II.

1. The Second thing you proposed was, "to throw together all which those Fathers have delivered concerning the persons said to have been endued with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit." (Ibid.)

"Now, whenever we think or speak with reference," say you, "of those primitive times, it is always with regard to these very Fathers whose testimonies I have been collecting And they were indeed the chief persons and champions of the Christian cause, the Pastors, Bishops, and Martyrs of the Primitive Church; namely, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Theophilus, Tertullian, Minutius Felix, Origen, Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius." Sir, you stumble at the threshold. A common dictionary may inform you that these were not all either Pastors, Bishops, or Martyrs.

2. You go on as you set out: "Yet none of these have any where affirmed, that they themselves were endued with any power of working miracles." (Page 22.) You should say, With any of those extraordinary gifts promised by our Lord, and conferred on his Apostles.

No! Have "none of these any where affirmed, that they themselves were endued" with any extraordinary gifts? What think you of the very first of them, Justin Martyr! Either you are quite mistaken in the account you give of him elsewhere, (pages 27, 30,) or he affirmed this of himself over and over. And as to Cyprian, you will by and by spend several pages together (page 101, etc.) on the extraordinary gifts he affirmed himself to be endued with.

But suppose they had not any where affirmed this of themselves, what would you infer therefrom? that they were not endued with any extraordinary gifts? Then, by the very same method of arguing, you might prove that neither St. Peter, nor James, nor John, were endued with any such. For neither do they any where affirm this of themselves in any of the writings which they have left behind them.

3. Your argument concerning the apostolic Fathers is just as conclusive as this. For if you say, "The writers following the apostolic Fathers do not affirm them to have had any miraculous gifts; therefore they had none;" by a parity of reason you must say, "The writers following the Apostles do not affirm them to have had any miraculous gifts; therefore the Apostles had none."

4. Your next argument against the existence of those gifts is, "that the Fathers do not tell us the names of them which had them." This is not altogether true. The names of Justin Martyr and Cyprian are pretty well known; as is, among the learned, that of Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria. (Pages 106, 212.) But; what, if they did not? Supposing miraculous powers were openly exerted in the Church, and that not only they themselves, but every one else, might see this whenever they pleased; if any Heathen might come and see whenever he pleased, what could a reasonable man desire more? What did it signify to him to know the names of those whom he heard prophesying, or saw working miracles? Though, without doubt, whoever saw the miracles wrought, might easily learn the names of those that wrought them which, nevertheless, the Christians had no need to publish abroad, to expose them so much the more to the rage and malice of their persecutors.

6. Your third argument is, "The Christian workers of miracles were always charged with imposture by their adversaries. Lucian tells us, ’Whenever any crafty juggler went to the Christians, he grew rich immediately.’ And Celsus represents the Christian wonder-workers as mere vagabonds and common cheats, who rambled about to fairs and markets." (Page 23.)

And is it any wonder, that either a Jew or a Heathen should represent them thus? Sir, I do not blame you for not believing the Christian system, but for betraying so gross a partiality; for gleaning up every scrap of heathen scandal, and palming is upon us as unquestionable evidence; and for not translating even these miserable fragments with any accuracy or faithfulness. Instead of giving us the text, bad as it is, you commonly substitute a paraphrase yet worse. And this the unlearned reader naturally supposes to be a faithful translation. It is no credit to your cause, if it needs such supports. And this is no credit to you, if it does not.

To that of Lucian and Celsus, you add the evidence of Caecilius too, who calls, say you, these workers of miracles, "a lurking nation, shunning the light." Then they were strangely altered all on a sudden; for you told us that, just before, they were proving themselves cheats by a widely different method, — by "calling out both upon Magistrates and people, and challenging all the world to come and see what they did!" (Page 20.)

I was not aware that you had begun "to throw together all which the Fathers have delivered, concerning the persons said to have been eudued with those extraordinary gifts." And it seems you have made an end of it! And accordingly you proceed to sum up the evidence; to "observe, upon the whole, from these characters of the primitive wonder-workers, as given both by friends and enemies, we may fairly conclude that the gifts of those ages were generally engrossed by private Christians, who travelled about from city to city to assist the ordinary preachers, in the conversion of Pagans, by the extraordinary miracles they pretended to perform." (Page 24.)

Characters given both by friends and enemies! Pray, Sir, what friends have you cited for this character? or what enemies, except only Celsus the Jew? (And you are a miserable interpreter for him.) So, from the single testimony of such a witness, you lay it down as an oracular truth, that all the miracle-workers of the first three ages were "mere vagabonds and common cheats," rambling about from city to city, to assist in converting Heathens, by tricks and imposture! And this you ingeniously call, "throwing together all which the Fathers have delivered concerning them!"

