Though integral to the truth of the many of the world’s major religions, the argument from miracles is frequently underused in comparison to more mainstream defenses of theism such as the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments. Though I can only surmise as to why this may be (perhaps it is due to the influence of David Hume’s maxim against the miraculous [1], or because investigation of miracles often requires interdisciplinary training in history, medicine, etc. that most philosophers do not possess), the justification for the reality of the miraculous is still widely held among hundreds of millions of people. One could lay out the premises as follows:
A miracle is an event which could only occur through the intervention of God and is impossible in the absence of such interposing.
At least one miracle has occurred in history.
Therefore at least one event in history required the intervention of God to occur.
Therefore God exists.
With the exception of pantheists such as Spinoza, Premise 1 seems fairly uncontroversial; additionally, Premises 3 and 4 follow necessarily from 1 and 2. It is then Premise 2 that is by far the most disputed. Here the apologist will usually appeal to the historical accounts of miracles found within the Old and New Testaments [2]. Others such as Craig Keener will prong towards more modern accounts, some of which are accompanied by medical documentation.[3]
If you were to inquire with a Christian as to what the most impressive miracle in history was, chances are good that they will answer with "the resurrection of Jesus". [4] Certainly this response has some merit to it: Christ's defeat of death is unequivocally the most important miracle to Christianity, with even Paul giving the admission that the entirety of the faith rests on the truth of the resurrection. Christian apologists, in discussing miracles, almost always focus exclusively on the resurrection as evidence of Yahweh's vindication of Christ's claims of divinity. Even some critics of miracles point to the historical evidence for the resurrection as the best attested miracle in history, “The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.” [5]
While I am sympathetic to defend this view, and while I find it undeniably that the resurrection is the most influential miracle in human history (spawning the largest religion in the world), I am confident but careful in stating the magnitude of the data before us. Granted, considering that Christ is still alive and active in the world in our current era, Christian miracles that occur in our present day should not be taken in isolation to the resurrection. This much is true.
What then is the best documented and most compelling miracle in history? The resurrection is a good candidate. Yet more could be said. Though I can only speak through personal outlook, I find the following miracle report to be of high value, due to its extensive documentation from primary sources, medical investigation and scrutiny, lack of a plausible naturalistic explanation, and physical evidence left over for modern examination. It is, even in the words of skeptics, "of so singular a nature" and accompanied by a "very numerous" number of witnesses. [6]
God Does Heal Amputees
The question as to why God seems to never heal those with missing limbs is a frequent bombardment espoused by online skeptics, some of whom have even dedicated a whole website towards the inquiry as an argument against the existence of God. The site triumphantly argues that the instant healing of an amputated limb would be “unambiguous” proof that prayer was answered and was not merely the result of coincidence or human error,
“How can we determine whether it is God or coincidence that worked the cure? One way is to eliminate the ambiguity. In a non-ambiguous situation, there is no potential for coincidence. Because there is no ambiguity, we can actually know whether God is answering the prayer or not…. Notice that there is zero ambiguity in this situation. There is only one way for a limb to regenerate through prayer”
Indeed, unlike many illnesses, an amputated limb cannot possibly be misdiagnosed as it is blatantly obvious to anyone with proper vision. Likewise such deformities cannot spontaneously remit or heal naturally within human biology. This seems then, to cohere with the original syllogism, to be an event which could only be explained through divine intervention of an omnipotent God, therefore being pretty rigid evidence in favor of the existence of not just God, but specifically a God who answers prayers and intervenes in human affairs.
There are perhaps a few parallels to this sort of healing in the New Testament, in particular the restoration of a withered arm in Mark 3: 1-6 and 6:6-11 and the regeneration of a severed ear in Luke 22:49-51. Even granting for the sake of argument that the Gospels derive from eyewitness testimony and are generally reliable, it is difficult to view these instances as potentially free from error. Withered arms and their subsequent restoration can be faked, and some modern faith healers have paid actors to give the illusion of being healed (though unlike modern fakesters the early Christians endeured persecution). As for the ear of Malchus being reattached, one may show concern over the initial conditions that the miracle was reported; dark lighting, the high entisity of the situation, and the use of a weapon are all triggers for inducing false memory recollection and the mis-recollection of key details. Eyewitness testimony might not help us here.
