both his Books lies in this one word Infallibility But it is time to fall to my business for fear of more Advertisements and Infallibility being the main design of his Books that shall be the subject of my present debate with him And because this E. W. is a great pretender to Principles the method I shall proceed in shall be first to consider his Principles and then to defend my own For which I shall chiefly make use of his last Book it being in effect but another edition of his former the other as I suppose being disposed of to better purposes than to be read for I never heard of one person in England that read it over However what there is material in it different from the last as to the present controversie I shall upon occasion take notice of The two main Principles he builds upon are these 1. That without an Infallible Church there can be no certainty of Faith 2. That the Roman-Catholick Church is this Infallible Church If he can prove these two he shall not need any more to establish their Religion or to overthrow ours And I will say that for his praise that he hath brought the controversie into a narrow compass for he confesses it is endless to dispute out of Scripture and Fathers since witty men by their fallâ—ble Glosses can turn and winde them which way they please but there is nothing so stiff and inflexible as a standing infallible Oracle in the Church which being once believed all Controversie is at an end But we may as soon hope to see all other controversies ended by dry blows as this Principle proved to the satisfaction of any reasonable man The main proofs for the necessity of the Churches Infallibility which he insists upon are these 1. That there can be no Divine Faith without it 2. There can be no certainty as to the Canon or edition or sense of Scripture 3. There can be as little certainty as to the sense of the Fathers or the Primitive Church 1. That there can be no divine Faith without it This he frequently insists upon in both his Books and with so much vehemency as to make the deniers of Infallibility to overthrow all Faith and Religion Which being a charge of the highest nature ought to be made good by the clearest evidence Whether that which E. W. produces be so I shall leave any one to judge when I have given an Account of his Principles as to this matter In his first Book called Protestancy without Principles he begins with this subject and lays down these assertions upon which all his Discourse is built 1. That Gods infallible Revelation requires an infallible Assent of Faith or an infallible verity revealed to us forcibly requires an answerable and correspondent infallible assent of Faith in us the contrary he calls wild Doctrine this subjective infallibility as he calls it he offers very wisely to prove from those places of Scripture which speak of the assurance which Christians had of the truth of their Religion 2. This infallible assent of Faith doth require infallible Teachers for infallible believers and infallible Teachers are correlatives And in the second Chapter he goes about to prove it because if Christs infallible Doctrine be only fallibly taught no man hath certainty what it is and seeing what is fallible may be false Christs Doctrine may not be taught at all which is infallible and cannot be false and he that should abjure this fallible Doctrine doth not deny therein Christs Doctrine and cannot be upon that account an Heretick But to make Faith Infallible he asserts That every Preacher sent by the infallible Church as a member conjoyned with it is infallible in his Teaching and on the contrary whosoever renounces an Infallible society cannot teach with certainty Christs infallible Doctrine From whence he saith follows an utter ruine of Christian Religion In his third Chapter he further proves That if the Church were fallible in her Teaching God would oblige us to believe a falsity because God commands men to hear the Church and if the Church may erre then men are obliged to believe a false Doctrine taught by her And all other means short of this Infallibility would be insufficient for preserving Christian Religion in the world In the fourth Chapter he comes to a particular consideration of divine Faith and from thence proves the necessity of infallibility Faith saith he requires two things essentially an object which is Gods Revelation and a Proposition of this object by Vertue of which the elicit act of Faith follows in a believer and intellectually lays as it were hold both oâ— Gods Revelation and the thing revealed Now to prove the necessity of such an infallible Proposition in order to divine Faith hoâ— lays down some abstruse Propositions 1. That Gods infallible Revelation availâ— nothing in order to Faith unless Christianâ— by their Faith lay hold on the certainly thereof or owne it as infallible and the assured ground of their Assent 2. That the measure and degrees of certitude in the assent are according to those which the Proponent gives to the Revelation If he teaches doubtfully the assent is doubtful if probably the assent is probable is infallibly the assent is infallible the reason which he gives of this is because an object revealed receives its light from the proposal as an object of sight doth from the light of the air As long therefore saith he as the infallibility of a Revelation stands remote from me for want of an undoubted application made by an infallible proponent it can no more transfuse certainty into Faith than Fire at a great distance warm that is no more than if it were not certain in it self or not at all in Being 3. From hence he saith it follows that Protestants can only doubtfully guess at what they are to believe and consequently never yet had nor can have Divine certain and infallible Faith Because they cannot â—ropose Faith infallibly Hence he proceeds Chapter fifth and sixth to disprove Moral Cerâ—ainty as insufficient in order to Faith and destroying as he saith The very being and â—ssence of Divine and supernatural Faith because the sole and adequate object of divine and supernatural Faith is Gods infinite veracity actually speaking to us but this infinite veracity when it is duly proposed transsuseth more certainty into the elicit act of Faith than any Moral Certainty derived â—rom inferiour motives can have For all Moral Certainty is at least capable of falsity and may deceive us Gods infallible veracity cannot be false nor deceive if Faith rest upon that Motive and if it rest not there it is no Faith at all Nay he asserts that supernatural Faith is more certain and infallible than all the Metaphysical Sciences which nature can give us For which he gives this plain reason Because the infinite veracity of God which only supporteth Faith with greater force energy and necessity transfuseth into it a supereminent
Imprimatur Sam. Parker R. in Christo Patri ac D no. D no. Gilberto Arch. Episc. Cantuar. Ã sac Dom. April 15. 1673. A SECOND DISCOURSE IN VINDICATION OF THE Protestant Grounds of Faith Against the Pretence of INFALLIBILITY In the ROMAN CHURCH In Answer to The Guide in Controversies by R. H Protestancy without Principles AND Reason and Religion or the Certain Rule of Faith by E. W. With a particular Enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church By Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty LONDON Printed by R. W. for H. Martlock at the Sign of the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard and at the White Hart in Westminster Hall 1673. To the Right Honourable ANTHONY Earl of SHAFTSBURY Lord High Chancellour OF ENGLAND c. My Lord I HOPE it will not be thought unseasonable to make an Address of this nature to Your Lordship in the Beginning of Term since the great Cause at present in Your Court as one of late pleasantly said is thaet between the King and the Pope between our Church and the Church of Rome And while so many Witnesses are daily sworn of the Kings and the Churches side it may not be improper to lay open to Your Lordship the Nature and Merits of the Cause A Cause My Lord which was at first set on Foot by Ambition carried on by Faction and must therefore be maintained by the like means but can never hope to prevail among us again till subjection to a Forreign Power can be thought our Interest and to part at once with Reason and Religion be esteemed our Honour It is a Cause much of the nature of some others depending before Your Lordship more vexatious than difficult and managed by such Advocates who being retained in the Cause though they have nothing material to say for it yet are ashamed to be silent Who are alwayes disputing about an end of Controversies but at the same time do their utmost to increase and perpetuate them and are ready to foment our differences that they may make use of them to their own advantage While we have such restless Adversaries to deal with part of our danger lyes in being too secure of the Goodness of our Cause and methinks there can be little satisfaction in lying still or quarrelling with each other when we know our common enemies to be at work undermining of us But whatever repose others enjoy my Adversaries seem to deal with me as some do with those whom they suspect of Witchcraft they think by pinching me so often and keeping me from taking rest to make