Chapter VI (4)

[Footnote 789: With regard to this point we find the same explanation in Origen as in Irenæus and Tertullian, and also among the Valentinians, in so far as the latter describe the redemption necessary for the Psychici. Only, in this instance also, everything is more copious in his case, because he availed himself of the Holy Scriptures still more than these did, and because he left out no popular conception that seemed to have any moral value. Accordingly he propounded views as to the value of salvation and as to the significance of Christ's death on the cross, with a variety and detail rivalled by no theologian before him. He was, as Bigg (p. 209 ff.) has rightly noticed, the first Church theologian after Paul's time that gave a detailed theology of sacrifices. We may mention here the most important of his views. (1) The death on the cross along with the resurrection is to be considered as a real, recognisable victory over the demons, inasmuch as Christ (Col. II. 14) exposed the weakness of his enemies (a very frequent aspect of the matter). (2) The death on the cross is to be considered as an expiation offered to God. Here Origen argued that all sins require expiation, and, conversely, that all innocent blood has a greater or less importance according to the value of him who gives up his life. (3) In accordance with this the death of Christ has also a vicarious signification (see with regard to both these conceptions the treatise Exhort, ad martyr., as well as c. Cels. VII. 17: I. 31; in Rom. t. III. 7, 8, Lomm. VI., pp. 196-216 etc.). (4) The death of Christ is to be considered as a ransom paid to the devil. This view must have been widely diffused in Origen's time; it readily suggested itself to the popular idea and was further supported by Marcionite theses. It was also accepted by Origen who united it with the notion of a deception practised on the devil, a conception first found among the Basilidians. By his successful temptation the devil acquired a right over men. This right cannot be destroyed, but only bought off. God offers the devil Christ's soul in exchange for the souls of men. This proposal of exchange was, however, insincere, as God knew that the devil could not keep hold of Christ's soul, because a sinless soul could not but cause him torture. The devil agreed to the bargain and was duped. Christ did not fall into the power of death and the devil, but overcame both. This theory, which Origen propounded in somewhat different fashion in different places (see Exhort ad martyr. 12; in Matth. t. XVI. 8, Lomm. IV., p. 27; t. XII. 28, Lomm. III., p. 175; t. XIII. 8, 9, Lomm. III., pp. 224-229; in Rom. II. 13, Lomm. VI., p. 139 sq. etc.), shows in a specially clear way the conservative method of this theologian, who would not positively abandon any idea. No doubt it shows at the same time how uncertain Origen was as to the applicability of popular conceptions when he was dealing with the sphere of the Psychici. We must here remember the ancient idea that we are not bound to sincerity towards our enemies. (5) Christ, the God who became flesh, is to be considered as high priest and mediator between God and man (see de Orat. 10, 15). All the above-mentioned conceptions of Christ's work were, moreover, worked out by Origen in such a way that his humanity and divinity are necessary inferences from them. In this case also he is characterised by the same mode of thought as Irenæus. Finally, let us remember that Origen adhered as strongly as ever to the proof from prophecy, and that he also, in not a few instances, regarded the phrase, "it is written", as a sufficient court of appeal (see, for example, c. Cels. II. 37). Yet, on the other hand, behind all this he has a method of viewing things which considerably weakens the significance of miracles and prophecies. In general it must be said that Origen helped to drag into the Church a great many ancient (heathen) ideas about expiation and redemption, inasmuch as he everywhere found some Bible passage or other with which he associated them. While he rejected polytheism and gave little countenance to people who declared: [Greek: eusebesteroi esmen kai Theon kai ta agalmata sebontes] (Clemens Rom., Hom. XI. 12), he had for all that a principal share in introducing the apparatus of polytheism into the Church (see also the way in which he strengthened angel and hero worship).]

[Footnote 790: See above, p. 342. note 1, on the idea that Christ, the Crucified One, is of no importance to the perfect. Only the teacher is of account in this case. To Clement and Origen, however, teacher and mystagogue are as closely connected as they are to most Gnostics. Christianity is [Greek: mathêsis] and [Greek: mystagôgia] and it is the one because it is the other. But in all stages Christianity has ultimately the same object, namely, to effect a reconciliation with God, and deify man. See c. Cels. III. 28: [Greek: Alla gar kai tên katabasan eis anthrôpinên physin kai eis anthrôpinas peristaseis dynamin, kai analabousan psychên kai sôma anthrôpinon, heôrôn ek tou pisteuesthai meta tôn theioterôn symballomenên eis sôtêrian tois pisteuousin orôsin, ap' ekeinou êrxato theia kai anthrôpinê sunuphainesthai physis en ê anthrôpinê tê pros to theioteron koinônia genêtai theia ouk en monô tô Iêsou, alla kai pasi tois meta too pisteuein analambanousi bion, hon Iêsous edidaxena].]

