censure of Irenæus is fully justified. But I shall hope that some, who are well acquainted with the works of this Father, will produce passages out of them to exculpate him; for the charge is of nothing less than gross falsehood, if he is speaking of his own times: and even if he is referring to the age immediately suc ceeding the Apostles, the truth of his assertion is very questionable; for only three instances of raising the dead are recorded even of our Lord himself, only one of Peter, and one of Paul-five in all; yet, according to Irenæus, after the Apostles were dead, and were succeeded by men confessedly inferior to them in spiritual gifts, these inferior men do very often this greatest of all miracles, which their predecessors had done very sparingly! But this objection will be removed, if the most obnoxious part of the sentence may be left out-namely, "et in fraternitate, sæpissime, propter aliquid necessarium, eâ quæ est in quoquo loco ecclesià universà postulante per jejunium et supplicationem multam, reversus est spiritus mortui et donatus est homo orationibus sanctorum." In favour of this omission, it may be remarked that the dislocated parts will re-unite of themselves; not the least force needs be put upon them, nor the least particle be introduced to connect them: "Tantum autem absunt ab eo ut mortuum excitent quemadmodum Dominus excitavit et Apostoli per orationem [et in fraternitate, &c. ...... sanctorum] ut ne quidem credent hoc in totum posse fieri, esse autem resurrectionem a mortuis agnitionem ejus quæ ab eis dicitur, veritatis." (Grabe's Irenæus, p. 188.) Irenæus is arguing thus against the Valentinians, Carpocrations, &c. They cannot give sight to the blind or hearing to the deaf; they cannot expel dæmons, or cure the infirm, lame, and paralytic......and "they are so far from being able to raise the dead, as the Lord did, and as If Matt. x. 8. is objected, see Wetstein in loco.

the Apostles did by prayer......that they do not even believe the thing to be possible, (asserting) that the resurrection from the dead is meant only (in a spiritual sense) for a discovery of what they call the truth." This limits the raising of the dead to the Lord and his Apostles, and speaks only in a general and ambiguous way of the other miracles; leaving us in uncertainty which of these miracles continued at the time he was writing, and which he only remembered to have heard of from eye-witnesses in the early part of his life, when, possibly, a few of those on whom the Apostles laid their hands might be yet alive. His argument against the heretics is this: You have not, and never had, any such miracles as we have (nunc nomen Christi beneficia præstat et curat, &c. sed non Simonis et Carpocratis, &c.) But he does not adhere uniformly to the present tense, though he artfully joins it in close connexion with the perfect tense, both in this and the following chapter, in order to conceal the fact that they had lost many of their miraculous gifts. Nor was the retaining of them absolutely necessary to his argument; for their having once clearly possessed them to the full extent of his assertions, was sufficient to establish the authority of his church against the heretics, who never did perform any miraculous cures that were durable,, but only "statim cessantia et ne quidem stillicidio temporis perseverantia."

The utmost this amounts to is a degree of dissimulation; a disingenuous reluctance on the part of the writer to acknowledge the decline of miraculous gifts; and an artful confounding of those inferior miracles, which he still witnessed, with those greater ones which he only remembered having heard of from eye-witnesses; though of both he might justly say to the heretics, You neither can, nor ever could, produce any thing of the kind. That the resurrections from the dead were miracles of a past age, and were at

that time extinct, is clear, I think, from these words of the lviith chapter (book ii.) Mortui resurrexerunt et perseveraverunt nobiscum annis mul tis: "they continued with us many years after their resurrection from the dead." Why did he not say, They are with us now? He cannot be suspected of understating an argument in his favour; why did he not then challenge them to inquire, and name persons and places? The reason is plain: they were dead long ago; he is appealing to past resurrections, and thereby tacitly acknowledges that there were no longer any such things.

But let us suppose that there were such still, and that the abovementioned parenthesis is genuine, and speaks of the age of Irenæus, and, consequently, that the dead were raised by the Christians of that age very often; then we shall be involved in many absurdities, even according to the immediate context. For let us observe what is here specifically asserted. In the first place, some one of THEIR FRIENDS dies: it is thought necessary that he should be raised to life again; but who were the judges of this necessity is not said; for it is not done now, as in the beginning of the Gospel, by some one person endued with miraculous gifts, and knowing by an internal admonition where the Divine power would concur with him, but they are all now become workers of miracles, jointworkers of this greatest of mira cles; for the whole church meets together to pray for the restoration of the dead man to life, and very often succeeds; "the spirit of the dead has returned, and the man has been granted to the prayers of the saints." Then he IMMEDIATELY says, that the heretics do not even believe a resurrection to be possible, in the literal sense, but explain the word always in a spiritual sense. What, when these miracles were done often among the catholic Christians, did they allow no he retics to be present? did they keep

