ity of Justin, they were held in the highest veneration, by the Fathers and rulers of the church, through all succeeding ages." (ibid.)

I do not conceive, it is certain. I wait your proof, first, of the fact: next, of the reason you assign for it. The fact itself, that "these books were held in the highest veneration, by the Fathers and rulers through all succeeding ages," is in nowise proved by that single quotation from Clemens Alexandrinus, (p. 34.) wherein he urges the Heathens with the testimonies of their own authors, of the Sibyl, and of Hystaspes. We cannot infer from hence, that he himself held them in the highest veneration:" much less, that all the Fathers did. And as to the reason you assign for that veneration, the example and authority of Justin, you cite no writer of any kind, good or bad. So he that will believe it may.

But "some" you tell us, "impute the forging of these books to Justin." Be pleased to tell us, likewise, who those are; and what grounds they allege for that imputation. Till then it can be of no signification.

:

8. You charge him, fourthly, "With believing that silly story.. concerning the Septuagint version of the Old Testament: with saying, that he himself, when at Alexandria, saw the remains of the cells in which the translators were shut up and with making a considerable mistake in the chronology relating thereto." (p. 37:) And if all this be allowed, and over and above, that he frequently cites apocryphal books, and cites the Scripture by memory:" what have you gained toward the proof of your grand conclusion, that he was either too great a fool, or too great a knave, to be believed touching a plain matter of fact?"

66

9. You seem sensible of this, and therefore add, fifthly, "It will be said, perhaps, that these instances show a weakness of judgment, but do not touch the credit of Justin as a witness of fact." (p. 29.) But can you scrape up nothing from all the dunghills of antiquity that does? I dare say, you will do your utmost. And, first, you reply, "The want of judgment alone may, in some cases, disqualify a man from being a good witness. Thus Justin himself was imposed upon by those of Alexandria, who showed him some old ruins under the name of cells.-And so he was by those who told him, there was a statue at Rome, inscribed Simoni Deo Sancto;" (p. 40,) "whereas it was really inscribed, Semoni Sanco Deo; to an old deity of the Sa· bines." Now," say you, "if he was deceived in such obvious facts, how much more easily would he be deceived by subtle and crafty impostors." (p. 41.) Far less easily. A man of good judgment may be deceived in the inscriptions of statues and points of ancient history. But if he has only eyes and ears, and a small degree of common sense, he cannot be deceived in facts where he is both an eye and ear witness.

66

10. For a parting blow, you endeavour to prove, sixthly, that Justin was a knave as well as a fool. To this end you remark, "That he charges the Jews with erasing three passages out of the Greek bible: one whereof stands there still, and the other two were not expunged by some Jew, but added by some Christian. Nay, that "able critic

66

and divine, John Croius," (you know when to bestow honourable appellations,) says, Justin forged and published this passage, for the confirmation of the Christian doctrine, as well as the greatest part of the Sibylline oracles, and the sentences of Mercurius.'

With far greater probability than John Croius asserts, that Justin forged these passages, a man of candour would hope that he read them in his copy (though incorrect) of the Greek bible. And till you disprove this, or prove the assertion of Croius, you are got not a jot further still. But notwithstanding you have taken true pains to blacken him, both with regard to his morals and understanding, he may still be an honest man, and an unexceptionable witness, as to plain facts done before his face.

11. You fall upon Irenæus next, and carefully enumerate all the mistakes in his writings. As first, that he held the doctrine of the Millennium, and related a weak fancy of Papias concerning it. Secondly, that he believed our Saviour to have lived fifty years. Thirdly, that he believed Enoch and Elias were translated, and St. Paul caught up to that very Paradise from which Adam was expelled; (so he might, and all the later Fathers with him, without being either the better or the worse.) Fourthly, that he believed the story concerning the Septuagint version: nay, and that the Scriptures were destroyed in the Babylonish captivity, but restored again after seventy years by Esdras, inspired for that purpose. (p. 44.) "In this also," (you say, but do not prove) "he was followed by all the principal Fathers that succeeded him; although there is no better foundation for it, than that fabulous relation in the second book of Esdras." You add, fifthly, that he believed that the sons of God, who came in to the daughters of men, were evil angels. And all the early Fathers, you are very ready to believe, "were drawn into the same errors, by the authority of the apocryphal book of Enoch, cited by St. Jude."

