[Footnote 780: See above, p. 344, and p. 361, note 5. Origen continually emphasised the universality of sin in the strongest expressions: c.

Cels. III. 61-66: VII. 50; Clem., Paed. III. 12. 93: [Greek: to examartanein pasin emphyton].]

[Footnote 781: See Clem., Strom. VII. 16. 101: [Greek: myrion goun onton kat' arithmon ha pra.s.sousin anthropoi schedon duo eisin archai pases hamartias, agnoia kai astheneia, ampho de eph' hemin, ton mete ethelonton manthanein mete au tes epithymias kratein]. Two remedies correspond to this (102): [Greek: he gnosis te kai he tes ek ton graphon martyrias enarges apodeixis] and [Greek: he kata logon askesis ek pisteos te kai phobou paidagogoumene], or otherwise expressed: [Greek: he theoria he epistemonike] and [Greek: he praxis] which lead to perfect love.]

[Footnote 782: Freedom is not prejudiced by the idea of election that is found here and there, for this idea is not worked out. In Clem., Strom.

VI. 9. 76, it is said of the friend of G.o.d, the true Gnostic, that G.o.d has destined ([Greek: proorisen]) him to sonship before the foundation of the world. See VII. 17. 107.]

[Footnote 783: C. Cels. III. 69.]

[Footnote 784: It is both true that men have the same freedom as Adam and that they have the same evil instincts. Moreover, Origen conceived the story of Adam symbolically. See c. Cels. IV. 40; [Greek: peri archon] IV. 16; in Levit. hom. VI. 2. In his later writings, after he had met with the practice of child baptism in Caesarea and prevailed on himself to regard it as apostolic, he also a.s.sumed the existence of a sort of hereditary sin originating with Adam, and added it to his idea of the preexisting Fall. Like Augustine after him, he also supposed that there was an inherent pollution in s.e.xual union; see in Rom. V. 9: VII.

4; in Lev. hom. VIII. 3; in Num. hom. 2 (Bigg, p. 202 f.).]

[Footnote 785: Nevertheless Origen a.s.sumes that some souls are invested with flesh, not for their own sins, but in order to be of use to others.

See in Joh. XIII. 43 ad fin; II. 24, 25; in Matth. XII. 30.]

[Footnote 786: Origen again and again strongly urged the necessity of divine grace.]

[Footnote 787: See on this point Bigg, pp. 207 ff., 223 f. Origen is the father of Joachim and all spiritualists.]

[Footnote 788: See Knittel, Orig. Lehre von der Menschwerdung (Tubinger Theologische Quartalschrift, 1872). Ramers, Orig. Lehre von der Auferstehung des Fleisches, 1851. Schultz, Gottheit Christi, pp. 51-62.]

[Footnote 789: With regard to this point we find the same explanation in Origen as in Irenaeus 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 G.o.d.

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. G.o.d offers the devil Christ's soul in exchange for the souls of men. This proposal of exchange was, however, insincere, as G.o.d 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 G.o.d who became flesh, is to be considered as high priest and mediator between G.o.d 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 Irenaeus.

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 pa.s.sage or other with which he a.s.sociated 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 princ.i.p.al 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: mathesis] and [Greek: mystagogia] 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 G.o.d, and deify man. See c. Cels. III. 28: [Greek: Alla gar kai ten katabasan eis anthropinen physin kai eis anthropinas peristaseis dynamin, kai a.n.a.labousan psychen kai soma anthropinon, heoron ek tou pisteuesthai meta ton theioteron symballomenen eis soterian tois pisteuousin orosin, ap' ekeinou erxato theia kai anthropine sunuphainesthai physis en e anthropine te pros to theioteron koinonia genetai theia ouk en mono to Iesou, alla kai pasi tois meta too pisteuein a.n.a.lambanousi bion, hon Iesous 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: me sarkothenai 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 loc.u.m manui praebuisse 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 (Paed. 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 princ.i.p.al pa.s.sages 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: mystice paradosis] of the Church, and was not first broached by Origen. The special problem of conceiving Christ as a real [Greek: theanthropos] 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 archon] 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 verb.u.m dei et sapientia eius ac substantialis veritas ac vita vel a patre divulsa sit vel intra corporis eius coercita et conscripta brevitatem nec usquam praeterea putetur operata; sed inter utrumque cauta pietatis debet esse confessio, ut neque aliquid divinitatis in Christo defuisse credatur et nulla penitus a paterna substantia, quae ubique est, facta putetur esse divisio." On the perfect ethical union of Jesus' soul with the Logos see [Greek: peri archon] II. 6. 3: "anima Iesu ab initio creaturae et deinceps inseparabiliter ei atque indissociabiliter inhaerens et tota totum recipiens atque in eius lucem splendoremque ipsa cedens facta est c.u.m ipso princ.i.p.aliter unus spiritus;" II. 6. 5: "anima Christi ita elegit diligere iust.i.tiam, ut pro immensitate dilectionis inconvertibiliter ei atque inseparabiliter inhaereret, 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 G.o.d-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 sent.i.t, quod intelligit, deus est," "nec convertibilis aut mutabilis dici potest" (l.c.).

