really died his soul was, therefore, separated from his body; and as the soul does not sleep, but remains in a state of perpetual activity-in the interval between Christ's Crucifixion and Resurrection, his soul descended to the general receptacle of departed souls, and there rendered the patriarchs and prophets capable of sharing in the benefits which his mission was designed to communicate. Pearson, in his remarks upon the fifth article of the Creed, has correctly stated Tertullian's opinion; but has not explained how it is to be deduced from the passage which he quotes, and in which there is no mention of the soul of Christ. That which Pearson proposes, as the second end of Christ's descent into hell, is stated by Tertullian in the form of an objection to his own opinions. 15 Sed in hoc, inquiunt, Christus Inferos adiit, ne nos adiremus. Pearson's words are 16 66 Secondly, by the descent of Christ into hell all those which believe in him are secured from descending thither; he went into those regions of darkness, that our souls might never come into those torments which are there."

Iceive that the end for which he did so was, that he might undergo the condition of a dead man, as well as living." p. 250. Ed. Fol. 1683.

15 De Animâ, c. 55.

16

p. 251.

18

Tertullian's opinions respecting Christ's resurrection, the subject of our fourth article, may be learned from the Treatise entitled de Carne Christi; which he wrote 17in confutation of certain Heretics, who denied the reality of Christ's flesh, or at least its identity with human flesh. They were apprehensive that, if they admitted the reality of Christ's flesh, they must also admit his resurrection in the flesh; and consequently the resurrection of the human body after death. Some, therefore, as Marcion, denied the reality both of Christ's birth and of his flesh: others, as Apelles, denied the former, but admitted the latter; 21 contending that, as the angels are recorded in Scripture to have assumed human flesh without being born after the fashion of men, so might Christ, who according to them received his body from the stars. 22 Others again

19

20

17 Præterea et nos volumen præmisimus de carne Christi, quo eam et solidam probamus adversum phantasmatis vanitatem, et humanam vindicamus adversus qualitatis proprietatem. De Res. Carnis, c. 2.

21 c. 6. Tertullian's answer is, that the angels did not come upon earth, like Christ, to suffer, be crucified, and die in the flesh; there was consequently no necessity why they should go through the other stages of human being, or why they should be born after the fashion of men, c. 6. cc. 10, 11, 12, 13. The reader will perceive that the word animal is not here used in its ordinary sense, but means that which is animated by a soul.

22

assigned to Christ an animal flesh, caro animalis, or carnal soul, anima carnalis; their notion was, that the soul, anima, being invisible, was rendered visible in the flesh, which was most intimately united with it or rather absorbed in it. 23 Others affirmed that Christ assumed the angelic substance; 24 Valentinus assigned him a spiritual flesh; 25 others argued that Christ's flesh could not be human flesh, because it proceeded not from the seed of man; and 26 Alexander, the Valentinian, seems to have denied its reality, on the ground that if it was human flesh, it must also be sinful flesh, whereas one object of Christ's mission was to abolish sinful flesh. Should the reader deem the opinions now enumerated so absurd and trifling as to be altogether undeserving of notice, he must bear in mind that from such an enumeration alone can we acquire an accurate idea of the state of religious controversy in any particular age.

23 Tertullian asks in reply, to what end did Christ assume the angelic substance, since he came not to effect the sal-vation of angels? c. 14.

24

c. 15.

25 Tertullian's answer is, that on the same ground we must deny the reality of Adam's flesh, c. 16. sub fine.

26 I say seems, for I am not certain that I understand the objection. The words of Tertullian are, Insuper argu-mentandi libidine, ex formâ ingenii hæretici, locum sibi fecit Alexander ille, quasi nos adfirmemus, idcirco Christum terreni, censûs induisse carnem, ut evacuaret in semetipso carnem peccati. The orthodox, according to Alexander,

affirmed

In opposition to these various heretical notions, our author shews that Christ was 27 born, lived, suffered, died, and was buried, in the flesh. Hence it follows that he also rose again in the flesh. 28 For the same substance which fell by the stroke of death and lay in the sepulchre, was also raised. 29 In that sub

affirmed that Christ put on flesh of earthly origin, in order that he might in his own person make void or abolish sinful flesh. If, therefore, Alexander contended, Christ abolished sinful flesh in himself, his flesh could no longer be human flesh. Tertullian answers, we do not say that Christ abolished sinful flesh, carnem peccati, but sin in the flesh, peccatum carnis: it was for this very end that Christ put on human flesh, in order to shew that he could overcome sin in the flesh; to have overcome sin in any other than human flesh would have been nothing to the purpose. Tertullian, referring to St. Paul, says of Christ, Evacuavit peccatum in carne; alluding, as I suppose, to Rom. viii. 3. But the corresponding Greek in the printed editions is κατέκρινε τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῇ σαρκί. Had Tertullian a different reading in his Greek MSS.? or did he confound Rom. viii. 3. with Rom. vi. 6. ἵνα καταργηθῇ τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτιάς ? Jerome translates the Greek kaтapуéw by evacuo, c. 16. See adv. Marcionem, L. v. c. 14.

27 Tertullian contends that, if Christ's birth from the Virgin is once proved, the reality of his flesh follows as a necessary consequence; it being impossible otherwise to assign any reasonable cause why he should be born. See cc. 2, 3, 4, 5. 20, 21, 22, 23.

28

Ipsum enim quod cecidit in morte, quod jacuit in sepulturâ, hoc et resurrexit, non tam Christus in carne, quam caro in Christo. De Res. Carnis, c. 48.

29 De Carne Christi, c. 16. De Res. Carnis, c. 51. Quum illic adhuc sedeat Jesus ad dexteram Patris; homo, etsi Deus; Adam novissimus, etsi Sermo primarius; caro et sanguis, etsi nostris puriora; idem tamen et substantiâ et formâ quâ

ascendit

stance Christ now sits at the right hand of the Father-being man, though God; the last Adam, though the primary Word; flesh and blood, though of a purer kind than those of men-and according to the declaration of the angels, he will descend at the day of judgement, in form and substance the same as he ascended; since he must be recognised by those who pierced him. He who is called the Mediator between God and man, is entrusted with a deposit from each party. As he left with us the earnest of the Spirit, so he took from us the earnest of the flesh, and carried it with him into heaven, to assure us that both the flesh and the Spirit will then be collected into one sum."

30

Towards the end of the Treatise, Terascendit talis etiam descensurus, ut Angeli affirmant (Act. i. 11.) agnoscendus scilicet iis, qui illum convulneraverunt. Hic, sequester Dei atque hominum appellatus, (1 Tim. ii. 5.) ex utriusque partis deposito commisso sibi, carnis quoque depositum servat in semetipso, arrabonem summæ totius. Quemadmodum enim nobis arrabonem Spiritûs reliquit, ita et a nobis arrabonem carnis accepit et vexit in cœlum pignus totius summæ, illuc quandoque redigendæ. We shall see what our author meant by flesh and blood of a purer kind than those of men, when we speak of the Tract de Resurrectione Carnis.

30 c. 24. Ut et illi erubescant, qui affirmant carnem in cœlis vacuam sensu, ut vaginam, exempto Christo sedere; aut qui carnem et animam tantundem; aut tantummodo animam ; carnem vero non jam. See Pearson, Article vi. p. 272.