thou sowest, thou sowest not that body which shall be, but bare grain?' and does not this comparison necessarily imply that man will be raised in a different body from that in which he died?" Tertullian answers, by no means: for though there may be a difference of appearance, the body remains in kind, in nature, in quality the same. If you sow a grain of wheat, barley does not come up; or the converse. The Apostle's comparison leads to the inference that a change will take place in the body, but not such a change as will destroy its identity.

77

The Heretics grounded an argument upon another passage in the same chapter; but in order to understand it we must turn to the original Greek. The words are, σтеiρeтaι owμa σπείρεται σῶμα

Yuxov, seminatur corpus animale; which 78 in ψυχικὸν,

There is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, another of birds, our author understands men to mean servants of God, beasts the heathen, birds martyrs who essay to fly up to heaven, fishes the mass of Christians, those who have been baptised. So in a subsequent passage, There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars, the sun means Christ, the moon the Church, the stars the seed of Abraham, whether Jews or Christians.

77 c. 53. 1 Cor. xv. 44. Compare adv. Marcionem, L. v.

c. 10.

78 Our translators, though they have not rendered the word vxikov literally, appear correctly to have represented St. Paul's

our Version are rendered, it is sown a natural body. The Heretics affirmed owμa vxikov to be merely a periphrasis for ψυχή, and σώμα πveνμатikov for Tveûμa. St. Paul, therefore, by omitting all mention of the flesh, evidently intended to exclude it from all share of the resurrection. In our account of the Treatise de Animâ, we stated that our author conceived God to have given a soul to Adam, when the breath of life was breathed into his nostrils. He argues, therefore, that as owμa Yuxikóv means a body animated by a soul, oŵμɑ πvevμATIKÓν means the same body, now become the habitation of the Spirit, and thus imbued with the principle of immortality. The passage, far from subverting, establishes the doctrine of the resurrection of the body.

We will conclude this analysis of Tertullian's Tract with observing, that he alludes to the passage respecting the baptism for the dead, in the fifteenth chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians; and 79 speaks of it

+

St. Paul's meaning. O aveρwTos Vνxikos is, as Tertullian expresses himself, homo solius carnis et animæ, the natural manas opposed to ὁ ἄνθρωπος πνευματικὸς, the man who has received the Holy Spirit.

79 Si autem et baptizantur quidam pro mortuis (videbimus an ratione?) certe illâ præsumptione hoc eos instituisse contendit, quâ alii etiam carni, ut vicarium baptisma,

profuturum

as if St. Paul had referred to a superstitious practice prevalent in his days, of baptising a living person as a proxy for the dead. But 80 in the fifth Book against Marcion he ridicules this as an idle fancy, on which it was unlikely that St. Paul should found an argument; and interprets the words for the dead to mean for the body, which is declared to be dead in baptism.

81

Passing over for the present the fifth Article of our Church, for the same reasons which induced us to omit the first and second, we proceed to the sixth. The first question which presents itself for our consideration is, whether Tertullian uniformly speaks of the Scriptures, as containing the whole rule to which the faith and practice of Christians must be conformed, in points necessary to salvation.

profuturum existimarent ad spem resurrectionis, quæ, nisi corporalis, non alias hic baptismate corporali obligantur,

c. 48.

80 Quid, ait, facient qui pro mortuis baptizantur, si mortui non resurgunt? Viderit institutio ista; Calendæ si forte Februariæ respondebunt illi, pro mortuis. petere.. Noli ergo Apostolum novum statim auctorem aut confirmatorem ejus denotare, ut tanto magis sisteret carnis resurrectionem, quanto illi, qui vanè pro mortuis baptizarentur, fide resurrectionis hoc facerent. Habemus illum alicubi unius baptismi definitorem. Igitur et pro mortuis tingui pro corporibus est. tingui: mortuum enim corpus ostendimus, c. 10.

82

To this enquiry his pointed condemnation, 2 already quoted, of the Valentinian notion, that the Apostles had not communicated to mankind publicly and indifferently, all the truths imparted to them by their Heavenly Master, appears to furnish a satisfactory answer. So great indeed is the weight which he is on some occasions disposed to ascribe to the authority of Scripture, that he 85

denying the lawfulness of

goes the length of any act which is

84

related, must be

not permitted therein; and even of asserting that whatever is not there supposed never to have happened. We mean not to defend this extravagant language, but produce it in order to shew what were his opinions on the subject.

But does Tertullian always speak the same language? Does he not on other occasions appeal to Tradition? Does he not even say, in his Tract de Præscriptione Hæreticorum, that in arguing with the Heretics no appeal

82 Chap. IV. p. 250.

83 Immo prohibetur, quod non ultro permissum est. De Coronâ, c. 2. sub fine. Tertullian, however, appears himself to have been conscious of the weakness of the reasoning. See also ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 2. sub fine.

84 Negat Scriptura quod non notat, de Monogamiâ, c. 4. Scripture mentions the Polygamy of Lamech, but of no other individual; he was, therefore, according to Tertullian, at that period the only polygamist.

1

ought to be made to the Scriptures; and that they can only be confuted by ascertaining the Tradition which has been preserved and handed down, in the Apostolic Churches? Undoubtedly he does.-But in order to understand the precise meaning of Tertullian's appeal to Tradition, we must consider the object which he had immediately in view. 85❝In disputing with the Heretics," he says, "it is necessary, in the very outset, to except against all arguments urged by them out of Scripture. 86 For as they do not acknowledge all the books received by the Church; and have mutilated or corrupted those which they do acknowledge; and have put their own interpretations upon the passages respecting the genuineness of which both parties are agreed ; the first point to be determined is, which of the two is in possession of the genuine Scriptures, and of their true interpretation. then is this point to be determined? quiring what doctrines are held, and what Scriptures received, by the Apostolic Churches: for in them is preserved the truth, as it was originally communicated by Christ to the Apostles, and by the Apostles, either orally or by letter, to the Churches which they founded; so that whatever doctrines and Scriptures are

85 c. 15. See also c. 37.

86 c. 17.

How By en