There is at least one very-well documented case of a missing limb suddenly being restored within a religious context, one that often goes unmentioned in philosophical circles despite being discussed in a decent number of publications.[7] Miguel Pellicer was a young man living in the Calanda region of Spain in the 17th century. After getting into a farming accident, Miguel severely injured his leg and was taken to a hospital in Valenica, where he was eventually transferred to Zaragoza. His leg had begun to ooze pus and had become gangrene, and the doctors decided to amputate his limb. Surgeons Juan de Estanga and Diego Millaruelo carried out the operation, cutting off the limb from below the knee and then burning the stump with fire as to stop the bleeding. The amputated leg was placed in a box buried in a grave around 8.5 in. deep in the hospital courtyard by a staffer named Juan Lorenzo Garcia, as was routine practice. Miguel stayed at the hospital for several months before being released, and was given a wooden leg along with crutches. Being a cripple, Miguel lived a life as a beggar, retrieving an official license to beg from the local authorities. He would routinely visit the hospital for checkups and oil to rub on his wound with the oil from the lamps of the church. A devout Catholic, the lame man prayed that the Virgin Mary would heal him, and continued this prayer for about 2 years.
On March 29, 1640, a miracle seemingly happened. Miguel had been asleep and was dreaming of the church near him, Our Lady of the Pillar; in the dream, he was rubbing holy oil over his leg in devotion to Christ and the Virgin Mary. His parents woke him up, and in a state of shock Miguel looked down to see that his leg had now been fully restored. His appendage was blue and slightly retracted due to the lack of recent blood flow, and it was a few centimeters shorter due to the bone fracture caused by the initial amputation. However, within a few days Miguel was able to walk on the foot again (his foot returned to normal length after a few months), and those who saw him were amazed that his leg was completely restored.
Example of a modern lower limb transplant. Miguel reportedly had a similar scar below the knee of his new leg
News of this miracle spread, and the religious authorities of the area went to investigate. The Parish priest of Mazaleón set up a certificate confirming the testimony of 10 witnesses who claimed to have seen Miguel both before and after the miraculous healing. Further investigation was initiated by the archbishop of Zaragoza, who set up a formal inquiry and trial to determine whether the alleged healing was genuine or fraudulent. The hearing took around a year, and in total around 24 additional witnesses testified that they had known Miguel when he was an amputated cripple, as well as when his leg was restored. Witnesses were questioned in part by bringing them into a room with Miguel, his leg exposed for examination. Those being interrogated were asked if they recognized Miguel, if they had previously known and seen him as a legless cripple, and to carefully view the now restored leg to verify that it was real flesh. Investigation revealed that the restored leg of Miguel had the same scars and bruises as his former limb. This included the initial scar from the amputation, which circled right below the knee. A local newspaper called Aviso Historico on June 4, 1640 reported that the hospital courtyard where the leg had been buried was dug up, but no leg or remains of any kind were found. After the 11 month investigation concluded, the archbishop officially declared the miracle as authentic, and Miguel became somewhat of a local celebrity. That year he visited Madrid where he was able to meet Phillip IV, King of Spain, who knelt down before him and kissed his leg.
Painting of Miguel presenting his restored leg to King Phillip IV
Part of the credibility of this story rests on the fact that it is very well documented from contemporary sources. Along with the detailed transcript from the Inquiry, the event is cited by local newspapers of the day, Miguel's certificate of baptism and registration into the hospital, multiple books and pamphlets written within a year of the incident (some of which were written by eyewitnesses who knew Miguel), a reference in a Cardinal's journal who had met Miguel after the healing, countless citations from foreign contemporaries in Britain and Germany, proceedings from the Royal Court of Madrid, paintings of the miracle created only a few years later to commemorate the event, and the burial site of Miguel Pellicer who passed away 7 years after the healing from unrelated causes. The magnitude and attestation behind this miracle is incomparable. Even the filmmaker Luis Bunel, an atheist, noted that this event superseded other healing shrines in the Catholic religion like Lourdes, "compared to Calanda, Lourdes is a mediocre place". [8]
Testimony From the Physicians
Although medical expertise is not really needed to confirm an amputation (such a disability is obvious to any lay observer), certainly comments from Miguel's physicians would be obliging. The surgeons who helped amputate the leg were also among those who testified during the inquiry, and their testimony is summed up in the transcript of the trial. The following (translated) testimony summarizes Dr. Diego Millaruelo, one of the other surgeons involved in the amputation [9],
He [Millaruelo] claimed that he knows well the said Miguel Juan Pellicero,...And he saw in a bed Miguel Juan Pellicero with a gangrenated leg, and that Juan de Estanga put many medicines in it, but it didn't work. Seeing this, the Licenciated Juan de Estanga decided to cut the leg because he didn't see any other solution for Juan Pellicero...He claimed this per juramentum, because as it was said he was talking with the said Licenciated Juan de Estanga... That after [they] made the deliberation from above, they cut the leg. And he knows this because he was present when they were cutting it, and he helped with this, and he saw it cut, and he claims this to be true per juramentum... he said that he knows and saw one of the Mancebos ( Platicantes ) in said "Cuadra" taking the leg to bury it, and that he heard that they put it in the graveyard, and he claims this to be true per juramentum...He said that he knows well, and saw, that after they cut the leg, Juan de Estanga continued to cure the remains of the leg until it made a scar and he claims this to be true per juramentum...He claimed that about a month [ago], more or less, he knew that Juan Pellicero was in the city, and he decided to visit him, and he saw he was the same, and as it was said, his leg had been [cut]. But he saw the leg regrown, although he couldn't put well the foot, or move [it freely], and he saw Miguel Juan Pellicer with his fathers, and he claims this to be true per juramentum.
