he takes of the subject of visions is, that the fermentation at first produced by Christianity in the nature of man was accompanied by many extraordinary phænomena, not likely to occur in a similar manner at all times. New powers were imparted to human nature; and those which had been before concealed were brought into action. Moreover, the necessities of the infant Church called for many unusual interpositions of Providence. Great caution would of course be requisite, in forming a judgement respecting those phænomena, since it would be easy to confound that which was natural with that which was divine; and into this error the turn of Tertullian's mind would render him peculiarly liable to fall, by disposing him to regard all such appearances as divine revelations. In a subsequent part of his work, Dr. Neander mentions the 13 story of the female to whom the soul was exhibited in a corporeal shape-as an instance of Tertullian's readiness to consider visions as communications from heaven. Although Dr. Neander has not expressed himself decidedly, I infer from the general tenor of his observations, that he objects altogether to the notion, that the

produced the same feeling of soreness as if the beating had been real?

13 De Animâ, c. 9. (p. 465.)

exercise of miraculous powers was intended to be confined to any particular persons, or to any particular age. "He supposes Tertullian to have asserted, that the possession of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit was the peculiar characteristic of an Apostle; and regards this assertion as a proof of Montanism. He speaks also of the impropriety of confining the charismata to the Apostolic age. To what I have before said on this disputed subject I will now add, that we usually infer what will be the future course of the divine government from considering what it has been; and thus Christians living towards the end of the second century-who had either themselves conversed, or had heard the accounts of others who had conversed, with men who had witnessed the exercise of miraculous powers-could not be justly charged with credulity, for expecting the continuance of the same powers in the Church. Centuries have since elapsed, during which no miraculous narrative deserving of credit can be produced. Our case, therefore, is widely different. They who contend that, be

14 The passage on which Dr. Neander builds this inference, is in the Tract de Exhortatione, c. 3. Proprie enim Apostoli Spiritum Sanctum habent in operibus prophetiæ, et efficaciâ virtutum, documentisque linguarum; non ex parte, quod cæteri. p. 242.

cause the first teachers of the Gospel were endowed with miraculous powers in order to prove their divine commission, it is not unreasonable to suppose, that similar powers would be imparted to those, who in subsequent ages went forth to convert heathen nations, may fairly be called upon to produce an instance, subsequent to the times of the immediate successors of the Apostles, in which such powers have been actually conferred.

Dr. Neander's notions respecting the authority ascribed by the early Christians to Tradition seem to coincide with my own. He says, "these two fountains, of the knowledge of the doctrine of faith-the collection of the Apostolic writings and oral Tradition-sent forth streams, flowing by the side of each other through all communities which agreed in the essentials of Christianity; and especially through the communities which were of Apostolic foundation. But as the stream of Tradition necessarily became more turbid, in proportion as the distance from the Apostolic times increased, the writings of the Apostles were designed by Providence to be an unadulterated source of divine doctrine for every age. Though on some occasions the Christians of those days might appeal solely to the autho

rity of Tradition, they uniformly maintained, that the doctrine of Christianity, in all its parts, might be deduced from Holy Writ." (p. 312.)

The spirit, in which Dr. Neander's remarks on Tertullian are conceived, is widely different from that in which it has been fashionable of late years to think and speak of the Fathers. M. Barbeyrac, whose views were directed to the systematic developement of the principles of Ethics, looking only at Tertullian's defects, regarded him as an author who was incapable either of thinking naturally, or preserving a just medium; who delivered himself up to the guidance of his African imagination, which magnified and confounded all the objects presented to it, and did not allow him to consider any one with attention; who in short, had disfigured the morality of the Gospel by his extravagancies, and thereby inflicted a serious injury on Christianity itself. Dr. Neander, on the contrary, 15 to to whose

15 I have, in the fourth chapter of the present work, examined certain passages of Tertullian's writings, from which it has been inferred, that he did not recognise the distinction between the Clergy and Laity. Dr. Neander accounts (p. 204.) for the apparent inconsistency in his language, by supposing that he stood on what may be termed the boundary mark of two periods; the period of original simple Christianity, and the period of the establishment of a system of Churchb authority.

mind the image of the Christian community, as it existed under the immediate superintendance of the Apostles, appears to be continually present, discovers in Tertullian the working of that spirit which animated the early

authority. During the former period, there was a perfect equality among Christians; no distinction of orders; all were Priests. The separation of the Clergy from the Laity, and the gradation of ranks among the former, were subsequently introduced by injudicious attempts to transfer the institutions of the Mosaic to the Christian dispensation. This view of the subject frequently occurs in Dr. Neander's work: but I must confess my inability to reconcile it either with the statements contained in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles, or with the natural course of things. If the Church of Christ on earth was in fact what it is in theory, the distinction between the Clergy and Laity would doubtless be unnecessary. But where are we to look for the period of original simple Christianity, of which Dr. Neander speaks? Even the Apostles found themselves under the necessity of appointing particular orders of men for the accomplishment of particular objects; and of making new regulations in order to correct the abuses which from time to time sprang up. The distinction, therefore, of the Clergy from the Laity, and of Orders among the Clergy, arose out of the necessities of what Dr. Neander elsewhere (p. 341.) calls, that frail compound of spiritual and sensual-human nature; not out of any designed imitation of the Mosaic institutions. After it had once been established, we might naturally expect to find the language of the Old Testament respecting the Jewish Priesthood applied to the Christian: at first only in the way of analogy, but subsequently perhaps to promote the interested views of ambitious men. Dr. Neander has pointed out a remarkable instance of the application of the phraseology of the Old Testament to the celebration of the Eucharist, in the Tract de Oratione, c. 14. (p. 184 note.)