there is not found any one who is truly wise, according to God, for the greater number of the chief spiritual gifts (xapioμáτwv) has failed, so that they are found either not at all or rarely,' (in Prov. vol. 3, p. 5.) But we believe him when he says, "I have not a devil, for a devil cannot open the eyes of the blind, or work those miracles which have been recorded, and of which there are traces and relics in the churches even now, when the name of Jesus is pronounced."—(In Joan. 20, 28, p. 354.)

66

We have quoted these passages at length, because they appear to us pointedly to refute the assertion, that the evidence in favour of miracles is equally strong in every century. Origen undoubtedly thought that miracles had grown less and less frequent he tells us that cases of them were very rare in his days; and when he speaks of having seen some such instances himself, he is evidently prepared to meet with incredulity.

We have writings of two other persons, who lived in the third century, earlier than Origen, Hippolytus and Tertullian; but Hippolytus does not supply a single instance of anything like miraculous power. Tertullian flourished about the beginning of the third century, and in the words of the Bishop of Bristol," his writings furnish little reason for supposing that the preachers of the gospel in his day were indebted for their success to the display of miraculous powers."-(p. 95.) He certainly alludes to the power which Christians possessed of expelling demons, and curing diseases; he also speaks of some visions, but the natural inference from his expressions must be, that miracles, as we now understand the term, were not common in his days. The Bishop of Bristol points out a passage at p. 100, from which it is clear that Tertullian was aware of a great difference in this respect between the times of the Apostles and his own. The miracle of the thundering legion, as it is called, is often quoted in proof of the superstition and credulity of Tertullian and the other Fathers who mention it; but we are disposed to agree with the Bishop of Bristol in his remarks upon this subject, and to think that we are neither called upon to believe the event to be miraculous, nor yet to condemn those who have spoken of it in such terms. There can be no doubt in any reasonable mind, that the army of M. Antoninus was relieved from much suffering by a seasonable shower of rain, in Germany. Even Gibbon was compelled to acknowledge that the fact has "been celebrated by the eloquence of several Pagan writers;" and we must suppose the relief to have come suddenly, because some of these Pagan writers attributed it to magieal rites, Gibbon adds, "if there were any Christians in the army, it was natural that they should

ascribe some merit to the fervent prayers which in the moment of danger they had offered up for their own and the public safety.' This is all which we wish to have conceded. To suppose that these Christian soldiers would not have prayed to God in their distress would be absurd; and when the rain came, who would condemn them for feeling grateful to God, who had heard their prayers?

very

We come now to the writings of the second century; and according to the observations which have been made above, it would be expected, that more frequent instances of miracles would be recorded then than in the days of Tertullian and Origen. We certainly have stronger evidence of the continuance of miraculous powers in the days of Irenæus and Justin Martyr; but as to the frequency of miracles, we are hardly enabled to draw any inference. We have already seen that Eusebius speaks of " examples of divine and extraordinary powers being left in some churches, even in the days of Irenæus ;" but these words would lead us to suppose, that such powers had once been more conspicuous; and Eusebius appears to have quoted all the passages in which Irenæus speaks of such miraculous powers. The first passage is the following:-Irenæus had been reproaching the heretics, who pretended to work miracles, and he tells them that they could not cure the blind, the deaf, or the lame; much less could they raise the dead; "whereas, very often, upon emergencies, when the whole church in any particular place prayed with much fasting and supplication, the spirit of the dead returned, and the person was given to the prayers of the saints."-(2, 31, 2.) In another place, after having exposed the tricks and pretended miracles of certain heretics, he says, "The true disciples of Jesus having received grace from him, do works in his name, for the benefit of the rest of mankind, according as each individual freely received from him. For some cast out devils permanently and really, so that frequently the persons themselves who have been freed from the evil spirits become believers, and continue in the church; others have a foreknowledge of future events, and see visions, and deliver prophecies; others heal the sick by the imposition of hands, and restore them to health; and still further, as I have said already, even the dead have been raised, and continued with us many years. But why should I go on? It is impossible to tell the number of spiritual gifts (xapoμárav) which throughout the world the church receives from God, and exercises in the name of Jesus Christ every day, for the benefit of the heathen." (32, 4.) Eusebius also quotes Irenæus as saying that he had heard "of many brethren in the church, who pos

sessed spiritual gifts, speaking in divers tongues by the spirit, and bringing to light the secret thoughts of men." There can be no question that the instances of miraculous power which these quotations contain are much more expressly asserted, and are much more stupendous in themselves, than any which the writers of the third century have mentioned; and it may be remembered that Irenæus is the last writer, for some centuries, who speaks of the dead being raised by the prayers of the church, which fact would of itself be sufficient to refute the assertion, that the evidence in favour of miracles is the same in every century.

Irenæus was chosen to the bishopric of Lyons in the year 180; and during the severe persecution in which his predecessor, Pothinus, was killed, some circumstances of rather a miraculous nature are related in the letter which was sent by the churches of Lyons and Vienne to those of Asia and Phrygia (Eus. v. 1.); but there is an expression in this very letter, which might be quoted as confirming the notion, that miracles were not then common, but were known to have been gradually decreasing. Among the martyrs who were put to death, there was a Phrygian, whose name was Alexander; and it is said of him," that he had lived many years in Gaul, and was known to almost every one by his love of God and his boldness of speech: for he was even not without a portion of the apostolical gift (xaproparos)." It is, perhaps, not too much to infer from these words, that not many persons were then so highly favoured; and if the charismata or spiritual gifts had been supposed to be as common then as they were in the days of the Apostles, they would hardly have been designated by a term which seemed to point them out as peculiar to the apostolical times.

