for its own sake, Strom. i. 17, p. 368. But he rejects the idea of original sin, as already imputed to children, most strongly, in Strom. iii. 16, p. 356, 157: Αεγέτωσαν ἡμῖν· Ποῦ ἐπόρνευσεν τὸ γεννηθὲν παιδίον, ἢ πῶς ὑπὸ τὴν τοῦ ̓Αδὰμ ὑποπέπτωκεν ἀρὰν τὸ μηδὲν ἐνεργῆσαν. He does not regard the passage, Ps. li. 5, as proof. (Comp. the above passages on liberty and sin in general).

Athen. Leg. c. 25. Tatian, Contra Græc. c. 7, and the passages quoted, § 58. Besides the influence of Satan, Justin M. also mentions bad education and evil examples, Apol. i. 61: Ἐν ἔθεσι φαύλοις καὶ πονηραῖς ἀνατροφαῖς γεγόναμεν.

Irenæus Adv. Hær. iv. 41, '2, and other passages quoted by Duncker, p. 132, ss. According to Duncker, the doctrine of original sin and hereditary evil is so fully developed in the writings of Irenæus, "that the characteristic features of the western type of doctrine may be distinctly recognized." Irenæus indeed asserts that man, freely yielding to the voice of the tempter, has become a child, disciple, and servant of the devil, etc. He also thinks that, in consequence of the sin of Adam, men are already in a state of guilt. On the question whether Irenæus understands by that death which we have inherited, merely physical death (V. 1, 3 and other passages), see Duncker, 1. c. [The doctrine of Irenæus, in its approxima tion to Augustinianism is given in the following passages (Landerer in Jahrb. für deutsche Theologie, 1857, s. 528): Adv. Hær. V. 16, ¿v Tậ πρώτῳ 'Αδὰμ προσεκόψαμεν, μὴ ποιήσαντες αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐντολὴν, ἐν δὲ τῷ δευτέρῳ 'Αδὰμ ἀποκατηλλάγημεν ὑπήκοοι μέχρι θανάτου γενόμενοι. Οὐδε γὰρ ἄλλῳ τινὶ ἦμεν ὀφειλέται ἀλλ ̓ ἢ ἐκείνῳ, οὗ καὶ τὴν ἐντολὴν παρέBημɛv: so in iii. 18: Perdideramus in Adam-secundum imaginem et similitudinem Dei esse; and in III. 22: Quemadmodum illa (Eva) inobediens facta et sibi et universo generi humano causa est facta mortis: V. 19: et quemadmodum adstrictum est morti genus humanum per virginem, salvatur per virginem].

* On the one hand, Origen, by insisting upon the freedom of the human will, forms a strong contrast with Angustine; as he also maintains that concupiscence is not reckoned as sin, so long as it has not ripened into a purpose; guilt arises only when we yield to it, De Princ. iii. 2, 2 (Opp. T. i. p. 139, Red. p. 179), and iii. 4 (de Humanis Tentationibus). But, on the other, he formally adopts the idea of original sin, by asserting that the human soul does not come into the world in a state of innocence, because it has already sinned in a former state; De Princ. iii. 5 (Opp. T. i. p. 149, '50, Red. p. 309, ss.); comp. also Redep. ii. 322; concerning the generation of man see Hom. xv. in Matth. § 23 (Opp. iii. p. 685); Hom. viii. in Lev. (Opp. ii. p. 229, and xii. p. 251): Omnis qui ingreditur hunc mundum in quadam contaminatione effici dicitur (Job xiv. 4, 5).....Omnis ergo homo in patre ei in matre pollutus est, solus Jesus Dominus meus in hanc generationem mundus ingressus est, et in matre non est pollutus. Ingressus est enim corpus incontaminatum. And yet subsequent times, especially after Jerome, have seen in Origen the precursor of Pelagius. Jerome (Ep. ad Ctesiphont.) calls the opinion, that man can be without sin-Origenis ramusculus. Comp. in reply, Wörter, u. s. p. 201, [and Landerer, u. s.]

Tert. De Anima, c. 40: Ita omnis anima eo usque in Adam censetur, donec in Christo recenseatur; tamdiu immunda, quamdiu recenseatur. Peccatrix autem, quia immunda, recipiens ignominiam ex carnis societate. Cap. 41, he makes use of the phrase vitium originis, and maintains that evil has become man's second nature, while his true nature (according to Tertullian) is the good. He, therefore, distinguishes naturale quodammodo from proprie naturale. Quod enim a Deo est, non tam extinguitur, quam obumbratur. Potest enim obumbrari, quia non est Deus, extingui non potest, quia a Deo est.