9. But, to complete all, "Here again," you say, "we see a dispensation of things ascribed to God, quite different from that which we meet with in the New Testament." (Page 24.) We see adispensation! Where? Not in the primitive Church; not in the writings of one single Christian; not of one Heathen; and only of one Jew; for poor Celsus had not a second; though he multiplies, under your forming hand, into a cloud of witnesses. He alone ascribes this to the ancient Christians, which you in their name ascribe to God. With the same regard to truth you go on: "In those days the power of working miracles" (you should say, the extraordinary gifts) "was committed to none but those who presided in the Church of Christ." Ipse dixit for that. But I cannot take your word; especially when the Apostles and Evangelists say otherwise. "But, upon the pretended revival of those powers," — Sir, we do not pretend the revival of them; seeing we shall believe they never were intermitted, till you can prove the contrary, — "we find the administration of them committed, not to those who had the government of the Church, not to the Bishops, the Martyrs, or the principal champions of the Christian cause, but to boys, to women, and, above all, to private and obscure laymen; not only of an inferior, but sometimes also of a bad, character."

Surely, Sir, you talk in your sleep: You could never talk thus, if you had your eyes open, and your understanding about you. "We find the administration of them committed, not to those who had the government of the Church." No! I thought Cyprian had had the government of the Church at Carthage, and Dionysius at Alexandria! "Not to the Bishops." Who were these then that were mentioned last? Bishops, or no Bishops? "Not to the Martyrs." Well, if Cyprian was neither Bishop nor Martyr, I hope you will allow Justin’s claim. "Not to the principal champions of the Christian cause." And yet you told us, not three pages since, that "these very Fathers were the chief champions of the Christian cause in those days!" — "But to boys, and to women." I answer: "This is that which was spoken of by the Prophet Joel, It shall come to pass, that I will pour out my Spirit, saith the Lord, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy!" — a circumstance which turns this argument full against; you, till you openly avow you do not believe those prophecies. "And, above all, to private and obscure laymen, not only of an inferior, but sometimes of a bad, character." I answer,

(1.)You cite only one Ante-Nicene writer, to prove them committed to "private and obscure laymen." And he says this and no more: "Generally private men do things of this kind." 3 By what rule of grammar you construe idiwtai,private and obscure laymen, I know not.

(2.)To prove these were sometimes men of a bad character, you quote also but one Ante-Nicene Father; (for I presume you will not assert the genuineness of the, so called, "Apostolical Constitutions;") and that one is, in effect, none at all: It is Tertullian, who, in his "Prescription against Heretics," says, "They will add many things of the authority" (or power) "of every heretical teacher; that they raised the dead, healed the sick, foretold things to come." 4Theywill add! But did Tertullian believe them? There is no shadow of reason to think he did. And if not, what is all this to the purpose? No more than the tales of later ages which you add, concerning the miracles wrought by bones and relics.

10. "These things," you add, "are so strange, as to give just reason to suspect that there was some original fraud in the case, and that those strolling wonder-workers, by a dexterity of juggling, imposed upon the pious Fathers, whose strong prejudices, and ardent zeal for the interest of Christianity, would dispose them to embrace, without examination, whatever seemed to promote so good a cause." (Page 25.) You now speak tolerably plain, and would be much disappointed if those who have no "strong prejudices for Christianity" did not apply what you say of these "strolling wonder-workers" to the Apostles, as well as their successors.

11. A very short answer will suffice: "These things are so strange." They are more strange than true. You have not proved one jot or tittle of them yet. Therefore, the consequences you draw must fall to the ground till you find them some better support.

12. Nay, but "it is certain and notorious," you say, "that this was really the case in some instances;" that is, that "strolling, juggling wonder-workers imposed upon the pious Fathers." (Page 26.) Sir, I roust come in again with my cuckoo’s note, — The proof! Where is the proof! Till this is produced I cannot allow that "this is certain and notorious," ever in one individual instance.

13. Let us now stand still, and observe what it is you have made out, under this Second head. What you proposed was, "to throw together all which the primitive Fathers had delivered concerning the persons said to be then endued with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit." And how have you executed what you proposed? You have thrown together a quotation from a Jew, two from Heathens, three quarters of a line from Origen, and three lines from Tertullian! Nothing at all, it is true, to the point in question. But that you could not help.

14. And this, it seems, is "all you have been able to draw from any of the primitive writers, concerning the persons who were endued with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost!" (Page 21.)

Permit me, Sir, to apply to you what was spoken on another occasion: "Sir, the well is deep, and thou hast nothing to draw with;" neither sufficient skill, nor industry and application. Besides, you are resolved to draw out of the well what was never in it, and must, of course, lose all your labor.