REVIEW.

ART. L-The Emisiutical Hutor of the Seconti and Tură Coutures, Murod from the Wegmos of Tera By John, Bishop of Bristol, [Lincoln.) Master of Christ's Culege, and Regis Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge. Second Edition. Sva, pp. 588.

Is the introduction to this very able and interesting work we are informed that it contains the substance of a course of Lectures delivered by the author, as Regias Professor of Diviny, in the Lent and Easter terms of 1825. Two previous courses had been devoted to the wrings of the eurber Fathers; "and the plan which he then pursued was, first to give a short account of the author's infe; next an analysis of each of his works; and lastly, a selection of passages, made principaly with a view to the illustration of the doctrines and discipline of the Church of England." But in proceeding to the works of Terttilan, it occurred to him that a different mode might be adopted with advantage, and that they might be rendered subservient to the Mustration of Ecclesiastical History in general." Not, however, intending to compose an Ecclesiastical History of the second and third centuries, but only to assist in collecting materials for a future historian, it was necessary to fix upon some plan for the arrangement of these materials. The Professor chose that of Mosheim, not because he regarded it as the best which could be devised, but because his History is in most general use among theological students in this country. Mosheim, it will be remembered, divides the history of the Church into two branches, external and internal: comprehending under the former, the prosperous and the adverse events which befel it during each century; and under the latter, the state of learning and philosophy, the government, the doctrines, the rites and ceremonies of the Church, and the heresies which divided its members during the same period. Under these heads, therefore, all the matter which the writings of Tertullian supply to illustrate the ecclesiastical history of the period during which he flourished, is arranged in the work before us. But while the learned Professor is thus filling up Mosheim's outline, he does not lose sight of the object which in his former researches he had chiefly in view; but by comparing the information he collects relating to the doctrines, the government and the rites of the Church in the second century, with the Thirty-nine Articles, he endeavours to obtain the sanction of the Presbyter of Carthage to the doctrines and the usages of the Church of England; and at the same time, whenever he can, he shews that his authority cannot be pleaded by the Church of Rome. It was also necessary for him, as he observes, "so far to adhere to his original plan as to prefix a brief account of Tertullian himself, in order that the student might be enabled accurately to distinguish the portion of ecclesiastical history which his writings serve to illustrate, as well as justly to appreciate the importance to be attached to his testimony and opinions." (P. 3.) The whole work, therefore, is divided into seven chapters, thus entitled: I. Tertullian and his Writings. II. The external History of the Church. III. The State of Letters and Philosophy. IV. The Government of the Church. V. The Doctrine of the Church. VI. The Ceremonies of the Church. VII. The Heresies and Divisions which troubled the Chureh.

The first chapter is introduced by the short article on Tertullian in 'Je

rome's Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers.' This account is not so full and satisfactory as might be wished, and leaves us in uncertainty whether he was born of Gentile or Christian parents, and whether he officiated as Presbyter at Carthage or at Rome. It has, indeed, been doubted whether Jerome was correct in calling him a Presbyter: this doubt, however, would probably never have been felt, but for the fact, which is undeniable, that he was a married man; a fact which all the ingenuity of Catholic writers cannot reconcile with the doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy. The most remarkable incident in the life of Tertullian was his secession from the Church, in consequence of his having adopted the errors of Montanus; the true cause of which, as the learned Professor justly observes, "is to be found, not in the failure of his attempts to obtain the see either of Rome or Carthage, but in the constitution and temper of his mind, to which the austere doctrines and practice of the new Prophet were perfectly congenial." (P. 36.) As he wrote many of his works after his secession, and some of them in direct opposition to the Catholic Church, it is necessary that they who study his writings should form just notions of the tenets and pretensions of Montanus. An inquiry into these, therefore, constitutes an important part of the present chapter; in the course of which some errors into which both Mosheim and Lardner have fallen respecting the nature and extent of the inspiration to which that Heresiarch laid claim are corrected.

Though the pretensions and the tenets of Montanus may have been in some respects less absurd than they have usually been represented, yet they were so manifestly groundless and unreasonable as to render it a matter of astonishment that any one who, like Tertullian, had been well instructed in the learning of the age, and had the writings of evangelists and apostles, the words of truth and soberness, in his hands, should be induced to acknowledge and adopt them. The learned Professor, therefore, could not fail to anticipate the objection which he states, and endeavours, perhaps not without success, to obviate, in the following passage:

"What reliance,' it may be asked, can we place upon the judgment, or even upon the testimony of Tertullian, who could be deluded into a belief of the extravagant pretensions of Montanus? Or what advantage can the theological student derive from reading the works of so credulous and superstitious an author?' These are questions easily asked, and answered without hesitation by men who take the royal road to theological knowledge: who, either through want of the leisure, or impatient of the labour, requisite for the examination of the writings of the Fathers, find it convenient to conceal their ignorance under an air of contempt. Thus a hasty and unfair sentence of condemnation has been passed upon the Fathers, and their works have fallen into unmerited disrepute. The sentence is hasty, because it bespeaks great ignorance of human nature, which often presents the curious phenomenon of an union of the most opposite qualities in the same mind; of vigour, acuteness and discrimination on some subjects, with imbecility, dullness and bigotry on others. The sentence is unfair, because it condemns the Fathers for faults, which were those of the age of the elder Pliny and Marcus Antoninus, as well as of Tertullian. It is, moreover, unfair, because the persons who argue thus in the case of the Fathers, argue differently in other cases. Without intending to compare the gentle, the amiable, the accomplished Fenelon, with the harsh, the fiery, the unpolished Tertullian, or to class the spiritual reveries of Madame Guyon with the extravagancies of Montanus and his prophetesses, it may be remarked, that the predilection of Fenelon for the notions of the mystics betrayed a mental weakness, differing in degree rather than in kind from that which led Tertullian to the adoption of Montanism. We do not, however, on account of this weakness in Fenelon,

!

throw aside his works as utterly undeserving of notice, or deem it a sufficient ground for questioning the superiority of his genius and talent: we regard with surprise and regret this additional instance of human infirmity, but continue to read Telemachus with instruction and delight. Let us shew the same candour and sound judgment in the case of the Fathers: let us separate the wheat from the tares, and not involve them in one indiscriminate conflagration. The assertion may appear paradoxical, but is nevertheless true, that the value of Tertullian's writings to the theological student arises in a great measure from his errors. When he became a Montanist, he set himself to expose what he deemed faulty in the practice and discipline of the Church: thus we are told indirectly what that practice and that discipline were, and we obtain information which, but for his secession from the Church, his works would scarcely have supplied. In a word, whether we consider the testimony borne to the genuineness and integrity of the books of the New Testament, or the information relating to the ceremonies, discipline and doctrine of the primitive Church, Tertullian's writings form a most important link in that chain of tradition which connects the apostolic age with our own."-Pp. 37-39.

To the justice of these remarks, excepting only the last, we willingly assent; and we confidently hope that the labours of the learned Professor will produce a general desire in students of theology to become well acquainted with the writings not of Tertullian alone, but of all the Fathers who attained to any eminence in the ancient Christian Church. No man who has not studied them can be entitled to the character of a theologian. A full and accurate knowledge of the Scriptures of the New Testament, and, we will add, of the Old Testament also, is indeed of the first importance, as from these all the articles of our creed and all the rules of our practice must be derived. But the writings of the Fathers of the Church, especially of those who flourished during the first five centuries, are essentially necessary to enable us to trace the progress of error, to discover to us the various causes which operated to corrupt the simplicity of gospel truth, and to introduce and establish the various systems which have so long usurped the place of pure and undefiled religion. No one who aspires to be a theologian should be content to follow either Bull or Whitby, Vossius or Wall, Whiston or Priestley, or any other writers to whose zeal and industry we are indebted for large and valuable extracts from these writers: to judge fairly and satisfactorily, he must himself draw from the same sources. And in so doing he will obtain various collateral important benefits which we need not distinctly point out. But even a slight acquaintance with the ancient Fa thers will convince the student, that though they may furnish him with valoable facts, he must be cautious not to rely upon their judgment. He will find them worthy of all crèdit as witnesses to the genuineness and integrity of the books of the New Testament, but, with few exceptions, miserable interpreters of their meaning. And neither to Tertullian nor to any other of the orthodox Fathers can we concede the praise of connecting the apostolic age with our own, by preserving the knowledge of the doctrine of the apostles, excepting so far as they have recorded the faith of those whom they affected to despise as "simplices, imprudentes," and "idiote."

One only of the numerous treatises composed by Tertullian supplies any positive evidence of its date, and various opinions have been formed respecting the time in which most of the rest were written. It has been usual to divide them all into two classes; those written while he was in communion with the church, and those written after he became a Montanist. But the distinction is not always to be perceived; "and in the absence of all ex

ternal testimony, it is scarcely possible to draw a well-defined line of separation between the works which were and those which were not composed before his secession from the church." After a careful examination of every remaining treatise, the Right Reverend Author arranges them under the following classes: 1, Works probably written while he was yet a member of the church; 2, Works written after he became a Montanist; 3, Works written probably after he became a Montanist; and, 4, Works respecting which nothing certain can be pronounced. It is observable, that the 2d and 3d classes comprehend the majority of his works. Greater precision, we apprehend, cannot be obtained; and this classification will be found sufficiently accurate for every purpose of the student of ecclesiastical history.

The remainder of the first chapter is occupied by a brief but satisfactory refutation of the fanciful theory of Semler, who maintained that the works of Tertullian (and those also of Justin Martyr and Irenæus) are spurious, the produce of the joint labours of a set of men who entered into a combination to falsify history and corrupt the Scriptures, principally with a view of throwing discredit upon certain persons, Marcion, Valentinus and others, whom they thought fit to brand with the title of Heretics; a theory which, as the Bishop observes, rests upon surmises, and opens a door to universal incredulity.