it to themselves? While they were praying for the recovery of the dead, they must have been hoping to see him revive, having often succeeded before. In such a state of expectation, some must have been left with the corpse, to await the issue of their prayers: why did they not invite some of their pagan or heretical friends to be present? They could write long books to confute them; why neglect so fair an opportunity of convincing them at once? The miracle was done propter aliquid necessarium; and what so necessary as the convincing an unbeliever, a heretic? The first miracles were done for the sake of unbelievers (1 Cor. xiv. 22); and with great effect-a great multitude came out of Jerusalem to meet Jesus, because they heard that he had raised Lazarus: when Peter raised Tabitha to life, "it was known through all Joppa, and many believed on the Lord." So great was the effect of one real resurrection; but here, many are raised, and no person believes it but themselves no heretic can be supposed to have been present, for he expressly assures us that they considered such a return to life to be an impossibility. Such great absurdities attend the admission of the genuineness of this passage; so totally contrary is this manner of doing miracles to that of the Apostles, of whom even the Council were forced to own, "a notable miracle hath been done by them... and we cannot deny it."

The subject is not new; but it is left in the quotation from Dr. Hey in so unsatisfactory a state, that it is desirable that some person should collect, from the authors who have treated of it, some solution of these difficulties. Since " every other writer after Origen to the Reformation" is included in these censures, I just refer to Lardner's Credibility, vol. x. page 379 (edition 1753), where several passages are quoted from Chrysostom, owning that God had ceased to work mira

cles. See also Jortin's Remarks on Ecclesiastical Hist. vol. ii. page 23 (1805), where there is an account of the miracles of the second and third centuries different from that of Dr. Hey; and I would hope that further investigation will rescue these early authors from those imputations which the later ones justly merit. If persons choose to call those early Christians superstitious and weak, they may still be admitted to give evidence respecting matters of fact in their own times; but to deny their veracity, is to destroy their testimony, and, by consequence, much of the external evidence of our religion. But let us probe the wound with resolution and accuracy, and I am not fearful for the result. It is urged, as an objection to the Christian religion, that the false and odious miracles of the Roman Catholic church run up to so high antiquity as to affect the credit of the genuine miracles by their proximity. If we can successfully vindicate the Fathers of the second and third centuries from any participation in this imposture, and produce many of the fourth and fifth, saying, with Chrysostom, that miracles are ceased, we shall have broken this fatal chain, by which the Roman Catholic miracles and those of the first century are unhappily associated in the minds of many reflecting unbelievers. Let us, however, resolve to pursue the truth without regard to consequences; let us not defend a good cause with bad arguments; but, whenever any part of our line of defence is discovered to be untenable, let us openly and honestly give it up, and not resort to dissimulation and concealment to evade the difficulty. All I have pleaded for is, that, before we give up the veracity of the ecclesiastical authors of the second and third centuries, we should first afford them a fair trial.

S.

FAMILY SERMONS.-No. CCXI. Matt. xx. 1. The kingdom of

heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.

THE whole of the parable of which this is the commencement is as follows:-"For the kingdom of hea ven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a-day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the market-place, and said unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, I will give you. And they went their way. Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise. And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle? They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive. So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his stewart, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first. And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. And when they had received it, they murmured against the good man of the house, saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst thou not agree with me for a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give

unto this last even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil because I am good? So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen." Our Lord in this parable is describing the nature of the kingdom of heaven-by which he means the dispensation of the Gospel-with a view to explain what he had said in the last verse of the foregoing chapter, and which he repeats at the conclusion of the parable, namely, that "many that are first shall be last, and the last shall be first." The Jews had long been the peculiar people of God, privileged beyond all other nations by a written revelation of his will; but now the Gentiles were to be introduced to the benefits of the covenant of mercy: the Saviour was about to offer up a full and perfect sacrifice, not for his countrymen only, but for the sins of the world; the wall of partition between the Jew and the Gentile was to be broken down, and to all nations was the Gospel of salvation to be sent. The Jews in general were greatly offended at this purpose of God's mercy; and even the first disciples of our Lord could not at once divest themselves of their long-cherished prejudices on the subject: they could not reconcile their minds to the thought that the peculiar privileges of their nation were now to become the common property of all the faithful in Christ Jesus, without distinction of age or country. Perhaps, also, even among themselves there might arise jealousies; those who had first obeyed the call of the Saviour hoping for a greater reward than those who had been converted to the faith at a later period. But, whatever might be the exclusive expectations of any, or their notions of their own superiority to others, our Saviour shews in this parable that the Judge of all the earth has a right to bestow his gifts as he pleases. He illustrates the subject by the parable of a householder paying

