Wesley Corpus

You told us above, that “the fourth miraculous gift was that of prophesying; the fifth, of seeing visions; the sixth, of discovering the secrets of men.” (Page 72.) But here you jumble them all together, telling us, “The next miraculous gift is that of prophetic visions, and ecstatic trances,” (ecstatic ecstasies, you might have said,) “and the discovery of men's hearts.” (Page 96.) But why do you thrust all three into one? Because, you say, “these seem to be the fruit of one spirit.” Most certainly they are, whether it was the Spirit of Truth, or (as you suppose) the spirit of delusion. 2. However, it is the second of these on which you chiefly dwell, (the fifth of those you before enumerated,) taking but little notice of the fourth, “foretelling things to come,” and THE REV. D.R. MiDDLETON. 47 none at all of the sixth, “discovering the secrets of men.” The testimonies, therefore, for these remain in full force, as you do not even attempt to invalidate them. With regard to visions or ecstasies, you observe, First, that Tertullian calls ecstasy “a temporary loss of senses.” (Page 97.) It was so, of the outward senses, which were then locked up. You observe, Secondly, that “Suidas” (a very primitive writer, who lived between eight and nine hundred years after Ter tullian) “says, that of all the kinds of madness, that of the Poets and Prophets was alone to be wished for.” I am at a loss to know what this is brought to prove. The question is, Were there visions in the primitive Church? You observe, Thirdly, that Philo the Jew says, (Iliterally translate his words, which you do not; for it would not answer your purpose,) “When the divine light shines, the human sets; but when that sets, this rises. This uses to befall the Prophets.” (Page 98.) Well, Sir, and what is this to the question? Why, “from these testimonies,” you say, “we may collect, that the vision or ecstasy of the primitive Church was of the same kind with those of the Delphic Pythia, or the Cumaean Sibyl.” Well collected indeed! But I desire a little better testimony than either that of Philo the Jew, or Suidas, a lexicographer of the eleventh century, before I believe this. How little Tertullian is to be regarded on this head you yourself show in the very next page. 3.