day, that Tertullian's style was a model of pure composition. Lactantius was not only a competent judge, as his own writings testify, but he was also a fair one, since he mentions Minucius Felix, who was a contemporary of Tertullian, without finding any fault with his style; and speaking of Cyprian, who lived fifty years later, he commends him for the eloquence and elegance of his expressions. Thus it is clear beyond all doubt, that Tertullian was thought an obscure writer by persons who were much better judges than ourselves, i.e., by persons who lived near to his own time, and were consequently familiar with the style of that day.

If we could afford it, we would willingly devote much space to a consideration of Semler's theories concerning the works of Tertullian. With that spirit of scepticism, and that love of novelty, which supply the place of more solid qualifications in many professors and editors of Germany, Semler would endeavour to persuade us, that the writings of Justin Martyr, Irenæus, and Tertullian were not really written by those persons, but formed a part of a systematic scheme of forgery carried on at Rome. For a refutation of many of Semler's arguments, we refer the reader to the present work of the Bishop of Bristol; and the following sentence cannot be pronounced at all too severe, when we consider the boldness and the mischief of the theory which has been combated: "I have devoted so much time to the examination of Semler's 'Dissertation,' not on account of its intrinsic value, which I am far from estimating highly, but out of regard to the distinguished place which has been assigned him among biblical critics. His object evidently is to destroy the authority of Justin, Irenæus, and Tertullian; but he does not fairly and openly avow it; he envelopes himself in a cloud, and uses a dark mysterious language, designed to insinuate more than it expresses. The reader finds his former opinions unsettled, yet is not told what he is to substitute in their place, and thus is left in a disagreeable state of doubt and perplexity."-(pp. 88, 89.)

After an account of the life and writings of Tertullian, it would naturally be expected, that the ecclesiastical history would commence; but it is here that we have already been obliged to profess ourselves disappointed. We do not mean to censure the learned author for beginning with Tertullian, rather than with Irenæus or Justin Martyr, a consideration of whose works would have enabled him to detail the history of the church at an earlier period (it might be wished indeed that he had done so, because the present work is almost unintelligible to a person, who is not already acquainted with the ecclesiastical history of the first two centuries; but though it begins thus abruptly at the end of the

second century, yet if the historical part had been conducted with more system and arrangement, it might have filled an important place in this department of theology)—our objection to the plan is, that the historical parts are not brought together into one view, so as to inform the reader what was the posture of affairs among the believers in the gospel, at the time when Tertullian first began to write. We are told, indeed, that he flourished between the years 193 and 216, during the reigns of Severus and Caracalla. The name of Stephen, bishop of Rome, is also incidentally mentioned as a contemporary of Tertullian; but if the reader was not careful in picking up such scattered notices, he might be almost in perfect ignorance as to the political state of the Roman empire, and the operation of the laws at that time, so far as they affected the Christians. Mosheim and Gibbon have inaccurately stated, as the Bishop of Bristol observes, (p. 115,) that at the beginning of the second century there were no laws in force against the Christians. This is disproved by passages in the works of Tertullian; but the reader receives little or no information as to the effect of these laws under different emperors; nor is there a word said of the African church in particular, in the fortunes of which Tertullian was more particularly concerned.

We have the same fault to find with the seventh chapter, which discusses the heresies and divisions of the church. It contains an accurate enumeration of all the heretics whose names are mentioned by Tertullian, and an elaborate exposition of their several tenets. So far the chapter has its use, and may be a good subsidiary to what is much wanted in theology, a history of heresy. But when the reader has finished the discussion, and is asked how far the heresy of Marcian or Valentius had spread at any particular period, he would probably be at a loss to reply. The interesting point in ecclesiastical history, is to discover how far the church in general was affected by any new opinions; we wish to know at what time they first made their appearance, who it was that combated or espoused them, and in what part of the world they received most encouragement. In this respect, we say, as was observed above, that the work before us is not an ecclesiastical history, illustrated by the writings of Tertullian, but merely an analysis of Tertullian's works. If we were to point out the error into which the author appears to us to have fallen, we should say, that instead of forming the design of an original work, he has adhered too closely to the plans of others. Thus, though Mosheim's division of ecclesiastical history into external and internal is natural and convenient, there is something extremely dry and artificial in following Mosheim in all his arrangements, and making his outline a text book for the Bishop's own observations.

In the same manner, though it is satisfactory to find, that almost all the thirty-nine articles of the church of England are supported by express quotations from Tertullian, yet we should never have expected to find the different doctrines examined in this very technical manner; and whatever we may think of such a plan in a printed book, there surely could not have been a more uninteresting method invented for public lectures. Our surprise at the Bishop's taking so much notice of Mosheim's arrangement is increased, when we find so many of Mosheim's notions and assertions so ably and satisfactorily refuted.

Respecting the Bishop of Bristol's intimate acquaintance with the writings of Tertullian, and the soundness of his inferences from them, there can be only one opinion; but we had certainly expected to find a more general view of ecclesiastical history than what the writings of Tertullian alone will supply. A reference to the third chapter will best illustrate our meaning. The title of it is, on the state of letters and philosophy, from which, we presume, most readers would infer, that an account was to be given of letters and philosophy, so far as they concerned the Christians, at that period, at least, during which Tertullian flourished; but whoever expected such general information will be sadly disappointed. The chapter is almost entirely taken up with an analysis of Tertullian's treatise De Anima; a few pages are employed in telling us his opinion concerning angels and demons; but as to the sentiments of the rest of the world, whether this or that scheme of philosophy was most prevalent, and whether there were any other men of learning in the world beside Tertullian, upon these points not a syllable is said; and we repeat, that when the chapter professed to treat of letters and philosophy, we had not expected to find the discussion confined solely and absolutely to Tertullian.