me say at last as they would have me But the comfort is as long as I am secure of my senses I am of my Religion against theirs if I once lose them or my understanding I know not whether it may be my fortune to be carried to Rome or some more convenient place And in my opinion they deal with those under their care as if they believed them not to be in their right senses for they keep them alwayes in the dark and think nothing more dangerous than to let in light upon them Wherein I cannot deny but considering the nature of their Cause they take the most effectual course to maintain it for it not being capable of enduring a severe tryal nothing can preserve its reputation but Ignorance and Credulity which are therefore in so great esteem among them that if it were a Custome to Canonize Things as well as Persons we might find those sacred names in their Litanies and addresses as solemn made to them as ever were to Faith and Vertue among the elder and wiser Romans I need not go far for an Instance of their design to advance even in this Inquisitive Age the Honour of these two great Pillars of their Church For if your Lordship shall be pleased to cast Your eye on the following Discourse especially that part which concerns the Miracles of the Roman Church You will find fufficient evidence of it almost in every Page When I first engaged in this Controversie I could hardly believe what I now see that they would ever have brought it to this issue with me viz. That they would renounce all claim to Infallibility if they did not produce as great Miracles wrought in their Church to attest it as ever were wrought by Christ or his Apostles The boldness of which assertion and the pernicious influence of it upon Christianity it self hath made me take the more pains in the examination of it Which I have done with so much care in consulting their own approved Authors that I hope at last they will grow ashamed of that groundless calumny that I do not deal fairly in the citing of them A calumny so void of proof that I could desire no better argument of a baffled Cause than such impertinent Clamours But if impudent sayings will serve their turn they need never fear what can be written against them Do they indeed think me a man so void of common sense as to expose my self so easily to the contempt of every one that will but take pains to compare my citations Have I the Books only in my own keeping or are they so rare that they cannot get a sight of them How then come they to know them to be false quoted But alas they are men of business and have not leisure to search out and compare Books and therefore the shortest way is to say that without doubt they are all false Their numbers certainly are not so small nor their business so great but they might have spared some to have undertaken this task particularly if I had been faulty and in my mind it had been of some consequence to have freed their Church from those heavy imputations of Fanaticism and destroying the necessity of a good life from the Testimony of their own Authors But if these could not move them I desire them not to spare me in this present subject of Miracles wherein I profess to relye on the Testimony of their own Writers if they shew me any wilful mistakes therein I will endeavour to give them publick satisfaction Were I not well assured My Lord of the Strength of my Evidence as well as of the Goodness of my Cause I should never have appeared in it before a Person of so sharp and piercing a Judgement as Your Lordship But I have the rather presumed to offer this Discourse into Your Lordships hands and to send it abroad under the Protection of Your Name not only thereby to acknowledge the particular Favours I have received from Your Lordship but to thank You on a more publick Account I mean for Your late generous owning the Cause of our Religion and Church in so Critical a time which not only gives a present Lustre to Your Name but will preserve it with Honour to Posterity I am My Lord Your Lordships most obliged and faithful Servant Edward Stillingfleet The Contents CHAP. 1. An answer to
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
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
Leg cut off and strangely restored or that some persons were suddenly cured of a dangerous disease by the vision of an Apostle would this have ever satisfied the world that the Apostles were Persons sent from God and assisted by an infallible Spirit Supposing the matters of Fact were true it might be reasonably demanded why God might not do such extraordinary cures in some rare cases without making that Company of men infallible among whom they are done For we see their own Writers acknowledge that God may do real miracles even among Pagans and Infidels to give testimony to his universal Providence And Suarez particularly distinguisheth in this case of miracles saying that a miracle may be wrought two ways 1. Without respect to any truth at all to be confirmed by it but only for the benefit of him that receives it as in case of a miraculous cure or such like 2. When it is wrought purposely to confirm the truth of a doctrine Now I say supposing I should grant all that E. W. contends for as to the truth of the two miracles he insists so much upon viz. the cure of F. Marcellus and the restored Leg at Zaragosa what can this prove as to their Churches infallibility if according to Suarez such miracles may be wrought only for the benefit of those who receive them Del-Rio saith this is no good consequence such a one wrought miracles therefore his faith is true because God may work miracles by Insidels but this consequence he saith is good such a one wrought miracles to confirm the faith which he professed therefore his saith is true because God cannot work miracles purposely to confirm a falshood But withall he saith elsewhere that the faith being now established there is little or no necessity of miracles to confirm it Supposing then some true miracles to be wrought in the Roman Church what consequence can be thence drawn for that Churches infallibility in doctrine if those miracles are not wrought for that end as E. W. never undertook to prove that they were And if the consequence will not hold as to a particular person for the truth of his faith from the bare working of miracles neither can it for the truth or infallibility of a Church for the same reason for if God may work miracles by Infidels he may likewise in a false or corrupt Church Maldonat another Jesuit confesseth that since the Christian Religion hath been confirmed by miracles in the Churches beginning there is no necessity of miracles for that end and quotes Gregory and Bede for it who compare the power of miracles to the watering of a plant which is only needâ—ul at first and is given over when it hath taken root So that whatever miracles they suppose to remain in the Church they do not look on them as wrought for the confirmation of any necessary part of Christian faith such as the Churches Infallibility is asserted to be by E. W. Andradius saith that miracles are oftimes false but always weak proofs of a true Church Ferus that the doctrine of a Church is not to be proved by miracles but miracles by the doctrine viz. because Christ hath forewarned us of false Prophets doing so many signs and wonders So that Acosta saith that in the time of Antichrist it will be a hard matter to discern true and false signs when these later shall be many and great and very like the true and he quotes it from Hippolytus whom he calls an antient Writer that Antichrist shall do far greater miracles than the cure of Marcellus or the restored Leg at Zaragosa viz. that be shall raise the dead as well as cure the diseased and have command over all the elements And I would understand from E. W. whether Antichrists Church will not then be proved as insallible in this way as the Church of Rome Cajetan determines that the Church hath no ground to determine any matter of doctrine now on the account of miracles because the Dâ—vil may do such things which we cannot distinguish from true miracles as in great cures c. and because signs were given for unbelievers but the Church â—ow hath the Revelation of Prophets and Apostles to proceed by and because miracles prove only a personal faith i. e. of one that saith he is sent from God and because the doctrine of the Scripture is delivered to us with so much certainty that if an Angel from Heaven should deliver any thing contrary to it we are not to believe him and lastly because the most authentick testimonies of miracles among them viz. in the Canonization of Saints are not altogether certain because it is written every man is a lyer and he supposes that faith must stand on a more infallible certainty than that of their miracles And many of their most learned Writers do assert that there can be no certainty of the truth of any miracles among them but from the Churches approbation which is in effect to say they do not believe the Church infallible because of their miracles but they believe their miracles to be true because they believe their Church to be infallible For which Paulus Zacchias gives this reason because wicked men and Devils may not only do miracles in appearance but such as are really so as the instruments