δι' ὧν ἡ πᾶσα ἐνέργεια τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπιτελεῖται. So, too, Athenagoras, De mort. Resur. c. 17. Comp. Marcus 1. c.] But Origen, following the Pythagorean and Platonic schools, as well as the later Jewish theology, first spoke of the preexistence of the soul as something real: (Comp. Epiph Hær. 64, 4 : Τὴν ψυχὴν γὰρ τὴν ἀνθρωπείαν λέγει προϋπάρχειν.) He brought his doctrine into connection with that of human liberty and of divine justice, by maintaining that the soul comes into the body as a punishment for former sins comp. De Princ. i. 7, 4 (Opp. i. p. 72, Redep. p. 151, Schnitzer, p. 72). -"If the soul of man is formed only with the body, how could Jacob supplant his brother in the womb, and John leap in the womb at the salutation of Mary?" Comp. also T. xv. on 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. Redep. ii., 20 sq. [Origen says his view is not directly contained in Scripture: De Princ. i. c. 7: Nam per conjecturam facilis assertio esse videbitur; scripturarum autem testimoniis utique difficilius affirmatur. Nam per conjecturas ita possibile est ostendi. He also speaks in some passages as if his opinion was undecided: lib. ii. in Cant. Conticor: Et si ita sit, utrum nuper creata veniat, et tunc primum facta, cum corpus videtur esse formatum, sed causa facturæ ejus animandi corporis necessitas extitisse credatur; an prius et olim facta, ob aliquam causam ad corpus sumendum venire existimetur: et si ex causa aliqua in hoc deduci creditur, quæ illa sit causa ut agnosci possit, scientiæ opus est.]

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? Mantior, 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 vieum et sono auditum et humorė gustum et aêre 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, and the whole section. [Tertullian, De Anima, c. 36: Anima in utero seminata pariter cum carne, pariter cum ipsa sortitur et sexum, ita pariter ut in causa sexus neutra substantia tenetur. Si enim in seminibus utriusque substantiæ, aliquam intercapedinem corum conceptus admitteret, ut aut caro, aut anima prior seminaretur, esset etiam sexus proprictatum alteri substantiæ adscribere per temporalem intercapedinem seminum; ut aut caro animæ, aut anima carr insculperet sexum.]

§ 56.

THE IMAGE OF GOD.

[Thomasius, Christi Person und Work, i., 185 sq. Bp. Bull., Treatise on the State of Man before the Fall.]

Man's bodily preeminence, as well as his higher moral and religious nature, frequently referred to by the fathers in a variety of forms,' is 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 form of expression has been always employed by the church. But it was a point of no little difficulty to determine precisely in what this image of God consists. As body and soul could not be absolutely separated, it was represented by some, that even the body of man is created after the image of God,' now in a more gross, and again in a more refined figurative sense; while others rejected this view altogether. All, however, admitted, as a matter of course, that the image of God has a special reference to the spiritual endowments of man. But, inasmuch as there is a great chasm between the mere natural properties, and their development by the free use of the powers which have been granted to man, Irenæus, and especially Clement and Origen, still more clearly distinguished between the image of God and likeness to God. The latter can only be obtained by a moral conflict (under the ethical point of view), or is bestowed upon man as a gift of grace, through union with Christ (in the religious aspect).*

* Iren. iv. 29, p. 285 : Έδει δὲ τὸν ἄνθρωπον πρῶτον γενέσθαι, καὶ γενόμενον αὐξῆσαι, καὶ αὐξήσαντα ἀνδρωθῆναι, καὶ ἀνδρωθέντα πληθυνθῆναι, καὶ πληθυνθέντα ἐνισχῦσαι, καὶ ἐνισχύσαντα δοξασθῆναι, καὶ δοξασθέντα ἰδεῖν τὸν ἑαυτοῦ δεσπόπην. Yet in other places Irenaeus distinguishes less exactly; see Duncker, u. s. 99, sq. 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 (øvτòv ovρáviov) 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 : Þúσɛɩ yàp ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὑψηλόν ἐστι ζῶον καὶ γαῦρον καὶ τοῦ καλοῦ ζητητικόν; ib. iii. 8, p. 292. But all the good he possesses is not innate in such a way, but that it must 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.

* Some of the Alexandrian theologians, however, speaking more definitely, 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:

