off for gods. They watched the revolutions of ages, and inferred from them, and from the divine word, the changes which were likely to transpire in the immediate future. They foretold the weather; inflicted distempers on men and then cured them, and cheated and seduced mankind in ways innumerable.21

Tertullian imputes to these demons one form of deception which leads us almost to feel that he is describing certain phenomena of our own time. "Do not your magicians," says he, "perform very amazing feats? call ghosts and departed souls from the shades below; and by their infernal charms represent an infinite number of delusions? And how do they perform all this, but by the assistance of evil angels and demons, by which they are able to make stools and tables prophecy! Now if these spirits," says he, "act in such a wonderful manner to serve magicians, how much more will they exert themselves when 'tis for their own pleasure and on their own account!" 22

Tertullian proceeds to show that the pretended wonders of the Pagan gods, also, are wrought by these demons; and claims that the Christians of his time could make them convict themselves in the very presence of their philosophers. Claiming to be gods, they could make them confess themselves devils. He challenges them to deny that they are already "damned to everlasting misery; and only wait for the universal judgment to have their tortures complete."

Created to be messengers of God, those who have not sinned still continue in their original employment. Thus one angel presides over prayer; another over baptism; and another watches over men in their dying moments. While the duties of angels are thus classified, each individual is supposed to have his own attending demon.23

Upon the doctrine of justification by faith and regeneration, no controversy had arisen in the days of Tertullian. He believed that through faith in Christ and through baptism men would be saved. But whether a heathen, who never heard of Christ, can be saved, he seems never to

21 Apology, sects. xxxii. & xxxiii.

23 Kaye's Ec. His. p. 219.

22 Ib. sect. xxxiv.

have inquired. Bishop Kaye thinks that if that que had occurred to him, his belief in the necessity of bap would have compelled him to answer in the negati He doubtless sometimes maintained the absolute nece of baptism to salvation, ascribing to it a supernatural cacy, and denied the sufficiency of faith alone; ye other times Neander understands him to teach that " faith which in baptism obtains forgiveness of sins, and true faith wherever present is sure of salvation.” 25 ? tullian had not learned to distinguish between the outw sign and the inward reality. Similar remarks will ap to his views of the Lord's Supper, a rite to which sometimes ascribes a miraculous influence. Hence it not unfrequently administered to infants in connexion infant baptism.26 The truth is, Tertullian was no m consistent than are Christians of the present day, who clare faith in this life to be essential to salvation, and believe in the salvation of infants, idiots, and heath none of whom have faith.

In the earlier part of his life, Tertullian sometin taught that all crimes might be forgiven once after b tism; but at a later date he implies that those guilty the most heinous offences, such as idolatry, apostacy, a murder, can never be re-admitted to the communion the church. After he became a Montanist, and his na ral severity had increased and become religiously co firmed, he was more explicit on this point. Among t venial sins which might be forgiven by the church, enumerates being present at Pagan spectacles, working any trade which promotes idolatry, or using any expr sion which might be construed into a denial of the fai Falsehood, evil-speaking, rash swearing, and acts of vi lence, were also placed in the same class.

Among those whom the church could not forgive, enumerates, with much emphasis, adulterers and fornic tors; besides idolators, manslayers, and those who co tract a second marriage. No penitence, however sincer can secure to these re-admission to the church. But 1 distinctly admits that sincere penitence may secure the reception into the kingdom of heaven.27

24 Kaye's Ec. His. p. 341.

25 Neander's Ch. His. vol. i. p. 646. 26 Neander's Ch. His. vol. i. p. 648. 27 Kaye's Ec. His. p. 254-25

E

According to Neander, "Tertullian was the first to express clearly the doctrine that Christ possessed a proper human soul, at once the animating principle of the human body, and the seat of reason, thought, and all of man's superior powers." Christ's death and sufferings, Tertul lian regarded as the foundation of man's salvation. But in what way they contribute to this end, his language is not sufficiently explicit to determine. No mention had yet been made, according to Neander, of satisfaction rendered by the sufferings of Christ to the divine justice. A very different doctrine prevailed in Tertullian's time, and was distinctly stated both by Irenæus and Origen. It is, that Christ's death has a necessary connexion with the deliverance of man from the power of Satan; inasmuch as it was to Satan, and not to God, that the ransom was paid. 28

