misapprehended Tertullian, and that in the original there is nothing at all about "taxes rated for religious purposes" in the sense in which Dr Brown employs the words.

The object of Tertullian in his Apology is to expose the injustice of the heathen in their conduct towards the Christians, and to show the groundlessness of many of the charges made against the Christians. Among the calumnies circulated against the Christians, one of the most frequent was that they were morose and unsociable, that their principles unfitted them for many important duties, and rendered them useless or dangerous members of society. Tertullian takes up this objection in the 42d chapter of his work, and endeavours to remove the false impression in his own rhetorical way. He shows that the Christians were not Gymnosophists or Brachmans-that they lived in the world-engaged in its business-enjoyed its pleasuresperformed its duties. They avoided, indeed, all excess, and also every scene in which they might be involved in idolatrous practices. But he argues, that even in a political point of view, this did not render them less useful as individuals, or even as citizens of the world. This he illustrates in various particulars. At last he comes to the objection that the revenues of the Temples continually decreased, and that scarcely any threw in their mite to the gods. The words in the original are certe inquitis templorum vectigalia quotidie decoquunt; stipes quotusquisque jam jactat? Tertullian allows that this is the fact, but argues that the Christians were not to be found fault with for this,— and he goes on to state that it was too much to expect that they were to give money to the beggar gods, and relieve their suffering fellowmen-that their charities were upon an extensive scale-so extensive that they would not even refuse to give something to Jupiter if he would hold out his hand for charity in the street, though they could not go to his Temple-that they were strictly honest in all their dealing, and that in this way the commonwealth received more from them than from any other class of subjects.

Now, in all this there is not a single word about the Christians refusing to pay the taxes rated upon them for the maintenance of the Heathen Temples. We confidently refer to the original passage, and appeal to any "simple-hearted" man, capable of understanding the words, whether there is any approach to such an idea. Indeed, every one acquainted with the subject must be aware that the instances were inconceivably rare of special taxes being appointed for religious purposes. The heathen worship was supported partly by consecrated lands, partly by grants of princes from the public purse,

and chiefly by bequests from individuals, and by contributions at the Temple, which were either wholly voluntary or obligatory only upon those who engaged in the worship.

And, besides, can a single example be produced in which any of the first Christians acted upon the principles ascribed to them? We defy Dr Brown to produce an instance. The degrading means resorted to in order to enforce the capitation tax on the Jews for repairing the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus are well known. But can any tax of the same kind be mentioned in regard to the early Christians? Or, if there was such a tax, did they ever attempt to resist it? The matter, however, need not be left to a mere challenge. We have the most irresistible evidence that it was not their practice to resist any tax. Among all the charges brought against them by their enemies, they are never accused of disobedience in this respect. Now this could not have been the case had they acted upon Dr Brown's principle. The priests had a direct interest in the treasury of their Temples being well furnished. We learn from another passage in Tertullian, that the revenues of the Temple were frequently exposed to sale, and the farmers of these revenues must have carefully watched over them. The Roman tax-gatherers were proverbially rigorous. But from neither priests, nor farmers, nor publicans, do we find any complaint against the Christians for refusing to pay what the law enjoined. In the well-known letter from Pliny to Trajan, there is a complaint that the Temples were deserted, and that the victims remained unsold—but there is no notice of any direct impost being resisted. Had such a spirit been manifested, Pliny would have had less occasion to consult his master. The complaints of the priests, throughout all the early ages, were that the gods were neglected and despised, and the temples deserted-but never that their legal claims were contumaciously withheld.

With these facts before us, even if the gloss taken by Dr Brown upon the passage in Tertullian had been correct, we would have concluded that Tertullian himself was mistaken-as he often was in matters of fact-or that he was speaking merely of his own practice, or of that of a few fanatics like himself. It is well known that he held peculiar notions upon many subjects. He imagined that soldiers should not receive crowns of laurel from their commanders-though this was by no means the general opinion—and though, as Mr Milner remarks, it might, in fact, be worn as innocently as St Paul committed himself to a ship whose sign was Castor and Pollux. The opinion held of Tertullian by Dr Brown's grandfather may be seen in his

Dictionary. "Whatever," says he, "Tertullian, and some others, equally giddy in their notions, pretend," &c.

It is not necessary, however, to have recourse to this line of argument. And we return to the position that there is not a word about refusing to pay taxes in Tertullian. The word vectigalia is indeed used. But every school-boy knows that this word is by no means confined to revenues arising from public imposts. It may apply to revenues of any description. In the present instance, it refers not to what the public generally "were rated with," but to the contributions of the actual worshippers. Such contributions might be permitted, or, perhaps, in some instances enjoined by law, which allowed the privilege of begging to the priests when they had not sufficient endowments. But they were not rendered obligatory except in the case of those who actually entered the temples. This is sufficiently obvious from another passage from Tertullian :-" Religion goes round the taverns begging. Ye demand payment for entering the Temple, and for a place at festivals. No one can become acquainted with the gods for nothing access to them is purchased.”—C. 13.

