rescued himself from the imputation of having admitted an obdurate and impenitent offender to the celebration of this sacred rite. Certain however it is, that, whether truly or falsely, we have the most appalling accounts from time to time, of persons who, without discovering any symptoms of genuine contrition for their sins, have been allowed to partake of those sacred mysteries which are designed only for such as 66 earnestly repent, and are heartily sorry for their misdoings," to whom the remembrance of them is grievous, and the burden of them intolerable." If these statements contained in the public prints are incorrect, it is much to be wished that the officiating chaplains would meet them, through the same medium by which the public has been misled, with a plain and unhesitating negation. It is neither wise nor safe to take it for granted, that statements which contradict our ideas of propriety and minis terial experience will of necessity meet with universal discredit. What distinction will be shewn between the Protestant and the Roman-Catholic priest, if the former shall be found, or be supposed, to attach as much efficacy as the latter, to the mere external administration of the sacred elements? if, irrespectively of the faith, the penitence, the religious information of the recipient, he shall encourage him in the very spirit, denounced by the church, "to press carnally with his teeth" those outward and visible signs of which he has never yet discerned the inward and spiritual grace? What is this but to rely with a blind and senseless credulity, upon the mere opus operatum? What is this but to confirm practically, that great popish error, that a sacrament, in order to be spiritually beneficial, has only to be outwardly and canonically performed?

In illustration of these remarks, allow me to adduce two cases among many reported in the public journals, which must, I think, impress the mind of every reader with

sentiments of deep and unfeigned concern. The first to which I allude, is that of Daniel Leaney aged nineteen, convicted at the Lewes assizes on a charge of murder. His execution was delayed, that all the circumstances of the case might be minutely investigated; and the result being unfavourable to him, he was executed at Horsham. Though he confessed some minor offences, he denied to the last any participation in the crime which had been clearly proved against him. There was no expression (as it appears) of any contrition for his offence: his mind continued in an impenitent state. But in the report of the execution, it is said that "the sacrament having been administered to him, he was conducted to the platform."-The other case I would mention, is that of Michael M'Keand, who was executed at Lancaster for murder. It is said of Alexander his brother, who sufferred with him, that he discovered some feelings of compunction, if not of contrition; but of Michael, that." as there was no possibility of working any change in the wretched man, he was locked up for the night," that is, the night previous to his execution. "At six o'clock this morning," continues the report, "the two criminals were led to the chapel, received the sacrament and remained at prayer for above an hour. Alexander exclaimed, 'Oh God, have mercy upon me!* almost incessantly. Michaelwas quite sullen, and seemed scarcely able to stand or walk."-I abstain from ascertaining the names of the chaplains who respectively officiated on these solemn and afflicting occasions; but if they took that part in the transaction which they are reported to have done, it will not be uncharitable to remark that they acted under very mistaken impressions of their duty. They gave great occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully; and though I give them full credit for having acted under the influence of the purest and kindest motives, I can

not but regret that there should be any thing in the administration of the offices of our church, to give the slightest encouragement to that worst delusion of Popery, and of

the human heart; that the outward forms of religion are of any avail, without the inward principle of love to God, and faith in Christ, and newness and holiness of heart and life. S. B.

The Ecclesiastical History of the second and third Centuries, illustrated from the Writings of Tertullian. By JOHN, Bishop of BRISTOL, Master of Christ's College, and Regius Professor in the University of Cambridge. 1 vol. 8vo. Second Edition. 1826. price 13s.

THE Christian world are not a little indebted to Bishop Kaye for this work, as the first public fruits of his labours, in his capacity of Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge. Nothing can be more modest than his lordship's pretensions; his object being not so much to aspire to the dignity of an ecclesiastical historian himself, as to assist in collecting materials for some future historian, and this public service he has performed with the ability which might have been expected from a man of his diligence and attainments.

