most of the corruptions of the genuine doctrine of Christ have arisen. The forms used in the administering of the rite of baptism at the close of the second century, are described in the following passage, collected from various parts of Tertullian's works :

"The candidate having been prepared for its due reception by frequent prayers, fasts, and vigils, professed in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the President, that he renounced the devil, his pomp and angels. He was then plunged into the water three times, in allusion to the three persons of the holy Trinity; making certain responses which, like the other forms here mentioned, were not prescribed in Scripture, but rested on custom and tradition. He then tasted a mixture of milk and honey-was anointed with oil, in allusion to the practice, under the Mosaic dispensation, of anointing those who were appointed to the priesthood, since all Christians are in a certain sense supposed to be priests-and was signed with the sign of the cross. Lastly followed the imposition of hands; the origin of which ceremony is referred by our author to the benediction pronounced by Jacob on the sons of Joseph. With us the imposition of hands is deferred till the child is brought to be confirmed; but in Tertullian's time, when a large proportion of the persons baptized were adults, confirmation immediately followed the administration of baptism, and formed a part of the ceremony. It was usual for the baptized person to abstain during the week subsequent to his reception of the rite from his daily ablutions. Some also contended that baptism ought to be followed by fasting; because our Lord immediately after his baptism fasted forty days and forty nights. But our author replies that baptism is in fact an occasion of joy, inasmuch as it opens to us the door of salvation. Christ's conduct in this instance was not designed to be an example for our imitation, as it had a particular reference to certain events which took place under the Mosaic dispensation. In commenting upon the parable of the prodigal son, Tertullian calls the ring which the father directed to be put upon his hand the seal of baptism; by which the Christian, when interrogated, seals the covenant of his faith. The natural inference from these words appears to be, that a ring used to be given in baptism: but I have found no other trace of such a custom. Tertullian alludes to the custom of having sponsors; who made in the name of the children brought to the font those promises which they were unable to make for themselves."

By Daillé, Peirce, and many others, it has been maintained that the baptismal use of the sign of the cross was unknown in Tertullian's time; and that it was "the contrivance of the fifth century or the latter end of the fourth." It is certainly remarkable, that in the treatise De Baptismo, where he professedly enumerates the ceremonies used in baptism, Tertullian has not said a word respecting this superstitious usage. Yet as confirmation was anciently given immediately after baptism, and as the learned Professor observes, and Mr. Peirce himself allows, formed a part of the ceremony, the signing with the sign of the cross, which preceded the imposition of hands, must be reckoned as a baptismal usage practised at the end of the second century. The Church of England, however, in her forms undoubtedly departs from ancient custom in separating, by a wide interval, confirmation from baptism, and by using the sign of the cross in the latter, and not in the former of these rites.

With respect to the giving of a ring in baptism, we are not at all surprised that the Right Reverend Author has not been able to find any "other trace of such a custom;" we rather wonder how he could regard the existence of such a custom as a natural inference from Tertullian's words. If he will look again at the passage in the treatise De Pudicitia, to which he refers, we think he will perceive that he has misapprehended its meaning. In that

treatise Tertullian is arguing as a Montanist against the readmission of adulterers and fornicators into the church, on repentance, and refuting the arguments by which the orthodox endeavoured to defend that practice. The orthodox, among other topics, cited the parables of the lost sheep, the lost piece of money, and the prodigal son; to which Tertullian replies by shewing that these parables were not applicable to the case; that they related to the conversion of Heathens, not to the repentance and the restoration of those who, having professed Christianity, had fallen into heinous sins. “If by the younger son," says he, " is to be understood a Christian, then not only adulterers and fornicators, but idolaters, blasphemers who have denied Christ, and every kind of apostates, may be restored to their former state and privileges. Recuperabit igitur et apostata vestem priorem, indumentum spiritus sancti, et annulum denuo signaculum lavacri, et rursus illi mactabitur Christus, et recumbet eo in thoro, de quo indigne vestiti a tortoribus solent tolli et abjici in tenebras, nedum spoliati."" Surely we ought not to infer from this passage that a ring was given in baptism, any more than that a splendid robe was put on when the Holy Spirit was conferred by imposition of hands-or that the baptized convert was seated at a festive table. Tertullian is merely drawing a comparison between the marks of honour and affection which the returning prodigal received from his father, and the privileges to which the apostate would be restored, if the inferences drawn from the parable by the orthodox were just. The robe, the ring, the fatted calf, the banquet, are the circumstances of the parable symbolizing the endowment of the Holy Spirit, the saving effects of baptism, the benefits resulting from the death of Christ, and all the honours and privileges attached to the Christian profession renewed to the repentant apostate. He then endeavours to shew, that the parable does apply to the case of a converted Heathen, and compares the ring given to the returning prodigal to the public profession made by the convert at his baptism.