various labourers the same wages, though some of them had been employed in his service but a short time, and others much longer. He illustrates the point-but he does not condescend to argue upon it. He tells us that God can and will bestow his bounties according to his own infinite wisdom, without giving any account of his actions to his creatures. Many, who arrogantly think themselves high in his favour, will, at the Last Day, find their place occupied by those whom they slighted and despised; while others, who were low in their own estimation, will be advanced far beyond their highest hopes. And if any persons are disposed to murmur at the awards of his righteous judgment, the only reply which he condescends to give to their repinings is, "Who art thou that repliest against God?...... Friend, I do thee no wrong. it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?"

Is

Our Saviour does not, indeed, mean us to understand that God acts, if we may so speak, capriciously, or without reason: this cannot be; for all that he does is infinitely wise, and just, and good: but he intends to silence every murmur that may arise in any human breast in reference to his decisions; not by disclosing to us the secret counsels of the Almighty, but by shewing that we have no right to ask for an account of his proceedings. The parable does not inform us why the householder gave the same wages to persons under such various circumstances: it only asserts his prerogative to do what he would with his own. He does not even say that the labourers last hired compensated by extraordinary diligence for the shortness of the time spent in his service; or that their destitute condition, they having unwillingly remained all the day unemployed, rendered them fit objects for his bounty. Whatever might be his motives, he did not think fit to explain them

to an objector, to whom he had done full justice, and who had no authority to inquire into his disposal of his property. It is true, that there may seem to be a harshness in the householder's conduct, which, had we known his motives, would not have been chargeable on him. We must beware, therefore, in applying the parable to the conduct of the Almighty, that we do not overstep its just meaning. God is no respecter of persons: if, in any instance he may seem to be so, it is only because we are unacquainted with the secrets of his infinite wisdom. He could, if he saw fit, ren der the justice of his proceedings perfectly evident to all his creatures. In a future state he will probably do so; and even upon earth he has not left himself without innumerable witnesses on his behalf. On some special occasions he has even given express revelations from heaven to vindicate, as it were, his character before his creatures. The whole Bible is, in truth, a justification of his ways. When the Psalmist Asaph was perplexed with the frequent prosperity of the wicked and the afflictions of the righteous, which he was at a loss to reconcile with the justice and all-wise providence of the Creator, he went to the sanctuary of God, where he learned the end of the wicked. The final Judgment will explain the meaning of many things which are at present difficult or impossible to be understood by our feeble capacities; so that no one shall be able, like the dis. contented labourers in the parable, to cast reproach upon the Infinite Source of justice and mercy for any of his proceedings. "Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid." "Far be it from God that he should do wickedness, and from the Almighty that he should commit iniquity. For the work of a man shall he render to him, and cause every man to find according to his ways."

The foregoing remarks will have served to explain the general ob

ject of the parable, not only in its more immediate reference to the case of the Jews and Gentiles, but as it applies to all mankind. The chief purpose of it, we see, was to shew that God is not accountable to his creatures for his moral government of the world; which, though infinitely wise and good, and capable of being proved to be so, is not amenable to the tribunal of human reason. The first those at least who were first in their own estimation-He would cause to be last; and the last He would place first. Several lesser incidents are added, all of which afford much useful instruction. For, though in a parable the main scope is what we are chiefly to consider, without being too curious in tracing allusions in every minute detail, yet a careful consideration will shew us that the minor circumstances are not without great use and beauty. The parable before us, for example, besides its general application to the doctrine of the sovereignty of God in the disposal of his favours, by which he raises the lowly and debases the proud, presents us with a striking illustration of his general conduct towards mankind, of the privileges which he bestows on them, and the duties which they owe him in return. We shall briefly glance at some of the chief circumstances of the narrative, in this its general application.

1. The householder, or lord of the vineyard, in the parable, is God. "I am the true vine," says our Saviour," and my Father is the husbandman."

The care and attention of a husbandman, in his various occupations, are expressive emblems of the conduct of the Almighty towards his creatures. Thus it is said, "There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a wine. press in it, and built a tower." His constant care is over all his works. He never slumbers nor sleeps; but as by his Almighty power he formed,