Mosheim has divided his History of the Church into external and internal, comprehending, under the former, the prosperous and adverse events which befel it during each century; and, under the latter, the state of learning and philosophy, its government, doctrine, and ceremonies, and the heresies which divided and disturbed it during the same period. This arrangement our author follows in the present work, employing the writings of Tertullian, as far as possible, for filling up part of the outline sketched by Mosheim, who, whatever may be his merits in other respects, is somewhat too general

and compendious. The object of Bishop Kaye is to arrange, under the different heads above enumerated, the information which the writings of this father supply. To this, however, he deems it necessary to prefix a brief account of Tertullian himself, in order that the student may be able to distinguish the portion of ecclesiastical history which his writings serve to illustrate, as well as justly to appreciate the weight and credit, due to his testimony and opinions.-In his preface to the second edition, the Bishop has given some account of an interesting German work on the writings of Tertullian, published by Dr. Render, at Berlin, in 1825. This learned author is engaged in writing an ecclesiastical history of the first three centuries; and, from the specimen which he has given, seems likely to redeem, in some degree, the character of modern theologians in that part of Europe; recommending his learning by good sense, candour, and piety,—instead of degrading it by pernicious scepticism, and ingenious, but extravagant and presumptuous, theories.

Both the writer and the period selected by Bishop. Kaye, in the present work, are replete with interest to the student of ecclesiastical history. Whatever may be thought of the opinions and conduct of Tertullian in certain respects, and particularly in his conversion. to Montanism, he was certainly one of the most acute and learned of the primitive writers of the church. Jerome tells us, that Cyprian never passed a day without

reading some portion of his works, and used to say, with reference to him, Give me my master. This alone might be sufficient to prove his high authority in the church. Tertullian has also written upon a great variety of subjects. There is hardly any particular, relative to doctrine or discipline, which he has not touched upon; and, though his opinions are often erroneous and extravagant, his variety of topics, so far as he is to be depended on, opens a store of information concerning the primitive maxims, customs, ceremonies, sects, schisms, and heresies. His Apology for the Christian Religion, had he written nothing else, might have handed down his name with credit to posterity. Of the second and third centuries, also, it may be said that they form one of the most interesting periods of the Christian church. By that time, Christianity had become so prevalent throughout the Roman empire, and the world at large, as to constitute a most prominent and striking object in the view of the heathen world. What the Apostle says of Christians being made a "spectacle to the world," was now completely realized. Between the close of the sacred record, and the commencement of Tertullian's career, very few writers of eminence had arisen in the church, to record its annals, or throw light upon its history. From those styled the Apostolic Fathers, little, comparatively speaking, is to be learnt, These excellent men were far more remarkable for zeal and piety, than for learning or genius; and we think there may be some truth in a remark made by the late Mr. Scott, that Providence may have permitted this inferiority to appear, in order to recommend more effectually, to after ages, the lively oracles of inspired truth, and to shew how apt the best men were to err, when bereft of that gift of inspiration which distinguishes the books of the New Testament. Again, the second and third centuries have

perhaps an advantage, in point of interest and importance, over many more recent periods of ecclesiastical history. Soon after the close of the third century, the church became gradually more and more identified with the state. The kingdom of the Saviour, which he declared to be "not of this world," became increasingly merged in secular interests, and displayed continually less of the features of a church spiritually militant, which had to encounter, not merely the growth of error and divisions from within, but the assaults of persecution from without. In Tertullian's time, the true church of Christ, as made up of his sincere and genuine disciples, was very extensive. Afterwards it became more confined, in proportion to its visible compass. The "man of sin" began to exalt himself, and to extend his errors and corruptions on every side.

It would far exceed our allotted limits, to present our readers with an enlarged abstract of the valuable publication now before us. characteristic of the work is its fulness, with regard to historical information; and the author seldom

we think too seldom-interrupts his collection of facts, for the sake of introducing profitable remarks, and inferences drawn from the abundance of his own well-furnished mind. We regret this the more as, in almost every instance where he delivers his opinion, his obser vations are judicious and important, as well as expressed with that tone of candour and moderation which, while it never surrenders moral and sacred truth, sets it off to the best advantage.

