Iv.
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. Of 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 1.
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 three first centuries.” (Ibid.) I presume you mean, no heathen historian has mentioned it; for Christian historians were not. I answer,
(1.) It is not probable a 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,
Thirdly, 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. Lastly: 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 2.
1. “The next gift is, that of healing the sick; often performed by anointing them with oil; in favor 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 favorite 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, though 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 may 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 3.
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 favor 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 theater, 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 endeavor 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, 88.)
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, you should, in candor, 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 three first 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 rare (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 eggasrimuqoi, ‘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 members 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, 95.) So now the correspondence between the ventriloquist and the exorcist is grown more close than ever! But the misfortune is, this observation, likewise, wholly overthrows that which vent 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 favored 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 unusual,) 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 chance 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 favored 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) sho 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 labored 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 4
1. You told us above, that “the fourth miraculous gift was that of prophesying; the fifth, of seeing visions; the sixth, of discovering the secrets of men.” (Page 72.) But here you jumble them all together, telling us, “The next miraculous gift is that of prophetic evisions, 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 one 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” (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 “found 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 admonished to mix water with wine in the sacrament, in order to render it effectual.” You set out unhappily enough. For this can never be a proof of Cyprian’s appealing to visions and revelations in order to introduce questionable points of doctrine or discipline into the Christian worship; because this point was unquestionable, and could not then be “introduced into the Christian worship,” having had a constant place therein, as you yourself have showed, (Introductory Discourse, p. 57,) at least from the time of Justin Martyr.
Indeed, neither Justin nor Cyprian use those words, “In order to render it effectual.” They are an ingenious and honest addition of your own, in order to make something out of nothing.
5. I observe you take much the same liberty in your next quotation from Cyprian. “He threatens,” you say, “to execute what he was ordered to do ‘against them in a vision.’” (Page 102.) Here also the last words, “in a vision,” are an improvement upon the text. Cyprian’s words are, “I will use that admonition which the Lord commands me to use.” f7 But neither was this in order to introduce any questionable point, either of doctrine or discipline; no more than his using the same threat to Pupianus, who had spoken ill of him and left his communion.
6. You go on: “He says likewise, he was admonished of God to ordain one Numidicus, a Confessor, who had been left for dead, half burnt and buried in stones.” (Pages 103, 104.) True, but what “questionable point of doctrine” or discipline did he introduce hereby? or by ordaining Celerinus; “who was overruled and compelled by a divine vision to accept that office?” So you affirm Cyprian says. But Cyprian says it not; at least, not in those words which you cite in the margin: which, literally translated, run thus: “I recommend to you Celerinus, joined to our Clergy, not by human suffrage, but by the divine favor.” f8
“In another letter, speaking of Aurelius, whom he had ordained a Reader, he says to his Clergy and people, ‘In ordaining Clergy, my dearest brethren, I use to consult you first; but there is no need to wait for human testimonies, when the divine suffrage has been already signified.’”
An impartial man would wonder what you could infer from these five passages put together. Why, by the help of a short postulatum, “He was fond of power,” (you have as much ground to say, “He was fond of bloodshed,”) you will make it plain, “this was all a trick to enlarge his episcopal authority.” But as that postulatum is not allowed, you have all your work to begin again.
7. Hitherto then the character of Cyprian is unhurt; but now you are resolved to blow it up at once. So you proceed: “The most memorable effect of any of his visions was his flight from his Church in the time of persecution. He affirms, that he was commanded to retire by a special revelation from heaven. Yet this plea was a mere fiction, contrived to quiet the scandal which was raised by his flight; and is confuted by himself, where he declares, it was the advice of Tertullus which prevailed with him to withdraw.” (Pages 104, 105.)
You here charge Cyprian with confuting himself, in saying, he “withdrew by the advice of Tertullus;” whereas he had “before affirmed, that he was commanded to retire by a special revelation from heaven.” Indeed he had not; there is no necessity at all for putting this construction upon those words, “The Lord who commanded me to retire;” which may without any force be understood of the written command, “When they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another.” (Matthew 10:23.) It is not therefore clear, that this plea of a special revelation was ever advanced. And if it was advanced, it still remains to be proved, that “it was nothing else but a mere fiction.”
8. Your citing his editor here, obliges me to add a remark, for which you give continual occasion: If either Rigalt, Mr. Dodwell, Dr. Grabe, Mr. Thirlby, or any editor of the Fathers, ever drops an expression to the disadvantage of the author whom he publishes or illustrates, this you account so much treasure, and will surely find a time to expose it to public view. And all these passages you recite as demonstration. These are doubtless mere oracles; although when the same person speaks in favor of the Father, his authority is not worth a straw. But you have “none of those arts which are commonly employed by disputants to palliate a bad cause!” (Preface, page 31.)
