^{page 17 note 1} Some scholars read Irenaeus in line with the emphasis of the Eastern or Greek Fathers on the ‘deification’ (theopoiesis) of humanity. Thus they make the second or ‘elevation’ theme more prominent in their interpretations. See, for example: Bonwetsch, Nathanael, Die Thtologic des Irenäaus (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1925);Google ScholarKlebba, Ernst, Die Anthropologie des heiligen Irenäus (Münster, 1894).Google Scholar More in favor in recent years are readings of Irenaeus as an anti-philosophical biblicist, who intended that only the first or ‘restoration’ theme be taken seriously. See the most uncompromising expression of this viewpoint in: Lawson, John, The Biblical Theology of Saint Irenaeus (London: Epworth, 1948).Google Scholar Also noteworthy is the somewhat qualified statement along the same lines by Aulén, Gustaf in Christus Victor (London: S.P.C.K., 1931).Google Scholar

^{page 17 note 2} Wingren, Gustaf, Man and the Incarnation (London: Oliver and Boyd, 1959).Google Scholar

^{page 17 note 3} This analysis is fully developed in my unpublished M.A. thesis, ‘Irenaeus' Two Schemata of Salvation’, Columbia U., 1967. Not only do the two systems contrast sharply in their internal logic, but in most passages their key elements are clearly separated in the text. It is as if Irenaeus were dimly aware that one outlook could not be developed consistently if elements from the other were allowed to mingle with it.

^{page 18 note 1} iv, 38, 1. English translations in this paper are those of the Ante-Nkene Fathers. The Greek and Latin originals are from the text of Harvey, W. W., Sancti Irenaei: Libros Quinque Adversus Haereses (Cambridge, 1857).Google Scholar Harvey uses a different scheme of chapter divisions, labelling iv, 38 as iv, 62.

^{page 19 note 1} iv, 38, 3. Due to a mistaken addition by the Ante-Nicene Fathers translator, my argument is apparently undercut by the phrase: ‘… and having abounded, should recover [from the disease of sin] …’ The words in square brackets were added by the translator with the intention of clarification, although they are not present in the original. Harvey gives the Latin as ‘et multiplicatum convalescere, convalescentem vero glorificari’ and the Greek as ‘kai plēthunthenta enischusai, kai enischusanta doxasthēnai’. The chief meaning of convalescere and enischuo is ‘to strengthen’ or ‘to gain strength’, carrying no special implication of recovery from illness to a state of health previously possessed. Thus the translation should read simply: ‘… having abounded, should grow strong …’ In this passage there is no mention of a fall, or an interruption of uniform progress and growth.

^{page 20 note 1} In most passages the image (imago, eikon) is the capacity to exercise free will, and the likeness (similitudo, homoiosis) is the possession of immortality/incorruptibility. In the ‘restoration’ theme, Adam possesses, loses, and regains both. In the ‘elevation’ theme, Adam possesses the image (free will) in a rudimentary form, and its sphere enlarges in the course of history; the likeness (immortality) is bestowed only at the end of the maturation process. In speaking of humanity's ‘deification’, Irenaeus doesn't mean that persons actually become equal to God in the sense of possessing divine attributes such as omnipotence or omniscience.

^{page 20 note 2} iv, 38, 2.

^{page 21 note 1} iv, 38, 4.

^{page 22 note 1} (Ta gegonota … mē estin agennēta … kata touto kai husterountai tou teleiou … hustereisthai dei auta tou pepoiēkotos.) (… quae … facta sunt … non sunt infecta … propter hoc et ideo deficiunt a perfecto … minora esse oportuit eo qui se fecerit.) All parts of this and the following argument are from iv, 38, 1.

^{page 22 note 2} (Ta gegonota … katho metepeita geneseōs archen idian esche … nēpia … hustereisthai dei auta tou pepoiēkotos.) (… quae … facta sunt … postea facturae initium habuerunt … secundum hoc infantilia … minora esse oportuit eo qui se fecerit.)

^{page 23 note 1} The fullest analysis of human freedom from this standpoint occurs in iv, 37.

^{page 25 note 1} New York: Harper and Row, 1966.