Numerous other testimonies could be given, including from Dr. Juan De Estanga who treated the leg wound for months afterward, and hospital staffers who claimed to have buried the leg in the courtyard. [10] It is historically incontrovertible that dozens of individuals, both educated and uneducated, both relatives and non-relatives, attested to witnessing Miguel's leg before-and-after the healing, and that there were no witnesses attesting anything to the contrary.
Depiction of medieval amputation
Criticism and Alternative Explanations
In the 18th century, David Hume, the philosopher most famously known for his argument against the affirmation of miracles, mentioned this incident and seemed to agree that the documentation, both medical and legal, for such an event was impressive, "the miracle [was] of so singular a nature as could scarcely admit of a counterfeit, and the witnesses very numerous, and all of them, in a manner, spectators of the fact to which they gave their testimony." [11] According to Hume, one does not need to find fault with the witnesses or evidence, but rather he should dismiss the claim simply because it is too incredible to believe, “It was not [necessary], in order to reject a fact of this nature, to be able accurately to disprove the testimony and to trace its falsehood through all the circumstances of knavery and credulity which produced it...a miracle supported by any human testimony was more properly a subject of derision than of argument.” [12] Hume thought that no amount of testimony, including testimony from dozens of people and medical professionals of the time, was sufficient to establish a miracle, lest the falsehood of the testimony be even more unlikely than the miracle itself. Aside from Protestant objectors contemporary to the time, who mostly parrot Hume, I am actually surprised as to how little attention this miracle has received in the modern period; one would think that a case of an amputee growing back a leg would be more fondly remembered in history. Yet the only modern critiques of this miracle that I could find were proposed by prominent Italian skeptic Luigi Garaschelli ,and later by Brian Dunning, a skeptical podcaster and author.
I argue that neither of their cases hold up; like Miguel, they do not have a leg to stand on. I will conclude on the basis of the evidence that none of these modes ultimately withstands much scrutiny. The miracles hypothesis is, without altercation, the theory that had the greatest explanatory power and scope.
