(2) 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 πάντι γένει ἀνθρώπων· καὶ ἔστι πᾶν γένος γνωρίζον ὅτι μοιχεία κακόν, καὶ πορνεία, καὶ ἀνδροφονία, 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 obedience he resembles 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. Ο. 124: Οὗτοι (scil. ἄνθρωποι) ὁμοίως τῷ ̓Αδὰμ καὶ τῇ Εὐα ἐξομοιούμενοι θάνατον ἑαυτοῖς ἐργάζονται κ.τ.λ. Compare Semisch, 1.c. s. 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 Εὔα καὶ ἄφθορος τὸν λόγον τὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄφεως συλλαβοῦσα, παρακοὴν καὶ θάνατον ἔτεκε (is τέκτειν here metaphorical ?). [On the difficult passage, Apol. i. cap. 61, see Rudelbach, Zeitschrift f. luth. Theol. 1841, s. 171: especially Landerer, Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1857, s. 518 ff.; Just. M. on Erbsünde, Theol. Quartalschrift, 1859. The passage in the First Apology, ch. 61, reads: ἐπειδὴ τὴν πρώτην γένεσιν ἡμῶν ἀγνοοῦντες κατ ̓ ἀνάγκην γεγεννήμεθα ἐξ ὑγρὰς σπορᾶς κατὰ μίξιν τὴν τῶν γονέων πρὸς ἀλλήλους, καὶ ἐν ἔθεσι φαύλοις καὶ πονηραῖς 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 ὄνομα. 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: Eis yàp ó ἀπατεὼν, ἄνωθεν μὲν Εὔαν, νῦν δὲ ἤδη καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἀνθρώ

πους 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 Kal Koιóv; 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 corrupt mass. No one commits iniquity 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. 556, 557: Aeyétwσav ημîv· Ποῦ ἐπόρνευσεν τὸ γεννηθὲν παιδίον, ἢ πῶς ὑπὸ τὴν τοῦ Ἀδὰμ 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.)

(3) 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.

(4) Irenæus, Adv. Hær. iv. 41, 2, and other passages quoted by Duncker, s. 132 ff. 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 recognised." 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 approximation to Augustinianism, is given in the following passages (Landerer in Jahrb. für deutsche Theologie, 1857, s. 528):Adv. Hær. v. 16: ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ ̓Αδὰμ προσεκόψαμεν, μὴ ποιήσαντες αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐντολὴν, ἐν δὲ τῷ δευτέρῳ ̓Αδὰμ ἀποκατηλλάγημεν ὑπήκοοι μέχρι θανάτου γενόμενοι. Οΰδε γὰρ ἄλλῳ τινὶ ἡμεν ὀφειλέται ἀλλ ̓ ἢ ἐκείνῳ, οὗ καὶ τὴν ἐντολὴν πаρéẞημеv: 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.]

(5) On the one hand, Origen, by insisting upon the freedom of the human will, forms a strong contrast with Augustine; 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 Princip. 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 (uvoτýpiov yevéσews); De Princip. iii. 5 (Opp. t. i. p. 149, 150, Redep. p. 309 ff.); comp. also Redep. ii. 322 ff.; 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 et in matre pollutus est, solus vero Jesus Dominus meus in hanc generationem mundus ingressus est, et in matre non est pollutus. Ingressus est enim corpus incontaminatum. See, further, in Baur, Dg. s. 589 ff. 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., s. 201 [and Landerer, u. s.].

(6) 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.

(7) 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, Antignostikus, s. 209 ff., 455 ff.— 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, s. 317 ff. 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. *Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschichte der Christologie, Stuttgardt 1839, 2d edit. 2 Bde. 1845, 46, 3d edit. 1853-56. [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, unveiling 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 ȧvaκεφαλαιοῦν, ἀνακεφαλαίωσις (i.e. the repetition of that which formerly existed, renovation, restoration, the reunion of that which was separated, comp. Suicer, Thesaurus, s.v.). Christ is