Wesley's Letters: 1749
To Dr. Conyers Middleton [1]
TO DR. CONYERS MIDDLETON [1b]
LONDON, January 4, 1749.
REVEREND SIR,--1. In your late Inquiry you endeavour to prove (1) that there were no miracles wrought in the primitive Church; (2) that all the primitive Fathers were fools or knaves, and most of them both one and the other: and it is easy to observe the whole tenor of your argument tends to prove (3) that no miracles were wrought by Christ or His Apostles; and (4) that these too were fools or knaves, or both.
2. I am not agreed with you on any of these heads. My reasons I shall lay before you in as free a manner, though not in so smooth or laboured language, as you have laid yours before the world.
3. But I have neither inclination nor leisure to follow you step by step through three hundred and seventy-three quarto pages. I shall therefore set aside all I find in your work which does not touch the merits of the cause, and likewise contract the question itself to the first three centuries; for I have no more to do with the writers or miracles of the fourth than with those of the fourteenth century.
4. You will naturally ask: 'Why do you stop there? What reason can you give for this? If you allow miracles before the empire became Christian, why not afterwards too?' I answer: Because, 'after the empire became Christian' (they are your own words), 'a general corruption both of faith and morals infected the Christian Church; which by that revolution, as St. Jerome says, " lost as much of her virtue as it had gained of wealth and power "' (page 123). And this very reason St. Chrysostom himself gave in the words you have afterwards cited: 'There are some who ask, Why are not miracles performed still? Why are there no persons who raise the dead and cure diseases?' To which he replies, that it was owing to the want of faith and virtue and piety in those times.
1. You begin your Preface by observing that the Inquiry was intended to have been published some time ago; but, upon reflection, you resolved to 'give out first some sketch of what you was projecting' (page 1), and accordingly 'published the Introductory Discourse' by itself, though 'foreseeing it would encounter all the opposition that prejudice, bigotry, and superstition are ever prepared to give to all inquiries' of this nature (page 2). But it was your 'comfort that this would excite candid inquirers to weigh the merit and consequences of it' (page 3).
2. The consequences of it are tolerably plain, even to free the good people of England from all that prejudice, bigotry, and superstition vulgarly called Christianity. But it is not so plain that 'this is the sole expedient which can secure the Protestant religion against the efforts of Rome' (ibid.). It may be doubted whether Deism is the sole expedient to secure us against Popery; for some are of opinion there are persons in the world who are neither Deists, nor Papists.
3. You open the cause artfully enough by a quotation from Mr. Locke (page 4). But we are agreed to build our faith on no man's authority. His reasons will be considered in their place.
'Those who have written against his and your opinion,' you say, 'have shown great eagerness, but little knowledge of the question; urged by the hopes of honours, and prepared to fight for every establishment that offers such pay to its defenders' (page 5). I have not read one of these; yet I would fain believe that neither the hope of honour nor the desire of pay was the sole, or indeed the main, motive that urged either them or you to engage in writing.
But I grant they are overseen, if they argue against you by citing 'the testimonies of the ancient Fathers' (page 6), seeing they might easily perceive you pay no more regard to these than to the Evangelists or Apostles. Neither do I commend them if they 'insinuate jealousies of consequences dangerous to Christianity' (ibid.). Why they should insinuate these I cannot conceive: I need not insinuate that the sun shines at noonday. You have 'opened too great a glare to the public' (page 7) to leave them any room for such insinuation. Though, to save appearances, you gravely declare still, 'Were my argument allowed to be true, the credit of the Gospel miracles could not in any. degree be shaken by it' (page 6).
4. So far is flourish. Now we come to the point. 'The present question,' you say, 'depends on the joint credibility of the facts and of the witnesses who attest them, especially' on the former. For 'if the facts be incredible, no testimony can alter the nature of things' (page 9). All this is most true. You go on: 'The credibility of facts lies open to the trial of our reason and senses, But the credibility of witnesses depends on a variety of principles wholly concealed from us. And though in many cases it may reasonably be presumed, yet in none can it be certainly known.' (Page 10.) Sir, will you retract this, or defend it? If you defend, and can prove as well as assert it, then farewell the credit of all history, not only sacred but profane. If 'the credibility of witnesses' (of all witnesses, for you make no distinction) depends, as you peremptorily affirm, 'on a variety of principles wholly concealed from us'; and consequently, 'though it may be presumed in many cases, yet can be certainly known in none,'--then it is plain all the history of the Bible is utterly precarious and uncertain; then I may indeed presume, but cannot certainly know, that Jesus of Nazareth ever was born, much less that He healed the sick and raised either Lazarus or Himself from the dead. Now, sir, go and declare again how careful you are for 'the credit of the Gospel miracles'!
5. But, for fear any--considering how 'frank and open' your nature is, and how 'warmly disposed to speak what you take to be true' (page 7)--should fancy you meant what you said in this declaration, you take care to inform them soon after: 'The whole which the wit of man can possibly discover, either of the ways or will of the Creator, must be acquired by attending seriously'--to what? to the Jewish or Christian revelation? No; but 'to that revelation which He made of Himself from the beginning in the beautiful fabric of this visible world.' (Page 22.)
6. I believe your opponents will not hereafter urge you either with that passage from St. Mark or any other from Scripture--at least I will not, unless I forget myself; as I observe you have done just now. For you said but now, 'Before we proceed to examine testimonies for the decision of this dispute, our first care should be to inform ourselves of the nature of those miraculous powers which are the subject of it as they are represented to us in the history of the Gospel' (page 10). Very true; 'this should be our first care.' I was therefore all attention to hear your account of 'the nature of those powers as they are represented to us in the Gospel,' But, alas! you say not a word more about it; but slip away to those 'zealous champions who have attempted' (bold men as they are) 'to refute the Introductory Discourse' (page 11).
Perhaps you will say, 'Yes, I repeat that text from St. Mark.' You do; yet not describing the nature of those powers, but only to open the way to 'one of your antagonists' (page 12); of whom you yourself affirm that 'not one of them seems to have spent a thought in considering those powers as they are set forth in the New Testament' (page 11). Consequently the bare repeating that text does not prove you (any more than them) to have 'spent one thought upon the subject.'
7. From this antagonist you ramble away to another; after a long citation from whom, you subjoin: 'It being agreed, then, that in the original promise there is no intimation of any particular period to which their continuance was limited' (pages 13-14). Sir, you have lost your way. We have as yet nothing to do with their continuance. 'For, till we have learned from those sacred records' (I use your own words) 'what they were and in what manner exerted by the Apostles, we cannot form a proper judgement of those evidences which are brought either to confirm or confute their continuance in the Church; and must consequently dispute at random, as chance or prejudice may prompt us, about things unknown to us' (page 11).
Now, sir, if this be true (as without doubt it is), then it necessarily follows that--seeing, from the beginning of your book to the end, you spend not one page to inform either yourself or your readers concerning the nature of these miraculous powers 'as they are represented to us in the history of the Gospel'--you dispute throughout the whole 'at random, as chance or prejudice prompts you, about things unknown to you.'
8. Your reply to 'the adversaries of your scheme' (pages 15-27) I may let alone for the present; and the rather, because the arguments used therein will occur again and again. Only I would here take notice of one assertion--'that the miraculous powers conferred on the Apostles themselves were imparted just at the moment of their exertion, and withdrawn again as soon as those particular occasions were served' (page 23). You should not have asserted this, be it true or false, without some stronger proof. 'This, I say, is evident' (ibid.) is not a sufficient proof; nor 'A treatise is prepared on that subject' (page 24). Neither is it proved by that comment of Grotius on our Lord's promise, ['Non omnibus omnia-ita tamen cuilibet credenti tunc data sit admirabilis facultas, quae se, non semper quidem, sed data occasione explicaret' (Grotius in Marcum xvi. 17). ] which, literally translated, runs thus: 'To every believer there was then given some wonderful power, which was to exert itself, not indeed always, but when there was occasion.'
9. But, waiving this, I grant 'the single point in dispute is, whether the testimony of the Fathers be a sufficient ground to believe that miraculous gifts subsisted at all after the days of the Apostles' (page 27). But with this you interweave another question--whether the Fathers were not all fools or knaves: in treating of which you strongly intimate (1) that such gifts did never subsist, and (2) that the Apostles were equally wise and good with the 'wonder-workers' (your favourite term) that followed them.
When, therefore, you add, 'My opinion is this--that, after our Lord's ascension, the extraordinary gifts He had promised were poured out on the Apostles, and the other primary instruments of planting the gospel, in order to enable them to overrule the inveterate prejudices both of the Jews and Gentiles, and to bear up against the discouraging shocks of popular rage and persecution' (page 28)--I look upon all this to be mere grimace. You believe not one word of what you say; you cannot possibly, if you believe what you said before: for who can believe both the sides of a contradiction?
10. However, I will suppose you do believe it, and will argue with you from your own words. But first let us have a few more of them: 'In process of time, as miraculous powers began to be less and less wanted, so they began gradually to decline, till they were finally withdrawn' (page 29); 'And this may probably be thought to have happened while some of the Apostles were still living.'
These were given, you say, to the first planters of the gospel, 'in order to enable them to overrule the inveterate prejudices both of Jews and Gentiles and to bear up against the shocks of persecution.' Thus far we are agreed. They were given for these ends. But if you allow this, you cannot suppose, consistently with yourself, that they were withdrawn till these ends were fully answered. So long, therefore, as those prejudices subsisted, and Christians were exposed to the shocks of persecution, you cannot deny but there was the same occasion for those powers to be continued as there was for their being given at first. And this, you say, is 'a postulatum which all people will grant, that they continued as long as they were necessary to the Church' (page II).
