acter of his views upon this subject. Failing to dis any indication of those "dreadful pains" being a tioned according to character here, he concludes must expect them hereafter. He had very little app ation of those spiritual judgments which the guilty always bears within itself. He lightly esteems that ble desolation, that stinging remorse, that perpetual u of the tempest-tost soul, which are a vindication of present justice of the divine rule. Failing properly to estimate the inflictions of a g conscience on the one hand, we cannot be surprised he failed to appreciate the promptings of God's pate love and grace on the other. Indeed, such was the n ral severity of his own mind, that the hopeful view several of the Christian fathers were unacceptable to While Clemens Alexandrinus, the renowned Orig Titus, bishop of Bostra, Gregory of Nyssa, Jerome, others, both among the distinguished and the undis guished of that time, were Universalists, Tertullian wa believer in the strict eternity of punishment. Nor did he dissent from the noblest views of his t with any apparent pain. On the contrary, he manifes an evident delight in contemplating the luminous prosp before him. "You are fond of your spectacles," said in an apostrophe to the Pagans; "there are other spec cles that day disbelieved, derided, by the nations, t last and eternal day of judgment, when all ages shall swallowed up in one conflagration-what a variety spectacles shall then appear! How shall I admire, h laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so ma kings, worshipped as gods in heaven, together with Jo himself, groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness! many magistrates who persecuted the name of the Lor liquefying in fiercer flames than they ever kindled again Christians; so many sage philosophers blushing in ragi fire, with their scholars whom they persuaded to despi God, and to disbelieve the resurrection; and so man poets shuddering before the tribunal, not of Rhadama thus, not of Minos, but of the disbelieved Christ! The shall we hear the tragedians more tuneful under the own sufferings; then shall we see the players far mo sprightly amidst the flames; the charioteer all red-hot i his burning car; and the wrestlers hurled, not upon the accustomed list, but on a plain of fire." 36 "Such," says the author of the Ancient History of Universalism, from whose pages we make this extract,"such is the relish with which his fierce spirit dwells on the prospect of eternal torments. We may safely say that of all the early fathers there was none with whose natural disposition the doctrine of endless misery better accorded, than with Tertullian's." Tertullian is reputed to have been the first Christian writer who expressly asserted that the torments of the damned will be of "equal duration with the happiness of the blest." 37 Where others had spoken indefinitely, using such phrases as "eternal punishment" and the like, Tertullian spoke definitely, using such phraseology as "endless misery;" "in that terrible day Christ shall condemn them to endless misery and torments; "38 "who will punish us with an eternity of pain and sorrow; 39 and consign them over to eternal punishment in another world.40 What honor, in the coming ages, will be found to be attached to the distinction of having first assumed such a position, remains to be seen; but whatever it may be, it is believed that Tertullian may fairly claim it. From the time of Tertullian, through a period of about two hundred years, the doctrines of Universalism and of endless misery prevailed side by side without, in the slightest degree, disturbing the harmony of the church.41 Tertullian did not believe, however, that the dead in general enter at once upon their final state. He supposed that an indefinite period of conscious existence in an intermediate state would elapse, in which neither the happiness of the good nor the misery of the wicked would be complete. Both the happiness and the misery in that state, he supposed to be indicative of the perfected bliss or woe which awaited them respectively in the resurrection state. At one period of his life, he seems to have believed that those destined to eternal happiness are purified in the intermediate state from all the stains of this life.42 Martyrs, however, form an exception to the general rule. 36 Tert. De Spectaculis, cap. 30. 37 Pref. to Anc. His. of Univ. 38 Apology, sect. xxxiv. 39 Ib. sect. lviii. 40 Ib. sect. xxxii. 