That, e. g., Tertullian was far from imputing original sin to children as real sin, may be seen from his remarkable expression concerning the baptism of infants; De Bapt. 18, comp. § 72, and Neander, Antignosticus, p. 209, ss., 455, ss.-His disciple Cyprian also acknowledges inherent depravity, and defends infant baptism on this ground; but yet only to purify infants from a foreign guilt which is imputed to them, but not from any guilt which is properly their own. Ep. 64. Comp. Rettberg, p. 317, ss. Cyprian calls original sin, contagio mortis antiquæ, in Ep. 59; but says that it does not annul freedom; De Gratia Dei, ad Donatum, c. 2.

FOURTH DIVISION.

CHRISTOLOGY AND SOTERIOLOGY.

$ 64.

CHRISTOLOGY IN GENERAL.

Martini, Versuch einer pragmatischen Geschichte des Dogma von der Gottheit Christi, Rostock, 1800, 8vo. *Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschichte der Christologie, Stuttgardt, 1839; 2d edit. 2 Bde. 1845-'53. [Baur, Dreieinigkeitslehre, 3 Bde. Tübing. 1841-43. G. A. Meier, Trinitat. 2 Bde. 1844. L. Lange, Antitrinitar. 1851.

THE manifestation of the Logos in the flesh is the chief dogmatic idea around which this period revolves. This fact, unvailing the eternal counsels of God's love, was regarded by the first teachers of the church, not under a partial aspect as the mere consequence of human sin, nor as exclusively conditioned and brought about by sin, but also as a free revelation of God, as the summit of all earlier revelations and developments of life, as the completion and crown of creation. Thus the Christology of this period forms, at once, the continuation of its theology, and the supplement and counterpart of its anthropology.

Irenæus decidedly keeps in view the twofold aspect under which Christ may be considered, as both completing and restoring human nature. Both are expressed by the terms ανακεφαλαιοῦν, ἀνακεφαλαίωσις (i. e., the repetition of that which formerly existed, renovation, restoration, the re-union of that which was separated, comp. Suicer, Thesaurus, sub voce). Christ is the sum of all that is human in its highest significance, both the sum total and the renovation of mankind, the new Adam; comp. v. 29, 2; vii. 18, 7, and other passages quoted by Duncker, p. 157, ss. He frequently repeats the proposition, that Christ became what we are, that we might be what he is, e. g., iii. 10, 20, and in the Præfatio : Jesus Christus, Dominus noster, propter immensam suam dilectionem factum est quod sumus nos, uti nos perficeret esse, quod est ipse. [Irenæus, iii. 18: Filius Dei, existens semper apud patrem, incarnatus est et homo factus, longam hominum expositionem in se ipso recapitulavit, in compendio nobis salutem præstans, et quod perdideramus in Adam, i. e., secundum imaginem et similitudinem esse, hoc in Christo Jesu reciperemus. Comp. v. 16.] Irenæus also says that Christ represents the

perfect man in all the stages of human life. Similar views were entertained by the theologians of the Alexandrian school; see the passages quoted about the Logos. On the other hand, Tertullian, De Carne Christi, c. 6, thinks that the incarnation of Christ had reference to the sufferings he was to endure. (At vero Christus mori missus nasci quoque necessario habuit, ut mori posset.) According to Cyprian, the incarnation was necessary, not so much on account of the sin of Adam, as because of the disobedience of the later generations, on whom the former revelations did not produce their effect (Heb. i. 1), De Idol. Van. p. 15: Quod vero Christus sit, et quomodo per ipsum nobis salus venerit, sic est ordo, sic ratio. Judæis primum erat apud Deum gratia. Sic olim justi erant, sic majores eorum religionibus obediebant. Inde illis et regni sublimitas floruit et generis magnitudo provenit. Sed illi negligentes, indisciplinati et superbi postmodum facti, et fiducia patrum inflati, dum divina præcepta contemnunt, datam sibi gratiam perdiderunt. Nec non

Deus ante prædixerat, fore ut vergente sæculo, et mundi fine jam proximo, ex omni gente et populo et loco cultores sibi allegeret Deus multo fideliores et melioris obsequii; qui indulgentiam de divinis muneribus haurirent, quam acceptam Judæi contemtis religionibus perdidissent. Hujus igitur indulgentiæ, gratiæ disciplinæque arbiter et magister, sermo et filius Dei mittitur, qui per prophetas omnes retro illuminator et doctor humani generis prædicabatur. Hic est virtus Dei, hic ratio, hic sapientia ejus et gloria. Hic in virginem illabitur, carnem, Spiritu Sancto coöperante, induitur. Deus cum homine miscetur. Hic Deus noster, hic Christus est, qui, mediator duorum, hominem induit, quem perducat ad patrem. Quod homo est, esse Christus voluit, ut et homo possit esse quod Christus est. Comp. Rettberg, p. 305. In this last posi tion he coincides with Irenæus.