9. What you relate of Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, you have not from himself, but only from one who lived near a hundred years after Dionysius was dead. Therefore he is not at all accountable for it; as neither am I for any vision of St. Jerome. But I am concerned in the consequence you draw from it: “If this was a fiction, so were Cyprian’s too.” That will not follow. Many objections may lie against the one, which have no place with regard to the other.
10. You now bring forth your grand discovery, that “all the visions of those days were contrived, or authorized at least, by the leading men of the Church. For they were all applied, either,
(1.) To excuse the conduct of particular persons, in some instances of it liable to censure; or,
(2.) To enforce some doctrine or discipline pressed by some, but not relished by others; or,
(3.) To confirm things not only frivolous, but sometimes even superstitious and hurtful.” (Page 109.)
Well, Sir, here is the proposition. But where is the proof? I hope we shall have it in your next “Free Inquiry;” and that you will then give us a few instances of such applications, from the writers of the three first centuries.
11. Being not disposed to do this at present, you fall again upon the poor “heretic Montanus; who first gave a vogue” (as you phrase it) “to visions and ecstasies in the Christian Church.” (Page 110.) So you told us before. But we cannot believe it yet; because Peter and Paul tell us the contrary. Indeed, you do not now mention Montanus because it is any thing to the question, but only to make way for observing, that those who wrote against him “employed such arguments against his prophecy as shake the credit of all prophecy. For Epiphanius makes this the very criterion between a true and a false prophet, ‘that the true had no ecstasies, constantly retained his senses, and with firmness of mind apprehended and uttered the divine oracles.’” Sir, have you not mistook? Have you not transcribed one sentence in the margin, and translated another? That sentence which stands in your margin is this: “When there was need, the saints of God among the Prophets prophesied all things with the true Spirit, and with a sound understanding and reasonable mind.” Now, it is difficult to find out how this comes to “ shake the credit of all prophecy.”
12. Why thus: “Before the Montanists had brought those ecstasies into disgrace, the prophecy of the orthodox too was exerted in ecstasy. And so were the prophecies of the Old Testament, according to the current opinion of those earlier days.” (Page 111.)
That this was then “the current opinion,” you bring three citations to prove. But if you could cite three Fathers more during the three first; centuries, expressly affirming that the Prophets were all out of their senses, I would not take their word. For though I take most of the Fathers to have been wise and good men, yet I know none of them were infallible. But do even these three expressly affirm it? No, not one of them; at least in the words you have cited. From Athenagoras you cite only part of a sentence, which, translated as literally as it will well bear, runs thus: “Who in an ecstasy of their own thoughts, being moved by the Divine Spirit, spoke the things with which they were inspired, even as a piper breathes into a pipe.” Does Athenagoras expressly affirm in these words, that the Prophets were “transported out of their senses?” I hope, Sir, you do not understand Greek. If so, you show here only a little harmless ignorance.
13. From Justin Martyr also you cite but part of a sentence. He speaks, very nearly, thus: —
“That the Spirit of God, descending from heaven, and using righteous men as the quill strikes the harp or lyre, may reveal unto us the knowledge of divine and heavenly things.” And does Justin expressly affirm in these words, that all the Prophets were “transported out of their senses?”
Tertullian’s words are: “A man being in the Spirit, especially when he beholds the glory of God, must needs lose sense.” f9 Now, as it is not plain that he means hereby, lose his understanding, (it being at least equally probable, that he intends no more than, losing for the time the use of his outward senses,) neither can it be said that Tertullian expressly affirms, “The Prophets were all out of their senses.” Therefore you have not so much as one Father to vouch for what you say was “the current opinion in those days.”
14. I doubt not but all men of learning will observe a circumstance which holds throughout all your quotations. The strength of your argument constantly lies in a loose and paraphrastical manner of translating. The strength of mine lies in translating all in the most close and literal manner; so that closeness of translation strengthens mine, in the same proportion as it weakens your arguments; a plain proof of what you elsewhere observe, that you use “no subtle refinements or forced constructions.” (Preface, page 31.)
