History of Dogma Volume II Part 24

But, while so judging, we cannot deny that the Church tradition was here completely transformed into a Greek philosophy of religion on a historical basis, nor do we certify the Christian character of Clement's "dogmas" in acknowledging the evangelical spirit of his practical position. What would be left of Christianity, if the practical aim, given by Clement to this religious philosophy, were lost? A depotentiated system which could absolutely no longer be called Christian. On the other hand there were many valuable features in the ecclesiastical _regula_ literally interpreted; and the attempts of Irenaeus to extract an authoritative religious meaning from the literal sense of Church tradition and of New Testament pa.s.sages must be regarded as conservative efforts of the most valuable kind. No doubt Irenaeus and his theological _confreres_ did not themselves find in Christianity that freedom which is its highest aim; but on the other hand they preserved and rescued valuable material for succeeding times. If some day trust in the methods of religious philosophy vanishes, men will revert to history, which will still be recognisable in the preserved tradition, as prized by Irenaeus and the rest, whereas it will have almost perished in the artificial interpretations due to the speculations of religious philosophers.

The importance that the Alexandrian school was to attain in the history of dogma is not a.s.sociated with Clement, but with his disciple Origen.[676] This was not because Clement was more heterodox than Origen, for that is not the case, so far as the Stromateis is concerned at least;[677] but because the latter exerted an incomparably greater influence than the former; and, with an energy perhaps unexampled in the history of the Church, already mapped out all the provinces of theology by his own unaided efforts. Another reason is that Clement did not possess the Church tradition in its fixed Catholic forms as Origen did (see above, chapter 2), and, as his Stromateis shows, he was as yet incapable of forming a theological system. What he offers is portions of a theological Christian dogmatic and speculative ethic. These indeed are no fragments in so far as they are all produced according to a definite method and have the same object in view, but they still want unity. On the other hand Origen succeeded in forming a complete system inasmuch as he not only had a Catholic tradition of fixed limits and definite type to fall back upon as a basis; but was also enabled by the previous efforts of Clement to furnish a methodical treatment of this tradition.[678] Now a sharp eye indeed perceives that Origen personally no longer possessed such a complete and bold religious theory of the world as Clement did, for he was already more tightly fettered by the Church tradition, some details of which here and there led him into compromises that remind us of Irenaeus; but it was in connection with his work that the development of the following period took place. It is therefore sufficient, within the framework of the history of dogma, to refer to Clement as the bold forerunner of Origen, and, in setting forth the theology of the latter, to compare it in important points with the doctrines of Clement.

2. _The system of Origen._[679]

Among the theologians of ecclesiastical antiquity Origen was the most important and influential alongside of Augustine. He proved the father of ecclesiastical science in the widest sense of the word, and at the same time became the founder of that theology which reached its complete development in the fourth and fifth centuries, and which in the sixth definitely denied its author, without, however, losing the form he had impressed on it. Origen created the ecclesiastical dogmatic and made the sources of the Jewish and Christian religion the foundation of that science. The Apologists, in their day, had found everything clear in Christianity; the antignostic Fathers had confused the Church's faith and the science that treats of it. Origen recognised the problem and the problems, and elevated the pursuit of Christian theology to the rank of an independent task by freeing it from its polemical aim. He could not have become what he did, if two generations had not preceded him in paving the way to form a mental conception of Christianity and give it a philosophical foundation. Like all epoch-making personalities, he was also favoured by the conditions in which he lived, though he had to endure violent attacks. Born of a Christian family which was faithfully attached to the Church, he lived at a time when the Christian communities enjoyed almost uninterrupted peace and were being naturalised in the world; he was a member of a Christian Church where the right of scientific study was already recognised and where this had attained a fixed position in an organised school.[680] He proclaimed the reconciliation of science with the Christian faith and the compatibility of the highest culture with the Gospel within the bosom of the Church, thus contributing more than any other to convert the ancient world to Christianity. But he made no compromises from shrewd calculation: it was his inmost and holiest conviction that the sacred doc.u.ments of Christianity contained all the ideals of antiquity, and that the speculative conception of ecclesiastical Christianity was the only true and right one. His character was pure, his life blameless; in his work he was not only unwearied, but also unselfish. There have been few Fathers of the Church whose life-story leaves such an impression of purity behind it as that of Origen. The atmosphere which he breathed as a Christian and as a philosopher was dangerous; but his mind remained sound, and even his feeling for truth scarcely ever forsook him.[681] To us his theory of the world, surveyed in its details, presents various changing hues, like that of Philo, and at the present day we can scarcely any longer understand how he was able to unite the different materials; but, considering the solidity of his character and the confidence of his decisions, we cannot doubt that he himself felt the agreement of all essential parts of his system. No doubt he spoke in one way to the perfect and in another to the ma.s.s of Christian people. The narrow-minded or the immature will at all times necessarily consider such proceedings hypocrisy, but the outcome of his religious and scientific conception of the world required the twofold language.

Orthodox theology of all creeds has never yet advanced beyond the circle first mapped out by his mind. She has suspected and corrected her founder, she has thought she could lop off his heterodox opinions as if they were accidental excrescences, she has incorporated with the simple faith itself the measure of speculation she was obliged to admit, and continued to give the rule of faith a more philosophic form, fragment by fragment, in order that she might thus be able to remove the gap between Faith and Gnosis and to banish free theology through the formula of ecclesiastical dogma. But it may reasonably be questioned whether all this is progress, and it is well worth investigating whether the gap between half theological, clerical Christianity and a lay Christianity held in tutelage is more endurable than that between Gnosis and Pistis, which Origen preserved and bridged over.

