three persons of one substance, power and eternity;" that his opinions respecting the Son and Holy Spirit essentially coincided with the doctrines of the Church of England; and that the general doctrine of the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds is contained in his writings. "But though we think," observes the Professor, " that Tertullian's opinions on these points coincided in the main with the doctrines of our Church, we are far from meaning to assert that expressions may not occasionally be found which are capable of a different interpretation, and which were carefully avoided by the orthodox writers of later times, when the controversies respecting the Trinity had introduced greater precision of language." P. 556. So in another place: "In his representations of this distinction," (viz. of the three persons,) "he sometimes uses expressions which in after times, when controversy had introduced greater precision of language, were studiously avoided by the orthodox." P. 539. We must beg leave here, as in a former case, to enter our protest against this method of accounting for the difference that is found between the ancient and the modern expositions of the doctrine of the Trinity. The language which was employed by Tertullian expressed as preccisely and as clearly as they could be expressed, the notions he had formed. His language was in later times carefully avoided, because his opinions were not then maintained. Controversy, it is true, gave occasion to different phraseology, because in the progress of controversy new views of the doctrine were taken. The gradual corruption of the doctrine of the divine unity as it was taught by Jesus and his apostles, can be distinctly traced from the middle of the second century till about the end of the fifth, when it was lost in that labyrinth of unmeaning words constructed by Pseudo-Athanasius. This corruption was in an early stage of its progress in the days of Tertullian; and though he did as much as any one to help it forward, it had not advanced so far as to appear in the language employed by later writers." With respect to particular expressions," says our author, "we find that he calls the Son, God of God and Light of Light." It is true; and it is possible that the Post-Nicene Fathers may have used this language in the sense in which it was used by Tertullian: yet we think that they advanced beyond the point at which he stopped, when they said that the Son was very God of very God;" nor is there any passage in his works from which it can be inferred that he had any notion of the Holy Spirit as Lord and giver of life." The Bishop acknowledges that," in speaking of the Holy Ghost, Tertullian occasionally uses terms of a very ambiguous and equivocal character:" and no wonder, for in his days no clear notions respecting the Spirit had been formed. With respect to the expressions contained in the Athanasian Creed, no ingenuity can stretch the opinions or the language of Tertullian to such an extent as this: "The Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. And in this Trinity none is afore or after other; none is greater or less than another." Not one of the Ante-Nicene Fathers ever used language approaching to this; by no one of them was such a doctrine maintained. This account of Tertullian's faith, as it respected the doctrine of the Trinity, appears to us the least satisfactory part of the learned Prelate's work; owing chiefly to this circumstance, that writing under the influence of a desire to vindicate the orthodoxy of Tertullian, he has not allowed himself to weigh the expressions of the Presbyter with his usual accuracy, and to infer from them no more than they really warrant. We must not

66 the

1:ཀ་

2

omit to state, that in the course of his examination of the treatise against Praxeas, he has clearly shewn that Tertullian, so far from alluding to 1 John v. 7, knew nothing of the verse.

The next heretic in Mosheim's catalogue is Hermogenes, who, regarding matter as the source of all evil, could not persuade himself that it was created by God, but maintained that it had existed from eternity. Against this hypothesis Tertullian wrote a distinct treatise, of which our author has given a brief analysis, which he thus concludes:

"In one part of his reasoning he (Tertullian) must be allowed to have been successful, in shewing that the theory of his opponent removed none of the difficulties in which the question is involved. He has also given no slight proof of discretion, a quality for which he is not generally remarkable, in not attempting himself to advance any counter-theory upon that inexplicable subject."-P. 577.

The work concludes with a very brief notice of two or three other heretics of this century, included by Mosheim in his enumeration and mentioned by Tertullian; and with a short apology for the divisions among Protestants, founded upon the existence of numerous sectaries in ancient times, and in reply to the objection commonly urged against Protestantism by Roman Catholic writers.

We have thus noticed, at greater length, perhaps, than our limits strictly allow, the principal of the numerous topics discussed by the learned and Right Rev. Author in his very interesting work. We have been so much gratified by the information which this instructive work conveys, so much pleased by the accurate judgment and the candid, liberal spirit manifest in almost every page, and so opposite to the rashness, the dogmatism, and the arrogance that too commonly deform the productions of learned dignitaries and theologians, that although we cannot expect always to agree with him in the result of his examination of the writings of the Fathers who preceded Tertullian, we earnestly hope that neither his merited advancement on the Episcopal Bench, nor any other circumstance, will interfere with his design of laying the substance of his former lectures before the public.

