whether we consider the testimony borné to the genuineness and integrity of the books of the New Testament, or the information relating to the ceremonies, discipline, and doctrines of the primitive Church, Tertullian's writings form a most important link in that chain of tradition which connects the Apostolical age with our own." P. 37.

The works of Tertullian are commonly distinguished into two classes, namely, those which he wrote before, and those which he wrote after, he became a Montanist *; but the Bishop of Bristol more accurately arranges them into four classes those written while he was a member of the Churchthose after he became a Montanist-those probably written after he became a Montanist-and those respecting which nothing certain can be pronounced. Of the genuineness of the works ascribed to Tertullian there can be no reasonable doubt, being ascertained by the testimony of writers in succession from the times in which he lived. Yet a chain of testimony so abundantly satisfactory did not satisfy the sceptical mind of Semler, who, in a dissertation inserted in his edition of Tertullian's works, endeavours to prove that they, as well as the writings of Justin Martyr and Irenæus, are spurious. This theory, so evidently wild and preposterous, and built upon grounds equally subversive of all historical testimony, is combated, and solidly refuted by our learned author. (P. 71-90.)

It is well known to every reader of Mosheim, that, in imitation of the Centuriators of Magdeburg, he divides the history of the Church into two branches, external and internal; and he has been partly followed by the acute, but fanciful Semler. Indeed all ecclesiastical historians have attended to these branches, but no one has kept them so distinct as Mosheim, whose outline it is the object of the Bishop of Bristol to fill up from the writings of Tertullian.

Agreeably to this plan the Right Rev. Author commences the second chapter with the external history of the Church; and, after shewing the explicit testimony which Tertullian bears to the wide diffusion of Christianity in his day, proceeds to consider the question, whether the exercise of miraculous power existed at that period. Few of our readers can be ignorant of the controversy carried on in the last century on this subject by Dr. Middleton and his opponents; a controversy which excited much curious research and learned discussion, and which would have been productive of very beneficial results had it been conducted with more temper and moderation. Our

The notion of Hoffmann that all the works of Tertullian extant were written after he embraced Montanism, is refuted by the different characters discoverable in the works themselves. See Jablonski Inst. Hist. Eccles. Secul. ii. cap. ii. §. 4.

author's opinion is that the power of working miracles was confined to the Apostles and to those on whom they laid their hands *, and that they consequently ceased when the last disciple on whom the Apostles laid their hands expired. This opinion is certainly as probable as any, and agrees remarkably well with the language of the ancient Fathers on the subject; but to decide with undoubted confidence on a matter involved in so much mystery would be a mark of equal folly and presumption †.

The accusations, the calumnies, the opposition, and the persecutions to which the Christians of that age were exposed are next touched upon with a masterly hand; but we shall pass over this part of the work to the third chapter, which, according to the order of Mosheim, treats of the state of letters and philosophy in that century.

The Right Rev. author collects and discusses at length Tertullian's notions concerning the Deity, concerning the nature of angels and demons, and concerning the origin, nature, and destiny of the human soul; but the most important part of the chapter perhaps is that in which he comments on the prevalent disposition to undervalue the argument a posteriori. Every attempt to prove the existence and attributes of God from the visible works of creation, is treated by many as vain and idle, nay, even as presumptuous, and almost impious. The assertion of such persons, that man never did by reasoning a posteriori discover the existence of God, may be admitted without much danger, for the question is, not whether man has ever so discovered the existence of a Supreme Being, but whether, if he had so reasoned, he would have reasoned correctly. Now that such arguments are not fallacious appears from this, that, allowing the knowledge of a God to be derived from revelation, yet the arguments for his existence and attributes derived from the course and constitution of nature, are no sooner proposed, than they command the assent of the understanding: and, as his lordship observes, "the same series of proofs by which we establish a known truth, might surely have conducted us to the knowledge of that truth." (p. 185.) This is the only way by which a sceptic can possibly be convinced of the existence of a God. Denying as he does the authority of Revelation, we have no other arguments to oppose to him, than those which

Acts vi. 6. (compared with vi. 8. and viii. 6.) viii. 17, 18. xix. 6.

"Nos

Yet Semler, speaking of miraculous powers in the second century, says, quidem talibus narrationibus, etsi olim forte fuerunt satis probæ, atque recentiores earum non defuerunt amatores, nihil hodie historiam Christianorum adjuvari statuimus." Hist. Eccles. Select. Capita. secul. ii. cap. 2. Such is the pert and contemptuous language of the rationalizing divines!

the natural and moral phenomena of the world abundantly supply of an all-wise and all-powerful Creator.

"Men, it is true, have not unfrequently been induced by the love of paradox, by the desire of obtaining a reputation for superior talent and acuteness, or by other motives of a similar description, to assert the all-sufficiency of human reason, and to deny the necessity of a Revelation. Hence many good and pious Christians have run into the opposite extreme, and been disposed to regard all, who have recourse to reason and the light of nature in the investigation of religious truth, as little better than infidels: puffed up with a presumptuous conceit of their own knowledge, and sitting in judgment on the fitness of the divine procedure. Yet what just ground is there for these heavy accusations? Is not reason the gift of God? Does not the light of nature emanate from the author of nature; from him who is the fountain of light? In what then consists the presumption of endeavouring to trace the divine character and operations, by means of that light, which God has himself supplied? The knowledge of divine things which we acquire by the proper exercise of our various faculties in the phenomena of the visible world is as strictly the gift of God, as that which we derive from the perusal of his revealed word." P. 188.