The Christian system of Origen[682] is worked out in opposition to the systems of the Greek philosophers and of the Christian Gnostics. It is moreover opposed to the ecclesiastical enemies of science, the Christian Unitarians, and the Jews.[683] But the science of the faith, as developed by Origen, being built up with the appliances of Philo's science, bears unmistakable marks of Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. Origen speculated not only in the manner of Justin, but also in that of Valentinus and therefore likewise after the fas.h.i.+on of Plotinus; in fact he is characterised by the adoption of the methods and, in a certain sense, of the axioms current in the schools of Valentinus and traceable in Neoplatonism. But, as this method implied the acknowledgment of a sacred literature, Origen was an exegete who believed in the Holy Scriptures and indeed, at bottom, he viewed all theology as a methodical exegesis of Holy Writ. Finally, however, since Origen, as an ecclesiastical Christian, was convinced that the Church (by which he means only the perfect and pure Church) is the sole possessor of G.o.d's holy revelations with whose authority the faith may be justly satisfied, nothing but the two Testaments, as preserved by her, was regarded by him as the absolutely reliable divine revelation.[684] But, in addition to these, every possession of the Church, and, above all, the rule of faith, was authoritative and holy.[685] By acknowledging not only the relative correctness of the beliefs held by the great ma.s.s of simple Christians, as the Valentinians did, but also the indispensableness of their faith as the foundation of speculation, Origen like Clement avoided the dilemma of becoming a heterodox Gnostic or an ecclesiastical traditionalist. He was able to maintain this standpoint, because in the first place his Gnosis required a guaranteed sacred literature which he only found in the Church, and because in the second place this same Gnosis had extended its horizon far enough to see that what the heretical Gnosis had regarded as contrasts were different aspects of the same thing. The relative way of looking at things, an inheritance from the best time of antiquity, is familiar to Origen, as it was to Clement; and he contrived never to lose sight of it, in spite of the absolute att.i.tude he had arrived at through the Christian Gnosis and the Holy Scriptures. This relative view taught him and Clement toleration and discretion (Strom. IV. 22. 139: [Greek: he gnosis agapa kai tous agnoountas didaskei te kai paideuei ten pasan ktisin tou pantokratoros Theou timan], "Gnosis loves and instructs the ignorant and teaches us to honour the whole creation of G.o.d Almighty"); and enabled them everywhere to discover, hold fast, and further the good in that which was meagre and narrow, in that which was undeveloped and as yet intrinsically obscure.[686] As an orthodox traditionalist and decided opponent of all heresy Origen acknowledged that Christianity embraces a salvation which is offered to all men and attained by faith, that it is the doctrine of historical facts to which we must adhere, that the content of Christianity has been appropriately summarised by the Church in her rule of faith,[687] and that belief is of itself sufficient for the renewal and salvation of man. But, as an idealistic philosopher, Origen transformed the whole content of ecclesiastical faith into ideas. Here he adhered to no fixed philosophical system, but, like Philo, Clement, and the Neoplatonists, adopted and adapted all that had been effected by the labours of idealistic Greek moralists since the time of Socrates.

These, however, had long before transformed the Socratic saying "know thyself" into manifold rules for the right conduct of life, and a.s.sociated with it a theosophy, in which man was first to attain to his true self.[688] These rules made the true "sage" abstain from occupying himself in the service of daily life and "from burdensome appearance in public". They a.s.serted that the mind "can have no more peculiar duty than caring for itself." This is accomplished by its not looking without nor occupying itself with foreign things, but, turning inwardly to itself, restoring its own nature to itself and thus practising righteousness.[689] Here it was taught that the wise man who no longer requires anything is nearest the Deity, because he is a partaker of the highest good through possession of his rich Ego and through his calm contemplation of the world; here moreover it was proclaimed that the mind that has freed itself from the sensuous[690] and lives in constant contemplation of the eternal is also in the end vouchsafed a view of the invisible and is itself deified. No one can deny that this sort of flight from the world and possession of G.o.d involves a specific secularisation of Christianity, and that the isolated and self-sufficient sage is pretty much the opposite of the poor soul that hungers after righteousness.[691] Nor, on the other hand, can any one deny that concrete examples of both types are found in infinite multiplicity and might shade off into each other in this multiplicity.

This was the case with Clement and Origen. To them the ethical and religious ideal is the state without sorrow, the state of insensibility to all evils, of order and peace--but peace in G.o.d. Reconciled to the course of the world, trusting in the divine Logos,[692] rich in disinterested love to G.o.d and the brethren, reproducing the divine thoughts, looking up with longing to heaven its native city,[693] the created spirit attains its likeness to G.o.d and eternal bliss. It reaches this by the victory over sensuousness, by constantly occupying itself with the divine--"Go ye believing thoughts into the wide field of eternity"--by self-knowledge and contemplative isolation, which, however, does not exclude work in the kingdom of G.o.d, that is in the Church. This is the divine wisdom: "The soul practises viewing herself as in a mirror: she displays the divine Spirit in herself as in a mirror, if she is to be found worthy of this fellows.h.i.+p; and she thus discovers the traces of a mysterious way to deification."[694] Origen employed the Stoic and Platonic systems of ethics as an instrument for the gradual realisation of this ideal.[695] With him the mystic and ecstatic as well as the magic and sacramental element is still in the background, though it is not wanting. To Origen's mind, however, the inadequacy of philosophical injunctions was constantly made plain by the following considerations. (1) The philosophers, in spite of their n.o.ble thoughts of G.o.d, tolerated the existence of polytheism; and this was really the only fault he had to find with Plato. (2) The truth did not become universally accessible through them.[696] (3) As the result of these facts they did not possess sufficient power.[697] In contrast to this the divine revelation had already mastered a whole people through Moses--"Would to G.o.d the Jews had not transgressed the law, and had not slain the prophets and Jesus; we would then have had a model of that heavenly commonwealth which Plato has sought to describe"[698]--and the Logos shows his universal power in the Church (1) by putting an end to all polytheism, and (2) by improving everyone to the extent that his knowledge and capacity admit, and in proportion as his will is inclined to, and susceptible of, that which is good.[699]

Not only, however, did Origen employ the Greek ethic in its varied types, but the Greek cosmological speculation also formed the complicated substructure of his religious system of morals. The Gnosis is formally a philosophy of revelation, that is a Scripture theology,[700] and materially a cosmological speculation. On the basis of a detailed theory of inspiration, which itself, moreover, originates with the philosophers, the Holy Scriptures are so treated that all facts appear as the vehicles of ideas and only attain their highest value in this aspect. Systematic theology, in undertaking its task, always starts, as Clement and Origen also did, with the conscious or unconscious thought of emanc.i.p.ating itself from the outward revelation and community of cultus that are the characteristic marks of positive religion. The place of these is taken by the results of speculative cosmology, which, though themselves practically conditioned, do not seem to be of this character. This also applies to Origen's Christian Gnosis or scientific dogmatic, which is simply the metaphysics of the age.

