Wesley Corpus

2. It is by this principle only that I can account for your adding: “Which doctrine” (that of their enjoying all sensual pleasures) “he deduces from the testimony of the Prophets, and of St. John the Apostle; and was followed in it by the Fathers of the second and third centuries.” The doctrine (as you very well know) which Justin deduced from the Prophets and the Apostles, and in which he was undoubtedly followed by the Fathers of the second and third centuries, is this: The souls of them who have been martyred for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and who have not worshipped the beast, neither received his mark, shall live and reign with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead shall not live again, until the thousand years are finished. Now, to say they believed this, is neither more nor less than to say, they believed the Bible. 6. The second heresy you charge him with is the believing, “that those ‘sons of God’ mentioned Gen. vi. 4, of whom it is there said, ‘They came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them,’ were evil angels.” (Page 32.) And I allow, he too lightly received this on the testimony of the Jewish Commentators. But this only proves that he was a fallible man; not that he was a knave, or that he had not eyes and ears. 7. You charge him, Thirdly, “with treating the spurious books, published under the names of the Sibyl and Hystaspes, with the same reverence as the prophetic Scriptures.” (Page 33.) His words are: “By the power of evil spirits, it was made death to read the books of Hystaspes, or of the Sibyl, or of the Prophets.” Well; how does this prove that he treated those books with the same reverence as the prophetic Scriptures? “But it is certain,” you say, “that, from this example and authority 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.