[Footnote 791: From this also we can very clearly understand Origen's aversion to the early Christian eschatology. In his view the demons are already overcome by the work of Christ. We need only point out that this conception must have exercised a most important influence on his frame of mind and on politics.]

[Footnote 792: Clement still advocated docetic views without reservation. Photius (Biblioth. 109) reproached him with these ([Greek: mê sarkôthênai ton logon alla doxai]), and they may be proved from the Adumbrat, p. 87 (ed Zahn): "fertur in traditionibus--namely, in the Acta of Lucius--quoniam Iohannes ipsum corpus (Christi), quod erat extrinsecus, tangens manum suam in profunda misisse et duritiam carnis nullo modo reluctatam esse, sed locum manui præbuisse discipuli," and likewise from Strom. VI. 9. 71 and III. 7. 59. Clement's repudiation of the Docetists in VII. 17. 108 does not affect the case, and the fact that he here and there plainly called Jesus a man, and spoke of his flesh (Pæd. II. 2. 32: Protrept. X. 110) matters just as little. This teacher simply continued to follow the old undisguised Docetism which only admitted the apparent reality of Christ's body. Clement expressly declared that Jesus knew neither pain, nor sorrow, nor emotions, and only took food in order to refute the Docetists (Strom. VI. 9. 71). As compared with this, Docetism in Origen's case appears throughout in a weakened form; see Bigg, p. 191.]

[Footnote 793: See the full exposition in Thomasius, Origenes, p. 203 ff. The principal passages referring to the soul of Jesus are de princip. II. 6: IV. 31; c. Cels. II. 9. 20-25. Socrates (H. E. III. 7) says that the conviction as to Jesus having a human soul was founded on a [Greek: mysticê paradosis] of the Church, and was not first broached by Origen. The special problem of conceiving Christ as a real [Greek: theanthrôpos] in contradistinction to all the men who only possess the presence of the Logos within them in proportion to their merits, was precisely formulated by Origen on many occasions. See [Greek: peri archôn] IV. 29 sq. The full divine nature existed in Christ and yet, as before, the Logos operated wherever he wished (l.c., 30): "non ita sentiendum est, quod omnis divinitatis eius maiestas intra brevissimi corporis claustra conclusa est, ita ut omne verbum dei et sapientia eius ac substantialis veritas ac vita vel a patre divulsa sit vel intra corporis eius coercita et conscripta brevitatem nec usquam præterea putetur operata; sed inter utrumque cauta pietatis debet esse confessio, ut neque aliquid divinitatis in Christo defuisse credatur et nulla penitus a paterna substantia, quæ ubique est, facta putetur esse divisio." On the perfect ethical union of Jesus' soul with the Logos see [Greek: peri archôn] II. 6. 3: "anima Iesu ab initio creaturæ et deinceps inseparabiliter ei atque indissociabiliter inhærens et tota totum recipiens atque in eius lucem splendoremque ipsa cedens facta est cum ipso principaliter unus spiritus;" II. 6. 5: "anima Christi ita elegit diligere iustitiam, ut pro immensitate dilectionis inconvertibiliter ei atque inseparabiliter inhæreret, ita ut propositi firmitas et affectus immensitas et dilectionis inexstinguibilis calor omnem sensum conversionis atque immutationis abscinderet, et quod in arbitrio erat positum, longi usus affectu iam versum sit in naturam." The sinlessness of this soul thus became transformed from a fact into a necessity, and the real God-man arose, in whom divinity and humanity are no longer separated. The latter lies in the former as iron in the fire II. 6. 6. As the metal _capax est frigoris et caloris_ so the soul is capable of deification. "Omne quod agit, quod sentit, quod intelligit, deus est," "nec convertibilis aut mutabilis dici potest" (l.c.). "Dilectionis merito anima Christi cum verbo dei Christus efficitur." (II. 6. 4). [Greek: Tis mallon tês Iêsou psychês ê kan paraplêsiôs kekollêtai tô kyriô; hoper ei houtôs echei ouk eisi duo hê psychê tou Iêsou pros ton pasês ktiseôs prôtotokon Theon logon] (c. Cels. VI. 47). The metaphysical foundation of the union is set forth in [Greek: peri archôn] II. 6. 2: "Substantia animæ inter deum carnemque mediante--non enim possibile erat dei naturam corpori sine mediatore miscere--nascitur deus homo, illa substantia media exsistente, cui utique contra naturam non erat corpus assumere. Sed neque rursus anima illa, utpote substantia rationabilis, contra naturam habuit, capere deum." Even during his historical life the body of Christ was ever more and more glorified, acquired therefore wonderful powers, and appeared differently to men according to their several capacities (that is a Valentinian idea, see Exc. ex Theod. 7); cf. c. Cels. I. 32-38: II. 23, 64: IV. 15 sq.: V. 8, 9, 23. All this is summarised in III. 41: "[Greek: On men nomizomen kai pepeismetha archêthen einai Theon kai huion Theou, outos ho autologos esti kai hê autosophia kai hê autoalêtheia to de thnêton autou sôma kai tên anthrôpinên en autô psychên tê pros ekeinon ou monon koinônia, alla kai henôsei kai anakrasei, ta megista phamen proseilêphenai kai tês ekeinou thetêtos kekoinônêkota eis Theon metabebêkenai]." Origen then continues and appeals to the philosophical doctrine that matter has no qualities and can assume all the qualities which the Creator wishes to give it. Then follows the conclusion: [Greek: ei hugiê ta toiauta, ti thaumaston, tên poiotêta tou thnêtou kata ton Iêsoun sômatos pronoia Theou boulêthentos metabalein eis aitherion kai theian poiotêta]; The man is now the same as the Logos. See in Joh. XXXII. 17, Lomm. II., p. 461 sq.; Hom. in Jerem. XV. 6, Lomm. XV., p. 288: [Greek: ei kai ên anthrôpos, alla nun oudamôs estin anthrôpos].]

