as to the evidence of credibility But what evidence of credibility can there be from miracles where no one can be certain whether they be miraclâ—s or not For the making faith credible by miracles doth suppose those miracles to be first certainly known to be such but in this case if the power of the Devil can extend so far as that no certain difference can be assigned between true and apparent miracles but from the Churches approbation how is it possible the Church should be certainly known by miracles if the miracles cannot be certainly known but by the Church So that for us to distinguish the miracles done by Hereticks and those in the Catholick Church we must appeal to the judgement of the Catholick Church and yet our way to know which is the Catholick Church saith E. W. and his Brethren must be by miracles i. e. we must know a man by such marks which we cannot know to be the marks of such a man till we first know the man But it may be others speak more consistently and reasonably in this matter and therefore 3. They answer that although Hereticks may do real miracles yet not for the confirmation of their heresie but of some common truth So the same Malderus saith that the Novatian miracle being granted to be true doth not confirm the errour of the Novatians but the truth of the Sacrament for the Jew was baptized before by the Arians and Macedonians So 〈◊〉 Medina salves the miracles wrought among the Pagans that they did give testimony to divine providence and not to their particular superstitions Fevardentius confesses the Church hath never determined that Hereticks cannot work true miracles and that those who hold the affimative have plain Testimonies of Fathers for them which he there mentions If this be true then miracles now can prove nothing as to the Truth or infallibility of the Church when the communions of Christians are different from each other for the miracles wrought may only be for the attestation of some common truths received among all Christians or to manifest the Providence of God to the world Among their late writers none hath considered this difficulty with more care and diligence than Father Lingendes hath done both with a respect to the miracles of Heathens and Hereticks To which he thus answers 1. That for the most paâ—t they were false and counterseit at least they were not true miracles if the name of miracle be taken strictly and properly for saith he either they were meer illusions of the senses or they did not exceed any created power either in the substance or the manner of them and therefore the Devils might easily effâ—ct them 2. That some circumstances did discover the imposture when true miracles were wrought in opposition to them as in Pharaohs Magicians and Simon Magus otherwise God would not permit evil men to work miracles 3. That God hath given a most certain rule for the tryal of miracles viz. God is faithful and cannot deny himself and therefore he cannot be the Author of miracles whereby things contrary to each other are confirmed Wherefore saith he if a saith once established by miracles be impugned by other miracles we are to believe the latter miracles to be meer imposture For the Apostle tells us that Jesus Christ is not yea and nay but a Yea and Amen and although we or an Angel from heaven preach another Gospel let him be Anathema See the wisdom of the Apostle He brings us back to the first preaching which was not lightly established but with innumerable miracles which were most certain and most manifest from whence he concludes that all others that are brought to confirm any doctrine contrary to this ought to be rejected But of what sort even though an Angel or an Apostle should preach another doctrine for saith he among things impossible that is the most impossible that God should lie which is far more impossible than that an Angel should and consequently what God hath once attested by miracles can be less salse than when an Angel hath attested or the Apostle spake this that by this means we may discover the Devil when he transforms himself into an Angel of light 4. If any true miracles were wrought among Heathens and Infidels as it may be some were yet none were ever wrought to confirm any falshood or error but for some truth or some benefit to mankind among which he reckons the miracles of Claudia the Roman Lady and of the vestal virgin to give testimony to their innocency After this he descends to a more particular examination of the miracles of Hereticks and false Christians and as to these he lays down these propositions 1. That miracles are of two kinds some strictly and properly so called which are effects exceeding all created Powers either as to the substance or the manner of them as the curing a
abundance of lies while the Writer indulges his own passion and sets down not what the Saints did but what he would have had him done so that in their lives we see the mind of the Writer and not the truth For there have been those who thought it a piecâ— of pieâ—y to tell lies for Religion which is a very dangerous thing lest by that means the true be rejected for the sake of the false This saying of Vives Melchior Canus a man highly esteemed in the Church of Rome recites and approves with a great deal more to the same purpose wherein he saith that the lives of the Philosophers are more severely written by Laertius than the Lives of the Saints by Christians and that Suetonius hath with more honesty and integrity delivered the acts of the Caesars than the Catholicks have done the Acts of Martyrs Virgins and Confessors And afterwards he charges them with wilful falsefying either only to deceive or to gain by it of which the one is sordid and the other pernicious and he produces some instances of such miracles which he saith are without number Neither doth he only understand this of such men as the Author of the Golden Legend or of the speculum exemplorum but he plainly confesses that their most grave Writers in reporting the miracles of