ὀλίγον προκόπτοντος, ἢ ἐπὶ πλεῖον, ἢ καὶ ἐγγὺς ἤδη γινομένου τῆς ἀρετῆς, ἢ καὶ ἐν ἀρετῇ γεγενημένου.

(8) De Princip. 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. x. 18, xii. 27; Matt. xxvi. 38). Origen held it to be impossible that the Logos should be directly united with the body: the soul is the intermediate link: De Princip. ii. 6. Comp. Contra Cels. ii. 9, quoted by Münscher (von Cölln), i. s. 263, where he infers the human soul of the Saviour from Matt. xxvi. 38.— Origen's theory of pre-existence would force 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 Princip. ii. 6, 3, quoted in Münscher (von Cölln), s. 265 ff.; comp. Dorner, ii. 677 ff.; Baur, Dg. 622. According to Socrat. iii. 7, the Synod of Bostra, A.D. 240, maintained, in opposition to Beryllus, the proposition: ἔμψυχον εἶναι τὸν ἐνανθρωπήσαντα.—On the Christological views of Origen in general, see Dorner, ii. 2, s. 942 ff.

(9) Origen observes that in the Christology a twofold error is to be guarded against: (1) that of excluding the Logos from Christ, as if the eternal Logos and the historical Christ were two distinct personalities; (2) that of including the Logos wholly in the man, as if He did not exist apart from him; De Princip. 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 cauta 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 aliqua deitatis filii Dei fuerit in Christo, reliqua vero pars alibi vel ubique: quod illi sentire possunt, qui naturam

substantiæ incorporeæ atque invisibilis ignorant. Comp. also Contra Cels. iv. 5: Κἂν ὁ θεὸς τῶν ὅλων τῇ ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμει συγκαταβαίνῃ τῷ Ἰησοῦ εἰς τὸν τῶν ἀνθρῶπων βίον, κἂν ὁ ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν λόγος, θεὸς καὶ αὐτὸς ὤν, ἔρχηται πρὸς ἡμᾶς, οὐκ ἔξεδρος γίνεται, οὐδὲ καταλείπει τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἕδραν· ὥς τινα μὲν τόπον κενὸν αὐτοῦ εἶναι, ἕτερον δὲ πλήρη, οὐ πρότερον αὐτὸν ἔχοντα. 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 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 Princip. i. 2, 8. The humanity of Christ ceased to exist after His exaltation; comp. Hom. in Jerem. xv. (Opp. iii. p. 226): Εἰ καὶ ἦν ἄνθρωπος (ὁ σωτήρ), ἀλλὰ νῦν ovdaμôs éσtiv äveрwπоs. Comp. Hom. in Luc. xxix. (Opp. iii. p. 967) Tunc homo fuit, nunc autem homo esse cessavit. See Dorner, 1.c. s. 371 ff.; Thomasius, s. 202 ff.; Redepenning, ii. s. 313 ff.

(10) So Dorner, lc. s. 679, Anm. 40. The phrase in question occurs (so far as we know) only in the Latin translation of the Homil. in Ezech. iii. 3 (Deus homo); but it is implied in other passages, e.g. Contra Cels. iii. 29, vii. 17. Comp. Thomasius, s. 203, Anm. 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 Novatian, 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 æt. excipiente et ascensu in cœlum sententiæ, quæ in ecclesia Christiana ad finem usque sæculi sexti viguerunt (Havniæ, 1836), p. 77; some merely modifying statements of Irenæus and Tertullian, p. 78. But Origen taught, on the other hand, in more definite terms, Contra 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 αὑτοῦ ὡσπερεὶ ἐν μεθορίῳ τινὶ τῆς παχύτητος 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 οἷοι τε ἦσαν αὐτὸν βλέπειν οἱ πρότερον αὐτὸν ἰδόντες πάντες . . Λαμπροτέρα γὰρ τὴν οἰκονομίαν τιλίσαντος ἡ θειότης ἦν αὐτοῦ. Müller, p. 83. Origen does not seem to have believed that the ascension of Christ effected

a further change; for he probably means by the ethereal body, which he ascribes to Him in His state of exaltation (Contra 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 Jesus.

Ullmann, über die Sündlosigkeit Jesu, 7th edit. 1863. [Ullmann on the Sinless Character of Jesus, Edinr.] Fritzsche, de ávaμaprneig Jesu Christi, Comment. IV. comp. § 17.

The intimate union between the divine and human in Christ, as held by the primitive Church, excluded every possible idea of the existence of sin in Him who was the pure image of Deity. Hence Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement, and Origen assert the sinlessness (ȧvaμapτnoía) of Jesus in the strongest terms (1); and even those of the Fathers who do not expressly mention it, at least take it for granted. In the scheme of the Ebionites and Artemonites, this sinlessness was not necessarily affirmed, although there are not any definite declarations to the contrary. On the other hand, Basilides found it difficult to reconcile the sinlessness of Christ with his Gnostic system, according to which every sufferer bears the punishment of his own sins; though he used every possible means to conceal this defect in his scheme (2).