[Footnote 794: In c. Cels. III. 28, Origen spoke of an intermingling of the divine and human natures, commencing in Christ (see page 368, note 1). See I. 66 fin.; IV. 15, where any [Greek: allattesthai kai metaplattesthai] of the Logos is decidedly rejected; for the Logos does not suffer at all. In Origen's case we may speak of a _communicatio idiomatum_ (see Bigg, p. 190 f.).]

[Footnote 795: In opposition to Redepenning.]

[Footnote 796: This idea is found in many passages, especial in Book III, c. 22-43, where Origen, in opposition to the fables about deification, sought to prove that Christ is divine because he realised the aim of founding a holy community in humanity. See, besides, the remarkable statement in III. 38 init.]

[Footnote 797: A very remarkable distinction between the divine and human element in Christ is found in Clement Pæd. I. 3. 7: [Greek: panta oninêsin ho kurios kai panta ôphelei kai hôs anthrôpos kai hôs Theos, ta men hamartêmata hôs Theos aphieis, eis de to mê examartanein paidagôgôn hôs anthrôpos].]

[Footnote 798: "Fides in nobis; mensura fidei causa accipiendarum gratiarum" is the fundamental idea of Clement and Origen (as of Justin); "voluntas humana præcedit". In Ezech. hom. I. c. II: "In tua potestate positum est, ut sis palea vel frumentum". But all growth in faith must depend on divine help. See Orig. in Matth. series 69, Lomm. IV., p. 372: "Fidem habenti, quæ est ex nobis, dabitur gratia fidei quæ est per spiritum fidei, et abundabit; et quidquid habuerit quis ex naturali creatione, cum exercuerit illud, accipit id ipsum et ex gratia dei, ut abundet et firmior sit in eo ipso quod habet"; in Rom. IV. 5, Lomm. VI., p. 258 sq.; in Rom. IX. 3, Lomm VII., p. 300 sq. The fundamental idea remains: [Greek: ho Theos hêmas ex hêmôn autôn bouletai sôzesthai.]]