In the second chapter, the author proceeds, in conformity with Mosheim's arrangement, to collect from the works of Tertullian such passages as serve to illustrate the external history of the church during the period in which he flourished. Tertullian bears explicit and ample testimony to the wide diffusion of Christianity. "The triumphs of the gospel, in his day, were not," he asserts, "confined within the limits of the Roman Empire; Christ was then reigning over peoples whom the Roman arms had not subdued." The first diffusion of the gospel was undoubtedly accomplished by the aid of supernatural powers conferred upon the apostles and those employed under their directions, but its continued success is not to be attributed to the same means. Mosheim indeed says, (Eccl. Hist. Vol. I. pp. 153 and 245,) that with the exception of the miraculous gift of tongues, the extraordinary powers with which the rising church had been endowed were in several places continued during the second and third centuries. And this assertion may seem to be sanctioned by the testimony of Tertullian; but the Right Reverend Professor, with the judgment and candour which he usually displays, is not disposed to admit the validity of his testimony. "The only specific instance," he observes, (p. 102,) which Tertullian mentions of the exercise of miraculous powers, relates to the exorcism of dæmons." This, as Dr. Douglas has remarked, is the favourite standing miracle of the Fathers before the fourth century, and the only one which he could find (after having turned over their writings carefully and with a view to this point) that they challenge their adversaries to come and see them perform, admitting at the same time that Jews and even Gentiles successfully practised exorcism. The Professor, therefore, is justified in concluding, that "if miraculous powers still subsisted in the church, the writings of Tertullian would have supplied some less equivocal instances of their exercise."

The controversy concerning the continuance of miraculous powers in the church, which so strongly excited the public attention about the middle of the last century, is now almost forgotten, and the names of Chapman, Berriman, Jackson, Church, Fell, and others, who either opposed or defended Middleton, are rapidly fading, as connected with this controversy, from the

memory of man; but the subject itself will ever retain a considerable degree of importance from its connexion with the evidences of Christianity, and with the character of early Christian writers. It could not be passed by unnoticed in the work now before us, and they who may not assent to the theory of the learned author, will, without doubt, applaud the spirit with which it is proposed. Gibbon has asserted that the cessation of miraculous gifts "must have excited universal attention, and caused the time at which it happened to be precisely ascertained and noted." But as pretensions to these gifts had continued in all ages, he would have it inferred that no such gifts were ever bestowed. Our author thinks that the uncertainty respecting their cessation is to be accounted for on the supposition of their being gradually withdrawn.

"To adopt the language of undoubting confidence on such a subject, would be a mark no less of folly than presumption; but I may be allowed to state the conclusion to which I have myself been led, by a comparison of the statements in the book of Acts, with the writings of the Fathers of the second century. My conclusion then is, that the power of working miracles was not extended beyond the disciples, upon whom the apostles conferred it by the imposition of their hands. As the number of those disciples gradually diminished, the instances of the exercise of miraculous powers became continually less frequent, and ceased entirely at the death of the last individual on whom the hands of the apostles had been laid. That event would, in the natural course of things, take place before the middle of the second century: at a time when, Christianity having obtained a footing in all the provinces of the Roman Empire, the miraculous gifts conferred upon its first teachers had performed their appropriate office-that of proving to the world that a new revelation had been given from heaven. What then would be the effect produced upon the minds of the great body of Christians by their gradual cessation? Many would not observe, none would be willing to observe it; for all must naturally feel a reluctance to believe that powers, which had contributed so essentially to the rapid diffusion of Christianity, were withdrawn. They who remarked the cessation of miracles, would probably succeed in persuading themselves that it was only temporary, and designed by an all-wise Providence fo be the prelude to a more abundant effusion of supernatural gifts upon the Church. Or if doubts and misgivings crossed their minds, they would still be unwilling openly to state a fact which might shake the steadfastness of the friends, and would certainly be urged by the enemies of the gospel as an argument against its divine origin. They would pursue the plan which has been pursued by Justin Martyr, Theophilus, Irenæus, &c.; they would have recourse to general assertions of the existence of supernatural powers, without attempting to produce a specific instance of their exercise. The silence of ecclesiastical history respecting the cessation of miraculous gifts in the Church, is to be ascribed, not to the insensibility of Christians to that important event, (according to Mr. Gibbon's sarcastic assertion,) but to the combined operation of prejudice and policy-of prejudice which made them reluctant to believe, of policy which made them anxious to conceal the truth.— Let me repeat that I offer these observations with that diffidence in my own conclusions, which ought to be the predominant feeling in the mind of every inquirer into the ways of Providence. I collect from passages already cited from the book of Acts, that the power of working miracles was withdrawn, combined with an anxiety to keep up a belief of its continuance in the Church. They affirm in general terms, that 'miracles were performed, but rarely venture to produce an instance of a particular miracle. Those who followed them were less scrupulous, and proceeded to invent miracles, very different indeed in circumstances and character from the miracles of the gospel, yet readily believed by men who were not disposed nicely to examine into the evidence of facts which they wished to be true. The success of the first at