I.

1. You are, First, "to draw out in order all the principal testimonies which relate to miraculous gifts, as they are found in the writings of the Fathers from the earliest ages after the Apostles."

You begin with the apostolic Fathers; that is, those who lived and conversed with the Apostles. "There are several," you say; "of this character, whose writings still remain to us: St. Barnabas, St. Clemens, St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, St. Hermas. Now, if those gifts had subsisted after the days of the Apostles, these must have possessed a large share of them. But if any of them had, he would have mentioned it in his writings, which not one of them has done." (Page 3.)

The argument, fully proposed, runs thus: —

If any such gifts had subsisted in them, or in their days, they must have mentioned them in their circular Epistles to the Churches; (for so their predecessors, the Apostles, did;) but they did not mention any such gifts therein.

Sir, your consequence is not of any force; as will easily appear by a parallel argument: —

If such gifts had subsisted in St. Peter, or in his days, he must have mentioned them in his circular Epistles to the Churches. But he does not mention any such gifts therein. Therefore, they did not subsist in him, or in his days.

Your argument therefore proves too much: Nor can it conclude against an apostolic Father, without concluding against the Apostle too.

If therefore the apostolic Fathers had not mentioned any miraculous gifts in their circular Epistles to the Churches, you could not have inferred that they possessed none; since neither does he mention them in his circular Epistles, whom you allow to have possessed them.

Of all the Apostles, you can produce but one, St. Paul, who makes mention of these gifts: And that not in his circular Epistles to the Churches; for I know not that he wrote any such.

2. All this time I have been arguing on your own suppositions, that these five apostolic Fathers all wrote circular Epistles to the Churches, and yet never mention these gifts therein. But neither of these suppositions is true. For,

(1.)Hermas wrote no Epistle at all.

(2.)Although the rest wrote Epistles to particular Churches, (Clemens to the Corinthians, Ignatius to the Romans, etc.,) yet not one of them wrote any circular Epistle to the Churches, like those of St. James and St. Peter; unless we allow that to be a genuine Epistle, which bears the name of St. Barnabas.

(3.)You own they all "speak of spiritual gifts, as abounding among the Christians of that age;" but assert, "These cannot mean any thing more than faith, hope, and charity." (Ibid.)

You assert: But the proof, Sir! I want the proof. Though I am but one of the vulgar, yet I am not half so credulous as you apprehend the first Christians to have been. Ipsedixi will not satisfy me; I want plain, clear, logical proof; especially when I consider how much you build upon this; that it is the main foundation whereon your hypothesis stands. You yourself must allow, that in the Epistles of St. Paul, pneumatika carismata, spiritual gifts, does always mean more than faith, hope, and charity; that it constantly means miraculous gifts. How then do you prove, that, in the Epistles of St. Ignatius, it means quite another thing? not miraculous gifts, but only the ordinary gifts and graces of the gospel? I thought "the reader" was to "find no evasive distinctions in the following sheets." (Preface, page 31.) Prove then that this distinction is not evasive; that the same words mean absolutely different things. Till this is clearly and solidly done, reasonable men must believe that this and the like expressions mean the same thing in the writings of the apostolical Fathers as they do in the writings of the Apostles; namely, not the ordinary graces of the gospel, but the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost.

3. You aim indeed at a proof, which would be home to the point, if you were but able to make it out. "These Fathers themselves seem to disclaim all gifts of a more extraordinary kind. Thus Polycarp, in his Epistle to the Philippians, says, ’Neither I, nor any other such as I am, can come up to the wisdom of the blessed Paul.’ And in the same Epistle be declares, ’It was not granted to him to practice that, Be ye angry, and sin not.’ St. Ignatius also, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, says, ’These things I prescribe to you, not as if I were somebody extraordinary. For though I am bound for his name, I am not yet perfect in Christ Jesus.’" (Pages 7, 8.) I think verily, these extraordinary proofs may stand without any reply.

4. Yet you courteously add: "If from the passages referred to above, or any other, it should appear probable to any, that they were favored on some occasions with some extraordinary illuminations, visions, or divine impressions, I shall not dispute that point; but; remind them only, that these gifts were granted for their particular comfort; and do not therefore, in any manner, affect or relate to the question now before us." (Page 10.)

I ask pardon, Sir. These do so deeply affect, so nearly relate to, the question now before us, even as stated by yourself, (Preface, page 28,) that in allowing these you give up the substance of the question. You yourself have declared, that one great end of the extraordinary gifts conferred on the Apostles was, "to enable them to bear up against the shocks of popular rage and persecution." Now were not "extraordinary illuminations, visions, and impressions," if given at all, given for this very end; "for their particular comfort," as you now word it? Therefore, in allowing these to the apostolic Fathers, you allow extraordinary gifts which had been formerly granted to the Apostles, to have subsisted in the church after the days of the Apostles, and for the same end as they did before.

