Wesley Corpus

And “this interpretation also,” it is said, “is confirmed by the authority of Chrysostom, Origen, and other ancient writers.” (P. 33.) With those other “ancient writers” I have no con cern yet. St. Chrysostom so far confirms this interpretation, as to explain that whole phrase “the demonstration of the Spirit and of power,” of “the power of the Spirit shown by miracles.” But he says not one word of any “proof of the Christian religion arising from the types and prophecies of the Old Testament.” Origen has these words:-- “Our word has a certain peculiar demonstration, more divine than the Grecian logical demonstration. This the Apostle terms, ‘the demonstration of the Spirit and of power;” of the Spirit, because of the prophecies, sufficient to convince any one, especially of the things that relate to Christ; of power, because of the miraculous powers, some footsteps of which still remain.” (Vol. i., p. 321.) Hence we may doubtless infer, that Origen judged this text to relate, in its primary sense, to the Apostles; but can we thence infer, that he did not judge it to belong, in a lower sense, to all true Ministers of Christ? Let us hear him speaking for himself in the same treatise: “‘And my speech and my preaching were not with entic ing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power; that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” Those who hear the word preached with power are themselves filled with power,” (N.B. not the power of working miracles,) “which they demon strate both in their disposition, and in their life, and in their striving for the truth unto death. But some, although they profess to believe, have not this power of God in them, but are empty thereof.” (P. 377.) (Did Origen, then, believe that the power mentioned in this text belonged only to the apostolical age?) “See the force of the word, conquering believers by a per suasiveness attended with the power of God!