of divine Power and because credulous people are very apt to be deceived with false miracles instead of true And after he hath laid down the conditions of a true miracle he hath a chapter on purpose to enquire why since miracles very rarely happen yet so many are still pretended to in the Roman Church One cause he assigns of it is the monstrous credulity of their people in this matter of miracles who make so many that he saith if they were to be believed miracles would be almost as common as the ordinary effects of nature for no odd or unusual accident happens but among them passes for a miracle no man escapes out of a dangerous disease especially if by the disturbance of his Fancy he imagines he had a vision of some Saint as Xaverius or the like but he gives out he obtained his recovery by a miracle no man avoids any great danger or trouble if he chanced to think of the Blessed Virgin in it or made any addresses to some Saint for I do not find that praying to God or Christ is so effectual for miracles as praying to the Saints is but this is cryed up for a miracle Riolanus gives the relation of a man that was hanged and his body delivered to the Physitians to be dissected who found there was some lise in him and by letting blood and other means they recovered him who afterwards returning to his own Country Oetingen where there was a celebrated image of the Blessed Virgin this very recovery was there painted for a substantial miracle But to return to Zacchias miracles saith he are made so common among
Gods word which I hope is an Oracle altogether as infallible as the Church But the question is whether such a one may be divided from Gods infallible Truth or not if not he is absolutely infallible if he may then what security hath any one to rely upon him upon such a conditional Infallibility which he can have no assurance of But still he hopes to retort the Instances upon me I never saw such a way of retorting in my whole life My design was to prove by these Instances that an infallible Testimony of a Church was not necessary in order to Faith he saith I must solve my own difficulties I confess I see none at all in my way that need to be answered for I assert that men may have sufficient Grounds of Faith without an infallible Proponent Well but he supposes all these Barbarians converted to Christ to have had true Faith and consequently prudent Motives to believe before they firmly assented to the Divine Revelation And so do I too But what were these motives To this Question he saith I return the strangest answer he ever heard for I seem to make the motives inducing to faith nothing but the Rational evidence of the Truth of the Doctrine delivered and therefore I grievously complain that they destroy the obligation which ariseth from the Rational evidence of the Christian Religion upon which he discourses as though by rational evidence the self-evidencing light of the doctrine and consequently all the miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles were to no purpose Have not I reason to applaud my good fortune that I have met with so ingenuous an Adversary But I see those who write Controversies must be true Nethinims not only hewers of difficulties and drawers of the waters of contention but bearers of burdens too even such as their Adversaries please to lay upon them Could any thing be further from my meaning than by the rational evidence of Christianity to understand the self-evidencing light of the Scriptures But it is not what I say but what E. W. finds in his Common-place-Books a little before when I had proposed an argument he had not met with in those terms he presently fancied I meant another arguâ—ent which he found under the title of Defectilility of the Church and then in comes that with the answers he found ready to it Now for the rational evidence oâ— Christian Religion he finds not that Head in his Note-Books and cannot therefore tell what to make of it But an argument he had ready against the self-evidenâ—ing lighâ— of the Scriptures and therefore the Seraphims seather must serve instead of St. Larence's Gridiron He might have been easily satisfied in that very Paragraph what I mean by the rational evidence of Christian Religion viz. the unquestionable assurance which we have of the matters of fact and the miracles wrought by Christ for confirmation of his Doctrine and this within four lines after the words by him produced And in the foregoing paragraph I insist very much on the evidence of sense as to the miracles wrought by Christ as a great part of the rational â—vidence of Christianity which is destroyed by the doctrine of the Roman Church while transubstantiation is believed in it For what assurance can there be of any object of sense such as the miracles of Christ were and his Body after his Resurrection if we are so framed not only that our senses may be but we are bound to believe that they are actually deceived in as proper an object of sense as any in the world And if such a thing may be false what evidence can we have when any thing is true For if a thing so plain and evident to our senses may be false viz. that what I and all other men see is bread what ground of certainty can we have but that which my senses and all other mens judge to be false may be true For by this means the criterium both of sense and reason is destroyed and consequently all things are equally true and false to us and then farewel sense and reason and Religion together These things I there largely insist upon which is all very silently passed over the Schools having found no answers to such arguments and therefore they must be content to be let alone But however though arguments cannot be answered I desire they may not be mis-represented and that when I fully declare what I meanby rational evidence such a sense may not be put upon my words as I never dreamt off There is nothing after which looks with the face of an answer to theâ—e Instances unless it be that he saith that none can have infallible assurance either of our Savâ—ours Miracles or of any other verity recorded in Scripture independent of some actual living actual infallible and most clear evidenced Oracle by signs above the force of nature which in this present state is the Church These are good sayings and they want only proving and by the Instances already produced I have shewed that Persons did believe upon such evidence as implied no infallible Testimony and if he goes about to prove the Church infallible by such Miracles wrought by her as were wrought by the Apostles I desire only not to believe the Church infallible till I be satisfied about these Miracles but of that afterwards But I demanded if we can have no assurance of the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles without an Infallible Church what obligation can lie upon men to believe them who see no reason to believe any such Infallibility And since the Articles of our Faith are built upon matters of fact such as â—he death and resurrection of Jesus Christ whether these matters of fact may not be conveyed down in as unquestionable a manner as any others are Cannot we have an unquestionable assurance that there were such persons as Caesar and Pompey and that they did such and such things without some Infallible Testimony If we may in such things why not in other matters of fact which infinitely more concern the world to know than whatever Caesar or Pompey did This his Margin calls an unlearned objection and in the body of his Book saith I might have proposed a wiser Question an â—asier I grant I might as appears by the answer he gives it For two things he saith may be considered 1. That the man called Christ dyed upon the Crâ—ss and this he saith both Jews and Gentiles yet assent to upon Moral Cerâ—ainty but therefore do not believe in Christ. 2. That the man called Christ dying for us was the only Messias truly God the Redeemer of mankind Here we have he saith the hidden verities of Christian Religion the certain objects of faith conveyed unto us by no moral assurance but only upon Gods Infallible Revelation A very wise answer I must needs say if intolerable shuffling be any part of wisdom Read over my words again and be ashamed If so then men
