Sir, you are the most obliging disputant in the world: for you continually answer your own arguments. Your last observation confuted all that you had advanced before. And now you are so kind as to confute that. For if, after all, these demoniacs were real epileptics, and that in so high a degree as to be wholly incurable, whatbecomes of their art and practice? And of the very good correspondence between the ventriloquist and the exorcist?

Having allowed you your supposition just so long, as may suffice to confute yourself, I must now observe, it is not true. For all that "is evident from the testimony of antiquity" is this: that although many demoniacs were wholly delivered, yet some were not, particularly in the third century: but continued months or years, with only intervals of ease, before they were entirely set at liberty.

11. You observe, fourthly, "That great numbers of demoniacs subsisted in those early ages, whose chief habitation was in a part of the church, where, as in a kind of hospital, they were under the care of the exorcists." (p. 94.) "Which will account for the confidence of those challenges made to the Heathens by the Christians, to come and see how they could drive the devils out of them, while they kept such numbers of them in constant pay: always ready for the show; tried and disciplined by your exorcists to groan and howl, and give proper answers to all questions," p. 95.

So now "the correspondence between the ventriloquist and the exorcist" is grown more close than ever! But the misfortune is, this observation likewise wholly overthrows that which went before it. For if all the groaning, and howling, and other symptoms, were no more than what they "were disciplined to by their exorcists," (p. 95;) then it cannot be, that "many of them could not possibly be cured by all the power of those exorcists," (p. 92.) What! could they not possibly be taught to know their masters? And to what end as well as when, to begin the show? One would think, that the cures wrought upoir these might have been more than temporary. Nay, it is surprising, that while they had such numbers of them, they should ever suffer the same person to show twice.

12. You observe, fifthly, "That whereas this power of casting out devils, had hitherto been in the hands only of the meaner part of the laity (that wants proof) it was, about the year 367, put under the direction of the clergy; it being then decreed by the counsel of Laodicea, that none should be exorcists but those appointed (or ordained) by the bishop. But no sooner was this done, even by those who favoured and desired to support it, than the gift itself gradually decreased and expired." p. 95.

You here overthrow not only your immediately preceding observation, (as usual) but likewise what you have observed elsewhere, "That the exorcists began to be ordained about the middle of the third century." If so, what need of decreeing it now, above a hundred years after? Again, if the exorcists were ordained a hundred years before this council sat, what change was made by the decree of the council? Or how came the power of casting out devils to cease

upon it? You say, the bishops " still favoured and desired to support it." Why then did they not support it? It must have been they (not the poor exorcists, who were but a degree above sextons) who had hitherto "kept such numbers of them in pay." What was become of them now? Were all the groaners and howlers dead? And no more to be procured for money? Or rather, did not the bishops, think you, grow covetous as they grew rich, and so kept fewer and fewer of them in pay, till at length the whole business dropped?

13. These are your laboured objections against the great promise of our Lord, In my name shall they cast out devils: whereby (to make sure work) you strike at him and his apostles, just as much as at the primitive Fathers. But by a strange jumble of ideas in your head, you would prove so much that you prove nothing. By attempting to show all, who claimed this power, to be at once both fools and knaves, you have spoiled your whole cause, and, in the event, neither shown them to be one nor the other: as the one half of your argument all along just serves to overthrow the other. So that after all, the ancient testimonies touching this gift, remain firm and unshaken.

Sect. IV. 1. You told us above, That "the fourth miraculous gift was that of prophesying," the fifth of "seeing visions," the sixth of "discovering the secrets of men," (p. 72.) But here you jumble them all together, telling us, "The next miraculous gift is that of prophetic visions, and ecstatic trances," (ecstatic ecstacies you might have said,)" "and the discovery of men's hearts." (p. 96.) But why do you thrust all three into one? Because, you say, these seem to be the fruit of one spirit. Most certainly they are, whether it was the spirit of truth, or (as you suppose) the spirit of delusion.

