fore they had none :" by a parity of reason you must say, "The writers following the apostles do not affirm them to have had any miraculous gifts; therefore the apostles had none."

4. Your next argument against the existence of those gifts is, "That the Fathers do not tell us the names of them which had them." This is not altogether true. The names of Justin Martyr and Cyprian are pretty well known: as is, among the learned, that of Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria. (p. 106, 212.) But what if they did not? Supposing miraculous powers "were of enly exerted in the church :" and that not only they themselves, but "every one else might see this whenever they pleased:" if any Heathen might come and see whenever he pleased, what could a reasonable man desire more? What did it signify to him to know the names of those whom he heard prophesying, or saw working miracles? Though without doubt, whoever saw the miracles wrought, might easily learn the names of those that wrought them; which nevertheless the Christians had no need to publish abroad, to expose them so much the more to the rage and malice of their persecutors.

6. Your third argument is," The Christian workers of miracles were always charged with imposture by their adversaries. Lucian tells us, Whenever any crafty juggler went to the Christians, he grew rich immediately.' And Celsus represents the Christian wonderworkers as mere vagabonds and common cheats, who rambled about to fairs and markets,"" p. 23.

And is it any wonder, that either a Jew or a Heathen should represent them thus ? Sir, I do not blame you for not believing the Christian system, but for betraying so gross a partiality: for gleaning up every scrap of Heathen scandal, and palming it upon us as unquestionable evidence; and for not translating even these miserable fragments, with any accuracy or faithfulness. Instead of giving us the text, bad as it is, you commonly substitute a paraphrase yet worse. And this the unlearned reader naturally supposes to be a faithful translation. It is no credit to your cause if it needs such supports. And this is no credit to you if it does not.

To that of Lucian and Celsus, you add the evidence of Cæcilius too, who calls, say you, "these workers of miracles, a lurking nation, shunning the light." Then they were strangely altered all on a sudden. For you told us that just before, (p. 20,) they were proving themselves cheats by a widely different method; by "calling out both upon magistrates and people, and challenging all the world to come and see what they did!"

I was not aware, that you had yet begun "to throw together all which the Fathers have delivered, concerning the persons said to have been endued with those extraordinary gifts." And, it seems, you have made an end of it! And accordingly you proceed to sum up the evidence, to "observe upon the whole, From these characters of the primitive wonder-workers, as given both by friends and enemies, we may fairly conclude that the gifts of those ages were generally engrossed by private Christians, who travelled about from

city to city, to assist the ordinary preaching, in the conversion of Pagans, by the extraordinary miracles they pretended to perform," P. 24.

"Characters given both by friends and enemies!" Pray, Sir, what friends have you cited for this character? Or what enemies, except only Celsus the Jew? (And you are a miserable interpreter for him.) So from the single testimony of such a witness, you lay it down as an oracular truth, that all the miracle-workers of the three first ages, were vagabonds and common cheats, rambling about from city to city, to assist in converting heathens, by tricks and imposture! And this you ingenuously call, "Throwing together all which the Fathers have delivered concerning them!"

9. But to complete all, "Here again," say you, "we see a dispensation of things ascribed to God, quite different from that which we meet with in the New Testament," (p. 24.) We see a dispensation! Where? Not in the primitive church. Not in the writings of one single Christian: not of one Heathen; and only of one Jew; (for poor Celsus had not a second; though he multiplies under your forming hand, into a cloud of witnesses.) He alone ascribes this to the ancient Christians, which you in their name ascribe to God With the same regard to truth you go on, "In those days the power of working miracles" (you should say, The extraordinary gifts) "was committed to none but those who presided in the church of Christ." Ipse dixit, for that. But I cannot take your word: especially when the apostles and evangelists say otherwise. "But upon the pretended revival of those powers."-Sir, we do not pretend the revival· of them seeing we shall believe they never were intermitted, till you can prove the contrary. "We find the administration of them committed, not to those who had the government of the church; not to the bishops, the martyrs, to the principal champions of the Christian cause, but to boys, to women, and above all, to private and obscure. laymen not only of an inferior, but sometimes also of a bad character."