"Dilectionis merito anima Christi c.u.m verbo dei Christus efficitur."

(II. 6. 4). [Greek: Tis mallon tes Iesou psyches e kan paraplesios kekolletai to kyrio; hoper ei houtos echei ouk eisi duo he psyche tou Iesou pros ton pases ktiseos prototokon Theon logon] (c. Cels. VI. 47).

The metaphysical foundation of the union is set forth in [Greek: peri archon] II. 6. 2: "Substantia animae inter deum carnemque mediante--non enim possibile erat dei naturam corpori sine mediatore miscere--nascitur deus h.o.m.o, illa substantia media exsistente, cui utique contra naturam non erat corpus a.s.sumere. 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 archethen einai Theon kai huion Theou, outos ho autologos esti kai he autosophia kai he autoaletheia to de thneton autou soma kai ten anthropinen en auto psychen te pros ekeinon ou monon koinonia, alla kai henosei kai anakrasei, ta megista phamen proseilephenai kai tes ekeinou thetetos kekoinonekota eis Theon metabebekenai]." Origen then continues and appeals to the philosophical doctrine that matter has no qualities and can a.s.sume all the qualities which the Creator wishes to give it. Then follows the conclusion: [Greek: ei hugie ta toiauta, ti thaumaston, ten poioteta tou thnetou kata ton Iesoun somatos p.r.o.noia Theou boulethentos metabalein eis aitherion kai theian poioteta]; The man is now the same as the Logos. See in Joh. x.x.xII. 17, Lomm. II., p.

461 sq.; Hom. in Jerem. XV. 6, Lomm. XV., p. 288: [Greek: ei kai en anthropos, alla nun oudamos estin anthropos].]

[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 pa.s.sages, 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 Paed. I. 3. 7: [Greek: panta oninesin ho kurios kai panta ophelei kai hos anthropos kai hos Theos, ta men hamartemata hos Theos aphieis, eis de to me examartanein paidagogon hos anthropos].]

[Footnote 798: "Fides in n.o.bis; mensura fidei causa accipiendarum gratiarum" is the fundamental idea of Clement and Origen (as of Justin); "voluntas humana praecedit". 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, quae est ex n.o.bis, dabitur gratia fidei quae est per spiritum fidei, et abundabit; et quidquid habuerit quis ex naturali creatione, c.u.m 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 hemas ex hemon auton bouletai sozesthai.]]

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

[Footnote 800: See Clem, Strom. V. I. 7: [Greek: chariti sozometha, ouk aneu mentoi ton kalon ergon.]. VII. 7. 48: V. 12. 82, 13. 83: [Greek: eite to en hemin autexousiou eis gnosin aphikomenon tagathou skirta te kai peda huper ta eskammena, plen ou charitos aneu tes exairetou pteroutai te kai anistatai kai ano ton huperkeimenon airetai he psyche]; The amalgamation of freedom and grace. Quis cliv. salv. 21. Orig.

[Greek: peri archon.] III. 2. 2: In bonis rebus humanum propositum solum per se ipsum imperfectum est ad consummationem boni, adiutorio namque divino ad perfecta quaeque peracitur. III. 2. 5, I. 18; Selecta in Ps. 4, Lomm. XI., p. 450: [Greek: to tou logikou agathon mikton estin ek te tes proaireseos autou kai tes sumpneouses theias dunameos to ta allista proelomeno]. 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 Lat.i.tudinarians, 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 Paedag.

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 G.o.d 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 archon] II. 11.]

[Footnote 806: See [Greek: peri archon] 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' emeis agiazein to pur, ou ta krea, alla tas amartolous psychas, pur ou to pamphagon kai banauson, alla to phronimon legontes]

(cf. Herac.l.i.tus and the Stoa), [Greek: to duknoumenon dia psychea tes dierchomenes to pur]. For Origen cf. Bigg, p. 229 ff. There is another and intermediate stage between the punishments in h.e.l.l and _regnum dei_.]

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

[Footnote 811: See [Greek: peri archon] 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 pa.s.sages. 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. Gottingae 1885.]