λαμβάνουσα. Πάλιν δὲ οὐ θνήσκει, κἂν πρὸς καιρὸν λυθῇ, τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ θεοῦ πεποιημένη. Καθ' ἑαυτὴν γὰρ σκότος ἐστὶ καὶ οὐδὲν ἐν αὐτῇ φωτεινόν...(Joh. i.)... Ψυχὴ γὰρ οὐκ αὐτὴ τὸ πνεῦμα ἔσωσεν, ἐσώθη δὲ ὑπ ̓ αὐτοῦ, κ. τ. λ.... Συζυγίαν δὲ κεκτημένη τὴν τοῦ θείου πνεύματος, οὐκ ἐστιν ἀβοήθητος, ἀνέρχεται δὲ πρὸς ἅπερ αὐτὴν ὁδηγεῖ χωρία τὸ πνεῦμα. Theophilus (ad. Aut. ii. 27) starts the question: was Adam created with a mortal, or immortal nature? and replies: neither the one, nor the other, but he was fitted for both (dexтiкòv åμþorépwv), in order that he might receive immortality as a reward, and become God (yévntai deós), if he aspired after it by rendering obedience to the Divine commandments; but that he might become the author of his own ruin, if he did the works of the devil, and disobeyed God.a Irenæus also speaks only of an immortality which is given to man, see adv. Hær. ii. 64: Sine initio et sine fine, vere et semper idem et eodem modo se habens solus est Deus .....Et de animalibus, de omnibus et de spiritibus et omnino de omnibus his, quæ facta sunt, cogitans quis minime peccabit, quando omnia, quæ facta sunt, initium quidem facturæ suæ habeant, perseverant autem, quoadusque ex Deus et esse et perseverare voluerit. Non enim ex nobis, neque ex nostra natura vita est, sed secundem gratiam Dei datur. Sicut autem corpus animale ipsum quidem non est anima, participatur autem animam, quoadusque Deus vult, sic et anima ipsa quidem non est vita, participatur autem a Deo sibi præstitam vitam.

2 The opposition which Tertullian raised to the doctrine of Theophilus, etc., was connected with his notions concerning the twofold division of the soul, that of Origen with his views on preexistence. (For the latter could easily dispose of the objection that the soul must have an end, because it has had a beginning). Comp. however, Tert. de anima, xi. xiv. xv. According to Orig. Exhort. ad. Mart. 47, Opp. i. p. 307, de princ. ii. 11, 4, p. 105, and iii. 1, 13, p. 122, it is both the inherent principle of life in the soul, and its natural relation to God, which secure its immortality; comp. Thomasius, p. 159.

The whole question, however, had more of a philosophical than Christian bearing, as the idea of immortality itself is abstract-negative. On the other hand, the believer by faith lays hold of eternal life in Christ as something really existing. The Christian doctrine of immortality cannot therefore be considered apart from the person, work, and kingdom of Christ, and must rest upon Christian perceptions and promises.

a About the view of the Thnetopsychites (Arabici), compare below the chapter on Eschatology, § 76, note 8.

$ 59.

ON SIN, THE FALL OF THE FIRST MAN, AND ITS

CONSEQUENCES.

Walch, J. G., (Th. Ch. Lilienthol) de Pelagianismo ante Pelagium, Jen. 1738, 4. Ejusdem historia doctrinæ de peccato originis; both in Miscellaneis sacris, Amstel. 1744, 4. Horn, J., Commentatio de sententiis eorum patrum, quorum auctoritas ante Augustinum plurimum valuit, de peccato originali, Gött. 1801, 4.

However much the primitive church was inclined, as we have already seen, to look with a favourable eye at the bright side of man (his ideal nature), yet she did not endeavour to conceal his dark side, by means of false idealism. Though it cannot be said, that the doctrine of human depravity was the only principle upon which the entire theology of that time was founded, yet every Christian was convinced by his consciousness of the existence of such a universal corruption, and felt the contrast between the ideal and the real, and the effects of sin in destroying the harmony of life. Such feelings were proportionate to the notions which were entertained concerning the liberty of man.

