fourth part even of the writers you have named, as attesting the continuance of the extraordinary gifts after the age of the apostles.

But you have taught that trick at least to your vagrant jugglers, to supply the defect of all other arguments. At every dead lift you are sure to play upon us these dear creatures of your own imagination. They are the very strength of your battle, the tenth legion. Yet if a man impertinently calls for proof of their existence, if he comes close and engages them hand to hand, they immediately vanisk

away.

IV. You are, in the fourth place, to "review all the several kinds of miraculous gifts which are pretended to have been given; and to observe from the nature of each, how far they may reasonably be suspected." p. 72.

"These," you say, "are, 1. The power of raising the dead; 2. Of healing the sick; 3. Of casting out devils; 4. Of prophesying; 5. Of seeing visions; 6. Of discovering the secrets of men; 7. Of expounding the Scriptures; 8. Of speaking with tongues."

I had rather have had "an account of the miraculous powers as they are represented to us in the history of the gospel." But that account you are not inclined to give. So we will make the best of what we have.

Sect. I. 1. And, first, As to "raising the dead. Irenæus affirms, This was frequently performed on very necessary occasions; when by great fastings and the joint supplication of the church, the spirit of the dead person returned into him, and the man was given back to the prayers of the saints.""

2. But you object, "There is not an instance of this to be found in the three first centuries." (p. 72.) I presume you mean, no Heathen historian has mentioned it, (for Christian historians were not.) I answer, 1. It is not probable a Heathen historian would have related such a fact, had he known it. 2. It is equally improbable, he should know it seeing the Christians knew with whom they had to do: and that, had such an instance been made public, they would not long have enjoyed him who had been given back to their prayers. They could not but remember what had been before; when the Jews sought Lazarus also to kill him: a very obvious reason why a miracle of this particular kind, ought not to have been published abroad: especially, considering, 3. That it was not designed for the conversion of the Heathens; but on occasions necessary for the good of the Church, of the Christian community: Lastly, It was a miracle proper above all others, to support and confirm the Christians, who were daily tortured and slain, but sustained by the hope of obtaining a better resurrection.

3. You object, secondly, "The Heathens constantly affirmed the thing itself to be impossible." (p. 73.) They did so. But is it a

thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?.

4. You object, thirdly, "That when Autolycus, an eminent Heathen, scarcely forty years after this, said to Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, Show me but one raised from the dead, that I may see

and believe;' Theophilus could not." (ibid.) Supposing he could not, I do not see that this contradicts the testimony of Irenæus; for he does not affirm, (though you say, (p. 72,) he does) that this was "performed, as it were, in every parish, or place where there was a Christian church," He does not affirm, that it was performed at Antioch probably, not in any church, unless where a concurrence of important circumstances required it. Much less does he affirm, that the persons raised in France, would be alive forty years after. Therefore, although it be granted, 1. That the historians of that age are silent; 2. That the Heathens said, the thing was impossible; 3. That Theophilus did not answer the challenge of the Heathen Autolycus all this will not invalidate in any degree, the express testimony of Irenæus, or prove, that none had been raised from the dead, since the days of the apostles.

66

Sect. II. 1. "The next gift is, that of healing the sick; often performed by anointing them with oil; in favour of which," as you observe, "the ancient testimonies are more full and express." (p. 75.) But this," you say, "might be accounted for without a miracle, by the natural efficacy of the oil itself." (p. 76.) I doubt not. Be pleased to try, how many you can cure thus, that are blind, deaf, dumb, or paralytic and experience, if not philosophy, will teach you, that oil has no such natural efficacy as this.

2. Of this you seem not insensible already, and therefore fly away to your favourite supposition, that "they were not cured at all: that the whole matter was a cheat from the beginning to the end." But by what arguments do you evince this? The first is, "The Heathens pretended to do the same. Nay, and managed the imposture with so much art, that the Christians could neither deny nor detect it: but insisted always, that it was performed by demons, or evil spirits." (p. 76.) But still the Heathens maintained, "The cures were wrought by their gods, by Esculapius in particular." And where is the difference? Seeing, as was observed before, the gods of the Heathens were but devils.