15. But to return to Cyprian: “I cannot forbear,” you say, “relating two or three more of his wonderful stories. The first is, A man who had denied Christ was presently struck dumb: The second, A woman who had done so was seized by an unclean spirit, and soon after died in great anguish: The third, of which he says he was an eyewitness, is this, — The heathen Magistrates gave to a Christian infant part of what had been offered to an idol. When the Deacon forced the consecrated wine on this child, it was immediately seized with convulsions and vomiting; as was a woman who had apostatized, upon taking the consecrated elements.” (Pages 112, 113.) The other two relations Cyprian does not affirm of his own personal knowledge.
“Now, what can we think,” say you, “of these strange stories, but that they were partly forged, partly dressed up in this tragical form, to support the discipline of the Church in these times of danger and trial?” (Page 115.)
Why, many will think that some of them are true, even in the manner they are related; and that if any of them are not, Cyprian thought they were, and related them in the sincerity of his heart. Nay, perhaps some will think that the wisdom of God might, “in those times of danger and trial,” work things of this kind, for that very end, “to support the discipline of the Church.” And till you show the falsehood, or at least the improbability, of this, Cyprian’s character stands untainted; not only as a man of sense, (which you yourself allow,) but likewise of eminent integrity; and consequently it is beyond dispute, that visions, the fifth miraculous gift, remained in the Church after the days of the Apostles.
SECTION 5.
1. The sixth of the miraculous gifts which you enumerated above, namely, “the discernment of spirits,” you just name, and then entirely pass over. The seventh is, that of “expounding the Scriptures.” (Page 116.) You tack to it, “or the mysteries of God.” But, inasmuch as it is not yet agreed (as was intimated above) whether this be the same gift, it may just as well be left out.
2. Now, as to this, you say, “There is no trace of it to be found since the days of the Apostles. For even in the second and third centuries, a most senseless and extravagant method of expounding them prevailed. For which when we censure any particular Father, his apologists with one voice allege, ‘This is to be charged to the age wherein he lived, which could not relish or endure any better.’”
I doubt much, whether you can produce one single apologist for any “ridiculous comment on sacred writ,” who any where “alleges, that the second or third century could not relish or endure any better.” But if they were all to say this with one voice, yet no reasonable man could believe them. For it is notoriously contrary to matter of fact. It may be allowed, that some of these Fathers, being afraid of too literal a way of expounding the Scriptures, leaned sometimes to the other extreme. Yet nothing can be more unjust than to infer from hence, “that the age in which they lived could not relish or endure any but senseless, extravagant, enthusiastic, ridiculous comments on sacred writ.”
Will you say, that all the comments on Scripture, still to be found in the writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, Athenagoras, or even of Origen and Clemens Alexandrinus, are senseless and extravagant? If not, this charge must fall to the ground; it being manifest, that even “the age in which they lived” could both “endure and relish” sound, sensible, rational (and yet spiritual) comments on holy writ.
Yet this extravagant charge you have repeated over and over in various parts of your work; thrusting it upon your reader in season and out of season: How fairly, let all candid men judge.
3. Touching the miraculous gift of expounding Scripture, you say, “Justin Martyr affirms, it was conferred on him by the special grace of God.” (Page 117.) I cannot find where he affirms this. Not in the words you cite, which, literally translated, (as was observed before,) run thus: “He hath revealed to us whatso ever things we have understood by his grace from the Scriptures also.” You seem conscious, these words do not prove the point, and therefore eke them out with those of Monsieur Tillemont. But his own words, and no other, will satisfy me. I cannot believe it, unless from his own mouth.
4. Meantime, I cannot but observe an odd circumstance, — that you are here, in the abundance of your strength, confuting a proposition which (whether it be true or false) not one of your antagonists affirms. You are laboring to prove, “there was not in the primitive Church any such miraculous gift as that of expounding the Scriptures.” Pray, Sir, who says there was? Not Justin Martyr; not one among all those Fathers whom you have quoted as witnesses of the miraculous gifts, from the tenth to the eighteenth page of your “Inquiry.” If you think they do, I am ready to follow you step by step, through every quotation you have made.
5. No, nor is this mentioned in any enumeration of the miraculous gifts which I can find in the Holy Scriptures. Prophecy indeed is mentioned more than once, by the Apostles, as well as the Fathers. But the context shows, where it is promised as a miraculous gift, it means the foretelling things to come. All therefore which you say on this head is a mere ignoratio elenchi, “a mistake of the question to be proved.” SECTION 6.
1. The Eighth and last of the miraculous gifts you enumerated was the gift of tongues. And this, it is sure, was claimed by the primitive Christians; for Irenaeus says expressly, “‘We hear many in the Church speaking with all kinds of tongues.’ And yet,” you say, “this was granted only on certain special occasions, and then withdrawn again from the Apostles themselves: So that in the ordinary course of their ministry, they were generally destitute of it. This,” you say, “I have shown elsewhere.” (Page 119.) I presume, in some treatise which I have not seen.