This view is confirmed by another clause already quoted. "Stipes quotusquisque jam jactat ?" It is not who pays a tax? but who throws an alms? We are aware that some critics have explained stipes here by tributum. But this is obviously erroneous, or, if it was a tribute, still it was exacted only from the worshippers. We have not room to follow out this minute criticism. But in proof of this interpretation of the word we refer to Arnobius adv. Gentes. I. p. 16. Ovid I. Ex Pont. I. 35. Varro, sub fin c. 4 and many others might be mentioned.

We hold it then demonstrated that it is a libel against the Christians to represent them as refusing to pay any tax they were rated with. Dr Brown's gloss, or rather his friend, the Archbishop's gloss of an isolated passage will stand him in no stead. We have the direct testimony of the Fathers that they readily paid all taxes without any exception, and their worst enemies never charged them with anything so extravagant and ridiculous as might be construed into a precedent for the Edinburgh Voluntaries. Ambitious as the primitive Christians were for the crown of martyrdom, it did not occur to these "single-minded men" to seek for that crown by the violation of a positive precept of their Divine Master, or by turning their back upon his example. Dr Brown and his followers may seek in vain among the Fathers for any warrant for their proceedings. These proceedings, indeed, are not without precedent. It is, however, not among

the simple-hearted Christians, but among the turbulent Herodians— and Judas the Gaulonite is their true prototype (Acts v. 37).

These learned remarks are fully considered in Note XXVIII., after perusing which, the reader may possibly be disposed to pronounce on their Author, the somewhat severe sentence which, with what justice is there shown, he has thought fit to pass on one, who, though he would have been little elated by his praise, and feels noway depressed by his censure, could not on such grounds, even for his own sake, have dealt out such measure to his ultroneous adversary. "His statements upon this subject are grossly inaccurate, and the manner in which he conducts this part of his argument, is equally discreditable to him as a man and a scholar." He has proved that inaccuracy of statement is not a peculiarity of the learned, and that a man may deserve that notoriety, which he imputes to Dr Cave, and which he would fain secure for the object of his attack, without any thing like that extent of erudition which the former certainly possessed, and to which the latter never made any claim; and his confident references" and bold "defiances" put us in mind of the remark of an ancient Greek comic poet, who has the honour of being quoted by the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. xv. 33).

Ουκ ες άνοιας ουδεν ως εμοι δοκει

Τολμηρότερον.- -MENANDER.

DOCUMENT VII.

ALL THAT IS COUNTED NECESSARY IN THE WAY OF REMARK, ON MR HALDANE'S LETTER IN THE ADVERTISER OF 24TH NOVEMBER, 1837, AND ITS LEARNED APPENDIX.

(FROM THE EDINBURGH ADVERTISER of 28th NovEMBER, 1837.)

Dr Brown has seen Mr Haldane's letter in the Advertiser of to-day, and does not find in it any thing calculated to make him regret his resolution to have no direct correspondence with that gentleman. It is as he anticipated. Mr Haldane "rails on." While he continues to calumniate, Dr Brown hopes he will be enabled to continue to forgive. His assailant seems determined that he shall not soon want op

portunity for the performance of that Christian duty. Mr Haldane would fain convince the public that Dr Brown is not only a heretic but a liar; but as "the curse causeless shall not come," so the charge unsupported will not be believed. Dr Brown is quite ready to stand by the award of any unprejudiced judge who may think it worth his while to read the documents Mr Haldane has referred to.

Who, 'O nav, the Paragon of Patristic learning may be, who has come forward to Mr Haldane's help, to torture Tertullian and vapulate Dr Cave, Dr Brown has no knowledge, but he obviously is not without a due sense of his own literary attainments, and has raised a good deal of dust, which may help to blind the eyes of those who are not very much disposed to see.-Dr Brown might have given Tertullian's words (for they were before him), and his own translation of them (for he really can "do into English" a passage of not very difficult Latin), but as comparatively few of his readers could readily understand the original, he preferred giving it in the vulgar tongue," and though he did not greatly admire Cave's translation, yet being that of a true Churchman, he thought it would be less liable to suspicion than one made for the occasion by a voluntary.The fact, after all the learning wasted on its obscuration, stands as it did. The Christians of the earlier ages refused to contribute of their substance to the support of a mode of worship of which they conscientiously disapproved-by whatever authority exacted. Let this be granted, and Dr Brown does not much concern himself, how his learned antagonist dispose of Tertullian, as he is no particular favourite with him, any more than with " his grandfather."

Dr Brown acknowledges, with befitting humility, that in one thing he has erred, in raising Cave to the dignity of the Archi-episcopate,* whereas, good Churchman as he was, he never attained even to Episcopal honours. Dr Brown can only account for the mistake, by having momentarily confounded in his mind, Cave, the biographer of the Apostolic Fathers, and Wake, the translator of their Epistles. It was, no doubt, a sad blunder to mistake the Canon of Windsor for the Archbishop of Canterbury, yet a weightier error would scarcely be unpardonable in one who makes no pretensions to be deep read, either in the ancient Fathers, or in their modern admirers. It is obviously the wish of the learned man to prove, that his antagonist is very weak, in the point in which he feels or fancies himself very strong.—With regard

* It was not thought necessary to continue the blunder in the letter, as reprinted above. It is right to acknowledge and to correct mistakes when pointed out. Many polemics are too proud to do so.