gree, rather than in kind, from that which Passing over the Bishop's re- Tertullian bears witness to the wide diffusion of Christianity in his own day; and Bishop Kaye justly observes, that, though his language may be somewhat declamatory, and notwithstanding the exaggeration arising from the vehemence of his temper, his representations as to this matter would not have been hazarded, had they not been to a considerable extent founded in fact. In shewing that the writings of Tertullian furnish no ground for ascribing the success of the Christian teachers, during his age, to the exercise of miraculous powers, our learned author has the following judicious remarks. "I collect from passages already cited from the book of Acts, that the power of working miracles was conferred by the hands of the Apostles only; and consequently ceased with the last disciple on whom their hands were laid. I perceive in the language of the Fathers, who lived in the middle and end of the second century, when speaking on this subject, something which betrays, if not a conviction, at least a suspicion, that the power of working miracles was withdrawn, combined with an anxiety to keep up a belief of its continuance in the church. They affirm in general terms, that miracles were performed, but rarely venture to produce an instance of a particular miracle. Those who followed them were less scrupulous, and proceeded to invent miracles; very different indeed in circumstances and character from the miracles of the Gospel, yet readily believed by men who were not disposed nicely to examine into the evidence of facts which they wished to be true. The success of the first attempts 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 no longer be considered as deviations from the ordinary course of nature." pp. 100 -102. We have, in these pages, a somewhat minute examination of the The Apology of Tertullian; an apology which throws much light both on the manners of the Christians of that period, and on the treatment which they experienced from the Roman governors. The African champion vehemently charges them with condemning the Gospel unheard. "In the case of Christians alone," he says, "all the established forms of law were set aside, and all the rules usually observed in the adminstration of justice violated." Christians were accused of the most heinous crimes; of Atheism, infanticide, and holding nocturnal meetings, in which they abandoned themselves to the most shameful excesses. In vain did they challenge their opponents to make good these horrible charges. "You are determined," says Tertullian, "to close your eyes against the truth, and to persist in hating us without a cause. You are compelled to witness the salutary influence of Christianity in the reformed lives and morals of those who embrace it; but you quarrel with the effect, however beneficial, in consequence of your hatred of the cause from which it proceeds."-The adversaries of the Christians also circulated the most false and ridiculous notions respecting the objects of their worship, pretending, among other idle tales, that they paid homage to the head of an ass. One principal source of this obloquy is well stated by our author. "Christianity was, from its nature a proselyting religion. The convert not only abandoned the faith of his ancestors, but claimed for himself the exclusive possession of the truth, and denounced as criminal every other mode of worship. Hence his religion was excepted from the general system of toleration." We may just observe, by the way, that the same circumstance will account for the opposition manifested towards "pure and undefiled religion," in every age of the church. From its nature it can make no compromise with vice and error. It cannot admit of the service of God and mammon; and is consequently calumniated and reviled by all who serve mammon, instead of God. Another ground of accusation against the Christians was, that they refused to sacrifice to the gods for the safety of the emperor. Tertullian, fully admitting the fact, yet repels the inference which was in tended to be drawn from it, and asserts that daily petitions were put up to the true God on behalf of the ruling powers. But still, though the enemies of the Gospel might be compelled to allow that a Christian was a peaceable, they still accused him of being an unprofitable, citizen. In his remarks on this charge, Tertullian expressly affirms that the Christians, in his day, did not affect a life of solitude and abstraction, but dwelt in the world, and laboured in their several callings and occupations, like other men. In like manner, they disclaimed all singularity of dress or diet, freely using the gifts of Providence, but careful not to abuse them. This is important information, as it tends to refute a plausible objection which worldly men have in all ages been prone to set up against true religion, and in particular as it shews that the ascetic maxims and practices of Monachism had not yet obtained any considerable prevalence in the church. The conclusion of the Apology points out one cause of the rapid growth of Christianity, which, says Bishop Kaye, has been overlooked by Mosheim; the admirable courage and constancy of the Christians under the torments inflicted on them by their persecutors. — Our Right Reverend author has here some seasonable remarks on Gibbon's objec tions to the apologies of the early Fathers; that, while they expose with ability the absurdities of Polytheism, they are very defective in pointing out the evidences of the Gospel. It would appear, however, that the Apology of Tertullian and other similar works were not designed to be regular expositions of the evidences of Christianity. They were designed rather to explain what the religion was, than to prove whence it was derived. Their object was to give a full and perspicuous account of its doctrines and moral precepts. In thus placing the evidence of mi racles in the back ground, they might have erred; and Paley seems to think that they did. Yet much may be said on the other side. We may surely