his ideas about the
progressive training of the human race and about the different covenants
(see below). On this point cf. also IV. 20. 5-7. The fact that,
according to this way of looking at things, the Good and Divine appeared
only as the _destination_ of man--which was finally to be reached
through divine guidance--but not as his _nature_, suggested both to
Irenaeus and Tertullian the distinction between "natura" and "gratia" or
between "substantia" and "fides et iustitia." In other words, they were
led to propound a problem which had occurred to the Gnostics long
before, and had been solved by them in a dualistic sense. See Irenaeus
II. 29. 1: "Si propter substantiam omnes succedunt animae in refrigerium,
et superfluum est credere, superflua autem et discessio salvatoris; si
autem propter iustitiam, iam non propter id, quod sint animae sed quoniam
sunt iustae ... Si enim natura et substantia salvat, omnes salvabuntur
animae; si autem iustitia et fides etc." II. 34. 3: "Non enim ex nobis
neque ex nostra natura vita est, sed secundum gratiam dei datur," II.
34. 4. Tertullian adv. Marc. III. 15: "Christi nomen non ex natura
veniens, sed ex dispositione." In Tertullian these ideas are not
unfrequently opposed to each other in this way; but the relationship
between them has by no means been made clear.]

[Footnote 559: On the psychology of Irenaeus see Bohringer, p. 466 f.,
Wendt p. 22. The fact that in some passages he reckoned the [Greek:
pneuma] in man as the latter's inalienable nature (e.g. II. 33-5),
though as a rule (like Tatian) he conceives it as the divine Spirit, is
an evident inconsistency on his part. The [Greek: eikon] is realised in
the body, the [Greek: homoiosis] is not given by nature, but is brought
about by the union with the Spirit of God realised through obedience (V.
6. 1). The [Greek: homoiosis] is therefore subject to growth, and was
not perfect at the beginning (see above, IV. 38. 4, where he opposes
Tatian's opinion). It is clear, especially from V. 12. 2, that it is
only the [Greek: pnoe], not the [Greek: pneuma], that is to be conceived
as an original possession. On this point Irenaeus appealed to 1 Cor. XV.
45. It is plain from the 37th chapter of the 4th Book, that Irenaeus also
views everything as ultimately dependent on man's inalienable freedom.
Alongside of this God's goodness has scope for displaying itself in
addition to its exercise at the creation, because it guides man's
knowledge