Page:The Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, Volume 1, 1854.djvu/61

 St Paul and Philo Judceus. 51 body of Jesus Christ, and in those who shall be raised up after his likeness. This is the true Pauline contrast between the natural and the spiritual body of the two Adams, and of those who bear their image. (See Bull's State of Man before the Fall.) Philo in like manner maintains the Heavenly Man alone to have been fully a partaker of the Spirit; for the Earthy Man had only a faint communication of it, such as might more pro- perly be called Trvofj than npevfia. The Heavenly Man, or Last Adam of St Paul, so far agrees with the Heavenly Man of Philo, that the name expresses, in both writers alike, the perfect pattern and exemplar of humanity. But Hie locus est partes ubi se via findit in ambas. Philo's Heavenly Man was nothing else but a Platonic idea ex- isting in the Word or Reason of God, having no individual exist- ence. On the contrary, St Paul's Heavenly Man is he that actually " came down from heaven, even the Son of Man, which is in heaven." Not merely existing in the Divine Aoyos, but him- self the true Personal Aoyos, he became actually an individual man, the pattern and image after which all heavenly men should be moulded. Bearing in mind the order in which, according to Philo, the Two Men were produced, the Heavenly Man being anterior to the other, it is easy to see why St Paul so earnestly argues that "that was not first which was spiritual, but that which was natural : afterwards that which was spiritual*." According to the Judaeo-Platonic philosopher, the Heavenly Man, the generic pattern of the earthy race, was first of all formed : according to the Doctor of the Gentiles, the Heavenly Man, the individual pattern of the heavenly race, was not so formed; and the latter view, upon which the whole of the argument turns, is insisted on for the express purpose of refuting the former. Churchill Babington. future Adam. 42
 * Compare Rom. v. 14, where he calls Adam (our first parent) the type of the