9

thought to have happened while some of the apostles were still living."

These were given, you say, to the first planters of the gospel, "in order to enable then to overrule the inveterate prejudices both of Jews and Gentiles, and to bear up against the shocks of persecution." Thus far we are agreed. They were given for these ends. But if you allow this, you cannot suppose, consistently with yourself, that they were withdrawn till these ends were fully answered. So long, therefore, as those prejudices subsisted, and Christians were exposed to the shocks of persecution, you cannot deny but there was the same occasion for those powers to be continued, as there was for their being given at first. And this, you say, is "a postulatum, which all people will grant, that they continued as long as they were necessary to the church." (p. 11.)

11. Now, did those prejudices cease, or was persecution at an end, while some of the Apostles were still living? You have yourself abundantly shown they did not. You know, there was as sharp persecution in the third century, as there was in the first, while all the Apostles were living. And with regard to prejudices, you have industriously remarked, that "the principal writers of Rome, who make any mention of the Christians, about the time of Trajan, speak of them as a set of despicable, stubborn, and even wicked enthusiasts," (p. 193.) "That Suetonius calls them a race of men of a new and mischievous superstition:"" (p. 194.) And that "Tacitus, describing the horrible tortures which they suffered under Nero, says,They were detested for their flagitious practices; possessed with an abominable superstition, and condemned not so much for their supposed crime of firing the city, as from the hatred of all mankind." (p. 195.)

And "their condition," you say, "continued much the same, till they were established by the civil power: during all which time they were constantly insulted and calumniated by their heathen adversaries, as a stupid, credulous, impious sect, the very scum of mankind," (ibid.) In a word, both with regard to prejudice and persecution, I read in your following page, "The heathen magistrates would not give themselves the trouble to make the least inquiry into their manners or doctrines; but condemned them for the mere name, without examination or trial: treating a Christian of course as guilty of every crime, as an enemy of the gods, emperors, laws, and of nature itself." p. 196.

12. If then the end of those miraculous powers was to overcome inveterate prejudices, and to enable the Christians to bear up against the shocks of persecution; how can you possibly conceive that those powers should cease, while some of the apostles were living? With what colour can you assert, that they were less wanted for these ends, in the second and third, than in the apostolic age? With what shadow of reason can you maintain, that (if they ever subsisted at all) they were finally withdrawn, before Christianity was established by the civil power? Then indeed these ends did manifestly cease;

persecution was at an end; and the inveterate prejudices which so long obtained were in great measure rooted up: another plain reason why the powers, which were to balance these, should remain in the church so long, and no longer.

13. You go on to acquaint us with the excellencies of your performance. "The reader," you say, "will find in these sheets none of those arts which are commonly employed by disputants to perplex a good cause, or to palliate a bad one: no subtle refinements, forced constructions, or evasive distinctions, but plain reasoning grounded on plain facts, and published with an honest and disinterested view, to free the minds of men from an inveterate imposture. I have shown that the ancient Fathers, by whom that delusion was imposed, were extremely credulous and superstitious: possessed with strong prejudices, and scrupling no art or means by which they might propagate the same." (p. 31.) Surely, Sir, you add the latter part of this paragraph on purpose to confute the former: for just here you use one of the unfairest arts which the most dishonest disputant can employ in endeavouring to forestall the judgment of the reader, and to prejudice him against those men, on whom he ought not to pass any sentence, before he has heard the evidence.

1. In the beginning of your introductory discourse, you declare the reasons which moved you to publish it. "One of these,” you say, "was the late increase of Popery in this kingdom; chiefly occasioned," as you suppose, "by the confident assertions of the Romish emissaries, that there has been a succession of miracles in their church from the apostolic to the present age," (p. 41.) To obviate this plea, you would "settle some rule of discerning the true from the false; so as to give a reason for admitting the miracles of one age, and rejecting those of another," p. 44.

