to it Ps. xlv. 8., "Thou lovest righteousness and hatest iniquity-wherefore God hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." The cordiality and indissolubleness of this connexion* which he calls vors shows itself by the participation in his name, in the divine honours and joint glorification (συγχρηματίσαι, συνδοξασθῆναι). As the Logos is the mediator between God and the world of spirits, so is that soul between the Logos and all other souls. The efficiency of the Logos spreads itself from communion with that to all other human souls. Origen distinguishes in the human spirit, the vous, the power of becoming conscious of God, from the ux, the tendency of the spirit which bears reference to Time and the Finite, the capacity of knowing the material world. Before the fall, the spirit was pure vous or TVEμa, the ↓ux? was formed in the cooling of divine love (ux is connected with ψύχεσθαι, ψυχρός) when the soul was connected with the body, and incorporated with the world. The veμa of man is not affected by evil, but where the x and its worldly tendency predominates, the consciousness of God is repressed and the veμa is hindered from acting. If in holy men doing and suffering proceed from the Euμat which operates through the lower powers, this is in the highest sense the case with Christ. The point of distinction in Him is, that by the assumption of human nature everything else is determined. by the TVEμa. Since the existence of the Jux in Christ appears not to have been brought about by a fall, so the connexion with it is to be considered as an act of condescension on the part of the TVμα, which thus made an entrance into humanity possible. Origen regards Christ's body as one strictly * Пερì áрxv, ii. 6, § 3.-Unde et merito pro eo vel quod tota esset in Filio Dei, vel totum in se caperet Filium Dei, etiam ipsa cum ea, quam assumerat carne, Dei Filius et Dei virtus, Christus et Dei Sapientia appellatur.-In Matth. xix. 5, p. 187, ed. Lommatzsch.—ǹ yàp voηTY ἀνάβασις ἐκείνης τῆς ψυχῆς ὑπερπεπήδηκε καὶ πάντας τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ, ὡς ἔστιν εἰπεῖν ἤδη ἔφθασε πρὸς αὐτὸν τὸν Θεόν. + In Joann. xxxii. § 11.—Ὡς γὰρ ὁ ἅγιος ζῆ πνεύματι προκατάρχοντι τῶν ἐν τῷ ζῆν, καὶ πάσης πράξεως καὶ εὐχῆς, καὶ τοῦ πρὸς θεὸν ὕμνου· οὕτως πάν ὃ, τίποτ' αν ποιῇ, ποιεῖ πνεύματι, ἀλλὰ κἂν πάσχῃ πάσχει πνεύματι. Εἰ δὲ ὁ ἅγιος, πόσῳ μᾶλλον ταῦτα λεκτέον περὶ τοῦ τῶν ἁγίων ἀρχηγοῦ Ἰησοῦ, οὗ το πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ἐν τῷ ἀνειληφέναι αὐτὸν ὅλον ἄνθρωπον, τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ διέσεισε τὰ λοιπὰ ἐν αὐτῷ ἀνθρώπινα. * human, subject to all sensuous affections; but as he ascribes to every soul according to its constitution a harmonious relation to its body, and on the other hand to the λn as the undetermined material, that its various qualities may be imparted, according to the kind of essence connected with it, so he supposed an irradiation of the higher essence through Christ's body, which was most complete after the Resurrection, but existed in various degrees before his death. As the Logos generally, reveals himself in different ways according to various steps of development, so in Christ he presents himself to the bodily eye according to the different standpoints-from one standpoint. in his beauty and glory,—from another in his humiliation and uncomeliness; † to those Apostles who were most intimate with him, he revealed himself in the Transfiguration in the true light shining through the . He explains this narrative allegorically Christ showed himself in his glory to those who could rise with him, and for them illuminated the whole Old Testament. On account of this quality many did not know him, as Judas was obliged to give a sign to those who were sent to apprehend him. Here then is an approach to Docetism. Christ's body by its connexion with the divine nature after the Resurrection was spiritualized and acquired ethereal and divine properties. Origen was the first to assert the Ubiquity of the glorified Christ. § The doctrine of a rational soul in Christ was not developed by any one so clearly as by Origen, not even by Tertullian. It was introduced on the occasion of the dispute with Beryllus of Bostra, in the Monarchian controversy. Origen maintained the distinction of the different parts of the person of Christ, in opposition to those, who under the pretence of glorify. *C. Cels. ii. § 23. + Ibid. vi. § 77.