Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 17.djvu/908

Rh 842 R I G E N Origen introduces the whole ethics of Stoicism. But the link that connects him with churchly realism, as well as with the Neo-Platonic mysticism, is the conviction that complete and certain knowledge rests wholly on divine revelation, i.e., on oracles. Consequently his theology is cosmological speculation and ethical reflexion based on the Sacred Scriptures. The Scriptures, however, are treated by Origen on the basis of a matured theory of inspiration in such a way that all their facts appear as the vehicles of ideas, and have their highest value only in this aspect. That is to say, his gnosis neutralizes all that is empirical and historical, if not always as to its actuality, at least absolutely in respect of its value. The most convincing proof of this is that Origen (1) takes the idea of the im mutability of God as the regulating idea of his system, and (2) deprives the historical &quot;Word made flesh &quot;of all significance for the true Gnostic. To him Christ appears simply as the Logos who is with the Father from eternity, and works from all eternity, to whom alone the instructed Christian directs his thoughts, requiring nothing more than a perfect i.e., divine teacher. In such propositions his torical Christianity is stripped off as a mere husk. The objects of religious knowledge are beyond the plane of history, or rather in a thoroughly Gnostic and Neo-Pla tonic spirit they are regarded as belonging to a supra- mundane history. On this view contact with the faith of the church could only be maintained by distinguishing an exoteric and an esoteric form of Christianity. This dis tinction was already current in the catechetical school of Alexandria, but Origen gave it its boldest expression, and justified it on the ground of the incapacity of the Christian masses to grasp the deeper sense of Scripture, or unravel the difficulties of exegesis. On the other hand, in deal ing with the problem of bringing his heterodox system into conformity with the regula Jidei he evinced a high degree of technical skill. An external conformity was possible inasmuch as speculation, proceeding from the higher to the lower, could keep by the stages of the re gula Jidei, which had been developed into a history of salvation. The system itself aims in principle at being thoroughly monistic ; but, since matter, although created by God out of nothing, was regarded merely as the sphere in which souls are punished and purified, the system is pervaded by a strongly dualistic element. The immuta bility of God requires the eternity of the Logos and of the world. At this point Origen succeeded in avoiding the heretical Gnostic idea of God by assigning to the Godhead the attributes of goodness and righteousness. The pre- existence of souls is another inference from the immuta bility of God, although Origen also deduced it from the nature of the soul, which as a spiritual potency must be eternal. Indeed this is the fundamental idea of Origen &quot;the original and indestructible unity of God and all spirit ual essences.&quot; From this follows the necessity for the created spirit, after apostacy, error, and sin, to return always to its origin in God. The actual sinfulness of all men Origen was able to explain by the theological hypo thesis of pre- existence and the premundane fall of each individual soul. He holds that freedom is the inalienable prerogative of the finite spirit ; and this is the second point that distinguishes his theology from the heretical Gnosti cism. The system unfolds itself like a drama, of which the successive stages are as follows : the transcendental fall, the creation of the material world, inaugurating the history of punishment and redemption, the clothing of fallen souls in flesh, the dominion of sin, evil, and the demons on earth, the appearing of the Logos, His union with a pure human soul, His esoteric preaching of salva tion, and His death in the flesh, then the imparting of the Spirit, and the ultimate restoration of all things. The doctrine of the restoration appeared necessary because the spirit, in spite of its inherent freedom, cannot lose its true nature, and because the final purposes of God cannot be foiled. The end, however, is only relative, for spirits are continually falling, and God remains through eternity the creator of the world. Moreover, the end is not conceived as a transfiguration of the world, but as a liberation of the spirit from its unnatural union with the sensual. Here the Gnostic and philosophical character of the system is particularly manifest. The old Christian eschatology is set aside ; no one has dealt such deadly blows to Chiliasm and Christian apocalypticism as Origen. It need hardly be said that he spiritualized the church doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh. But, while in all these doctrines he appears in the character of a Platonic philosopher, traces of rational criticism are not wanting. Where his funda mental conception admits of it, he tries to solve historical problems by historical methods. Even in the christology, where he is treating of the historical Christ, he entertains critical considerations ; hence it is not altogether without reason that in after times he was suspected of &quot;Ebionitic &quot; views of the Person of Christ. Not unfrequently he re presents the unity of the Father and the Son as a unity of agreement and harmony and &quot;identity of will.&quot; Although the theology of Origen exerted a considerable influence as a whole in the two following centuries, it cer tainly lost nothing by the circumstance that several im portant propositions were capable of being torn from their original setting and placed in new connexions. It is in fact one of the peculiarities of this theology, which professed to be at once churchly and philosophical, that most of its formulae could be interpreted and appreciated in utramque part-em. By arbitrary divisions and rearrangements the doctrinal statements of this &quot; science of faith &quot; could be made to serve the most diverse dogmatic tendencies. This is seen especially in the doctrine of the Logos. On the basis of his idea of God Origen was obliged to insist in the strongest manner on the personality, the eternity (eter nal generation), and the essential divinity of the Logos. 1 On the other hand, when he turned to consider the origin of the Logos he did not hesitate to speak of Him as a KTio-/j.a, and to include Him amongst the rest of God s spiritual creatures. A Kria-^ia, which is at the same time 6/zootVtov TW 0eu&amp;gt;, was no contradiction to him, simply be cause he held the immutability, the pure knowledge, and the blessedness which constituted the divine nature to be communicable attributes. In later times both the ortho dox and the Arians appealed to his teaching, both with a certain plausibility ; but the inference of Arms, that an imparted divinity must be divinity in the second degree, Origen did not draw. With respect to other doctrines also, such as those of the Holy Spirit and the incarnation of Christ, &c., Origen prepared the way for the later dogmas. The technical terms round which such bitter controversies raged in the 4th and 5th centuries are often found in Origen lying peacefully side by side. But this is just where his epoch-making importance lies, that all the later parties in the church learned from him. And this is true not only of the dogmatic parties; solitary monks and ambitious priests, hard-headed critical exegetes, 2 allegorists, mystics, all found something congenial in his writings. The only man who tried to shake off the theological influence of Origen was Marcellus of Ancyra, who did not succeed in producing any lasting effect on theology. The attacks on Origen, which had begun in his lifetime, 1 &quot; Communis substantia3 est filio cum patre ; dir6ppoia enini 0/J.o- ovcrios videtur, i.e., unius substantive cum illo corpore ex quo est a7r6/&amp;gt;p&amp;lt;xa.&quot; 2 E.g., Dionysius of Alexandria ; compare his judicious verdict on the Apocalypse.