give them credit for knowing by what means conviction was most likely to be produced in the minds of those to whom their apologies were imme diately addressed. diately addressed. "They, who think, with Daille," remarks our author, " that the exquisite wisdom and transcendent beauty of the rule of life, prescribed in the Gospel, constitute the strongest and surest proof of its Divine origin, will also think that Tertullian, by simply stating the doctrines of Christianity, and appealing to Scripture in confir- The Bishop proceeds to the sub- "Though we attempt not to justify the induce us to moderate our censure of them riod under review, will not detain us long. Bishop Kaye observes, that the writings of Tertullian afford no information concerning that new system of philosophy, or that mixture of Platonism and Christianity, which Mosheim represents as the distinguishing characteristic of this period. In Tertullian's metaphysical speculations, on sleep, on death, and on the soul, to which he asscribes boundary, length, breadth, height, and figure; there is much elaborate trifling. It is however not unfairly remarked by Bishop Kaye, that the result of an examination into his speculations may be deemed favourable to our author's character for talent and ingenuity; and that, though many of the questions may appear trifling, and many of the arguments weak and inconclusive, they are not more so than many which occur in the writings of the most celebrated philosophers of antiquity; and that, though it would be absurd to compare the writings of Plato and Tertullian as compositions, yet, when they are considered as specimens of philosophical investigation, of reasoning and aradmire Plato will hardly escape gument, one who professes to the charge of inconsistency, if he thinks meanly, or speaks_conare passages in this Christian writer temptuously, of Tertullian. There which savour of the political economist of our own days. Whowould have expected from him any just views on the doctrine of population? There is comparatively but little under the sun that is absolutely new. The following passage is curious, both as it illustrates the views of Tertullian respecting redundant population, and as it throws light upon the existence of the evil at that period. He is reasoning against the Pythagorean doctrine of the metempsychosis. nouncing his faith, or dying a cruel and ignominious death. They knew how greatly the cause of the Gospel was either promoted or injured by the behaviour of its professors under this severe trial. They resorted, therefore, to every argument which was in their opinion calculated to prepare the mind of the convert for the arduous conflict, and to enable him to subdue the natural apprehension of pain and death. But unhappily, instead of adhering closely to the example of the Apostles, and instructing their brethren to encounter persecution, not merely with firmness, as the lot to which they were especially called by their profession, but with cheerfulness and joy, since they thereby became partakers in their blessed Master's sufferings instead of confining themselves to these sound and reasonable topics of exhortation, they represented martyrdom as an object to be ambitiously sought; forgetting that, although resignation to the will of God, and a patient enduring of the afflictions with which he is pleased to visit us, are the surest signs of a genuine piety, to go as it were in quest of suffering, and to court persecution, is in reality to tempt him; and bespeaks an impatient and presumptuous temper, most foreign from the Christian character." pp. 154-156. The third chapter, on the state of letters and philosophy during the peCHRIST. OBSERV. No. 306. "If the doctrine of the metempsy- fact to be otherwise. So great is the increase that, although we are continually sending out colonies, and penetrating into new regions, we cannot dispose of the excess. Every country is now accessible to the traveller and the merchant. Pleasant farms now smile, where formerly were dreary and dangerous wastes; cultivated fields now occupy the place of forests; flocks and herds have expelled the wild beasts; sands are sown, rocks are planted, marshes are drained; and where once was a single cottage, is now a populous city. We no longer speak with horror of the savage interior of the islands, or of the dangers of their rocky coasts; every where are houses and inhabitants, and government, and civilized life. Still our population continually increases, and occasions fresh grounds of complaint: our numbers are burthensome to the world, which cannot furnish us with the means of subsistence: such is our state that we no longer look upon pestilence, and famine, and wars, and earthquakes, as positive evils, but as remedies provided by Providence against a greater calamity, as the only means of pruning the redundant luxuriance of the human race.' Professor Malthus himself could not have lamented more feelingly the miseries resulting from an excess of population, or have pointed out with greater acuteness the natural checks to that excess." pp. 207, 208. passage Tertullian appears to have entertained the notion, so zealously maintained in Dr. Ellis's celebrated work, that the knowledge of divine things is derived from revelation solely, and not from reason; and Bishop Kaye quotes on this subject a from the father, which has been highly applauded by Milner, The Bishop concedes that man never did, by reasoning a posteriori, discover the fundamental truths of what is termed natural religion; but he thinks it too much to say that he never could have discovered them. Indeed if a reflecting mind could not have derived the belief of the existence of a God from other sources than a direct revelation, what force or meaning is there in the accusation which St. Paul brings against the heathen, on account of their ignorance of the true God? Though we therefore do not profess ourselves implicit disciples of Dr. Ellis on this subject, we hold this much-disputed question to be rather curious than important, and hardly worth the pains which