§ 61.

INTERPRETATION OF THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL.

The documents contained in the five books of Moses were to the early church the historical foundation, not only of the doctrine of the creation of the world and of man, but also of the doctrine of the origin of sin, which appears as a fact in the history of Adam. Some writers, however, rejected the literal interpretation of this narrative. Thus Origen (after the example of Philo)' regarded it as a type, historically clothed, of what takes place in free moral agents every where, and at all times. It is difficult to ascertain how far Irenæus adhered to the letter of the narrative. Tertullian unhesitatingly pronounced in favor of its strict historical interpretation. Both the Gnostics and the author of the Clementine Homilies rejected this view on dogmatic grounds.

1 Philo sees in the narrative Tрónoɩ tñs įvõñs, vide Dähne, p. 341, and his essay in the Theologische Studien und Krit. 1833, 4th part.

2

=

Clement considers the narrative of the fall partly as fact, and partly as allegory, Strom. v. 11, p. 689, 90. (Serpent image of voluptuousness).* On the other hand, Origen regards it as purely allegorical, De Princ. iv. 16 (Opp. T. i. p. 174); Contra Cels. iv. 40, p. 534. Adam is called man, because: Ἐν τοῖς δοκοῦσι περὶ τοῦ ̓Αδὰμ εἶναι φυσιολογεῖ Μωϋσῆς τὰ περὶ τῆς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου φύσεως. οὐχ οὕτως περὶ ἐνός τινος, ὡς περὶ ὅλου τοῦ γένους ταῦτα φάσκοντος τοῦ θείου λόγου. Concerning the further application of allegorical interpretation to the particulars of the narrative (the clothing our first parents in skins as a symbol of the clothing of the soul?), comp. Meth. in Phot. Bibl. cod. 234, and 293. On the other side, see Orig. Fragm. in Gen. T. ii. p. 29, where both the literal interpretation is excluded, and this allegorical exposition is called in question.

3

According to the fragment of Anastasius Sinaïta in Massuet, p. 344, Irenæus must be understood as having explained the temptation by the serpent (in opposition to the Ophites), νενμaтiкшç, not iσTopikŵç, but it is not evident to what extent he did so. Besides, objections have been urged to the genuineness of this passage; see Duncker, p. 115, note. But Irenæus speaks elsewhere plainly enough of the fall of Adam as an historical fact, iii. 18 (Gr. 20), p. 211 (Gr. 248); iii. 21 (Gr. 31), p. 218 (Gr. 259), ss. Thus he labors to defend the threatening of God: "For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die," from the chronological point of view, by taking the word "day" (as in the account of the creation) in the sense of "period," for one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one

66

That the serpent was the devil, or the devil was in the serpent (which is not expressly declared in Genesis), was generally assumed, in accordance with Wisdom, ii. 24, and Rev. xii. 9 (ó öḍìç ó úpxaios); probably also with reference to John, viii. 44.

day." Adam and Eve died during that period on the same day of the week on which they were created and disobeyed the command of God, viz., on a Friday within the first one thousand years; Adv. Hær. v. 23, 2. See Duncker, p. 129.

Tert. Adv. Judæos, ii. p. 184; De Virg. vel. 11; Adv. Marc. ii. 2, ss., and other passages. He insists upon the literal interpretation of the particulars of the narrative, as they succeeded each other in order of time, in his De Resurr. Carn. 61: Adam ante nomina animalibus enunciavit quam de arbore decerpsit; ante etiam prophetavit quam voravit.

On the Gnostic (Basilidian) doctrine of the fall (ovyxvois ȧρxiký) comp. Clem. Strom. ii. 20, p. 488. Gieseler, Studien und Kritiken, 1830, p. 396. Baur, p. 211. The author of the Clementine Homilies goes so far in idealizing Adam, as to convert the historical person into a purely mythical being (like the Adam-Cadmon of the Cabbalists), while he represents Eve as far inferior to him. Hence Adam could not sin, but sin makes its first appearance in Cain; vide Credner, ii. 258, iii. 284. Baur, Gnosis, p. 539. Schliemann, p. 177. On the other hand, the Gnostic Cainites rendered homage to Cain, as the representative of freedom from the thraldom of the demiurge; while the Gnostic Sethites considered Cain as the representative of the bylic, Abel as that of the psychical, and Seth as that of the pneumatic principle, the ideal of humanity. Neander, Church History (Torrey), i. 448.

