Iii.

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 labor.

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 judgment and honesty; and then, passing over the apostolic Fathers, as supposing them on your side, endeavor 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 whatso ever things we have understood by his grace from the Scriptures also.” f5 The other: “I have not any such power; but God has given me the grace to understand his Scriptures.” f6 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 forever, 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 4:4, 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 Hystaspes, 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 nowise 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 judgment, 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 judgment 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, 41.) Far less easily. A man of good judgment 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 endeavor 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,” (you know when to bestow honorable 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 candor 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 race.

11. You fall upon Irenaeus next, and carefully enumerate all the mistakes in his writings. As, First, that he held the doctrine of the millennium, and related a weak fancy of Papias concerning it. Secondly: That he believed our Savior to have lived fifty years. Thirdly: 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.) Fourthly: 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, Fifthly, 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 judgment; 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 humor 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 pretense 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 80;) and that “many had even then the gift of tongues, although he had it not himself.” 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 affect 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,” (Galatians 5:19, 20,) and ranks it with adultery and idolatry; and where St. John declares, “Without are sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers.” (Revelation 22:15.)

That the gods of the Heathens are devils, (1 Corinthians 10:20,) 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 Samuel 28:13, 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 Thessalonians 2:9) 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.” (Revelation 13:13, 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 wave the evidence of these two, here are seven more still to come.

O, 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 ar 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 art 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