However, as he was the equal of the foremost minds of his time, this dogmatic was no schoolboy imitation on his part, but was to some extent independently developed and was worked out both in opposition to pantheistic Stoicism and to theoretical dualism. That we are not mistaken in this opinion is shown by a doc.u.ment ranking among the most valuable things preserved to us from the third century; we mean the judgment pa.s.sed on Origen by Porphyry in Euseb., H. E. VI. 19. Every sentence is instructive,[701] but the culminating point is the judgment contained in -- 7: [Greek: kata men ton Bion Christianos zon kai paranomos, kata de tas peri ton pragmaton kai tou theou doxas h.e.l.lenizon kai ta h.e.l.lenon tois othneiois hupoballomenos mythois.] ("His outward life was that of a Christian and opposed to the law, but in regard to his views of things and of the Deity, he thought like the Greeks, inasmuch as he introduced their ideas into the myths of other peoples.") We can everywhere verify this observation from Origen's works and particularly from the books written against Celsus, where he is continually obliged to mask his essential agreement in principles and method with the enemy of the Christians.[702] The Gnosis is in fact the h.e.l.lenic one and results in that wonderful picture of the world which, though apparently a drama, is in reality immovable, and only a.s.sumes such a complicated form here from its relation to the Holy Scriptures and the history of Christ.[703] The Gnosis neutralises everything connected with empiric history; and if this does not everywhere hold good with regard to the actual occurrence of facts, it is at least invariably the case in respect to their significance. The clearest proof of this is (1) that Origen raised the thought of the unchangeability of G.o.d to be the norm of his system and (2) that he denied the historical, incarnate Logos any significance for "Gnostics." To these Christ merely appears as the Logos who has been from eternity with the Father and has always acted from the beginning. He alone is the object of the knowledge of the wise man, who merely requires a perfect or, in other words, a divine teacher.[704] The Gospel too only teaches the "shadow of the secrets of Christ;" but the eternal Gospel, which is also the pneumatic one, "clearly places before men's minds all things concerning the Son of G.o.d himself, both the mysteries shown by his words, and the things of which his acts were the riddles" ([Greek: saphos paristesi tois noousi ta panta enopion peri autou tou huiou tou Theou, kai ta paristamena musteria hupo ton logon autou, ta te pragmata, on ainigmata esan hai praxeis autou]).[705] No doubt the true theology based on revelation makes pantheism appear overthrown as well as dualism, and here the influence of the two Testaments cannot be mistaken; but a subtle form of the latter recurs in Origen's system, whilst the manner in which he rejected both made the Greek philosophy of the age feel that there was something akin to it here. In the final utterances of religious metaphysics ecclesiastical Christianity, with the exception of a few compromises, is thrown off as a husk. The objects of religious knowledge have no history or rather, and this is a genuinely Gnostic and Neoplatonic idea, they have only a supramundane one.

This necessarily gave rise to the a.s.sumption of an esoteric and exoteric form of the Christian religion, for it is only behind the statutory, positive religion of the Church that religion itself is found. Origen gave the clearest expression to this a.s.sumption, which must have been already familiar in the Alexandrian school of catechists, and convinced himself that it was correct, because he saw that the ma.s.s of Christians were unable to grasp the deeper sense of Scripture, and because he realised the difficulties of the exegesis. On the other hand, in solving the problem of adapting the different points of his heterodox system of thought to the _regula fidei_, he displayed the most masterly skill. He succeeded in finding an external connection, because, though the construction of his theory proceeded from the top downwards, he could find support for it on the steps of the _regula fidei_, already developed by Irenaeus into the history of salvation.[706] The system itself is to be, in principle and in every respect, monistic, but, as the material world, though created by G.o.d out of nothing, merely appears as a place of punishment and purification for souls, a strong element of dualism is inherent in the system, as far as its practical application is concerned.[707] The prevailing contrast is that between the one transcendent essence and the multiplicity of all created things. The pervading ambiguity lies in the twofold view of the spiritual in so far as, on the one hand, it belongs to G.o.d as the unfolding of his essence, and, on the other, as being created, is contrasted with G.o.d. This ambiguity, which recurs in all the Neoplatonic systems and has continued to characterise all mysticism down to the present day, originates in the attempt to repel Stoic pantheism and yet to preserve the transcendental nature of the human spirit, and to maintain the absolute causality of G.o.d without allowing his goodness to be called in question. The a.s.sumption that created spirits can freely determine their own course is therefore a necessity of the system; in fact this a.s.sumption is one of its main presuppositions[708] and is so boldly developed as to limit the omnipotence and omniscience of G.o.d. But, as from the empirical point of view the knot is tied for every man at the very moment he appears on earth, and since the problem is not created by each human being as the result of his own independent will, but lies in his organisation, speculation must retreat behind history. So the system, in accordance with certain hints of Plato, is constructed on the same plan as that of Valentinus, for example, to which it has an extraordinary affinity. It contains three parts: (1) The doctrine of G.o.d and his unfoldings or creations, (2) the doctrine of the Fall and its consequences, (3) the doctrine of redemption and restoration.[709] Like Denis, however, we may also, in accordance with a premised theory of method, set forth the system in four sections, viz., Theology, Cosmology, Anthropology, Teleology. Origen's fundamental idea is "the original indestructible unity of G.o.d and all spiritual essence." From this it necessarily follows that the created spirit after fall, error, and sin must ever return to its origin, to being in G.o.d. In this idea we have the key to the religious philosophy of Origen.

The only sources for obtaining a knowledge of the truth are the Holy Scriptures of both Testaments. No doubt the speculations of Greek philosophers also contain truths, but these have only a propaedeutic value and, moreover, have no certainty to offer, as have the Holy Scriptures, which are a witness to themselves in the fulfilment of prophecy.[710] On the other hand Origen a.s.sumes that there was an esoteric deeper knowledge in addition to the Holy Scriptures, and that Jesus in particular imparted this deeper wisdom to a few;[711] but, as a correct Church theologian, he scarcely made use of this a.s.sumption. The first methodical principle of his exegesis is that the faith, as professed in the Church in contradistinction to heresy, must not be tampered with.[712] But it is the carrying out of this rule that really forms the task of the theologian. For the faith itself is fixed and requires no particular presentation; it never occurred to Origen to a.s.sume that the fixing of the faith itself could present problems. It is complete, clear, easily teachable, and really leads to victory over sensuality and sin (see c. Cels. VII. 48 and cf. other pa.s.sages), as well as to fellows.h.i.+p with G.o.d, since it rests on the revelation of the Logos. But, as it remains determined by fear and hope of reward so, as "uninformed and irrational faith" ([Greek: pistis idiotike] and [Greek: alogos]), it only leads to a "somatic Christianity" ([Greek: Christianismos somatikos]). It is the task of theology, however, to decipher "spiritual Christianity" ([Greek: Christianismos pneumatikos]) from the Holy Scriptures, and to elevate faith to knowledge and clear vision. This is effected by the method of Scripture exegesis which ascertains the highest revelations of G.o.d.[713] The Scripture has a threefold sense because, like the cosmos, alongside of which it stands like a second revelation, as it were, it must contain a pneumatic, psychic, and somatic element. The somatic or historical sense is in every case the first that must be ascertained. It corresponds to the stage of mere faith and has consequently the same dignity as the latter.

