I.

A LETTER

TO

THE REVEREND DR. CONYERS MIDDLETON.

OCCASIONED BY HIS LATE “FREE INQUIRY.”

January 4, 1748-9.

REVEREND SIR,

1. IN your late “Inquiry,” you endeavor to prove,

First, that there were no miracles wrought in the primitive Church: Secondly, 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,

Thirdly, that no miracles were wrought by Christ or his Apostles; and, Fourthly, 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 labored 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 three first 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 honors, 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 honor, 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 noon-day. 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 judgment 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, f1 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 waving 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, — First, that such gifts did never subsist; and, Secondly, that the Apostles were equally wise and good with the “wonder-workers” (your favorite 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 11.)

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 color 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 endeavoring to forestall the judgment 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 favor. 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 favor 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, ill 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 Savior?” (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” f2 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.” (Chap. James 5:14 5:14, 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, 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 three first centuries and ceased in the beginning of the fourth. (Page 46, et seq.)

7. However, that none of them may ever be puzzled and 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 endeavor 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 a heretic at a mile’s distance.” (Free Inquiry, pages 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, pages 86, 87.) 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 judgment 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 1., chapter 3. 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 candor and impartiality!

14. A further 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 phase. 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?

15. 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.) 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 endeavor 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 connection 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, page 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 16:17, 18.)

A further 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, saith God, your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.” (Acts 2:16, 17.) The account given by St. Paul is a little fuller than this: “There are diversities of gifts,” (carismatwn, 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 diverse 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 Corinthians 12:4-11.) Hence we may observe, that the chief carismata, 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 mention 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, etc.,) 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 any thing more than faith, hope, and charity.” (Ibid.)

You assert: But the proof, Sir! 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, pneumatika carismata, 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, page 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 be 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 favored 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, page 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 you 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 a 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 a holy man, or that he was not favored 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 those extraordinary gifts which are the subject of this inquiry.” (Page 3.) I am amazed! 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 any thing under heaven? that anyone should credit any thing 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 day-time, 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 af 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 three first 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,