(1) Justin M. Dial. c. Tr. § 11, 17, 110, et al.; Iren. in the next section. Tert. De Anima, cap. 41: Solus enim Deus sine peccato, et solus homo sine peccato Christus, quia et Deus Christus. Arnobius, Adv. Gentes, i. 53: Nihil, ut remini, magicum, nihil humanum, præstigiosum, aut subdolum, nihil fraudis delituit in Christo. Clem. Al. derives (Pæd. i. 2, p. 99) the prerogative of Christ as the judge of all men from His sinlessness. In Pæd. iii. 12, p. 307, he speaks indeed of the Logos as alone ȧvaμáρтηTOS; but as he makes no distinction between the Logos and the human nature of Christ (comp. the preceding section), it would follow that he regarded Jesus as sinless, which is confirmed by what he

says, Strom. vii. 12, p. 875 (Sylb. 742): Els pèv ovv μóvos ὁ ἀνεπιθύμητος (which implies still more than ἀναμάρτητος) ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὁ κύριος, ὁ φιλάνθρωπος, 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 Princip. 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 contrast with the other assumption of His free spiritual development: 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 (comparison with iron always in the fire). Christ possesses sinlessness as something peculiar to Himself and specific: Sicut vas ipsum, quod substantiam continet unguenti, nullo genere potest aliquid recipere fœtoris, hi vero qui ex odore ejus participant, si se paulo longius a fragrantia ejus removerint, possibile est, ut incidentem recipiant fœtorem: ita Christus velut vas ipsum, in quo erat unguenti substantia, impossibile fuit, ut contrarium reciperet odorem. Participes vero ejus quam proximi fuerint vasculo, tam odoris erunt participes et capaces. Comp. Contra Cels. i. 69 (Opp. i. p. 383): 4iò πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις καὶ μέγαν ἀγωνιστὴν αὐτόν φαμεν γεγονέναι, διὰ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον σῶμα, πεπειρασμένον μὲν ὁμοίως πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις κατὰ πάντα, οὐκέτι δὲ ὡς ἄνθρωποι μετὰ ἁμαρτίας, ἀλλὰ πάντη χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας. (Hebr. iv. 15, where 1 Pet. ii. 22 and 2 Cor. v. 21 are also quoted.) The term ȧvaμápTηTOS first occurs in the writings of Hippolytus (Gallandii, Bibl. ii. p. 466).

(2) Comp. Clem. Strom. iv. p. 600 (Sylb. 506); and the comment of Jacobi in Neander's Dg. s. 219, in connection with the statement of Hippolytus. Comp. also Neander, Gnost. Syst. s. 49 ff. Baur, Versöhnungslehre, s. 24; Dg. s. 609.

$68.

Redemption and Atonement.

(The Death of Jesus.)

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.). *K. Bähr, die Lehre der Kirche vom Tode Jesu in den ersten 3 Jahrhunderten, Sulzb. 1832, reviewed in the Neue Kirchenzeitung, 1833, No. 36. F. Ch. Baur, die christliche Lehre von der Versöhnung in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung von der ältesten Zeit bis auf die neueste, Tübingen 1838 (s. 1–67). [Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, iii. s. 158 ff. 1859. William Thomson (now Archbishop of York), The Atoning Work of Christ; Bampton Lectures, Oxford 1853, Lect. VI., Theories in the Early Church. H. N. Oxenham, Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement, 2d ed. London 1869. Chap. ii. The Ante-Nicene Fathers.]

The manifestation of the God-man, in and of itself, had a redeeming and reconciling efficacy by breaking the power of evil and restoring the harmony of human nature, through the life-awakening and life-imparting influences which proceeded from Him (1). But from the very beginning, on the basis of apostolic Christianity, the redeeming element was placed chiefly in the sufferings and death of Christ. The first teachers of the Church regarded this death as a sacrifice and ransom (ÚTρov), and therefore ascribed to the blood of Jesus the power of cleansing from sin and guilt (2), and attached a high importance, sometimes even a magical efficacy, to the sign of the cross (3). They did not, however, rest satisfied with such vague ideas, but, in connection with the prevailing views of the age, they further developed the above doctrine, and saw in the death of Christ the actual victory over the devil, the restoration of the divine image, and the source and condition of all happiness (4). But, however decidedly and victoriously this enthusiastic faith in the power of the Redeemer's death manifested itself in the writings and lives. of the Christian Fathers, as well as in the death of martyrs ;