opposition made in Asia Minor to the Montanist doctrine, was probably among the causes which led to its spreading so widely among the churches of the West. Montanism was a particular form of the ascetic opinions; and (says Gieseler) after all, it was only the church doctrines carried out to their full extent.'

At what era a belief in the merit of celibacy, and the comparative degradation implied by matrimony began to spread, it is undoubtedly difficult to say; but the great reputation which (as Gieseler observes), although a Montanist, Tertullian obtained in all the Latin church (i.e., wherever his writings could be understood), shows that the soil was already prepared for receiving his harsh asceticism. Indeed we may go higher. The work which we have just quoted, called The Shepherd of Hermas,' enjoyed an extraordinary reputation in early times, and is quoted as canonical Scripture by fathers of the second and third century; yet it is of so* puerile a character as to throw much discredit on an age which could admire it; moreover, it contains numerous superstitions, and is wholly destitute of evangelical savour. This appears in itself to testify to the melancholy truth, that the doctrine of Paul, viewed spiritually, and not formally, took no deep root in what was called Christendom. It is farther manifest, as well by the events in the churches of Galatia, as by his warnings to the Colossians and his prophecies in the epistles to Timothy, that this leaven of self-righteous asceticism was already beginning to work. The earliest positive notice with which we are acquainted, of a band of church virgins, is contained in the (shorter) epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnæans, in which he salutes the virgins who are called widows.'t Of all the epistles bearing the name of Ignatius, perhaps none has been less questioned than this; and the phrase before us is so peculiar, that we think it must have been from Ignatius's own pen. It also appears to show how the abuse had advanced since the time of Paul. In his first epistle to Timothy, the apostle forbids the practice already prevailing of taking into the company of church widows women young enough to be liable to marry again, contrary to their promise (incurring judgment for breaking their original promise,'-or vow?-1 Tim. v. 12); but in Ignatius's last year,-i.e., B.C. 107, they had reached the farther point, of giving the name and place of widow to young women who had never been married; nor does Ignatius reprove it. This, however,

* Gieseler believes it to be a spurious production of the second century. In this country, however, it generally passes as genuine, and Dr. Pusey quotes it as authoritatively deciding an important doctrine.

†The reading of the larger copy, The perpetual virgins (auπaçdevovs) and the widows,' appears like a later correction.

in part, makes against Mr. Taylor's assertion, that the very worst abuses' of religious celibacy existed from the very beginning' of the practice itself; at least he has not attempted to trace them so high, and we think such a course of events is scarcely credible. The institution could never have taken so deep a hold on men's hearts and judgments, unless it had for a long while preserved a fair exterior, and earned a reputation for sanctity. We may here add our strong dissent from his judgment, that the later cruelty, by which the church of Rome sought with more or less success to stifle the outward abuses of professed celibacy, was a great improvement on the wantonness of the Nicene period. In which of the two states there was more real impurity, perhaps it is vain for man to speculate; but the Romish system first allured her victims into temptation; then, if they fell into the snare, cruelly murdered them, to redress her own credit. This is one of the paradoxes, or crotchets of our author, by which he does damage to a cause substantially excellent.

To close the evidence as to the general condition of the church in the third century, we will present some passages from Mosheim, which will show that that writer did not regard the rest of Christendom to be then in a much better state than the African churches.

Century III., Chap. 2.-3. The government of the church degenerates into a monarchical form.-4. This was followed by a train of vices in ecclesiastics. For though several yet continued to exhibit illustrious examples of primitive piety and Christian virtue, yet many were sunk in luxury and voluptuousness, puffed up with vanity, arrogance, and ambition, &c. This is testified so amply, that truth will not permit us to spread the veil which we should otherwise be desirous to cast over such enormities in an order so sacred. . . . . The bishops assumed a princely authority, . . . . their example was ambitiously imitated by the presbyters, who, neglecting the sacred duties of their station, abandoned themselves to indolence and luxury, &c. . . . A corrupt ambition was spread through every rank of the sacred order.

5. Many additional orders were now created. . . . . The institution of exorcists was a consequence of the doctrine of the New Platonists, which the Christians had adopted; and taught that evil spirits were continually hovering over human bodies, towards which they were carried by a natural and vehement desire, &c. . . . 6. [Then follows about celibacy and its abuses.]

Chap. 3.-1. Christian doctrine is grievously corrupted by philosophy, especially by the Egyptian fathers. Origen set up Platonism as the test of all religion; and though he handled the matter with modesty and caution, set a most pernicious example.-2. The mystic theology advanced at the same time. Its votaries condemned the use of the logical faculty and the understanding, but sought for perfection

in silence, inactivity, and solitude, which, with the help of all sorts of bodily mortification, were believed to excite the hidden and internal word within the soul.-3. Hence the rise of monks and hermits. It was not so much persecution as fanaticism, which drove Paul, the first hermit, to live for ninety years the life of a savage animal.-14. There was great zeal for spreading abroad the Scriptures, Origen surpassing all in diligence.-5. Yet his fanciful mode of expounding them was such as wholly to destroy their meaning. . . . 10. The Christian teachers, educated in the schools of the rhetoricians, wrote for victory, not for truth; and this disingenuous method was almost universally approved, in consequence of the prevalence of the Platonic doctrines."

Chap. 4.-1. All the records of this century mention the multiplication of rites and ceremonies in the Christian church. A principal cause of this was, the passion which now reigned for the Oriental superstition concerning demons, adopted by the Platonists, and borrowed, unhappily, from them by the Christian teachers. For there is not the least doubt, that hence arose the use of exorcisms and spells, the frequency of fasts, and the aversion to wedlock.'