ART. III. ·History of the Transmission of Ancient Books to Modern Times, or a concise Account of the Means by which the Genuineness and Authenticity of Ancient Historical Works are ascertained; with an Estimate of the comparative Value of the Evidence usually adduced in support of the Claims of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. By Isaac Taylor. London. Holdsworth. 1827. 8s.

We have seldom felt more interest than in the perusal of this judicious and highly instructive volume. The subject is happily chosen and ingeniously pursued; the leading object being to lay before general readers, apart from controversy, and as if no interests more important than those of literature were implicated in the result, a general view of the state of the arguments on which the genuineness of ancient books, and the authenticity of the information they contain, rest; the whole credit of literature, the certainty of history, and the truth of religion, being all involved in the facts on which we may found our opinion on the security of the transmission of ancient books to modern times.

Speaking in general of books now circulating in the form which the invention of printing has given them, and purporting to be correct or tolerably correct representations of originals, the works of authors who lived many hundred years previously and before the occurrence of a long period of comparative ignorance and darkness, their authenticity is popularly received without hesitation or dispute. On this subject, however, as on others, there often exists too much faith and too little; and the mind, not being stored with any materials for estimating the foundations on which its confidence rests, is sometimes easily staggered by difficulties, and at other times is incapable of correctly estimating the weight of assurance which it may receive, and more especially the immense preponderance of the assurance on which its belief in the authenticity of the Scriptures, as compared with other old books, may rest. Mr. Taylor's mode of throwing the whole argument into one literary view, of looking at the general evidence of authenticity as affecting literature in the bulk, and of thus collaterally and incidentally displaying the immense comparative weight in favour of the authenticity of the sacred records, and of the truth of their contents, is ingehious and eminently successful. The plan of course enables the author to interweave a great deal of curious literary information, given in a popular form, but in a way calculated to impart to every class of readers correct general ideas of a subject which is more peculiarly one of labour and research. We do not know a more engaging outline for a course of lectures, which might be addressed to almost any class of students, than the argument of this volume would afford.

The subject of the work being the history of the records of history, the author proceeds to trace the extant works of ancient historians retrogressively from modern times up to the ages to which they are usually attributed, and then to explain the grounds on which, under certain limitations, the contents of these works are admitted to be authentic and worthy of credit. The inquiry, therefore, consists of two perfectly distinct parts, of which the first relates to the antiquity, genuineness and integrity of certain books now extant, and the second relates to the degree of credit that is due to such of these ancient works as profess to be narratives of facts. Satisfactory evidence, on the one head, proves, that the works are not forgeries, on the other, that they are not fictions.

The antiquity and genuineness of ancient books are regarded as capable of proof under three distinct lines, which are each handled in a brief and forcible style by Ir. Taylor. The first relates to the history of certain copies of a work now in existence; the second, to the history of a work as it may be collected from the series of references made to it by others; the third is drawn from the known history of the language in which the work is

extant.

First, then, Mr. Taylor enters into the history and description of MSS. as they were found and were made the sources of our present books at the invention of printing, and he succinctly points out the means and evidences by which their dates and ages are now ascertainable; such as, by authentic history of their individual existence and actual transmission,-by the dates affixed by copyists,-by marginal notes affixed from time to time by later hands, alluding often to persons, events, or customs, indicative of their age, -by being discovered as palimpsests or rescripts under MSS. themselves of a considerable antiquity, by the ornaments or illuminations, and by the quality of the ink, the nature of the material, whether leather, parchment, papyrus, &c.,-by changes in the mode of writing, and other particulars,

on all of which Mr. Taylor gives interesting and general information, and to which he adds observations on the mode in which MSS. were preserved and propagated, on the degree of correctness, identity, or variation, which they exhibit one towards the other, and on the causes to which various readings are generally attributable.

Secondly, he proceeds to consider the history and evidence of ancient works as collected from the quotations and references of contemporary and succeeding writers, whether the quotations be literal or by accidental allusion, or whether (as is the case with many works) they have been the subjects of explicit description and criticism. Controversies have been the most fruitful sources of reference, and consequent evidence of the authenticity of the books to which they refer, and original works are still further established when made the subjects of actual translation.

Thirdly, the history of the language in which a work is found is often the least fallible of all proofs. A poem or a history may have been forged, but not a language; and there is scarcely an era in which we cannot, with care, know and point out the language which an author of the time would have adopted, and as to which it is next to impossible to practise a deception. Every language, of which copious specimens are extant, contains a latent history of the people through whose lips it has passed, and furnishes to the scholar his data by which literary remains may almost with certainty be assigned to their true age.