The learned author twice gives a kind of promise, (pp. 368, 581,) that at a future opportunity he will make some observations upon the quotations and interpretations of scripture in Tertullian's works. We hope that he will fulfil his promise. is evidently so well versed in the writings of Tertullian, and must have read them with such minute attention, that his critical remarks upon these subjects can hardly fail to be valuable. Tertullian's expositions of scripture are not of such great importance; because it is perfectly plain that the early Fathers adhered to no one uniform system of interpretation, but every person thought himself at liberty to deduce whatever inference he could from any text of scripture. Their expositions, therefore, have little if any more value than those of later divines. But the various readings in the New Testament, which may be collected from a diligent perusal of Tertullian's works, would amply reward the critical 524949

scholar, and would furnish many curious and important facts. The absurdity and inconsistency of Semler in supposing, that no Latin version of the scriptures was in existence before Tertullian's days, is properly exposed by the Bishop of Bristol. The fact of Latin being the language of the African churches would have seemed sufficient to prevent even a German critic from starting such a theory; but it was necessary to say something new, and certainly nothing could be more original than to imagine a country, in which such a person as Tertullian was educated, to be without a copy of the scriptures in the vernacular language. Tertullian understood Greek as well as Latin; and in more than one place he mentions variations between the Greek and Latin copies. This alone would prove, that a Latin translation of the scriptures must have been made long before; for had it only been made in his own days, or by himself, he could not have spoken of variations in this manner. Tertullian also bears witness to the corruption and mutilation of the scriptures by heretics. This is important, as showing how early such a practice was introduced and if the Bishop of Bristol should ever give to the world his remarks upon Tertullian's quotations of scripture, a very interesting discussion may be expected. Tertullian's copies carry us back much farther than any manuscript which is now in existence, and the various readings which occur in his works are numerous and remarkable.

The Bishop thinks, that the passage which is usually alleged from Tertullian, in support of the controverted text 1 John v. 7, does not really furnish any grounds for supposing, that Tertullian's copies contained the text. The passage is in the treatise against Praxeas, c. 25, "Connexus Patris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit cohærentes, alterum ex altero: qui tres unum sunt, non unus; quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus: ad substantiæ unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem." It must surely be allowed, as the Bishop of Bristol and many other critics have observed, that this passage cannot be considered to confirm the genuineness of the disputed reading; and if Tertullian had known of a text so exactly suited to his purpose as 1 John v. 7, he would surely not have been contented with quoting John x. 30. We do not intend to enter into the controversy about this celebrated passage; but we may point out another place in the writings of Tertullian, which we have not observed to be noticed in this controversy, and which some persons may think affords rather stronger grounds for supposing that Tertullian may have found the seventh verse in his copies. We allude to the

treatise De Baptismo, in the sixth chapter of which there is the following sentence: "Angelus baptismi arbiter superventuro Spi

ritui Sancto vias dirigit ablutione delictorum, quam fides impetrat, obsignata in Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto. Nam si in tribus testibus stabit omne verbum, quanto magis, dum habemus per benedictionem eosdem arbitros fidei, quos et sponsores salutis, sufficit ad fiduciam spei nostræ etiam numerus nominum divinorum? Quum autem sub tribus et_testatis fidei, et sponsis salutis pignerentur, necessario adjicitur Ecclesiæ mentio: quoniam ubi tres, id est Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, ibi Ecclesia, quæ trium corpus est." We do not assert that the evidence supplied by this passage is forcible; but the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, followed so closely by a mention of three witnesses, might afford a slight argument in favour of the text. It is only as such that we present it to the reader.

The volume before us does not contain many critical remarks upon the works or the editions of Tertullian; but there are two, upon which a few observations may be made. At p. 406, the Bishop states, that from the style and tone of the nine last chapters of the tract De Oratione, he should infer that they were not written by Tertullian. The history of these chapters is briefly this: the tract De Oratione was first published at Paris, by J. Gagneius, in 1545. It ended with the fourteenth chapter, and was evidently incomplete. The edition of 1664, contains a few lines in continuation, which were supplied from a very ancient manuscript. In the year 1713, Muratori published at Padua, in the third volume of his Anecdota, nine additional chapters of the tract De Oratione, which he found in a MS. in the Ambrosia library at Milan. The MS. was imperfect at the beginning, at least it began with what is usually called the ninth chapter, Compendium paucorum verborum, &c. Semler admitted these additional chapters in the edition of Tertullian's works which he published at Hall, in 1770-76. The Bishop of Bristol judges from the style of these chapters, that they are not genuine; but many persons would perhaps come to an opposite conclusion. The style and tone of an author are always very precarious tests, if we wish to distinguish his authentic works from those which are ascribed to him. We should not have said, that the language or the ideas are unlike those which would have occurred in a work of Tertullian; but we do not venture to lay much stress upon this argument; and we would rather refer to the fact, that the few supplementary lines which were printed from the very ancient MS. in the edition of 1664, are also in Muratori's MS. The tract, as contained in the latter, was complete at the end; in the former it was not; but in the small portion, which they both contained over and above what is found in other MSS., they agree; which seems to furnish some external evidence, that Muratori's MS.