But there are instances where it is to be given up and designated as a Jewish and fleshly sense. This is to be a.s.sumed in all cases where it leads to ideas opposed to the nature of G.o.d, morality, the law of nature, or reason.[714] Here one must judge (see above) that such objectionable pa.s.sages were meant to incite the searcher to a deeper investigation. The psychic sense is of a moral nature: in the Old Testament more especially most narratives have a moral content, which one can easily find by stripping off the history as a covering; and in certain pa.s.sages one may content oneself with this meaning. The pneumatic sense, which is the only meaning borne by many pa.s.sages, an a.s.sertion which neither Philo nor Clement ventured to make in plain terms, has with Origen a negatively apologetic and a positively didactic aim. It leads to the ultimate ideas which, once attained, are self-evident, and, so to speak, pa.s.s completely over into the mind of the theologian, because they finally obtain for him clear vision and independent possession.[715] When the Gnostic has attained this stage, he may throw away the ladders by which he has reached this height.[716]

He is then inwardly united with G.o.d's Logos, and from this union obtains all that he requires. In most pa.s.sages Origen presupposed the similarity and equal value of all parts of the Holy Scriptures; but in some he showed that even inspiration has its stages and grades, according to the receptivity and worthiness of each prophet, thus applying his relative view of all matters of fact in such cases also. In Christ the full revelation of the Logos was first expressed; his Apostles did not possess the same inspiration as he,[717] and among the Apostles and apostolic men differences in the degrees of inspiration are again to be a.s.sumed. Here Origen set the example of making a definite distinction between a heroic age of the Apostles and the succeeding period. This laid the foundation for an a.s.sumption through which the later Church down to our time has appeased her conscience and freed herself from demands that she could not satisfy.[718]

THE DOCTRINE OF G.o.d AND HIS SELF-UNFOLDINGS OR CREATIONS.[719] The world points back to an ultimate cause and the created spirit to an eternal, pure, absolutely simple, and unchangeable spirit, who is the original source of all existence and goodness, so that everything that exists only does so in virtue of being caused by that One, and is good in so far as it derives its essence from the One who is perfection and goodness. This fundamental idea is the source of all the conclusions drawn by Origen as to the essence, attributes, and knowableness of G.o.d.

As the One, G.o.d is contrasted with the Manifold; but the order in the Manifold points back to the One. As the real Essence, G.o.d is opposed to the essences that appear and seem to vanish, and that therefore have no real existence, because they have not their principle in themselves, but testify: "We have not made ourselves." As the absolutely immaterial Spirit, G.o.d is contrasted with the spirit that is clogged with matter, but which strives to get back to him from whom it received its origin.

The One is something different from the Manifold; but the order, the dependence, and the longing of that which is created point back to the One, who can therefore be known relatively from the Manifold. In sharpest contrast to the heretical Gnosis, Origen maintained the absolute causality of G.o.d, and, in spite of all abstractions in determining the essence of G.o.d, he attributed self-consciousness and will to this superessential Essence (in opposition to Valentinus, Basilides, and the later Neoplatonists).[720] The created is one thing and the Self-existent is another, but both are connected together; as the created can only be understood from something self-existent, so the self-existent is not without a.n.a.logy to the created. The Self-existent is in itself a living thing; it is beyond dispute that Origen with all his abstractions represented the Deity, whom he primarily conceived as a constant substance, in a more living, and, so to speak, in a more personal way than the Greek philosophers. Hence it was possible for him to produce a doctrine of the attributes of G.o.d. Here he did not even shrink from applying his relative view to the Deity, because, as will be seen, he never thinks of G.o.d without revelation, and because all revelation must be something limited. The omnipresence of G.o.d indeed suffers from no limitation. G.o.d is potentially everywhere; but he is everywhere only potentially; that is, he neither encompa.s.ses nor is encompa.s.sed. Nor is he diffused through the universe, but, as he is removed from the limits of s.p.a.ce, so also he is removed from s.p.a.ce itself.[721] But the omniscience and omnipotence of G.o.d have a limit, which indeed, according to Origen, lies in the nature of the case itself. In the first place his omnipotence is limited through his essence, for he can only do what he wills;[722] secondly by logic, for omnipotence cannot produce things containing an inward contradiction: G.o.d can do nothing contrary to nature, all miracles being natural in the highest sense[723]--thirdly, by the impossibility of that which is in itself unlimited being comprehended, whence it follows that the extent of everything created must be limited[724]--fourthly, by the impossibility of realising an aim completely and without disturbing elements.[725] Omniscience has also its corresponding limits; this is specially proved from the freedom of spirits bestowed by G.o.d himself.

G.o.d has indeed the capacity of foreknowledge, but he knows transactions beforehand because they happen; they do not happen because he knows them.[726] That the divine purpose should be realised in the end necessarily follows from the nature of the created spirit itself, apart from the supporting activity of G.o.d. Like Irenaeus and Tertullian Origen very carefully discussed the attributes of goodness and justice in G.o.d in opposition to the Marcionites.[727] But his exposition is different.

In his eyes goodness and justice are not two opposite attributes, which can and must exist in G.o.d side by side; but as virtues they are to him identical. G.o.d rewards in justice and punishes in kindness. That it should go well with all, no matter how they conduct themselves, would be no kindness; but it is kindness when G.o.d punishes to improve, deter, and prevent. Pa.s.sions, anger, and the like do not exist in G.o.d, nor any plurality of virtues; but, as the Perfect One, he is all kindness. In other places, however, Origen did not content himself with this presentation. In opposition to the Marcionites, who declared Christ and the Father of Christ to be good, and the creator of the world to be just, he argued that, on the contrary, G.o.d (the foundation of the world) is good, but that the Logos-Christ, in so far as he is the pedagogus, is just.[728]

From the perfect goodness of G.o.d Origen infers that he reveals or communicates himself, from his immutability that he _always_ reveals himself. The eternal or never beginning communication of perfection to other beings is a postulate of the concept "G.o.d". But, along with the whole fraternity of those professing the same philosophy, Origen a.s.sumed that the One, in becoming the Manifold and acting in the interests of the Manifold, can only effect his purpose by divesting himself of absolute apathy and once more a.s.suming a form in which he can act, that is, procuring for himself an adequate organ--_the Logos_. The content of Origen's teaching about this Logos was not essentially different from that of Philo and was therefore quite as contradictory; only in his case everything is more sharply defined and the hypostasis of the Logos (in opposition to the Monarchians) more clearly and precisely stated.[729]