11. Now, did those prejudices cease or was persecution at an end while some of the Apostles were still living? You have yourself abundantly shown they did not. You know there was as sharp persecution in the third century as there was in the first, while all the Apostles were living. And with regard to prejudices, you have industriously remarked that 'the principal writers of Rome, who make any mention of the Christians about the time of Trajan, speak of them as a set of despicable, stubborn, and even wicked enthusiasts' (page 193); that 'Suetonius calls them " a race of men of a new and mischievous superstition "' (page 194); and that 'Tacitus, describing the horrible tortures which they suffered under Nero, says, " They were detested for their flagitious practices; possessed with an abominable superstition; and condemned, not so much for their supposed crime of firing the city, as from the hatred of all mankind "' (ibid.).
And 'their condition,' you say, 'continued much the same till they were established by the civil power; during all which time they were constantly insulted and calumniated by their heathen adversaries as a stupid, credulous, impious sect, the very scum of mankind' (page 195). In a word, both with regard to prejudice and persecution, I read in your following page:
'The heathen magistrates would not give themselves the trouble to make the least inquiry into their manners or doctrines, but condemned them for the mere name without examination or trial; treating a Christian of course as guilty of every crime, as an enemy of the gods, emperors, laws, and of nature itself' (page 196).
12. If, then, the end of those miraculous powers was 'to overcome inveterate prejudices and to enable the Christians to bear up against the shocks of persecution,' how can you possibly conceive that those powers should cease while some of the Apostles were living? With what colour can you assert that they were less wanted for these ends in the second and third than in the apostolic age? With what shadow of reason can you maintain that (if they ever subsisted at all) they were finally withdrawn before Christianity was established by the civil power? Then, indeed, these ends did manifestly cease, persecution was at an end, and the inveterate prejudices which had so long obtained were in great measure rooted up--another plain reason why the powers which were to balance these should remain in the Church so long, and no longer.
13. You go on to acquaint us with the excellences of your performance. 'The reader,' you say, 'will find in these sheets none of those arts which are commonly employed by disputants to perplex a good cause or to palliate a bad one; no subtile refinements, forced constructions, or evasive distinctions; but plain reasoning, grounded on plain facts, and published with an honest and disinterested view to free the minds of men from an inveterate imposture. I have shown that the ancient Fathers, by whom that delusion was imposed, were extremely credulous and superstitious, possessed with strong prejudices, and scrupling no art or means by which they might propagate the same.' (Page 31.) Surely, sir, you add the latter part of this paragraph on purpose to confute the former; for just here you use one of the unfairest arts which the most dishonest disputant can employ, in endeavouring to forestall the judgement of the reader, and to prejudice him against those men on whom he ought not to pass any sentence before he has heard the evidence.
1. In the beginning of your Introductory Discourse you declare the reasons which moved you to publish it. One of these, you say, was the late increase of Popery in this kingdom (page 41); chiefly occasioned, as you suppose, by the confident assertions of the Romish emissaries that there has been a succession of miracles in their Church from the apostolic to the present age. To obviate this plea you would 'settle some rule of discerning the true from the false, so as to give a reason for admitting the miracles of one age and rejecting those of another' (page 44).
2. This has a pleasing sound, and is extremely well imagined to prejudice a Protestant reader in your favour. You then slide with great art into your subject: 'This claim of a miraculous power, now peculiar to the Church of Rome, was asserted in all Christian countries till the Reformation' (ibid.). But then 'the cheat was detected' (page 45)--nay, and men began to 'suspect that the Church had long been governed by the same arts.' 'For it was easy to trace them up to the primitive Church, though not to fix the time when the cheat began; to show how long after the days of the Apostles the miraculous gifts continued in the Church' (page 46). However, it is commonly believed that they continued till Christianity was the established religion. Some, indeed, extend them to the fourth and fifth centuries (page 50); but these, you say, betray the Protestant cause (page 51). 'For in the third, fourth, and fifth the chief corruptions of Popery were introduced, or at least the seeds of them sown. By these I mean monkery; the worship of relics; invocation of saints; prayers for the dead; the superstitious use of images, of the sacraments, of the sign of the cross, and of the consecrated oil.' (Page 52.)
3. I have nothing to do with the fourth or fifth century. But to what you allege in support of this charge, so far as it relates to the third century, I have a few things to reply.
And, first, you quote not one line from any Father in the third century in favour of monkery, the worship of relics, the invocation of saints, or the superstitious use either of images or consecrated oil. How is this, sir? You brought eight accusations at once against the Fathers of the third as well as the following centuries; and as to five of the eight, when we call for the proof you have not one word to say! As to the sixth, you say, 'In the sacrament of the eucharist several abuses were introduced' (page 57). You instance, first, in mixing the wine with water. But how does it appear that this was any abuse at all? or that 'Irenaeus declared it to have been taught as well as practiced by our Saviour'? (Ibid.) The words you quote to prove this do not prove it at all; they simply relate a matter of fact--'Taking the bread, He confessed it to be His body; and the mixed cup, He affirmed it was His blood.['Accipiens panem, suum corpus esse confitebatur; et temperamentum calicis, suum sanguinem confirmavit' (Adversus omnes haereses).] You cannot be ignorant of this fact--that the cup used after the paschal supper was always mixed with water. But 'Cyprian declared this mixture to have been enjoined to himself by a divine revelation' (page 58). If he did, that will not prove it to be an abuse; so that you are wide of the point still. You instance next in their sending the bread to the sick; which (as well as the mixture) is mentioned by Justin Martyr. This fact likewise we allow; but you have not proved it to be an abuse. I grant that, near an hundred years after, some began to have a superstitious regard for this bread. But that in 'Tertullian's days it was carried home and locked up as a divine treasure' I call upon you to prove; as also that infant communion was an abuse, or the styling it 'the sacrifice of the body of Christ' (page 59). I believe the offering it up for the martyrs was an abuse; and that this, with the superstitious use of the sign of the cross, were, if not the earliest of all, yet as early as any which crept into the Christian Church.
4. It is certain 'praying for the dead was common in the second century' (page 60). You might have said, 'And in the first also'; seeing that petition, 'Thy kingdom come,' manifestly concerns the saints in paradise as well as those upon earth. But it is far from certain that 'the purpose of this was to procure relief and refreshment to the departed souls in some intermediate state of expiatory pains,' or that 'this was the general opinion of those times.'
5. As to the 'consecrated oil' (page 63), you seem entirely to forget that it was neither St. Jerome nor St. Chrysostom, but St. James, who said, 'Is any sick among you? let him send for the elders of the Church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up' (v. 14-15).
The sum is: you have charged the Fathers of the third century with eight of the chief corruptions of Popery--(1) monkery; (2) the worship of relics; (3) invocation of saints; (4) the superstitious use of images; (5) of the consecrated oil; (6) of the sacraments; (7) of the sign of the cross; (8) praying for the dead.
And what is all this heavy charge come to at last? Why, just thus much: some of them in the beginning of the third century did superstitiously use the sign of the cross; and others in the middle of that century offered up the eucharist for the martyrs on their annual festivals; though how you make this 'the superstitious use of the sacraments' I know not, or how these come to be the 'chief corruptions of Popery.'
Praying thus far for the dead, 'that God would shortly accomplish the number of His elect and hasten His kingdom,' and anointing the sick with oil, you will not easily prove to be any corruptions at all.
As to monkery, the worship of relics, invocation of saints, and the superstitious use of images, you have not even attempted to prove that these Fathers were guilty; so that, for aught appears, you might as well have charged them on the Apostles. 'Yet it is no more,' you solemnly assure us, 'than what fact and truth oblige you to say'! (Page 65.) When I meet with any of these assurances for the time to come, I shall remember to stand upon my guard.
6. In the following pages you are arguing against the miracles of the fourth and fifth century. After which you add: 'But if these must be rejected, where, then, are we to stop? And to what period must we confine ourselves? This, indeed, is the grand difficulty, and what has puzzled all the other doctors who have considered the same question before me.' (Page 71.) Sir, your memory is short. In this very discourse you yourself said just the contrary. You told us awhile ago that not only Dr. Marshall, [Thomas Marshall, D.D., Rector of Lincoln College 1672.] Dr. Dodwell, and Archbishop Tillotson, but the generality of the Protestant doctors were agreed to what period they should confine themselves, believing that miracles subsisted through the first three centuries and ceased in the beginning of the fourth (page 46 et seq.).
7. However, that none of them may ever be puzzled any more, you will 'lay down some general principles, which may lead us to a more rational solution of the matter than any that has hitherto been offered' (ibid.). Here again I was all attention. And what did the mountain bring forth? What are these general principles, preceded by so solemn a declaration, and laid down for thirteen pages together? (Pages 71-84.) Why, they are dwindled down into one--'that the forged miracles of the fourth century taint the credit of all the later miracles'! I should desire you to prove that the miracles of the fourth century were all forged, but that it is not material to our question.
8. But you endeavour to show it is, 'For that surprising confidence,' you say, 'with which the Fathers of the fourth age have affirmed as true what they themselves had forged, or at least knew to be forged' (a little more proof of that), 'makes us suspect that so bold a defiance of truth could not become general at once, but must have been carried gradually to that height by custom and the example of former times' (page 84). It does not appear that it did become general till long after the fourth century. And as this supposition is not sufficiently proved, the inference from it is nothing worth.