3. But, you say, "Although public monuments were erected in proof and memory of these cures, at the time when they were performed, yet it is certain all those Heathen miracles were pure forgeries." (p. 79.) How is it certain? If you can swallow this without good proof, you are far more credulous than 1. I cannot believe, that the whole body of the Heathens, for so many generations, were utterly destitute of common sense, any more than of common honesty. Why should you fix such a charge on whole cities and countries? You could have done no more, if they had been Christians!

4. But" diseases thought fatal and desperate, are oft surprisingly healed of themselves. And, therefore, we cannot pay any great regard to such stories, unless we knew more precisely in this case the real bounds between nature and miracle." (p. 79.) Sir, I understand you well. The drift of the argument is easily seen. It points at the Master as well as his servants: and tends to prove, that after all this talk about miraculous cures, we are not sure, there were ever any

in the world. But it will do no harm. For although we grant, 1. That some recover, even in seemingly desperate cases, and, 2. That we do not know in any case, the precise bounds between nature and miracle; yet it does not follow, therefore, I cannot be assured, there ever was a miracle of healing in the world. To explain this by instance. I do not precisely know how far nature may go, in healing, that is, in restoring sight to the blind. Yet this I assuredly know, that if a man born blind, is restored to sight by a word, this is not nature, but miracle. And to such a story, well attested, all reasonable men will pay the highest regard.

5. The sum of what you have advanced on this head, is, 1. That the Heathens themselves had miraculous cures among them; 2. That oil may cure some diseases, by its natural efficacy; and, 3. That we do not know the precise bounds of nature. All this I allow. But all this will not prove that no miraculous cures were performed, either by our Lord and his apostles, or by those who lived in the three succeeding centuries.

Sect. III. 1. The third of the miraculous powers said to have been in the primitive church, is that of casting out devils. The testimonies concerning this are out of number, and as plain as words can make them. To show, therefore, that all these signify nothing, and that there were never any devils cast out at all, (neither by the apostles, nor since the apostles, for the argument proves both or neither,) is a task worthy of you. And (to give you your just praise) you have here put forth all your strength.

2. And yet I cannot but apprehend, there was a much shorter way. Would it not have been readier to overthrow all those testimonies at a stroke, by proving, there never was any Devil in the world? Then the whole affair of casting him out had been at an end.

But it is in condescension to the weakness and prejudices of mankind, that you go less out of the common road, and only observe, "That those who were said to be possessed of the Devil, may have been ill of the falling sickness." "And their symptoms," you say, "seem to be nothing else but the ordinary symptoms of an epilepsy."

p. 81.

If it be asked, but were "the speeches and confessions of the devils, and their answering to all questions, nothing but the ordinary symptoms of an epilepsy ?" You take in a second hypothesis, and account for these "by the arts of imposture and contrivance, between the persons concerned in the act." p. 82.

But is not this something extraordinary, that men in epileptic fits, should be capable of so much art and contrivance? To get over this difficulty, we are to suppose that art and contrivance were the main ingredients: so that we are to add only quantum sufficet of the epilepsy, and sometimes to leave it out of the composition.

But the proof, Sir, where is the proof? I want a little of that too. Instead of this we have only another supposition, "That all the fathers were either induced by their prejudices, to give too hasty credit to these pretended possessions, or carried away by their

zeal to support a delusion, which was useful to the Christian cause." p. 81.

I grant they were prejudiced in favour of the Bible. But yet we cannot fairly conclude from hence, either that they were one and all continually deceived by merely pretended possessions: or, that they would all lie for God, a thing absolutely forbidden in that book.

3. But "leaders of sects," you say, "whatever principles they pretend to, have seldom scrupled to use a commodious lie." (p. 83.) I observe, you are quite impartial here. You make no exception of age or nation. It is all one to you, whether your reader applies this to the son of Abdalla, or the son of Mary. And yet, Sir, I cannot but think there was a difference. I fancy the Jew was an honester man than the Arabian: and though Mahomet used many a commodious lie, yet Jesus of Nazareth did not.