Surely, Sir, you talk in your sleep. You could never talk thus, if you had your eyes open, and your understanding about you. "We find the administration of them committed, not to those who had the government of the church." No! I thought Cyprian had had the government of the church at Carthage, and Dionysius at Alexandria!" Not to the bishops." Who were these then, that were mentioned last? Bishops or no bishops? "Not to the martyrs." Well, if Cyprian was neither bishop nor martyr, I hope you will allow Justin's claim. "Not to the principal champions of the Christian cause."-And yet you told us three pages since, that "these very Fathers were the chief champions of the Christian cause in those days!" "But to boys, and to women." I answer, This is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel, It shall come to pass that I will pour out my Spirit, saith the Lord, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy! A circumstance which turns this argument full against you, till you openly avow you do VOL. 9.-D

not believe those prophecies. "And above all, to private and ob scure laymen, not only of an inferior, but sometimes of a bad character." I answer, 1. You cite only one Anti-nicene writer, to prove them committed to "private and obscure laymen." And he says this and no more, Generally private men do things.of this kind." By what rule of grammar you construeidara, private and obscure laymen, I know not. 2. To prove "these were sometimes men of a bad character," you quote also but one Anti-nicene Father. (For I presume you will not assert the genuineness of the (so called) Apostalical Constitutions.) And that one is, in effect, none at all. It is Tertullian, who in his Prescription against Heretics, says, They will add many things of the authority (or power) of every heretical preacher: that they raised the dead, healed the sick, foretold things to come." They will add-But did Tertullian believe them? There is no shadow of reason to think he did. And if not, what is all this to the purpose ? No more than the tales of later ages which you add, coneerning the miracles wrought by "bones and relics."

10. These things," you add, "are so strange, as to give just reason to suspect, that there was some original fraud in the case, and that those strolling wonder-workers, by a dexterity of juggling, imposed upon the pious Fathers, whose strong prejudices and ardent zeal for the interest of Christianity, would dispose them to embrace, without examination, whatever seemed to promote so good a cause.' (p. 25.) You now speak tolerably plain, and would be much disappointed if those, who have no strong prejudices for Christianity, did not apply what you say of these strolling wonder-workers to the Apostles, as well as their successors.

66

11. A very short answer will suffice. These things are so strange." They are more strange than true. You have not proved one jot or tittle of them yet. Therefore the consequences you draw must fall to the ground till you find them some better support.

12. Nay, but "it is certain and notorious," you say, that this was really the case in some instances" that is, that "strolling, juggling wonder-workers imposed upon the pious Fathers." (p. 26.) Sir, I must come in again with my cuckoo's note, the proof? Where is the proof? Till this is produced I cannot allow that this is certain and notorious, even in one individual instance.

13. Let us now stand still and observe, what it is you have made out, under this second head. What you proposed was, "To throw together all which the primitive Fathers had delivered, concerning the persons said to be then endued with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit." And how have you executed what you proposed? You have thrown together a quotation from a Jew, two from Heathens, three quarters of a line from Origen! and three lines from Tertullian! (nothing at all, it is true, to the point in question. But that you could not help.)

* Ως επίπαν ιδιωται το τοιςτον πρατζεσι.

Origen. Cont. Cels. I. vii.

Adjicient multa da autoritate cujusque doctoris hæretici, illos mortuos suscitasse, debiles reformasse, &e.

14. And this, it seems, is "all you have been able to draw, from any of the primitive writers, concerning the persons who were endued with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost!" (p. 21.) Permit me, Sir, to apply to you, what was spoken on another occasion. • Sir, the well is deep, and thou hast nothing to draw: neither sufficient skill, nor industry and application. Besides, you are resolved to draw out of the well, what was never in it, and must of course lose all your labour.

III. 1. You are, "Thirdly, to show the particular characters and opinions of those Fathers who attest these gifts." Suffer me to remind you, that you mentioned nine of these, Justin, Iræneus, Theophilus, Tertullian, Minutius Felix, Origen, Cyprian, Arnobius, and Lactantius. You are therefore now to show what were the " particular characters and opinions of these Fathers." Indeed I should think, their opinions had some small relation to the question. But since you think otherwise, I am prepared to hear you.

