It has always been the characteristic mark of a Christian that he is “led by the Spirit of God”: “if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ he is none of His.” It has never been the mark of a Christian that because he is “led by the Spirit of God” he is a law to himself and free from the ordinances of God’s house. It is very clear from the record of the New Testament that the extraordinary charismata were not (after the very first days of the church) the possession of all Christians, but special supernatural gifts to the few; and it is equally clear from the records of the sub-Apostolic church that they did not continue in it, but only a shadow of them lingered in doubtful manifestations of which we must say, Do not even the heathen so? How little this whole representation accords with the facts the progress of the present discussion will show. For an examination of McGiffert’s position, see The Presbyterian Quarterly, April, 1895, pp. 185-104. For a vivid popular description of conditions in the early church as reconstructed from the “Liberal” view-point, and brought into relation to the ‘“enthusiasm’’ of later centuries, see The Edinburgh Review for January, 1903, pp. 148 ff.

7. R. Martin Pope, as cited, p. 450, speaks of modes of ministry, “in addition to the more stable and authorized modes’ mentioned in I Cor. 1: 4-12, 28, which were of “a special order, perhaps peculiar to the Corinthian Church, with its exuberant manifestations of spiritual energy, and certainly, as the evidence of later Church History shows, of a temporary character, and exhausting themselves (f. H. B. Swete, The Holy Spirit in the N. T., London, 1900, p. 320) in the Apostolic or sub-Apostolic age.” In contrast with these special modes of ministry, he speaks of the charisms of miracle-working as lasting down to the second century, if we may trust the evidence of Justin Martyr (4pol., 2: 6).”” In the passage of Justin appealed to, as also in section 8, and in Dial., 30, 76, 8sit is said only that demoniacs are exorcised by Christians; cf. G. T. Purves, The Testimony of Justin Martyr lo Early Christianity, 1880, p. 159. We shall see that the evidence of the second and subsequent centuries is not such as naturally to base Pope’s conclusion. When he adds of these ‘“charisms of miracle-working” that “they never were intended, as the extreme faith-healer of to-day contends, to supersede the efforts of the skilled physician,” he is of course right, since they were confined to the Apostolic age, and to a very narrow circle then. But when he goes on to say, “they represent the creative gift, the power of initiating new departures in the normal world of phenomena, which is rooted in faith (see A. G. Hogg, Christ’s Message of the Kingdom, Edinburgh, 1911, pp. 62-70); and as such reveal a principle which holds good for all time”’—he is speaking wholly without book, and relatively to the charisms of the New Testament equally wholly without meaning.

8. A. Tholuck’s figure (“Ueber die Wunder der katholichen Kirche,” in Vermischte Schriften, 1, 1839, p. 28) is this: “Christ did not appear like the sun in tropical lands, which rises without a dawn and sets without a twilight, but, as millenniums of prophecy preceded Him, so miracles followed Him, and the forces which He first awoke were active in a greater or less measure for a subsequent period. Down into the third century we have credible testimonies of the persistence of the miraculous forces which were active in the first century.” A mechanical conception of the miracle-working of both Christ and His followers lurks behind such figures; Christ let loose forces which naturally required some time to exhaust their energies.

9. Miscellaneous Works, London, 1755, vol. I, p. xli.

10. Works, New York, 1856, vol. V, p. 706.

11. KE. T.;p. 160.

12. Persecution and Tolerance, pp. 55-56.

13. On the literary form of Hermas, see Kerr Duncan Macmillan in Biblical and Theological Studies, by the Faculty of Princeton Seminary, 1912, pp. 404-543. The Didaché tells of “prophets” who spoke “in the Spirit,” as apparently a well-known phenomenon in the churches for which it speaks, and thus implies the persistence of the charism—or rather of the shadow of the charism—of ““prophecy.” Papias is reported by Philip of Side as having stated on the authority of the daughters of Philip that Barsabas (or Justus) drank serpent’s poison inadvertently, and that the mother of Manaim was raised from the dead, as well as that those raised from the dead by Christ lived until the time of Hadrian (f. Eusebius, H. E., 111, 39, 9; below, note 25); these events belong, in any event, to the Apostolic age.