2. However, it is the second of these on which you chiefly dwell, (the fifth of those you before enumerated,) taking but little notice of the fourth, "foretelling things to come," and none at all of the sixth, "discovering the secrets of men." The testimonies therefore for these remain in full force, as you do not even attempt to invalidate them. With regard to "visions or ecstacies," you observe, first, That Tertullian calls ecstacy, "a temporary loss of senses." (p. 97.) It was so, of the outward senses, which were then locked up. You observe; secondly, That "Suidas" (a very primitive writer, who lived between eight and nine hundred years after Tertullian !) "says, That of all the kinds of madness, that of the poets and prophets was alone to be wished for." I am at a loss to know what this is brought to prove. The question is, were there visions in the primitive church? You observe, thirdly, that Philo the Jew says, (I literally translate his words, which you do not, for it would not answer your purpose,) "When divine light shines, the human sets; but when that sets, this rises. This uses to befall the prophets," (p. 98.) Well, Sir, and what is this to the question? Why, "from these testimonies," you say, "we may collect, that the vision or ecstacy of the primitive church was of the same kind with that of the Delphic Pythia, or the Cumæan Sibyl.”

Well collected indeed! But I desire a little better testimony, than

either that of Philo the Jew, or Suidas, a lexicographer of the eleventh century, before I believe this. How little Tertullian is to be regarded on this head, you yourself show in the very next page.

3. You say, fourthly," Montanus and his associates were the authors of these trances. They first raised this spirit of enthusiasm in the church, and acquired great credit by their visions and ecstacies." Sir, you forget; they did not raise this spirit, but rather Joel and St. Peter; according to whose words the young men saw visions, before Montanus was born.

You observe, fifthly, How Tertullian was "imposed upon by the ecstatic craft of visionaries," (p. 99,) and then fall upon Cyprian with all your might your objections to whom we shall now consider.

And, first, you lay it down as a postulatum, that he was" fond of power and episcopal authority." I cannot grant this, Sir. I must have some proof; else this, and all you infer from it, will go for nothing.

You say, secondly, "in all questionable points of doctrine or discipline, which he had a mind to introduce into the Christian worship, we find him constantly appealing to the testimony of visions and divine revelations. Thus he says to Cæcilius, that he was divinely admonished to mix water with wine in the sacrament, in order to render it effectual."

You set out unhappily enough. For this can never be a proof of Cyprian's appealing to visions and revelations in order to "introduce questionable points" of doctrine or discipline "into the Christian worship:" because this point was unquestionable, and could not then be "introduced into the Christian worship," having had a constant place therein, as you yourself have showed, (Introd. Disc. p. 57,) at least from the time of Justin Martyr. Indeed, neither Justin nor Cyprian use those words, In order to render it effectual. They are an ingenious and honest addition of your own, in order to make something out of nothing.

5. I observe you take much the same liberty in your next quotation from Cyprian. "He threatens," you say, "to execute, 'what he was ordered to do against them in vision."" (p. 102.). Here also the last words, in a vision, are an improvement upon the text. Cyprian's words are, I will use that admonition which the Lord commands me to use.* * But neither was this in order to introduce any "questionable point," either of doctrine or discipline; no more than his "using the same threat to Pupianus,", who had spoken ill of him and left his communion.

6. You go on, "He says likewise, he was admonished of God, to ordain one Numidicus, a confessor," (p. 103,) "who had been left for dead, half burnt, and buried in stones." (p. 104.) True, but what "questionable point of doctrine" or discipline did he introduce hereby? Or by ordaining Celerinus: "who was over-ruled and compelled by a divine vision to accept that office." So you affirm

* Utar ea admonitione, qua me Dominus uti jubet. Epist. 9.

Cyprian says. But Cyprian says it not; at least, not in those words which you cite in the margin; which literally translated, run thus, I recommend to you Celerinus, joined to our clergy, not by human suffrage, but by the divine favour.*

"In another letter, speaking of Aurelius, whom he had ordained a reader, he says to his clergy and people, In ordaining clergy, my dearest brethren, I use to consult you first-But there is no need to wait for human testimonies, when the divine suffrage has been already signified."

An impartial man would wonder what you could infer from these five passages put together. Why, by the help of a short postulatum, "He was fond of power," you have as much ground to say, He was fond of bloodshed;) you will make it plain, "This was all a trick to enlarge his episcopal authority." But as that postulatum is not allowed, you have all your work to begin again.