In a treatise of so much merit it would be ungenerous to carp at little inadvertencies, but we are sure the author's liberality will not be offended by our pointing out one into which he has been betrayed in p. 176. He says "Although the writings of Tertullian afford us no assistance in filling up the outline sketched by Mosheim of the state of learning and philosophy in the second century, an examination of his own philosophical and metaphysical notions will, we trust, supply some curious and not uninteresting information." A knowledge of the philosophical notions of an eminent writer must contribute to the knowledge of the philosophy of his age, inasmuch as an acquaintance with an integral part conduces to our acquaintance with the whole.

Following Mosheim's arrangement we come to the government and discipline of the church illustrated from the writings of Tertullian, which forms the subject of the fourth chapter. It is satisfactory to find that Tertullian bears testimony to the existence of a distinction between the Clergy and the Laity, and also to the existence of a distinction of orders among the Clergy. In the Tracts de Baptismo and de Fuga in Persecutione, the three orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons are enumerated together; and in the former the superior authority of bishops is plainly asserted. That the Episcopal office was of Apostolical institution he likewise unequivocally asserts; yet clearly as he

declares a distinction of orders among the Clergy, he affords us but little assistance in ascertaining wherein this distinction consisted. With this testimony, however, the advocates of Episcopacy may well be content. No one is foolish enough to maintain an exact parallel between the ancient and modern Episcopalian church-governments; what is asserted is, that the orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons did exist so anciently as necessarily infers an Apostolical appointment, and of this distinction of orders among the Clergy, Tertullian affords convincing evidence.

In the fifth chapter his lordship comes to a more important and more extensive branch of the inquiry, to the information which the writings of this father supply respecting the doctrines of the Church in his day. The course he adopts in treating this part of the subject is, to consider the different doctrines in the order in which they occur in the articles of the Church of England. This plan is certainly judicious, and the Right Rev. author pursues it with all the diligence of an antiquary, and with all the sobriety of a learned and orthodox divine. Without attempting to epitomize the whole contents of this long chapter, we shall present to our readers a few selections from it, which will afford a specimen of the author's judgment and manner; and we begin with his illustration of the sixth Article of the Church "On the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for salvation."

With Protestants this is a subject of vital importance, since it constitutes the ground of the fundamental distinction between the Churches of England and Rome. Other matters in debate between us are interesting, other questions involved in the Roman Catholic controversy are of great moment, but this forms the very basis of the Reformation, and upon which alone that separation from the Papal Church can be vindicated. With Protestants the Bible alone is the sole fountain of Christian faith; with Romanists it is the Bible and Tradition-the former acknowledge only one authority for articles of faith, the latter acknowledge two equal and independent authorities. Till this difference in the foundation of their respective doctrines can be settled, it is in vain to expect any unanimity in the doctrines themselves. The two Churches must continue for ever at variance while they continue to vary as to the sources from which their creeds are drawn. So long as the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants, and the Bible together with Tradition is the religion of Romanists, so long will they remain disunited.

Yet it is not to be inferred from this that Protestantism

absolutely discards Tradition. Some of the Reformed Churches it is true, have done so almost entirely, but the Church of England, with more moderation and more judgment, acknowledges the advantages which may be derived from that source. She ascribes an unrivalled authority to the written word, expressly declaring that Holy Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation, but she nevertheless professes a subordinate reverence for pious antiquity. She regards Tradition as one of the most useful helps to unlock the sacred truths of Revelation. Though her faith is built on the sole foundation of the Scriptures, she deems the decisions of the Primitive Church as the best guide to the discovery of the Christian doctrines, as the best preservative of their purity, and as the best evidence of an agreement with the apostolical faith and practice. "Our national Church," says an intelligent prelate, "inculcates a liberal, discriminative, yet undeviating reverence for pious antiquity: a reverence, alike sanctioned by reason, inspired by feeling, and recommended by authority. This principle is, in truth, our special characteristic; a principle which has ever enabled our Church to combine discursiveness with consistency; freedom of inquiry with orthodoxy of belief; and vigorous good sense with primitive and elevated piety."* To the same purpose speaks the Right Rev. author of the work under consideration.

"If we mistake not the signs of the times, the period is not far distant when the whole controversy between the English and Romish Churches will be revived, and all the points in dispute again brought under review. Of these points none is more important than the question respecting tradition; and it is, therefore, most essential, that they who stand forth as the defenders of the Church of England should take a correct and rational view of the subject-the view in short which was taken by our divines at the Reformation. Nothing was more remote from their intention than indiscriminately to condemn all tradition. They knew that in strictness of speech Scripture is tradition-written tradition. They knew that, as far as external evidence is concerned, the tradition preserved in the Church is the only ground on which the genuineness of the books of Scripture can be established. For though we are not, upon the authority of the Church, bound to receive as Scripture any book, which contains internal evidence of its own spuriousness such as discrepancies, contradictions of other portions of Scripture, idle fables, or precepts at variance with the great principles of morality-yet no internal evidence is sufficient to prove a book to be Scripture, of which the reception, by a portion at least of the Church, cannot be traced from the earliest period of its history to the

Bishop Jebb's Appendix to "Sermons chiefly Practical."