Credulity
First, let us look at the Protestant objections. William Paley is perhaps one of the best known Christian apologists of the 18th century, formulating the Watchmaker Argument for the existence of God, which served as the formulaic skeletal of later derivations of the Teleological Argument for God's existence. Though he defended the miracles of Christ with fervent affirmation, the apologist was less than welcoming to the Miracle of Calanda due to its strong Catholic ties. Perhaps Paley, as an Anglican, was hesitant to support an alleged miracle supported by the Catholic Church. He stipulates that Miguel perhaps really was amputated, as his doctors and countless witnesses testified, but that the young man fooled his neighbors by constructing a fake limb. It is his suggestion that "An artificial leg, wrought with art, would be sufficient" to fool the populace of Calanda, who in their gullibility would accept the miracle without much question.” [13] Philosopher of Religion Timothy McGrew seems to second this contention, pointing out that miracles that affirm opinions already well-established are prone to suspicion. He uses this miracle as a prime example of this sentiment: Spain, already being heavily Catholic, may not have been overly scrupulous to the claim that the Virgin Mary performed a miracle. [14]
To ease these worries, let us remember that the historical context in which this event occurred is crucial. This miracle took place during the Spanish Inquisition, where fraudulent miracle claims were severely punished by Church authorities. Contrary to popular depiction, the medieval ages and the years that followed them were not periods in which the Church was purely credulous of every miracle claim. Inquiries and investigations were implemented, and countless cases exist where authorities rejected claims that failed to meet their standards of critical inquiry. Dr. Andrew Kiett, a professor at the University of Alabama, Birmingham and a specialist in Spanish history and the Inquisition, emphasizes the concern for critical investigation during that era, [15]
"Spanish ecclesiastical authorities and intellectual elites made a concentrated effort to scrutinize claims of...prophecies, apparitions, miracles, revelations and other such examples of supposedly supernatural phenomena to stricter control and more thorough verification...purportedly miraculous events [sic] and religious enthusiasm was increasingly described in medical terms, or as psychological disorder, or dismissed as deliberate fraud. Indeed, Spanish intellectual elites were...assiduous...in policing the boundaries of the supernatural against incursions by religious enthusiasts...In the late sixteenth century the Spanish inquisition began to prosecute cases of simulated sanctity, and this new crime of "feigning revelations" [or performing fraudulent miracles] went on to become a fixture on the dockets of inquisition tribunals not only in Spain but throughout the Catholic World...As miracles took on ever greater importance as evidence [for the truth of the Catholic faith], anxiety concerning the threat of imposture grew as well, since falsified miracles had the potential to debase the evidentiary currency [against Protestantism]."
The fact that this miracle occurred at a time where punishment for fabricating miracles was harsh and scrutiny was abundant, and that a year-long inquiry took place in order to investigate it, reduces the likelihood that such an incident was merely a hoax. Such fraud would easily and quickly be discovered upon investigation, for anyone with functional sight can tell the difference between a person with legs and an individual without them! Given the Church's history of critically investigating miracle claims espoused by the faithful, the probability that they would make an exception in this case is scrutably low. If one were to choose between faking a miracle today and faking one during the Inquisition, the penalty for being caught is incomparably more grave in the latter scenario.
Likewise, it was not just the Catholic Church who attested to this miracle. Miguel's restored foot was witnessed by outsiders and non-Catholic's as well during this public display, such as the English Ambassador to Spain Arthur Hotpon (an Anglican). [16] Hopton was so impressed that he sent a detailed report to the English king, Charles I, who in turn defended the miracle as authentic despite his Anglican clergyman dismissing it as a Catholic lie. Other English authors like Christopher Davenport, a contemporary of Miguel, reported this miracle in his book Enchiridion of Faith; likewise Englishman Sir Arthur Stewart also seemed open to the miracle upon investigation. [17] The Queen of Sweden, upon hearing word of the miracle, ordered an investigation into the testimony of the witnesses involved; she too became persuaded that an impossible healing had gone underway.[18] Therefore, the fact that the miracle was examined by both believers and unbelievers adds to its potential legitimacy.
Fraud
Luigi Garaschelli [19] and Brian Dunning [20] have voiced similar theories along this line of thinking. Both hypothesize that Miguel broke his leg and was admitted to professional medical care, as the initial certificate of hospitalization at Valenica stated. However, these writers are skeptical of the interment into the second hospital in Zaragoza, and propose that he may not have undergone the amputation. Instead, the young Spaniard faked missing a leg by tying up his lower limb and foot in a bended position tucked beneath his pants, in a flamingo-like stance. This allowed him to feign his injury in order to scam people into giving him funds through begging. This was a fairly common practice throughout medieval Europe, with these so-called "sturdy beggars" taking advantage of credulous townsmen. On that fateful night, those in Miguel's home noticed that he had two legs and woke him up in amazement; Miguel, perhaps in a panicked state, looked for a way out-low and behold, his foot must have "miraculously" reappeared. Knowing the severe repercussions if he was found out, Miguel played along and used the miracle as a cover. The rest, they say, is history; though perhaps history here is too weak a word. If true, it would be the greatest hoax of all time.
The first objection that comes to mind is the testimony of the doctors. They clearly believed that they had severed the young man's gangrened leg, giving extensive descriptions of the surgery with Miguel using wine as anesthetic, sawing of the leg and burying it, and burning the wound with fire to seal it. Dunning's proposed solution does not account for this, and he has falsely claimed that the doctors never testified to amputating the leg, a statement he has seemingly retracted after receiving pushback.