known Miracles of those two admirable Saints Blessed St. Dominick and the Seraphical St. Francis and St. Vincentius Ferrerius reported by the pious and learned St. Antoninus Arch-Bishop of Florence From whence he infers that the Miracles wrought in the Roman-Catholick Church are not inferiour to those done by the Apostles and a little after Iâ— the Miracles of Christ and the Apostles rationally proved against Jews and Gentiles the credibility of Apostolical Doctrine the very like signs and supernatural effects most evident in the Roman-Catholick Church as rationally prove against Sectaries the credibility of our now professed Catholick-Doctrine for which he gives this reason The same signs and marks of Truth when equal in Majesty worth quality and number ever discover to reason the same Truth wherefore if the Roman-Catholick Church most clearly gives in evidence of her Miracles equal in worth quality and number with those wrought by Christ and his Apostles it follows that as those first Apostolical wonders were sufficient to convice Jews and Gentiles of the Truth of Christianity so these later also wrought in the Church are of like force and no less efficacious to convince Sectaries of whatever Doctrine she teaches Now ponder well what the Apostoles did they cured the sick dispossed Devils raised the dead converted nations c. but these very Miracles have been done in the Roman-Catholick Church yea and greater too Ergo we have the like evidence of Truth in both the Primitive Age and this consequently with it the same Truth The sequel is undeniable After this for particular instances he appeals to the undeniably authentick monuments and testimonies of that one sacred house of Loreto to the continual Miracles done at the Reliques of St. James at Compostella in Spain to the Sacred Vial of St. Mary Magdalen in France wherein saith he very gravely the precious blood gathered by that penitent Saint at our Saviours passion is yet preserved and visibly boyls up on the very day he suffered after the reading of the Passion to the undoubted Miracles wrought by the intercession of our Blessed Lady at Montaigu for which he calls in the testimonies of Lipsius and Putean and at large relates a Miracle wrought by St. Xaverius upon F. Marcellus a Jesuit at Naples and then answers some few Objections and concludes with the vindication of the Miracle at Zaragosa in Spain This is the substance of E. W's discourse upon this subject which in the proper consequence of it doth more really enervate the proofs of Christianity than establish the infallibility of the Roman Church For I do not think an Atheist would desire more advantage against the Christian Religion than to have it granted that the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles were no other than such as are wrought in the Roman Church and that the proofs of them are no more authentick and undeniable than those of the Miracles done at Loreto Compostella or Montaigu and that Christ and his Apostles gave no more illustrious evidences of their being sent from God than St. Dominick or St. Francis and that there was no greater evidence of Christs Resurrection from the dead than there is of the boyling up of the blood of Christ in the Vial of St. Mary Magdalen in the Church of St. Maximin in France Therefore not only to invalidate the Testimony drawn from hence for the Roman Churches Infallibility but to preserve the honour of Christianity I am obliged to enquire into these two things 1. Whether the Testimony upon which the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles and those of the Roman Church are delivered be equally credible 2. Whether the Miracles of the Roman Church be so equal to abate him what he saith of greater in worth quality and number with those of Christ and his Apostles that the Roman Churches Infallibility is as much attested by them as Christ and his Apostles was by theirs 1. I shall enquire into the credibility of the Testimony on both sides Two things are agreed to make up sufficient credibility in a Testimony viz. the knowledge and fidelity of the persons who deliver it If they speak nothing but what they were certain witnesses of and never gave suspicion of fraud and deceit and offered the highest ways of proof concerning their own fidelity then it is an unreasonable thing to disbelieve them This is the case of those who recorded our Saviours and his Apostles Miracles they were persons who either saw them wrought themselves or had them delivered to them immediately by them who saw them they published them to the world in that Age wherein they werecapable of being disproved by persons then living in the same places where they were wrought and were notorious enemies to the persons who did them who were concerned to discover for their own justification the least fraud or imposture in those matters But besides this to take away all suspicion of design the â—nesses of these things freely quitted all exâ—ectations of worldly advantages they ran themselves upon the greatest hazards to attest the truth of what they said and at last sacrificed their lives to confirm the truth of their own Testimony But on the other side if I can prove 1. That the greatest number of the Miracles in the Roman Church have been believed upon the credit of Fables and uncertain reports 2. That the Testimony of those who deliver them hath been contradicted by men of greater Authority than themselves 3. If upon strict and careful examination notorious forgeries and impostures have been discovered and never any persons laid down their lives to attest the truth of any of their Miracles then it can be nothing but the greatest impudence in any to parallel the Testimony of the Primitive Church concerning the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles with that of the Miracles wrought in the Church of Rome 1. That the greatest number of Miracles in the Roman Church have been believed upon the credit of Fables and uncertain reports For the proof of this I shall make choice of his own instances of Loreto in Italy Compostella in Spain St. Maximins Church in France and the lives of his two admirable Saints to which I shall add some nearer home that we may have a proof of the credibility of these miracles in the most considerable places of Europe § 2. Let us first go on pilgrimage to our Lady of Loreto to view the undeniably Authentick publick monuments and Testimonies of Miracles there wrought The first to be seen there in a Table hanging up for that purpose is the wonderful Miracle in the translation of that Chappel first from Nazareth to Dalmatia and from Dalmatia into those parts of Italy where it now stands The story cannot be better told than it is in the Authentick Table it self which may be thus Translated The Church of our B. Lady of Loreto was a Chamber of the House of the B. Virgin Mary Mother of our Lord Jesus
would despise his Work for whatever is written in it is Authentick and confirmed by great Authority and decrees that the miracles should be read in the Refectories on Festival days He could not have decreed better for in truth they are an excellent entertainment In A. D. 1090. saith Calixtus certain Germans were going to St. James and in the City of Tholouse they were made drunk by their Host who put two silver Cups into the Portmantues of two of them next morning he ran after them and cried Thieves they knowing their own innocency desired to be examined the Cups were found in the Porlmantues of Father and Son the Judge determined that but one of them should be hanged and after much complementing between them the Son was executed the Father goes on his Pilgrimage and after thirty six days returning by the place he goes to the body of his Son and there wept bitterly over him On a sudden his Son bâ—gan to comfort him and said O my Father weep not but rejoyce for I never was so well in my whole life For to this time St. James hâ—th supported me and comforted me with Heavenly pleasure at which his Father being overjoyed ran to the City and the people flocking thither took him down safe and sound and hanged up the Host in his Room Was our Saviours raising Lazarus after only four days to be compared to this In the year 1100. a certain French man avâ—iding the morâ—ality then in France resolved to go in Pilgrimage with his Wife and Children to St. James of Compostella at Pampelona his Wife dyed and the Host seized upon his Beast and his Mony The man went on however with his Children and at the Towns end one meets â—im with an Ass which he lends him to carry his Children When he was come to Compostella one night as he was praying St. James appeared to him and asked him if he knew him he told him no then he said I am James the Apostle who met thee at Pampelona and lent thee my Ass and now I lend him thee home again and I tell thee thou shalt find thy Host dead which happened accordingly and as soon as ever he took his Children off from the Ass he disappeared This is an instance of his kindness by Land but Calixtus tells us he was as kind by Sea too Witness the Sea Captain that tumbled to the bottom of the Sea with his armour on to whom St. James there appeared and taking him by the hand brought him safe to his ship again Witness the Pilgrim that fell into the Sea whom St. James held by the hair of his head and kept him above water for three days till he came to his Port These were pretty odd things at Sea but if we come to Land again what shall we think of his making a man leap from a Tower forty cubits high without any hurt Nay which is a much greater and a more courteous miracle what shall we say to a high Tower stooping to the ground that a man might go off without any danger from a leap yet this is related by the same Pope to have happened A. D. 1106. These are pleasant tasts of the kind of St. James his miracles related by no meaner a person than the Head of the Roman Church but these are too luscious to be insisted on Only for a warning that men should observe his Feast he saith that a Country man in Spain presuming to thresh on that day and at night going into a Bath the skin of his back parts from his shoulders to his thighs went off from him and stuck to the Wall and so the poor man died for an example If these things do not prove that the miracles wrought by St. James at Compostella are equal to