tempts naturally encouraged others to practise similar impositions upon the credulity of mankind. In every succeeding age miracles multiplied in number and increased in extravagance; till at length, by their frequency, they lost all title to the name, since they could be no longer considered as deviations from the ordinary course of nature."-Pp. 98-102.

With similar diffidence we would beg leave to suggest (after Bishop Pearce) that the promise of our Lord to his apostles, that he would be with them to the end of the age, έως της συντέλειας του αιωνος, authorizes us to limit the bestowment and the exercise of miraculous gifts, not merely to the apostolical times, but to the period which was closed by the destruction of Jerusalem and the desolation of Judea. In the discourses of our Lord recorded by John near the conclusion of his Gospel, we find him comforting his disciples with such promises as these; "I will not leave you comfortless, (orphans,) I will come to you. A little while and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father. I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice. If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our abode with him." All these passages manifestly refer to what in other passages in the same discourse is described as the sending and the coming of the comforter, or the advocate, that is, of the Holy Spirit. If such were the presence of Jesus with his disciples, if he were with them in the miraculous powers with which they were endowed, and if he have limited his continuance with them to the end of the age, are we not warranted in believing that, at the end of the age, those powers, being no longer required, were no longer conferred? "The gospel of the kingdom had then been preached in all the world for a witness to all nations," as our Lord had predicted; the spirit of prophecy had borne ample testimony to his divine mission; all that he had foretold respecting his coming, as he sat on the Mount of Olives, having been fully accomplished; and the Mosaic dispensation had been concluded by the almighty hand to which it owed its introduction and establishment. The Jewish adversaries were silenced the Gentiles, in every part of the civilized world, had seen the demonstrations of divine power which every where attended the preaching of the gospel; the history of Christ and of the labours of his apostles was committed to writing, while thousands were living who could attest to others the credibility of all that the history contained. Miracles, therefore, were no longer necessary; the future success of the gospel might be safely left to the operation of natural means, and by such only, we are inclined to believe, it was from that time aided. It is certainly a remarkable fact, that in the writings which are ascribed to the Fathers who are called Apostolic, who were the immediate successors of the apostles, no pretensions on their part to the possession of any supernatural powers are advanced.

In an Appendix to this chapter, some very valuable extracts, in reference to this subject, are given from some manuscript Lectures on Ecclesiastical History, by the late Dr. J. Hey; justly described, as all will acknowledge who are acquainted with the excellent course delivered by him as Norrisian Professor, as "one of the most acute, most impartial, and most judicious divines of modern times." (P. 163.) We cannot refrain from citing the following passage:

"The authors on both sides of this question concerning the reality of the miraculous powers in the primitive Church, seem to have looked too far before them, and to have argued the point with too much regard to the consequences which were likely to follow from its being determined in this manner or in that. Those who defend the pretensions of the Fathers, do it through

fear, lest, if they should appear indefensible, the cause of Christianity should suffer by the condemnation of its early propagators. Those who accuse the Fathers of superstition, weakness, or falsehood, consider what indelible disgrace they shall bring upon Popery by shewing the impurity of the sources from which all its distinguishing doctrines have taken their rise. But why, in searching after truth, should we give the least attention to any consequences whatsoever? We know with certainty before-hand, that error of every kind, if it is not an evil in itself, is always productive of evil in some degree or other; and that to distinguish truth from falsehood, is the likeliest method we can take to make our conduct acceptable to God and beneficial to man. Nothing can be more groundless than the fears which some men indulge, lest the credit of Christianity should suffer along with the reputation of several of its professors; or more weak than considering that a sufficient reason for defending the veracity of the Fathers at all events. There are some miracles recorded in ecclesiastical history which are too childish and ridiculous for any one to believe; and there are some indisputable records of the vices of the Christians, and more particularly of the clergy: so that, if Christianity can suffer by such objections, (for which there is no kind of foundation in reason,) it has already suffered even in the estimation of those who think the objections of weight. All agree (at least all Protestants) that there have been pious frauds and forged miracles, as well as that the sacred order have been in some ages extremely vicious. The only difference then is in the degree of this charge, or rather about the century with regard to which it ought to take place; but what difference can such a circumstance as that make in respect of the divine origin of Christianity? We may, therefore, without fear or scruple, enter upon the discussion which I have been preparing, and probe every apparent wound with resolution and accuracy."-Pp. 163-165.