Thus Justin M. complained of the universality of sin, dial. c. Tryph. c. 95. The whole human race is under the curse; for cursed is every one who does not keep the law. The author of the Clementine Homilies also supposes that the propensity to sin is now stronger, in consequence of its increase in man, and calls men the servants of sin, (dovλevovтes éπilvμíą), hom. iv. 23, x. 4, Schliemann, p. 183. Clement of Alexandria directs our attention, in particular, to the internal conflict which sin has introduced into the nature of man; it does not form a part of our nature, nevertheless it is spread through the whole human race. We commit sin without knowing ourselves how it happens; comp. Strom. ii. p. 487. Origen also thinks the nature of man is universally corrupted, while the world is in a state of rebellion against its maker, contra Cels. iii. 66, p. 491: Σαφῶς γὰρ φαίνεται, ὅτι πάντες μὲν ἄνθρῳποι πρὸς τὸ ἁμαρτάνειν πεφύκαμεν, ἔνιοι δὲ οὐ μόνον πεφύ

κασιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰθισμένοι εἰσὶν ἁμαρτάνειν. Comp. iii. 62, p. 488: Αδύνατον γάρ φαμεν εἶναι ἄνθρωπον μετ ̓ ἀρετῆς ἀπ ̓ ἀρχῆς πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἄνω βλέπειν· κακίαν γὰρ ὑφίστασθαι ἀναγκαῖον πρῶτον ἐν ἀνθρώποις. Nevertheless the writers of the present period did not attach so much importance to the conviction of sin, as those of the following. On the contrary, feelings of gratitude and joy on account of the finished work of the Saviour, were more universally entertained, and counterbalanced by external contests and persecutions, rather than by internal struggles. The martyrdom of so many of the early Christians may be considered as a continuation of the celebration of the passion of Christ in the church; dogmatic theology, on the contrary, celebrated Christmas and Easter. But in later times, when persecutions ceased, men had recourse to monkish ascetism and a system of self-torture, as artificial substitutes. It then became a duty imperative upon the church to cultivate the internal martyrdom in opposition to those false external triumphs. The former consisted in the subjection of the heart to the power of the free grace of God in the sense of Augustine, which prepared the way for the regeneration of the church in after ages. Here we should be on our guard against a twofold error. The one is, to look for the same disposition during the first centuries which prevailed in later times, and, consequently, either to assert its existence, or to speak disparagingly of primitive Christianity because of its absence. The other is, to overlook the necessity for further developments, and to maintain that everything ought to have remained in its state of comparative childhood or youth.

§ 60.

ON THE DOCTRINE OF SIN IN GENERAL.

Suicer, Thesaurus sub ἁμαρτάνω, ἁμάρτημα, ἁμαρτία, ἁμαρτωλός. Krabbe, die Lehre von der Sünde und dem Tode, Hamburg, 1836 (dogmatico-exegetical). * Müller, Julius, die Christliche Lehre von der Sünde, Breslau, 1844, 2 vols.

The definitions of the nature of sin were to a great extent indefinite and unsettled during this period.1 The heretical sects of the Gnostics in general (and in this particular they were the forerunners of Manichæism), starting with their dualistic notions, either ascribed the

1

origin of evil to the demiurgus, or maintained that it was inherent in matter.2 On the other hand, the orthodox theologians, generally speaking, agreed in tracing the source of evil to human volition, and clearing God from all imputation. Such a view would easily lead to the opinion of Origen, that moral evil is something negative.1 1 A proper definition (which is allied to that of the Stoics) is given e. g. by Clement of Alexandria, Pæd. i. 13, p. 158, 159: Πᾶν τὸ παρὰ τὸν λόγον τὸν ὀρθὸν, τοῦτο ἁμάρτημά ἐστι. Virtue (ἀρετή) on the contrary, is διάθεσις ψυχῆς σύμφωνος ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου περὶ ὅλον τὸν βίον. Hence sin is also disobedience to God, Αντίκα γοῦν ὅτε ἥμαρτεν ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος, καὶ παρήκουσε τοῦ Θεοῦ. He further considers sin on etymological grounds as error.......ὡς ἐξ ἀνάγκης εἶναι τὸ πλημμελούμενον πᾶν διὰ τὴν τοῦ λόγου διαμαρ τίαν γινόμενον καὶ εἰκότως καλεῖσθαι ἁμάρτημα. Comp. Strom. ii. p. 462: Τὸ δὲ ἁμαρτάνειν ἐκ τοῦ ἀγνοεῖν κρίνειν ὅ τι χρὴ ποιεῖν ő συνίσταται ἢ τοῦ ἀδυνατεῖν ποιεῖν. The different kinds of sin are, ἐπειθυμία, φόβος and ἡδονή. The consequence of sin is the λήθη τῆς ἀληθείας, Coh. p. 88, and, lastly, eternal death, ib. p. 89. Tertullian, from a more practical point of view, ascribed the origin of sin to the impatience (inconsistency) of man, de pat. 5, (p. 143): Nam ut compendio dictum sit, omne peccatum impatientiæ adscribendum. Comp. Cypr. de bono pat. p. 218. Orig. de princ. ii. 9, 2, Opp. T. i. p. 97, (Red. p. 216) also believes that laziness and aversion to exertions for the purpose of persevering in good, as well as turning from the path of virtue, are the cause of sin; for going astray is nothing but becoming bad; to be bad only means not to be good, etc., comp. Schnitzer, p. 140.

