Saviour did not manifest himself by that beauty of the flesh which strikes the senses, but by the beauty of the soul, and the true beauty of the body, viz. immortality. The same supposition is made by Tertullian, de carne Christi, c. 9.: Adeo nec humanæ honestatis corpus fuit, nedum cœlestis claritatis. The assumption of the uninterrupted virginity of Mary, Strom. vii. 16, p. 889-890., and the (apocryphal) passage there cited: TiranaV zai où réroze, may be traced to the same docetic tendency. Different views are entertained by Tertull. de carne Christi, sub finem, who nevertheless quotes the same dictum.

(7) Gennadius de dogm. eccles. c. 2, incorrectly numbers Origen among those, qui Christum carnem de cœlo secum afferre contenderint: but his doctrine too is not quite free from Docctism. It is most fully given in the Comment. in Ep. ad Gal. preserved by Pamphilus; comp. Gieseler, 1. c. p. 16, 17, and contra Cels. i. 69, 70. Opp. i. p. 383, 84, (ibid. iii. 42, p. 474,) de princ. ii. 6, § 6. Hom. in Gen. i. Opp. ii. p. 55: Non æqualiter omnes, qui vident, illuminantur a Christo, sed singuli secundum eam mensuram illuminantur, qua vim luminis recipere valent. Et sicut non æqualiter oculi corporis nostri illuminantur a sole, sed quanto quis in loca altiora conscenderit, et ertum ejus editioris speculæ intuitione fuerit contemplatus, tanto amplius et splendoris ejus vim percipiet et caloris: ita etiam mens. nostra quanto altius et excelsius appropinquaverit Christo, ac se viciniorem splendori lucis ejus objecerit, tanto magnificentius et clarius ejus lumine radiabitur. With this assumption he connects the transfiguration on the mount, contra Cels. ii. 64. Opp. i. p. 435, and Comment. in Matth. Opp. iii. p. 906. Gieseler, p. 19, ss., comp. contra Cels. iv. 16, p. 511: Eici' yàg diáçoşa oiovei τοῦ λόγου μορφαί, καθὼς ἑκάστῳ τῶν εἰς ἐπιστήμην ἀγομένων φαίνεται ὁ λόγος, ἀνάλογον τῇ ἔξει τοῦ εισαγομένου, ἢ ἐπ' ὀλίγον προκόπτοντος, ἢ ἐπὶ πλεῖον, ἢ καὶ ἐγγὺς ἤδη γινομένου τῆς ἀρετῆς, ἢ καὶ ἐν ἀρετῇ γεγενημένου.

18) De princ. iv. 31: Volens Filius Dei pro salute generis humani apparere hominibus et inter homines conversari, suscepit non solum corpus humanum, ut quidam putant, sed et animam, nostrarum quidem animarum similem per naturam, proposito vero et virtute similem sibi, et talem, qualis omnes voluntates et dispensationes verbi ac sapientiæ indeclinabiliter possit implere. (Joh. 10. 18; 12. 27. Matth. 26. 28.) Comp. contra Cels. ii. 9, quoted by Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, i. p. 263, where he in

fers the human soul of the Saviour from Matth. 26. 38. Origen's theory of the pre-existence of the soul would easily induce him to ask, why the Son of God assumed this very soul, and not any other? comp. contra Cels. i. 32. (Opp. i. p. 350.) de princ. ii. 6. 3. quoted by Münscher, p. 265, ss. According to Socrat. iii. 7, the Synod of Bostra, (A. D. 240,) defended the proposition: ἔμψυχον εἶναι τὸν ἐνανθρωπήσαντα in opposition to Beryllus. On the christological views of Origen in general, see Dorner, ii. 2, p. 942, ss.