That it was the custom in Tertullian's time to require sponsors in baptism, is undeniable. But in the case of children, as Bingham admits, that office was usually sustained by the parents; who, in defiance of nature and reason, as well as of ancient usage, are expressly forbidden by the canons of the English Church to take upon them this charge, though of all persons the most proper to be entrusted with it. To the repeating of baptism, Tertullian was decidedly adverse; yet he considered heretical baptism as utterly null. He allows the laity to have the right of administering baptism; not, however, extending that right to women. With respect to the season of administering the rite, though he specifies the interval between Good-Friday and Whitsunday as peculiarly appropriate, he remarks that every day and every hour are alike suited to the performance of it. In consequence, however, it is most probable, of the opinion which he entertained concerning the irremissible character of heinous sins committed after baptism, he thought it expedient to delay the rite; and as to children he says, "Let them come when they are instructed whither they come. Let them be made Christians when they can know Christ. Why need their guiltless age to make such haste to the forgiveness of sins?" That he is the first ecclesiastical writer who mentions expressly the baptism of infants, is universally admitted; whether, from the manner in which he mentions it, we are to conclude that the practice was derived by tradition from the apostolic age, we cannot stop to inquire.

Roman Catholic writers have appealed to the authority of Tertullian in support of the doctrine of Transubstantiation; but certainly, as our author has shewn, on very insufficient grounds. The corruption of the originally

simple ordinance of the Lord's Supper, had not yet proceeded so far. But even in Tertullian's age, the elements were esteemed peculiarly holy, and on that account, it appears, were usually received in assemblies held very early in the morning, before the first ordinary meal. For the same reason, extreme care was taken to prevent any portion of the elements from falling to the ground, and some of the consecrated bread was reserved by the communicants to be eaten at home before every other nourishment. The bread and wine were received at the hands of the Presidents; but in what posture they were received cannot be ascertained from any passage in the writings of Tertullian. He speaks, indeed, in one passage, of the communicants as standing at the altar of God; but as the Professor candidly observes, "It may be doubted whether the expression is to be understood literally; or whether we are warranted in inferring from it that altars had been, at that early period, generally introduced into the places of religious assembly." P. 453. The term sacrificium is applied by Tertullian to the Eucharist; "but in the same general manner in which it is applied to other parts of divine worship, and to other modes of conciliating the Divine favour—as to prayer or fasting or bodily mortifications." P. 452.

Marriage was certainly not considered as a sacrament in the days of Tertullian, yet it seems to have been esteemed by Christians as a strictly religious contract. The putting on of the ring is mentioned "as a part of the rites, not of marriage, but espousal." The Romish sacrament of extreme unction derives no authority from the writings of Tertullian.

its

it

The seventh chapter treats of "the last of the five branches into which Mosheim divides the internal History of the Church-the heresies by which repose was troubled during the second century." Before our author proceeds to consider Mosheim's enumeration of Christian sects, he gives an interesting analysis of Tertullian's tract against the Jews. From this tract appears that the controversy between the Jews and the Christians "stood then precisely on the same footing as that on which it stands in the present day;" excepting, as we think, that Christians have enlarged the distance between the Jews and themselves, by departing more widely from the doctrine of the Divine Unity. It also appears that the advocates for Christianity were in that day, as they are in this, often embarrassed by the application of some of the Old-Testament prophecies. In the interpretation of the Jewish Scripture, Tertullian discovers much more fancy than judgment; and in some passages finds allusions to the death of Christ, so grossly extravagant, that it is difficult to conceive," says our impartial Professor, "how they could ever enter into the head of any rational being. I know not," he adds, "whether it will be deemed any apology for Tertullian to observe that he was not the inventor of these fancies; for it argues perhaps a more lamentable weakness of judgment to have copied than to have invented them: most, however, if not all, are to be found in Justin Martyr." P. 471. It is true, they are in Justin Martyr, with a great heap of other absurdities; and we have always admired the singular patience of Trypho, if the dialogue really took place, in continuing to listen to such an op

ponent.

66

On one subject relating to the Jews and intimately connected with the inquiry concerning the state of early opinions respecting the person of Christ, namely, the identity of the Nazarenes and Ebionites, Tertullian throws no light. He speaks of the Ebionites, and says that they derived their appellation from their founder Ebion, whom he supposes to have been the successor, but not in every point the follower, of Cerinthus. But he

makes no mention of the Nazarenes as a sect; only incidentally observing, that the Christians were so called by the Jews. Once also he speaks of "Hebrew Christians."

The Gnostic heresy having spread very widely at the end of the second century, Tertullian, as might be expected, was much occupied in opposing its progress. Mosheim traces Gnosticism, in all its various forms, to the Oriental philosophy, as their common source; and arranges all the sects of the Gnostics under two principal divisions, the Egyptian and the Asiatic. Tertullian does not seem to have thought of this division or of this origin; he repeatedly charges the Gnostics with borrowing from Pythagoras and Plato and other Greek philosophers. The learned Professor does not deem it necessary to inquire "into the reality of an alleged connexion between the Oriental and Platonic philosophies,' or to decide between the ancient Presbyter and the modern ecclesiastical historian. We have no hesitation in preferring, on this subject, the authority of the latter; and in recommending that part of his "Commentaries on the Affairs of the Christians," &c., which relates to the Gnostics, as peculiarly interesting and valuable. Of Elxai, whom Mosheim mentions as the head of the Asiatic branch, Tertullian takes no notice; and even Saturninus he mentions but once. Of Cerdo he says no more than that Marcion borrowed from him. But against Marcion, the head of one of the Asiatic sects, he composed five books, which have come down to us. Of the first of these our author has given a full and accurate analysis, and of the other four he adds some interesting notices.