9. You say, secondly: 'This age, in which Christianity was established, had no occasion for any miracles. They would not therefore begin to forge miracles at a time when there was no particular temptation to it.' (Ibid.) Yes, the greatest temptation in the world, if they were such men as you suppose. If they were men that would scruple no art or means to enlarge their own credit and authority, they would naturally 'begin to forge miracles' at that time when real miracles were no more.
10. You say, thirdly: 'The later Fathers had equal piety with the earlier, but more learning and less credulity. If these, then, be found either to have forged miracles themselves, or propagated what they knew to be forged, or to have been deluded by the forgeries of others, it must excite the same suspicion of their predecessors.' (Page 85.)
I answer: (1) It is not plain that the later Fathers had equal piety with the earlier. Nor (2) That they had less credulity. It seems some of them had much more: witness Hilarion's camel, and smelling a devil or a sinner; though even he was not so quick-scented as St. Pachomius, who (as many believe to this day) could 'smell an heretic at a mile's distance.' (Free Inquiry, pp. 89-90.) But if (3) The earlier Fathers were holier than the later, they were not only less likely to delude others, but (even on Plato's supposition) to be deluded themselves; for they would have more assistance from God.
11. But you say, fourthly: 'The earlier ages of the Church were not purer than the later. Nay, in some respects they were worse: for there never was any age in which so many rank heresies were professed, or so many spurious books forged and published, under the names of Christ and His Apostles; several of which are cited by the most eminent Fathers of those ages as of equal authority with the Scriptures. And none can doubt but those who would forge or make use of forged books would make use of forged miracles.' (Introductory Discourse, pp. 8-7.)
I answer: (1) It is allowed that before the end of the third century the Church was greatly degenerated from its first purity. Yet I doubt not (2) But abundantly more rank heresies have been publicly professed in many later ages; but they were not publicly protested against, and therefore historians did not record them. (3) You cannot but know it has always been the judgement of learned men (which you are at liberty to refute if you are able) that the far greater part of those spurious books have been forged by heretics, and that many more were compiled by weak, well meaning men from what had been orally delivered down from the Apostles. But (4) There have been in the Church from the beginning men who had only the name of Christians. And these doubtless were capable of pious frauds (so called). But this ought not to be charged upon the whole body. Add to this (5) What is observed by Mr. Daille,--'I impute a great part of this mischief to those men who before the invention of printing were the transcribers and copiers out of manuscripts. We may well presume that these men took the same liberty in forging as St. Jerome complains they did in corrupting books, especially since this course was beneficial to them, which the other was not.'Much more to the same effect we have in his treatise Of the Right Use of the Fathers, Part I. chap. iii. N.B. These transcribers were not all Christians--no, not in name; perhaps few, if any of them, in the first century. (6) By what evidences do you prove that these spurious books 'are frequently cited by the most eminent Fathers as not only genuine but of equal authority with the Scriptures themselves'? Or, lastly, that they either forged these books themselves or made use of what they knew to be forged? These things also you are not to take for granted but to prove before your argument can be of force.
12. We are come at last to your general conclusion: 'There is no sufficient reason to believe that any miraculous powers subsisted in any age of the Church after the times of the Apostles' (page 91).
But pretended miracles, you say, arose thus: 'As the high authority of the apostolic writings excited some of the most learned Christians' (prove that!) 'to forge books under their names; so the great fame of the apostolic miracles would naturally excite some of the most crafty when the Apostles were dead to attempt some juggling tricks in imitation of them. And when these artful pretenders had maintained their ground through the first three centuries, the leading clergy of the fourth understood their interest too well to part with the old plea of miraculous gifts.' (Page 92.)
Round assertions indeed! But surely, sir, you do not think that reasonable men will take these for proofs! You are here advancing a charge of the blackest nature. But where are your vouchers? Where are the witnesses to support it? Hitherto you have not been able to produce one through a course of three hundred years; unless you bring in those heathen, of whose senseless, shameless prejudices you have yourself given so clear an account.
But you designed to produce your witnesses in the Free Inquiry a year or two after the Introductory Discourse was published. So you condemn them first, and try them afterwards; you will pass sentence now, and hear the evidence by-and-by! A genuine specimen of that 'impartial regard to truth' which you profess upon all occasions.
13. Another instance of this is in your marginal note: 'The primitive Christians were perpetually reproached for their gross credulity.' They were; but by whom? Why, by Jews and heathens. Accordingly the two witnesses you produce here are Celsus the Jew and Julian the apostate. But, lest this should not suffice, you make them confess the charge. 'The Fathers,' your words are, 'defend themselves by saying that they did no more than the philosophers had always done; that Pythagoras's precepts were inculcated with an ipse dixit, and they found the same method useful with the vulgar' (page 93). And is this their whole defence? Do the very men to whom you refer, Origen and Arnobius, in the very tracts to which you refer, give no other answer than this argument ad hominem? Stand this as another genuine proof of Dr. Middleton's candour and impartiality!
14. A farther proof of your 'frank and open nature,' and of your 'contenting yourself with the discharge of your own conscience by a free declaration of your real sentiments' (page 40), I find in the very next page. Here you solemnly declare: 'Christianity is confirmed by the evidence of such miracles as, of all others on record, are the least liable to exception, and carry the clearest marks of their sincerity; being wrought by Christ and His Apostles for an end so great, so important, as to be highly worthy the interposition of the Deity; wrought by mean and simple men, and delivered by eye-witnesses, whose characters exclude the suspicion of fraud' (page 94). Sir, do you believe one word of what you so solemnly declare? You have yourself declared the
contrary. But if you do not, where shall we have you? Or how can we believe you another time? How shall we know, I will not say, when you speak truth, but when you would have us think you do? By what criterion shall we distinguish between what is spoken in your real and what in your personated character? how discern when you speak as Dr. Middleton and when as the public librarian?
14. You go on: 'By granting the Romanists but a single age of miracles after the Apostles, we shall be entangled in difficulties, whence we can never extricate ourselves till we allow the same powers to the present age' (page 96). I will allow them, however, three ages of miracles, and let them make what advantage of it they can.
You proceed: 'If the Scriptures are a complete rule (I reject the word 'sufficient,' because it is ambiguous), we do not want the Fathers as guides, or, if clear, as interpreters. An esteem for them has carried many into dangerous errors: the neglect of them can have no ill consequences.' (Page 97.) I answer: (1) The Scriptures are a complete rule of faith and practice; and they are clear in all necessary points. And yet their clearness does not prove that they need not be explained, nor their completeness that they need not be enforced. (2) The esteeming the writings of the first three centuries not equally with but next to the Scriptures never carried any man yet into dangerous errors, nor probably ever will. But it has brought many out of dangerous errors, and particularly out of the errors of Popery. (3) The neglect in your sense of the primitive Fathers--that is, the thinking they were all fools and knaves--has this natural consequence (which ,I grant is no ill one, according to your principles), to make all who are not real Christians think Jesus of Nazareth and His Apostles just as honest and wise as them.
16. You afterwards endeavour to show how the Church of England came to have such an esteem for the ancient Fathers. There are several particulars in this account which are liable to exception. But I let them pass, as they have little connexion with the point in question.
17. You conclude your Introductory Discourse thus: 'The design of the present treatise is to fix the religion of the Protestants on its proper basis--that is, on the Sacred Scriptures' (page 111). Here again you speak in your personated character; as also when you 'freely own the primitive writers to be of use in attesting and transmitting to us the genuine books of the Holy Scriptures'! (Page 112.) Books for the full attestation as well as safe transmission whereof you have doubtless the deepest concern!
18. I cannot dismiss this Discourse without observing that the uncommon artfulness and disingenuity which glare through the whole must needs give disgust to every honest and upright heart; nor is it any credit at all to the cause you have espoused. Nay, I am persuaded there are many in these kingdoms who, though they think as you do concerning the Christian system, yet could not endure the thought of writing against it in the manner that you have done; of combating fraud (if it were so) with fraud, and practicing the very thing which they professed to expose and abhor.
In your Free Inquiry itself you propose,--
'I. To draw out in order all the principal testimonies which relate to miraculous gifts as they are found in the writings of the Fathers from the earliest ages after the Apostles; whence we shall see at one view the whole evidence by which they have hitherto been supported.
'II. To throw together all which those Fathers have delivered concerning the persons said to have been endued with those gifts.' (Page 1.)
'III. To illustrate the particular characters and opinions of the Fathers who attest those miracles.
'IV. To review all the several kinds of miracles which are pretended to have been wrought, and to observe from the nature of each how far they may reasonably be suspected.
'V. To refute some of the most plausible objections which have been hitherto made.' (Page 2.)
I was in hopes you would have given, at least in entering upon your main work, what you promised so long ago, an account of 'the proper nature and condition of those miraculous powers which are the subject of the whole dispute as they are represented to us in the history of the Gospel' (Preface, p. 10). But as you do not appear to have any thought of doing it at all, you will give me leave at length to do it for you.
The original promise of these runs thus: 'These signs shall follow them that believe: In My name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover' (Mark xvi.17-18).
A farther account is given of them by St. Peter on the very day whereon that promise was fulfilled: 'This is that which was spoken of by the Prophet Joel: And it shall come to pass in the last days, said God, . . . your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams' (Acts ii. 16-17).