Nevertheless the personal independence of the Logos is as yet by no means so sharply defined as in the case of the later Arians. He is still the Consciousness of G.o.d, the spiritual Activity of G.o.d. Hence he is on the one hand the idea of the world existing in G.o.d, and on the other the product of divine wisdom originating with the will of G.o.d. The following are the most important propositions.[730] The Logos who appeared in Christ, as is specially shown from Joh. I. 1 and Heb. I. 1, is the perfect image[731] of G.o.d. He is the Wisdom of G.o.d, the reflection of his perfection and glory, the invisible image of G.o.d. For that very reason there is nothing corporeal in him[732] and he is therefore really G.o.d, not [Greek: autotheos], nor [Greek: ho Theos], nor [Greek: anarchos arche] ("beginningless beginning"), but the second G.o.d.[733] But, as such, immutability is one of his attributes, that is, he can never lose his divine essence, he can also in this respect neither increase nor decrease (this immutability, however, is not an independent attribute, but he is perfect as being an image of the Father's perfection).[734]

Accordingly this deity is not a communicated one in the sense of his having another independent essence in addition to this divine nature; but deity rather const.i.tutes his essence: [Greek: ho soter ou kata metousian, alla kat' ousian esti Theos][735] ("the Saviour is not G.o.d by communication, but in his essence"). From this it follows that he shares in the essence of G.o.d, therefore of the Father, and is accordingly [Greek: h.o.m.oousios] ("the same in substance with the Father") or, seeing that, as Son, he has come forth from the Father, is engendered from the essence of the Father.[736] But having proceeded, like the will, from the Spirit, he was always with G.o.d; there was not a time when he was not,[737] nay, even this expression is still too weak. It would be an unworthy idea to think of G.o.d without his wisdom or to a.s.sume a beginning of his begetting. Moreover, this begetting is not an act that has only once taken place, but a process lasting from all eternity; the Son is always being begotten of the Father.[738] It is the theology of Origen which Gregory Thaumaturgus has thus summed up:[739] [Greek: eis kurios, monos ek monou, theos ek theou, charakter kai eikon tes theotetos, logos energos, sophia tes ton holon sustaseos periektike kai dunamis tes holes ktiseos poietike, huios alethinos alethinou patros, aoratos aoratou kai aphthartos aphthartou kai athanatos athanatou kai aidios aidiou]. ("One Lord, one from one, G.o.d from G.o.d, impress and image of G.o.dhead, energetic word, wisdom embracing the entire system of the universe and power producing all creation, true Son of a true Father, the invisible of the invisible and incorruptible of the incorruptible, the immortal of the immortal, the eternal of the eternal"). The begetting is an indescribable act which can only be represented by inadequate images: it is no emanation--the expression [Greek: probole] is not found, so far as I know[740]--but is rather to be designated as an act of the will arising from an inner necessity, an act which for that very reason is an emanation of the essence. But the Logos thus produced is really a personally existing being; he is not an impersonal force of the Father, though this still appears to be the case in some pa.s.sages of Clement, but he is the "sapientia dei substantialiter subsistens"[741] ("the wisdom of G.o.d substantially existing") "figura expressa substantial patris" ("express image of the Father's substance"), "virtus altera in sua proprietate subsistens" ("a second force existing in its own characteristic fas.h.i.+on"). He is, and here Origen appeals to the old Acts of Paul, an "animal vivens" with an independent existence.[742] He is another person,[743] namely, the second person in number.[744] But here already begins Origen's second train of thought which limits the first that we have set forth. As a particular hypostasis, which has its "first cause" ([Greek: proton aition]) in G.o.d, the Son is "that which is caused" ([Greek: aitiaton]), moreover as the fulness of ideas, as he who comprehends in himself all the forms that are to have an active existence, the Son is no longer an absolute _simplex_ like the Father.[745] He is already the first stage of the transition from the One to the Manifold, and, as the medium of the world-idea, his essence has an inward relation to the world, which is itself without beginning.[746] As soon therefore as the category of causality is applied--which moreover dominates the system--and the particular contemplation of the Son in relation to the Father gives way to the general contemplation of his task and destination, the Son is not only called [Greek: ktisma] and [Greek: demiourgema], but all the utterances about the quality of his essence receive a limitation. We nowhere find the express a.s.sertion that this quality is inferior or of a different kind when compared with that of G.o.d; but these utterances lose their force when it is a.s.serted that complete similarity between Father and Son only exists in relation to the world. We have to acknowledge the divine being that appeared in Christ to be the manifestation of the Deity; but, from G.o.d's standpoint, the Son is the hypostasis appointed by and _subordinated_ to him.[747] The Son stands between the uncreated One and the created Many; in so far as unchangeableness is an attribute of self-existence he does not possess it.[748] It is evident why Origen was obliged to conceive the Logos exactly as he did; it was only in this form that the idea answered the purpose for which it was intended. In the description of the essence of the Logos much more heed continues to be given to his creative than to his redeeming significance. Since it was only a teacher that Origen ultimately required for the purpose of redemption, he could unfold the nature and task of the Logos without thinking of Christ, whose name indeed he frequently mentions in his disquisitions, but whose person is really not of the slightest importance there.[749]

In order to comply with the rule of faith, and for this reason alone, for his speculation did not require a Spirit in addition to the Logos, Origen also placed the Spirit alongside of Father and Son. All that is predicated about him by the Church is that he is equal to the other persons in honour and dignity, and it was he that inspired both Prophets and Apostles; but that it is still undecided whether he be created or uncreated, and whether he too is to be considered the Son of G.o.d or not.[750] As the third hypostasis, Origen reckoned him part of the constant divine essence and so treated him after the a.n.a.logy of the Son, without producing an impressive proof of the necessity of this hypostasis. He, however, became the Holy Spirit through the Son, and is related to the latter as the latter is related to the Father; in other words he is subordinate to the Son; he is the first creation of the Father through the Son.[751] Here Origen was following an old tradition.

Considered quant.i.tatively therefore, and this according to Origen is the most important consideration, the Spirit's sphere of action is the smallest. All being has its principle in the Father, the Son has his sphere in the rational, the Holy Spirit in the sanctified, that is in the Church; this he has to rule over and perfect. Father, Son, and Spirit form a [Greek: trias] ("triad")[752] to which nothing may be compared; they are equal in dignity and honour, and the substance they possess is one. If the following is not one of Rufinus' corrections, Origen said[753]: "Nihil in trinitate maius minusve dicendum est c.u.m unius divinitatis fons verbo ac ratione sua teneat universa"[754]

("nothing in the Trinity is to be called greater or less, since the fountain of one divinity holds all his parts by word and reason"). But, as in Origen's sense the union of these only exists because the Father alone is the "source of deity" ([Greek: pege tes theotetos]) and principle of the other two hypostases, the Trinity is in truth no h.o.m.ogeneous one, but one which, in accordance with a "subtle emanation idea", has degrees within it. This Trinity, which in the strict sense remains a Trinity of revelation, except that revelation belongs to the essence of G.o.d, is with Origen the real secret of the faith, the mystery beyond all mysteries. To deny it shows a Jewish, carnal feeling or at least the greatest narrowness of conception.