5. Therefore the apostolic writers have not left us in the dark, with regard to our present argument; and consequently your triumph comes too soon: "Here then we have an interval of half a century, in which we have the strongest reason to presume that the extraordinary gifts of the apostolic age were withdrawn." (Page 9.) No; not if all the apostolic Fathers speak of spiritual gifts as abounding among the Christians of that age; not if "extraordinary illuminations, visions, and divine impressions still subsisted among them." For as to you now putting in, "as exerted openly in the Church for the conviction of unbelievers," I must desire you to put it out again; it comes a great deal too late. The question between you and me was stated without it, above a hundred pages back. Although, if it be admitted, it will do you no service; seeing your proposition is overthrown, if there were "miraculous gifts after the days of the Apostles," whether they were "openly exerted for the conviction of unbelievers" or not.

6. I was a little surprised that you should take your leave of the apostolic Fathers so soon. But, upon looking forward, my surprise was at an end: I found you was not guilty of any design to spare them; but only delayed your remarks till the reader should be prepared for what might have shocked him, had it stood in its proper place.

I do not find, indeed, that you make any objection to any part of the Epistles of Ignatius; no, nor of the Catholic Epistle, as it is called, which is inscribed with the name of Barnabas. This clearly convinces me, you have not read it; I am apt to think, not one page of it; seeing, if you had, you would never have let slip such an opportunity of exposing one that was called an apostolic Father.

7. But it would have been strange, if you had not somewhere brought in the famous phoenix of Clemens Romanus. And yet you are very merciful upon that head, barely remarking concerning it, that "he alleged the ridiculous story of the phoenix, as a type and proof of the resurrection. Whether all the heathen writers treat it as nothing else but a mere fable, I know not." (Page 55.) But that it is so, is certain; and consequently the argument drawn from it is weak and inconclusive. Yet it will not hence follow, either that Clemens was a wicked man, or that he had none of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit.

8. There is no real blemish to be found in the whole character of St. Polycarp. But there is one circumstance left upon record concerning him which has the appearance of weakness. And with this you do not fail to acquaint your reader at a convenient season; namely, "that in the most ancient dispute concerning the time of holding Easter, St. Polycarp and Anicetus severally alleged apostolic tradition for their different practice." (Page 60.) And it is not improbable, that both alleged what was true; that in a point of so little importance the Apostles varied themselves; some of them observing it on the fourteenth day of the moon, and others not. But, be this as it may, it can be no proof, either that Polycarp was not a holy man, or that he was not favored with the extraordinary, as well as ordinary, gifts of the Spirit.

9. With regard to the narrative of his martyrdom, you affirm, "It is one of the most authentic pieces in all primitive antiquity." (Page 124.) I will not vouch for its authenticity; nor therefore for the story of the dove, the flame forming an arch, the fragrant smell, or the revelation to Pionius. But your attempt to account for these things is truly curious. You say, "An arch of flame round his body is an appearance which might easily happen, from the common effects of wind. And the dove said to fly out of him, might be conveyed into the wood which was prepared to consume him." (Page 229.) How much more naturally may we account for both, by supposing the whole to be a modern fiction, wrote on occasion of that account mentioned by Eusebius, but lost many ages ago! But whatever may be thought of this account of his death, neither does this affect the question, whether during his life he was endued with the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost.

10. There is one of those whom you style apostolic Fathers yet behind, of whom you talk full as familiarly as of the rest: I mean, Hermas: "To whom," you say, "some impute the fraud of forging the Sibylline books." (Page 37.) It would not have been amiss, if you had told us, which of the ancients, whether Christian, Jew, or Heathen, ever accused him of this. If none ever did, some will be apt to think it is giving a person but hard measure, to bring an accusation against him which never was heard of till sixteen hundred years after his death.

But I can the more easily excuse you, because he is a person whom you are wholly unacquainted with; though it is much, curiosity did not lead you, when you had Archbishop Wake’s translation in your hand, to read over if it were but half a dozen pages of his famous "Shepherd." But charity obliges me to believe you never did. Otherwise, I cannot conceive you would so peremptorily affirm, of him and the rest together, "There is not the least claim or pretension, in all their several pieces, to any of those extraordinary gifts which are the subject of this inquiry." (Page 3.) I am amazed! Sir, have you never a friend in the world? If you was yourself ignorant of the whole affair, would no one inform you, that all the three books of Hermas, from the first page to the last, are nothing else than a recital of his extraordinary gifts, his visions, prophecies, and revelations?

Can you expect after this, that any man in his senses should take your word for any thing under heaven? that anyone should credit any thing which you affirm? or believe you any farther than he can see you? Jesus, whom you persecute, can forgive you this; but how can you forgive yourself? One would think you should be crying out day and night, "The Shepherd of Hermas will not let me sleep!"

11. You proceed to the testimony of Justin Martyr, who wrote about fifty years after the Apostles: He says, (I translate his words literally,) "There are prophetic gifts among us even until now. You may see with us both women and men having gifts from the Spirit of God." He particularly insists on that of "casting out devils, as what every one might see with his own eyes." (Page 10.)