14. Cf. H. M. Scott, “The Apostolic Fathers and the New Testament Revelation,” in The Presbyterian and Reformed Review, July, 1892, vol. III, pp. 470-488.

15. J. B. Lightfoot discusses these miraculous features of the letter in The Apostolic Fathers, Part II, S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp, vol. I, pp. 508 ff.; f. Bernard’s exhibition of their natural character op. cit., p. 168. H. Giinter, Legenden-Studien, 1906, pp. 10 ff., remarks: “thus, out of the entire series of authentic Passiones there remains as an outspoken miracle-martyrdom only the Acts of Polycarp: and even they are not unquestionably such.”

16. Justin Martyr, by the Bishop of Lincoln, ed. 3, 1853, p. 121.

17. Cf. Blunt, On the Early Fathers, p. 387.

18. Doctor Hey, in Tertullian, by the Bishop of Lincoln, ed. 2, 1826, p. 168.

19. Cf. what is said of Justin’s and Irenzus’s testimony by Gilles P:son Wetter, Charis, Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des dltesten Christentums, 1913, p. 185: “We can still hear of yaplouara in the church, in Justin and Ireneus… Justin and Irenzus are probably the latest witnesses of a prophetic gift of grace in the church… It is generally wholly uncertain whether we can still really find gifts of grace in the church in great amount in the time of Justin and Irenaeus. A declaration like that in Justin, Dial., 82, 1, mapd yap Nuly kal uéxpt viv wpPoPhNTIKA XaplouaTd éoTLY, testifies rather to the contrary. If both steadily speak of we or of the church or the like, yet it is possible that they refer by this to the great spiritual operations in the earliest period of Christianity, of which we read in the Gospels, in Acts, and perhaps in some of the Apocrypha. These were to them certainly valuable proofs’ of the truth of the divine origin of Christianity (cf. for this e. g., Justin, Apol., 1, 58; Theophilus, ad Aut., III, 16 and 26; Minucius Felix, Octavius, 20 and 23).” i 20. Bernard, as cited, p. 147, remarks that with a few notable exceptions,” “there is no trace up to the end of the second century” —and the same, we may add, is true of the third—‘ of any miraculous gifts still existing in the primitive church, save those of prophecy and healing, including exorcism, both of which are frequently mentioned.” With reference to prophecy he adduces the warning against false prophets in Hermas (Com. 11) and the Didaché, together with Justin’s assertion that prophetic gifts continued even —the “even” is perhaps significant—to his day (Dial., 315 B). As to healing, he adduces the general assertions of Justin (Dial., 258 A) and Origen (Cont. Cels., 111, 24). With respect to exorcisms, he appeals to repeated references by Justin (4pol., 45 A; Dial., 247 C, 302 A, 311 B, 350 B, 361 C) and Tertullian (4pol., 23, 37, 43; De Spect., 2; De Test. Anim., 3; Ad Scap., 2; De Corona, 11; De Idol., 11). He remarks that these Fathers all believed in magic and betray a feeling that the miracles of their day were not quite the same kind of thing which happened in the New Testament times (Tertullian, De Rud., c. 21; Origen, Cont. Cels., 1,2)