(9) Origen observes that a twofold error ought to be guarded against: (1.) that of excluding the Logos from Curist, as if the eternal Logos and the historical Christ were two distinct, separate individuals; (2.) that of confounding the former with the latter, as if he did not exist apart from him, de princ. iv. c. 30: ...Non ita sentiendum est, quod omnis divinitatis ejus majestas intra brevissimi corporis claustra conclusa est, ita ut omne verbum Dei et sapientia ejus ac substantialis veritas ac vita vel a patre divulsa sit, vel intra corporis ejus coërcita et conscripta brevitatem, nec usquam præterea putetur operata: sed inter utrumque causa pietatis esse debet confessio, ut neque aliquid divinitatis in Christo defuisse credatur, et nulla penitus a paterna substantia, quæ ubique est, facta putetur esse divisio... Cap. 31: Ne quis tamen nos existimet per hæc illud affirmare, quod pars alibi vel ubique: quod illi sentire possunt, qui naturam substantiæ incorporeæ atque invisibilis ignorant. Comp. also contra Cels. iv. 5. The Logos in his incarnate state is like the sun whose beams remain pure, wherever they may shine, (contra Cels. vi. 73.) Nevertheless, Origen asserts that he had laid aside. his glory, in Jerem. hom. x. 7. (Opp. iii. p. 186.) The Father is the light as such, the Son is the light which shines in darkness, comp. Comm. in Joh. ii. 18. (Opp. iv. p. 76.) and de princ. i. 28. The humanity of Christ has ceased to exist after his ascension, comp. hom. in Jerem. xv. (Opp. iii. p. 226.: Ei xai v ἄνθρωπος (ὁ σωτής), ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐδαμῶς ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος. Comp. hom. in Luc. xxix (Opp. iii. p. 967): Tunc homo fuit, nunc autem homo esse cessavit. See Dorner, 1. c. p. 671, ss. Thomasius, p. 202, ss.

(10) See Dorner, 1. c. p. 679, note 40. The phrase in question. occurs (for aught we know) only in the Latin translation of hom. in Ezech. iii. 3. (Deus homo); but it is implied in other passages,

e. g., contra Cels. iii. 29; vii. 17. Comp. Thomasius, p. 203, note c. The Greek term was first explained by Chrysostom, see Suicer thesaurus sub voce.

A special question arose concerning the risen body of Christ in its relation to the body which he possessed prior to the resurrection. According to Ignatius, Justin, Irenæus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Novalian Jesus had the same body after the resurrection which he had before it. Comp. the passages in the work of C. L. Müller, de resurrectione Jesu Christi, vitam eam excipiente et ascensu in cœlum, sententiæ, quæ in ecclesia christiana ad finem usque sæculi sexti viguerunt. Havniæ, 1836, 8. p. 77. Some expressions of Irenæus and Tertullian are somewhat modified, p. 78. But Origen taught in more definite terins, c. Cels. ii. c. 62. Opp. i. p. 434, that the body of Jesus had undergone a change, and, in support of his opinion, appealed to his miraculous appearance, when the doors were shut : καὶ ἦν γε μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν αὐτοῦ ὦ περὶ ἐν μεθορίῳ τινὶ τῆς ταχύτη τος τοῦ πρὸ τοῦ πάθους σώματος καὶ τοῦ γυμνὴν τοιούτου σώματος φαίνεσθαι ψυχήν. Comp. c. 64, 65, p. 436: Τὸν μηκέτι ἔχοντά τι χωρητὸν ὁραθῆναι τοῖς πολλοῖς, οὐχ οἷοί τε ἦσαν αὐτὸν βλέπειν οἱ πρότερον αὐτὸν ἰδόντες πάντες . . . . λαμπροτέρα γὰρ τὴν οἰκονομίαν τελέσαντος ἡ θειότης ἦν αὐτοῦ. Müller, p. 83. Origen does not seem to have believed that the ascension of Christ had effected a further change; for probably he understands by the ethereal body, which he ascribes to him in his state of exaltation, (c. Cels. iii. 41, 42. Opp. i. p. 474), the same which he had when he rose from the grave. Comp. Müller, p. 82, and p. 131.

§ 67.

THE SINLESSNESS OF CHRIST.

Ulmann, über die Sündlosigkeit Jesu, 5th edit. Hamb. 1846. [Ulmann on the Sinless Character of Jesus, in Clark's Student's Cabinet Library of Useful Tracts.] Fritzsche, de ȧvapagrnría Jesu Christi, Comment. iv. comp. § 17.

The intimate connection subsisting between the Divine and human natures of Christ, which was held even by the primitive church, excluded every idea of the existence of sin in him, who was the image of the Deity. Hence Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement, and Origen assert the sinlessness (anamartesia) of Jesus in the strongest terms, (1) and even those of the Fathers who do not ex

pressly mention it, at least presuppose it. In the scheme of the Ebionites and Artemonites, this sinlessness was not a necessary feature of his character, although we do not meet with any intimations to the contrary. On the other hand Basilides found it difficult to reconcile the sinlessness of Christ with his system, according to which every sufferer bears the punishments of his own sins, though he used every possible means to conceal this defect in his scheme.(2)

