ting Origen's Books, wee 'Apxwv. And that in a Defence to Pope Anaftafius, the first Bishop of the Occidental Church, upon S. Hierom that Accufation. Nor dares S. Hierome, L. 11. L. even in the height of his Refentment, con

ad Ruffin.

III.

demn Ruffinus for not condemning this Opinion in Tertullian, though himself was against it, and was unwilling to excuse Ruffimus for being fo indifferent in the Matter. Yet even he is more favourable, when his Concern against Ruffinus was in fome meafure allay'd by the Death of his Adverfary. Then he owns it, as not only the Senfe of Tertullian, but of Apollinaris, and of the greatest part of the Occidental Writers, Ut quomodo corpus ex corpore, fic anima nafcatur ex anima, & fimili cum brutis animantibus Ep. 82.Ed. conditione fubfiftat. So he in his Epistle to ctor. Marcellinus and Anapfychia. This is the most invidious Confequence that can be in

Mar. Vi

ferred from this Doctrine of the natural Mortality of the Soul of Man, that it would be herein equal with the Souls of Beafts. Yet even this fo warm a Man as S. Hierome durit not cenfure, even in an Age fo diftant from the Age of the Apostles, as that was wherein he wrote this, fo long as the Humane Soul was, notwithstanding acknowledged fecure from actual Mortality. Yet there are indeed very antient Authors, who compare lapfed Men with the Beasts that perish. And perhaps not without the

Autho

Authority of that known Paffage of the Pfalmift, Pf. xlviii. 13. 21. S. Auguftin alfo is almost as deficient of the true Original of the Soul, in Relation to the Opinion of Tertullian, in his Ep. to Optatus, as Ruffinus himself. And he takes notice of S. Hierome's afcribing that fame Opinion to the Occidental Church, without contradicting it. The thing that inclined the Occidentals to it then, was, that they thought it most reconcilable with the then newly defigned Doctrine of Original Sin. So Pelagius had objected, as S. Auguftin there observes: Si anima ex traduce non eft, fed fola caro tantum habet traducem peccati; fola ergo pœnam meretur. Here then lay the Difficulty of both fides. On the one fide, On the one fide, they could not easily account how a new created Spirit could contract a Contagion of Sin from Adam, without any Traduction of its Being from him. On the other fide, they thought it likewife difficult to defend the Immortality of our Souls, if they were derived by Traduction, not from God immediately, but from the Souls of our immediate Forefathers. This made the zealous Defenders of Original Sin, weary of cenfuring this Doctrine of Tertullian, left they should thereby drive them off from their Communion, who thought the Doctrine of Origiyal Sin no way defenfible without it. However they would never have run into one

Herefie,

16.

also o

therwife

the natu

Herefie, for avoiding another. It is therefore plain, that they did not then, in the beginning of the fifth Century, when thefe Pelagian Difputes were started, believe this Doctrine of the Soul's natural Mortality Heretical, so long as there was no Question made of its being actually Immortal. The Author of the Dialogue, under the Names of S. Hierome and S. Auguftin, collected out of their own Works, gives us the Names of feveral others, who joined in this fame Opinion with Tertullian. They are, Apollonius, Pompeius, Arnobius, Ladantius and Apollinaris. Of thefe, Apollomins was a little elder than Tertullian, and had confuted the Montanifts, whom Tertullian defended against him. Thence it appears, that this Doctrine of Traduction was not even then proper to the Sect of Montanus, nor condemned in him by the Catholick Church. Apollonius therefore is another Witness of this Doctrine in that Age.

As for Tertullian, as he is full, fo he is Tertullian not (that I can perceive) fingular, if we is all confider his Age. He derives the Humane very full Soul from the Flatus Vita in Genefis, as in afferting S. Irenæus and others, both his Predecelfors ral Morta- and Succeffors did alfo, de Anim. c. 3. He lity of the diftinguishes this Flatus or avon, from Spiritus or Tveuμa, as exprefly as the fame S. Irenæus, and from the fame Paffage of I. xlii. 5. from whence it is proved by

and

S.

S. Irenæus and Theophilus. So Tertullian, C. II. He does as plainly make this Spirit adfcititious, not common to all Mankind, as the Flatus was. Neque Dei, neque Diaboli Spiritus ex nativitate conferatur animæ, ib. Though he makes the Soul the fame with the Spirit in another Notion of the fame Word, as it fignifies that by which we breath, c. 10. He gives the Soul a Body, and a Shape, as well as St. Irenæus. Nor does he doubt, any more than he, but that the Spirit is the only folid Ground for the Claim of Immortality. As for proper Immortality, he allows it only to that which is Innatum and Infectum, that is, ayévvlov and droinlov, in the Language of the Greek Philofophers, and therefore confines it to God alone, c. 21. And therefore he can allow no other Immortality, but of Grace to any created Beings. For this is the known Language and Principles, and Reasoning of Plato in his Timeus, and the generality of those who use these Terms, and must be understood accordingly. What therefore was made, and had a Beginning, if it have not an End; it cannot, in this way of Reafoning, be imputed to its own Nature, but to the Arbitrary Pleafure of God. In this therefore Tertullian profeffes himself of another Mind from Plato, who thought the Soul Innatam. On which Conceffion, Tertullian reasons thus: Adjicit immortalem,

incór

incorruptibilem, incorporalem (quia hoc & Deum credidit) invifibilem, ineffigiabilem, uniformem, principalem, rationalem, intel lectualem. Quid ampliùs profcriberet animam, fi eam Deum nuncuparet? Nos autem qui nihil Deo appendimus, hoc ipfo animam longe infra Deum expendimus, quòd natam eam agnofcimus, ac per hoc dilutioris Divini. tatis, exilioris fælicitatis, ut flatum, non ut Spiritum. Et, fi immortalem, ut hoc fit Divinitatis, tamen paffibilem, ut hoc fit nativitatis: ideoque & à primordio exorbitationis capacem, & inde etiam oblivionis affinem, c. 24. Immortality, in all this Reasoning, is taken for an Attribute proper to God. And therefore the Immortality that agrees to a more dilute Divinity, to a Being far inferior to God (fuch he makes that which he afcribes to the Humane Soul) must be a more dilute Immortality, and far inferior to that which properly agrees to God. What can that be but a precarious Immortality, and perfectly depending on the Divine Fa vour? Plainly he owns it far inferior to what it might have been expected, if the Soul, that is invested with it, had been the fame with the Divine Spirit. Yet he af cribes all the Right the Body hath to the Refurrection, to the Spiritual Rody, with which the Animal Body is then to be inve fted, which also is called Spiritual from the Spirit, then to be received by it, de Ref. Carn, C. 53Ori