21. The prominence of exorcisms in the notices of marvellous occurrences in these Fathers belongs to the circumstances of the times, and would call for no special notice except for the use which has been made of it in recent discussions (f. S. McComb in Religion and Medicine, by Elwood Worcester, Samuel McComb, and Isador H. Coriat, 1908, pp. 205-209). In point of fact, Christianity came into a world that was demon-ridden, and, as Harnack remarks (7ke Expansion of Christianity, E. T., 1904, vol. I, p. 158), “no flight of the imagination can form any idea of what would have come over the ancient world or the Roman Empire during the third century had it not been for the church.” In conflict with this gigantic evil which dominated the whole life of the people, it is not to be wondered at that the Christians of the second and subsequent centuries, who were men of their time, were not always able to hold the poise which Paul gave them in the great words: “We know that no idol is anything in the world, and that there is no God but one.” Accordingly, as Harnack points out, “from Justin downwards, Christian literature is crowded with allusions to exorcisms, and every large church, at any rate, had exorcists” (p. 162). But this is no proof that miracles were wrought, except this great miracle, that, in its struggle against the deeply rooted and absolutely pervasive superstition—“the whole world and the circumambient atmosphere,” says Harnack (p. 161), “were filled with devils; not merely idolatry, but every phase and form of life was ruled by them: they sat on thrones; they hovered over cradles; the earth was literally a hell’—Christianity won, and expelled the demons not only from the tortured individuals whose imagination was held captive by them, but from the life of the people, and from the world. The most accessible discussion of the subject (written, of course, from his own point of view) may be found in Harnack, op. cit., vol. I, pp. 152-180. An article really on the Christian doctrine of angels has somehow strayed into the bounds of the comprehensive article, “Demons and Spirits,” in Hastings’s Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, and thus deprived the reader of the description which he would naturally look for in that place of the ideas of demons and spirits which have been prevalent among Christians.

22. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, ed. 1884, vol. II, 117 ff., sums up the testimony of this period as follows: “It is remarkable that the genuine writings of the ante-Nicene church are more free from miraculous and superstitious elements than the annals of the Nicene age and the Middle Ages… Most of the statements of the apologists are couched in general terms, and refer to the extraordinary cures from demoniacal possession… and other diseases… Justin Martyr speaks of such occurrences as frequent… and Origen appeals to his own personal observation, but speaks in another place of the growing scarcity of miracles… Tertullian attributes many if not most of the conversions of his day to supernatural dreams and visions, as does also Origen, although with more caution. But in such psychological phenomena it is exceedingly difficult to draw the line of demarcation between natural and supernatural causes, and between providential interpositions and miracles proper. The strongest passage on this subject is found in Irenzus, who, in contending against the heretics, mentions, besides the prophecies and miraculous cures of demoniacs, even the raising of the dead among contemporary events taking place in the Catholic Church; but he specifies no particular case or name; and it should be remembered also, that his youth still bordered almost on the Johannean age.”

When Schaff cites Origen as speaking of a “growing scarcity of miracles,” his language is not exact. What Origen says, is: “But there were signs from the Holy Spirit at the beginning of Christ’s teaching, and after His ascension He exhibited more, but subsequently fewer. Nevertheless, even now still there are traces of them with a few who have had their souls purified by the gospel.” Here, there is a recognition of the facts that miracles were relatively few after the Apostolic age, and that in Origen’s day there were very few indeed to be found. But there is no assertion that they had gradually ceased; only an assertion that they had practically ceased. “The age of miracles, therefore,” comments Harnack justly, “lay for Origen in earlier days.” Eusebius is not the first (in the third book of his History) to look back upon the age of the Spirit and of power as the bygone heroic age of the church, for Origen had already pronounced this judgment on the past from an impoverished present.” (The Expansion of Christianity, as cited, p. 257, and note 2.)

23. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. xv, 11, ed. Smith, 1887, vol. II, pp. 178 fi.

24. These points are accordingly duly intimated by Milman in his note on Gibbon’s passage. For the former of them he appeals to Middleton (Works, I, p. 59) as sponsor; for the latter to Douglas (Criterion, p. 389).

as HE. 1 30,0.

26. Bernard, op. cit., p. 150, remarks justly that Papias “virtually implies that he himself never saw any such occurrence, his only knowledge of miracles’ of this kind being derived from hearsay.”

