of it amongst liberal people, or indeed in any rank whatsoever. If we consider how an incredulous person, during its existence, would be blamed for opposing the united sense of all Christian nations, the testimony of numbers of impartial people,—the purport of the wisest laws; we shall at least contract a candid indulgence towards those who are unable to believe the relations of St. Jerome. In short, as Dr. Middleton says, "the incredibility of the thing prevailed, and was found at last too strong for human testimony."

Far different from those we have been speaking of are the miracles of the Gospel; rational, benevolent, seasonable, of extensive use, disinterested, free from superstition and moroseness, promoting good morals, called out by the greatness of the occasion in a series, coincident with the purposes of God manifested in prior revelations of his will. Nor would even these

3 We are afraid that Dr. Hey here over-rates the intelligence of the people of this country.

4 Dr. Middleton does not seem to fall far short of Mr. Hume on Miracles. Note of Dr. Hey.

5 A miracle to me can only be what I judge is done with, and could not be done without, divine power: I am liable to be deceived both as to what is done, and what can be done : every miracle therefore must be scrutinized by every man;

and

have justly gained the assent of mankind, had the internal evidence of the Gospel plainly contradicted the external,—had the precepts which it promulgated been evidently unworthy of the Deity, and productive of the misery of human nature, instead of meriting the angelic eulogium which they received when the heavenly choir sang, "Glory to God,-peace on earth, and good-will towards men."

and the nature and tendency of it called in to assist the judgement as to the fact, and the powers of man, &c. under the laws of nature. Note by Dr. Hey, written in 1783.

CHAP. III.

ON THE STATE OF LETTERS AND PHILOSOPHY.

MOSHEIM commences his internal history of the Church in each century with an account of the state of letters and philosophy. In the second century his observations principally relate to the new system of philosophy; or to speak more accurately, to that mixture of Platonism and Christianity which was introduced by Ammonius Saccas at Alexandria. On this subject the writings of Tertullian afford no information. Not that he was unacquainted with the tenets of the different sects-his works on the contrary shew that he had studied them with diligence and success: or that he entertained that mortal enmity to philosophy and letters which Mosheim imputes to the Montanists in general-'for he appears even to have thought that the philosophers, who opposed

1 Idem (Socrates) et quum aliquid de Veritate sapiebat, Deos negans, &c. Apology, c. 46. Taceo de Philosophis, quos, superbiâ severitatis et duritiâ disciplinæ ab omni timore securos, nonnullus etiam afflatus Veritatis adversus Deos erigit. Ad Nationes, L. i. c. 10.

the polytheism of their countrymen, were in some measure inspired by the spirit of truth: -but he clearly saw, and has, in his controversial writings against the heretics, pointed out the pernicious consequences, to the interests of Christianity, which had resulted from the attempt to explain its doctrines by a reference to the tenets of the philosophers. “They indeed by a lucky chance might sometimes stumble upon the truth, as men groping in the dark may accidentally hit upon the right path: but the Christian, who enjoys the benefit of a revelation from heaven, is inexcusable, if he commits himself to such blind and treacherous guidance."

Although, however, the writings of Tertullian afford us no assistance in filling up the

2

Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis? quid Academiæ et Ecclesiæ ? quid Hæreticis et Christianis? Nostra institutio de porticu Solomonis est, qui et ipse tradiderat Dominum in simplicitate cordis esse quærendum. Viderint qui Stoicum, et Platonicum, et Dialecticum Christianismum protulerunt. Nobis curiositate opus non est post Christum Jesum, nec inquisitione post Evangelium. De Præscriptione Hæretic. c. 7 He traces the origin of all the heresies by which the peace of the Church was disturbed to the heathen philosophy: Ipse denique hæreses a Philosophiâ subornantur. Ibid. Cum Philosophis-Patriarchis, ut ita dixerim, Hæreticorum. De Animâ, c. 3. See also c. 18, and the Apology, c. 47.

* De Animâ, c. 2. Nonnunquam et in tenebris aditus quidam et exitus deprehenduntur cæcâ felicitate.

4

outline sketched by Mosheim of the state of learning and philosophy in the second century, an examination of his own philosophical or metaphysical notions will, we trust, supply some curious and not uninteresting information. We will begin, therefore, with the Treatise de Testimonio Anima; the object of which is to prove that the soul of man bears a natural testimony to the truth of the representation, given in Scripture, of the Divine nature and attributes. * In a short exordium Tertullian points out the inconsistency of the heathen in holding in high estimation those of their own philosophers, who had asserted the unity of the Deity and ridiculed the national superstitions—who had in a word approached most nearly to Christianity— and yet persecuting the Christians, whose writings they treated with neglect. He then proceeds to address the soul; enumerating at the same time the opinions entertained by the philosophers respecting its origin. 5"Stand forth, he says, O soul, whether, as the majority of

5 Consiste in medio, Anima, seu divina et æterna res es, secundum plures philosophos, eo magis non mentiens; seu minimè divina, quoniam quidem mortalis, ut Epicuro soli videtur, eo magis mentiri non debens; seu de cœlo exciperis seu de terrâ conciperis; seu numeris, seu atomis concinnaris; seu cum corpore incipis, seu post corpus induceris ; unde unde et quoquo modo hominem facis animal rationale, sensûs et

scientiæ