2. But Irenaeus, who declares that “many had this gift in his days, yet owns he had it not himself.” This is only a proof that the case was then the same as when St. Paul observed, long before, “Are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues?” (1 Corinthians 12:29, 30.) No, not even when those gifts were shed abroad in the most abundant manner.
3. “But no other Father has made the least claim to it.” (Page 120.) Perhaps none of those whose writings are now extant; at least not in those writings which are extant. But what are these in comparison of those which are lost? And how many were burning and shining lights within three hundred years after Christ, who wrote no account of themselves at all; at least, none which has come to our hands? But who are they that “speak of it as a gift peculiar to the times af the Apostles?” You say, “There is not a single Father who ventures to speak of it in any other manner.” (Ibid.) Well, bring but six Ante-Nicene Fathers who speak of it in this manner, and I will give up the whole point.
4. But you say, “After the apostolic times, there is not, in all history, one instance, even so much as mentioned, of any particular person who ever exercised this gift.” (Ibid.) You must mean, either that the Heathens have mentioned no instance of this kind, (which is not at all surprising,) or that Irenaeus does not mention the names of those many persons who in his time exercised this gift. And this also may be allowed without affecting in anywise the credibility of his testimony concerning them.
5. I must take notice here of another of your postulatums, which leads you into many mistakes. With regard to past ages, you continually take this for granted: “What is not recorded was not done.” But this is by no means a self-evident axiom: Nay, possibly it is not true. For there may be many reasons in the depth of the wisdom of God, for his doing many things at various times and places, either by his natural or supernatural power, which were never recorded at all. And abundantly more were recorded once, and that with the fullest evidence, whereof, nevertheless, we find no certain evidence now, at the distance of fourteen hundred years.
6. Perhaps this may obtain in the very case before us. Many may have spoken with new tongues, of whom this is not recorded; at least, the records are lost in a course of so many years: Nay, it is not only possible that it may be so, but it is absolutely certain that it is so; and you yourself must acknowledge it; for you acknowledge that the Apostles, when in strange countries, spoke with strange tongues; that St. John, for instance, when in Asia Minor, St. Peter, when in Italy, (if he was really there,) and the other Apostles, when in other countries, in Parthia, Media, Phrygia, Pamphylia, spoke each to the natives of each, in their own tongues, the wonderful works of God. And yet there is no authentic record of this: There is not in all history, one well-attested instance of any particular Apostle’s exercising this gift in any country whatso ever. Now, Sir, if your axiom were allowed, what would be the consequence? Even that the Apostles themselves more spoke with tongues than any of their successors.
7. I need, therefore, take no trouble about your subsequent reasonings, seeing they are built upon such a foundation. Only I must observe an historical mistake which occurs toward the bottom of your next page. Since the Reformation, you say, “This gift has never once been heard of, or pretended to, by the Romanists themselves.” (Page 122.) But has it been pretended to (whether justly or not) by no others, though not by the Romanists? Has it “never once been heard of” since that time? Sir, your memory fails you again: It has undoubtedly been pretended to, and that at no great distance either from our time or country. It has been heard of more than once, no farther off than the valleys of Dauphiny. Nor is it yet fifty years ago since the Protestant inhabitants of those valleys so loudly pretended to this and other miraculous powers, as to give much disturbance to Paris itself. And how did the King of France confute that pretense, and prevent its being heard any more? Not by the pen of his scholars, but by (a truly heathen way) the swords and bayonets of his dragoons.
8. You close this head with a very extraordinary thought: “The gift of tongues may,” you say, “be considered as a proper test or criterion for determining the miraculous pretensions of all Churches. If among their extraordinary gifts they cannot show us this, they have none to show which are genuine.” (Ibid.)
Now, I really thought it had been otherwise. I thought it had been an adjudged rule in the case, “All these worketh one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will;” and as to every man, so to every Church, every collective body of men. But if this be so, then yours is no proper test for determining the pretensions of all Churches; seeing He who worketh as He will, may, with your good leave, give the gift of tongues, where He gives no other; and may see abundant reasons so to do, whether you and I see them or not. For perhaps we have not always known the mind of the Lord; not being of the number of his counselors. On the other hand, he may see good to give many other gifts, where it is not his will to bestow this. Particularly where it would be of no use; as in a Church where all are of one mind, and all speak the same language.
