Wes wrote a description of the arguments of the beginning of the book of Hebrews, and then concluded:

>>So after closer examination of these texts they actually support cessationism not your logic. So the burden of proof remains on you to show that the wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit were not just foundational to the church but an ongoing practice which we should expect to see in the church today. You also need to explain why church history doesn't support your view.<<
Wes, go back and read what you wrote. There is nothing in what you wrote in that message that would support the conclusion you draw here that the text supports cessationism. Notice you pointed out that the law was given through angels. The author of Hebrews is contrasting the Revelation of Christ with the previous revelations of the prophets.
You overlook the obvious. There were 'New Testament prophets' who became prophets AFTER Christ ascended. Do you dispute this point? The book of Hebrews was written during a time when prophetic revelation was being given, after Christ had already died, rose, and ascended. Do you dispute this point? It is just plain illogical to argue that there would be no more prophetic revelation after Christ. Why would you believe the book of Hebrews, written after Christ came, to be inspired if prophetic inspiration ended after the book of Hebrews was written.
To all,
And now let us look at the issue of Ireneaus, the 2nd and/or 3rd century saint who wrote of prophecy and tongues in his own day. Ireneaus quotes are from the http://www.ccel.org/ website version.

Ireneaus wrote,
>>7. But we shall not be wrong if we affirm the same thing also concerning the substance of matter, that God produced it. For we have learned from the Scriptures that God holds the supremacy over all things. But whence or in what way He produced it, neither has Scripture anywhere declared; nor does it become us to conjecture, so as, in accordance with our own opinions, to form endless conjectures concerning God, but we should leave such knowledge in the hands of God Himself. In like manner, also, we must leave the cause why, while all things were made by God, certain of His creatures sinned and revolted from a state of submission to God, and others, indeed the great majority, persevered, and do still persevere, in [willing] subjection to Him who formed them, and also of what nature those are who sinned, and of what nature those who persevere,—[we must, I say, leave the cause of these things] to God and His Word, to whom alone He said, “Sit at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.”[1] But as for us, we still dwell upon the earth, and have not yet sat down upon His throne. For although the Spirit of the Saviour that is in Him “searcheth all things, even the deep things of God,”[1] yet as to us “there are diversities of gifts, differences of administrations, and diversities of operations;”[1] and we, while upon the earth, as Paul also declares, “know in part, and prophesy in part.”[1] Since, therefore, we know but in part, we ought to leave all sorts of [difficult] questions in the hands of Him who in some measure, [and that only,] bestows grace on us.
<<<
Ireneaus, who lived a couple of generations from the apostles, apparently did not think that that which is perfect has come and that that which is in part has been done away. Notice he wrote that ‘we’ prophesy in part.

Ireneaus opposed Montanism, but believed in the church had the gift and Spirit of prophecy,
From Against Heresies book three, emphasis mine.
>>Others, again (the Montanists), that they may set at nought the gift of the Spirit, which in the latter times has been, by the good pleasure of the Father, poured out upon the human race, do not admit that aspect [of the evangelical dispensation] presented by John’s Gospel, in which the Lord promised that He would send the Paraclete;[1] but set aside at once both the Gospel and the prophetic Spirit. Wretched men indeed! who wish to be pseudo-prophets, forsooth, but who set aside the gift of prophecy from the Church; acting like those (the Encratitæ)[1] who, on account of such as come in hypocrisy, hold themselves aloof from the communion of the brethren. We must conclude, moreover, that these men (the Montanists) can not admit the Apostle Paul either. For, in his Epistle to the Corinthians,[1] he speaks expressly of prophetical gifts, and recognises men and women prophesying in the Church. Sinning, therefore, in all these particulars, against the Spirit of God,[1] they fall into the irremissible sin. But those who are from Valentinus, being, on the other hand, altogether reckless, while they put forth their own compositions, boast that they possess more Gospels than there really are. Indeed, they have arrived at such a pitch of audacity, as to entitle their comparatively recent writing “the Gospel of Truth,” though it agrees in nothing with the Gospels of the Apostles, so that they have really no Gospel which is not full of blasphemy. For if what they have published is the Gospel of truth, and yet is totally unlike those which have been handed down to us from the apostles, any who please may learn, as is shown from the Scriptures themselves, that that which has been handed down from the apostles can no longer be reckoned the Gospel of truth.<<

We certainly cannot conclude from this that Ireneaus was a cessationist. He opposed the Montanists (if the comentator is correct) because they rejected scriptural teaching of the paraclete. He even accused them of the unpardonable sin. (I suppose he considered their teaching on the Holy Spirit to be blasphemy against Him.)
Ireneaus believed the gift of prophecy was for the church, and believe Montanist teaching undercut the doctrine of the Spirit, and the teaching of the gift of prophecy.

Ireneaus plainly states that prophecy and tongues were present in the CHURCH of his day.
>>For this reason does the apostle declare, “We speak wisdom among them that are perfect,”[1] terming those persons “perfect” who have received the Spirit of God, and who through the Spirit of God do speak in all languages, as he used Himself also to speak. In like manner we do also hear[1] many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms “spiritual,” they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit, and not because their flesh has been stripped off and taken away, and because they have become purely spiritual. For if any one take away the substance 532 of flesh, that is, of the handiwork [of God], and understand that which is purely spiritual, such then would not be a spiritual man but would be the spirit of a man, or the Spirit of God. But when the spirit here blended with the soul is united to [God’s] handiwork, the man is rendered spiritual and perfect because of the outpouring of the Spirit, and this is he who was made in the image and likeness of God.<<

Ireneaus does speak of heretics he considered false prophets prophesying in different portions of this work. But here Ireneaus shows us that brethren in the church of his day were prophesying and speaking in tongues. There is no way to make a case that Ireneaus has a group of heretics prophesying in this verse. He is writing about the church.

If I am not mistaken, Ireneaus was way up in some Gaulish area in France, where he had been sent out as a missionary and became a bishop.

And who was Ireneaus? Ireneaus was a disciple of Polycarp, that martyr for the faith who was a disciple of the apostle John. This is two generations from the apostles. Ireneaus wrote this work to expose the Gnostic heresies of his day. As far as I know, Protestant and Catholic theologians all consider St. Ireneaus to be orthodox. It is clear from the quotes above that Ireneaus considered there to be true prophecy in the true church. Members of the church in his day exercised these gifts.