Ἡ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ θεοῦ εἰκὼν ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ, καὶ υἱὸς τοῦ νοῦ γνησιος 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 (remark the play on the word 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 notion was either connected with the fancy that God himself has a body (see above), or with the idea that the body of Christ was 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. [Just. Mart. makes the image to consist in the whole man, including the body. Tertullian, Adv. Marcion, lib. ii. : Homo est a Deo conditus, non imperiali verbo, ut caetera animalia, sed familiari manu, etiam præmisso blandiente illo verbo: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram.] 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 in the countenance of man, in his looks, etc. Tatian, Or. c. 15 (Worth, c. 24) : Ψυχὴ μὲν οὖν ἡ τῶν ἀνθρώπων πολυμερής ἐστι καὶ οὐ μονομερής. Συνθετὴ (al. συνετὴ according to Fronto Ducæus, comp. Daniel, p. 202) γάρ ἐστιν ῶς εἶναι φανερὰν αὐτὴν διὰ σώματος, οὔτε γὰρ ἂν αὐτὴ φανείη ποτὲ χωρὶς σώματος οὔτε ἀνίσταται ἡ σὰρξ χωρὶς ψυχῆς. Clem. Coh. 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 Alexandrian school very decidedly oppose the more material conception of a bodily copy of the divine image. Clem. Strom. ii. 19, p. 483 : Τὸ γὰρ κατ' εἰκόνα καὶ ὁμοίωσιν, ὡς καὶ πρόσθεν εἰρήκαμεν, οὐ τὸ κατὰ σῶμα μηνύεται· οὐ γὰρ θέμις θνητὸν ἀθανάτῳ ἐξομοιοῦσθαι· ἀλλ ̓ ἢ κατὰ νοῦν καὶ λογισμόν. On the other hand, it is surprising that the same Clement, Pæd. ii. 10, p. 220, should recognize the image of God in the procreative power of man, which others connected with demoniacal agency (§ 51): Εἰκὼν ὁ ἄνθρωπος τοῦ θεοῦ γίνεται, καθὸ εἰς γένεσιν ἀνθρώπου ἄνθρωπος συνεργεῖ. Origen refers the divine image exclusively to the spirit of man; Con. Cels. vi. (Opp. i. p. 680), and Hom. i. in Genes. (Opp. T. ii. p. 57). • The tautological phrase, Gen. i. 26 : της bus, induced the fathers in their acumen to make an arbitrary distinction between th* (εἰκών) and της (ὁμοίωσις; comp. Schott, Opuscul. Τ. ii. p. 66, ss. Neander secs in this (Hist. Dog. p. 190) : “ the first germ of the distinction, afterward so important, between the dona naturalia and supernaturalia." Irenæus, Adv. Hær. v. 6, p. 299, ν. 16, p. 313: Ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν χρόνοις ἐλέγετο μὲν κατ' εἰκόνα Θεοῦ γεγονέναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, οὐκ ἐδείκνυτο δέ· ἔτι γὰρ ἀόρατος ἦν ὁ λόγος, οὗ κατ ̓ εἰκόνα ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐγεγόνει. Διὰ τοῦτο δὴ καὶ τὴν ὁμοίωσιν ῥᾳδίως ἀπέβαλεν. Οπότε δὲ σὰρξ ἐγένετο ὁ λόγος, τοῦ Θεοῦ τὰ ἀμφότερα ἐπεκύρωσε· καὶ γὰρ καὶ τὴν εἰκόνα ἔδειξεν ἀγηθῶς, αὐτὸς τοῦτο γενόμενος, ὅπερ ἦν ἡ εἰκὼν αὐτοῦ· καὶ τὴν ὁμοίωσιν βεβαίως κατέστησε συνεξομοιώσας τὸν ἄνθρωπον τῷ ἀοράτῳ πατρί. According to some, the language of Clem. Strom. ii. p. 499 (418, Sylb.) implies that the image of God is communicated

66

to man εὐθέως κατὰ τὴν γένεσιν, and that he obtains the likeness ὕστερον KaTà Tη TEλεiwowv. According to Tert. De Bapt. c. 5, man attains unto likeness to God by baptism. According to Origen, who everywhere insists upon the self-determination of man, the likeness to God which is to be obtained, consists in this, ut (homo) ipse sibi eam sibi eam propriæ industriæ studiis ex Dei imitatione conscisceret, cum possibilitate sibi perfectionis in initiis data per imaginis dignitatem in fine demum per operum expletionem perfectam sibi ipse similitudinem consummaret; De Princ. iii. 6 1 (Opp. T. 1, p. 152; Red. p. 317; Schnitzer, p. 236). Comp. Contra Cels. iv. 20, p. 522, 23. But Origen again uses both terms indifferently, Hom. ii. in Jer. (Opp. T. iii. p. 137).

§ 57.

FREEDOM AND IMMORTALITY.

a. Liberty

Wörter, die christl. Lehre über d. Verhältniss von Gnade und Freiheit von den apostolischen Zeiten bis auf Augustinus. 1. Hälfte, Freiburg im Breisg. 1856. [Landerer, Verhältniss von Gnade und Freiheit (dogmatico-historical), in the Jahrbücher f deutsche Theologie, 1857, p. 500-603. Kuhn, Der vorgebliche Pelagianismus der voraugustinischen Kirchenväter, in the (Tübingen) Theol. Quartalschrift, 1853. J. B. Mozley, Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination, Lond. 1855, pp. 398 sq. Neander, Hist. Dog. (Ryland) p. 182 sq.]