has been bestowed upon it by that learned and ingenious writer." The knowledge," says Bishop Kaye," which we acquire by the proper exercise of our va rious faculties on 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." "In their endeavours to defend our holy religion, divines, instead of taking their stand upon the firm basis of truth, have been too apt to shift their ground, and think opinions right in proportion as they were further removed from those of the adversary with whom they were immediately contending. Hence they have continually ran into extremes; sometimes exalting human reason above all due bounds; at other times as unjustly depreciating it. In the seventeenth century, fanaticism was the error against which the clergy had principally to contend; and in order to place themselves at the greatest possible distance from it, they took every opportunity of launching forth into the praises of human reason, and asserting its sufficiency to the discovery of Divine truth; till the Gospel at length came to be spoken of as a mere republication of the religion of nature. The infidel was not slow in availing himself of the advantage him; and began to deny the necessity of which such unguarded expressions afforded revelation, under the pretence that natural religion was sufficient for every purpose. Our divines again took the alarm; and, instead of endeavouring to mark out the precise bounds of reason and revelation, saw no better mode of extricating themselves from the difficulty, than by running into the opposite extreme, and decrying natural religion with as much vehemence as their predecessors had extolled it." pp. 189, 190. The fourth chapter is on the government of the church. We shall here present our readers with Ter tullian's account of the episcopal office, with some additional remarks by our author. "The episcopal office, according to Tertullian, was of Apostolic institution. In the tract de Præscriptione Hæreticorum, he throws out the following chalhe says, the origin of their churches; let lenge to the heretics. Let them shew,' them trace the succession of their bishops, and thus connect the individual who first held the office, either with some Apostle, or some Apostolic man who always remained in communion with the church. It is thus that the Apostolic Churches shew their origin. That of Smyrna traces its bishops in an unbroken line from Polycarp, who was placed there by St.John : that of Rome from Clemens, who was placed there by St. Peter and every other church can point out the individual to whom the superintendance of its doctrine and discipline was first committed by some one of the Apostles. The same statement is repeated in the fourth Book against Marcion. "But how clearly soever the distinction between the bishops and the other orders of clergy may be asserted in the writings of Tertullian, they afford as little assistance in ascertaining wherein this distinction consisted. In a passage to which we have just referred, the right of the priests and deacons to baptise is said to be derived entirely from the authority of the bishop; who is styled Summus Sacerdos, the supreme priest. Bingham says that Tertullian commonly gives to bishops the title of presidents or provosts of the church; but the passages to which he refers, scarcely bear him out in the assertion. One of them we have already considered. In another, Tertullian says that the communicants received the eucha rist only from the hands of the presidents; whenever the circumstances of the church tory light than that in which its most zealous supporters have been accustomed to regard it. But there is nothing here which tends to weaken its authority. If it be not easy, at this distance of time, to ascertain precisely, in what particulars the peculiar functions of the Episcopal order consisted, it seems sufficiently clear that a higher order did prevail in the church, immediately after the Apostolic age, than the two divisions of presbyters and deacons ; and beyond this we should not be disposed to press the point with our opponents. Such a distinction is clearly laid down in the writings of Tertullian. "In his tracts de Baptismo, and de Fugà in Persecu tione," says our author, "the three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons are enumerated together; and in the former, the superior authority of the bishop is expressly asserted." This, as far as Tertullian's authority is admitted, seems decisive of the main point; and, with respect to minor particulars, we should not wish to enter into controversy with our Protestant brethren of other communions. In. deed, though we are ourselves conscientious believers in the primitive origin of the Episcopal order, yet we think that those who have most deeply studied the early history of the Christian church will not be the least backward to make allowances for diversity of opinion as to "The passages already alleged sufficiently prove that, in Tertullian's estima- matters of government and distion, all the Apostolie Churches were cipline. This, we believe, will be independent of each other, and equal in the frame of mind of those who rank and authority. He professes indeed have attentively perused both Lord Rouliar respect for the Church of King's "Inquiry," and Campbell's Rome: not, however, because it was founded by St. Peter, but because both that Apostle and St. Paul there sealed their testimony to the Gospel with their blood, and St. John was there thrown into the cauldron of burning oil." pp. 233 236. The admissions made by Bishop Kaye evince here great candour and fairness, and may seem perhaps, to a superficial reader, to place the distinction of Episcopacy in a some what less prominent and satisfac "Lectures on Ecclesiastical History." We heartily wish that, on the points in question, all Presbyterians and Dissenters were as moderate and candid as the last mentioned writer. They would then, without any compromise of principle, be more disposed to think well of the Church of England; and, if they could not join it, would yet be more forward to rejoice in |