The account given by St. Paul is a little fuller than this: 'There are diversities of gifts' (carismavtwn, the usual scriptural term for the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost), 'but the same Spirit. For to one is given the word of wisdom; to another the gifts of healing; to another the working of' other 'miracles; to another prophecy; to another discernment of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: all these worketh that one and the same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will.' (1 Cor. xii. 4-11.)
Hence we may observe that the chief carivsmata, 'spiritual gifts,' conferred on the apostolical Church were (1) casting out devils; (2) speaking with new tongues; (3) escaping dangers, in which otherwise they must have perished; (4) healing the sick; (5) prophecy, foretelling things to come; (6) visions; (7) divine dreams; and (8) discerning of spirits.
Some of these appear to have been chiefly designed for the conviction of Jews and heathens, as the casting out devils and speaking with new tongues; some chiefly for the benefit of their fellow Christians, as healing the sick, foretelling things to come, and the discernment of spirits; and all in order to enable those who either wrought or saw them to 'run with patience the race set before them,' through all the storms of persecution which the most inveterate prejudice, rage, and malice could raise against them.
I. 1. You are, first, 'to draw out in order all the principal testimonies which relate to miraculous gifts as they are found in the writings of the Fathers from the earliest ages after the Apostles.'
You begin with the apostolic Fathers--that is, those who lived and conversed with the Apostles. 'There are several,' you say, 'of this character, whose writings still remain to us: St. Barnabas, St. Clemens, St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, St. Hermas. Now, if those gifts had subsisted after the days of the Apostles, these must have possessed a large share of them. But if any of them had, he would have mentioned it in his writings, which not one of them has done.' (Page 3.)
The argument, fully proposed, runs thus:
If any such gifts had subsisted in them or in their days, they must have mentioned them in their circular Epistles to the Churches (for so their predecessors, the Apostles, did); but they did not mention any such gifts therein.
Sir, your consequence is not of any force; as will easily appear by a parallel argument:
If such gifts had subsisted in St. Peter or in his days, he must have mentioned them in his circular Epistles to the Churches. But he does not mention any such gifts therein; therefore they did not subsist in him or in his days.
Your argument, therefore, proves too much; nor can it conclude against an apostolic Father without concluding against the Apostle too.
If, therefore, the apostolic Fathers had not mentioned any miraculous gifts in their circular Epistles to the Churches, you could not have inferred that they possessed none; since neither does he mention them in his circular Epistles whom you allow to have possessed them.
Of all the Apostles you can produce but one, St. Paul, who makes mention of these gifts: and that not in his circular Epistles to the Churches; for I know not that he wrote any such.
2. All this time I have been arguing on your own suppositions that these five apostolic Fathers all wrote circular Epistles to the Churches, and yet never mentioned these gifts therein. But neither of these suppositions is true. For (1) Hermas wrote no Epistle at all. (2) Although the rest wrote Epistles to particular Churches (Clemens to the Corinthians, Ignatius to the Romans, &c.), yet not one of them wrote any circular Epistle to the Churches, like those of St. James and St. Peter; unless we allow that to be a genuine Epistle which bears the name of St. Barnabas. (3) You own they all 'speak of spiritual gifts as abounding among the Christians of that age'; but assert, 'These cannot mean anything more than faith, hope, and charity' (ibid.). You assert: but the proof, sir I I want the proof. Though I am but one of the vulgar, yet I am not half so credulous as you apprehend the first Christians to have been. Ipse dixi will not satisfy me: I want plain, clear, logical proof; especially when I consider how much you build upon this--that it is the main foundation whereon your hypothesis stands. You yourself must allow that in the Epistles of St. Paul pneumatikaV carivsmata, 'spiritual gifts,' does always mean more than faith, hope, and charity; that it constantly means 'miraculous gifts.' How, then, do you prove that in the Epistles of St. Ignatius it means quite another thing? not miraculous gifts, but only the ordinary gifts and graces of the gospel? I thought 'the reader' was to 'find no evasive distinctions in the following sheets' (Preface, p. 31). Prove, then, that this distinction is not evasive, that the same words mean absolutely different things. Till this is clearly and solidly done, reasonable men must believe that this and the like expressions mean the same thing in the writings of the apostolical Fathers as they do in the writings of the Apostles--namely, not the ordinary graces of the gospel, but the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost.
3. You aim, indeed, at a proof, which would be home to the point if you were but able to make it out. 'These Fathers themselves seem to disclaim all gifts of a more extraordinary kind. Thus Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians says, " Neither I, nor any other such as I am, can come up to the wisdom of the blessed Paul." And in the same Epistle he declares, " It was not granted to him to practice that' Be ye angry, and sin not.' " St. Ignatius also in his Epistle to the Ephesians says, "These things I prescribe to you, not as if I were somebody extraordinary; for though I am bound for His name, I am not yet perfect in Christ Jesus."' (Pages 7-8.) I think verily these extraordinary proofs may stand without any reply.
4. Yet you courteously add: 'If from the passages referred to above or any other it should appear probable to any that they were favoured on some occasions with some extraordinary illuminations, visions, or divine impressions, I shall not dispute that point; but remind them only that these gifts were granted for their particular comfort, and do not therefore in any manner affect or relate to the question now before us' (page 10).
I ask pardon, sir. These do so deeply affect, so nearly relate to, the question now before us, even as stated by yourself (Preface, p. 28), that, in allowing these, you give up the substance of the question. You yourself have declared that one great end of the extraordinary gifts conferred on the Apostles was 'to enable them to bear up against the shocks of popular rage and persecution.' Now, were not 'extraordinary illuminations, visions, and impressions,' if given at all, given for this very end--'for their particular comfort,' as you now word it? Therefore, in allowing these to the apostolic Fathers, you allow extraordinary gifts, which had been formerly granted to the Apostles, to have subsisted in the Church after the days of the Apostles, and for the same end as they did before.
5. Therefore the apostolic writers have not left us in the dark with regard to our present argument, and consequently your triumph comes too soon: 'Here, then, we have an interval of half a century in which we have the strongest reason to presume that the extraordinary gifts of the apostolic age were withdrawn' (page 9). No: not if all the apostolic Fathers speak of spiritual gifts as abounding among the Christians of that age; not if 'extraordinary illuminations, visions, and divine impressions still subsisted among them.' For, as to your now putting in, 'as exerted openly in the Church for the conviction of unbelievers,' I must desire you to put it out again; it comes a great deal too late. The question between you and me was stated without it above an hundred pages back. Although, if it be admitted, it will do you no service; seeing your proposition is overthrown if there were 'miraculous gifts after the days of the Apostles,' whether they were 'openly exerted for the conviction of unbelievers' or not.
6. I was a little surprised that you should take your leave of the apostolic Fathers so soon. But, upon looking forward, my surprise was at an end: I found you was not guilty of any design to spare them; but only delayed your remarks till the reader should be prepared for what might have shocked him had it stood in its proper place.
I do not find, indeed, that you make any objection to any part of the Epistles of Ignatius; no, nor of the Catholic Epistle, as it is called, which is inscribed with the name of Barnabas. This clearly convinces me you have not read it--I am apt to think not one page of it; seeing, if you had, you would never have let slip such an opportunity of exposing one that was called an apostolic Father.
7. But it would have been strange, if you had not somewhere brought in the famous phoenix of Clemens Romanus. And yet you are very merciful upon that head, barely remarking concerning it that 'he alleged the ridiculous story of the phoenix as a type and proof of the resurrection. Whether all the heathen writers treat it as nothing else but a mere fable I know not.' (Page 55.) But that it is so is certain, and consequently the argument drawn from it is weak and inconclusive. Yet it will not hence follow either that Clemens was a wicked man or that he had none of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit.
8. There is no real blemish to be found in the whole character of St. Polycarp. But there is one circumstance left upon record concerning him which has the appearance of weakness. And with this you do not fail to acquaint your reader at a convenient season--namely, 'that in the most ancient dispute concerning the time of holding Easter, St. Polycarp and Anicetus severally alleged apostolic tradition for their different practice' (page 60). And it is not improbable that both alleged what was true; that in a point of so little importance the Apostles varied themselves, some of them observing it on the fourteenth day of the moon, and others not. But, be this as it may, it can be no proof either that Polycarp was not an holy man or that he was not favoured with the extraordinary as well as ordinary gifts of the Spirit.
9. With regard to the narrative of his martyrdom, you affirm, 'It is one of the most authentic pieces in all primitive antiquity' (page 124). I will not vouch for its authenticity; nor, therefore, for the story of the dove, the flame forming an arch, the fragrant smell, or the revelation to Pionius. But your attempt to account for these things is truly curious. You say: 'An arch of flame round his body is an appearance which might easily happen from the common effects of wind. And the dove said to fly out of him might be conveyed into the wood which was prepared to consume him.' (Page 229.) How much more naturally may we account for both by supposing the whole to be a modern fiction, wrote on occasion of that account mentioned by Eusebius, but lost many ages ago!But, whatever may be thought of this account of his death, neither does this affect the question whether during his life he was endued with the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost.
10. There is one of those whom you style apostolic Fathers yet behind, of whom you talk full as familiarly as of the rest; I mean Hermas: 'to whom,' you say, 'some impute the fraud of forging the Sibylline books' (page 37). It would not have been amiss if you had told us which of the ancients, whether Christian, Jew, or heathen, ever accused him of this. If none ever did, some will be apt to think it is giving a person but hard measure to bring an accusation against him which never was heard of till sixteen hundred years after his death.