2 Now and then even orthodox theologians ascribe the origin of evil to sensuality: thus Justin M. Apol. i. 10 (3) de resurr. c. 3, see Semisch, p. 400, 401. On the other hand, comp. Clem. Strom. iv. 36, p. 638, 39: Ούκουν εὐλόγως οἱ κατατρέχοντες τῆς πλάσεως καὶ κακίζοντες τὸ σῶμα· οὐ συνορῶντες τὴν κατασκευὴν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὀρθήν πρὸς τὴν οὐρανοῦ θέαν γενομένην, καὶ τὴν τῶν αἰσθησέων ὀργανοποΐαν πρὸς γνῶσιν συντείνουσαν, τά τε μέλη καὶ μέρη πρὸς τὸ καλὸν, οὐ πρὸς ἡδονὴν εὔθετα. Οθεν ἐπι

δεκτικὸν γίνεται τῆς τιμιωτάτης τῷ Θεῷ ψυχῆς τὸ οἰκητήριον τοῦτο κ. τ. λ.... Ἀλλ ̓ οὔτε ἀγαθὸν ἡ ψυχὴ φύσει, οὔδε αὖ κακὸν φύσει τὸ σῶμα, οὐδὲ μὴν, ὃ μή ἐστιν ἀγαθὸν, τοῦτο εὐθέως κακόν. Εἰσὶ γὰρ οὖν καὶ μεσότητές τινες κ. τ. λ.

3 Clem. Strom. vii. 2, p. 835 : Κακίας δ ̓ αὖ πάντη πάντως ἀναίτιος ὁ Θεός). Orig. contra Cels. vi. 55, p. 675: Ἡμεῖς δέ φαμεν, ὅτι κακὰ μὲν ἢ τὴν κακίαν καὶ τὰς ἀπ ̓ αὐτῆς πράξεις ὁ θεὸς οὐκ èπoinσe. Comp. iii. 69, p. 492. Nevertheless, he is of opinion that evil is also an object of Divine providence; comp. de princ. iii. 2, 7, Opp. i. p. 142.

4 Orig. de princ. 1. c. and in Joh. T. ii. c. 7, Opp. iv. p. 65, 66: Πᾶσα ἡ κακία οὐδέν ἐστιν (with reference to the word οὐδέν in John i. 3), ἐπεὶ καὶ οὐκ ἂν τυγχάνει. He terms evil ἀνυπόστατον, and the fall μeiwois diminutio). J. Müller, 1. c. p. i. 134, ss.

§ 61.

INTERPRETATION OF THE NARRATIVE OF THE FALL.

The documents which have been preserved in the five books of Moses form the historical foundation not only of the doctrine of the creation of the world in general, and of man in particular, but also of the doctrine of the origin of sin, which appears realised in the history of Adam. Some writers, however, rejected the literal interpretation of this narrative. Thus Origen (after the example of Philo)1 regarded it as a type, historically clothed, of that which takes place in moral agents everywhere, and at all times.2 It is difficult to ascertain how far Irenæus adhered to the letter of the narrative. Tertullian unhesitatingly pronounced in favour of its historical interpretation. Both the Gnostics and the author of the Clementine Homilies rejected this view on dogmatic grounds.5

1 Philo perceives in that narrative τρόποι τῆς ψυχῆς, 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, therefore: 'Ev Tois doкoûσi πeρì