—πῶς οὐχ ἑώρα (ὁ Κελσος) τὸ παραλάττον τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸ τοῖς ὁρῶσι δυνατὸν καὶ διὰ τοῦτο χρήσιμον, τοιοῦτο φαινόμενον ὁποῖον ἔδει ἑκάστῳ βλέπεσθαι; Καὶ οὐ θαυμαστὸν, τὴν φύσει τρεπτὴν καὶ ἀλλοιωτὴν, καὶ εἰς πάντα ἃ βούλεται ὁ δημιουργὸς ὕλην μεταβλητὴν, καὶ πάσης ποιότητος, ἣν ὁ τεχνίτης βούλεται, δεκτικὴν ὁτὲ μὲν ἔχειν ποιότητα, καθ ̓ ἣν λέγεται τὸ· “ οὐκ εἶχεν εἶδος, οὐδὲ κάλλος·” ὁτὲ δὲ οὕτως ἔνδοξον καὶ καταπληκτικὴν καὶ θαυμαστην, ὡς ἐπὶ πρόσωπον πεσεῖν τοὺς θεατὰς τοῦ τηλικούτου κάλλους, συνανελύοντας τῷ Ἰησοῦ τρεῖς ἀποστόλους. C. Cels. ii. § 64; iv. § 16. § Gieseler., Commentatio qua Clement. Alexandr. et Origenis doctrina de corpore Christi exponuntur : Gott. 1837. 4to. ing Christ, were not willing to distinguish what belonged respectively to the πνεῦμα, to the ψυχή, and to the σῶμα. These were manifestly the adherents of the old, undefined doctrine which also Beryllus held. The synod convened on his account, declared its recognition of the rational soul in Christ. But Origen now exposed himself to the charge of having, like the Artemonites, denied the true unity of the Divinity and Humanity, and, like the Gnostics, admitted a higher and a lower Christ. He strongly protested against this, and said, that though he made this distinction he never separated the Son of God from Jesus.* Among the charges against which Pamphilus had to defend him, this was one.† In the controversy with Paul of Samosata, it was required to establish the true union of the Logos with the human soul. The Manicheans maintained that in Christ there was only one simple light-nature in a sensuous apparition, and thereby gave occasion for their opponents to insist on the distinction of the two natures in Christ. Accordingly, we find in the development of this doctrine the germ of an opposition; on the one hand, the different parts of the Person of Christ, the distinction of the Divine and the Human; and, on the other hand, the unity of the Person, were brought forward d. ON THE REDEMPTIVE WORK OF CHRIST. W. C. L. ZIEGLER, Historia dogmatis de redemtione inde ab ecclesiæ primordiis usque ad Lutheri tempora. Gottg., 1791, in his Comment. Theol. ed. Velthusen, v. 227. K. Bähr. d. Lehre der Kirche v. Tode Jesu in den ersten 3 Jahrhh.: Salzb. 1833. F. Ch. Baur, d. Christ. Lehre v. d. Versöhnung in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung v d. ältesten Zeit bis auf die neustre: Tüb. 1838. The mode of contemplating the work of Christ is necessarily connected with the views taken of Anthropology, and the Person of Christ, and hence will be modified by the differences of opinion on these subjects. Where the Jewish-Christian tendency made its appearance in an unmitigated form, as when opposed by the Apostle Paul, the agency of the Messiah was regarded only as the restoration of the Messianic kingdom. Hopes were entertained of his founding the millennial kingdom, without any need being felt of thinking of him as a Redeemer. It was thought that men could be justified by the works of the law, and that Christ, indeed, had added some new laws to the * C. Cels. ii. § 9. + Neander's Church History, vol. ii. p. 381; Apol. 4, p. 232, 235. REDEMPTIVE WORK OF CHRIST. 207 old, or at the most, bestowed many new gifts on humanity, but there was no idea of the moral transformation of mankind by him; here the doctrine of the Messiah was only grafted on the existing Jewish standpoint. In this relation Ebionitism stood diametrically opposed to Gnosticism. The latter, indeed, could acknowledge a communication of divine life proceeding from the Messiah, but the redemptive importance of his life and sufferings was not understood, since his humanity was altogether lost sight of. We have already noticed a mixture of these contrarieties relating to the doctrine of Christ in a Cerinthus and a Basilides; but in the last-mentioned the importance of the humanity of Christ in the work of redemption, is very much kept in the background. Redemption, strictly so called, proceeds from the higher spirit who is connected with him, and reveals the perfect God in this limited world. The establishment of communion with him for the Pneumatici is the most important matter, while the significance of his life. and sufferings