The passage quoted above from Eusebius informs us, that "Justin writes also, that even to his days spiritual gifts were conspicuous in the church;" and in the works of Justin Martyr which remain, we find passages which confirm this remark. In his second apology, which he presented to M. Aurelius in the year 162, he tells the emperor that many persons, who were troubled by evil spirits, were relieved from them by the name of Jesus being pronounced. We repeat, as before, that we know little about the nature of this power, to which the Christians at almost every period so confidently appealed but Justin would hardly have ventured to assert what was false, in an address which he intended as a defence of Christianity; nor would he have appealed to this power as a proof of the doctrine being true, if there had not been something, to appearance at least, which argued the presence of superhuman power. He asserts the same

thing in two places of his "Dialogue with Trypho;" and he also tells the Jews, that the Christians of his day were favoured with spiritual gifts (gopntinà Xagiquata). His words are," for with us, even to the present time, there are spiritual gifts;" from which we would argue, as before, that Justin did not look upon the continuance of such gifts as a thing of course, nor did he mean it to be understood that all Christians possessed them.

Justin Martyr is the earliest writer who makes any mention of such miraculous powers; and much stress has been laid upon the fact, that for so many years after the death of the Apostles, there is a complete silence upon this subject. But the argument has really little or no weight; for when the works of any period are lost, it is plain that we can argue nothing on one side or the other concerning what might have been recorded, if the writings had survived. It is needless to observe, that Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, and Ignatius, are the only persons earlier than Justin Martyr, whose works have come down to us, We do not mention Polycarp, because he was probably alive when Justin Martyr presented his first apology; and his short epistle to the Philippians appears to have been written by him at an advanced age. Not only are the writings of these four apostolic Fathers so few and brief, that the omission of any particular topic can lead to no inference as to the existence of facts; but Ignatius, who wrote the last of the four, died in 107 or 116, and Justin Martyr composed the first of his works which has come down to us in the year 140. Thus, for a space of twenty-four or thirty-three years (according as we fix the date of the martyrdom of Ignatius), we have no contemporary record whatever of what took place in the Christian church, and this in a period more interesting than any other as to the subject now before us; because it was that which immediately followed the death of the Apostles, and of those persons upon whom the Apostles had laid their hands. Dr. Hey (in the extract given from his lectures by the Bishop of Bristol) dwells upon the fact, that, for fifty years after the ascension of Christ, none of the Fathers made any pretensions to the possession of miraculous powers; that neither Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, nor Hermas, though they were the principal governors of the church, and the immediate successors of the Apostles in that government (as well as their companions and friends), ever speaks of himself as capable of counteracting the ordinary powers of nature (p. 165, 16). The inference drawn from this observation is, that such a counteracting or miraculous power was not possessed by any Christian after the times of the Apostles; but the inference is surely most unsound. Let us suppose that not one of these four primitive writers speaks of himself as pos

sessing any miraculous power; an example of diffidence which is neither to be wondered at nor censured: but did Dr. Hey forget, that every one of these writers was a contemporary of the Apostles? They must, therefore, each of them, have witnessed the working of miracles; and from their silence upon this subject, Dr. Hey might as well argue, that no miracles were worked by the Apostles, as that they were never worked by the Apostles' successors. The fact is incontrovertible, that Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, and Ignatius had all seen supernatural effects produced by the Apostles; to them, therefore, it was nothing extraordinary that such effects should have continued: they would rather have been led to remark the cessation of such a power as something extraordinary; and the fact of their not having remarked it might lead us to infer that they were not aware of any such cessation having taken place.

66

But in the account which we have of Polycarp, some circumstances are related to have happened at his martyrdom, which, as Dr. Hey observes, are "sufficiently miraculous;" and after noticing this account and that of the martyrdom of Ignatius, he thus proceeds: "These miracles are mentioned, because they are said to have been performed concerning these two apostolic Fathers, who never ventured to assume the power of performing any themselves." We seldom remember to have seen a stronger instance of the petitio principii than in this sentence. Ignatius and Polycarp, in their few letters which remain, do not mention that they ever worked miracles; therefore, concludes Dr. Hey, they never ventured to assume that power!!!" In the same manner we might prove that St. Paul never worked miracles. We are told, indeed, from other authority, that even handkerchiefs taken from his body cured diseases; that he healed the father of Publius, raised Eutychus to life, &c. &c.; but in his own letters he makes no mention of having performed miracles. When he sets forth his own pretensions in confidence of boasting, there is not a word about the spiritual gifts which he had received, and the only supernatural events which he mentions as touching himself, are are velation from Christ soon after his conversion, and his being caught up into the third heaven. Now, according to the process of reasoning used by Dr. Hey, this silence of St. Paul concerning his own miraculous power would prove that he did not possess any such power; and if we are to adopt another of his canons, that "no evidence can equal the prior probability which we have of the falsehood of miraculous stories," it is plain that the mind of each individual, and his own capacity or inclination to believe, will become the test for admitting not only the miracles of the second and third centuries, but