reader, but which also renders his work a valuable addition to the history of the early ages of Christianity. The period at which Tertullian flourished, comprehends the latter part of the second and the beginning of the third century. Allix places his birth about the year 145 or 150; his conversion to Christianity about 185; his marriage about 186; his admission to the priesthood about 192; his adoption of the opinions of Montanus about 199; and his death about 220. These dates, it is true, rest entirely upon conjecture; but the general accuracy of them is commonly allowed. The Bishop divides his work into seven chapters, which treat on the following subjects: viz.-I. On Tertullian and his Writings.-II. On the external History of the Church.-III. On the State of Letters and Philosophy.-IV. On the Government of the Church. V. On the Doctrine of the Church.--VI. On the Ceremonies used in the Church. -VII. Concerning the Heresies and Divisions which troubled the Church. The period at which Tertullian lived is one of the most important in the history of the Christian Church. Christianity was now spread over the greater part of the world, and the Church had now begun to be agitated by many of those controversies with regard to doctrine and discipline, which in later ages have divided the Christian world; and we are enabled to collect from the writings of the advocates as well as the adversaries of our faith, the real sentiments of the Church at this early period. Valuable as is the testimony, which is borne to the fundamental doctrines of the gospel by the Apostolical Fathers, and by those who immediately succeeded them: yet the nature of the controversies, which then existed in the Christian Church, and the subjects on which they treat, prevent the possibility of their writings possessing the same interest with those of Tertullian. On the most important points of doctrine and discipline the writings of Tertullian are full and explicit; and, notwithstanding the errors into which he was led by the warmth and impetuosity of his temper, are of great importance in all controversies relating to the doctrine and discipline of the Church. As the most remarkable incident in Tertullian's life was his embracing the principles of Montanus, the Bishop enters into a consideration of his opinions, which have been variously represented by Mosheim; who in his work, "De Rebus Christianorum ante Constantinum Magnum," thus describes him, "Homo nullius nominis, minime malus, natura tristis, debilisque judicii, morbo quodam animi in tantam incidebat dementiam ut Spiritum Sanctum, seu Paracletum illum qui animaverat Apostolos Jesu Christi, divinitus sibi obtigisse contenderet, res futuras maximi momenti prædicandas et morum vitæque disciplinam, priori ab Apostolis tradita sanctiorem et meliorem tradendam ;" while, in his Ecclesiastical History, he represents him as "pretending to be the Paraclete or Comforter, whom the Divine Saviour, at his departure from the earth, promised to send to his disciples to lead them into all truth." The Bishop shews, from the examination of some passages of Tertullian's writings, 'that the former, and not the latter, is the true statement of the opinions of Montanus; and that the fair inference to be deduced from the passages of Tertullian is, "not that Montanus pretended to be the Paraclete, or that he made a distinction between the Paraclete, promised by Christ to his Apostles, and the Holy Ghost, which was shed upon them on the day of Pentecost, (as is asserted also by Mosheim); but that Montanus conceived himself to be inspired by the same spirit as the Apostles, though it was his peculiar office to close as it were the Christian Revelation, and to place in a clear and refulgent light those sublime truths, those doctrines of perfection, which, during our Saviour's residence upon earth, his disciples had been able to bear; but which had been in a progressive state of development since the descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost."-Bishop of Bristol, pp. 22-27. After a brief account of the writings of Tertullian, the Bishop concludes the first chapter with the consideration of the extraordinary hypothesis of Semler, "who, in a dissertation prefixed to his edition of Tertullian's works, endeavours to fix the mark of spuriousness not only upon them, but upon the writings which are extant under the names of Justin Martyr and Irenæus. His theory is, that all those works, though bearing the names of different authors, proceeded-('ex una atque eadem officina, &c.' See the quotation from Semler, in the Bishop of Bristol's note, p. 71.)-from the same shop established at Rome, and were 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 the view of throwing discredit upon certain persons, Marcion, Valentinus, &c. whom they thought proper to brand with the name of heretics." "This (as the Bishop justly observes) is a theory, which, for novelty and singularity, will bear a comparison with the boldest speculations of the German critics." His Lordship has with great acuteness and at considerable length examined the arguments of Semler; whose theory is, however, sufficiently refuted by the unanimous consent of the Christian Church from the time of Tertullian;- of Cyprian, who was Bishop of Carthage forty years after Tertullian lived there, who held his works in great estimation, and frequently repeats not only the sentiments, but even the words contained in the writings now extant under his name ;-of Eusebius, and of Augustin, who himself lived at Carthage, and refers to his writings.