7. Hitherto then the character of Cyprian is unhurt; but now you are resolved to blow it up at once. So you proceed, "The most memorable effect of any of his visions was his flight from his church in the time of persecution." (p. 104.) "He affirms, that he was commanded to retire by a special revelation from heaven. Yet this plea was a mere fiction, contrived to quiet the scandal which was raised by his flight and is confuted by himself, where he declares, it was the advice of Tertullus which prevailed with him to withdraw." p. 105.

You here charge Cyprian with "confuting himself," in saying, "He withdrew by the advice of Tertullus;" whereas he "before affirmed, that he was commanded to retire by a special revelation from heaven." Indeed he had not there is no necessity at all for putting this construction upon those words, "The Lord who commanded me to retire;" which may without any force be understood of the written command, When they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another,' (Matt. x. 23.) It is not therefore clear, that this plea of "special revelation" was ever advanced. And if it was advanced, it still remains to be proved that "it was nothing else but a mere fiction."

8. Your citing his editor here, obliges me to add a remark, for which you give continual occasion. If either Rigalt, Mr. Dodwell, Dr. Grabe, Mr. Thirlby, or any editor of any of the Fathers, ever drops an expression to the disadvantage of the author whom he publishes or illustrates, this you account so much treasure, and will surely find a time to expose it to public view. And all these passages you recite as demonstration. These are doubtless mere oracles: although when the same person speaks in favour of the Father, his authority is not worth a straw. But you have " none of those arts which are commonly employed by disputants to palliate a bad cause!" Pref. p. 31.

9. What you relate of Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, you have

* Non humana suffragatione, sed divina dignatione, conjunctum. Epist. 34.

not from himself, but only from one who lived nearly a hundred years after Dionysius was dead. Therefore he is not at all accountable for it: as neither am I for any vision of St. Jerome. But I am concerned in the consequence you draw from it: "if this was a fiction, so were Cyprian's too." That will not follow. Many objections may lie against the one, which have no place with regard to the other.

10. You now bring forth your grand discovery, that "all the visions" of those days "were contrived, or authorized at least, by the leading men of the church. For they were all applied, either, 1. To excuse the conduct of particular persons, in some instances of it liable to censure; or, 2. To enforce some doctrine or discipline pressed by some, but not relished by others; or, 3. To confirm things not only frivolous, but sometimes even superstitious and hurtful." (p. 109.) Well, Sir, here is the proposition. But where is the proof? I hope we shall have it in your next Free Inquiry: and that you will then give us a few instances of such applications, from the writers of the three first centuries.

11. Being not disposed to do this at present, you fall again upon the poor "heretic Montanus: who first gave a vogue" (as you phrase it) "to visions and ecstacies in the Christian church." (p. 110.) So you told us before. But we cannot believe it yet; because Peter and Paul tell us the contrary.

Indeed you do not now mention Montanus, because it is any thing to the question, but only to make way for "observing," that those who wrote against him, "employed such arguments against his prophecy, as shake the credit of all prophecy. For Epiphanus makes this the very criterion between a true and a false prophet, That the true had no ecstacies, constantly retained his senses, and with firmness of mind apprehended and, uttered the divine oracles."" Sir, have you not mistook? Have you not transcribed one sentence in the margin, and translated another? That sentence which stands in your margin is this, "When there was need, the saints of God among the prophets prophesied all things with the true spirit, and with a sound understanding and reasonable mind." Now it is difficult to find out how this comes to "shake the credit of all prophecy."

12. Why thus, "Before the Montanists had brought those ecstacies into disgrace, the prophecy of the orthodox too was exerted in ecstacy. And so were the prophecies of the Old Testament, according to the current opinion of earlier days." p. 111.

That this was then the "current opinion," you bring three citations to prove. But if you could cite three Fathers more during the three first centuries, "expressly affirming," that the prophets were all out of their senses, I would not take their word. For though I take most of the Fathers to have been wise and good men, yet I know none of them were infallible. But do even these three affirm it? No not one of them, at least in the words you have cited. From Athenagoras you cite only part of a sentence, which, trans