rately stated, to have been, that God took upon himself manhood.

The present appears to be the proper opportunity for observing that, among other appellations given by Tertullian to Christ, we find those of Persona Dei, and Spiritus Personæ Dei; the 275 former derived from Psalm iv. 6. which stands thus in the Septuagint Version, ἐσημειώθη ἐφ' ἡμᾶς τὸ φῶς τοῦ προσώπου σου, Kúpe the 276 latter from an erroneous reading of Lamentations iv. 20. πνεῦμα προσώπου ἡμῶν, Χριστός Κυρίος, where αὐτοῦ appears to have been substituted for ἡμῶν.

One of the questions on which theological ingenuity has exercised itself is, whether the flesh of Christ was corruptible or incorruptible. We have seen that Valentinus asserted a difference between Christ's flesh and human flesh.

caro sit factus? utrumne quasi transfiguratus in carne, an indutus carnem? imo, indutus.

275 Cui respondet Spiritus in Psalmo ex providentiâ futuri: Significatum est, inquit, super nos lumen persona tuæ, Domine. Persona autem Dei, Christus Dominus. Adv. Marcionem, L. v. c. 11.

276 Nam et Scriptura quid dicit? Spiritus personæ ejus, Christus Dominus. Ergo Christus personæ paternæ Spiritus est, &c. Adv. Praxeam, c. 14. sub fine. But in the third Book against Marcion, c. 6. we (find Personam Spiritûs nostri, Christum Dominum. See Jerome's Comment on the verse.

In replying to this assertion, Tertullian 277 observes, that Christ would not have been perfect man, had not his flesh been human, and consequently corruptible. Tertullian 278 ascribes ubiquity to Christ as God but not as the Conductor of the Gospel œconomy. We find also 279 in his writings a notion, derived from Isaiah liii. 3. which was very common among the early Fathers-that the personal appearance of Christ was mean and ignoble.

280

The next Heretic in Mosheim's catalogue is Hermogenes. He was a painter by profession, and contemporary with our author, from whose language it might be inferred

277 De Carne Christi, c. 15.

278 Adv. Praxeam, c. 23. Habes Filium in terris, habes Patrem in cœlis. Non est separatio ista, sed dispositio divina. Cæterum scias, Deum etiam intra abyssos esse, et ubique consistere, sed vi et potestate, Filium quoque, ut individuum cum ipso, ubique. Tamen in ipsâ oikovopía, Pater voluit Filium in terris haberi, se vero in cœlis. See Bull, Defensio Fidei, Sect. 4. c. 3. p. 271.

279 De Idololatriâ, c. 18. De Carne Christi, cc. 9. 15. Adv. Marcionem, L. iii. c. 7. sub in. c. 17. sub in. Adv. Judæos, C. 14.

Com

280 Adv. Hermogenem, c. 1. Hermogenis autem doctrina tam novella est; denique ad hodiernum homo in seculo. pare de Præscriptione Hæreticorum, c. 30. Cæterum et Nigidius nescio quis et Hermogenes, et multi alii qui adhuc ambulant, pervertantes vias Dei. See also adv. Valentinianos, c. 16. De Monogamiâ, c. 16.

that he actually apostatised from Christianity to Paganism; but I believe Tertullian's meaning to be, that he adopted the notions of the Pagan philosophers, the Stoics especially, respecting matter, which he conceived to be self-existent, and consequently eternal. From this matter, according to him, God made all things. 281 His mode of arguing was, "Either God made all things from himself, or from something, or from nothing. He could not make them from himself, because they would then be parts of himself; but 262 this, the Divine Nature, which is indivisible and always the same, does not allow. He could not make them from nothing; because, being infinitely good, he would not in that case have allowed evil to exist:-but evil does exist; it must consequently have existed independently of God, that is, in matter." 283 Hermogenes urged another argument of a very subtle character, to which we have already had occasion to allude. "There never was a time when the title of Dominus or Lord was not applicable to God; but that title is relative-it implies the existence of something over which God was Lord: that something was matter." To this argu

ment Tertullian answers without hesitation, that there was a time when the title was not

281

c. 2. 282 Compare c. 39.

283

c. 3. See p. 552.

1

applicable, that is, before the creation - as there was a time when God was neither Father nor Judge; which are also relative terms, implying the existence of a Son, and of sinners to be judged. "If we turn," he adds, "to Scripture, we shall find that, while the work of creation was carrying on, the language is always God said, God saw, not, the Lord said, the Lord saw; but when it was completed, the title of Lord is introduced, the Lord God took man whom he had had made."

Tertullian 284 objects, in the first place, to the opinion of Hermogenes, respecting the eternity of matter, that its effect is to introduce two Gods. "You ascribe," he says, "eternity to matter, and thereby invest it with the attributes of the Deity. You join matter, with God in the work of creation; for though you may pretend that eternity is the only attribute ascribed to matter, and that the supremacy is still reserved to God, inasmuch as He is active and matter passive, and He it is who gives a form to

284 cc. 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 42. Compare de Præscriptione Hæreticorum, c. 33. It is evident that Tertullian here draws consequences from the opinions of Hermogenes, which that Heretic himself disavowed. Compare c. 5. with adv. Marcionem, L. i. c. 3.

matter-yet this is a

285

mere evasion; since the very foundation of your doctrine is, that matter existed independently of God, and consequently out of the range of his power. Nay more, you make matter superior to God. He who grants assistance is surely superior, in that respect at least, to him to whom it is granted. But God, according to your doctrine, could not have made the universe without the assistance of matter. Had God possessed any dominion over matter, he would, before he employed it in the work of creation, have purged it of the evil which he knew to exist in it. You are at least in this dilemma: you must either deny the Omnipotence of God, or admit that God was the author of evil by voluntarily using matter in the creation of the world. Yet you adopted this notion, respecting the eternity of matter, under the idea that you thereby removed from God the imputation of being the Author of evil. Like the other Heretics, you were blind to the defects of your own reasoning, and did not perceive that it really furnished no solution of the difficulty."

Tertullian 286

proceeds to enquire whether the reasons, for which Hermogenes imputed