Wesley Corpus

10. You now bring forth your grand discovery, that “all the visions of those days were contrived, or authorized at least, by the leading men of the Church. For they were all applied, either, (1.) To excuse the conduct of particular persons, in some instances of it liable to censure; or, (2.) To enforce some doctrine or discipline pressed by some, but not relished by others; or, (3.) To confirm things not only frivolous, but sometimes even superstitious and hurtful.” (Page 109.) Well, Sir, here is the proposition. But where is the proof? I hope we shall have it in your next “Free Inquiry;” and that you will then give us a few instances of such applications, from the writers of the three first centuries. 11. Being not disposed to do this at present, you fall again upon the poor “heretic Montanus; who first gave a vogue” (as you phrase it) “to visions and ecstasies in the Christian Church.” (Page 110.) So you told us before. But we cannot believe it yet; because Peter and Paul tell us the contrary. Indeed, you do not now mention Montanus because it is any thing to the question, but only to make way for observing, that those who wrote against him “employed such arguments against his prophecy as shake the credit of all prophecy. For Epipha nius makes this the very criterion between a true and a false prophet, ‘that the true had no ecstasies, constantly retained his senses, and with firmness of mind apprehended and uttered the divine oracles.’” Sir, have you not mistook? Have you not transcribed one sentence in the margin, and translated another? That sentence which stands in your margin is this: “When there was need, the saints of God among the Prophets prophesied all things with the true Spirit, and with a sound understanding and reasonable mind.” Now, it is difficult to find out how this comes to “shake the credit of all prophecy.” 12. Why thus: “Before the Montanists had brought those ecstasies into disgrace, the prophecy of the orthodox too was exerted in ecstasy. And so were the prophecies of the Old Testament, according to the current opinion of those earlier days.” (Page 111.) That this was then “the current opinion,” you bring three citations to prove.