Mr. Taylor's next chapter is devoted to a more minute detail of facts illustrative of the history of Manuscripts, in which he describes historically (chiefly from the learned dissertations of Montfaucon) the materials used for ancient books; the instruments and inks from time to time used for writing; the changes introduced from age to age in the forms of letters, and the general character of writing, which alone furnish to the experienced almost unerring means of judgment; the modes from time to time used in forming books, compacting the sheets, covering, dividing into columns, punctuation and decoration; the character of copyists, and the places most celebrated for the transmission of books; and particularly the extent to which the world is indebted to the inhabitants of monasteries, during the middle ages, for the preservation and multiplication of the records of profane and scriptural learning.

The next head of inquiry is into the indications of the existence of the remains of ancient literature, from the decline of learning in the seventh century to its restoration in the fifteenth, in which Mr. Taylor very properly exposes the sweeping declamations by which we are so fond of talking of "the dark ages," "the period of intellectual night," "the season of winter in the history of man," and many other exaggerated expressions used only by those who choose not to give themselves the trouble to inquire or be just. A vague impression that all was night, darkness, and ignorance, reckoning backwards for more than 800 years, from the period in which literature emerged, coupled with the fact, that almost all the Manuscripts on which the world relies for the treasures of antiquity, must, if genuine, have been the work of that season of darkness, either involves us in contradictions, or presents a considerable difficulty in the way of our convictions. Mr. Taylor's object, in a rapid survey of the literary history of this period, is to shew, that the lamp of learning, truth, and philosophy, always was to some extent kept trimmed and burning, and that (as the multiplication of books would indicate) there were persons for whose use, and to gratify whose appetite, they were so multiplied.

Having displayed the evidence on which we come to the conclusion that the works of ancient times can be satisfactorily traced and proved to belong to the æras to which they purport to belong, the author proceeds to inquire, (as to such of these works as are professedly historical,) on what grounds, and with what limitations, such works deserve confidence as narratives of facts; an inquiry which he follows under several appropriate heads, pointing out very judiciously how strongly the very imperfections and inaccuracies of an author sometimes establish his general fidelity.

He next details the confirmations which the evidence of ancient historians derives from independent and external sources; 1st, from evidence derived from the general literature of the nations of antiquity, referring incidentally to the same persons and things, and furnishing coincidences which often demonstrate more forcibly than the most direct testimony; 2d, the corroborative evidence deduced from chronological inscriptions and calculations; 3d, the geographical evidence deduced from references to durable inequalities or diversities of the earth's surface, the permanency of names of places, &c.; 4th, a similar confirmation drawn from a comparison of the descriptions of physical peculiarities, manners and usages, with facts now in existence; 5th, from the existing remains of ancient art; of buildings, sculptures, gems, inscriptions, coins, paintings, Mosaics, vases, implements, and

arms.

The next chapter is devoted to elucidating certain general principles applicable to all questions of genuineness and authenticity, under the following general heads or propositions: 1st, That facts remote from our personal observation may be as certainly proved by evidence that is fallible in its kind as by that which is not open to the possibility of error; 2d, That facts remote from our personal knowledge, are not necessarily more or less certain in proportion to the length of time that has elapsed since they took place; 3d, That the validity of evidence in proof of remote facts is not affected, either for the better or the worse, by the weight of the consequences that may happen to depend upon them—a proposition which we are inclined to think Mr. Taylor has put rather too broadly, and without certain allowances with which, as a general canon of the credibility of evidence, it must be qualified; 4th, That a calculation of actual instances, taken almost from any class of facts, will prove that seemingly good evidence is incomparably more often true than false; 5th, That the strength of evidence is not proportioned to its simplicity or perspicuity, or to the ease with which it may be apprehended by all persons.

The next and most important head of our author's argument is a comparison of the relative strength of the evidence which supports the genuineness and authenticity of the Holy Scriptures, and that of other ancient writings, which he pursues under the following leading particulars :-The number of Manuscripts which passed down through the middle ages; the antiquity of some existing Manuscripts; the extent of surface over which copies were diffused at an early date; the importance attached to the books by their possessors; the respect paid to them by copyists of later ages; the wide separation or the open hostility of those by whom these books were preserved; the visible effects of these books from age to age; the immense body of references and quotations; the equally important corroborative testimony of early versions; the vernacular extinction of the languages or idioms in which these books were written; the means of comparison with spurious works, or with works intended to share the reputation acquired by others; and the strength of the inference from the genuineness to the credibility of the books.