Our author's first chapter is " on Tertullian and his Writings." The date of his birth is not certainly known; but his writings shew that he flourished between the years 193 and 216.-It is singular that, notwithstanding the positive assertion of Jerome, doubts have been raised whether Tertullian was a Presbyter. As however he

was certainly married, these doubts may be fairly traced to the artifice of the Church of Rome, in its-endeavour to deprive its Protestant opponents of his example in favour of a married priesthood. To us, we confess, the single authority of Jerome, on a point which he must have been so competent to ascertain, and which he could have had no temptation to falsify, outweighs a few dubious inferences on the subject, which have been drawn from the writings of Tertullian himself.

The most remarkable incident of his life appears to have been his adoption of the errors of Montanus. Montanus was an enthusiast, rather than a positive heretic, of the second century; one who pretended to Divine inspiration and the spirit of prophecy. He was joined and supported by two female associates, Maximilla and Priscilla; of the description of those "silly women to whom St. Paul alludes so emphatically, and who-must we say it?-have been found too often in every age of the church. Some of the prophecies of Montanus and his female associates were, according to Epiphanius, of the most extravagant, and apparently blasphemous, character. Yet it may be questioned whether their language, the offspring of a heated imagination, did not outrun their intentions. The doctrines of Montanus were rather fanatical as to matters of practice, and minor topics of doc. trine, than decidedly heterodox as to fundamental points of faith. He enforced the necessity of frequent fasting. Without perhaps actually condemning marriage, he inculcated the superior excellence of a life of celibacy, and pronounced second marriages absolutely unlawful. He also maintained the notion that the heavenly Jerusalem would descend on earth, and form the kingdom of the saints for a thousand years. Ac. cording to Mosheim, he predicted the approaching downfal of the Roman empire, to be speedily followed by the appearance of anti-Christ, and

the second coming of the Lord. Our author labours, not unsuccessfully, to shew that the doctrinal opinions of Montanus were less objectionable than they have been sometimes represented, and exposes the inconsistency of Mosheim's accounts in this particular. Montanus, he says, did not consider himself to be the Paraclete, but only affirmed that the same Paraclete, who ininspired the Apostles, had descended on him likewise, to enable him to foretel things to come. The former of these opinions conveys so monstrous an idea, that charity would suggest that the person holding it must have been irrecoverably insane. The latter is nothing more than the tenet of many an ordinary enthusiast. It is of importance to notice this, as, while it controverts the alleged blasphemy of Montanus, it tends at the same time to disburden the memory of Tertullian from some portion of that odium which attaches to it, in consequence of his adoption of the errors of this fanatic.

The following passage shews, that wiser men than Montanus gave too much encouragement to similar fancies, and point out, in particular, the influence of the writings of Clement of Alexandria in making way for allegorical and mystical interpretations of Scripture, and for the pretended oral tradition and ascetic doctrines of the Church of Rome.

"The notion that the doctrine of the

Gospel was not publicly delivered by the certain important truths were reserved Apostles in its full perfection, but that which the minds of men were not yet able to bear, does not appear to have been peculiar to the school of Montanus. The Valentinians held a similar language, and supposed these mysterious truths to relate to their extravagant and unintelligible fancies respecting the Pleroma and the successive generations of ons. Even among the orthodox, a notion not altogether dissimilar very generally prevailed. The principal object of the Stromata of Clemens Alexandrinus is to point out the distinction between the Christian who is the great mass of believers; and to lay perfected in knowledge (yworixés), and down rules for the formation of this