But I can the more easily excuse you, because he is a person whom you are wholly unacquainted with. Though it is much, curiosity did not lead you, when you had Archbishop Wake's translation in your hand, to read over if it were but half a dozen pages of his famous Shepherd. But charity obliges me to believe you never did. Otherwise I cannot conceive you would so peremptorily affirm of him and the rest together, 'There is not the least claim or pretension in all their several pieces to any of these extraordinary gifts which are the subject of this inquiry' (page 3). I am amazed I Sir, have you never a friend in the world? If you was yourself ignorant of the whole affair, would no one inform you that all the three books of Hermas from the first page to the last are nothing else than a recital of his extraordinary gifts, his visions, prophecies, and revelations?
Can you expect after this that any man in his senses should take your word for anything under heaven? that any one should credit anything which you affirm? or believe you any farther than he can see you? Jesus, whom you persecute, can forgive you this; but how can you forgive yourself? One would think you should be crying out day and night, 'The Shepherd of Hermas will not let me sleep!'
11. You proceed to the testimony of Justin Martyr, who wrote about fifty years after the Apostles: 'He says (I translate his words literally), " There are prophetic gifts among us even until now. You may see with us both women and men having gifts from the Spirit of God." He particularly insists on that of " casting out devils, as what every one might see with his own eyes."' (Page 10.)
'Irenaeus, who wrote somewhat later, affirms " that all who were truly disciples of Jesus wrought miracles in His name: some cast out devils; others had visions, or the knowledge of future events; others healed the sick." And as to raising the dead, he declares it to have been frequently performed on necessary occasions by great fasting and the joint supplication of the Church. " And we hear many," says he, " speaking with all kinds of tongues, and expounding the mysteries of God."' (Pages 11-12.)
'Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, who lived in the same age, speaks of casting out devils as then common in the Church' (ibid.).
12. 'Tertullian, who flourished toward the end of the second century, challenges the heathen magistrates to 'call before their tribunals any person possessed with a devil. And if the evil spirit, when commanded by any Christian, did not confess himself to be a devil, who elsewhere called himself a god, they should take the life of that Christian."' (Ibid.)
'Minutius Felix, supposed to have wrote in the beginning of the third century, addressing himself to his heathen friend, says, " The greatest part of you know what confessions the demons make concerning themselves, when we expel them out of the bodies of men"' (page 13).
13. 'Origen, something younger than Minutius, declares that there remained still the manifest indications of the Holy Spirit. " For the Christians," says he, " cast out devils, perform many cures, foretell things to come. And many have been converted to Christianity by visions. I have seen many examples of this sort."' (Page 14.)
In another place he says: 'Signs of the Holy Ghost were shown at the beginning of the teaching of Jesus' (not, as you translate it, 'miracles began with the preaching of Jesus'; that is quite a different thing); ' more were shown after His ascension, but afterwards fewer. However, even now there are still some remains of them with a few, whose souls are cleansed by the word and a life conformable to it.'(Page 15.) Again: 'Some,'says he, 'heal the sick. I myself have seen many so healed, of loss of senses, madness, and innumerable other evils which neither men nor devils can cure.'(Ibid.)' And this is done, not by magical arts, but by prayer and certain plain adjurations such as any common Christian may use; for generally common men do things of this kind' (page 16).
14. 'Cyprian, who wrote about the middle of the third century, says, " Beside the visions of the night, even in the daytime innocent children among us are filled with the Holy Spirit, and in ecstasies see and hear and speak those things by which God is pleased to admonish and instruct us"' (ibid.). Elsewhere he particularly mentions the casting out of devils: 'which,'says he, 'either depart immediately or by degrees, according to the faith of the patient or the grace of him that works the cure'(page 17).
'Arnobius, who is supposed to have wrote in the year of Christ 303, tells us, " Christ appears even now to men unpolluted and eminently holy who love Him; whose very name puts evil spirits to flight, strikes their prophets dumb, deprives the soothsayers of the power of answering, and frustrates the acts of arrogant magicians"' (page 18).
'Lactantius, who wrote about the same time, speaking of evil spirits, says, " Being adjured by Christians, they retire out of the bodies of men, confess themselves to be demons, and tell their names, even the same which are adored in the temples "' (ibid.).
15. 'These,' you say, 'are the principal testimonies which assert miraculous gifts through the first three centuries; which might be supported by many more of the same kind from the same as well as different writers. But none will scruple to risk the fate of the cause upon these.' (Page 19.) Thus far I do not scruple it. I do not doubt but the testimonies of these nine witnesses, added to the evidence of the apostolic Fathers, will satisfy every impartial man with regard to the point in question. Yet I see no cause, if there are nine witnesses more, to give up their evidence; seeing you may possibly raise objections against these which the others are unconcerned in.
If, then, you should invalidate what I have to reply in behalf of the witnesses now produced, you will have done but half your work. I shall afterwards require a fair hearing for the others also.
16. You close this head with remarking (1) 'That the silence of all the apostolic writers on the subject of these gifts must dispose us to conclude they were then withdrawn' (ibid.). O sir, mention this no more! I entreat you never name their silence again. They speak loud enough to shame you as long as you live. You cannot therefore talk with any grace of 'the pretended revival of them after a cessation of forty or fifty years,' or draw conclusions from that which never was.
Your second remark is perfectly new: I dare say none ever observed before yourself that this particular circumstance of the primitive Christians 'carried with it an air of imposture'--namely, their 'challenging all the world to come and see the miracles which they wrought'! (Page 21.) To complete the argument, you should have added, 'and their staking their lives upon the performance of them.'
17. I doubt you have not gone one step forward yet. You have, indeed, advanced many bold assertions; but you have not fairly proved one single conclusion with regard to the point in hand.
But a natural effect of your lively imagination is that from this time you argue more and more weakly; inasmuch, as the farther you go, the more things you imagine (and only imagine) yourself to have proved. Consequently, as you gather up more mistakes every step you take, every page is more precarious than the former.
II. 1. The second thing you proposed was 'to throw together all which those Fathers have delivered concerning the persons said to have been endued with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit' (ibid.).
'Now, whenever we think or speak with reverence,'say you, 'of those primitive times, it is always with regard to these very Fathers whose testimonies I have been collecting. And they were, indeed, the chief persons and champions of the Christian cause, the pastors, bishops, and martyrs of the primitive Church--namely, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Theophilus, Tertullian, Minutius Felix, Origen, Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius.' Sir, you stumble at the threshold. A common dictionary may inform you that these were not all either pastors, bishops, or martyrs.
2. You go on as you set out: 'Yet none of these have anywhere affirmed that they themselves were endued with any power of working miracles' (page 22). You should say, 'with any of those extraordinary gifts promised by our Lord and conferred on His Apostles.'
No! Have 'none of these anywhere affirmed that they themselves were endued' with any extraordinary gifts? What think you of the very first of them, Justin Martyr? Either you are quite mistaken in the account you give of him elsewhere (pages 27, 30), or he affirmed this of himself over and over. And as to Cyprian, you will by-and-by spend several pages together (pages 101, &c.) on the extraordinary gifts he affirmed himself to be endued with.
But suppose they had not anywhere affirmed this of themselves, what would you infer therefrom? that they were not endued with any extraordinary gifts? Then, by the very same method of arguing, you might prove that neither St. Peter, nor James, nor John were endued with any such; for neither do they anywhere affirm this of themselves in any of the writings which they have left behind them.
3. Your argument concerning the apostolic Fathers is just as conclusive as this, For if you say, 'The writers following the apostolic Fathers do not affirm them to have had any miraculous gifts, therefore 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. (Pages 106, 212.)
5. But what if they did not? Supposing miraculous powers were openly 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 wonder-workers as mere vagabonds and common cheats who rambled about to fairs and markets.' (Page 23.)
And is it any wonder that either a Jew or an 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.
7. To that of Lucian and Celsus, you add the evidence of Caecilius 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 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'! (Page 20.)
I was not aware that you had 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 preachers in the conversion of Pagans by the extraordinary miracles they pretended to perform' (page 24).
8. 'Characters given both by friends and enemies' I 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 first three ages were 'mere vagabonds and common cheats,' rambling about from city to city to assist in converting heathens by tricks and imposture! And this you ingeniously call 'throwing together all which the Fathers have delivered concerning them'!
9. But, to complete all, 'Here again,' you say, 'we see a dispensation of things ascribed to God quite different from that which we meet with in the New Testament' (page 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, or 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, not 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 not believe those prophecies. 'And, above all, to private and obscure laymen, not only of an inferior but sometimes of a bad character.' I answer: (1) You cite only one ante-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.'[WJ" ejpivpan ijdiw'tai toV toiou'ton pravttousi (Origen's Cont. Cels. 1. vii.).] By what rule of grammar you construe idiwtai 'private and obscure laymen' I know not. (2) To prove these were sometimes men of a bad character, you quote also but one ante-Nicene Father (for I presume you will not assert the genuineness of the so-called Apostolical 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 teacher--that they raised the dead, healed the sick, foretold things to come.' ['Adjicient multa de autoritate cujusque doctoris haeretici, illos mortuos suscitasse, debiles reformasse, &c.'] '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 concerning 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' (page 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.
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' (page 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.