ة

a) Justin M. dial. c. Tr. § 11, 17, 110, et al. Iren. in the next §. Tert. de anima cap. 41: Solus enim Deus sine peccato, et solus homo sine peccato Christus, quia et Deus Christus. Clem. Al. infers (Pæd. i. 2. p. 99,) the prerogative of Christ to be the judge of all men, from his sinlessness. In Pæd. iii. 12, p. 307, he speaks indeed of the Logos being alone ȧvaμágrnros, but as he makes no distinction between the Logos and the human nature of Christ, (comp. the preceding §), it would follow that he regarded Jesus as sinless, which is confirmed by what he says, Strom. vii. 12, p. 875. (Sylb. 742): Eis μèv oûv μóros ó áveníðúμntos (which implies still more than ἀναμάρτητος) ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὁ κύριος, ὁ φιλάν θρωπος, ὁ καὶ δι' ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωπος. Concerning Origen, comp. § 63, note 5. Hom. xii. in Lev. Opp. ii. p. 251...Solus Jesus dominus meus in hanc generationem mundus ingressus est, etc. In de princ. ii. c. 6, § 5, 6. (Opp. i. p. 91,) he endeavours to remove the difficulty which arises when we assume the absolute sinlessness of our Lord, in opposition to the assumption of a free spiritual developement. Verum quoniam boni malique eligendi facultas omnibus præsto est, hæc anima, quæ Christi est, ita elegit diligere justitiam, ut pro immensitate dilectionis inconvertibiliter ei atque inseparabiliter inhæreret, ita ut propositi firmitas et affectus immensitas et dilectionis inextinguibilis calor omnem sensum conversionis atque immutationis abscinderet, et quod in arbitrio erat positum, longi usus affectu jam, versum sit in naturam: ita et fuisse quidem in Christo humana et rationabilis anima credenda est, et nullum sensum vel possibilitatem eam putandum est habuisse peccati (simile of an iron which is always exposed to fire.) Christ possesses sinlessness as something peculiar to himself; Sicut vas ipsum, quod substantiam continet unguenti, nullo genere potest aliquid recipere fœtoris: hi vero qui ea odore ejus

participant, si se paulo longius a fragrantia ejus removerint, possibile est, ut incidentem recipiant fotorem, ita Christus velut vas ipsum, in quo erat unguenti substantia, impossibile fuit, ut contrariam reciperet odorem. Participes vero ejus quam proximi fuerint vasculo, tam odoris erunt participes et capaces. Comp. contra Cels. i. 69. Opp. i. p. 383: Διὸ πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις καὶ μέγαν ἀγωνιστὴν αὐτόν φαμεν γεγονέναι, διὰ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον σῶμα, πεπειρασμένον μὲν ὁμοίως πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις κατὰ πάντα, οὐκέτι δε ὡς ἄνθρωποι μετὰ ἁμαρτίας, áñïà závin zweis àpagrías. (Hebr. iv, 15, where 1 Pet. ii. 22, and 2 Cor. v. 21 are also quoted.) The term dvauigrnros first occurs in the writings of Hippolytus (Gallandii, bibl. ii. p. 466.)

(2) Comp. Clem. Strom. iv. p. 600. (Sylb. 506,) and Neander, Gnost. Syst. p. 49, ss. Baur, Versöhnungslehre, p. 24.

§ 68.

ON REDEMPTION AND ATONEMENT,

(The Death of Christ.)

Dissertatio historiam doctrinæ de redemtione ecclesiæ, sanguine Jesu Christi facta exhibens, in Cotta's edition of Gerhard's loci theologici. T. iv. p. 105-132. W. C. L. Ziegler, historia dogmatis de redemtione, etc. inde ab ecclesiæ primordiis usque ad Lutheri tempora, Gött. 1791. (in comment. theol. ed. A. Velthusen, T. v. p. 227, seq.) Bähr, K. die Lehre der Kirche vom Tode Jesu in den ersten 3 Jahrhunderten, Sulzb. 1832, reviewed in the neue Kirchenzeitung 1833, No. 36. Baur, F. Ch. die christliche Lehre von der Versöhnung in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung von der ältesten bis auf die neueste Zeit, Tübingen 1838, (p. 1-67.)

The tendency of Christ's appearance on earth, as such, was to redeem men from sin, and to reconcile them to God, inasmuch as it destroyed the power of the devil, and restored the harmony of the human nature.) But in accordance with the doctrine preached by the Apostles, the sufferings and death of Christ were from the commencement thought to be of principal importance in the work of redemption. The Fathers of the primitive church regarded his death as a sacrifice and ransom (Argos), and therefore ascribed to his blood the power of cleansing from sin and guilt, and attached a high im