Notwithstanding Tertullian ascribed to Christ a proper human soul, he still believed him to have proceeded from the Father and to be of one essence with the Father; as a ray of light proceeds from the sun, and is of one essence with it. He believed Christ, however, a distinct person, and subordinate to the Father. The Holy Ghost, in like manner, he held to be of the same essence as both Father and Son, but a proper person distinct from both. Thus he held to a real trinity; but admitted the subordination of Christ, which would have been heresy in a later age.29 It is worthy of remark, in this connexion, that however unlike Tertullian's view of the trinity may be to that which is at present deemed evangelical, he was the first Christian writer, according to Semler, who used the words trinity and person, in speaking of the Godhead.3

30

Respecting the great doctrine of the resurrection, Tertullian holds the following language: "The same body and soul must be again united. Indeed, it is nothing but what is absolutely necessary to the great end of the uni versal judgment; namely, that the same man who lived a good or a bad life here upon our earth, may rise to receive the rewards or punishments due to his good or his evil action. And the body must necessarily rise; for the torments can not be complete, unless the flesh, which is

28 Neander's Ch. His. vol. i. pp. 642 & 643. 29 Ib. vol. i. p. 605. 30 Kaye's Ec. His. P. 549.

the sensible part, has its share in the sufferings. Ind it is but just that, as they sinned together, so they sho share alike in those dreadful pains which God shall in upon impenitent sinners." 31

It is seen from this extract, that Tertullian believed the punishment of the wicked will consist of phys bodily suffering. He calls them "dreadful pains. another place he speaks of them as "eternal flame reserved by God in the bowels of the earth, to pur hardened sinners. 32

66

Tertullian presses the philosophers with the conside tion that the doctrine of the resurrection should not considered unreasonable, especially by them. come," says he, "let a philosopher prepare a set speed and with great confidence, and a florid delivery, harang upon the doctrine of the metempsychosis; tell you, w an air of gravity, that this man was once a horse, t snake a woman; would not you believe him? I am su you would; I know what footing this absurd doctrine h gained in the world. Many of you scruple to eat an or a sheep, for fear of dining upon one of your deceas relations. And yet, when we preach the resurrection,that these bodies, though reduced to ashes, and mouldere into dust, shall rise again, and be united with the soul in the same man, what scoffs and jeers! Stocks and ston are powerful arguments with which you confute this di pleasing doctrine. If it is reasonable to believe that th souls of men transmigrate from one body to another, wh is it not at least as reasonable that they should return agai into the same bodies which are properly to be restored that is, to be what they were before." 33

Tertullian does not appear to have felt the weight of thos objections to such gross notions of the resurrection of the body, as have been urged in modern times, and drawn from that continual change in the matter of the body which the processes of life occasion. And with the nar row and limited conceptions of the earthly body possessed by him, he would hardly have been able to solve those objections, had they occurred to him.

Origen, on the other hand, according to Neander, "distinguished from the mutable phenomenal form, the

31 Apology, sect. Ixii.

32 İb. lxi.

33 Ib. lxii.

proper essence lying at the foundation of the body, which remains the same through all the changes of the earthly life, and which, moreover, is not destroyed at death. This proper essence lying at the foundation of the body would, by the operation of the divine power, be awakened to a nobler form, corresponding to the ennobled character of the soul; so that, as the soul had communicated its own peculiar stamp to the earthly body, it would then communicate the same to the transfigured body. In proof of this he alleges, that the identity of the body in this life consists not in its momently changing phenomenal form, which had been fitly compared to a flowing stream, but in the peculiar stamp which the soul impresses on the body, whereby it becomes the proper form of manifestation of this or that particular personality." 34

There is an acuteness in this philosophy which undoubtedly perceives the objections already alluded to; and if the existence of such a proper unchanging essence at the foundation of the body, and belonging specifically to the body rather than the soul, be granted, it seems adequate to their solution. But the existence of such an essence can hardly be granted. And Origen himself seems to admit that the identity of the body is not properly inherent in the body itself, but is preserved by its connexion with the soul.

From what has already been observed, it will be seen that Tertullian looks to the future world as the theatre of adequate rewards and punishments. "God," he says, "makes no distinction in this world; because he has appointed a general assize, where all shall have justice done them. He suffers the dispensations of his providence to be promiscuous here, because he reserves the final distribution of rewards and punishments to that great solemnity. He treats men here with great indifference; and dispenses his mercies and judgments almost without distinction." 35

This whole argument reveals the materialistic character of Tertullian's conceptions of the divine judgments. Like what he says of the resurrection of the body, that the body which is the "sensible part," may endure a just portion of the divine retribution, it indicates the unspiritual char

34 Neander's Ch. His. vol. i. p. 655. 35 Apology, sect. liv.