66

12. It is not only out of your good will to St. Jude, or Irenæus, you gather up these fragments of error, that nothing may be lost, but also to the whole body of the ancient Christians. For all those absurdities," you say, were taught by the Fathers of those ages" (naturally implying, by all the Fathers) "as doctrines of the universal church derived immediately from the Apostles; and thought so necessary, that those who held the contrary, were hardly considered as real Christians." Here I must beg you to prove as well as assert, 1. That all these absurdities of the Millennium in the grossest sense of it, of the age of Christ, of paradise, of the destruction of the Scriptures, of the Septuagint version, and of evil angels mixing with women, were taught by all the Fathers of those ages; 2. That all those Fathers taught these as doctrines of the universal church, derived immediately from the Apostles; and, 3. That they all denied. those to be real Christians, who held the contrary.

13. You next cite two far-fetched interpretations of Scripture, and a weak saying out of the writings of Irenæus. But all three prove no more, than that in these instances he did not speak with strictness of judgment: not that he was incapable of knowing what he saw with his own eyes, or of truly relating it to others.

Before we proceed to what, with equal good humour and impar tiality, you remark concerning the rest of these Fathers, it will be proper to consider what more is interspersed concerning these in the sequel of this argument

14. And, first, you say, "Justin used an inconclusive argument for the existence of the souls of men after death." (p 67.) It is possible he might, but whether it was conclusive or not, this does not affect his moral character.

You say, secondly," It was the common opinion of all the Fathers, taken from the authority of Justin Martyr, that the dæmons wanted the fumes of the sacrifices to strengthen them for the enjoy ment of their lustful pleasures." (p. 69.)

Sir, no man of reason will believe this concerning one of the Fathers upon your bare assertion. I must, therefore, desire you to prove by more than. a scrap of a sentence, 1. That Justin himself held this opinion; 2. That he invented it; 3. That it was the common opinion of all the Fathers; and 4 That they all took it on his authority.

15. You affirm, thirdly, "He says, that all devils yield and submit to the name of Jesus: as also to the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." (p. 85.) Very likely he may.

Lastly, you cite a passage from him, concerning the Spirit of God influencing the minds of holy men. But neither does this in any measure affect his credit as a witness of fact. Consequently, after all that you have been able to draw," either from himself, or "any of the primitive writers," here is one witness of unquestionable credit, touching the miracles wrought in the primitive church; touching the subsistence of the extraordinary gifts after the days of the Apostles. 16. But let us come once more to Irenæus; for you have not done with him yet. Forgery," you say, "has been actually charged upon Justin," (by John Croius and Dr. Middleton,). " and may with equal reason be charged on Irenæus. For what other account can be given of his frequent appeals to apostolical tradition, for the support of so many incredible doctrines?" (p. 111.) Why, this very natural one, that in non-essential points he too easily followed the authority of Papias, a weak man, who, on slight grounds, believed many trifling things to have been said or done by the Apostles. And, allowing all this, yet it does not give us so lamentable an idea of those primitive ages and primitive champions of the Christian cause." (p. 59.)

46

The same account may be given of his mistake, concerning the age of our Lord, (ibid.) There is therefore as yet neither reason nor any plausible pretence for laying forgery to his charge. And, consequently, thus far his credit, as a witness, stands clear and unimpeached.

But you say, secondly, "He was a zealous asserter of tradition.” (p. 61.) He might be so, and yet might be an honest man: and that, whether he was mistaken or not, in supposing Papias to have been a disciple of John the Apostle." (p. 64.)

You say, thirdly, he supposed, "that the disciples of Simon Magus, as well as of Carpocrates, used magical arts:" (p. 68,) "that

the dead were frequently raised in his time:" (p. 72.) "that the Jews, by the name of God, cast out devils:" and "that many had even then the gift of tongues, although he had it not himself." (p.85.) This is the whole of your charge against Irenæus, when summed up and laid together. And now let any reasonable person judge, whether all this gives us the least cause to question, either his having sense enough to discern a plain matter of fact, or honesty enough to relate it. Here then is one more credible witness of miraculous gifts after the days of the Apostles.