The idea of createdness was already more closely a.s.sociated with the Holy Ghost than with the Logos. He is in a still clearer fas.h.i.+on than the Son himself the transition to the series of ideas and spirits that having been created by the Son, are in truth the unfolding of his fulness. They form the next stage after the Holy Spirit. In a.s.suming the existence of such beings as were required by his philosophical system, Origen appealed to the Biblical doctrine of angels, which he says is expressly acknowledged in the Church.[755] With Clement even the a.s.sociation of the Son and Holy Ghost with the great angelic spirits is as yet not altogether avoided, at least in his expressions.[756] Origen was more cautious in this respect.[757] The world of spirits appears to him as a series of well-arranged, graded energies, as the representative of created reason. Its characteristic is growth, that is, progress ([Greek: prokope]).[758] Growth is conditioned by freedom: "_omnis creatura rationabilis laudis et culpae capax: laudis, si secundum rationem, quam in se habet, ad meliora proficiat, culpae, si rationem recti declinet_"[759] ("every rational creature is capable of meriting praise or blame--praise, if it advance to better things according to the reason it possesses in itself, blame, if it avoid the right course"). As unchangeableness and permanence are characteristic of the Deity, so freedom is the mark of the created spirit.[760] In this thesis Origen goes beyond the a.s.sumption of the heretical Gnostics just as much as he does in his other proposition that the creaturely spirit is in no sense a portion of the divine (because it is changeable[761]); but in reality freedom, as he understands it, is only the capacity of created spirits to determine their own destiny _for a time_. In the end, however, they must turn to that which is good, because everything spiritual is indestructible. _Sub specie aeternitatis_, then, the mere communication of the divine element to the created spirit[762] is _not_ a mere communication, and freedom is no freedom; but the absolute necessity of the created spirit's developing itself merely appears as freedom. Yet Origen himself did not draw this conclusion, but rather based everything on his conception that the freedom of _naturae rationabiles_ consisted in the _possibilitas utriusque_, and sought to understand the cosmos, as it is, from this freedom. To the _naturae rationabiles_, which have different _species_ and _ordines_, human souls also belong. The whole of them were created from all eternity; for G.o.d would not be almighty unless he had always produced everything[763]; in virtue of their origin they are equal, for their original community with the Logos permits of no diversity[764]; but, on the other hand, they have received different tasks and their development is consequently different. In so far as they are spirits subject to change, they are burdened with a kind of bodily nature,[765] for it is only the Deity that is without a body. The element of materiality is a necessary result of their finite nature, that is, of their being created; and this applies both to angels and human souls.[766] Now Origen did not speculate at all as to how the spirit world might have developed in ideal fas.h.i.+on, a fact which it is exceedingly important to recognise; he knows nothing at all about an ideal development for all, and does not even view it as a possibility.

The truth rather is that as soon as he mentions the _naturae rationabiles_, he immediately proceeds to speak of their fall, their growth, and their diversities. He merely contemplates them in the given circ.u.mstances in which they are placed (see the exposition in [Greek: peri archon] II. 9. 2).

THE DOCTRINE OF THE FALL AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. All created spirits must develop. When they have done so, they attain perfection and make way for new dispensations and worlds.[767] In the exercise of their freedom, however, disobedience, laxity, laziness, and failure make their appearance among them in an endless multiplicity of ways.[768] The disciplining and purifying of these spirits was the purpose for which the material world was created by G.o.d.[769] It is therefore a place of purification, ruled and harmoniously arranged by G.o.d's wisdom.[770] Each member of the world of spirits has received a different kind of material nature in proportion to his degree of removal from the Creator. The highest spirits, who have virtually held fast by that which is good, though they too stand in need of rest.i.tution, guide the world, are servants of G.o.d ([Greek: angeloi]), and have bodies of an exceedingly subtle kind in the form of a globe (stars). The spirits that have fallen very deeply (the spirits of men) are banished into material bodies.

Those that have altogether turned against G.o.d have received very dark bodies, indescribably ugly, though not visible. Men therefore are placed between the angels and demons, both of whom try to influence them. The moral struggle that man has to undergo within himself is made harder by the demons, but lightened by the angels,[771] for these spiritual powers are at all times and places acting both upon the physical and the spiritual world. But everything is subject to the permission of the divine goodness and finally also to the guidance of divine providence, though the latter has created for itself a limit in freedom.[772] Evil, however, and it is in this idea that Origen's great optimism consists, cannot conquer in the end. As it is nothing eternal, so also it is at bottom nothing real; it is "nonexistent" ([Greek: ouch on]) and "unreal"

([Greek: anupostaton]).[773] For this very reason the estrangement of the spirits from G.o.d must finally cease; even the devil, who, as far as his _being_ is concerned, resulted from G.o.d's will, cannot always remain a devil. The spirits must return to G.o.d, and this moment is also the end of the material world, which is merely an intermediate phase.[774]

According to this conception the doctrine of man, who in Origen's view is no longer the sole aim of creation to the same extent as he is with the other Fathers,[775] a.s.sumes the following form: The essence of man is formed by the reasonable soul, which has fallen from the world above.

This is united with the body by means of the animal soul. Origen thus believes in a threefold nature of man. He does so in the first place, because Plato holds this theory, and Origen always embraced the most complicated view in matters of tradition, and secondly, because the rational soul can never in itself be the principle of action opposed to G.o.d, and yet something relatively spiritual must be cited as the cause of this action. It is true that we also find in Origen the view that the spirit in man has itself been cooled down into a soul, has been, as it were, transformed into a soul; but there is necessarily an ambiguity here, because on the one hand the spirit of man is said to have chosen a course opposed to G.o.d, and, on the other, that which is rational and free in man must be shown to be something remaining intact.[776] Man's struggle consists in the endeavour of the two factors forming his const.i.tution to gain control of his sphere of action. If man conquers in this struggle he attains _likeness_ to G.o.d; the image of G.o.d he bears beyond danger of loss in his indestructible, rational, and therefore immortal spirit.[777] Victory, however, denotes nothing else than the subjugation of the instincts and pa.s.sions.[778] No doubt G.o.d affords help in the struggle, for nothing good is without G.o.d,[779] but in such a way as not to interfere with freedom. According to this conception sin is a matter of necessity in the case of fallen spirits; all men are met with as sinners and are so, for they were already sinners.[780] Sin is rooted in the whole earthly condition of men; it is the weakness and error of the spirit parted from its origin.[781] The idea of freedom, indeed, is supposed to be a feature which always preserves the guilty character of sin; but in truth it becomes a mere appearance,[782] it does not avail against the const.i.tution of man and the sinful habit propagated in human society.[783] All must be sinners at first,[784] for that is as much their destiny as is the doom of death which is a necessary consequence of man's material nature.[785]