[Footnote 799: This is frequent in Clement; see Orig. c. Cels. VII. 46.]

[Footnote 800: See Clem, Strom. V. I. 7: [Greek: chariti sôzometha, ouk aneu mentoi tôn kalôn ergôn.]. VII. 7. 48: V. 12. 82, 13. 83: [Greek: eite to en hêmin autexousiou eis gnôsin aphikomenon tagathou skirta te kai pêda huper ta eskammena, plên ou charitos aneu tês exairetou pteroutai te kai anistatai kai anô tôn huperkeimenôn airetai hê psychê]; The amalgamation of freedom and grace. Quis cliv. salv. 21. Orig. [Greek: peri archôn.] III. 2. 2: In bonis rebus humanum propositum solum per se ipsum imperfectum est ad consummationem boni, adiutorio namque divino ad perfecta quæque peracitur. III. 2. 5, I. 18; Selecta in Ps. 4, Lomm. XI., p. 450: [Greek: to tou logikou agathon mikton estin ek te tês proaireseôs autou kai tês sumpneousês theias dunameôs tô ta allista proelomenô]. The support of grace is invariably conceived as enlightenment; but this enlightenment enables it to act on the whole life. For a more detailed account see Landerer in the Jahrbucher fur deutsche Theologie, Vol. II, Part 3, p. 500 ff., and Worter, _Die christliche Lehre von Gnade und Freiheit bis auf Augustin_, 1860.]

[Footnote 801: This goal was much more clearly described by Clement than by Origen; but it was the latter who, in his commentary on the Song of Solomon, gave currency to the image of the soul as the bride of the Logos. Bigg (p. 188 f.): "Origen, the first pioneer in so many fields of Christian thought, the father in one of his many aspects of the English Latitudinarians, became also the spiritual ancestor of Bernard, the Victorines, and the author of the 'De imitatione,' of Tauler and Molinos and Madame de Guyon."]

[Footnote 802: See Thomasius, Dogmengeschichte I., p. 467.]

[Footnote 803: See e.g., Clem. Quis dives salv. 37 and especially Pædag. I. 6. 25-32; Orig. de orat. 22 sq.--the interpretation of the Lord's Prayer. This exegesis begins with the words: "It would be worth while to examine more carefully whether the so-called Old Testament anywhere contains a prayer in which God is called Father by anyone; for till now we have found none in spite of all our seeking ... Constant and unchangeable sonship is first given in the new covenant."]

[Footnote 804: See above, p. 339 f.]

[Footnote 805: See [Greek: peri archôn] II. 11.]

[Footnote 806: See [Greek: peri archôn] II. 10. 1-3. Origen wrote a treatise on the resurrection, which, however, has not come down to us, because it was very soon accounted heretical. We see from c. Cels V. 14-24 the difficulties he felt about the Church doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh.]

[Footnote 807: See Eusebius, H. E. VI. 37.]

[Footnote 808: Orig., Hom. II. in Reg. I., Lomm. XI., p. 317 sq.]

[Footnote 809: C. Cels. V. 15: VI. 26; in Lc. Hom. XIV., Lomm. V., p. 136: "Ego puto, quod et post resurrectionem ex mortuis indigeamus sacramento eluente nos atque purgante". Clem., Strom. VII. 6. 34: [Greek: phamen d' êmeis agiazein to pur, ou ta krea, alla tas amartôlous psychas, pur ou to pamphagon kai banauson, alla to phronimon legontes] (cf. Heraclitus and the Stoa), [Greek: to duknoumenon dia psychêa tês dierchomenês to pur]. For Origen cf. Bigg, p. 229 ff. There is another and intermediate stage between the punishments in hell and _regnum dei_.]

[Footnote 810: See [Greek: peri archôn] II. 10. 4-7; c. Cels. l.c.]

[Footnote 811: See [Greek: peri archôn] I. 6. 1-4: III. 6. 1-8; c. Cels. VI. 26.]

[Footnote 812: On the seven heavens in Clem. see Strom. V. II. 77 and other passages. Origen does not mention them, so far as I know.]

[Footnote 813: c. Cels. l.c.]

[Footnote 814: We would be more justified in trying this with Clement.]

[Footnote 815: See Bornemann, In investiganda monachatus origine quibus de causis ratio habenda sit Origenis. Gottingæ 1885.]