Tertullian, the son of a Roman pro-consular centurion, was a very learned man, and wrote in favour of the Christians; wherefore he was much prized by them, although he also held many errors: among these is, that the moral stain of the soul is effaced by the external washing of the body in baptism, and that punishment is likewise remitted. The errors contained in his writings are so numerous that it has been questioned whether he has done more good or harm to the Christian faith. It was against the error of the Marcionites, that Jesus of Nazareth was a mere phantasm, that the treatise De Carne Christi was written. The character of Tertullian's writings, as given by Lactantius, is, that they were rugged, unpolished, and very obscure::" Tertullianus fuit omni genere literarum peritus; sed in eloquendo parum facilis, et minus comptus, et multum obscurus fuit." (Lib. v. de Justicia.) The learned Bishop of Lincoln says, "We cannot among the merits of Tertullian reckon that of a natural, flowing, and perspicuous style. He frequently hurries his readers along by his vehemence, and surprises them by the vigour as well as inexhaustible fertility of his imagination; but his copiousness is without selection; and there was in his character a propensity to exaggeration, which affected his language, and rendered it inflated and unnatural. He is indeed the harshest and most obscure of writers, and the least capable of being accurately represented in a translation." And his modern biographer says of him, "In his reasonings he displayed more fancy and subtilty than sound judgment; and the ardour of his temper inclines him to violence and exaggeration."

From any writer, however accurate and clear, the passages only which apply exclusively to the cause in hand ought to be extracted; while from such a writer as Tertullian it was doubly necessary to take care that in quoting we did not confuse, instead of clear up, the subject. Our adversaries do not pretend that the other parts, which they have added to our extracts, alter the meaning of the words we did quote, in the remotest degree, for they say that our quotations as they stand do not express the meaning for which we quoted them. Their complaints therefore proceed from pure querulousness.

Now it is very true that in words the modern heretics do not say that the manhood of Jesus was a phantasm, and therefore so far they are not like the Marcionites. But the moment they come to define what it is they mean by manhood, then it is perceived that all the essential properties of manhood are denied to it; and that the temptations by Satan in the wilderness, and all the other actings of it, are necessarily as illusory as its being was asserted to be by Marcion. Marcion was not so weak a man as to try to prove that Jesus had the substance of his mother, and yet not fallen substance; which is what the modern

heretics say and therefore this point, which is the only one we have now to contend for against them, is not touched upon directly by Tertullian: the passages which approach the nearest to it are those only which we ought, and those only which we did, select.

The subject of the book De Carne Christi is declared in its first chapter. "Qui fidem resurrectionis ante istos Sadducæorum propinquos sine controversia moratam student inquietare, ut eam spem negent etiam ad spem pertinere, merito quoque carnem Christi quæstionibus distrahunt, tanquam aut nullam omnino, aut quoquo modo aliam præter humanam: ne si humanam constitent fuisse, præjudicatum sit adversus illos eam resurgere omni modo, quæ in Christo resurrexerit. Igitur unde illi destruunt carnis vota, inde nobis erunt præstruenda. Examinemus corporalem substantiam domini: de spiritali enim certum est. Caro quæritur veritas et qualitas ejus retractantur, an fuerit, et unde, et cujusmodi fuerit. Renunciatio ejus, dabit legem nostræ resurrectioni. Marcion ut carnem Christi negaret, negavit etiam nativitatem aut ut nativitatem negaret, negavit et carnem : scilicet ne invicem sibi testimonium redderent, et responderent nativitas et caro, quia nec nativitas sine carne, nec caro sine nativitate: quasi non eadem licentia hæretica et ipse potuisset, aut admissâ carne nativitatem negare, ut Apelles discipulus, et postea desertor ipsius; aut et carnem et nativitatem confessus, aliter illis interpretari, ut condiscipulus, et condesertor ejus Valentinus. Sed et qui carnem Christi putativam introduxit, æque potuit nativitatis quoque phantasmata confingere, ut et conceptus, et prægnatus, et partus virginis, et ipsius exinde infantis ordo TO COKELY haberetur: eosdem oculos, eosdemque sensus fefellissent, quos carnis opinio inlusit."

We have here transcribed the whole passage, to take away the possibility of the quirk of garbling; and if any person should please to refer to the original, we beg to inform him that the edition from which we now transcribe is that of Semler, 1770. From this it will be seen that the task of Tertullian was easy in comparison to ours. The heretics he opposed were much more consequential than those who are attacking us: they, denying the humanity, had the sense to deny the nativity also; these deny the humanity, but admit the nativity, as indeed he says that Valentinus did but for the rest, if Tertullian proved the nativity, the humanity followed in necessary consequence, and vice versa: we have got to prove that human nature cannot exist without the properties which distinguish human from angelic, or from any other nature. Marcion never talked about the Son of Mary having some other flesh than hers; nor did he contend that Mary's flesh, of which Jesus partook, was not fallen flesh. Wherefore it is evident that very few expressions

applicable to Marcion are applicable in our days; and that those applicable expressions were all that were proper for us to produce.