27. Cf. Bernard, as cited: “If they were frequent, if he had ever seen one himself, he would have told us of it, or to speak more accurately, Eusebius would not have selected for quotation a second-hand story, if the direct evidence of an eye-witness was on record.” How did Eusebius, then, understand Irenzus? As testifying to a common occurrence in his time? Or, even to a single instance within his own knowledge? This seems unlikely.

29. I: 13: “Then, as to your denying that the dead are raised —for you say, Show me one who has been raised from the dead, that seeing I may believe’—first, what great thing is it if you believe when you have seen the thing done? Then, again, you believe that Hercules, who burned himself, lives; and that Ascula-pius, who was struck with lightning, was raised; and do you disbelieve the things that are told you by God? But, suppose I should show you a dead man raised and alive, even this you would disbelieve. God indeed exhibits to you many proofs that you may believe Him. For, consider, if you please, the dying of seasons, 4 and days, and nights, how these also die and rise again,” etc.

30. De Pudicitia, 21: “And so, if it were agreed that even the blessed Apostles had granted any such indulgence, the pardon of which comes from God, not from man, it would have been competent for them to have done so, not in the exercise of discipline, but of power. For they both raised the dead, which God alone can do; and restored the debilitated to their integrity, which none but Christ can do; nay they inflicted plagues, too, which Christ would not do, for it did not beseem Him to be severe who had come to suffer. Smitten were both Ananias and Elymas—Ananias with death, Elymas with blindness—in order that by this very fact it might be proven that Christ had had the power of doing even such (miracles).”

31. Adv. Heer., II, 31: 2: Speaking of the followers of one Simon, and their inability to work miracles, Irenzus proceeds (Bernard’s translation): “They can neither give sight to the blind, nor hearing to the deaf, nor put to flight all demons, except those which are sent into others by themselves, if they can, indeed, even do this. Nor can they cure the weak, or the lame, or the paralytic, or those that are troubled in any other part of the body, as often happens to be done in respect of bodily infirmity. Nor can they furnish effective remedies for those external accidents which may occur. And so far are they from raising the dead as the Lord raised them, and the Apostles did by means of prayer, and as when frequently in the brotherhood, the whole church in the locality, having made petition with much fasting and prayer, the spirit of the dead one has returned (émesrpéye), and the man has been given back (éxapisfn) to the prayers of the saints—(so far are they from doing this) that they do not believe that it can possibly be done, and they think that resurrection from the dead means a rejection of the truth of their tenets.” Adv. Heer., II, 32: 4: “Those who are in truth the Lord’s disciples, having received grace from Him, do in His name perform (miracles) for the benefit of other men, according to the gift which each one has received from Him. For some certainly and truly drive out demons, so that those who have been cleansed from the evil spirits frequently believe and are in the church. Others have foreknowledge of things to come, and visions, and prophetic warnings. Others heal the sick by imposition of their hands, and they are restored to health. Yea, moreover, as we said, even the dead were raised and abode with us many years (#vépfnoar kal Tapéuewar cv nuiv ikavois éreat). What more shall I say? It is not possible to tell the number of the gifts which the church throughout the world has received from God in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and which she exerts day by day for the welfare of the nations, neither deceiving any, nor taking any reward for such. For as freely as she hath received from God, so freely doth she minister.” It is quite clear that in II, 32: 4 Irenaeus throws the raisings from the dead well into the past. This is made evident not only from the past tenses employed, which are markedly contrasted with the present tenses used in the rest of the passage, but also from the statement that those who were thus raised had lived after their resuscitation a considerable number of years, which shows that recent resuscitations are not in view. The passage in II, 31: 2, ambiguous in itself, is explained by II, 32: 4, which Irenaeus himself represents as a repetition of it (“as we said”). It appears, then, that in neither passage has Irenus recent instances in view—and there is no reason why the cases he has in mind may not have occurred during the lifetime of the Apostles or of Apostolic men.