2. This has a pleasing sound, and is extremely well imagined to prejudice a Protestant reader in your favour. You then slide with great art into your subject. "This claim of a miraculous power, now peculiar to the Church of Rome, was asserted in all Christian countries till the Reformation," (p. 44.) "But then the cheat was detected: nay, and men began to suspect, that the church had long been governed by the same arts," (p. 45.) "For it was easy to trace them up to the primitive church, though not to fix the time when the cheat began; to show, how long after the days of the apostles, the miraculous gifts continued in the church," (p. 46.) However, it is commonly believed, that they continued till Christianity was the established religion. Some indeed extend them to the fourth and fifth centuries: (p. 50.) but these, you say, betray the Protestant cause; "For in the third, fourth, and fifth, the chief corruptions of Popery were introduced, at least the seeds of them sown." 66 By these I mean monkery; the worship of relics; invocation of saints; prayers for the dead; the superstitious use of images; of the sacraments; of the sign of the cross, and of the consecrated oil,"

p. 52.

3. I have nothing to do with the fourth or fifth century. But to

1

what you allege in support of this charge, so far as it relates to the third century, I have a few things to reply.

And, first, you quote not one line from any Father in the third century, in favour of "monkery, the worship of relics, the invocation of saints, or the superstitious use either of images, or consecrated oil." How is this, Sir? You brought eight accusations at once against the Fathers of the third, as well as the following centuries : and as to five of the eight, when we call for the proof, you have not one word to say! As to the sixth, "In the sacrament of the Eucharist, several abuses were introduced." (p. 57.) You instance, first, in mixing wine with water. But how does it appear, that this was any abuse at all? Or, that "Iræneus declared it to have been taught as well as practised by our Saviour?" (p. 57.) The words you quote to prove this, do not prove it at all; they simply relate a matter of fact: "Taking the bread he confessed it to be his body, and the mixed cup, he affirmed it was his blood." (p. 58.) You cannot be ignorant of this fact, that the cup used after the paschal supper, was always mixed with water. But "Cyprian declared, this mixture to have been enjoined to himself by a divine revelation."* If he did, that will not prove it to be an abuse: so that you are wide of the point still. You instance next in their sending the bread to the sick; which (as well as the mixture) is mentioned by Justin Martyr. This fact likewise we allow: but you have not proved it to be an abuse. I grant, that near a hundred years after, some began to have a superstitious regard for this bread. But, that in "Tertullian's days it was carried home and locked up as a divine treasure," I call upon you to prove as also, that infant-communion was an abuse; or the styling it the sacrifice of the body of Christ. (p. 59.) I believe "the offering it up for the martyrs" was an abuse; and that this with "the superstitious use of the sign of the cross" were, if not the earliest of all, yet as early as any which crept into the Christian church.

4. It is certain "praying for the dead was common in the second century," (p. 60 :) you might have said, and in the first also; seeing that petition, Thy kingdom come, manifestly concerns the saints in Paradise, as well as those upon earth. But it is far from certain, that "the purpose of this was, to procure relief and refreshment to the departed souls in some intermediate state of expiatory pains ;" or, that this was the general" opinion of those times."

5. As to the "consecrated oil," (p. 63,) you seem entirely to forget, that it was neither St. Jerome, nor St. Chrysostom, but St. James, who said, 'Is any sick among you? Let him send for the elders of the church. And let them pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up,' Ch. v. ver. 14, 15.

The sum is you have charged the Fathers of the third century with eight of "the chief corruptions of Popery:" 1. Monkery, 2

Accipiens panem, suum corpus esse confitebatur; et temperamentum calicis, suum sanguinem confirmavit.

The worship of relics, 3. Invocation of saints, 4. The superstitious use of images, 5. Of the consecrated oil, 6. Of the sacraments, 7. Of the sign of the cross, 8. Praying for the dead.

And what is all this heavy charge come to at last? Why just thus much some of them in the beginning of the third century, did superstitiously use the sign of the cross: and others in the middle of that century offered up the eucharist for the martyrs on their annual festivals; though how you make this, "the superstitious use of the sacraments," I know not, or how these come to be the "chief corruptions of Popery." Praying thus far for the dead, That God would shortly accomplish the number of his elect, and hasten his kingdom,' and anointing the sick with oil, you will not easily prove to be any corruptions at all.