Subsequently, it would be extraordinarily difficult for Miguel to fake an amputation given the legal situation of the time. While it is true that many con-artists faked conditions in order to beg and scam people out of money, the abundance of frauds led to stricter regulation being passed in the 16th century pertaining to begging. In order to legally beg, one was required to have a license officiating their financial or health condition, so that one could discern between legitimate and illegitimate beggars. Such licenses could only be obtained after the person was investigated by a committee to determine whether or not they qualified for begging rights. [21] Violating these laws, especially by deliberate fraud, was punishable be serve flogging or imprisonment. Miguel not only gained such a license but daily begged in front of the Church.
It is additionally notable that the location where the leg was reportedly buried was found empty; this obviously requires that the leg had to be removed from the body to begin with in order to be buried. Dunning counter acts this by simply asserting that the grave's vacancy was due to there being no leg buried there in the first place. This not only ignores the primary documentation of the time, but flatly counteracts it. The gravesite was probably marked, hence how the investigators knew where to dig. This is both implied in the sources and follows common-sensically: had no burial taken place, one could seemingly have no idea where to begin to dig, and one would be unable to identify or distinguish Pellicero's leg among other amputated limbs in the burial yard.
Perhaps this miracle is so compelling not solely due to the medical impossibility, but because the documentation is abundant and indisputable. We can, in parallel to the Minimal Facts approach to the resurrection, lay out the minimal historical data pertaining to the Calanda case:
Miguel was checked into a hospital for treatment of an injured leg,
His doctors and staff at the hospital testified to cutting off the leg and burying it.
The leg buried in the courtyard went missing and that the "new" leg on Miguel's foot resembled the old one
Over 30 people, including the relevant surgeons, claimed under oath to have seen Miguel both before and after the restoration of his limb.
Investigations were carried out at a time where carrying out a fraudulent miracle could be punished severely.
Miguel's new leg was attested to by potentially hostile witnesses (Protestants), who despite their averseness towards the Catholic Church did not deny the miracle.
Conclusion
Here is a case which has received nowhere near the attention as the resurrection of Christ; in fact one of the most unusual aspects of this event is quickly history seems to have forgotten it. Yet though it is not categorically analogous to the chief miracle of Christendom, it is arguably evidentially equally as supported. It checks all of the epistemic boxes: 1) it is reported extremely early by a great plethora of sources, 2) it was not recorded a far distance from the event itself, 3) it is a public event with dozens of witnesses, 4) it occurred in a hostile environment where persecution and torture could have ensured if a lie was discovered, and the event was reported by hostile witnesses like Anglicans who were skeptical, 5) it was medically documented in its day with inspection and testimony from multiple surgeons and hospital staff, 6) alternative explanations lack much explanatory power, scope, or plausibility. The resurrection of Christ likewise fulfills all of the criteria, with the exception of number 5. One could argue that the resurrection was not as public an event as the Calanda miracle because, with the exception of the appearance to the 500 (of which we know next to no details about), all of the resurrection appearances occurred in private settings. Everyone in Valencia and Saragossa could have seen Miguel while a beggar and saw him after his healing, something that Acts 10:40-41 makes clear was not the case with the resurrection appearances, which were meant to be a special privilege to a select few individuals. Miguel and his leg were available for investigation and questioning for the remainder of his life; we have no such analogy with the resurrected Christ, who ascended into heaven before others could witness the miracle. Thus, per criteria 3, the Calanda miracle supersedes the resurrection in its publicity.
One can be epistemically justified in affirming that a supernatural miracle really did occur in Spain in 1640. This is not a deed that is in competition to the resurrection of Christ, but complementary to it. Christians should not replace their resources in resurrection apologetics with this case, but it may be useful as an additional historical case study. I as a Protestant am unsure of the theological implications that may underlie such a miracle; was Miguel really healed by Our Lady of the Pillar to prove to the Anglicans that they were wrong to disavow the miracles of the Roman Church? Or did God work through cultural understandings of a flawed theology as an act of mercy for a man undergoing extreme pain and suffering? Hard to say either way, though my personal religious convictions prefer the latter. Regardless, if this miracle acts as strong evidence for Premise 2 of our original syllogism, it follows that at least some miracles really have occurred in history, and therefore God exists.