32. As cited, p. 164. Cf. Douglas, as cited in note 24.

33. Th. Trede, Wunderglaube im Heidentum und in der alten Kirche, 1901, pp. 83-88, brings together the instances from the literature. No doubt the heathen did not really believe in these resuscitations, at least when they were instructed men. It did not require a Lucian to scoff at them: Minucius Felix (Octavius, chap. 11 ad fin.) makes his Ceacilius remark that despite the long time that has passed away, the innumerable ages that have flowed by, no single individual has returned from the dead, either by the fate of Protesilaus, with permission to sojourn even a few hours, or to serve as an example to men. The Christians, he asserts, in teaching a resurrection from the dead, have but revamped the figments of an unwholesome belief with which deceiving poets have trifled in sweet verses.

34. Cf. Erwin Rohde, Der griechische Roman und seine Vorldufer, 1900, p. 287, note 1. Also Origen, Contra Celsum, 2: 16, 48-58. The famous physician Asclepiades is said to have met a funeral procession and detected that the corpse was still living (Pliny, Nat. Hist., 7: 124; cf. Weinreich, p. 173). Apuleius, Flor., 19, relates this as an actual resuscitation. The texts may be conveniently consulted in Paul Fiebig, Antike Wundergeschichten, etc., 1911.

35. Cf. F. C. Baur, Apollonius von Tyana und Christus, p. 140.

36. Antike Heilungswunder, 1909, pp. 171-174.

37. Weinreich, as cited, p. 171, note 1; R. Reitzenstein, Helle-nistische Wundererzihlungen, 1906, p. 41, note 3.

38. Philostratus, The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, etc., with an English translation by F. C. Conybeare (The Loeb Classical Library), vol. 1, 1912, pp. 457 fi.

39. Cf. E. von Dobschiitz, “Der Roman in der Altchristlichen Literatur,” in the Deutsche Rundschau, vol. CXI, April, 1902, p. 105. Heremarks: “To that we owe it that so many of these legends have been preserved.”

40. Von Dobschiitz, as cited, p. 88. ‘I think that I may venture to say,” says Reitzenstein, op. cit., p. 55, “that the literary model of the Christian Acts of the Apostles was supplied by the Aretalogies of prophets and philosophers. We should not think merely of the few which accident has preserved for us—and that exclusively in literary reworkings or parodies; a certain importance attaches to the connection of one of these essentially anonymous miracle-stories already with Athenodorus, the Stoic teacher of Augustus.”

41. Perhaps we may roughly represent these two things by “romance” and “fable.” 42.2 10P. it., p- 07. 43. As cited, p. 100. 44. As cited, pp. 100 ff.

45. On Greek and Latin fiction, the short article by Louis H. Gray in Hastings’s Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. VI, pp. 6-8, may be consulted, and the work on which Gray chiefly depends,. M. Warren, History of the Novel Previous to the Seventeenth Century, 1800, pp. 21 ff. A good brief account of Greek and early Christian novels is given by T. R. Glover, in the last chapter of his Life and Letters in the Fourth Century, 1901, pp. 357-386. The German replica of this is Von Dobschiitz’s essay already mentioned. The great work on the Greek romances is Erwin Rohde’s, already mentioned, by the side of which should be placed E. Schwartz, Fiinf Vortrage iiber den Griechen Roman, 1896, and A. Chassang, Histoire du Roman dans I’ Antiquité Grecque et Latine, 1862. Reitzen-stein, in the book already mentioned, seeks to introduce more precision into the treatment of literary forms. See also the concluding chapter on Die Bekenner-vite in E. Giinter’s Legenden-Studien,

1906 (cf. also his Die christliche Legend des Abendlandes, 1910), and cf. G. H. Gerould, Saints’ Legends, 1916, pp. 33 f.