Since English words have long ceased to convey intelligible ideas to these men's minds; since, as has been lately observed, "Christ dying for the whole world, means, according to them, that he died only for a very few people in it;" since, "we shall reign upon the earth," means, that there will be no earth to reign upon," &c.; it is not to be wondered at that Latin words should cease to be intelligible also. Let us suppose that some unlearned reader is anxious for information on the subject, and is told in the Morning Watch, that the constant orthodox faith has been that the Second Person in Deity united himself to the fallen substance of Mary, of David, and of Abraham, and in that one person, so constituted, worked out a deliverance for the whole human race, whose ruined nature he assumed; and let us further suppose this learner to be told that Tertullian held this opinion, but whose writings the disciple cannot construe. Let us, on the other hand, suppose that the inquirer next reads in the Christian Instructor, or in the Record, that the constant orthodox faith has been that the Second Person in Deity did not unite himself to the substance of Mary, of David, and of Abraham, but to a new substance, created and for the first time existing within the womb of Mary; formed in her, but not of her; and that Tertullian maintained this opinion also. The inquirer must necessarily draw the conclusion, that one of these parties is asserting that which is not true: and if his veracity be unimpeachable, that he must be ignorant of the meaning of Tertullian, and is an impudent pretender to a knowledge which he does not possess. As our object is the instruction of others, and not the personal justification of ourselves, it is useless to reiterate assertions, which are met by counter assertions; and our only resource is to bring forward the opinion of a perfectly unexceptionable evidence. This witness is the learned Prelate before referred to, who, in his "Ecclesiastical History illustrated from the Writings of Tertullian," makes the following statement:

"Tertullian's opinions respecting Christ's resurrection may be learned from the treatise entitled De Carne Christi; which he wrote in 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." [The modern heretics are apprehensive, that, if they admit the reality of Christ's flesh, they must also admit his sinning in the flesh.] "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; 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." [This seems to be more near the form of the modern heresy: they do not say where the body came from, but that it was a CREATION in the Virgin Mary; not a union with her pre-existent substance.] "Tertullian's answer is, that the angels did not come upon the 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. Others, again, assigned to Christ an animal flesh, caro animalis, or carnal soul, anima carnalis, their notion was, that, the soul being invisible, was rendered visible in the flesh, which was most intimately united with it, or rather absorbed in it. Others affirmed that Christ assumed the angelic substance: Tertullian asks in reply, to what end did Christ assume the angelic substance, since he came not to effect the salvation of angels? c. 14." [The same argument we have used over and over again, in reference to the nature which is redeemed, whatever that nature may be and to what end did Christ assume unfallen substance, and still less infallible and immortal and incorruptible substance, since he came not to effect the salvation of unfallen, infallible, immortal, and incorruptible creatures? And if the sole object of His taking a body was to offer a sacrifice, which is what the heretics now-a-days contend for, then an angelic body was as good as any other body; and it is on that ground they maintain it: and it is for want of seeing any thing else but their perverted single doctrine of substitution and sacrifice, that they do not see the necessity of Christ's humanity being exactly our humanity, and none other: for if the object of his assuming a creature body was to redeem creatures, it is indispensable that he should take the very nature of those creatures who were to be redeemed.] "Valentinus assigned him a spiritual flesh others argued, that Christ's flesh could not be human flesh, because it proceeded not from the seed of man; and 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." [This is the very point of the modern heretics: they say, that if Christ took our fallen substance it must also have been sinful :-i. e. a sin-commiting thing-whereas we have perpetually rung in their ears that the whole point of the question hangs on this, that, though it was fallen humanity, it did not sin in him. The mystery of the angel's annunciation to Mary is, that the Child shall be born of thee, and yet a HOLY THING: a holy thing, of unholy sub

stance; a God, born: and without this there would be neither mystery in the matter, difficulty in understanding it, nor redemption for mankind.] "I say seems, for I am not certain that I understand the objection. The words of Tertullian are, Insuper argumentandi libidine, in formâ ingenii, locum sibi fecit Alexander ille, quasi nos adfirmenus, idcirco Christum terreni censûs induisse carnem, ut evacuaret in semetipso carnem peccati. The orthodox, according to Alexander, 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." 268. -"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 ch. 2, 3, 4, 5, 20, 21, 22, 23." This observation the Bishop makes in a note on p. 270, garbling out of no less than eight chapters; or rather shewing that the whole strain of his author lay that way. We say, with Tertullian, "if Christ's flesh was not Mary's flesh it is impossible to assign any reasonable cause why he should be born."

The preceding passage of the Bishop's is made up of several detached sentences of Tertullian, from different works: the first from that De Resurrectione Carnis; and the remainder from eleven different chapters of that De Carne Christi: and never yet has the idiot appeared who has fabricated a moral charge of garbling for so quoting an author, until an unprecedented combination of ignorance and malevolence brought it against the Morning Watch. If the intention were really to shew that the authors from whose works we quoted did not maintain the truth which we maintain, it is a pity that they did not select some passage in English, instead of wasting their time in turning over the pages of Tertullian, which they cannot construe. The person who has made himself most conspicuous in the charges against us speaks of "the manner in which quotations from the Fathers have been got up in support of a dogma which not one of the Fathers ever maintained....When they borrowed sentences out of a different writer in order to make up the above curious piece of patch-work, which they call an extract from Tertullian De Carne Christi, to give the pages would have been rather an awkward business." Why awkward? for the critie