§ 65.

THE GOD-MAN.

Along with more indefinite and general expressions concerning the higher nature of Jesus,' the elevation of his doctrine and person' and his Messianic character, we find even in the primitive church allusions to the intimate union between the divine and the human in his person. But the relation in which they stand to each other is not exactly defined, nor is the part which each takes in the formation of his personality philosophically determined. The earlier fathers endeavored, on the one hand, to avoid the low views of the Ebionites and Artemonites (Alogi), who considered Jesus as only the son of Joseph and Mary (while the more moderate Nazarenes, in accordance with the catholic confession, admitted a supernatural conceptions). On the other hand, they combated still more decidedly the tendency of the Docetæ, who rejected the true humanity of Christ. They also opposed the opinion (held by Cerinthus and Basilides), that the Logos (Christ) had descended upon the man Jesus at his baptism—

according to which the divine and human are united only in an external, mechanical way; and the still more fanciful notions of Marcion, according to which Christ appeared as Deus ex machina;' and lastly, the view of Valentinus (also docetic), who admitted that Christ was born of Mary, but maintained that he made use of her only as of a channel (canal), by which he might be introduced into this finite life."

'Thus in the letter of Pliny to Trajan (Ep. x. 97): Carmen Christo quasi Deo dicere. The usual doxologies, the baptismal formulas, the services of the Christian festivals and of divine worship, bear witness to the divine homage paid to Christ by the primitive church; comp. Dorner, 1. c. p. 273, ss. Even art and Christian customs testify the same; ibid. p. 290 sq. [Comp. Münter, Schöne, Bingham, Piper, Didron, Jameson, in their works referred to § 8; also, especially, Louis Perret, Catacombes de Rome, 5 fol. Paris, 1851 (by the Institute).] The calumnies which the Jew of Celsus brings against the person of Christ, that he was born from the adulterous intercourse of Mary with a Roman soldier, Pantheras, are refuted by Origen, and the miraculous birth of the Saviour vindicated in view of his high destination (in connection with the doctrine of the preexistence of the soul); Contra Celsum, i. 32 (p. 345-51).

2

According to Justin the Martyr, the excellency of his doctrine elevates Christ over the rest of mankind (Apol. i. 14): Bpaxɛïç dè kaì oúvtoμoi ñаρ' αὐτοῦ λόγοι γεγόνασιν· οὐ γὰρ σοφιστὴς ὑπῆρχεν, ἀλλὰ δύναμις Θεοῦ ὁ λóуoç avτov η, and this human wisdom would be sufficient by itself (according to c. 22) to secure to Jesus the predicate of the Son of God, even though he were a mere man. But he is more than this: ibidem. Origen also appeals to the extraordinary personal character of Jesus (apart from his divine. dignity), which he considers as the bloom and crown of humanity; Contra Cels. i. 29 (Opp. T. i. p. 347, in reference to Plato De Rep. i. p. 329, and Plutarch, in Vita Themistoclis);-"Jesus, the least and humblest of all Seriphii, yet caused a greater commotion in the world than either Themistocles, or Pythagoras, or Plato, yea more than any wise man, prince or general." He unites in himself all human excellencies, while others have distinguished themselves by particular virtues, or particular actions; he is the miracle of the world! c. 30 (altogether in the sense of the modern apologists). Minucius Felix does not go beyond the negative statement, that Jesus was more than a mere man; generally speaking, we find in his writings little or nothing positively christological; Octav. 29, § 2, 3 (comp. with 9, 5): Nam quod religioni nostræ hominem noxium et crucem ejus adscribitis, longe de vicinia veritatis erratis, qui putatis Deum credi aut meruisse noxium aut potuisse terrenum. Næ ille miserabilis, cujus in homine mortali spes omnis innititur; totum enim ejus auxilium cum extincto homine finitur. Comp. Novatian De Trin. 14: Si homo tantummodo Christus, cur spes in illum ponitur, cum spes in homine maledicta referatur? Arnobius, Adv. Gentes, i., 53: Deus ille sublimis fuit, Deus radice ab intima, Deus ab incognitis regnis, et ab omnium principe Deus suspitator est missus, quem neque sol ipse, neque ulla, si sentiunt,