Saints have followed uncertain reports and conveyed them to Posterity In which they either gave great liberty to themselves or yeilded too much to the desires of the People whom they found not only ready to believe these miracles but to be fond and greedy of them Therefore saith he they have reported some signs and miracles not that they did willingly believe them themselves but because they would not be wanting to the pious desire of the people which was it seems that they should tell lies to please them And if they had not their desires fully answered in this they were very insatiable After this he particularly instances in Bede and Gregory the one of which in his History the other in his Dialogues he charges with relating miracles upon common reports which the Criticks of thâ—â— Age will judge to be uncertain And we may be sure Canus who tells us what an excellent wit his Master Victoria said he had was one of them But is now the credibility of the miracles in the Roman Church to be compared with that of Christ and his Apostles Did they who writ the miracles recorded of them indulge their own affections and make Tales to please the people as we see Canus saith their gravest Writers of Miracles did Or did they take up things upon common rumors and from thence divulge them to posterity as we see Canus charges even St. Gregory and St. Bede with doing What would become of our Christianity if we had no better grounds to believe the miracles of Christ and his Apostles If any should say so of the reporters of their miracles they would be justly charged with betraying the Doctrine of Christianity and making it suspectd to be a fourb an Imposture a fabulous story as E. W. speaks in the case of the miracles related by St. Antonin And yet Mâ—lchior Canus expresly saith of him that he did not make it his business to wriâ—â— what wâ—â— true and certain but to let nothing pass that he could meet with And that he and Vincentius Belovacensis were so far from weighing what they writ in an exact ballance that they did not so much as make use of a common judgement Whereas our Critical E. W. saith And who dares say that so great a Doctor and most modest Prelate as St. Antonin was so frontless as to write that we read without assurance and certainty We see Melchior Canus dares say it and that not only of St. Antonin whom he looks on as far inferior to the other but of his venerable Bede too whom E. W. calls a great Scholar and a man highly esteemed the whole Christian world over I shall not go about to diminish his reputation in other things but he had need of a good easie faith that can swallow the miracles related by him whether those of St. Cuthbert which E. W. mentions or others What must we think of the Angels appearing to S. Cuthbert a horseback when he was a boy and prescribing him a Poultess to cure his sore knee and of his seeing the Gates of Heaven opened and the soul of St. Aidan conveyed through them by a troop of Angels Of his receiving three hot loaves from an Angel that were whiter than lillies smelt beyond roses and tasted sweeter than hony Of his frighting the crows from stealing the thatch off from the Covent and the penance they submitted to for the injury they had done and the satisfaction they made by bringing him a good piece of Lard with which he used afterwards to grease his Boots Of the vertue of his shoo 's in curing a man of a Palsie after St. Cuâ—â—bert's death being put on upon his feet Of these I shall only ask E. W's Question An any such sâ—en now a days wrought among Protestant Bishops No God knows their faith is a stranger to such kind of miracles But what shall we say to Canus who takes away the Authority of St. Gregory too as well as Bede in this matter of miracles I know Baronius falls very soul upon Canus for speaking so freely of St. Gregory in this particular especially because he doth not mention those miracles which he looks on as undeserving credit but I think he ought to have thanked him for his modesty and silence herein in not exposing Gregories credulity to contempt by insisting upon them But in truth St. Gregory in those Books of Dialogues for I see no reason to deny them to be his own was the Father of Legends and most of the others afterwards were made in imitation of his as might be particularly made appear by many Instances And Bede followed the Copy which Gregory had set him and from hence such a swarm of Legends arose that in the succeeding Ages it is hard to say whether there were more Ignorance or Wonders To give only a tast of some of the miracles reported by Gregory the first is of Honoratus the Abbot that stopt a great stone in the middle of its falling from a great mountain by making the sign of the cross towards it and there it is seen hanging as it were in the air But in my opinion St. Dunstan out-did him who not only saith Capgrave stopt a piece of Timber so falling but with the sign of the cross made it return back to the place from whence it sell. This was the greater miracle although the other had more to shew for it if the stone had hung quite in the air which I confess I do a little question Libertinus raised one from the dead by Honoratus his shoe being laid upon his breast saith Gregory as St. Cuthberts shoo 's in Bede