perfect character. He does not indeed, like Montanus, profess to communicate truths which he had received by immediate revelation from above, and of which the Apostles were ignorant. He supposes them to have been revealed by Christ to Peter, James, and John, at the time of the transfiguration, and to Paul at a subsequent period; and to have been by them orally transmitted to their successors in the superintendance of the church. When, however, we come to inquire into the nature of this sublime knowledge, we find that it consisted of subtle explanations of the doctrine of the Trinity and of other Christian doctrines; of allegorical and mystical interpretations of Scripture; and of moral precepts not widely differing from those, the observance of which was enjoined by Montanus, though carried to a less degree of extravagance. For instance, Clemens does not pronounce second marriages positively unlawful, but says that a man who marries again after the decease of his wife falls short of Christian perfection. The notions of Clemens bear a close affinity to mysticism, and are calculated to form a sort of philosophic Christian, raised far above the sensible world, and absorbed in sublime contemplations; those of Montanus would lead men to place the whole of virtue in bodily austerities and acts of mortification: both may be justly charged with having assisted in paving the way for the introduction of the monastic mode of life.

"There is nothing more flattering to the pride of man than the persuasion that he is the favoured depository of knowledge which is unattainable by the generality of his fellow-creatures;-that, while they are destined to pass their lives amidst thick clouds and darkness, he with a select few is permitted to bask in the meridian sunshine of Divine truth. Both the philosophy and the religion of the Gentile world had their external and internal doctrines; and from them in an evil hour the distinction was introduced into the church of Christ. Clemens Alexandrinus is the earliest Christian writer in whose works any allusion to it appears; and we say that he introduced the distinction in an evil hour, because on it, and on the account which he gives of its origin, are founded the two principal arguments urged by Roman Catholics in defence of their doctrinal and other corruptions. When driven from every other point, they fly, as to a last refuge, to the disciplina arcani and to oral tradition; and though the writings of Clemens afford no countenance whatever to the particular errors which the Romish Church is anxious to maintain, yet it derives no small advantage to its cause from the statement of so early a writer-that Christ communicated important truths to the Apostles, which were neither intended for the ear, nor adapted to the compre

hension of the great body of believers, and which had come down to his own time through the medium of oral tradition." pp. 32-36.

No class of writers has been more extolled on the one hand, or more ridiculed on the other, than the fathers of the first three centuries. Bourdaloue somewhere styles them "les premiers genies du monde;" and we need not say how much contempt has been heaped upon them from other quarters. Meanwhile we do not remember to have seen a

more candid or judicious palliation of their errors than that which is contained in the following extract. We only think that our author, in alluding to Fenelon, allows far too little to that eloquent and pious writer, by seeming to confine his merit to his "Telemachus."

"What reliance, it may be asked, can we place upon the judgment, or even upon the testimony of Tertullian, who could be deluded into a belief of the extravagant pretensions of Montanus? Or what advantage can the theological student derive from reading the works of so credulous and superstitious an author?' These are questions easily asked, and answered without hesitation by men who take the royal road to theological knowledge; who, either through want of the leisure, or impatience of the labour, requisite for the examination of the writings of the Fathers, find it convenient to conceal their ignorance under an air of contempt. Thus a hasty and unfair sentence of condemnation has been passed upon the Fathers, and their works have fallen into unmerited disrepute. The sentence is hasty, because it bespeaks great ignorance of human nature, which often presents the curious phenomenon of an union of the most opposite qualities in the same mind; of vigour, acuteness, and discrimination on some subjects, with imbecility, dulness, and bigotry on others. The sentence is unfair, because it condemns the Fathers for faults, which were those, not of the individuals, but of the age; of the elder Pliny and Marcus Antoninus, as well as of Tertullian. It is moreover unfair, because the persons, who argue thus in the case of the Fathers, argue differently in other cases. Without intending to compare the gentle, the amiable, the accomplished Fenelon, with the harsh, the fiery, the unpolished Tertullian, or to class the spiritual reveries of Madame Guyon with the extravagancies of Montanus and his prophetesses, it may be remarked that the predilection of Fenelon for the notions of the mystics betrayed a mental weakness, differing in de