Wesley Corpus

Middleton,) “and may with equal reason be charged on Irenaeus. For what other account can be given of his frequent appeals to apostolical tradition, for the support of so many incredible doctrines?” (Page 111.) Why, this very natural one, that in non-essential points he too easily followed the authority of Papias, a weak man, who on slight grounds believed many trifling things to have been said or done by the Apostles. And allowing all this, yet it does not give us so “lamentable an idea of those primitive ages and primitive champions of the Christian cause.” (Page 59.) The same account may be given of his mistake concerning the age of our Lord. (Ibid.) There is therefore, as yet, neither reason nor any plausible pretence for laying forgery to his charge. And consequently, thus far his credit as a witness stands clear and unimpeached. But you say, Secondly, “He was a zealous asserter of tradi tion.” (Page 61.) He might be so, and yet be an honest man; and that, whether he was mistaken or no, in supposing Papias to have been a disciple of John the Apostle. (Page 64.) You say, Thirdly, He supposed “that the disciples of Simon Magus, as well as Carpocrates, used magical arts;” (page 68;) that “the dead were frequently raised in his time;” (page 72;) that “the Jews, by the name of God, cast out devils;” (page 85;) and that “many had even then the gift of tongues, although he had it not himself.” This is the whole of your charge against St. Irenaeus, when summed up and laid toge ther. And now, let any reasonable person judge, whether all this gives us the least cause to question, either his having sense enough to discern a plain matter of fact, or honesty 36 LETTER. To enough to relate it. Here then is one more credible witness of miraculous gifts after the days of the Apostles. 18. What you advance concerning the history of tradition, I am neither concerned to defend nor to confute.