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'! (Page 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 with'--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, Irenaeus, 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 small relation to the question. But, since you think otherwise, I am prepared to hear you.
You premise 'that an unexceptionable witness must have' (page 26) both judgement and honesty; and then, passing over the apostolic Fathers as supposing them on your side, endeavour to show that these other Fathers had neither.
2. You begin with Justin Martyr, who, you say, 'frequently affirms that the miraculous gift of expounding the Holy Scriptures or the mysteries of God was granted to himself by the special grace of God' (page 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 which you cite. The first, literally translated, runs thus: 'He hath revealed to us whatsoever things we have understood by His grace from the Scriptures also.' [jApekavlmyen ejn hJmi'n pavnta o{sa kaiV ajpoV tw'n grafw'n diaV th'" cavrito" aujtou' nenohvkamen (Dial. Part ii).] The other: 'I have not any such power; but God has given me the grace to understand His Scriptures.'[OujdeV gaVr duvnami" ejmoiV toiuvth ti" e[stin, ajllaV cavri" paraV qeou" ejdovqh moi eij" toV sunievnai taV" grafaV" aujtou' (Dial. Part ii.).] 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.' (Page 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 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?' (Ibid.) 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 "' (page 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.
It is by this principle only that I can account for your adding: 'Which doctrine' (that of their enjoying all sensual pleasures) 'he deduces 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 Genesis 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' (page 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 Hystespes, with the same reverence as the prophetic Scriptures' (page 33). 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 this prove that he treated those books with the same reverence as the prophetic Scriptures?
'But it is certain,' you say, 'that from this example and authority of Justin they were held in the highest veneration by the Fathers and rulers of the Church through all succeeding ages' (ibid.).
I do not conceive it is certain. I wait your proof, first of the fact, next of the reason you assign for it. The fact itself, that 'these books were held in the highest veneration by the Fathers and rulers through all succeeding ages,' is in no wise proved by that single quotation from Clemens Alexandrinus, wherein he urges the heathens with the testimonies of their own authors, of the Sibyl and of Hystaspes (page 34). We cannot infer from hence that he himself held them 'in the highest veneration'; much less that all the Fathers did. And as to the reason you assign for that veneration--the example and authority of Justin--you cite no writer of any kind, good or bad. So he that will believe it may.
But some, you tell us, 'impute the forging these books to Justin.' Be pleased to tell us likewise who those are, and what grounds they allege for that imputation. Till then, it can be of no signification.
8. You charge him, fourthly, 'with believing that silly story concerning the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, with saying that he himself when at Alexandria saw the remains of the cells in which the translators were shut up, and with making a considerable mistake in the chronology relating thereto' (page 37). And if all this be allowed, and, over and above, that he 'frequently cites apocryphal books and cites the Scriptures by memory,' what have you gained toward the proof of your grand conclusion--that 'he was either too great a fool or too great a knave to be believed touching a plain matter of fact'?
9. You seem sensible of this, and therefore add, fifthly: 'It will be said, perhaps, that these instances show a weakness of judgement, but do not touch the credit of Justin as a witness of fact' (page 29). But can you scrape up nothing from all the dunghills of antiquity that does? I dare say you will do your utmost. And, first, you reply: 'The want of judgement alone may in some cases disqualify a man from being a good witness. Thus Justin himself was imposed upon by those of Alexandria, who showed him some old ruins under the name of cells. And so he was by those who told him there was a statue at Rome inscribed " Simoni Deo Sancto," whereas it was really inscribed " Semoni Sanco Deo," to an old deity of the Sabines. Now,' say you, 'if he was deceived in such obvious facts, how much more easily would he be deceived by subtle and crafty impostors!' (Pages 40-1.) Far less easily. A man of good judgement may be deceived in the inscriptions of statues and points of ancient history. But, if he has only eyes and ears and a small degree of common sense, he cannot be deceived in facts where he is both an eye-and ear witness.
10. For a parting blow you endeavour to prove, sixthly, that Justin was a knave as well as a fool. To this end you remark that 'he charges the Jews with erasing three passages out of the Greek Bible; one whereof stands there still, and the other two were not expunged by some Jew, but added by some Christian. Nay, that able critic and divine, John Croius [Jean Croius or De Croi, Protestent Minister of Usez, wrote theological works in Latin; he died in 1659.]' (you know when to bestow honourable appellations), 'says Justin forged and published this passage for the confirmation of the Christian doctrine, as well as the greatest part of the Sibylline oracles and the sentences of Mercurius.' (Page 42.)
With far greater probability than John Croius asserts that Justin forged these passages, a man of candour would hope that he read them in his copy (though incorrect) of the Greek Bible. And, till you disprove this or prove the assertion of Croius, you are got not a jot farther still. But, notwithstanding you have taken true pains to blacken him both with regard to his morals and understanding, he may still be an honest man and an unexceptionable witness as to plain facts done before his face.
11. You fall upon Irenaeus next, and carefully enumerate all the mistakes in his writings. As (1) That he held the doctrine of the Millennium, and related a weak fancy of Papias concerning it. (2) That he believed our Saviour to have lived fifty years. (3) That he believed Enoch and Elias were translated, and St. Paul caught up to that very paradise from which Adam was expelled. So he might, and all the later Fathers with him, without being either the better or the worse. (4) That he believed the story concerning the Septuagint version; nay, and that the Scriptures were destroyed in the Babylonish captivity, but restored again after seventy years by Esdras, inspired for that purpose. 'In this also' you say, but do not prove, 'he was followed by all the principal Fathers that succeeded him; although there is no better foundation for it than that fabulous relation in the Second Book of Esdras.' You add (5) That 'he believed the sons of God who came in to the daughters of men were evil angels.' And all the early Fathers, you are very ready to believe, 'were drawn into the same error by the authority of the apocryphal Book of Enoch cited by St. Jude.' (Page 44.)
12. It is not only out of your goodwill to St. Jude or Irenaeus you gather up these fragments of error that nothing be lost, but also to the whole body of the ancient Christians. For 'all those absurdities,' you say, 'were taught by the Fathers of those ages' (naturally implying by all the Fathers), 'as doctrines of the universal Church derived immediately from the Apostles, and thought so necessary that those who held the contrary were hardly considered as real Christians.' Here I must beg you to prove as well as assert (1) that all these absurdities of the millennium, in the grossest sense of it, of the age of Christ, of paradise, of the destruction of the Scriptures, of the Septuagint version, and of evil angels mixing with women, were taught by all the Fathers of those ages; (2) that all those Fathers taught these as doctrines of ,the universal Church derived immediately from the Apostles; and (3) that they all denied those to be real Christians who held the contrary.
13. You next cite two far-fetched interpretations of Scripture and a weak saying out of the writings of Irenaeus. But all three prove no more than that in these instances he did not speak with strictness of judgement, not that he was incapable of knowing what he saw with his own eyes or of truly relating it to others.
Before we proceed to what, with equal good humour and impartiality, you remark concerning the rest of these Fathers, it will be proper to consider what more is interspersed concerning these in the sequel of this argument.
14. And, first, you say: 'Justin used an inconclusive argument for the existence of the souls of men after death' (page 67). It is possible he might; but, whether it was conclusive or no, this does not affect his moral character.
You say, secondly: 'It was the common opinion of all the Fathers, taken from the authority of Justin Martyr, that the demons wanted the fumes of the sacrifices to strengthen them for the enjoyment of their lustful pleasures' (page 69).
Sir, no man of reason will believe this concerning one of the Fathers upon your bare assertion. I must therefore desire you to prove by more than a scrap of a sentence (1) that Justin himself held this opinion; (2) that he invented it; (3) that it was the common opinion of all the Fathers; and (4) that they all took it on his authority.
15. You affirm, thirdly: 'He says that all devils yield and submit to the name of Jesus; as also to the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob' (page 85). Very likely he may.
Lastly. You cite a passage from him concerning the Spirit of God influencing the minds of holy men. But neither does this in any measure affect his credit as a witness of fact. Consequently, after all that you have been able to draw either from himself or any of the primitive writers, here is one witness of unquestionable credit touching the miracles wrought in the primitive Church, touching the subsistence of the extraordinary gifts after the days of the Apostles.
16. But let us come once more to Irenaeus; for you have not done with him yet. 'Forgery,' you say, 'has been actually charged upon Justin' (by John Croius and Dr. Middleton), 'and may with equal reason be charged on Irenaeus; for what other account can be given of his frequent appeals to apostolical tradition for the support of so many incredible doctrines?' (page 111). Why, this very natural one, that in non-essential points he too easily followed the authority of Papias, a weak man, who on slight grounds believed many trifling things to have been said or done by the Apostles. And allowing all this, yet it does not give us so 'lamentable an idea of those primitive ages and primitive champions of the Christian cause' (page 59).
The same account may be given of his mistake concerning the age of our Lord (ibid.). There is therefore as yet neither reason nor any plausible presence for laying forgery to his charge; and consequently thus far his credit as a witness stands clear and unimpeached.
But you say, secondly: 'He was a zealous asserter of tradition' (page 61). He might be so, and yet be an honest man, and that whether he was mistaken or no in supposing Papias to have been a disciple of John the Apostle (page 64).
You say, thirdly: He supposed 'that the disciples of Simon Magus as well as Carpocrates used magical arts' (page 68); that 'the dead were frequently raised in his time' (page 72); that 'the Jews by the name of God cast out devils' (page 85); and that 'many had even then the gift of tongues, although he had it not himself.'