those wrought by Christ and his Apostles in Judea truly I do not know what will § 5. We must now proceed to the Vial of St. Mary Magdalen and the Church of St. Maximin in France into which she put the Blood of our Saviour which visibly boyls up every year on the day of our Saviours Passion It would astonish a man to seeâ— such fopperies as these are compared with the miracles of Christ and his Apostles If they had done no more than shewed such tricks to convince the world it might have remained under Paganism to this day The miracles wrought by Christ or his Apostles tended to the great benefit and advantage of mankind and were not cunningly managed in a corner for a solemn shew at a certain season of the year but the gift of healing the sick and the gift of tongues in which consisted chiefly the Testimony God gave to his Apostles were things of real advantage to the world and lay open to the observation of every one But the world is apt to suspect and not without reason these useless and secret miracles if they be true they signifie no good to the world if they be false they do unspeakable mischief to Religion Our Saviours Blood was never shed to shew tricks with and Mary Magdalen was hardly at leasure at our Saviours passion to gather up his Blood as it dropt from him But what will not these men say and profess to believe too Certainly there were never more shameful impostures than about Reliques and Miracles in the Roman Church and when some of the wiser men of their own communion abroad shake their heads and are ashamed of them our S. C's and E. W' s magnifie them still as though the people of England were as capable of being made Fools as ever I pity the weakness and credulity of some but I abhor the hypocrisie and fraud of those who do not believe these things themselves and yet would make others believe them Gentlemen Religion is a grave and serious thing and a severe account must be given to God of any thing we say about it God will never think himself honoured by the falshood and hypocrisie of men and that Church of all others in the world shall never draw me to its communion which cannot be upheld without abusing mankind and the most excellent Religion in the world If you have any miracles to shew do them as Christ and his Apostles did in the midst of their enemies and upon them too can you do them for a better end than our conversion was not this the end God designed miracles for and how comes he to change his patent among you with whom they are only done among Friends and in corners Where they may be shewed with advantage among ignorant people who have no skill in Opticks nor judgement to know the difference between the boyling of a thing from a natural cause and by a miracle For truths sake if your Church hath such a power of miracles as Christ and his Apostles had never send us to Loreto or Compostella or St. Maximins Church in France nor refer us to your Tables and Legends those
are things in no request among us whatever they be with you but we have many sick and wounded persons and many dead come and cure all manner of diseases with a word in an instant perfectly and openly raise those who have died of a known incurable disease and are carried out to be buried or have lain in their Graves as Christ did or else out of honour to Christ and Truth and for meer shame avoid such rude and impudent comparisons of the miracles of your Church with those of Christ and his Apostles If we must believe St. Mary Magdalens Vial why not as well all the rest of the Glorious Reliques of your Church for there are few of them but have as good Authority as that of Spondanus which E. W. produces for this Miraculous Vial Why not the Foreskin of Christ about which no meaner a man than Cardinal Tolet saith great miracles were wrought at Calcata in Italy A. D. 1559. after it had been stolen from the Latâ—ran Church in Rome by a certain Souldier A. D. 1527. and lay undiscovered till after his death and yet Ferrandus tells us that Germany Flanders Lorain and France all boast that they have it â—ollandus or rather Roswayd tells us that these of Antwerp pleaded a possession of it for almost 500. years and the testimonies of Pope Eugenius A. D. 1446. and Clement the eighth A. D. 1599. Pope Innocent the third notwithstanding his pretence to Infallibility thought it fit that so weighty a cause should be left to God himself to determine Symphorianâ—â— Campegius in Bollandus saith that it is at Anicium le Puy in France together with Aarons Miter others say that it was carried by an Angel to Charles the great and he placed it at Aken Now the same worship is given at all these places where it is supposed to be and I suppose miracles equally wrought at them I desire to know when false and counterfeit Reliques do work miracles what we are to think of the Testimony given by such miracles and of the nature of them It is a pleasant thing to see the accounts given by these men of the same Reliques being in several places at once Ferrandus hath found out very subtil ways to solve this difficulty and particularly concerning this Foreskin of Christ. 1. By a multiplication of it which being in Gods power to do no question is to be made but he does it 2. By a wonderful replication of it the terms I consess are not very easie but I suppose he means that the same body may be in several places at once He tells us that Suarez and Collius see no cause for so great a miracle but he thinks there is as much reason for it as for the multiplication of the Wood of the Cross and I think so too But yet he hath another reserve which is that these several Prepuces are really nothing but so many parts of the Umbilical Vessels which are sent up and down for the consolation of the faithful And no doubt they tend very much to it especially when they mistake one thing for another And why may not then that which goes for the Blood of Christ be the blood of some other person especially since the blood of Christ is shewn in so many other places besides But that we may not however doubt of the truth of both these St. Brigit saith in her Revelations that the Virgin Mary told her that a little before her assumption she committed the Sacred Prepuce to the care of St. John with some of the Blood which remained in the wounds of Christ. Et jam lice at dubitare Saith Ferrandus by no means But it is good to understand where it is Yet he tells us some are of opinion that there is no other blood of Christ upon earth besides that in the Eucharist and others that all the blood of Christ which was shed in his passion was resumed at his resurrection and therefore he rather inclines to think it is some of the blood he shed in his Agony which is preserved in so many places But was St. Mary Magdalen there with her Vial to gather it up No it is said it was at the time of his Passion and therefore this answer cannot serve How then come such great quantities of this Blood to be seen not only in St. Maximins Church but at Paris at Rome at Mantua and several other places mentioned by Ferrandus To this he answers with Biel that Christ had a whole legion of wounds 6666. and Alanus de Rupâ— hath undertaken to cast up just how many drops he shed viz. 547500. And can there be any reason in the world to question the credibility of the Testimonies of such persons who are so exact and punctual in their calculations Far be it from us in the least to derogate from that inestimable love which the Son of God expressed in shedding his Blood as a Sacrifice of Propitiation for us We adore and celebrate that sacred mysterie of our Redemption by the Blood of that immaculate Lamb. It is the Blood of Christ we glory in and hope for Salvation by but not as kept for Reliques or preserved in Vials to make a shew of much less to abuse mankind with a pretence of that Sacred Blood when there is not the least shadow of reason to believe it But thus it hath been in the Church of Rome they have turned the most wise and holy and reasonable Religion in the world into a matter of shew and ceremony And for this end they have made use of all manner of devices to get any thing into their hands that seemed to have any relation to the bodies or garments of Christ or his Disciples And thus while they sleight their words and corrupt their Doctrine and pervert their institutions no persons can contend more than they for the hair or nails that belonged to any of their bodies although they destroy each others Testimonies by so many pretending to the same things The very Tears of Christ are pretended to be kept in two several places in France and those put into a Vial too by the blessed Virgin if we believe the Jesuit Ferrandus It is a pretty competent Miracle to preserve Tears so long but what cannot they shew who have some of the hair of Christ when an Infant at St. Denis in France as Spondanus assures us and some of the swadling clouts he was wrapt in in the Manger And as good an Author every whit as Spondanus relates that at Courchiverni a place near Bloys the breath of Joseph is kept in a Vial too which the Angel took while he was cleaving Wood. What a shame would it be now for us to question the truth of any other Relicks among them Why should we dispute the vast quantity of the blessed Virgins Milk so learnedly defended by Ferrandus to be seen in Judea in Italy in Spain and in many