* In the second chapter, which relates to the external history of the Church, the Bishop enters upon the discussion of a subject which has * See the Bishop of Bristol, pp. 69, &c. VOL. VIII. NO. IX. been much agitated by divines of later ages, concerning the duration of miraculous powers in the Church; and he has treated it with singular clearness and ability. There is no subject on which learned and orthodox men have more differed in opinion; some maintaining that the power of working miracles was confined to the immediate successors of the Apostles themselves; while others give credit to those miracles, which are said to have been performed in the second and third centuries; and even in later periods of the Church. The Bishop, speaking of the miracles, which were performed by the first preachers of the Gospel, observes that "the writings of Tertullian furnish little reason for supposing that the preachers of the Gospel in his day were indebted for their success to the display of similar powers. He asserts, indeed, that Christians possessed the power of expelling dæmons, of curing diseases, of healing the wounds inflicted by serpents, but he casts a doubt upon the accuracy of his own statement by ascribing to Christians in general those extraordinary gifts which even in the days of the Apostles appear be confined to them, and to those disciples upon whom they laid their hands." p. 95. He then with no less candour than ability states his own opinion on the subject; and observes, "that the supposition that miraculous powers were gradually withdrawn from the Church, appears in a great measure to account for the uncertainty which has prevailed respecting the period of their cessation. 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 gradually 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 our all-wise Providence to 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 their friends, and would cer tainly 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, 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."-Bishop of Bristol, p. 99. } In this view of the subject, the Bishop is supported by the opinion of the late Dr. Hey, who (in some unpublished Lectures on the Miracles of the early Christian Church, delivered in the chapel of Sidney College,) observes, that "for fifty years after the ascension of Christ, none of the Fathers made any pretensions to the possession of miraculous powers." Speaking of Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, Hermas, he observes, that "Not one of those pious men, though they were the principal governors in the Church, and the immediate successors of the Apostles in that government (as well as their companions and friends) ever speaks of himself as capable of counteracting the ordinary powers of nature: they all endeavour to inculcate the morality and religion of the Gospel, but that merely as men, possessed indeed of the sense and meaning of the sacred writers, but entirely void of their extraordinary power."-Bishop of Bristol, pp. 165, 166. The opinion of Dr. Hey and the Bishop of Bristol is supported by Dr. Jortin, who throws considerable doubts on any miracles said to have been performed after the apostolic age; and such also seems to have been the opinion of Dr. Lardner. On the other hand it is to be observed, that Milner defends the existence of miraculous powers in the Church in the third century; and he is supported by Dodwell,§ and by the most learned, the most judicious, and most candid of theological writers, Dr. Waterland. In a case where learned men so much differ, it would be presumptuous to form a precipitate judgment; yet the arguments, of the Bishop of Bristol and Dr. Hey deserve serious attention, and by many probably will be thought unanswers able. In the fourth chapter, which relates to "the Government of the Church," the Bishop remarks, that Tertullian bears express testimony to the independence of the apostolic churches; and that the words of Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, Book II.. See his Remarks on the Miracle of the thundering legion. § Dissert. in Iren. II. Dissert. Cypr. IV. See Importance of the Trinity, Chap. VII. דיו our Saviour to St. Peter," On this rock will I build my Church,” and “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” were not at that time supposed to refer exclusively to the Church of Rome, but to all the churches of which St. Peter was the founder. We regret that our limits will not admit of our dwelling upon the important chapter relating to the doctrines of the Church. We may however remark that Tertullian bears the most express testimony to the consent of the Church in his day with regard to the doctrines contained in the three Creeds,† and the first, second, fourth and fifth articles of our Church; and though, from no controversy having existed in Tertullian's time on the doctrine of justification, we must not expect the precision of controversy, yet he describes the death of Christ as "the whole weight and benefit of the Christian name.”‡ With regard to the Sacrament of Baptism, Tertullian speaks in very strong and express terms. "By it, (says he,) we are cleansed from all our sins, and rendered capable of attaining eternal life. By it we regain that spirit of God, which Adam received at his creation, and lost by his transgression.' Tertullian connects regeneration with it, calling it our second birth, in which the soul is framed as it were anew by water, and the power from above, and the veil of its former corruption being drawn aside, beholds the full refulgence of its native light. In the first book against Marcion, he declares the following blessings to be consequent upon baptism: ' remission of sins,-deliverance from death,-regeneration,-and participation in the Holy Spirit.' He calls it the sacrament of washing, the blessed sacrament of water,-the laver of regeneration,—the washing of repentance, the sacrament of faith, the seal or sign of our faith."§ In the last chapter, in reviewing the treatises of Tertullian against Praxeas, the Bishop alludes to the testimony which Tertullian has been 'supposed to bear to the genuineness of the disputed text in St. John's Epistle, relating to the three heavenly witnesses. We should do injustice to the Bishop's argument, if we were not to give it in his own words. "We have seen (observes his Lordship, speaking of Tertullian's Treatise,) that according to him Praxeas confounded the persons in the Trinity; though, if we may judge from his mode of conducting the controversy, it turned principally upon the persons of the Father and the Son. Praxeas quoted, in support of his opinion, Ego et Pater unum sumus. Tertullian replied,' that verse is directly against you; for though it declares an unity of substance in the Father and Son, it also declares a duality, if we may coin a word, of persons.' Having established his point with respect to the first and second persons in the Trinity, Tertullian proceeds to the third. We have seen,' he says, that the Son promised that when he had ascended to the Bishop of Bristol, pp. 236, 237. + Ibid, p. 548, &c. ↑ Ibid, p. 330. § See the passages quoted by the Bishop of Bristol, pp. 427, 428. |