46. The use to which this opinion, become traditional, is put, may be illustrated by its employment by Charles Herman Lea, A Plea… for Christian Science, 1915, p. 58, and its similar employment by Samuel McComb, Religion and Medicine, 1908, pp. 295 ff. The former writes: “In the early years of the Christian Church, this command to heal the sick appears to have been fulfilled to a considerable degree, and history records that Christian healing was practiced until the end of the third century. Then it appears to have been gradually discontinued, as the spiritual life of the church declined, until the power was entirely lost sight of in the gross materialism that culminated in the union of Church and State. That the power to heal is not generally possessed by the ‘ Christian Church to-day is certain; nor could anything be more misleading than the idea, sometimes propounded from the pulpits, that the ability to heal was withdrawn because it became no longer necessary for the church to give such evidence of God’s power, and of their understanding of Him. For this very power was the evidence that Jesus Christ himself gave as proof of the truth of his teaching. Hence, one of the questions that the churches of Christendom need to face to-day is, Why are we unable to fulfil our Lord’s clear and express command?’ Is it because they do not correctly understand his teaching, or because they do not consider obedience to him, in this respect, necessary? Or has the church not yet risen above the materialism that marked its decadence in the early centuries of its history?” Perhaps nowhere in history,” writes McComb, “can we find the power of faith to heal disorders of a semi-moral and semi-nervous character so strikingly illustrated as in the early centuries of the church’s existence. The literature of the ante-Nicene period is permeated with a sense of conquest over sickness, disease, and moral ills of every kind… Gibbon, in his famous fifteenth chapter, mentions as the third cause of the spread of Christianity, the miraculous powers of the primitive church,” among which he names the expulsion of demons, but he dismisses the whole matter with a scoff as a product of superstition. Wider knowledge now shows that the historian’s skepticism was quite unjustified. There is abundant testimony that one of the most important factors of the early propaganda of the Christian faith was an especial power which Christians seemed to have over various psychical disturbances… Even so late as the time of Augustine, we find a belief in the healing power of faith still existent. In his City of God he describes various healing-wonders of which he was an eye-witness, and which were done in the name of Christ.” The entire angle of vision here is unhistorical.

47. John Lightfoot (Works, Pittman’s 8 vol. ed., vol. III, p. 204) suggests as the reason for these two exceptions: “The Holy Ghost at this its first bestowing upon the Gentiles is given in the like manner as it was at its first bestowing on the Jewish nationnamely, by immediate infusion; at all other times you find mention of it, you find mention of imposition of hands used for it.”

48. Acts g: 12-17 is no exception, as is sometimes said; Ananias worked a miracle on Paul but did not confer miracle-working powers. Paul’s own power of miracle-working was original with him as an Apostle, and not conferred by any one.

49. Schaff-Herzog, Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 1st edition, vol. II, p. 873.

50. The connection of the signs and wonders and manifold powers of the Holy Ghost” in some particular fashion with the first generation of Christians—‘“them that heard” the Lord, that is to say, at least the Apostolic generation, possibly specifically the Apostles—seems to be implied in Heb. 2: 4. That Paul regards the charismata as credentials of the Apostolic mission” (possibly even Rom. 1: 11 may be cited here) is clear even to J. A. MacCul-loch (Hastings’s E R E., VIII, p. 683 b), although he himself doubts the soundness of this view. A. Schlatter (Hastings’s Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, 1, 577 a) says with great distinctness: “The Gospels, the Book of Acts, and the utterances of St. Paul regarding his signs’ (IT Cor. 12: 12), all show distinctly that miracles were intimately related to the Apostolic function.”

51. The Ecclesiastical History of the Second and Third Centuries, Illustrated from the Writings of Tertullian, 1825; 2d ed., 1826; 3d ed., 1845, pp. 08 fi.

52. Bernard, as cited, p. 130, gives his acceptance to Kaye’s view, speaking of ‘““that power which in the days of the Apostles was confined to them and those on whom they had laid their hands.” B. F. Manire, in an article on the “Work of the Holy Spirit,” in The New Christian Quarterly, IV, 2, p. 38 (April, 1895), gives exceptionally clear expression to the facts: “The matter of imparting the Holy Ghost through the laying on of their hands, belonged exclusively, as it appears to me, to the Apostles, and therefore passed away with them… Others besides the Apostles could preach the Gospel with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven,” and could work miracles in confirmation of their testimony; but only the Apostles by the imposition of their own hands could impart the Holy Spirit to others in its wonder-working power.