cured a man of the Palsie The Gardiner of the Monastery being troubled with a Thief that came over the hedge and stole his herbs commanded a Serpent to follow him and to lie just cross in the way he was wont to come over the Serpent presently obeyed the Thief was taken and the Serpent released From hence afterwards he scarce deserved the name of a Saint of whom they could not tell some extravagant stories of the power he had over Serpents of which multitudes of Instances may be seen in Colganus and Capgrave besides many other more ancient than they The story of St. Equitius in Gregory and St. Elias in Capgrave as to tâ—â— way of their being delivered from all lustâ—â— thoughts by an Angel appearing in the nigâ—â— and seeming to castrate them is the very same by which we see out of what Magazineth later Legendaries took their materials whiâ—â— they altered and adorned with such varietiâ—â— of circumstances as would best go down wiâ—â— the people Methinks then Baronius mighâ—â— have let alone Canus in this matter and noâ— provoked others to give an account of thâ— soppish miracles contained in that Primitivâ— Legend such as the Devils entring into Nun because she eat a Lettice in the gardâ—â— without crossing it and when St. Equitiâ— demanded of him what he did there the Dâ—â— answered he was sitting upon the Lettice aâ—â— she came and eat him up but it was well fâ— her that St. Equitius sent him going withoâ—â— prescribing her a vomit as Nonnosus 〈◊〉 removing a stone by his prayers which fifâ—â— Yoke of Oxen could not stirr and all this fâ— no other end but only to make way for a littâ— Kitchin garden for the Monks as the saâ— mans praying the pieces of a glass Lamp whâ—â— again only for fear of the displeasure of 〈◊〉 superior which was a substantial reason foâ— so pretty a miracle And his multiplying oâ— by a miracle rather than the lazy Monks shoul◠〈◊〉 out to gather Olives as Boniface's reâ—iving 12. Crowns by a miracle because his â—ephew complained be had opened his Chest â—nd had taken a way so many from him to give 〈◊〉 the poor and his adjuring all the Erue's 〈◊〉 his garden in the name of Christ to be gone â—nd â—ot eat up his herbs which they immeâ—iately did and not one remained and â—aking the Fox by his prayers bring back the â—â—llet he had stollen because he complained 〈◊〉 God Almighty in the Church whither he â—un upon this sad disaster that he could eat â—one of his Mothers Poultry as Martirius 〈◊〉 signing the cake in the embers with the sign â—f the cross without touching it only making 〈◊〉 towards the fire at which it gave a great â—â—ack and was perfectly signed with the cross â—hen they took it out These may serve only for a â—ast of the kind of these miracles out of his first Book that men may judge with what reason Canus made such exceptions to Gregories Auâ—hority in this point of miracles It would be too â—edious to give an account of the miracles in his â—hree other Books but they are so much alike â—hat by seeing these we may judge of the rest Thus we see the opinion of Vives and Canus about the Testimony on which miracles are believed in the Roman Church but we must not think these persons were singular in this opinion for in several ages men of any honesty and judgement have complained of tâ— pious frauds which have been used in the matters and that some thought them laâ—â— to be used as long as they were for the honoâ— of the Church or the Saints So Petrus Dâ— miani saith there were some who thought thâ— honoured God by making lies to extoll the â—â—tues of his Saints which words he uses upâ— this occasion of miracles and goes aboâ— seriously to confute them by telling them thâ— God doth not stand in need of our lies 〈◊〉 to the same purpose he speaks in the presâ— to the lives of St. Maurus and of Dominiâ— Ferratus written by him What secuâ—â— can there be then of the miracles reponâ— by them who think it lawful to invent lies 〈◊〉 the Honour of the Church or of the supposâ— Saints who live and dye in it If the Primitiâ— Church had made lying for the sake of Châ—â—stianity lawful it would have been the moâ—â— reasonable pretence for infidelity that coâ—â— be supposed For how can any man thiâ— himself obliged to believe another that doâ—â— not think himself obliged to speak truth 〈◊〉 the Primitive Christians had made lying 〈◊〉 indifferent thing all their sufferings could havâ— given no security of the truth of their Testâ—mony for notwithstanding the falshood 〈◊〉 their Testimony they might then hope however to be rewarded in another world anâ— consequently might suffer any thing here â—t when they declared at the same time that â—ing was utterly unlawful and yet ventured suffer the utmost extremity to attest the â—uth of their Testimony this gives the highâ—â— credibility to the things asserted by them â—t we have no satisfaction as to either of â—â—ese things in the witnesses of the miracles in â—e Roman Church no man hath ever lost much as a finger to give Testimony to one â—iracle among them and supposing they â—â—ould suffer we have no assurance but they â—ight think it lawful to lie for their Religion â—â—d therefore all their sufferings could not â—ove the truth of their Testimony We have 〈◊〉 sentence or declaration of their Church â—â—ainst pious frauds but we have large conâ—ssions from their own Writers of the practice them and the good end they are designed 〈◊〉 viz. to keep up the devotion of the people â—â—n Gerson honestly confesses this to be the â—d of the Legends and miracles of the Saints â—nd their visions and revelations so much â—lked of in the Roman Church viz. to stirr up â—piety and good affections of the people for â—ese things saith he are not proposed by 〈◊〉 Church to be believed as true but they are â—ther to consider them as things that might done than as things that were done And iâ— no matter saith he if some things that are really false are piously believed so that thâ—â— be not believed as false or known to be false the same time And I wish he had added oâ— condition more viz. that the infallibilitâ— of the Church be not to be proved by them for in that case I hope it is of some littâ—â— concernment whether they be true or false Bâ— are we not like to meet with credible Testâ— monies in such things where the most honeâ— and learned among them think it is no greâ— matter whether they be true or false Nâ— wonder then that Lyra complains of tâ—â— frauds used by the Priests in the Churches 〈◊〉 make the people believe that miracles woâ— wrought no wonder that Cajetan so muâ—â— slights the argument drawn from modern miracles and revelations and saith
excuse for their Insidelity that his works did bear witness of him And his Evangelist declares that this was the end for which these miracles are recorded that men might believe that Jesus was the son of God Afterwards when he was risen from the dead and he sent abroad his Disciples to preach the Gospel he told them that God would bear them witness by divers signs and miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost of which we have a full account in the Books of the new Testament As to all which miracles we have not the least ground of suspicion of any fraud or imposture being publickly done in the presence of enemies and written in a time when the Testimony of Writers might be easily contradicted and when all imaginable way 's were used to make the first Witnesses of these things to recant their Testimonies by the greatest severities and persecutions in stead of which they persisted with great resolution and laid down their lives rather than weaken the Testimony which they had given Thus we see such great and extraordinary effects of Divine Power which we ought to call miracles were wrought by Christ and his Apostles on purpose to confirm their own Authority that they were Persons sent from God and therefore could not deceive the World in the doctrine delivered by them 2. The Authority and Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles being thus confirmed by the miracles wrought by them there cannot be any such necessity in succeeding Ages to confirm the same doctrine by miracles For if it were once fully proved by those miracles then wrought there can want nothing further to establish the faith of succeeding Ages than a certain conveyance of those miracles to them Those miracles being wrought for the benefit of succeeding Ages as well as of that present Age And if those miracles would not serve for the Ages following as well as that present time it might with as much reason be said that then they did serve only for those who saw them For on the same ground that Persons then in regard of distance of Place were bound to believe although they did not see them wrought so likewise are others in regard of distance of time only supposing the certainty of conveyance to be equal But it is with much advantage to us by the concurrent Testimony of so many Ages and the effects of the doctrine confirmed by those miracles upon so many nations of the World not with standing all the Power and subtility which were used against it 3. The less the necessity and the greater the pretence to miracles so much more reason there is to suspect them Because God we are certain doth not imploy