§ 62.

STATE OF INNOCENCE AND FALL.

With all their differences of opinion about the original endowments of the first man,' and the nature of his sin,' all the catholic teachers agreed in this, that the temptation of the serpent was a real temptation to sin, and, accordingly, that the transgression of the command given by Jehovah was a fall from a state of innocence followed by disasters to the human race. On the other hand, the Clementine Ebionites denied that Adam could have sinned; and the Ophites thought that by this event (at least in one respect) man was elevated to his proper dignity,—a transition to freedom; inasmuch as the prohibition had proceeded from the jealousy of Jaldabaoth, but the act of disobedience had been brought about by the intervention of wisdom (Sophia), the symbol of which is the serpent."

1

These were especially exaggerated by the author of the Clementine Homilies (see the preceding §). Adam possessed prophetic gifts, Hom. iii. 21, viii. 10 (Credner, ii. p. 248, Baur, p. 363, Schliemann, p. 175, Hilgenfeld, p. 294), which, however, Tertullian, De Resurr. Carn. c. 61, also ascribed to him. The Ophites taught that Adam and Eve had light and luminous bodies, see Baur, p. 187. The theologians, previous to the time of Augustine, attached less weight to what was afterward called justitia originalis. According

to Theophilus of Antioch (ad Aut. ii. 24, 27), Adam was výπtos, and had to be treated as a child; he was neither mortal nor immortal, but capable of either mortality or immortality. Clement of Alexandria maintains the same, Strom. vi. 12, p. 788: "They may learn from us (he says in opposition to the Gnostics), that Adam was created perfect, not in relation to his moral excellencies, but in respect to his capacity of receiving virtue; for there is certainly a difference between a capacity for virtue and the real possession of it. God will have us attain to bliss by our own exertions, hence it belongs to the nature of the soul to determine itself," etc. (in Baur's Gnosis, p. 493). He accordingly restricts the original endowments (Strom. iv. p. 632) to what is purely human, a basis for action; Οὐδὲν γὰρ τῶν χαρακτηριζόντων τὴν ἀνθρώπου ἰδέαν τε καὶ μορφὴν ἐνεδέησεν αὐτῷ.

* Justin M. attributes the fall mainly to the cunning malignity of Satan; Dial. c. Tryph. c. 119, p. 205. A beast (Onpíov) seduced man. On his own part he added disobedience and credulity; comp. Semisch, p. 393-94. Clement of Alexandria conceives that it was sensuality which caused the fall of the first man ; Coh. p. 86 : Οφις ἀλληγορεῖται ἡδονὴ ἐπὶ γαστέρα ἕρπουσα, κακία γηίνη εἰς ὃλας τρεφομένη. (Thiersch conjectures the reading, τpεñoμévŋ, in Rudelbach's Zeitschrift f. d. luth. Theol. 1841, p. 184.) Comp. Strom. iii. 17, p. 559 (470, Sylb.). Clement does not (like the Encratites whom he combats) blame the cohabitation of our first parents as in itself sinful, but he objects that it took place too soon; this is also implied in the passage Strom. ii. 19, p. 481 : Τὰ μὲν αἰσχρὰ οὗτος προθύμως εἵλετο, ἑπόμενος τῇ γυναικί. Comp. § 61, 2.

3

The notion that the tree itself was the cause of death (its fruit being venomous), is rejected. by Theophil. ad Autol. ii. 25: Où yàp, w5 olovτaí τινες, θάνατον εἶχε τὸ ξύλον ἀλλ' ἡ παρακοή.

4

Comp. § 61, note 5. Adam could not sin, because the Oɛiov vεvua, or the copía itself, having been manifested in him, the latter must have sinned; but such an assertion would be impious; comp. Schliemann, u. s. Yet the Clementina seem to adopt the view, that the image of God was defaced in the descendants of the first human pair; comp. Hilgenfeld, p. 291.

