nious mind may frame, in order to disprove the genuineness of works written sixteen centuries ago. Were this requisite, vain would be the attempt to establish the genuineness of any work of great antiquity; for by the mere lapse of time many facts and circumstances are consigned to oblivion, the knowledge of which can alone enable us to dispel all obscurity and to reconcile all seeming contradictions. In these cases we must not expect demonstration, but be content to weigh probabilities and ascertain on which side the evidence preponderates,

To proceed then to Semler's proofs, or rather surmises, for the latter appears the more appropriate term. He 153 first complains, that the allusions contained in these books to the life and history of their author are very scanty and obscure, and afford no useful information. 154 He even insinuates, that the works themselves, like the writings of the Sophists, were mere exercises of wit, and that

153 Solent autem mediocria et parum luculenta esse, quæ horum Librorum Auctor de se et de suis rebus commemorat. Sect. 1.

154 Solet enim hic Scriptor Declamatorum imitari exemplum qui ipsi confingunt argumenti, quod sibi desumpserunt, tempus, et omnes illas rerum Appendices quibus tempora solent commodè et studiosè distingui. Sect. 1.

the historical facts and marks of time were introduced by the author in order to give his fiction an appearance of reality. But this insinuation is utterly unsupported by proof. The author, whoever he may be, certainly meant his readers to suppose that he lived in the time of Severus, and his statements in many points accord, in none are at variance with the accounts handed down to us by the historians of that Emperor's reign. The manners and customs which he describes, the transactions to which he alludes, correspond with the information which we derive from other sources. Still his works may be wholly of a fictitious character; he may have invented the circumstances which are supposed to have occasioned them-the calumnies, against which he defends the Christians-the persecutions, which he exhorts them to bear with constancy—the heretical opinions, which he undertakes to confute; and he may have occasionally interspersed historical facts in order to give his inventions an air of probability. All this we may allow to be possible. But what are we to think of the Montanism of our author? was that also fictitious? What could induce a member of Semler's New Roman Society, who comes forward at one time as the Apologist for Christianity and the vehe

ment champion of Orthodoxy, to assume at another the character of a Separatist from the Church? This fact appears to be wholly irreconcileable with Semler's theory. It should also be observed, that the few notices of Tertullian's personal history which occur in his works are not introduced with any parade or in order to answer a particular purpose, but in that incidental manner which has usually been deemed most strongly indicative of truth.

Semler next proceeds to consider Jerome's account of Tertullian, on which he remarks that, 155 had Jerome been able to discover more particulars of our author's life, he would certainly have inserted them. This is by no means clear; for the extreme conciseness with which he has drawn up his notices of Ecclesiastical writers proves, that he made no laborious researches into the history of their lives, but contented himself with such information as happened to fall in his way. 156 Semler further conjectures, that even the particulars in Jerome's brief account were not

155 Hæc Hieronymus ; qui profecto, si plura requirere atque discere potuisset ad historiam Tertulliani facientia, haud dubie hic omnino perscripsisset. Sect. 2.

156 Nisi quidem putemus talia Hieronymum ipsum conjecturis reperisse ex variis horum scriptorum locis. Sect. 2.

derived from independent sources, but collected from Tertullian's works. This may be partly true; he might have inferred from different passages that Tertullian was born in Africa, resided at Carthage, and flourished during the reigns of Severus and Caracalla. But, not to mention the story respecting Cyprian's admiration of Tertullian, for which he gives his authority, whence did he learn that Tertullian remained a presbyter of the Church until he reached the middle age of life, and was extremely old when he died? It may be doubted whether the generality of readers, unless they had previously learned the fact from some other source, would infer from the perusal of the works now extant, that Tertullian had ever been admitted to the order of priesthood.

Semler finds another difficulty in Jerome's account, which begins thus: Tertullianus presbyter nunc demum primus post Victorem et Apollonium Latinorum ponitur. The obvious meaning of these words is, that Jerome had at length, after enumerating so many Greek authors, arrived at the place which Tertullian's name was to occupy; he being the first Latin Ecclesiastical writer after Victor and Apollonius, of whom Jerome had before spoken.

157 Semler thinks that the more accurate statement would have been, that Tertullian was the first presbyter who used the Latin language, and that this was in fact Jerome's meaning; an assertion in which few of his readers will, I conceive, be disposed to acquiesce. But how, asks Semler, can Tertullian be called the first presbyter who used the Latin language, when he himself says that he composed several treatises in Greek? I must confess myself at a loss to discover the slightest inconsistency between the two statements. If an author composes three treatises in Greek, and two or three and twenty in Latin, may he not with propriety be classed among Latin writers? It is probable that Jerome had never met with Tertullian's Greek compositions; it is nearly certain that Eusebius had not.

"But, continues Semler, in the beginning of the Treatise de Testimonio Animæ, the author alludes to certain Christian writers, who had employed profane literature, and appealed to

157 Optare licet, ut Hieronymus scripsisset et narrâsset accuratius, Tertullianus Latinorum presbyter primus est; nempe id vult Hieronymus eorum hominum, qui Romæ Latiná lingua uti solebant, Tertullianus fuit primus presbyter. At hic idem Tertullianus Græcarum multarum Scriptionum se auctorem dixit; quomodo igitur Latinorum dicitur primus esse Romanus presbyter? Sect. 10.