his Power in going beyond the common effects of nature to little or no purpose When we see that in all the writings of Scripture miracles were very sparingly wrought unless it were for the confirmation of a new Religion as that of Moses and Christ if asterwards we find such abundance of miracles pretended to that no Age or Country of one sort of men but give out that multitudes of these are done among them what must we think that God hath changed the Method of his Providence and not rather that God is true but such men are liars or through ignorance and credulity take those for miracles which are not so 4. Those cannot be true miracles which are pretended to be wrought to confirm a doctrine contrary to what is already confirmed by miracles For God will never imploy his power to contradict himself he may in the establishing of one Religion foretel the comming of another afterwards in its room by his own appointment as in the Gospel succeeding the Law but the latter miracles in this case do not contradict but rather confirm the doctrine of the former but when he hath declared that no other Religion shall come into the world after that which is confirmed by miracles as it is with the Christian Religion then to suppose miracles wrought to confirm any doctrine contrary to that is to suppose that God by miracles should contradict himself Therefore although in the beginning of a Religion the doctrine is to be proved by miracles yet that being once supposed miracles afterwards are to be tryed by the doctrine And then though an Angel from heaven should preach or offer to confirm any other doctrine by miracles than that which was first confirmed by Christ and his Apostles we are bound to reject that doctrine and to suspect those miracles not to be from God 5. Where false and lying miracles are foretold by a doctrine confirmed by true miracles there can be no reason to believe upon such miracles till they are evidently distinguished from such as are deceitful Now this is plainly the case in the Christian Religion Christ himself hath foretold that men shall arise doing such great wonders in imitation of him as should deceive if it were possible the very elect and his Apostles that his greatest enemies should appear with all power and signs and lying wonders Can any thing be now more reasonable than after such forewarnings for us to examine all pretences of miracles by trying whether they can be evidently distinguished from all deceitfull appearances of miracles which may be wrought by a power less than divine For in this case the evidence must be such as the persons concerned are to judge by to tell them any distinctions which they cannot proceed by in the judgement of miracles is to speak impertinently where rules of Judgement are required 6. If the continuance of the power of miracles be asserted to prove the Churches infallibility in every Age there must not only evident proof be given that such miracles are wrought but that they are wrought for this very end For if God may work miracles for another end either to shew his Providence in general or particular Regard to some men then the meer proving miracles cannot be sufficient but it must be shewed that these miracles could be wrought for no other end but to prove the Church infallible These things being premised I now come to shew 1. That in the Roman Church they cannot give any evident distinction between the miracles they pretend to and such which we are bid to beware of 2. That they can never prove that the miracles wrought in their Church could be wrought for no other end than to prove the infallibility of their Church 1. That in the Roman Church they cannot give any evident distinction between their miracles and such as we are bid to beware of For which we are to consider that scarce any Religion or superstition hath obtained in the world but it hath pretended to be confirmed by some kind of miracâ—es which in it self is no more a prejudice to true miracles than sophistical arguments are to true reasoning But those who pretend to miracles in a Church which is founded on a doctrine confirmed by undoubted miracles must give such
Honorable George Duke of Albemarle Folio Origines Sacrae or a Rational account of the grounds of Christian faith by Edward Stillingfleeâ— D. D. in Quarto Irenicum a Weapon salve for the Churches wounds by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. In Quarto The being and well being of a Christian in 3. Treatises by Edward Reyner late Minister at Lincoln In Octavo A Fathers Testament In Octavo The History of the Administration of Cardinal Ximenes Great Minister of State in Spain In Octavo A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of salvation in the Communion of it in answer to some Papers of a Revolted Protestant wherein a particular account is given of the Fanaticisms and divisions of that Church By Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Octavo The Moral Philosophy of the Stoicks In Octavo The Original of Romanees In Octavo Hools Greek Testiment In Twelves Hodders Arithmetick In Twelves Drexelius on Eternity In Twelves The Advice of Charles the 5. Emperor of Germany and King of Spain to his son Philip the second upon his resignation of his Crown to his said Son in Twelves now in the Press and will speedily be published Sermons Preached upon several occasions five of which were never before Printed with a discourse annexed concerning the true Reason of the sufferings of Christ wherein Crellius his answer to Grotius is considered by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. In Folio Knowledge and Practice or a plain Discourse of the Chief things necessary to be known believed and practised in order to salvation by S. Cradock in Quarto a Book very useful for private Families both sold by Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard and at the White-Hart in West-minster Hall FINIS The state of the Controversie about Infallibility and the Resolution of Faith The Principles of the Guide in Controversies Guide in Contro disc 3. Ch 10. Sect. 123. Sect. 126. Sect. 127. Ibid. Sect. 135. Sect. 143. 153. 148. Sect. 144 145. Sect. 145. Sect. Sâ—câ— Sâ—ct 148. Sect. 153. Those Principles considered Lugo de â—irtute Fidei disp 1. Sect. 12. P. 247. Esâ—i in 3. sent 23. d. Sect. 13. Paul Lay-man Thâ—olog moral 2. l. lr 1. c. 5. Knots answer to Chillingworth p. 358. Of particular divine Revelation as the ground of Faith it 133. Sect. 134 The resolution ofdivine Faith must agree to all Of immediate Asnt Of the assistance of the Holy Ghost The absurdities of these principles Sect. 151. The Principles of E. W. laid down Disc. 1. c. 2. p. 24 27. Disc. 2. c. 5. Disc 2. c. 14. c. 15. c. 16. C. 16 n. 14. C. 18 n. 4. N. 12. C. 19. n. 3. Dis. 3 c. 4. N. 2. c. 8. â— 1c N. 14. c. 10 11. Some things premised to the Sâ—aâ—e of the Question Rational Account part 1. c. 7. Sect. 1. Reason and Religion Disc. 3 c 9. N. 4. p. 562. N. 6 7. N. 9. N. 11. N. 12. N. 13 14 15. N. 15. N. 16. Protest without Principles Disc. 1. C. 5. n. 10. Lugo de virtute Fidei Divinae Disp. 1. Sect. 7. n. 114. Sect. 6. n. 82. Suarez de Fide Disp. 3. Sect. 6. n. 8. Sect. 5 n 9. Lugo ib. Of the notion of Divine Faith Francise boâ—ae Spei To. 3 Tr. 1. de side disp 1. dub 2. The true State of the Question Reason and Religion Discours 3. c. 1. n. 8. Protest without Principles Disc. 1. c. 11. n. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 N. 6 7. My first Argument laid down and defended Disc. 3. c. 2. n. 3 4. Disc. 3 c. 4. â— 18. â—â— n. 19. Of the motives of credibiâ—ity and their instaence on faith Suarez de side disp 4. sect 3. Greg de Vaâ— nt Tom. 3. disp 1. q. 1. pâ—act 4. Med nâ— de rect â in Deumâ—side l. 2. Lugo de side disp 5. sâ—â—l 4. Fincisc Valent. Coâ—â—â—â—dia juris Poâ—isicii cum Caesareo part 1 q. 1. sect 6. Suarez de Fide disp 4. sect 2. n. 3. N. 4. N 6. N. 7. Lugo de viâ—t sidei divinae disp 5. sect 1. n. 21. Aquin. 2. 2. qa 1. art 4. Cajet in loc Of the grounds of faith Canus l. 2. c. 8. Lugo de virt fidei disp 1. sect 5. Protest without Principles disc 1. c. 11. n. 2. Reason and Religion disc 3. c 1. n. 10. C. 8. N. 4. N. 10. N. 11. Disc. 3. c. 10. n. 7. Of the Scripturenâ—â—ion of the obscurity of Faith Heb. 11. 1. Lugo de virtut fid Divin disp 7. sect 2. n. 16. Dis. 3. c. 8. n. 16. C. 10. n. 5. Holden Analys fidei l. 1. c. 3. Of the power of the Will in the assent of Faith Arriaga Curs Philo. disp 16. Sect 4. Disc. 3. c. 8. n. 14 15 16. C. 9. n. 5. C. 10. n. 10. Lugo de fide disp 1. Sect. 4. il 38. Rational Account part 1. c. 5. Sâ—ct 6. The second Argument defended against E. W. 1 Joh. 1. 1. 2 Pet. 1. 16. Luk. 1. 1 2 Disc. 3. c. 3. n. 6. Rational Account paâ—t 1. c. 6. Sect. 15. C. 3. n. 5. â— 7. N. 8. N. 9. N. 10. N. 11. N. 12. N. 13. N. 14. N. 19â— N. 20. Rational Account Paâ—t 1. c 5. sect 9. Disc. 3. C. 3. â— 22. C. 5. a. 1. Rational Account part 2. c. 1. Of the Circle in the Resolution of Faith not avoided by E. W. Diss. 3. c. 5. n. 5. N. 7. N. S 9. N. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sexius Empir Pyrrâ—o hypoâ—p l. 1. c. 15. N. 11. E. W's Assertions about the Miracles of the Roman Church Rational Account Paâ—t 1 C. 5. Sâ—ct 12. Reason and Religion disc 3. c. 5. n. 1 2. N. 4. Disc. 2. c. 8 9. C. 8. n. 1. N. 4. N. 6. N. 7. N. 13. N. 16. N. 17. N 18. C. 9. Of the Miraculous translation of the Chappel of Loreto Baron Annal. â— Tom. 1. A. 9. â— 1. Casaub. Exercit 7. sect 1. Caâ—is Hisâ— Deiparae l. 5. c. 25. Heb. 1. 14 Ravâ—ald A. D. 1291. n. 68 69. Bzov. Anal. ad A. D. 1296. n. 14. Spoâ—dan A. D. 1291. n. 22. Govoâ— Chronic deip A. D. 1298. Tâ—rsellin Hist. Laâ—ret 1. 1. c. 6. C. 16. C. 28. Viâ—cent sorm de assamp B. V. â—aâ—on Aâ—â—al A. D. 853. â— 65. Tursel Hist. Laâ—ret l. 1 c. 23. Blondi Italia illustr in Piceno p. 339. Leand. Albert in Picen p. 428. Of the Mâ—racles wrought at the Chappel of Loreto Joâ—ph de bello Jud. l. 7. Dioâ— in vit Trajani Quaresâ—n Elucid terrae S. l. 7. c. 5. perâ—gr 3. Tâ—sâ—ll Hist. Lauret l. 2. c. 18. Tursâ—ll Hist. Laurâ—t l. 1. c. 26. l. 2. c. 2. c. 12 c. 24 c. 27. l. 3. c. 15 16 17 18 24. 26 27. l. 4 5 6 7 17 18 19 c. Tursill l. 4. c. 12. â— 3. c. 28. Polyd. Virgil de Iâ—vent rer l. 5. c 1. Lambin ia Horat. l. 1. Od. 5. Cicer. de Nat. D. or 1. 3. Diodor. Siâ—ul â—ist l. 1. p. 22. Tibull l. 1. Eleg. 3.