is subordinate. Basilides held the confined Jewish notion of justification; there was no forgiveness of sins, through grace, but from merit; all evil must be atoned for in a natural way; no sufferings are undeserved, hence none are redemptive. All suffering pre-supposes sin, and is its necessary purification. When the sufferings of Christ were objected to him,* he would not venture to assert that he * Strom. iv. p 506 —εἶθ ̓ ὑποβὰς καὶ περὶ τοῦ Κυρίου ἄντικρυς, ὡς περὶ ἀνθρώπου λέγει· ἐὰν μέντοι παραλιπὼν τούτους ἅπαντας τοὺς λόγους, ἔλθης ἐπὶ τὸ δυσωπεῖν με διὰ προσώπων τινῶν, εἰ τύχοι, λέγων, Ὁ δεῖνα οὖν ἥμαρτεν· ἔπαθε γὰρ ὁ δεῖνα· ἐὰν μὲν ἐπιτρέπῃς, ἐρῶ· οὐχ ἥμαρτεν μὲν, ὅμοιος δὲ ἦν τῷ πάσχοντι νηπίῳ· εἰ μέντοι σφοδρότερον ἐκβιάσαιο τὸν λόγον, ἐρῶ ἄνθρωπον, ὅντιν ̓ ἂν ὁνομάσῃς, ἄνθρωπον εἶναι, δίκαιον δὲ τὸν Θεὸν καθαρὸς γὰρ οὐδεὶς ὥσπερ εἶπέ τις ἀπὸ ῥύπου· ἀλλὰ τῷ Βασιλείδῳ ἡ ὑπόθεσις προαμαρτήσασάν φησι τὴν ψυχὴν ἐν ἑτέρῳ βίῳ, τὴν κόλασιν ὑπομένειν ἐνταῦθα· τὴν μὲν ἐκλεκτὴν ἐπιτίμως διὰ μαρτυρίου, τὴν ἄλλην δὲ καθαρομένην οἰκειᾳ κολάσει. This view of the significance of the Redeemer is modified by the account of Hippolytus. Jesus as a pneumatic man, born of the Virgin, filled with the powers of the highest viórns Jɛou, which descended from the region nearest God, and, bringing the powers of heaven with it, reached him, although the Supreme Spirit himself did not leave his place is a microcosmic compendium of the universe. With the matter which he bore, he had also sin in the abstract, and atoned for it in his sufferings. But his death had also a cosmical significance. As his life represented the Union of the Elements, so was his death the dissolution of them. Each went to its place; the material, the had sinned, but even here he could not reconcile suffering with absolute sinlessness and rejoined that as all men brought with them the aμagnóv from a former state, so in Christ there must have been a predisposition for sin to which the suffering stood in relation. The separation of the divine and the human was rendered more decided by this idealistic tendency till it went to the length of denying and dispersing the historical Christ. The Pseudobasilidians went beyond their master in this tendency, and said that they who professed Jesus the crucified were no Christians but remained in Judaism; they only were Gnostics who believed in an invisible vous, which could enter into all forms, and was to be conceived as doceti cally in Christ. One party among the Ophites required from the initiated a denial of the man Jesus. And where the milder Docetism was maintained, as in the view held by the Valentinians of a cua tuxmóv of the Redeemer, the conditions were wanting under which human virtue exists; Christ did not share everything with humanity. Alexander, a Gnostic of this school, asserted, contrary to the doctrine of the church, that Christ must appear in a real human form, in order to conquer sin-that then he himself must have been defiled with sin in order to overcome sin. A hylic body, in the opinion of the Gnostics, necessarily included sin. As the sameness of the work of Redemption for all men was denied by the Gnostics, and communion with the Redeemer was only granted to the Pneumatics, Redemption became exactly the opposite of what it should have been-a cause of separation among men. It is strange that Marcion could profess Docetism, since he still adhered so zealously to Paul's doctrine which attributed such great importance to the bearing of psychical to the kingdom of the Archons, and the pneumatical. What took place in his own person, was repeated during the further operation of Redemption in the Universe. Consequently the third viórns Dεov left behind in the аvoεμia, was set at liberty, and gradually took its place on the second stage in the super-terrestrial region. In the same manner all the germs of the TavoπEpμia were developed, and obtained their proper position in the ranks of Being; the ovyxVOUS άpxin is ended, and the order of the Apocatastasis is effected. p. 244. ὅλη αὐτῶν ἡ ὑπόθεσις σύγχυσις οἱονεὶ πανσπερμίας καὶ φυλοκρίνησις καὶ ἀποκατάστασις τῶν συγκεχυμένων εἰς τὰ οἰκεῖα. Τῆς οὖν φυλοκρινήσεως ἀπαρχὴ γέγονεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, καὶ τὸ πάθος οὐκ ἄλλου τινὸς χάριν γέγονεν, ἢ ὑπερ (st. ὑπὸ τοῦ φυλοκρινηθῆναι τα συγκεχυμένα.—[JACOBI. ] |