With the fourth and fifth books against Marcion, is connected an inquiry of considerable importance in the criticism of the New Testament, and bearing also strongly upon the question relating to the origin of the three first gospels; namely, the charge brought by Tertullian and other ancient fathers against Marcion, of having adulterated the Gospel of Luke and the Epistles of Paul. The learned Professor, perhaps rightly, declines entering into any investigation of this curious and certainly difficult subject. He does not deny or question the justice of the charge: he seems to admit it; and in justification refers the reader to some "valuable remarks in the introduction to Dr. Schleiermacher's work" on the Gospel of Luke. The able author of that introduction declares that "Professor Hahn has settled the matter so as to satisfy every impartial inquirer that the ancient opinion is correct." We are impatient to see the work he so strongly recommends; but in the mean time, we must continue to acquiesce in the modern opinion, influenced by the arguments of Griesbach and Loeffler; to neither of whom the translator of Schleiermacher refers.

Scarcely any of the Gnostics belonging to the Egyptian branch, excepting Valentinus, are mentioned by Tertullian. Against the Valentinians he composed expressly a treatise; which, however, "is little more than a translation of the first book of the work of Iræneus against the Gnostics." Of this treatise the Professor has given an ample summary, exhibiting the whole of the absurd system maintained by the Egyptian heresiarch.

Among the heresies of the second century, according to Mosheim, were the tenets of Praxeas, Aitemon, and Theodotus: as heresies, therefore, they are treated by our author. Without justly exposing ourselves to the charge of cavilling, we might dispute the propriety of this classification, as it has been fully proved that the Gnostics were the only heretics in the early ages of Christianity and as it has not been, nor ever can be, proved that the distinguishing tenets of Praxeas, Aitemon and Theodotus, were not those of

:

the apostles themselves; or at least more nearly allied to them than those of the reputedly orthodox believers in the second century. But waving this, it is remarked by the Professor, that "we find no notice of Aitemon and Theodotus in Tertullian's writings." Against Praxeas, who had offended him by the part he took against Montanism at Rome, he wrote a large treatise. Of this treatise our author has given a very full account, not only that he may illustrate, according to the professed design of his work, the doctrine of the second century, but also, as is evident, that he may, if possible, identify the creed of the Established Church with that of the Carthaginian Presbyter, on the important subject of the Trinity.

Praxeas, we have reason to think, was a strict Unitarian. "He asserted," says Lardner, "the Unity of God, and denied a real Trinity. He contended that by the Word was to be understood the wisdom, the will, the power, the voice or command of God; not a distinct personal substance. He held Jesus to be a man, and said that God was with him in a superior and more intimate manner than with any other man or prophet whatever ; but it was not a personal union." He was charged by Tertullian with maintaining that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, were one and the same; and consequently, that the Father was born and suffered. The justice of this charge may be doubted; it is indeed certain that Praxeas expressly denied the latter part of it. And as to the former part of it, the representation which Tertullian gives of the doctrine of Praxeas may have arisen, as Beausobre conjectures," from his misapprehending what the Unitarians said concerning the Father and the Son being one, and concerning the Father being in Jesus and doing the works, as our Saviour expresses himself." Unhappily we have no work by Praxeas to which we can refer; and we know that Tertullian, as the Professor candidly allows, could draw consequences from the opinions of an opponent, which the opponent disavowed. (See note 284, p. 569.) In refutation of these notions, however, Tertullian undertakes to prove the perfect distinction of the three persons of the Trinity. But the majority of Christians "major pars credentium," as Tertullian allows, were believers in the strict unity of God, and were alarmed at the notion of three persons in the Godhead. They adhered to the monarchy, and could not reconcile their minds to the economy for which the orthodox fathers were then contending. He was not a little embarrassed, therefore, while maintaining against Praxeas the distinct personality of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, to make this notion appear consistent with the doctrine of the divine unity. He was also perplexed, as all who maintain similar opinions ever have been and ever must be, to interpret, upon his principles, those numerous plain passages of Scripture which speak of the Father as the only true God, and of Jesus as one in all respects like those in whose service he lived and died. No wonder, therefore, if we find, as we certainly do find in this treatise, much perversion of Scripture language, great confusion of ideas, and many contradictions and inconsistencies which no ingenuity can reconcile: no wonder that so good a reasoner, and so candid and fair a judge as the Right Rev. Professor shews himself to be, should warn his readers in the course of his remarks on this treatise, that he undertakes only to state, not always to explain or comprehend Tertullian's notions. See note 199, p. 538.

From the detailed account of this important treatise, our author thinks that he has sufficiently proved that Tertullian maintained a real Trinity; or, in the words of the first Article, that "in the unity of the Godhead there be