Irenaeus, who wrote somewhat later, affirms, "that all who were truly disciples of Jesus, wrought miracles in his name: ’Some cast out devils; others had visions, or the knowledge of future events; others healed the sick.’ And as to raising the dead, he declares it to have been frequently performed on necessary occasions, by great fasting, and the joint supplication of the Church. ’And we hear many,’ says he, ’speaking with all kinds of tongues, and expounding the mysteries of God.’" (Pages 11, 12.)

"Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, who lived in the same age, speaks of casting out devils as then common in the Church." (Ibid.)

12. "Tertullian, who flourished toward the end of the second century, challenges the heathen Magistrates, to ’call before their tribunals any person possessed with a devil. And if the evil spirit, when commanded by any Christian, did not confess himself to be a devil, who elsewhere called himself a God, they should take the life of that Christian.’" (Ibid.)

"Minutius Felix, supposed to have wrote in the beginning of the third century, addressing himself to his heathen friend, says, ’The greatest part of you know what confessions the demons make concerning themselves when we expel them out of the bodies of men.’" (Page 13.)

13. "Origen, something younger than Minutius, declares, that there remained still the manifest indications of the Holy Spirit. ’For the Christians,’ says he, ’cast out devils, perform many cures, foretell things to come. And many have been converted to Christianity by visions. I have seen many examples of this sort.’" (Page 14.)

In another place he says, "Signs of the Holy Ghost were shown at the beginning of the teaching of Jesus;" (not, as you translate it, "Miracles began with the preaching of Jesus;" that is quite a different thing;) "more were shown after his ascension, but afterwards fewer. However, even now there are still some remains of them with a few, whose souls are cleansed by the word, and a life conformable to it." (Page 15.) Again: "Some," says he, "heal the sick. I myself have seen many so healed, of loss of senses, madness, and innumerable other evils which neither men nor devils can cure." (Ibid.) "And this is done, not by magical arts, but by prayer, and certain plain adjurations, such as any common Christian may use; for generally common men do things of this kind." (Page 16.)

14. "Cyprian, who wrote about the middle of the third century, says, ’Beside the visions of the night, even in the day-time, innocent children among us are filled with the Holy Spirit; and in ecstasies see, and hear, and speak those things by which God is pleased to admonish and instruct us.’" (Ibid.) Elsewhere he particularly mentions the casting out of devils: "Which," says he, "either depart immediately, or by degrees, according to the faith af the patient, or the grace of him that works the cure." (Page 17.)

"Arnobius, who is supposed to have wrote in the year of Christ 303, tells us, ’Christ appears even now to men unpolluted, and eminently holy, who love him; — whose very name puts evil spirits to flight, strikes their prophets dumb, deprives the soothsayers of the power of answering, and frustrates the acts of arrogant magicians.’" (Page 18.)

"Lactantius, who wrote about the same time, speaking of evil spirits, says, ’Being adjured by Christians, they retire out of the bodies of men, confess themselves to be demons, and tell their names, even the same which are adored in the temples.’" (Ibid.)

15. "These," you say, "are the principal testimonies which assert miraculous gifts through the three first centuries; which might be supported by many more of the same kind, from the same as well as different writers. But none will scruple to risk the fate of the cause upon these." (Page 19.) Thus far I do not scruple it. I do not doubt but the testimonies of these nine witnesses, added to the evidence of the apostolic Fathers, will satisfy every impartial man with regard to the point in question. Yet I see no cause, if there are nine witnesses more, to give up their evidence; seeing you may possibly raise objections against these which the others are unconcerned in.

If then you should invalidate what I have to reply in behalf of the witnesses now produced, you will have done but half your work. I shall afterwards require a fair hearing for the others also.

16. You close this head with remarking,

(1.)"That the silence of all the apostolic writers on the subject of these gifts, must dispose us to conclude they were then withdrawn." (Ibid.) O Sir, mention this no more. I intreat you, never name their silence again. They speak loud enough to shame you as long as you live. You cannot therefore talk with any grace of "the pretended revival of them, after a cessation of forty or fifty years;" or draw conclusions from that which never was.

Your second remark is perfectly new: I dare say, none ever observed before yourself, that this particular circumstance of the primitive Christians "carried with it an air of imposture," namely, their "challenging all the world to come and see the miracles which they wrought!" (Page 21.) To complete the argument, you should have added, And their staking their lives upon the performance of them.

17. I doubt you have not gone one step forward yet. You have indeed advanced many bold assertions; but you have not fairly proved one single conclusion with regard to the point in hand.

But a natural effect of your lively imagination is, that from this time you argue more and more weakly; inasmuch as, the farther you go, the more things you imagine (and only imagine) yourself to have proved. Consequently, as you gather up more mistakes every step you take, every page is more precarious than the former.