_The Doctrine of Redemption and Restoration._

In the view of Clement and Origen the proposition: "G.o.d wishes us to be saved by means of ourselves" ([Greek: o Theos hemas ex hemon auton bouletai sozesthai]) is quite as true as the other statement that no spirit can be saved without entering into fellows.h.i.+p with the Logos and submitting to his instruction.[786] They moreover hold that the Logos, after pa.s.sing through his various stages of revealing activity (law of nature, Mosaic law), disclosed himself in the Gospel in a manner complete and accessible to all, so that this revelation imparts redemption and eternal happiness to all men, however different their capacities may be. Finally, it is a.s.sumed that not only men but all spiritual creatures, from the radiant spirits of heaven down to the dusky demons, have the capacity and need of redemption; while for the highest stage, the "spiritual Church", there is an _eternal Gospel_ which is related to the written one as the latter is to the law. This eternal Gospel is the first complete revelation of G.o.d's highest intentions, and lies hidden in the Holy Scriptures.[787] These elements compose Origen's doctrine of revelation in general and of Christ in particular.[788] They presuppose the sighing of the creature and the great struggle which is more especially carried on upon earth, within the human breast, by the angels and demons, virtues and vices, knowledge and pa.s.sion, that dispute the possession of man. Man must conquer and yet he cannot do so without help. But help has never been wanting. The Logos has been revealing himself from the beginning. Origen's teaching concerning the preparatory history of redemption is founded on the doctrines of the Apologists; but with him everything takes a more vivid form, and influences on the part of the heretical Gnosis are also not lacking. Pure spirits, whom no fault of their own had caused to be invested with bodies, namely, the prophets, were sent to men by the Logos in order to support the struggling and to increase knowledge. To prepare the way of salvation the Logos chose for himself a whole people, and he revealed himself among all men. But all these undertakings did not yet lead to the goal. The Logos himself was obliged to appear and lead men back. But by reason of the diverse nature of the spirits, and especially of men, the redeeming work of the Logos that appeared could not fail to be a complicated one. In the case of some he had really to show them the victory over the demons and sin, a view which beyond dispute is derived from that of Valentinus. He had, as the "G.o.dman," to make a sacrifice which represented the expiation of sin, he had to pay a ransom which put an end to the devil's sovereignty over men's souls, and in short he had to bring a redemption visible and intelligible to all.[789] To the rest, however, as divine teacher and hierophant he had to reveal the depths of knowledge, and to impart in this very process a new principle of life, so that they might now partake of his life and themselves become divine through being interwoven with the divine essence. Here, as in the former case, restoration to fellows.h.i.+p with G.o.d is the goal; but, as in the lower stage, this restoration is effected through faith and sure conviction of the reality of a historical fact--namely, the redeeming death of Christ,--so, in the higher stage, it is accomplished through knowledge and love, which, soaring upward beyond the Crucified One, grasp the eternal essence of the Logos, revealed to us through his teaching in the eternal Gospel.[790] What the Gnostics merely represented as a more or less valuable appearance-- namely, the historical work of Christ--was to Origen no appearance but truth. But he did not view it as _the_ truth, and in this he agrees with the Gnostics, but as _a_ truth, beyond which lies a higher. That historical work of Christ was a reality; it is also indispensable for men of more limited endowments, and not a matter of indifference to the perfect; but the latter no longer require it for their personal life.

Here also Origen again contrived to reconcile contradictions and thus acknowledged, outdid, reconciled, and united both the theses of the Gnostics and those of orthodox Christians. The object and goal of redemption are the same for all, namely, the restoration of the created spirit to G.o.d and partic.i.p.ation in the divine life. In so far as history is a struggle between spirits and demons, the death of Christ on the cross is the turning-point of history, and its effects extend even into heaven and h.e.l.l.[791]

On the basis of this conception of redemption Origen developed his idea of Christ. Inasmuch as he recognised Christ as the Redeemer, this Christ, the G.o.d-man, could not but be as many-sided as redemption is.

Only through that masterly art of reconciling contradictions, and by the aid of that fantastic idea which conceives one real being as dwelling in another, could there be any apparent success in the attempt to depict a h.o.m.ogeneous person who in truth is no longer a person, but the symbol of the various redemptions. That such an acute thinker, however, did not shrink from the monstrosity his speculation produced is ultimately to be accounted for by the fact that this very speculation afforded him the means of nullifying all the utterances about Christ and falling back on the idea of the divine teacher as being the highest one. The whole "humanity" of the Redeemer together with its history finally disappears from the eyes of the perfect one. What remains is the principle, the divine Reason, which became known and recognisable through Christ. The perfect one, and this remark also applies to Clement's perfect Gnostic, thus knows no "Christology", but only an indwelling of the Logos in Jesus Christ, with which the indwellings of this same Logos in men began. To the Gnostic the question of the divinity of Christ is of as little importance as that of the humanity. The former is no question, because speculation, starting above and proceeding downwards, is already acquainted with the Logos and knows that he has become completely comprehensible in Christ; the latter is no question, because the humanity is a matter of indifference, being the form in which the Logos made himself recognisable. But to the Christian who is not yet perfect the divinity as well as the humanity of Christ is a problem, and it is the duty of the perfect one to solve and explain it, and to guard this solution against errors on all sides. To Origen, however, the errors are already Gnostic Docetism on the one hand, and the "Ebionite" view on the other.[792] His doctrine was accordingly as follows: As a pure unchangeable spirit, the Logos could not unite with matter, because this as [Greek: me on] would have depotentiated him. A medium was required.