66

You premise, That an unexceptionable witness must have both judgment and honesty:" (p. 26:) and then passing over the apostolic Fathers. (as supposing them on your side,) endeavour to show, that these other Fathers had neither.

of

2. You begin with Justin Martyr, who, you say, "frequently af firms, that the miraculous gift of expounding the Holy Scriptures, or the mysteries of God, was granted to himself, by the special grace God." p. 27.) Upon which I observe, 1. It has not yet been agreed among learned men, that declaring the mysteries of God, is the same thing with expounding the Holy Scriptures. 2. It is not clear, that Justin does affirm, his being endued either with one or the other. At least, not from the passages you cite. The first, literally thus: *He hath revealed to us whatsoever things we have understood by his grace from the Scriptures also: the other, I have not any such power; but God has given me the grace to understand his Scriptures.' Now, Sir, by which of these does it appear, that Justin affirms he had the miraculous gift of expounding the Scriptures?

3. However, you will affirm it, were it only to have the pleasure of confuting it. In order to which you recite three passages from his writings, wherein he interprets Scripture weakly enough: and then add, (after a strained compliment to Dr. Grabe, and a mangled translation of one of his remarks,) "His works are but little else. than a wretched collection of interpretations of the same kind. Yet this pious Father insists, that they were all suggested to him from heaven." (p. 30.) No; neither the one nor the other. Neither do interpretations of Scripture (good or bad) make the tenth part of his writings; nor does he insist, that all those which are found therein, "were suggested to him from heaven." This does not follow from any passage you have cited yet: nor from his saying in a particular case, "Do you think I could have understood these things in the

* Απεκάλυψεν εν ημιν παντα όσα και απο των γραφών δια της χαρίζος αυτό νενοηκαμεν. Dialogue, part 2.

† Ουδε γαρ δύναμις εμοι τοιαύτη τις εςιν, αλλα χαρις παρα Θες εδόθη μοι εις το συνιέναι τας γραφάς ayra. Ibid.

Scriptures, if I had not by the will of God received the grace to understand them ?".

4. However, now you clap your wings. "What credit," say you, "can be due to this Father, in the report of other people's gifts, who was so grossly deceived, or willing at least to deceive others, in this confident attestation of his own?" The answer is plain and obvious. It is not clear, that he attests his own at all. Consequently, as yet his credit is unblemished.

But he did not understand Hebrew, and gave a wrong derivation of the Hebrew word, Satan." Allowing this, that he was no good etymologist, his credit as a witness may be as good as ever.

5. But to blast his credit for ever, you will now reckon up all the heresies which he held. And first, He believed the doctrine of the Millennium; or, That all the saints should be raised in the flesh, and reign with Christ, in the enjoyment of all sensual pleasures, for a thousand years before the general resurrection." (p. 31.) These you mark as though they were Justin's words. I take knowledge you hold, no faith is to be kept with heretics; and that all means are fair which conduce to so good an end, as driving the Christian heresy out of the world.

66

It is by this principle only that I can account for your adding, Which doctrine" [that of their enjoying all sensual pleasures] "he deducts from the testimony of the prophets: and of St. John the Apostle'; and was followed in it by the Fathers of the second and third centuries."

The doctrine, (as you very well know,) which Justin "deduced from the Prophets and the Apostles," and "in which he was" undoubtedly "followed by the Fathers of the second and third centuries," is this:

The souls of them who have been martyred for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and who have not worshipped the beast, neither received his mark, shall live and reign with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead shall not live again, until the thousand years are finished. Now to say, they believed this, is neither more nor less than to say, they believed the Bible.

6. The second heresy you charge him with is the believing, "that those sons of God, mentioned Gen. vi. 4. of whom it is there said, They came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them;' were evil angels." (p. 32.) And I allow, he too lightly received this on the testimony of the Jewish commentators. But this only proves, that he was a fallible man: not that he was a knave; or that he had not eyes and ears.

7. You charge him, thirdly, with "treating the spurious books, published under the names of the Sibyl and Hystaspes, with the same reverence as the prophetic Scriptures." (ibid.) His words are, By the power of evil spirits, it was made death, to read the books of Hystaspes, or of the Sibyl, or of the prophets.' Well: how does prove, that he "treated those books with the same reverence as the prophetic Scriptures?"

this

46

But it is certain," you say, "that from this example and autho、