evidence of the truth of them as may apparently distinguish them from all false pretences For if they give no other answers to such pretences of miracles as they condemn in others but what will destroy the Authority of the miracles asserted by themselves then they can prove no more the Churches infallibility by their miracles than either Philosophers Heathens or Hereticks could do by theirs If the bare pretence of miracles would serve for all that I know Pythagoras might deserve at least as much esteem as St. Francis or St. Dominick for the Scholars of the one delivered as unanimously the report of his miracles as the Disciples of the other could do Pythagoras his taming the Daunian Bear reported saith Porphyrie in his life by ancient Writers of good credit and charging him never after to hurt any living Creature was to my understanding as great a miracle as St. Francis his taming the Wolf And his whispering the Tarentine Bull in the ear and perswading him to eat no more bean's who for his great abstinence afterwards was called the sacred Bull was altogether as good an argument of the restoring the State of Innocency to him as the command over brute Creatures was to St. Francis or any other Legendary Saints The Rivers saluting him whether it were called Caucasus as Porphyrie hath it or Nessus as Laertius and Jamblichus or Cosas as Aelian or what ever were the true name of it was as great an argument of his Sanctity as the Trees in Tursellinus howing to the Chappel of Loreto were of the miraculous sanctity of it Why should not his being seen at the same time at Metapont in Italy and Tauromenium in Sicily be as great a wonder as the being seen in several places at once has being reported of several of the Romish Saints Why should not his golden thigh be as miraculous as the restored Leg at Zaragosa unless the Priest Abaris be proved a falser witness than Hieronimus Brizids or the people of Zarogosa less suspected of partiality than the Greeks at the Olympick games at which some Authors tell us Pythagoras shewed his Golden thigh Why should St. Francis his Asse that stood still to hear him preach be more miraculous than the Asse which Suidas reports heard Ammonianus his Lectures Why should the speaking of Images in the Roman Church prove the infallibility of the Church of Rome more than it did in old Heathen Rome for as the Roman Breviary saith that an Image spake to Aquinas and commended his writings so the old Roman Writers say that the Image of Fortune spake not once but twice to the Matrons and commended their dedication of her and so did the Image of Juno Moneta at Veij to the Souldier that asked her whether she would go to Rome to whom she answered shâ— would Why may not Aesculapius his cure of the woman in his Templeat Epidaurus mentioned by Aelian be thought as strange as Xaverius his appearing to Fr. Marcellus Mastrilli at Naples and curing him upon his promise to go to the Indies which is another of the miracles so much magnified by E. W. If there be any difference that of Aesculapius seems the greater miracle Why should not the miracles attributed to the Emperours Vespasian Adrian and Aurelian related by Tacitus suetonius Spartianus and Vopiscus have as much credit at least as those of the Legendary Saints since the Writers of them are looked on as men of more sincerity and integrity by those of their own Church than the Authors of the Lives of the Saints are But to come yet nearer how can their pretended miracles prove the Church they are wrought in to be the true Church and infallible since by their own confession miracles to all appearance as great have been wrought among hereticks and in a false Church And by the Answers they give to these we shall easily judge how far they can give evidence of the truth of their own miracles The Ecclesiastical Historians report several miracles that have been wrought by Hereticks and Schismaticks Philostorgius attributes the power of miracles to the Arian Bishops to Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia to Agapetus Bishop of Synada of whom he saith that he raised the dead and healed all sorts of diseases to Theophilus to Aëtius Eunomius Leontius Candidus Evagrius Arrianus and Florentius Socrates attributes the same power to the Novatians as to Paulus the Bishop of that party when he was to baptize the Jewish Impostor and the water miâ—â—aculously disappeared And Sozomen to Eutychianus of the same party And the Donatists to Pontius and Donatus as we have already seen from St. Augustin Now if the tryal of the Church in those day 's had been by miracles I would fain know on which side the advantage had been St. Chrysostom disowns any such thing as a continuance of the power of miracles in the Bishops of the Catholick Church as besides the places already produced to that purpose may be seen in several others wherein he supposes that there is not so much as a foot step of that power of miracles left in the Church which was in the Apostles he asserts that God hath put a stop to miracles that he doth not give it to the most worthy persons that they were intended only for unbelievers and that there is no need of them where the Christian faith is settled What now should be said in this case for it is just the same as between us and the Church of Rome the Catholick Bishops pretended no more to a Power of miracles than the Protestant Bishops do now but the Arians Eunomians Novatians and Donatists all challenged this power of miracles to themselves therefore it is a plain case if the Church of Rome be now in the right then so were these Heretical and Schismatical parties if the Protestants be mistaken so were St. Chrysostom and the Bishops of the Caâ—holick Châ—râ—h But what answer now do these men give to these instances even such as very easily returns upon â—hemselves and upon the very same grounds we may oveâ—throw the Authority of their miraclâ—s 1. They say the testimony of the writers ought to â—e suspected of parâ—â—ality to their own side So Mâ—laerus answers the Testimony of Socrates saying that he either fâ—igned or related these miracles to the honour of his own party but this answer is both false and destrâ—ctive to tâ—emselves It is false becauâ—e notwithstanding what Bâ—ronius Labbè and otâ—ers have said Socrates â—as no Novatian as Henri Valesius hath well proved in his preface to his History But suppose he were must the Authority of all Persons be taken away that relate things to the honour of their own Church what then becomes of all the miracles of the Roman Church are they attested by any but such who are well wishers to the truth of them and that may go a great way in the belief of them Were not Gabriel de Aldama the Vicar General