The Logos did not unite with the body, but with a soul, and only through the soul with the body. This soul was a pure one; it was a created spirit that had never fallen from G.o.d, but always remained in faithful obedience to him, and that had chosen to become a soul in order to serve the purposes of redemption. This soul then was always devoted to the Logos from the first and had never renounced fellows.h.i.+p with him. It was selected by the Logos for the purpose of incarnation and that because of its moral dignity. The Logos became united with it in the closest way; but this connection, though it is to be viewed as a mysteriously real union, continues to remain perfect only because of the unceasing effort of will by which the soul clings to the Logos. Thus, then, no intermixture has taken place. On the contrary the Logos preserves his impa.s.sibility, and it is only the soul that hungers and thirsts, struggles and suffers. In this, too, it appears as a real human soul, and in the same way the body is sinless and unpolluted, as being derived from a virgin; but yet it is a human one. This humanity of the body, however, does not exclude its capacity of a.s.suming all possible qualities the Logos wishes to give it; for matter of itself possesses no qualities. The Logos was able at any moment to give his body the form it required, in order to make the proper impression on the various sorts of men. Moreover, he was not enclosed in the soul and body of Christ; on the contrary he acted everywhere as before and united himself, as formerly, with all the souls that opened themselves to him. But with none did the union become so close as with the soul, and consequently also with the body of Jesus. During his earthly life the Logos glorified and deified his soul by degrees and the latter acted in the same way on his body. Origen contrived to arrange the different functions and predicates of the incarnate Logos in such a way that they formed a series of stages which the believer becomes successively acquainted with as he advances in knowledge. But everything is most closely united together in Christ. This union ([Greek: koinonia enosis, anakrasis]) was so intimate that Holy Writ has named the created man, Jesus, the Son of G.o.d; and on the other hand has called the Son of G.o.d the Son of Man.

After the resurrection and ascension the whole man Jesus appears transformed into a spirit, is completely received into the G.o.dhead, and is thus identical with the Logos.[793] In this conception one may be tempted to point out all possible "heresies":--the conception of Jesus as a heavenly man--but all men are heavenly;--the Adoptianist ("Ebionite") Christology--but the Logos as a person stands behind it;--the conception of two Logoi, a personal and an impersonal; the Gnostic separation of Jesus and Christ; and Docetism. As a matter of fact Origen united all these ideas, but modified the whole of them in such a way that they no longer seem, and to some extent are not, what they turn out to be when subjected to the slightest logical a.n.a.lysis.

This structure is so const.i.tuted that not a stone of it admits of being a hair's-breadth broader or narrower. There is only one conception that has been absolutely unemployed by Origen, that is, the modalistic view.

Origen is the great opponent of Sabellianism, a theory which in its simplicity frequently elicited from him words of pity; otherwise he made use of all the ideas about Christ that had been formed in the course of two hundred years. This becomes more and more manifest the more we penetrate into the details of this Christology. We cannot, however, attribute to Origen a doctrine of two natures, but rather the notion of two subjects that become gradually amalgamated with each other, although the expression "two natures" is not quite foreign to Origen.[794] The Logos retains his human nature eternally,[795] but only in the same sense in which we preserve our nature after the resurrection.

The significance which this Christological attempt possessed for its time consists first in its complexity, secondly in the energetic endeavour to give an adequate conception of Christ's _humanity_, that is, of the moral freedom pertaining to him as a creature. This effort was indeed obliged to content itself with a meagre result: but we are only justified in measuring Origen's Christology by that of the Valentinians and Basilidians, that is, by the scientific one that had preceded it. The most important advance lies in the fact that Origen set forth a scientific Christology in which he was able to find so much scope for the humanity of Christ. Whilst within the framework of the scientific Christologies this humanity had hitherto been conceived as something indifferent or merely apparent, Origen made the first attempt to incorporate it with the various speculations without prejudice to the Logos, G.o.d in nature and person. No Greek philosopher probably heeded what Irenaeus set forth respecting Christ as the second Adam, the _recapitulatur generis humani_; whereas Origen's speculation could not be overlooked. In this case the Gnosis really adopted the idea of the incarnation, and at the same time tried to demonstrate the conception of the G.o.d-man from the notions of unity of will and love. In the treatise against Celsus, moreover, Origen went the reverse way to work and undertook to show, and this not merely by help of the proof from prophecy, that the predicate deity applied to the historical Christ.[796] But Origen's conception of Christ's person as a model (for the Gnostic) and his repudiation of all magical theories of redemption ultimately explain why he did not, like Tertullian, set forth a doctrine of two natures, but sought to show that in Christ's case a human subject with his will and feelings became completely merged in the Deity. No doubt he can say that the union of the divine and human natures had its beginning in Christ, but here he virtually means that this beginning is continued in the sense of souls imitating the example of Christ. What is called the real redemption supposed to be given in him is certainly mediated in the Psychic through his _work_, but the _person_ of Christ which cannot be known to any but the perfect man is by no means identified with that real redemption, but appears as a free moral personality, inwardly blended with the Deity, a personality which cannot mechanically transfer the content of its essence, though it can indeed exercise the strongest impression on mind and heart. To Origen the highest value of Christ's person lies in the fact that the Deity has here condescended to reveal to us the whole fulness of his essence, in the person of a man, as well as in the fact that a man is given to us who shows that the human spirit is capable of becoming entirely G.o.d's.

At bottom there is nothing obscure and mystical here; the whole process takes place in the will and in the feelings through knowledge.[797]

This is sufficient to settle the nature of what is called personal attainment of salvation. Freedom precedes and supporting grace follows.

As in Christ's case his human soul gradually united itself with the Logos in proportion as it voluntarily subjected its will to G.o.d, so also every man receives grace according to his progress. Though Clement and Origen did not yet recommend actual exercises according to definite rules, their description of the gradations by which the soul rises to G.o.d already resembles that of the Neoplatonists, except that they decidedly begin with faith as the first stage. Faith is the first step and is our own work.[798] Then follows the religious contemplation of visible things, and from this the soul advances, as on the steps of a ladder, to the contemplation of the _substantiae rationabiles_, the Logos, the knowable essence of G.o.d, and the whole fulness of the Deity.[799] She retraces her steps upwards along the path she formerly pa.s.sed over as a fallen spirit. But, when left to her own resources, she herself is everywhere weak and powerless; she requires at every stage the divine grace, that is, enlightenment.[800] Thus a union of grace and freedom takes place within the sphere of the latter, till the "contemplative life" is reached, that joyous ascetic contemplativeness, in which the Logos is the friend, a.s.sociate, and bridegroom of the soul, which now, having become a pure spirit, and being herself deified, clings in love to the Deity.[801] In this view the thought of regeneration in the sense of a fundamental renewal of the Ego has no place;[802] still baptism is designated the bath of regeneration.

Moreover, in connection with the consideration of main Biblical thoughts (G.o.d as love, G.o.d as the Father, Regeneration, Adoption, etc.) we find in both Clement and Origen pa.s.sages which, free from the trammel