The Ophites are in confusion about their own doctrines; for now they render divine homage to the serpent, and again say that Eve was seduced by it. Epiph. Hær. 37, 6. Baur, p. 178, ss.

§ 63.

THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL.

Death was the punishment which Jehovah had threatened to inflict upon the transgressors of his law. Nevertheless the act of transgression was not immediately succeeded by death, but by a train of evils which come upon both the man and the woman, introductory to death, and testifying that man had become mortal. Accordingly, both death and physical evils were considered

as the effects of Adam's sin; thus, e. g. by Irenæus and others.' But opinions were not as yet fully developed concerning the moral depravity of each individual, and the sin of the race in general, considered as the effect of the first sin. They were so much disposed to look upon sin as the free act of man's will, that they could hardly conceive of it as simply a hereditary tendency, transmitted from one to another. The sin of every individual, as found in experience, had its type in the sin of Adam, and consequently appeared to be a repetition of the first sin rather than its necessary consequence. In order to explain the mysterious power which drives man to evil, they had recourse to the influence of the demons, strong, but not absolutely compulsory, rather than to a total bondage of the will (as the result of original sin). Nevertheless we meet in the writings of Irenæus with intimations of more profound views about the effects of the fall. Tertullian and Origen aided more definitely the theory of original sin, though on different grounds. Origen thought that souls were stained with sin in a former state, and thus enter into the world in a sinful condition. To this idea he added another, allied to the notions of Gnostics and Manichees, viz., that there is a stain in physical generation itself." According to Tertullian, the soul itself is propagated with all its defects, as matter is propagated. The phrase "vitium originis," first used by him, is in perfect accordance with this view. But both were far from considering inherent depravity as constituting accountability, and still farther from believing in the entire absence of human liberty."

1 Iren. III. 23 (35 Gr.), p. 221 (263 Gr.): Condemnationem autem transgressionis accepit homo tædia et terrenum laborem et manducare panem in sudore vultus sui et converti in terram, ex qua assumtus est; similiter autem mulier tædia et labores et gemitus et tristitias partus et servitium, i. e. ut serviret viro suo ut neque maledicti a Deo in totum perirent, neque sine increpatione perseverantes Deum contemnerent (comp. c. 37, p. 264, Grabe). Ibid. v. 15, p. 311 (423, Grabe-)....propter inobedientiæ peccatum subsecuti sunt languores hominibus. V. 17, p. 313 (p. 426). V. 23, p. 320 (p. 435): Sed quoniam Deus verax est, mendax autem serpens, de effectu ostensum est morte subsecuta eos, qui manducaverunt. Simul enim cum esca et mortem adsciverunt, quoniam inobedientes manducabant: inobedientia autem Dei mortem infert, et sqq. (Hence the devil is called a murderer from the beginning.) But Irenæus also sees a blessing in the penalty inflicted by God, iii. 20, 1: Magnanimus (i. e. μaкpóðvμoç) fuit Deus deficiente homine, eam quæ per verbum esset victoriam reddendam ei providens. He compares the fall of man to the fate of the prophet Jonas, who was swallowed by the whale in order to be saved. Thus man is swallowed by the great whale (the devil), that Christ may deliver him out of his jaws; comp. Duncker, p. 151. According to Cyprian, De Bono Patientiæ, p. 212, even

the higher physical strength of man (along with immortality) was lost by the fall; Origen also connected the existence of evil in the world with sin. Comp. above, 8 48. By death, however, the Alexandrians do not mean physical death, which, on their postulates, they must regard as a blessing ; but moral and spiritual death. Clement, Strom. iii. p. 540, and the passages from Origen in Gieseler's Dogmengesch., p. 182. [Comm. in Matth. P. xiii. § 7 : in Joan xvii. § 37. On the Ep. to the Romans, lib. vi. § 6, Origen declares the death, effected by sin, to be the separation of the soul from God: Separatio animæ a Deo mors appellatur, quæ per peccatum venit.]

