the body is evil as such. Comp. Strom. iv. 26, p. 639. For the psychology of Origen, comp. de princ. iii. 3, Opp. i. 145. (Redepenn. p. 296–306). On the question, whether Origen did indeed believe in the existence of two souls in man? see Schnitzer, p. 219, ss. Thomasius, p. 190, 193-195. In the view of Origen the x as such, which he derives from úxeobai, holds the medium between body and spirit. He affirms to have met with no passage in the Sacred Scriptures, in which the soul, as such, is favourably spoken of, while, on the contrary, it is frequently condemned, de princ. ii. 8, 3-5, Opp. i. p. 95, ss. (Redep. p. 211, ss.) But this does not prevent him from comparing the soul to the Son, when he draws a comparison between the human and the Divine trias, ibid. § 5.-For the trichotomistic division, comp. also Comment. in Matth. T. xiii. 2, Opp. iii. p. 570, and other passages in Münscher ed. by Von Cölln, i. p. 319, 320. Origen sometimes employs the simple term "man" to designate his higher spiritual nature, so that man appears not so much to consist of body and soul, as to be the soul itself which governs the body as a mere instrument, contra Cels. vii. 38: "Av0pwπος, τουτέστι ψυχὴ χρωμένη σώματι (comp. Photius Cod. 234, Epiph. hær. 64, 17). Consequently he calls the soul homo homo = homo interior, in Num. xxiv. comp. Thomasius, 1. c.

4 De anima c. 10, 11, 20, 21, 22: Anima dei flatu nata, immortalis, corporalis, effigiata, substantia simplex, de suo patiens varie procedens, libera arbitrii, accidentiis, obnoxia, per ingenia mutabilis, rationalis, dominatrix, divinatrix, ea una redundans, adv. Hermog. c. 11, and Neander, Antignosticus, p. 457. Concerning the importance which, from his practical position, he attached to the senses (the key to his theological opinions) comp. ibid. p. 452, ss.

5 Iren. i. 5, 5, comp. also Neander's Gnostiche Systeme, p. 127, SS. Baur, Gnosis, 158, ss., 168, ss., 489, ss., 679, ss. Münscher, edit. by Von Cölln, p. 316, 317.

§ 55.

ORIGIN OF THE SOUL.

The inquiry into the origin of the human soul, and the mode of its union to the body, seems to belong solely to

metaphysics, and to have no bearing whatever upon religion. But, in a religious point of view, it is always of importance, that the soul should be considered, as a being which has derived its existence from God. This doctrine was maintained by the Catholic church in opposition to the Gnostic theory of emanations, to which the opinion of Origen concerning the pre-existence of the soul is closely allied. On the contrary, Tertullian asserted the propagation of the soul per traducem in accordance with his realistico-material conceptions of its corporeity, (Traducianism).4

1 Accordingly, Origen says, de princ. procm. 5, Opp. i. p. 48: De anima vero utrum ex seminis traduce ducatur, ita ut ratio ipsius vel substantia inserta ipsis seminibus corporalibus habeatur, an vero aliud habeat initium, et hoc ipsum initium si genitum est aut non genitum, vel certe si extrinsecus corpori inditur, necne: non satis manifesta prædicatione distinguitur.

2 Traces of the theory of emanation are found in the writings of some of the earlier Fathers. Justin M., fragm. de resurr. 11: Η μὲν ψυχή ἐστιν ἄφθαρτος, μέρος οὖσα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐμφύσημα. Comp. the Clementine Homilies, Hom. xvi. 12. On the other hand, Clement of Alex. adheres to the idea of a created being, Coh. p. 78: Μόνος ὁ τῶν ὅλων δημιουργὸς ὁ ἀριστοτέχνας πατὴρ τοιοῦτον ἄγαλμα ἔμψυχον ἡμᾶς, τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἔπλασεν, and Strom. ii. 16, p. 467, 468, where he rejects the phrase μépos coû, which some have employed, in accordance wirh the principle: Θεὸς οὐδεμίαν ἔχει πρὸς ἡμᾶς φυσικὴν σχέσιν. Comp. Orig. in Joh. T. xiii. 25, Opp. T. iv. p. 235: Zpódpa ẻoτìv ȧoeßès ὁμοούσιον τῇ ἀγεννήτῳ φύσει καὶ παμμακαρία εἶναι λέγειν τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας ἐν πνεύματι τῷ Θεῷ. Comp. de princ. i. 7, 1.