9. You have now finished, after a fashion, what you proposed to do in the Fourth place, which was, “to review all the several kinds of miraculous gifts which are pretended to have been in the primitive Church.” Indeed you have dropped one or two of them by the way: Against the rest you have brought forth your strong reasons. Those reasons have been coolly examined. And now let every impartial man, every person of true and unbiassed reason, calmly consider and judge, whether you have made out one point of all that you took in hand; and whether some miracles of each kind may not have been wrought in the ancient Church, for any thing you have advanced to the contrary.
10. From page 127 to page 158, you relate miracles said to be wrought in the fourth century. I have no concern with these; but I must weigh an argument which you intermix therewith again and again. It is in substance this: “If we cannot believe the miracles attested by the later Fathers, then we ought not to believe those which are attested by the earliest writers of the Church.” I answer, The consequence is not good; because the case is not the same with the one and with the other. Several objections, which do not hold with regard to the earlier, may lie against the later, miracles; drawn either from the improbability of the facts themselves, such as we have no precedent of in holy writ; from the incompetency of the instruments said to perform them, such as bones, relics, or departed saints; or from the gross “credulity of a prejudiced or the dishonesty of an interested, relater.” (Page 145.)
11. One or other of these objections holds against most of the later, though not the earlier, miracles. And if only one holds, it is enough; it is ground sufficient for making the difference. If, therefore, it was true that there was not a single Father of the fourth age, who was not equally pious with the best of the more ancient, still we might consistently reject most of the miracles of the fourth, while we allowed those of the preceding ages; both because of the far greater improbability of the facts themselves, and because of the incompetency of the instruments. (Page 159.) But it is not true, that “the fathers of the fourth age,” whom you mention, were equally pious with the best of the preceding ages. Nay, according to your account, (which I shall not now contest,) they were not pious at all. For you say, “They were willful, habitual liars.” And, if so, they had not a grain of piety. Now, that the earlier Fathers were not such has been shown at large; though, indeed, you complimented them with the same character. Consequently, whether these later Fathers are to be believed or no, we may safely believe the former; who dared not to do evil that good might come, or to lie either for God or man.
12. I had not intended to say any thing more concerning any of the miracles of the later ages; but your way of accounting for one, said to have been wrought in the fifth, is so extremely curious that I cannot pass it by. The story, it seems, is this: “Hunneric, an Arian Prince, in his persecution of the orthodox in Africa, ordered the tongues of a certain society of them to be cut out by the roots. But, by a surprising instance of God’s good providence, they were enabled to speak articulately and distinctly without their tongues. And so continuing to make open profession of the same doctrine, they became not only Preachers, but living witnesses, of its truth.” (Page 182.)
Do not mistake me, Sir: I have no design at all to vouch for the truth of this miracle. I leave it just as I find it. But what I am concerned with is, your manner of accounting for it.
13. And, First, you say, “It may not improbably be supposed, that though their tongues were ordered to be cut to the roots, yet the sentence might not be so strictly executed as not to leave in some of them such a share of that organ as was sufficient, in a tolerable degree, for the use of speech.” (Page 183.)
So you think, Sir, if only an inch of a man’s tongue were to be neatly taken off, he would be able to talk tolerably well, as soon as the operation was over.
But the most marvelous part is still behind. For you add, “To come more close to the point: If we should allow that the tongues of these Confessors were cut away to the very roots, what will the learned Doctor say, if this boasted miracle should be found at last to be no miracle at all?” (Page 184.)
“Say?” Why, that you have more skill than all the “strolling wonder-workers” of the three first centuries put together. But to the point: Let us see how you will set about it. Why, thus: “The tongue” (as you justly, though keenly, observe) “has generally been considered as absolutely necessary to the use of speech; so that, to hear men talk without it, might easily pass for a miracle in that credulous age. Yet there was always room to doubt, whether there was any thing miraculous in it or not. But we have an instance in the present century, which clears up all our doubts, and entirely decides the question: I mean, the case of a girl born without a tongue, who talked as easily and distinctly as if she had had one; an account of which is given in the Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences at Paris.” (Ibid.)
14. And can you really believe this, that a girl “spoke distinctly and easily” without any tongue at all? And, after avowing this belief, do you gravely talk of other men’s credulity? I wonder that such a volunteer in faith should stagger at any thing. Doubtless, were it related as natural only, not miraculous, you could believe that a man might see without eyes. Surely there is something very peculiar in this; something extraordinary, though not miraculous; that a man who is too wise to believe the Bible, should believe everything but the Bible! should swallow any tale, so God be out of the question, though ever so improbable, ever so impossible!