lated as literally as it will well bear, runs thus, "Who, in an ecstacy 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.

18. 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 ?".

Now

Tertullian's words are, "A man being in the spirit, especially when he beholds the glory of God, must needs lose sense."* 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!" pref. p. 32.

15. But to return to Cyprian. "I cannot forbear," you say, "relating two or three more of his wonderful stories." (p. 112.) "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 eye-witness, 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." (p. 113.) The other two relations Cyprian does not affirm of his own personal knowledge. p. 115.

"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?" p. 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

Necesse est, excidat sensu.

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.

Sect. V. 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. You tack to it, "or the mysteries of God." (p. 116.) But inasmuch as it is not yet agreed (as it 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." (p. 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 whatsoever 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 labouring 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.

Sect. VI. 1. The eighth and last of the miraculous gifts you enumerated, was, the gift of tongues. (p. 119.) And this, it is sure, was claimed by the primitive Christians; for Irenæus 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." I presume, in some treatise which I have not seen.

2. But Irenæus, 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 Cor. xii. 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," (p. 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 time of the apostles?" (ibid.) You say, "There is not a single father, who ventures to speak of it in any other manner." 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." (p. 120.) You must mean, either that the Heathens have mentioned no instance of this kind,

(which is not at all surprising,) or that Irenæus 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 any wise 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 ease 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 hundreds of 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 whatsoever."Now, Sir, if your axiom were allowed, what would be the consequence? Even that the apostles themselves no more spoke with tongues than any of their successors.

7. I need therefore take no trouble about your subsequent reasonings, seeing they are built on such a foundation. Only 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." (p. 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 pretence, 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." p. 122.

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 For perhaps we have not always known the mind of the Lord; not being of the number of his counsellors. 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.

not.

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 the 127th to the 158th page, 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." p. 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 incompe、 tency of the instruments.