As to monkery, the worship of relics, invocation of saints, and the superstitious use of images; you have not even attempted to prove that these Fathers were guilty: so that, for aught appears, you might as well have charged them on the apostles. "Yet it is no more," you solemnly assure us, "than what fact and truth oblige us to say!" (p. 65.) When I meet with any of these assurances for the time to come, I shall remember to stand upon my guard.

6. In the following pages you are arguing against the miracles of the fourth and fifth centuries. After which you add, "But if these must be rejected, where then are we to stop? And to what period must we confine ourselves? This indeed is the grand difficulty, and what has puzzled all the other doctors, who have considered the same question before me," (p. 71.) Sir, your memory is short. In this very discourse you yourself said just the contrary. You told us awhile ago, that not only Dr. Marshall, Mr. Dodwell, and Archbishop Tillotson, but the generality of the Protestant doctors were agreed, to what period" they should confine themselves: believing, that "miracles subsisted through the three first centuries, and ceased in the beginning of the fourth," p. 46. et seq.

.

7. However, that none of them may ever be puzzled any more, you will "lay down some general principles, which may lead us to a more rational solution of the matter, than any that has hitherto been offered." (ibid.) Here again I was all attention. And what did the mountain bring forth? What are these general principles, preceded by so solemn a declaration, and laid down for thirteen pages together? (p. 71-84.) Why, they are dwindled down into one, "That the forged miracles of the fourth century taint the credit of all the later miracles!" I should desire you to prove, that the miracles of the fourth century were all forged, but that it is not material to our question.

8. But you endeavour to show it is. "For that surprising confidence," you say, "with which the Fathers of the fourth age have affirmed as true what they themselves had forged, or at least knew to be forged," (a little more proof of that,) "makes us suspect, that so bold a defiance of truth could not become general at once, but must have been carried gradually to that height by custom and the exam

ple of former times," (p. 84.) It does not appear that it did become general till long after the fourth century. And as this supposition is not sufficiently proved, the inference from it is nothing worth.

9. You say, Secondly, "This age, in which Christianity was established, had no occasion for any miracles. They would not therefore begin to forge miracles, at a time when there was no particular temptation to it." (ibid.) Yes, the greatest temptation in the world, if they were such men as you suppose. If they were men that "would scruple no art or means to enlarge their own credit and authority," they would naturally "begin to forge miracles" at that time, when real miracles were no more.

10. You say, Thirdly, "The later Fathers had equal piety with the earlier, but more learning and less credulity. If these then be found either to have forged miracles themselves, or propagated what they knew to be forged, or to have been deluded by the forgeries of others, it must excite the same suspicion of their predecessors." (p. 85.) I answer, 1. It is not plain that the later Fathers had equal piety with the earlier; nor, 2. That they had less credulity. It seems some of them had much more; witness Hilarion's camel, and smelling a devil or sinner; (Free Inquiry, p. 89, 90) though even he was not so quick-scented as St. Pachomius, who (as many believe to this day) could smell a heretic at a mile's distance.' But if, 3, the earlier Fathers were holier than the later, they were not only less likely to delude others, but (even on Plato's supposition) to be deluded themselves. For they would have more assistance from God.

11. But you say, "Fourthly, The earlier ages of the church were not purer than the later. Nay, in some respects they were worse. For there never was any age in which so many rank heresies were professed, or so many spurious books forged and published, under the names of Christ and his apostles," (Introd. Disc. p. 86 :) "several of which are cited by the most eminent Fathers of those ages, as of equal authority with the Scriptures. And none can doubt but. those who would forge, or make use of forged books, would make use of forged miracles," p. 87.

I answer, 1. It is allowed, that before the end of the third century, the church was greatly degenerated from its first purity. Yet I doubt not, 2. But abundantly more "rank heresies" have been publicly professed in many later ages. But they were not publicly protested against, and therefore historians did not record them. 3. You cannot but know it has always been the judgment of learned men, (which you are at liberty to refute if you are able,) that the far greater part of those spurious books have been forged by heretics; and that many more were compiled by weak, well-meaning men, from what had been orally delivered down from the apostles. But, 4. There have been in the church from the beginning men who had only the name of Christians. And these doubtless were capable of pious frauds (so called.) But this ought not to be charged нроп the whole body Add to this, 5, what is observed by Mr. VOL. 9.-C