The pretended miracle of the thundering legion, and the proposal of Tiberius to the Senate, that Christ should be received among the Gods at Rome, both of which rest chiefly on the testimony of Tertullian, next come under the review of the Professor: the latter of these is denied; and the former referred to the class of phenomena in the ordinary course of nature. An interesting sketch of the Apology, esteemed by Lardner as the " masterpiece" of Tertullian, and a vindication of the early apologists for Christianity, against Mr. Gibbon, succeed.-With the progress of Christianity in the three first centuries, the sufferings of its professors are closely connected. To the subject of martyrdom, two of Tertullian's treatises, one of them entitled, "Ad Martyres," the other, "Scorpiace," expressly relate; and many passages in his Apology, and in several other works, bear testimony to the number of those who suffered, to their fortitude, and to what, in some cases, must be deemed their unwarrantable prodigality of life. The controversy which arose out of the attempt of the elder Dodwell to diminish the number of primitive martyrs, obtains from our author as much notice, perhaps, as it is entitled to receive, in the following passage; which serves at the same time to repel the insidious remarks of Gibbon, grounded upon Dodwell's

statements:

"It can scarcely be necessary to remark, that the original signification of the word martyr is a witness; and though in later times the appellation has been generally confined to those who proved the sincerity of their faith by the sacrifice of their lives, in the time of Tertullian it was used with greater latitude, and comprehended all whom the profession of Christianity had exposed to any severe hardship, such as imprisonment or loss of property-those who are now usually distinguished by the name of confessors. To this lax use of the term martyr must be chiefly ascribed the erroneous persuasion which has been so carefully cherished by the Church of Rome respecting the

number of martyrs strictly so called; for though it may have been greater than Dodwell was willing to allow, it is certain that his opinion approaches much nearer to the truth than that of his opponents. We shall, however, form a very inadequate idea of the sufferings endured by the primitive Christians, if we restrict them to the punishments inflicted by the magistrate, or to the outrages committed by a blind and infuriate populace. Many who escaped the sword and the wild beasts, were destined to encounter trials of the severest kind, though their sufferings attracted not the public attention. When we consider the species of authority exercised by heads of families in those days, and the hatred by which many were actuated against Christianity, we may frame to ourselves some notion of the condition of a wife, a child, or a slave, who ventured to profess a belief in its doctrines. This alone was deemed a sufficient cause for repudiating a wife, or disinheriting a son; and Tertullian mentions by name a Governor of Cappadocia, who avenged the conversion of his wife by persecuting all the Christians of the province. So heinous indeed was the offence that it cancelled all obligations. He who committed it became at once an outcast from society, and was considered to have forfeited his claim to the good offices of his nearest kinsman; nor were instances wanting, if Tertullian's expressions are to be literally understood, in which a brother informed against a brother, and even a parent against a child."-Pp. 137–140.

Again,

"Those more refined and ingenious torments which Gibbon supposes to have existed only in the inventions of the monks of succeeding ages, were, if we may believe Tertullian, actually resorted to in his day. He states also that attempts were frequently made to overcome the chastity of the female martyrs, and that instead of being exposed to the wild beasts, they were consigned to the keepers of the public stews, to become the victims either of seduction or of brutal violence."-P. 157.

We cannot wonder, though we may regret, that in such circumstances undue honour was paid to the martyr on the one hand-and on the other, too great severity was manifested towards those who could not endure persecution. The doctrine of the efficacy of martyrdom, to wash away every stain of sin, and to procure for the soul, on its separation from the body, an immediate admission to the perfect happiness of heaven, was adapted to encourage an imprudent, if not a sinful sacrifice of life, and to cherish superstition and fanaticism; and in the discredit attached to shrinking from suffering and danger, was laid the foundation of those internal divisions which during a long period agitated and degraded the church.

The third chapter treats of the State of Letters and Philosophy; the subject with which Mosheim begins the Internal History of the church. In this part of his account of the second century, his observations relate principally to the New Platonism in Egypt, introduced by Ammonius Saccas; and in his account of the third century, they almost entirely refer to Plotinus, the most celebrated of the disciples of Ammonius. On these subjects the writings of Tertullian afford no information; from them, therefore, the learned Professor can derive no assistance in filling up Mosheim's outline. He rightly judged, however, that an examination of Tertullian's own philosophical or metaphysical notions would supply some curious and not uninteresting information. These notions appear in various passages of his writings; but particularly in two treatises; the one entitled, "De Testimonio Animæ," the other," De Animâ." The design of the former is to prove that the soul bears a natural testimony, universally and uniformly, to the existence and perfections of God, and to a future life and judgment. This is a favourite