17. This is the whole of your charge against St. Irenaeus, when summed up and laid together. And now let any reasonable person judge whether all this gives us the least cause to question either his having sense enough to discern a plain matter of fact or honesty enough to relate it. Here, then, is one more credible witness of miraculous gifts after the days of the Apostles.
18. What you advance concerning the history of tradition, I am neither concerned to defend nor to confute. Only I must observe you forget yourself again where you say, 'The fable of the millennium, of the old age of Christ, with many more, were all embraced by the earliest Fathers' (page 64). For modesty's sake, sir, think a little before you speak; and remember you yourself informed us that one of these was never embraced at all but by one single Father only.
19. 'I cannot,' you say, 'dismiss this article without taking notice that witchcraft was universally believed through all ages of the primitive Church' (page 66). This you show by citations from several of the Fathers; who likewise believed, as you inform us, that 'evil spirits had power frequently to afflict either the bodies or minds of men'; that they 'acted the parts of the heathen gods, and assumed the forms of those who were called from the dead. Now, this opinion,' say you, 'is not only a proof of the grossest credulity, but of that species of it which, of all others, lays a man most open to imposture' (page 70).
And yet this opinion, as you know full well, has its foundation, not only in the histories of all ages and all nations throughout the habitable world, even where Christianity never obtained, but particularly in Scripture--in abundance of passages both of the Old and New Testament, as where the Israelites were expressly commanded not to 'suffer a witch to live' (ibid.); where St. Paul numbers 'witchcraft' with 'the works of the flesh' (Gal. v. 19-20), and ranks it with adultery and idolatry; and where St. John declares, 'Without are sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers' (Rev. xxii. 15). That the gods of the heathens are devils (1 Cor. x. 30) is declared in terms by one of those who are styled inspired writers. And many conceive that another of them gives us a plain instance of their 'assuming the form of those who were called from the dead' (1 Sam. xxviii. 13-14).
Of the power of evil spirits to afflict the minds of men none can doubt who believe there are any such beings. And of their power to afflict the body we have abundant proof both in the history of Job and that of the Gospel demoniacs.
I do not mean, sir, to accuse you of believing these things: you have shown that you are guiltless in this matter; and that you pay no more regard to that antiquated book the Bible than you do to the Second Book of Esdras. But, alas! the Fathers were not so far enlightened. And because they were bigoted to that old book, they of consequence held for truth what you assure us was mere delusion and imposture.
20. Now to apply. 'A mind,' you say, 'so totally possessed by superstitious fancies could not even suspect the pretensions of those vagrant jugglers, who in those primitive ages were so
numerous and so industriously employed in deluding their fellow creatures. Both heathens, Jews, and Christians are all allowed to have had such impostors among them.' (Page 71.) By whom, sir, is this allowed of the Christians? By whom but Celsus was it affirmed of them? Who informed you of their growing so numerous and using such industry in their employment? To speak the plain truth, your mind appears 'to be so totally possessed by' these 'vagrant jugglers,' that you cannot say one word about the primitive Church but they immediately start up before you, though there is no more proof of their ever existing than of a witch's sailing in an eggshell.
21. You conclude this head: 'When pious Christians are arrived to this pitch of credulity, as to believe that evil spirits or evil men can work miracles in opposition to the gospel, their very piety will oblige them to admit as miraculous whatever is pretended to be wrought in defence of it' (ibid.). Once more you have spoken out: you have shown without disguise what you think of St. Paul and the 'lying miracles' (2 Thess. ii. 9) which he (poor man!) believed evil spirits or evil men could work in opposition to the gospel; and of St. John talking so idly of him who 'doeth great wonders . . . and deceiveth them that dwell on the earth' (even though they were not Christians) 'by means of those miracles which he hath power to do' (Rev. xiii. 13-14).
22. You have now finished the third thing you proposed; which was 'to show the particular characters of the several Fathers who attest' that they were eye-and ear-witnesses of the extraordinary gifts in the primitive Church.
You named nine of these--Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Theophilus, Tertullian, Minutius Felix, Origen, Cyprian, Arnobius, and Lactantius; at the same time observing that many other writers attest the same thing.
But let the others stand by. Are these good men and true? That is the present question.
You say, 'No'; and, to prove that these nine are knaves, bring several charges against two of them.
These have been answered at large: some of them proved to be false; some, though true, yet not invalidating their evidence.
But, supposing we waive the evidence of these two, here are seven more still to come.
Oh, but you say: 'If there were twice seven, they only repeat the words which these have taught them.'
You say; but how often must you be reminded that saying and proving are two things? I grant in three or four opinions some (though not all) of these were mistaken as well as those two. But this by no means proves that they were all knaves together; or that, if Justin Martyr or Irenaeus speaks wrong, I am therefore to give no credit to the evidence of Theophilus or Minutius Felix.
23. You have therefore made a more lame piece of work on this head, if possible, than on the preceding. You have promised great things, and performed just nothing. You have left above three parts in four of your work entirely untouched; as these two are not a fourth part even of the writers you have named as attesting the continuance of the 'extraordinary gifts' after the age of the Apostles.
But you have taught that trick at least to your 'vagrant jugglers' to supply the defect of all other arguments. At every dead lift you are sure to play upon us these dear creatures of your own imagination. They are the very strength of your battle, your tenth legion. Yet, if a man impertinently calls for proof of their existence, if he comes close and engages them hand to hand, they immediately vanish away.
IV. You are, in the fourth place, to 'review all the several kinds of miraculous gifts which are pretended to have been given, and to observe from the nature of each how far they may reasonably be suspected' (page 72).
'These,' you say, 'are (1) the power of raising the dead; (2) of healing the sick; (3) of casting out devils; (4) of prophesying; (5) of seeing visions; (6) of discovering the secrets of men; (7) expounding the Scriptures; (8) of speaking with tongues.'
I had rather have had an account of the miraculous powers as they are represented to us in the history of the Gospel. But that account you are not inclined to give. So we will make the best of what we have.
Section I. 1. And, first, as to 'raising the dead.' Irenaeus affirms: 'This was frequently performed on necessary occasions; when, by great fastings and the joint supplication of the Church, the spirit of the dead person returned into him, and the man was given back to the prayers of the saints' (ibid.).
2. But you object: 'There is not an instance of this to be found in the first three centuries' (ibid.). I presume you mean no heathen historian has mentioned it; for Christian historians were not. I answer: (1) It is not probable an heathen historian would have related such a fact had he known it. (2) It is equally improbable he should know it: seeing the Christians knew with whom they had to do; and that, had such an instance been made public, they would not long have enjoyed him who had been given back to their prayers. They could not but remember what had been before, when the Jews sought Lazarus also to kill him: a very obvious reason why a miracle of this particular kind ought not to have been published abroad;--especially considering (3) that it was not designed for the conversion of the heathens; but 'on occasions necessary' for the good of the Church, of the Christian community. (4) It was a miracle proper, above all others, to support and confirm the Christians, who were daily tortured and slain, but sustained by the hope of obtaining a better resurrection.
3. You object, secondly: 'The heathens constantly affirmed the thing itself to be impossible' (page 73). They did so. But is it 'a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead'?
4. You object, thirdly, that when 'Autolycus, an eminent heathen, scarce forty years after this, said to Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, " Show me but one raised from the dead, that I may see and believe" (ibid.), Theophilus could not.' Supposing he could not, I do not see that this contradicts the testimony of Irenaeus; for he does not affirm (though you say he does) that this was 'performed, as it were, in every parish or place where there was a Christian Church' (page 72). He does not affirm that it was performed at Antioch; probably not in any Church, unless where a concurrence of important circumstances required it. Much less does he affirm that the persons raised in France would be alive forty years after. Therefore--although it be granted (1) that the historians of that age are silent; (2) that the heathens said the thing was impossible; and (3) that Theophilus did not answer the challenge of the heathen Autolycus--all this will not invalidate in any degree the express testimony of Irenaeus or prove that none have been raised from the dead since the days of the Apostles.
Section II. 1. 'The next gift is that of healing the sick, often performed by anointing them with oil; in favour of which,' as you observe, 'the ancient testimonies are more full and express' (page 75). But 'this,' you say, 'might be accounted for without a miracle, by the natural efficacy of the oil itself' (page 76). I doubt not. Be pleased to try how many you can cure thus that are blind, deaf, dumb, or paralytic; and experience, if not philosophy, will teach you that oil has no such natural efficacy as this.
2. Of this you seem not insensible already, and therefore fly away to your favourite supposition that 'they were not cured at all, that the whole matter was a cheat from the beginning to the end.' But by what arguments do you evince this? The first is, 'The heathens pretended to do the same'; nay, and 'managed the imposture with so much art, that the Christians could neither deny nor detect it, but insisted always that it was performed by demons or evil spirits' (ibid.). But still the heathens maintained, 'the cures were wrought by their gods--by Aesculapius in particular.' And where is the difference? seeing, as was observed before, 'the gods of the heathens were but devils.'
3. But you say, 'Although public monuments were erected in proof and memory of these cures at the time when they were performed, yet it is certain all those heathen miracles were pure forgeries' (page 79). How is it certain? If you can swallow this without good proof, you are far more credulous than I. I cannot believe that the whole body of the heathens for so many generations were utterly destitute of common sense any more than of common honesty. Why should you fix such a charge on whole cities and countries? You could have done no more, if they had been Christians!