18. What you advance concerning the history of tradition, I am neither concerned to defend nor to confute. Only must observe, you forget yourself again where you say, "the fable of the Millennium, of the old age of Christ, with many more, were all embraced by the earliest Fathers." (p. 64.) For modesty's sake, Sir, think a little before you speak, and remember you yourself informed us, that one of these was never embraced at all, but by one single Father only. 19. 66 I cannot," you say, "dismiss this article, without taking notice, that witchcraft was universally believed through all ages of the primitive church." (p. 66.) This you show by citations from several of the Fathers: who likewise believed, as you inform us, that "evil spirits had power frequently to afflict either the bodies or minds of men: that they acted the parts of the Heathen gods, and assumed the forms of those who were called from the dead. Now this opinion," say you, "is not only a proof of the grossest credulity, but of that species of it, which, of all others, lays a man most open to imposture." (p. 70.)

And yet this opinion, as you know full well, has its foundation not only in the histories of all ages, and all nations throughout the habitable world, even where Christianity never obtained: but particularly in Scripture: in abundance of passages both of the Old and New Testament: as where the Israelites were expressly commanded not to suffer a witch to live,' Exod. xxii. 18: where St. Paul numbers witchcraft with the works of the flesh,' and ranks it with adultery and idolatry, Gal. v. 19, 20: and where St. John declares, without, are sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers,' Rev. xxii. 15.

That the gods of the Heathens are devils,' is declared in terms, by one of those who are styled inspired writers, 1 Cor. x. 20. And many conceive that another of them gives us a plain instance of their * assuming the form of those who were called from the dead,' 1 Sam. xxviii. 13, 14.

Of the power of the evil spirits to afflict the minds of men, none can doubt who believe there are any such beings. And of their power to afflict the body we have abundant proof both in the history of Job, and that of the gospel demoniacs. I do not mean, Sir, to accuse you of believing these things: you have shown, that you are guiltless in this matter; and that you pay no more regard to that antiquated book, the Bible, than you do to the second book of Esdras. But, alas! The Fathers were not so far enlightened. And because they were bigotted to that old book, they, of consequence, held for truth, what you assure us was mere delusion and imposture.

20. Now to apply. "A mind," "A mind," you say, "so totally possessed by superstitious fancies, could not even suspect the pretensions of those vagrant jugglers, who in those primitive ages were so numerous and so industriously employed, in deluding their fellow-creatures. Both Heathens, Jews, and Christians, are all allowed to have had such impostors among them." p. 71.) By whom, Sir, is this allowed of the Christians? By whom, but Celsus, was it ever affirmed of them? Who informed you of their growing so numerous? And using such industry in their employment? To speak the plain truth, your mind appears to be so totally possessed by these vagrant jugglers, that you cannot say one word about the primitive church, but they immediately start up before you; though there is no more proof of their ever existing, than of a witch's sailing in an egg-shell.

21. You conclude this head: "When pious Christians are arrived to this pitch of credulity, as to believe that evil spirits, or evil men can work miracles in opposition to the gospel; their very piety, will oblige them to admit as miraculous, whatever is pretended to be wrought in defence of it." (p. 71.) Once more you have spoken out: you have shown without disguise, what you think of St. Paul, and the lying miracles, 2 Thess. ii. 9, which he (poor man!) believed evil spirits or evil men could work in opposition to the gospel: and of St. John, talking so idly of him who doeth great wonders, and deceiveth them that dwell on the earth,' (even though they were not Christians) by means of those miracles which he hath power to do," Rev. xiii. 13, 14.

22. You have now finished the third thing you proposed, which was, "To show the particular characters of the several Fathers, who attest," that they were eye and ear-witnesses of the extraordinary gifts in the primitive church. You named nine of these, Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Theophilus, Tertullian, Minutius Felix, Origen, Cyprian, Arnobius, and Lactantius; at the same time observing, that many other writers attest the same thing. But let the others stand by. Are these good men and true? That is the present question.

You say, No. And to prove that these nine are knaves, bring several charges against two of them. These have been answered at large; some of them proved to be false; some, though true, yet not invalidating their evidence.

But supposing we waive the evidence of these two, here are seven more still to come. Oh! but you say, "If there were twice seven, they only repeat the words which those have taught them."

You say. But how often must you be reminded, that saying and proving are two things? I grant, in three or four opinions, some (though not all) of these were mistaken as well as those two. But this by no means proves, that they were all knaves together; or that if Justin Martyr or Irenæus speaks wrong, I am therefore to give no credit to the evidence of Theophilus or Minutius Felix.

23. You have, therefore, made a more lame piece of work on this head, (if possible) than on the preceding. You have promised great things, and performed just nothing. You have left above three parts in four of your work entirely untouched; as these two are not a