My conclusion is that miracles do happen. I remain persuaded that Jesus Christ rose from the grave that fateful Easter morning, and I am convinced that Miguel received back his severed leg in the spring of 1640. God does heal amputees after all.
References
[1] Hume, David. "Of Miracles" in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding ed. Antony Flew. LaSalle, IL: Open Court. 1988. (Originally published 1748).
[2] Habermas, Gary R., and Michael R. Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Kregel Publications, 2004
[3] Keener, Craig S. Miracles: 2 Volumes: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts. Baker Books, 2011.
[4] As is the case with philosophers Tim and Lydia McGrew, see their chapter “The Argument from Miracles: A Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth” in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (2009): 593-662
[5] Flew, Antony, and Gary Habermas. “My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism.” Philosophia Christi 6, no. 2 (2004): 197-211.
[6] Hume,"Of Miracles" para. 26.
[7] The best of these are two books written in the 20th century, both of which make heavy use of the primary historical sources. See Messiori, Vittorio, IL Miracolo Spagna, 1640: Indagine Sul Più Sconvolgente Prodigio Mariano. Rizzoli, 1999 and Deroo, Andre. L'homme à la Jambe Coupée: Ou Le Plus Etonnant Miracle de Notre-Dame del Pilar. Fayard, 1959. For other briefer resources, see the following: Allanegui, Vicente, and Lusarreta Historical Notes on the History of Calanda. Instituto de Estudios Turolenses, 1998; Margelí, Ivan Sánchez. “The Miracle of Calanda: Propaganda and Pilarist Devotion in the Era of the Counter-Reformation.” (Translated from original title) Philosophy and Letters, 2018-2019; Pérez, T. Domingo. The Miracle of Calanda and its Historical Sources. Caja Inmaculada, 2006; Serrano, Eliseo. El Pilar, La Historia and Tradition: the Erudite Work of Luis Díez de Aux (1562-ca. 1630). Mira, 2014; Skuse, Alanna. “Recompact My Scattered Parts’: The Altered Body after Death” in Surgery and Selfhood in Early Modern England: Altered Bodies and Contexts of Identity. Cambridge University Press, 2021; and Ramón Solans,FJ La Virgen del Pilar Says…Political and National Uses of the Marian Cult in Contemporary Spain. University of Zaragoza Press, 2014
[8] Cited in Bonnici, Emman. ‘Miguel Juan Pellicer’ FindAGrave.com, March 23, 2015. Retrieved from: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/144062292/miguel-juan-pellicer
[9] Found on pager 50-52 of the aforecited transcript.
[10] As an additional example, the transcript includes the testimony of Jesuit Father Jeronimo Briza, “ I myself experienced [the miracle], for I met the young man first without a leg, begging for alms at the door of the Shrine of Saragossa, and then again in Madrid, at an audience with Our Lord the King, with both legs; and I saw him walk. I have seen the scar that the Virgin Mary left in the place where the limb had been severed — a sure sign that the leg had indeed been cut off; and not only have I seen it, but also all the Fathers of the Society of Jesus of this Royal College in Madrid. I have also met the parents of the healed man and the surgeon who performed the amputation.”
[11] Hume, “Of Miacles”, para. 26
[12] Ibid
[13] Paley, William. Evidence for Christianity, 1794: 131-132. (Online PDF version)
[14] See Tim McGrew’s opening statement in his debate with Zack Moore, at the 23 minute mark https://youtu.be/ueq47CEqNFw?t=1383
[15] Keitt, Andrew. "Religious Enthusiasm, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Disenchantment of the World." Journal of the History of Ideas 65 no. 2 (2004) 231-250, escp. 234-235, 244
[16] Davenport, Anne Ashley. Suspicious Moderate: The Life and Writings of Francis à Sancta Clara (1598–1680). University of Notre Dame Press, 2017.
[17] Skuse, “Recompact My Scattered Parts"
[18] Deroo, L'homme à la Jambe Coupée
[19] Luigi Garlaschelli , ‘My Doubts on the "Miracle" of the Regrown Leg’, CICAP http://www.cicap.org/new/articolo.php?id=100115
[20] Dunning, Brian. Skeptoid 5: Massacres, Monsters, and Miracles. Skeptoid Media Inc, 2013.
[21] Clouse, Michele L. Medicine, Government and Public Health in Philip II's Spain: Shared Interests, Competing Authorities. Routledge, 2016. pg. 157-158.
Great work! Thanks for sharing this!
ReplyDelete