935. n. 4. 5. Capgr f. 92. Id. f. 163. F. 194. Id. f. 170. F. 1â—2 Colgan 15. Jan. â— 15. P. 71. Joâ—elin vit S. Patricâ—i c. 82. C. 78. C. 24. Colgan 13. Maâ—ii vit S Gerald 1. 6. Id. 16. Maâ—tii vit S. Abban â— 23. Id. 20. Jan. n. 31. 42. vit St. Fechini p. 136 138. Id. ib. â— 14. N. 34. Coâ—gan 5. Martii p. 468. lect 9. Martyrolog Aâ—gliâ— ad â— Maii. Quaresm eluâ—id terrae sectae l. 7. c. 3. Colgan 1. Jan. vit S. Fancheae n. 8 9. Colgan 2. Jan. vit S. Schotini n. 5 6. N. 7. N. 8. Colgan 31. Jan. vit Maidoci n. 20. Capgr f. 54 Id. f. 188. Colgan 20. Jan vit S Molaggae n. 17. Id. 4. Fâ—â— vit Câ—annae n. 12. Id. p. 149. Id. 16. Martii vit S. Abbani n. 15. N. 10. Colgan 51. Jan. n. 41. Capgrave f. 296. Capgr vit S. Modwennae f. 237. Capgr vit S. Decum f. 86. Id. f. 37. Colgan 4. Feb. vit S Cuannae n. 7. Colgan 23. Feb. vit Guigneri n. 12. Jocelin in vit S. Patricii c. 27. David Roth Elâ—cid in Jocel c. 1. Colgan vit S. David 1. Martii n. 18. Colgan 22. Martii p. 721. Capgr vit S. Brendani f. 45. Johâ—a Bosco Bibliotheca Floriac viis S. Machut c. 6 7. Vit. St. Machut c. 6. C. 7. Colgan 16. Martiâ— vit St. Abbani n. 43. Pitseus de-Scrâ—ptoribus Angliae A. D. 1366. Possevin in Apparatu v. Capgrave Harpsfield sect 15. c. 17. Pits descrip Ang. A. D. 1484. Of the Testimonies of St. Chysost and St. August against the continuance of the power of Miracles Chrysost. in 1. Ep. ad Corinth Hon. 6. Tom. 3. ed Savil. p 275 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost. in 1. ad Tim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. p. 288. De Sacerdot l. 4. p. 37. Auctor impersect oâ— in Matth. hom 49. Nunc autâ—m sigâ—oâ—â—m operatio om nino levata â—st magis aâ—â—em apud eos inveâ—itur qui salâ—â— sâ—nt Christiaâ—i fiâ—ri ficta Carol. Scribanii Orthodox Fidâ—i Contâ—oâ— l. 4. c. 2. David Râ—â—h â—lucid in Jocâ—lin p. 120. Baron A. D. 370. n. 56. Caâ—grave vit St. Thel f 281. Colgan vit St. David n. 20. Capgrave vit St. Goodric f. 144. Lud Bail Bibliothec a Coâ—cionatorum p. 3. c. 65. Raynald A. D. 1414 n. 20. Mariana dâ— r. bus Hisp. l. 19. c. 12. Ribadinâ—ira Flos Sectorum 13. Junii Vita St. Antoâ—ii c. 15. 17. ed. dâ— la Haye 1641. Scâ—â—idâ— 6. at mundiâ—t Seduli tract de Saâ—ctis Or. Ribaden 16. Junii 114. St. Antonin Chroâ— Ton. 3. tit 24. Sâ—ct 2. Spondan A. D. 1403. n. 7. Nicol de Clemangis â—p 113. Rauzan vit St. Vincentii apud Bzov. A. D. 1419. Sect 20. apud Surirum 5. Aprilis Joh. Gerson c. Sectam se sâ—agâ—llaâ—â—â—â— Tom. 1. p. 641. Chrysost. in Paâ—y◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 August de verâ Relig c. 25. De â—tilit cred c. 15. 16. Retract l. 1. c. 13. Ib. c. 14. De Civit. Dâ—i l. 22. c. 8. In Psal. 130. v 1. De unit Eccles c. 10. Tract 14 in Joh c. 3. De verbis Dom. Scrm. 18. Quaest. ex Novo Tesâ—an c. 63. Of the Testimâ—nies of their own Writers against the miracles of the Roman Church Lud Viâ—es detrad Discipl l. 5. Mâ—lâ—â— Caâ— lo. Th ol l. 11. c. 6. Loc. Thâ—o log l. 12. pâ—ooeâ— Reason and Religion Disc. 2. c. 8. n. 6. S. Cuthberti vita Auctore Bedâ— tom 3. apâ—â— Colg 20 Martii Bollaâ—d 3. tom Martii C. 2. C. 4. C. 7. C. 20. C. 45. 〈◊〉 not in Martyr Decemb. 23. Greg. Dialog l. 1. c. 1. Capgr f. 92. 1. Greg. l. 1. c. 2. C. 3. C. 4. Ib. C. 7. Ib. Ib. C. 9. C. 11. Pet. Damiani vit St. Romuaâ—di prolog Joha Gerson declar Lyra in c. 14. Dan. Cajetan opâ—â—c trac 10. de concept B. V. ad Lcon 10. c. 5. Joh. Launoy de curd Eâ—â—lâ— pro. 〈◊〉 ss aâ—t 30. Coâ—oll 1. Po yb Hâ—stor l. 16. p. 732. Ed. Casaub. Guibert Abbas de Pignoribus Sanctorum l. 1. c. 1. C. 2. sâ—ct 5 Sect. 6. Cap. 3. Sect. 1. Sect. 2. Lucas D'achery not in Guibert p. 567. Nicol. vit St. Godefridi l. 2. c. 26. Sect. 3. Hugo Menard not in Coâ—câ—â—d Regul c. 3. p. 125. Greg. Turon hist. l. 9. c. 6. Lib 3. c. 1. C. 3. s. 4. C. 5. s. 1 3 4. Sect. 5. Joh. Launoy dâ—sq disquis de Magdal Massil p. 157. Andreas Resend de Martyr Eborens Ep. ad Barth Kebed p. 1007. To. 2. Râ—rum Hispanic Beaâ— Rhâ—â— r. r. Gâ—rmaâ— l. 3. p. 161. Dempster Eccles. Hist. l 2. n. 159. Tostatus in Levit. c. 9. q. 14. Comâ—â—ent in Matth. c. 3. q 12 in Matth. 10. q. 21. Rosâ—â—â—â—s c. Luthâ—r de caâ—ivit Babylâ— 10. Sect. 4. Erasm. in 1. Ep. ad Corâ—â—th 13. 13. Stella in Luc. 11. 29. Victoria Relect. 5. p. 200. Acosta de procurandâ— Indorum Salute l. 2. c. 9 10. Epistol Japan 3. p. 30. Eâ—ist Japan 8. p. 91. Bellarm. de not is Eccl. l. 4. c. 14. Maffei Hist. Indic l. 8. Paâ—l Zacchiae Quaest. Medico lâ—gales l. 4. tit 1. q. 10. n. 24. Kirchman de funeribus Rom. l. 1. c. 8. Korman de mira ulis Mortâ—orum p. 3. c. 6. Alâ—gambe Biblioth Soâ—iet Jâ—sâ— p 188. Hâ—storia Christi Persic à Xaverio â—â—atine Edita à Lud. de Diâ—u p. 536 Erasm. Schol. in â—p Hiâ—r Baron Apparat n. 39 44. Cani Loc. Th olog l. 11. c. 6. Sixtus Senenj Bâ—blioth l. 2. in Matth. Historia Christi p. 17 Xaver p. 22 Rayeaud Diptych Mariaâ— n. 10. Bened. Gonon Chronicon Dâ—iâ— p. 6. Xaver p 25 p. 26 c. p. 30. ibid. p. 34. p. 37. p. 41. p. 62. p. 74. p. 89. p. 94. p. 98. p. 101. p. 198. Of the Impostures and Forgeries of Miracles in the Roman Church Glaâ—â—â—â—odâ—lpi Hist. l. 4. c. 3. Guil. Neubrigens de râ—bus Aâ—glicis l. 5. o. 20 21. Jacob. de Vitriaco Histor. Occidental c. â— Otto de Sancto â—lasio aâ—pend ad Otton Frising c. 47. Jaâ— de Vitr c. 8. Matth. Wâ—stmonast A. D. 1197. Knighton l. 2. p 2412. apud 10. Scriptores Hoveden Annal. p. post p. 448. Jac. de Vitriaco c. 8. D'aâ—herii Spicilâ—g Tom. 9. p. 520. Raynald ad A D 1198. â— 38. Rigord de Gâ—sâ— is Philippi A D. 1198. Jac. de Vitriaco c. 8. Hist. Occid Rob. Aâ—tissiod Chron. ad A. D. 1198. Jac. de Vltriaco â— 10. Siâ—on de Regno Iâ—aliâ— l. 17. Fulgos. l. 1. tiâ— de Relig. culâ—â— C. 1. Spondan Annal. Eccl. A. D. 1233. n. 10. Viâ—nieâ— Histor. de l'Egâ—â—se A. D. 1264. Mat. Paris in Hen. 3. A. D. 1238. Odoric Raynald A. D. 1233. n. 35 37 38. Pelri de Valle-clausâ diatrib advers Cyriacos Sect. 11. Joh. Casalas Candor Lilii Vindicatus p. 431. Bzov. Annales A. D. 1232. n. 2. De 4. Haeresiarchis Ordinis Praedicatorum c. apud Suitcâ—ses in Civitate Berneâ—si combustis A D. 1509. Trithem Chroâ—icoâ— Sponheim A. D. 1509. Petr. Mart. â—p 341 402. Basel addit ad Naucler Sâ—ri Comment 〈◊〉 gest Del Rio disquisit Magic l. 4. c. 1. q. 3. sect 4. Spondan Aâ—n A. D. 1508. n. 5. Petrus 〈◊〉 Valle-clausâ— sect 99. Candor Liâ—il Vindicat. p. 421. Sleidaâ— Comment l. 9. A. 1534. Ribadincira de vit Ignatii l. 5. c. 10. Del-Rio disquis Mag. l 2. q. 18 25. Benzo Hist. Novi orbis l 3. c. 16. Ribadinâ—ir vit Ign. Loâ—lae l. 5. c. 10. Hasen Muller Histor. Jâ—suitici Ordinis c. 8. Tâ—uan â—ist l. 123. Hâ—rberts Hist of Hâ—â—â—y 8. A. D. 1538. p. 431. P. 437 438. Their Miracles being granted do not prove their Churches Infallibility Matt. 11. 5. John 5. 36. 15. 24. 20. 30 31. Mark 16. 17 18. Heb. 2. 4. Matth. 24. 24. 2 Thess. 2. 9. Porphyr vit Pythag. Sâ—id v. Anâ—moâ—â—â—â— Val. Max. l. 1. c 8. â— 3. 4. Aelian de animal l. 9. c. 33. Tacit. Hist. 4. Sueton. Vâ—sp c. 7. Spartian iâ— Adrian Voâ—iscus in Aâ—â—l Philostorg apâ—d Phot. Cod. 40. apud Nicâ—tam Choniat l. 5. c. 7. Philostorg l. 2. tom 8. l. 3. tom 4. l. 4. n. 7. l. 9. n. 1. Soâ—rat l. 7. c. 17. Sozoâ— l. 1. c. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Chrys. de sacerd l. 4. p. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Maâ—th hom 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom. 5. p. 277. Tom. 6 p. 148. Maldâ—r iâ— Thoâ— 2. 2. q. 1. art 5. sect 6. Bellarm. de noâ—is Eccl. l. 4. c. 14. Mich. Medina de rectâ in Detâ—n fide l. 2. c. 7. p. 53. Fevardent not in Iren. l. 2. c. 56. Liaâ—endes â—oâ—cion in Quadrag Tom. 2. 〈◊〉 2. Cor. 1. 19 20. Gal. 1. 8. 〈◊〉 dâ— Fi◠〈◊〉 Sect. 3. â— 10 Del. Rol. disquis Magic l. 2. c. 7. L. 4. c. 4. quaest 5. sect 2. Malâ—at in Mâ— 16 17. Andrad defâ—l fiâ— Trid. l. 2. Fer. in Math. 24. v. 23 24. Acosta de teâ—p noviss l. 2. 6. 9. C. 18. Caiâ—t de câ—pt virciaus c. 1. Paul Zaâ—chiae Quaest Medico Legalâ—s l. 4. tit 1. q. 1. n. 5 6 10. q. 4. n. 3. Riola Arth opograâ—â— l. 1. c. 15. N. 7. N. 9. Quaest. 5. 6 7 8 9 10 11. Fortun. Scacch de notis signis saâ—ctitatis sâ—ct 8. c. 1. Aqâ—in 2. 2. quaest 178. art 2. Procâ—ssus Canoâ—iz B. Andrâ—ae Coâ—sini part 2. sect 3. Contelor de Canoniz Sanctorum Cap. 17. n. 7.