* Clemens, Coh. p. 6: Πρὸ δὲ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου καταβολῆς ἡμεῖς οἱ τῷ δεῖν ἔσεσθαι ἐν αὐτῷ πρότερον γεγεννημένοι τῷ Θεῷ· τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου τὰ λογικὰ πλάσματα ἡμεῖς· δι ̓ ὃν ἀρχαΐζομεν, ὅτι ἐν ἀρχῇ ὁ λόγος ἦν; this perhaps should rather be understood in an ideal sense. But Origen, following the example of the Pythagoræan and Platonic schools, as well as of the later Jewish theology, speaks of the pre-existence of the soul as something real: (Comp. Epiph. haer. 64, 4: Τὴν ψυχὴν γὰρ τὴν ἀνθρωπείαν λέγει προϋTáрxew). He reconciles his doctrine with human liberty and

Divine justice by maintaining that the soul entering into the bodies. of men suffers punishment for former sins. Comp. de princ. i. 7, 4, Opp. i. p. 72, (Redep. p. 151, Schnitzer, p. 72)." If the origin of the human soul were coeval with that of the body, how could it happen that Jacob supplanted his brother in the womb, and John leaped in the womb at the salutation of Mary?" Comp. also T. xv. in Matth. c. 34, 35, in Matth. xx. 6, 7, Opp. T. iii. p. 703, and Comment. in Joh. T. ii. 25, Opp. iv. p. 85.

4 De anima, c. 19: Et si ad arbores provocamur, amplectemur exemplum. Si quidem et illis, necdum arbusculis, sed stipitibus adhuc et surculis etiam nunc, simul de scrobibus oriuntur, inest propria vis animæ......quo magis hominis? cujus anima, velut surculus quidam ex matrice Adam in propaginem deducta et genitalibus feminæ foveis commendata cum omni sua paratura, pullulabit tam intellectu quam sensu? Mentior, si non statim infans ut vitam vagitu salutavit, hoc ipsum se testatur sensisse atque intellexisse, quod natus est, omnes simul ibidem dedicans sensus, et luce visum et sono auditum et humore gustum et aëre odoratum et terra tactum. Ita prima illa vox de primis sensuum et de primis intellectuum pulsibus cogitur......Et hic itaque concludimus, omnia naturalia animæ, ut substantiva ejus, ipsi inesse et cum ipsa procedere atque proficere, ex quo ipsa censetur, sicut et Seneca sæpe noster (de benef. iv. 6): Insita sunt nobis omnium artium et ætatum semina, etc. Comp. c. 27. Neander, Antignost. p. 455.

§ 56.

THE IMAGE OF GOD.

Both the excellencies of the body, and the higher moral and religious nature of man, which were frequently pointed out by the Fathers,1 are beautifully and appropriately described in the simple words of Scripture (Gen. i. 27), "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him." This expression continued to be employed by the church.2 But it was a point of no little difficulty precisely to determine in what the image of God consists. As body and soul could not

absolutely be separated, the notion arose that even the body of man is created after the image of God,3 and this was held by some in a more literal, by others in a more figurative sense, while some again rejected it altogether. All parties, however, admitted, as a matter of course, that the image of God has a special reference to the spiritual faculties of man. But, inasmuch as there is a great difference between the mere natural dispositions, and their development by the free use of the powers which have been granted to men, several writers, among whom Irenaus, and especially Clement and Origen, distinguished between the image of God, and resemblance to God. The latter can only be obtained by a mental conflict (in an ethical point of view), or is bestowed upon man as a gift of sovereign mercy by union with Christ (in a religious aspect).+

1 Iren. iv. 29, p. 285: Ἔδει δὲ τὸν ἄνθρωπον πρῶτον γενέσθαι, καὶ γενόμενον αὐξῆσαι, καὶ αὐξήσαντα ἀνδρωθῆναι, καὶ ἀνδρω θέντα πληθυνθῆναι, καὶ πληθυνθέντα ἐνισχῦσαι, καὶ ἐνισχύσαντα δοξασθῆν, καὶ δοξασθέντα ἰδειν τὸν ἑαυτοῦ δεσπόπην. Min. Fel. 17 and 18, ab init. Tatian, Or. contra Gr. c. 12 and 19, Clem. Coh. p. 78. According to the latter, man is the most beautiful hymn to the praise of the Deity, p. 78, a heavenly plant (púrov ovpáviov) p. 80, and generally speaking, the principal object of the love of God, Pæd. i. 3, p. 102. Comp. p. 158. Pæd. iii. 7, p. 276: PúσEL γὰρ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὑψηλόν ἐστι ζῶον καὶ γαῦρον καὶ τοῦ καλοῦ ζητηTIKÓν, ib. iii. 8, p. 292. But all the good he possesses is not innate in such a manner as that it ought not to be developed by instruction (uálnois.) Comp. Strom. i. 6, p. 336; iv. 23, p. 632; vi. 11, p. 788; vii. 4, p. 839, and the passages on human liberty, which will be found below.