Though Justin M. uses strong expressions in lamenting the universal corruption of mankind (Dial. c. Tryph. c. 95), yet original sin, and the imputation of Adam's guilt are conceptions foreign to him. At least man has still such right moral feelings, that he judges and blames the sin of others as his.—Dial. c. Tryph. c. 93 : Τὰ γὰρ ἀεὶ καὶ δι ̓ ὅλου δίκαια καὶ πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην παρέχει ἐν παντὶ γένει ἀνθρώπων· καὶ ἔστι πᾶν γένος γνωρίζον ὅτι μοιχεία κακόν, καὶ πορνεία, καὶ ἀνδροφονίο, καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα τοιαῦτα. Compare what follows, according to which only those filled with the evil spirit, or wholly corrupted by bad education (and hence not the posterity of Adam as such) have lost this feeling. Accordingly every man deserves death, because in his disobedience he is like the first man. Dial. c. Tr. c. 88: "Ο (scil. γένος ἀνθρώπων) ἀπὸ τοῦ ̓Αδὰμ ὑπὸ θάνατον καὶ πλάνην τὴν τοῦ ὄφεως ἐπεπτώκει, παρὰ τὴν ἰδίαν αἰτίαν ἑκάστου αὐτῶν πονηρευσαμένου. C. 124 : Οὗτοι (scil. ἄνθρωποι) ὁμοίως τῷ ̓Αδὰμ καὶ τῇ Εὔᾳ ἐξομοιούμενοι θάνατον ἑαυτοῖς ἐργάζονται, κ. τ. λ. Compare Semisch, 1. c. p. 397-399, who goes into the interpretation of these passages. See ibid. p. 401, in reference to the difficult passage, Dial. c. Tr. c. 100, in which many have found an argument for original sin : Παρθένος οὖσα Ενα καὶ ἄφθορος τὸν λόγον τὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄψεως συλλαβοῦσα, παρακοὴν καὶ θάνατον ἔτεκε; is τέκτειν here metaphorical? [On the difficult passage, Apol. i. cap. 61, see Rudelbach Zeitschrift f. luth. Theol. 1841, 8. 171 : especially Landerer, Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1857, s. 518 sq. ; Just. M. on Erbsünde, Theol. Quartalschrift. 1859. The passage in the First Apology, chap. 61, reads: ἐπειδὴ τὴν πρώτην γένεσιν ἡμῶν ἀγνοοῦντες κατ' ανάγκην γεγεννήμεθα ἐξ ὑγρὰς σπορᾶς κατὰ μίξιν τὴν τῶν γονέων πρὸς ἀλλήλους, καὶ ἐν ἔθεσι φαύλοις καὶ πονεραῖς ἀνατροφαῖς γεγόναμεν, ὅπως μὴ ἀνάγκης τέκνα μηδὲ ἀγνοίας μένωμεν ἀλλὰ προαιρέσεως καὶ ἐπιστήμης ἀφέσεώς τε ἁμαρτιῶν ὑπὲρ ὧν προημάρτομεν τύχωμεν ἐν τῷ ὕδατι ἐπονομάζεται τῷ ἑλομένῳ ἀναγεννηθῆναι... τὸ τοῦ πατρὸς......Θεοῦ όνομα. That Justin taught the necessity of internal grace, see Landerer, in the same essay, s. 522.] According to Clement of Alexandria, man now stands in the same relation to the tempter, in which Adam stood prior to the fall, Coh. p. 7: Εἰς γὰρ ὁ ἀπατεῶν, ἄνωθεν μὲν τὴν Εὔαν, νῦν δὲ ἤδη καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀνθρώπους εἰς θάνατον ὑποφέρων ; comp. Pad. i. 13, 158, 159. Clement indeed admits the universality of sin among men, Paed. iii. 12, p. 307 : Τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἐξαμαρτάνειν πᾶσιν ἔμφυτον καὶ κοινόν; but the very circumstance that some appear to him by nature better than others (Strom. i. 6, p. 336), shows that he did not consider man as absolutely depraved, nor throw all into one mass of corruption. No one commits iniquity