In our 266 remarks upon the eighth Article of our Church we stated that, in treating of the Tract against Praxeas, an opportunity would present itself of ascertaining how far the opinions of Tertullian coincided with the language employed in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. That the general doctrine of those Creeds is contained in Tertullian's writings cannot, we think, be doubted by any one who has carefully perused them. With respect to particular expressions, 267 we find that he calls the Son-God of God and Light of Light. In referring to that verse in the fifteenth chapter of St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians, in which it is said that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, Tertullian 268 observes that the Apostle inserted the words according to the Scriptures, for the purpose of reconciling men, by the authority of Scripture, to the startling declaration that the Son of God had been made subject to death.-With respect

266 Chap. V. p. 324.

267 See the passage from the Apology quoted in note 248. of this Chapter, and adv. Praxeam, c. 15. Nam etsi Deus Sermo, sed apud Deum, quia ex Deo Deus.

268 Nam et Apostolus, non sine onere pronuntians Christum mortuum, adjicit secundum Scripturas, ut duritiam pronuntiationis Scripturarum auctoritate molliret, et scandalum auditori everteret. Adv. Praxeam, c. 29,

to the expressions in the Athanasian Creed, we find 269 Tertullian, while he asserts the distinction of the Persons in the Trinity, careful to maintain the unity of the substance; or in the language of the Creed, neither to confound the persons, nor divide the substance. We find also, in the 270 Tract against Hermogenes, an expression which, although there used without any reference to the Trinity, bears a strong resemblance to that clause in the Athanasian Creed, which declares that "in the Trinity none is afore or after other; none is greater or less than another." The Creed speaks of the Christian verity as compelling us to acknowledge that every Person in the Trinity by himself is God and Lord, and of the Catholic religion as enforcing the unity of God. 271 Tertullian speaks of the Christian verity as proclaiming the unity. On the subject of the Incarnation, the

269 Alium autem quomodo accipere debeas, jam professus sum; personæ, non substantiæ nomine; ad distinctionem, non ad divisionem. Adv. Praxeam, c. 12.

270 Tertullian is arguing upon the consequences which he conceived to flow from the doctrines of Hermogenes respecting the eternity of matter. "That doctrine," he says, "places matter on a perfect equality with God." Neutrum dicimus altero esse minorem, sive majorem; neutrum altero humiliorem, sive superiorem, c. 7.

271 Sed veritas Christiana districtè pronuntiavit, Deus si non unus est, non est. Adv. Marcionem, L. i. c. 3.

reader who compares the 272 passages in the note with the corresponding clauses in the Creed, will be almost disposed to conclude that the framer of the Creed had Tertullian's expressions immediately in his view.

There is, however, 273 a passage in the Traet de Carne Christi, which appears at first sight to be at variance with the following clause of the Creed, One, not by conversion of the

272 Sed enim invenimus illum directò, et Deum et hominem expositum-certe usquequaque Filium Dei et Filium hominis, quum Deum et hominem, sine dubio secundum utramque substantiam, in suâ proprietate distantem; quia neque Sermo aliud quam Deus, neque caro aliud quam homo-Videmus duplicem statum; non confusum, sed conjunctum in unâ Personâ, Deum et hominem Iesum. Adv. Praxeam, c. 27. See also the passage from c. 30. quoted in note 239, where it is said that Christ, as man, had a soul and flesh. For the inferiority of the Son in his human nature, see c. 16, referred to in note 240.

273 c. 3. "Sed ideo," inquis, nego Deum in hominem

verè conversum, ita ut nasceretur et carne corporaretur (Rigault has operaretur); quia qui sine fine est, etiam inconvertibilis sit necesse est. Converti enim in aliud finis est pristini. Non competit ergo conversio cui non competit finis." Plane natura convertibilium eâ lege est, ne permaneant in eo quod convertitur in iis; et (ut) ita non permanendo pereant; dum perdunt convertendo quod fuerunt. Sed nihil Deo par est; natura ejus ab omnium rerum conditione distat. Si ergo quæ a Deo distant, aut a quibus Deus distat, quum convertuntur, amittunt quod fuerunt; ubi erit diversitas divinitatis a cæteris rebus, nisi ut contrarium obtineat; id est, ut Deus et in omnia converti possit, et qualis est perseverare?

Godhead into flesh. The Heretics, against whom Tertullian was contending, argued that "God could not possibly be converted into man, so as to be born and to be embodied in the flesh; because that which is eternal must necessarily be inconvertible. Conversion into a different state is the termination of the former state. If the Godhead was converted into manhood, it was entirely lost." To this argument Tertullian replied, that "although it might be correct with respect to all other natures, it was not so with reference to the divine nature. We read in Scripture, that at different times angels were converted into the human shape, and yet did not cease to be angels. Much more then might God assume the nature of man, and yet continue to be God." Here Tertullian appears to admit that in the mystery of the Incarnation there was a conversion of the Godhead into flesh, though he disallows the inference drawn by the Heretics from it. If, however, we compare this passage with another in the Tract against Praxeas, we shall find our author's 27 opinion, when accu

274 Quod ergo Angelis inferioribus licuit, uti conversi in corpulentiam humanam Angeli nihilominus permanerent; hoc tu potentiori Deo auferas? quasi non valuerit Christus, vere hominem indutus, Deus perseverare? Compare adv. Praxeam, c. 27. quoted also in Chap. vi. note 138. Igitur Sermo in carne; dum et de hoc quærendum quomodo Sermo

caro

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, Kúpie-the latter from an erroneous reading of Lamentations iv. 20. πνεῦμα προσώπου ἡμῶν, Χριστός Κυρίος, where αὐτοῦ appears to have been substituted for uv

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 differ

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 personæ 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 Spiritus nostri, Christum Dominum. Rigault, however, in this passage, reads Spiritus personæ ejus, Christus Dominus." See Jerome's Comment on the verse.