i verbum eius communicasset
nobis caro factum? Quapropter et per omnem venit aetatem, omnibus
restituens eam quae est ad deum communionem." The Pauline ideas about
sin, law, and bondage are incorporated by Irenaeus in what follows. The
disquisitions in capp. 19-23 are dominated by the same fundamental idea.
In cap. 19 Irenaeus turns to those who hold Jesus to be a mere man,
"perseverantes in servitute pristinae inobedientiae moriuntur, nondum
commixti verbo dei patris neque per filium percipientes libertatem ...
privantur munere eius, quod est vita aesterna: non recipientes autem
verbum incorruptionis perseverant in carne mortali, et sunt debitores
mortis, antidotum vitae non accipientes. Ad quos verbum ait, suum munus
gratiae? narrans: [Greek: Ego eipa, huioi hupsistou este pantes kai
theoi; humeis de hos anthropoi apothneskete. Tauta legei pros tous me
dexamenous ten dorean tes huiothesias, all' atimazontas ten sarkosin tes
katharas genneseos tou logou tou Theou ... Eis touto gar ho logos
anthropos] et qui filius dei est filius hominis factus est, [Greek: hina
ho anthropos ton logon choresas kai ten huiothesian labon huios genetai
Theou]. Non enim poteramus aliter incorruptelam et immortalitatem
percipere, nisi adunati fuissemus incorruptelae et immortalitati.
Quemadmodum autem adunari possumus incorruptelae et immortalitati, nisi
prius incorruptela et immortalitas facta fuisset id quod et nos, ut
absorbet*etur quod erat corruptibile ab incorruptela et quod erat
mortale ab immortalitate, ut filiorum adoptionem perciperemus?" III. 21.
10: [Greek: Ei toinun ho protos Adam esche patera anthropon kai ek
spermatos egennethe, eikos en kai deuteron Adam legein ex Ioseph
gegennesthai. Ei de ekeinos ek ges elephthe, plastes de autou ho Theos,
edei kai ton anakephalaioumenon eis auton hupo tou Theou peplasmenon
anthropon ten auten ekeino tes genneseos echein homoioteta. Eis ti oun
palin ouk elabe choun ho Theos, all' ek Marias energese ten plasin
genesthai. Hina me alle plasis genetai mede allo to sozomenon e, all'
autos ekeinos anakephalaiothe teroumenes tes homoiotetos]; III. 23. 1:
IV. 38: V. 36: IV. 20: V. 16, 19-21, 22. In working out this thought
Irenaeus verges here and there on soteriological naturalism (see
especially the disquisitions regarding the salvation of Adam, opposed to
Tatian's views, in III. 23). But he does not fall into this for two
reasons. In the first place, as regards the history, of Jesus, he has
been