topic with him; often urged in his reasonings with those who admitted not the authority of Scripture, or who evaded the arguments he drew from profane literature; bearing, it is evident, a very close resemblance to the Common-sense philosophy of modern days. The latter treatise seems to have been composed in opposition to the Platonists, the Valentinians, and the Pythagoreans. The soul, according to Tertullian, includes both the vital and intellectual principles; has a beginning, but is in its own nature immortal; deriving its origin from the breath or substance of God; it is corporeal, having length, breadth, height and figure, an interior man corresponding in form and feature to the exterior; it is simple and uncompounded in substance, and endued with free will, which is, however, subject to the influence of divine grace; it is affected by external circumstances, is rational, possesses an insight into futurity; at death, is separated from the body; descends to the parts below the earth, and there remains till the day of judgment, receiving a foretaste of the happiness or misery which is to be its everlasting portion. The souls of the martyrs alone pass not through this middle state, but are transferred immediately to heaven. The separation of the soul from the body, he considers a consequence of the fall of Adam.-Acknowledging that some of his speculations may appear trifling, and many of his arguments weak and inconclusive, the learned Professor rightly observes, "It would be the extreme of absurdity to compare the writings of Plato and Tertullian, as compositions; but if they are considered as specimens of philosophical investigation, of reasoning and argument, he who professes to admire Plato will hardly escape the charge of inconsistency, if he thinks meanly or speaks contemptuously of Tertullian." Brucker hints (Hist. Crit. Philos. Tom. III. p. 412), that Tertullian was led to adopt the philosophical notions he maintained, especially that of the corporeality of the soul and of all spirits, not excepting even God himself, by his hatred of Plato's doctrines, and his opposition to the Gnostic systems of emanation, derived from Platonism. This is by no means improbable. Dr. Priestley calls Tertullian "the most determined Materialist in Christian antiquity;" but surely he cannot be deemed a Materialist in the sense which is usually affixed to that term. The chapter concludes with a brief statement of Tertullian's notions respecting the nature of angels and dæmons; in support of which he in vain appeals to the authority of Scripture.

(To be continued.)

ART. II.-The History of the Reformation of the Church of England. By Henry Soames, M. A., Rector of Shelley, in Essex. 2 Vols. 8vo. Reign of King Henry VIII.

The History of the Reign of Henry VIII., comprising the Political History of the Commencement of the English Reformation. By Sharon Turner, F. S. A. and R. A. S. L. Second edition. 2 Vols. 8vo.

A History of England from the First Invasion by the Romans. By John Lingard, D. D. Vol. VI. Second edition.

THE important portion of our history to which the works mentioned at the head of the present article are devoted, has lately received much illustration, not only from the labours and industry of historians and memoir-writers,

but also from the researches recently made in the State-Paper Office, the result of which, in the discovery of many most valuable documents, has, we understand, been highly interesting and successful. Should those documents be given to the public, we shall not fail to make our readers acquainted with their nature and value; at present our intention is to devote a few pages to the examination of the writers whose names are mentioned above; and in so doing, we propose to notice, in the first instance, that portion of their works which relates to the ecclesiastical history of this country during the reign of Henry VIII., and in a subsequent Number to give some account of the illustration which our civil history, during the same period, has received from their labours, and especially so far as it regards the character of the Sovereign.

It is not altogether creditable to our literature, that nearly three centuries should have elapsed since the Reformation, and yet that we should still be without a philosophical history of that great Revolution. The Protestant writers on the one hand, regarding it as the key-stone of their own Church, have been led by their partial feelings to mis-state both the principles upon which its proceeded, and the characters of those who were engaged in its execution; while, on the other hand, the partizans of the Roman hierarchy have spoken of it as men might be expected to speak who have witnessed the subversion of their prejudices and the destruction of their power. No historian, however, has yet ventured to set this signal event in that clear and true light in which all who correctly estimate the nature and value of religious freedom must regard it, as one single step only, though certainly a most important step, towards a real Reformation, and as furnishing not only a precedent, but admitted principles, upon which to argue the great question of perfect liberty in matters of conscience. The reasons which were urged by the first Reformers against the spiritual domination of a Pope, apply with equal force to the supremacy of a Potentate; and when Cranmer proved the absurdity and injustice of allowing Clement to controul the consciences of Englishmen, he in effect disproved the existence of a similar right in Henry, in whose hands it was really more dangerous, as more closely allied to temporal authority. To impugn the authority of the papal Bull, was, in fact, to subvert the Articles of the Protestant Church; and, however misrepresented by those who are interested in staying its progress, the Reformation must be regarded as the commencement merely, and not the completion, of the great scheme of religious independence.

In the application of the principles upon which the Reformation was founded, its early supporters fell into a lamentable but not uncommon error. They clearly saw the iniquity of suffering a foreign potentate to impose upon them a rule of faith, but they were not unwilling themselves to exercise a similar coercion over the consciences of their countrymen. The spirit of Popish supremacy still reigned in their hearts, though they liked a Royal Pope better than an Episcopal one; and the evil dominion over the religious opinions of men, which was found so grievous when logded in the hands of the Roman Pontiff, was only transferred and not destroyed. The merit, therefore, which the most prominent founders of the Reformation here are entitled to claim, is not of the highest order. They exerted themselves willingly to effect a transfer of power in which they were themselves to become sharers, and to which they might be prompted by a desire to conciliate the affections of their sovereign. How truly devoid of the sincere spirit of religious liberty, or even of toleration, these men were, is evinced by the whole history of their times, in which we find them exercising towards those whom they deemed