analysis of each Tract; and occasionally introduces (most frequently in considering the works included under the last head) the sentiments of other Ecclesiastical writers on the points under discussion-a proceeding foreign from the plan which I had proposed to myself. He is always learned and ingenious; but not altogether free from that love of hypothesis, for which the German writers are remarkable.

There is an Appendix to the work, containing two Dissertations; one on the last part of the Tract adversus Judæos; the other on Tertullian's doctrine respecting the Lord's Supper, which Dr. Neander supposes to be something intermediate between that of Justin and Irenæus, whom he asserts to have maintained (he does not allege any passages in proof of the assertion) the doctrine of Consubstantiation and the doctrine of Origen, who I did not allow that any divine influence was united to the outward signs as such, but thought that the object of sense was the symbol of the object of the understanding, only to the worthy receiver; though, in addition to that symbolical relation, he conceived a sanctifying influence to be united with the whole rite, in the case of those who are capa

J

ble of receiving that influence. Dr. Neander thinks, that to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, meant, in Tertullian's view of the subject, to appropriate to ourselves the divine Xoyos who appeared in the nature of man, and to enter into a living union with him through faith. He thinks also, that in the words, Caro corpore et sanguine Christi vescitur, ut et anima de Deo saginetur, Tertullian intended to say that, while the body, in a supernatural manner, comes into contact with the body of Christ, the soul receives into itself the divine life of Christ. Dr. Neander justly remarks, that on other occasions Tertullian speaks, as if the bread and wine were merely representative signs of the body and blood of Christ. It may be doubted, therefore, whether in arguing upon the above expressions, he has made sufficient allowance for the peculiarities of Tertullian's style. If, however, he is correct, Tertullian must be classed with those who maintain a real presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist, but in a spiritual, not in a gross corporeal sense. Dr. Neander appears himself to consider the bread and wine as mere symbols.

In the body of Dr. Neander's work, are also two Disquisitions; one on a passage in the

third chapter of the Tract de Coronâ, where Tertullian speaks of various customs observed in the Church on the authority of Tradition; the other, on an obscure passage in the fourteenth chapter of the Tract de Jejuniis, from which Dr. Neander infers, that the practice of fasting on a Saturday already existed in the Western Church.

If the reader will compare Dr. Neander's classification of Tertullian's writings with that which I have ventured to suggest, he will find that the difference between us is not great; and with respect to some of the Tracts on which we differ, the learned author expresses himself with great diffidence. He was too well aware of the dubious character of the proofs on which his conclusions necessarily rest, to adopt a more decided language. I was myself restrained by similar considerations, from hazarding any positive decision of many of the controverted points, connected with Tertullian's life and writings. It would have been no difficult task to bring forward the different passages produced by preceding writers upon those points; to add others of equally, or more, doubtful application to the subject in debate; and after the parade of a formal discussion, to pronounce between the contending

parties. Such a proceeding would have been very imposing, and have carried with it an appearance of great learning and profundity; but it would at last have been only solemn trifling. When the facts are not merely scanty, 10 but susceptible of different interpretations, it seems to follow as a necessary consequence, that the mind must remain in a state of suspense and an author ought at least to escape censure for avowing doubts which he really feels. Diffidence may imply a defect both in the moral and intellectual character; but it is surely less offensive in itself, and less likely to be injurious in its consequences, than that presumptuous rashness, which ventures to deliver peremptory decisions, where there

10 For instance, Dr. Neander asserts that Tertullian had once been a Heathen, and produces, in support of the assertion, the first sentence in the Tract de Pœnitentiâ, (p. 3.) Pœnitentiam, hoc genus hominum, quod et ipsi retro fuimus, &c. He afterwards (p. 5.) alludes to the passages in the Tracts de Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 7. and de Monogamiâ, c. 12. (Nonne et Laici Sacerdotis sumus? and Sed quum extollimur et inflamur adversus Clerum, tunc unum omnes sumus, &c.) which have been alleged, in order to disprove the fact of Tertullian's admission into the Priesthood; but thinks that they do not disprove it. In both cases, Tertullian speaks in the first person and in the plural number; yet in the former, we are to suppose that he spoke in his own, in the latter, in an assumed character. Surely there is something very arbitrary in these deci

sions.

are scarcely materials even for forming an opinion.

I was naturally anxious to ascertain the opinion of Dr. Neander, respecting the instances of the exercise of miraculous powers mentioned by Tertullian, and the accounts of visions which occur in his writings. The learned author accounts for "the story of the female who came back from the theatre under the influence of a dæmoniacal possession, by supposing that, being conscience-stricken, she returned the answer recorded by Tertullian, under the persuasion that she was possessed by an evil spirit who made use of her organs of speech. The story of the man, who was chastised in a vision, because his servants had suspended garlands on his door in his absence, may, Dr. Neander thinks, be accounted for on psychological principles. The view which

12

11 De Spectaculis, c. 26. (p. 31 note.)

12 De Idololatriâ, c. 15. (p. 54.) I do not perfectly comprehend the meaning of this observation. It is very easy to conceive, that a man of a superstitious temper might have been so affected on finding that his servants had complied with what he deemed an idolatrous practice, as to dream that he was severely chastised for their misconduct. But Tertullian's words convey the idea that the chastisement was real. Scio fratrem per visionem eâdem nocte castigatum graviter quod januam ejus, subito annuntiatis gaudiis publicis, servi coronâssent. Are we to suppose, that the impression, made on the mind by the dream, affected the body, and produced