4. However, "Not one of these fathers made any scruple of using the hyperbolical style," (that is, in plain English, of lying) "as an eminent writer of ecclesiastical history declares." (ibid.) You should have said an impartial writer. For who would scruple that character to Mr. Le Clerc ? And yet I cannot take either his or your bare word for this. Be pleased to produce a little proof. Hitherto you have proved absolutely nothing on the head, but (as your manner is) taken all for granted.

5. You next relate that famous story taken from Tertullian. " A woman went to the theatre, and returned possessed with a devil. When the unclean spirit was asked, how he dared to assault a Christian? He answered, I found her on my own ground." (p. 83.) After relating another, (which you endeavour to account for naturally,) you intimate, that this was a mere lie of Tertullian's. But how is that proved? Why, "Tertullian was an utter enemy to plays and public shows in the theatre." He was so. But can we infer from thence, that he was an utter enemy to common honesty?

6. You add, "The fathers themselves own, that even the Jews, yea and the Heathens, cast out devils." (p. 84.) "Now it will be granted, that these Jewish and Heathen exorcists were mere cheats and impostors. But the fathers believed, they really cast them out. Now if they could take their tricks for the effects of a supernatural power, well might they be deceived by their own impostors. Or, they might think it convenient to oppose one cheat to another." (p. 87, 88.)

"Deceived," say you, "by their impostors ?" Why I thought they were the very men who set them to work! Who opposed one cheat to another. Apt scholars, who acted their part so well, as even to deceive their masters! But whatever the Heathen were, we cannot grant, that all the "Jewish exorcists were impostors." Whether the Heathens cast out devils or not, it is sure the sons of the Jews cast them out. I mean, upon supposition, that Jesus of Nazareth east them out: which is a point not here to be disputed.

VOL. 9.-E

7. But "it is very hard to believe what Origen declares, that the devils used to possess and destroy cattle." You might have said, what Matthew and Mark declare, concerning the herd of swine. And yet we shall find you by and by believing far harder things than this.

Before you subjoined the silly story of Hilarian and his camel, you should, in candour, have informed your reader, that it is disputed, whether the life of Hilarian was written by St. Jerome or not! But be it as it may, I have no concern with either. For they did not live within the three first ages.

8. I know not what you have proved hitherto, though you have affirmed many things, and intimated more. But now we come to the

strength of the cause, contained in your five observations.

You observe, first, "That all the primitive accounts of casting out devils, though given by different fathers, and in different ages, yet exactly agree with regard to all the main circumstances." (p. 92.) And this you apprehend to be a mark of imposture. "It looks," you say, "as if they copied from each other!" Now a vulgar reader would have imagined, that any single account of this kind must be rendered much more (not less) credible, by parallel accounts of what many had severally seen, at different times, and in different places.

9. You observe, secondly, "That the persons thus possessed, were called, Elyasgo, ventriloquists;" (some of them were) "because they were generally believed to speak out of the belly." (ibid.) "Now there are at this day," you say, "those who by art and practice can speak in the same manner. If we suppose then that there were artists of this kind among the ancient Christians, how easily, by a correspondence between the ventriloquist and the exorcist, might they delude the most sensible of their audience ?"

But what did the ventriloquist do with his epilepsy in the mean time? You must not let it go. Because many of the circumstances wherein all these accounts agree, cannot be tolerably accounted for without it. And yet how will you make these two agree? It is a point worthy your serious consideration.

But cheats doubtless they were, account for it who can. Yet it is strange, none of the Heathen should find them out: that the imposture should remain quite undiscovered till fourteen hundred years after the impostors were dead! He must have a very large faith, who can believe this: who can suppose, that not one of all those impostors, should either through inadvertence, or in the midst of tortures and death, have once intimated any such thing.

10. You observe, thirdly, "That many demoniacs could not be cured by all the power of the exorcists, and that the cures which were pretended to be wrought on any, were but temporary; were but the cessation of a particular fit, or access of the distemper. This," you say, "is evident from the testimony of antiquity itself, and may be clearly collected from the method of treating them in the ancient church," p. 92.