41 Pref. to Anc. His. of Univ. 42 Kaye's Ec. His. p. 343. Tertullian taught that they receive immediate ad to the perfected bliss of heaven.43 All the other d supposed, are detained in a deep and vast recess very heart and bowels of the earth. He someti vides this recess into two portions; the wicked d in the lower, and the righteous in the higher, wh calls Abraham's bosom. This last abode is still the earth, and is one of only partial good. The doctrine of "no change after death" is a c atively modern one, and was wholly unknown in th of Tertullian. There are many topics connected with Christia trine, not then in controversy, upon which Tertulli expressed no opinion. Thus we find no trace of th trine of predestination; no distinct information on original sin; and only incidental light on various doctrines. Many practices, on the other hand, now looked as indifferent, were by him severely reprehended taught that Christians should not serve as civil 1 trates; should not bear arms; should engage in 1 or trade connected with idolatry; and, above all, not hold the office of executioner. Had he lived i time, when professing Christians volunteer to han negroes, he would have found no words burning e to express his indignation. With all his morosene was in this regard far above the level of our time. He was loyal, and urged loyalty upon Christi general, whenever that virtue was possible witho sacrifice of Christian principle. But whenever obe to the government demanded that sacrifice, he stood in noble contrast with the practical atheism of our and urged patient endurance of contumely, of suff and of death itself, rather than to entertain a thou; apostacy from God. He believed that the world end when the Roman empire should be overth Hence he found motive for the double work of t the Christians to pray for the prosperity of the g ment, and of persuading the rulers to confide i Christians. We must here bring our recital to a close, no SHOT 43 Kaye's Ec. His. p. 142. standing much remains to be said. If we have presented Tertullian in the character exclusively of a theologian, our apology must be found in the fact that it is in that character alone he is known to our time. On the whole, we find him to have been a man of extreme positions and tendencies, especially in the line of severity. It was this element of his character, more than any other, which led to his separation from the regular church, and his union with the Montanists. Although this sect was heretical, its theology, in some of its features, approached more nearly to what has been orthodoxy in later ages, than did that of the regular church. This orthodoxy, which was so largely moulded by Augustine, which was modified in several particulars by Calvin, and which some of the. strongest minds of our own time labor in vain to commend to the reason of our age, received its first cast in the hands of the extravagant, the severe, though in many respects profound, Tertullian. As an example of a great mind struggling with great difficulties, he is worthy of the attention of all; but as a teacher of systematic theology, either in its letter or its spirit, he should be studied with the greatest caution. A. A. M. ART. XIII. What is Will? THERE are two distinct definitions of this word, from which have arisen very different doctrines, and concerning which there has been no little controversy. According to the first definition, will is the purpose or determination of the soul, formed after motives have been presented and considered, and is subsequent to choice, but precedes action. According to the second, will is an independent, self-determining faculty of the soul, able not only to choose without motives, but to act in opposition to the strongest which may be presented. All other definitions will be found to be modifications of these. Buck, in his logical Dictionary, says, "Will is the faculty of th by which it chooses or refuses any thing offered t Others have defined it in a similar manner. It has called "the faculty which chooses good or evil." others it has been called the executive faculty of the and made responsible for all volitions and actions. these correspond with the second definition. They sent will as anterior to choice, as the power which 1 the choice. In discussing any question, much dep upon having definite ideas of the terms used. The t soul and faculty, in the second definition, are often in a very loose or indefinite manner. Soul is often r synonymous with mind, reason, judgment, understand and will. Locke, with all his care about words, has fa of his ordinary precision in the use of this term. A care in this respect would prevent frequent misappre sion of the meaning of writers, and often much unpro ble controversy. By the term soul, all Christians m that indestructible principle, which comes from God, may exist in the body or out of it. Hence we speak as leaving the body at death. It leaves its tenement, body, and returns to God. Paul speaks of it as leav the natural body, to dwell in the spiritual. This is common, and, I think, the scriptural use of it. Hav settled upon this meaning, we may proceed to learn m about it by defining its faculties. We say the soul is the principle or power which fe perceives, reasons, chooses, wills, or determines, and a by, or through, its various faculties. It is the living pr ciple, the "conscious energy," the man. We hold responsible for all conscious or voluntary acts of the bo because the body can not act without it. Thus we und stand the soul to be the principal, the body the me instrument. And while we regard the body and its facu ties as the medium through which the soul holds comm nion with others, yet they are not essential to its existenc It may exist in the body and apparently have no mea of communication. We suppose infants to possess soul but they lack the necessary development of the physic organs to be able to communicate with us. We alway regard idiots as having souls; otherwise we should fe |