We have perhaps quoted more from Mosheim than was strictly needed; but we have been anxious to show, that in the whole substance of his statements concerning the doctrine of celibacy, its connexion with Neo-Platonism, and the moral corruption which simultaneously advanced, Mr. Taylor is fully justified by that learned and moderate writer. We trust our readers will not think we have overdone this part of our subject (for it is that on which our author has been most severely attacked); and we must now touch more concisely on what remains.

As the whole of our author's work is avowedly controversial, and directed against the doctrine of the Oxford Tracts, we ought, while considering whether he makes good his case against them, to remember that their favourite divines, on whom alone they rest with pleasure or satisfaction, come partly indeed from the third, but chiefly from the fourth and fifth centuries; and that their argument from any doctrine drawn from its universality,' &c., is practically confined to this period. If, therefore, he can prove that the doctrine of the merit of celibacy is equally universal, it is all that his argument needs; and he is overdoing his work in undertaking to prove that its worst abuses were contemporaneous with the practice itself. But it is strictly within the line of his argument to maintain that the credit of the Nicene fathers is knit up with the high praises of the Nicene monkery, and this last with that of demonolatry and of the monkish miracles; and on all these points he has opened doors of investigation which will not be shut again in England. It is casy here to reply, that he improperly quotes as authentic, the Life of St. Anthony, by

Athanasius,' &c. Such a remark is fair enough from a bystander and an historian, and it deserves investigation; but the Pusey school, and indeed the clergy of the high church generally, have no right to make this retort on our author. He has to deal with divines who practically treat as genuine, and press on others as authoritative, the mixed mass of writings called the Fathers.' So little fastidious is their criticism, that we have not only the Recognitions of Clement, but even the Liturgy* of St. Peter, quoted by one of their most eminent leaders, as if it were genuine. In this point of view, however, Mr. Taylor's labours can only be looked on as a resting-place for the mind in the course of its inquiries. The progress of sound knowledge concerning spurious and genuine works may lead to a modification of some sentiments which he has advanced; but no progress is possible while the mind is enslaved to an insane belief of the quasi-infallibility of the ancient' church. To dispel this infatuation is a matter of first necessity, to which he has made a useful contribution. When he addresses himself to expound the Scripture, we do not always agree with him; on two occasions, especially, we think he is unfairly biassed by his immediate argument. First, when he alleges that St. Paul forbids an unmarried man to be made a bishop, he appears to us obviously to overstrain the apostle's words. Secondly, we cannot be persuaded that in Rev. xiv. 4, the words have the sense which Mr. Taylor argues, viz., freedom from idolatry. We cordially agree with the Rev. Mr. Beaven, that such an interpretation is so far from being supported by, as to be utterly opposed to the whole analogy of scriptural figurative language; and that no one could take such a view of it, except to support a hypothesis. On the other hand, it is quite undeniable, that if it speaks of marriage

Upon this the Rev. J. H. Newman makes the following statement, in defence of Mr. Froude's wish to replace the Anglican communion service by a translation of it :- The original eucharistic form is with good reason assigned to the apostles and evangelists themselves. It exists to this day under four different rites, which seem to have come from four different apostles and evangelists. These rites differ in some points, agree in others. Among the points in which they agree, are of course those in which the essence of the sacrament consists. At the time of the Reformation, we, in common with all the West, possessed the rite of the Roman church, or St. Peter's Liturgy. This formula is also called the Canon of the Mass, and, except a very few words, appears, even as now used in the Roman church, to be free from interpolation; and thus is distinguished from the Ordinary of the Mass, which is the additional and corrupt service prefixed to it, and peculiar to Rome. This sacred and most precious monument, then, of the apostles, our Reformers received whole and entire from their predecessors, and they mutilated the tradition of 1500 years.'-Letter to Dr. Faussett, p. 46.

as a pollution (and it certainly does this, if it has a literal sense at all), it is wholly opposed to all the rest of the Old and New Testament.

In the whole of this article we have kept almost entirely on the ante-Nicene part of the work before us, for it is impossible to enter on all the questions which he brings forward, as to the doctrine of the church of England, the predictions of Christ, &c., to say nothing of the church of the fifth century. We can on the last point only observe in passing, that he appears to us unduly to set down the universal grossness of immorality at that time, to the discredit of the Nicene doctrine, without making allowance for Roman despotism. It is sufficiently certain, that if neither Christianity nor Gnosticism had ever existed, extreme dissoluteness would have marked the declining empire. To give comparative credit, therefore, to the modern church of Rome, because she would not now introduce, if she could, anything so bad into England, seems to us an unfairness to the Nicene divinity. The real fault here was, that the church, thirsting after power, sucked in the world with it. As to the question, What is the doctrine of the church of England? we presume that most of our readers will regard it as too plain to need argument, that it is decidedly protestant in spirit and intention, and that the points in detail, where an unhealthy policy dictated the preservation of Romish (or to speak popularly), popish peculiarities, constitute only exceptions to the general rule. Such are the formulas of ordination and absolution, as also the receiving of Romish clergymen without re-ordination, while Lutheran ordination is counted as nothing. Baptismal regeneration is a far more serious blot, or rather, deeply-scated sore, on which we cannot now enlarge. To dissenting readers, however, it is a great inconvenience that so large a portion of what is now become a large book, is occupied with subjects in which they can take comparatively little interest. At present, the second, third, and seventh numbers, and the latter half of the sixth, are those which are most likely to repay our readers for their money and time; and we have no doubt, that although our author imagines that he needs to correct in dissenters an extravagant application of the cry, The Bible alone!' he will confirm in the minds of his readers the only application of it which is received in any intelligent circles.