4

Freedom and immortality are those prerogatives of the human mind in which the image of God manifests itself; such was the doctrine of the primitive church, confirmed by the general Christian consciousness. All the Greek fathers, as well as the apologists Justin,' Tatian,' Athenagoras, Theophilus, and the Latin author Minucius Felix, also the theologians of the Alexandrian school, Clement and Origen,' exalt the avrešovσlov (the autonomy, selfdetermination) of the human soul with the freshness of youth and a tincture of hellenistic idealism, but also influenced by a practical Christian interest. They know nothing of any imputation of sin, except as a voluntary and moral self-determination is presupposed. Even Irenæus, although opposed to speculation, and the more austere Tertullian,' strongly insist upon this self-determination in the use of the freedom of the will, from the practical and moral point of view. None but heretics ventured to maintain that man is subject to the influence of a foreign power (the stars, or the ɛiuapuévn);1o and on this very account they met with the most decided opposition on the part of the whole church.

1

Justin M., Apol. i. c. 43 : Ειμαρμένην φαμὲν ἀπαράβατον ταύτην εἶναι, τοῖς τὰ καλὰ ἐκλεγομένοις τὰ ἄξια ἐπιτίμια, καὶ τοῖς ὁμοίως τὰ

ἐναντία, τὰ ἄξια ἐπίχειρα. Οὐ γὰρ ὥσπερ τὰ ἄλλα, οἷον δένδρα καὶ τε τράποδα, μηδὲν δυνάμενα προαιρέσει πράττειν, ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἀνθρωπον· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἦν ἄξιος ἀμοιβῆς ἢ ἐπαίνου, οὐκ ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ ἑλόμενος τὸ ἀγαθὸν, ἀλλὰ τοῦτο γενόμενος, οὐδ ̓ εἰ κακὸς ὑπῆρχε, δικαίως κολάσεως ἐτύγχανεν, οὐκ ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ τοιοῦτος ὤν, ἀλλ' οὐδὲν δυνάμενος εἶναι ἕτερον παρ' ὃ ἐγεγόνει. This is most decided against all necessarianism,

Tatian, Or. c. 7: Τὸ δὲ ἑκάτερον τῆς ποιήσεως εἶδος αὐτεξούσιον γέγονε, τἀγαθοῦ φύσιν μὴ ἔχον, ὃ πλὴν [πάλιν] μόνον παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ, τῇ δὲ ἔλευθερίᾳ τῆς προαιρέσεως ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐκτελειούμενον· ὅπως ὁ μὲν φαῦλος δικαίως κολάζηται, δι' αὐτὸν γεγονῶς μοχθηρός· ὁ δὲ δίκαιος χάριν τῶν ἀνδραγαθημάτων ἀξίως ἐπαινῆται κατὰ τὸ αὐτεξούσιον τοῦ Θεοῦ μὴ παραβὰς τὸ βούλημα. Concerning the critical and exegetical difficulties connected with this passage, see Daniel, Tatian der Apologet. p. 207.

'Athen. Leg. 31; comp. De Resurr. 12, 13, 15, 18, ss.

* Ad Autol. ii. 27: Ελεύθερον γὰρ καὶ αὐτεξούσιον ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς ἄνθρωπον, in connection with the doctrine of immortality, of which in the next §.

⚫ Octav. c. 36, 37. Nec de fato quisquam aut solatium captet aut excuset eventum. Sit sortis fortuna, mens tamen libera est, et ideo actus hominis, non dignitas judicatur. . . . . Ita in nobis non genitura plectitur, sed ingenii natura punitur. The liberty of man gets the victory in the contest with all the adversities of destiny: Vires denique et mentis et corporis sine laboris exercitatione torpescunt; omnes adeo vestri viri fortes, quos in exemplum prædicatis, ærumnis suis inclyti floruerunt. Itaque et nobis Deus nec non potest subvenire, nec despicit, quum sit et omnium rector et amator suorum; sed in adversis unumquemque explorat et examinat; ingenium singulorum periculis pensitat, usque ad extremam mortem voluntatem hominis sciscita. tur, nihil sibi posse perire securus. Itaque ut aurum ignibus, sic nos discriminibus arguimur. Quam pulcrum spectaculum Deo, quum Christianus cum dolore congreditur, quum adversum minas et supplicia et tormenta componitur! quum strepitum mortis et horrorem carnificis irridens insultat! quum libertatem suam adversus reges et principes erigit, soli Deo, cujus est, cedit, etc.! Moreover, in Minucius xi. 6, it is intimated (though the opinion is put in the mouth of his opponent), that the Christians believed, that God judges man not so much according to his conduct, as according to predestination; but he refutes this, as a false accusation.

• Clem. Coh. p. 79: Ὑμῶν ἐστιν ἡ βας. τῶν οὐρανῶν) ἐὰν θελήσητε, τῶν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν τὴν προαίρεσιν ἐσχηκότων. He then shows (p. 80) how man himself, in accordance with his own nature, ought to cultivate the talents which God has given him. As the horse is not for the plow (after the custom of the ancients), nor the ox for riding, as none is required to do more than his nature will allow, so man alone can be expected to strive after the divine, because he has received the power of doing it. According to Clement, too, man is accountable for that sin alone, which proceeds from free choice, Strom. ii. p. 461; it is also frequently in our power to acquire both discernment and strength, ibid. 462. Clement knows nothing of a gratia irresistibilis. Strom. viii. p. 855: Οὔτε μὴν ἄκων σωθήσεται ὁ σωζόμενος