To me it appears that the bestowal of this power on the Apostles was the highest testimonial of their official character and authority.” Paton J. Gloag comments on Acts 8: 15-16 thus: “By the Holy Ghost here is not to be understood the ordinary or sanctifying influences of the Spirit. The Samaritans, in the act of believing the gospel, received the Holy Ghost in this sense… The miraculous influences of the Spirit, which are manifested by speaking with tongues and prophesyings, are here meant. As Calvin remarks, He speaks not in this place of the common grace of the Spirit, whereby God regenerates us that we may be His children, but of those singular gifts whereby God would have certain endowed, at the beginning of the Gospel, to beautify the Kingdom of Christ.’ But the question arises, Why could not Philip bestow the Holy Ghost?… The common opinion appears to be the correct one —namely, that Philip could not bestow the Holy Ghost because he was not an Apostle. This, though not expressly stated, yet seems implied in the narrative. So Chrysostom and Epiphanius among the fathers, and Grotius, Lightfoot, DeWette, Baumgarten, Meyer, Olshausen, and Wordsworth among the moderns.” John Lightfoot holds that the charismata were not conferred indiscriminately on all but only on a select few, to endow them (a plurality in each church) for the office of “minister.” But that these gifts were conferred only by laying on the Apostles’ hands he is clear. Cf. Works, ed. Pittman, vol. III, p. 30: “To give the Holy Ghost was a peculiar prerogative of the Apostles’; vol. III, p. 194, commenting on Acts 8: “Philip baptized Samaritans and did great wonders among them, but could not bestow the Holy Ghost upon them: that power belonged only to the Apostles; therefore Peter and John are sent thither for that purpose.”

53. Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology, E. T., 1898, p. 368; cf. pp. 355 fi.

sq. Institutes of the Christian Religion, E. T., by John Allen; ed. Philadelphia, 1909, vol. I, pp. 26 fi.: “Their requiring miracles of us is altogether unreasonable; for we forge no new Gospel, but retain the very same whose truth was confirmed by all the miracles ever wrought by Christ and the Apostles”’—and so forth.

54. Gereformeerde Dogmatiek?, I, pp. 363 f.

56. On Wesley’s relations with Middleton, see F. J. Snell, Wesley and Methodism, 1900, pp. 151 ff.

57. Free Answer to Dr. Middleton’s Free Inquiry, etc., 1749.

58. A Vindication of the Miraculous Powers which Subsisted in the Three First Centuries of the Christian Church, 1750. Chapman’s Miraculous Powers of the Primitive Church, 1752 (following up his

Discovery of the Miraculous Powers of the Primitive Church, 1747) came too late to be included in Middleton’s Vindication.

59. The literature of the subject has been intimated in the course of the lecture. By the side of Middleton’s Free Inquiry may be placed J. Douglas, The Criterion; or rules by which the True Miracles recorded in the New Testament are distinguished from the Spurious miracles of Pagans and Papists, 1752, new edd. 1857, etc., 1867; and Isaac Taylor, Ancient Christianity, 1839; ed. 4, 1844, vol. II, pp. 233-365. Cf. also Lecture VIII in J. B. Mozley, Eight Lectures on Miracles, 1865. Of J. H. Newman’s Two Essays on Scripture Miracles and on Ecclesiastical, some account will be given in the next lecture. By its side should be placed Horace Bushnell’s eloquent argument for the continuation of miracles in the church in the fourteenth chapter of his Nature and the Supernatural (1858; ed. 4, 1859, pp. 446-492).

I

---

← VI. Mind-Cure · Contents · Notes to Lecture II →