2 Some of the Alexandrian theologians, however, wishing to speak more accurately, taught that man had been created not so much after the image of God himself, as after the image of the Logos, an image after an image! Coh. p. 78: 'H μèv yàp Toû θεοῦ εἰκὼν ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ, καὶ υἱὸς τοῦ νοῦ γνήσιος ὁ θεῖος λόγος, φωτὸς ἀρχέτυπον φῶς· εἰκὼν δὲ τοῦ λόγου ὁ ἄνθρωπος· ἀληθινὸς ὁ νοῦς ὁ ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ, ὁ κατ ̓ εἰκόνα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ καθ ̓ ὁμοίωσιν

διὰ τοῦτο γεγενῆσθαι λεγόμενος, τῇ κατὰ καρδίαν φρονήσει τῷ θείῳ παρεικαζόμενος λόγω, καὶ ταύτῃ λογικός. Comp. Strom. v. 14, p. 703, and Orig. Comment. in Joh. p. 941, Opp. T. iv. p. 19, 51, in Luc. hom. viii. Opp. T. iii.

3 This idea was connected with another, according to which God was supposed to possess a body (see above) or with the notion that the body of Christ had been the image after which the body of man had been created. (The author of the Clementine Homilies also thought that the body in particular bore the image of God, comp. Piper on Melito, l. c. p. 74, 75). Tert. de carne Christi, c. 6, adv. Marc. v. 8, adv. Prax. 12. Neander, Antign. p. 407, ss. The more spiritual view was, that the life of the soul, partaking of the Divine nature, shines through the physical organism, and is reflected especially on the countenance of man, in his looks, etc. Tatian, Or. e. 15, (Worth, c. 24): Ψυχὴ μὲν οὖν ἡ τῶν ἀνθρώπων πολυμερής ἐστι καὶ οὐ μονομερής. Συνθετὴ (al. συνετὴ according to Fronto Ducæeus, comp. Daniel, p. 202) γάρ ἐστιν ὡς εἶναι φανερὰν αὐτὴν διὰ σώματος, οὔτε γὰρ ἂν αὐτὴ φανείη ποτὲ χωρὶς σώματος οὔτε ἀνίσταται ἡ σὰρξ χυχῆς. Clem. Col. p. 52, Strom. v. 14, p. 703: Ψυχὴν δὲ τὴν λογικὴν ἄνωθεν ἐμπνευσθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰς πρόσωπον. On this account the Fathers of the Alex andrian school very decidedly oppose the material conception of a bodily copy of the Divine image. Clem. Strom. ii. 19, p. 483: Tò γὰρ κατ ̓ εἰκόνα καὶ ὁμοίωσιν, ὡς καὶ πρόσθεν εἰρήκαμεν, οὐ τὸ κατὰ σωμα μηνύεται· οὐ γὰρ θέμις θνητὸν ἀθανάτῳ ἐξομοιοῦσθαι· ἀλλ ̓ ἢ κατὰ νοῦν καὶ λογισμόν. On the other hand, it is indeed remarkable that the same Clement, Pæd. ii. 10, p. 220, should recognise the image of God in the procreative power of man, which others connect with the existence of evil spirits (§ 51): Εἰκὼν ὁ ἄνθρωπος τοῦ θεοῦ γίνεται, καθὸ εἰς γένεσιν ἀνθρώπου ἄνθρωπος συνεργεί. Origen refers the Divine image exclusively to the spirit of man, c. Cels. vi. Opp. i. p. 680, and Hom. i. in Genes. Opp. T. ii. p. 57.

* The tautological phrase, Gen. i. 26:

duced the Fathers to make an arbitrary distinction between

(εἰκών) and 127 (ομοίωσις) Comp. Schott, Opuscul. Τ. ii. p. 66, ss. Irenaus adv. Hær. v. 6, p. 299, ν. 16, p. 313. Ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν χρόνοις ἐλέγετο μὲν κατ' εἰκόνα Θεοῦ γεγονέναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, οὐκ ἐδείκνυτο δε· ἔτι γὰρ ἀόρατος ἦν ὁ λόγος, οὗ κατ ̓ εἰκόνα ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐγεγόνει. Διὰ τοῦτο δὴ καὶ τὴν ὁμοίωσιν ῥᾳδίως ἀπέβαλεν.