4. But 'diseases thought fatal and desperate are oft surprisingly healed of themselves.' And, therefore, 'we cannot pay any great regard to such stories, unless we knew more precisely in this case the real bounds between nature and miracle' (ibid.). Sir, I understand you well. The drift of the argument is easily seen. It points at the Master as well as His servants; and tends to prove that, after all this talk about miraculous cures, we are not sure there were ever any in the world. But it will do no harm. For although we grant (1) that some recover even in seemingly desperate cases, and (2) that we do not know in any case the precise bounds between nature and miracle; yet it does not follow, Therefore I cannot be assured there ever was a miracle of healing in the world. To explain this by instance: I do not precisely know how far nature can go in healing, that is, restoring sight to the blind; yet this I assuredly know--that, if a man born blind is restored to sight by a word, this is not nature, but miracle. And to such a story, well attested, all reasonable men will pay the highest regard.
5. The sum of what you have advanced on this head is (1) that the heathens themselves had miraculous cures among them; (2) that oil may cure some diseases by its natural efficacy; and (3) that we do not know the precise bounds of nature. All this I allow. But all this will not prove that no miraculous cures were performed either by our Lord and His Apostles or by those who lived in the three succeeding centuries.
Section III. 1. The third of the miraculous powers said to have been in the primitive Church is that of casting out devils. The testimonies concerning this are out of number and as plain as words can make them. To show, therefore, that all these signify nothing, and that there were never any devils cast out at all, neither by the Apostles nor since the Apostles (for the argument proves both or neither), is a task worthy of you. And, to give you your just praise, you have here put forth all your strength.
2. And yet I cannot but apprehend there was a much shorter way. Would it not have been readier to overthrow all those testimonies at a stroke by proving there never was any devil in the world? Then the whole affair of casting him out had been at an end.
But it is in condescension to the weakness and prejudices of mankind that you go less out of the common road, and only observe 'that those who were said to be possessed of the devil may have been ill of the falling sickness.' And their symptoms, you say, 'seem to be nothing else but the ordinary symptoms of an epilepsy' (page 81).
If it be asked, But were 'the speeches and confessions of the devils and their answering to all questions nothing but the ordinary symptoms of an epilepsy'? you take in a second hypothesis, and account for these 'by the arts of imposture and contrivance between the persons concerned in the act' (page 82).
But is not this something extraordinary, that men in epileptic fits should be capable of so much art and contrivance? To get over this difficulty, we are apt to suppose that art and contrivance were the main ingredients; so that we are to add only quantum sufficit of the epilepsy, and sometimes to leave it out of the composition.
But the proof, sir? where is the proof? I want a little of that too. Instead of this we have only another supposition--'that all the Fathers were either induced by their prejudices to give too hasty credit to these pretended possessions or carried away by their zeal to support a delusion which was useful to the Christian cause' (ibid.).
I grant they were prejudiced in favour of the Bible; but yet we cannot fairly conclude from hence, either that they were one and all continually deceived by merely pretended possessions, or that they would all lie for God--a thing absolutely forbidden in that book.
3. But 'leaders of sects,' you say, 'whatever principles they pretend to, have seldom scrupled to use a commodious lie' (page 83). I observe you are quite impartial here. You make no exception of age or nation. It is all one to you whether your reader applies this to the son of Abdallah or the Son of Mary. And yet, sir, I cannot but think there was a difference. I fancy the Jew was an honester man than the Arabian; and though Mahomet used many a commodious lie, yet Jesus of Nazareth did not.
4. However, 'Not one of these Fathers made any scruple of using the hyperbolical style' (that is, in plain English, of lying), 'as an eminent writer of ecclesiastical history declares' (ibid.). You should have said an impartial writer. For who would scruple that character to Mr. Le Clerc? And yet I cannot take either his or your bare word for this. Be pleased to produce a little proof. Hitherto you have proved absolutely nothing on the head, but (as your manner is) taken all for granted.
5. You next relate that famous story from Tertullian: 'A woman went to the theatre, and returned possessed with a devil. When the unclean spirit was asked how he dared to assault a Christian, he answered, " I found her on my own ground."' (Ibid.) After relating another, which you endeavour to account for naturally, you intimate that this was a mere lie of Tertullian's. But how is that proved? Why, 'Tertullian was an utter enemy to plays and public shows in the theatre.' He was so; but can we infer from thence that he was an utter enemy to common honesty?
6. You add: 'The Fathers themselves own that even the Jews, yea, and the heathens, cast out devils. Now, it will be granted that these Jewish and heathen exorcists were mere cheats and impostors. But the Fathers believed they really cast them out. Now, if they could take their tricks for the effects of a supernatural power, well might they be deceived by their own impostors. Or they might think it convenient to oppose one cheat to another.' (Pages 84, 87-8.)
'Deceived,' say you, 'by their own impostors'? Why, I thought they were the very men who set them to work! who opposed one cheat to another! Apt scholars, who acted their part so well as even to deceive their masters! But, whatever the heathen were, we cannot grant that all the 'Jewish exorcists were impostors.' Whether the heathens cast out devils or not, it is sure the sons of the Jews cast them out. I mean, upon supposition, that Jesus of Nazareth cast them out; which is a point not here to be disputed.
7. But 'it is very hard to believe what Origen declares, that the devils used to possess and destroy cattle.' You might have said what Matthew and Mark declare concerning the herd of swine; and yet we shall find you by-and-by believing far harder things than this.
Before you subjoined the silly story of Hilarion and his camel, [St. Jerome says in his Vita Hilarions Eremitae that a raging camel, who had already trampled on many, was brought with ropes by more than thirty men to Hilarion. Its eyes were bloody, its mouth foaming. Hilarion dismissed the men; and when the camel would have rushed on him, he stretched out his hands and said, 'Thou wilt not terrify me, O devil, with thy vast body; both in the little fox and in the camel thou art one and the same.' The camel fell humbly at his feet with the devil cast out. Kingsley does not give this story in The Hermits.] you should in candour have informed your reader that it is disputed whether the life of Hilarion was wrote by St. Jerome or no. But, be it as it may, I have no concern for either; for they did not live within the first three ages.
8. I know not what you have proved hitherto, though you have affirmed many things and intimated more. But now we come to the strength of the cause contained in your five observations.
You observe, first, 'that all the primitive accounts of casting out devils, though given by different Fathers and in different ages, yet exactly agree with regard to all the main circumstances' (page 91). And this you apprehend to be a mark of imposture. 'It looks,' you say, 'as if they copied from each other'! Now, a vulgar reader would have imagined that any single account of this kind must be rendered much more (not less) credible by parallel accounts of what many had severally seen at different times and in different places.
9. You observe, secondly, 'that the persons thus possessed were called ejggastrivmuqoi, " ventriloquists "' (some of them were), 'because they were generally believed to speak out of the belly. Now, there are at this day,' you say, 'those who by art and practice can speak in the same manner. If we suppose, then, that there were artists of this kind among the ancient Christians, how easily, by a correspondence between the ventriloquist and the exorcist, might they delude the most sensible of their audience!' (Page 92.)
But what did the ventriloquist do with his epilepsy in the meantime? You must not let it go, because many of the circumstances wherein all these accounts agree cannot be tolerably accounted for without it. And yet how will you make these two agree? It is a point worthy your serious consideration.
But cheats, doubtless, they were, account for it who can. Yet it is strange none of the heathens should find them out, that the imposture should remain quite undiscovered till fourteen hundred years after the impostors were dead! He must have a very large faith who can believe this--who can suppose that not one of all those impostors should, either through inadvertence or in the midst of tortures and death, have once intimated any such thing.
10. You observe, thirdly, 'that many demoniacs could not be cured by all the power of the exorcists, and that the cures which were pretended to be wrought on any were but temporary, were but the cessation of a particular fit or access of the distemper. This,' you say, 'is evident from the testimony of antiquity itself, and may be clearly collected from the method of treating them in the ancient Church.' (Ibid.)
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, what becomes 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 even 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; 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.' (Pages 94-5.)
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' (page 95), then it cannot be that 'many of them could not possibly be cured by all the power of those exorcists' (page 92). What! could they not possibly be taught to know their masters, and when to end as well as to begin the show? One would think that the cures wrought upon 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 Council 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.' (Page 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' (page 86). If so, what need of decreeing it now, above an hundred years after? Again: If the exorcists were ordained an 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.
Section IV. I. 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' (page 72). But here you jumble them all together, telling us, 'The next miraculous gift is that of prophetic visions and ecstatic trances' (ecstatic ecstasies you might have said) 'and the discovery of men's hearts' (page 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 ecstasies, you observe, first, that Tertullian calls ecstasy 'a temporary loss of senses' (page 97). It was so of the outward senses, which were then locked up. You observe, secondly, that 'Suidas' [Suidas, placed about A.D. 975-1025, reputed author of a Greek Lexicon which contains many passages from authors whose works are lost.] (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 the divine light shines, the human sets; but when that sets, this rises. This uses to befall the prophets' (page 98). Well, sir, and what is this to the question? Why, 'from these testimonies,' you say, 'we may collect that the vision or ecstasy of the primitive Church was of the same kind with those of the Delphic Pythia or the Cumaean 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 ecstasies.' 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.
4. You observe, fifthly, how Tertullian was 'imposed upon by the craft of ecstatic visionaries' (page 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' (page 101). 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 Caecilius that he was divinely admoni |
