ORIGEN
309
ORIGEN
of God. But, far from being an inert instrument, the
inspired author has full possession of his faculties, he is
conscious of what he is writing: he is physically free to
deliver his message or not; he is not seized by a pass-
ing delirium like the pagan oracles, for bodily disorder,
disturbance of the senses, momentary loss of reason
are but so many proofs of the action of the evil spirit.
Since Scripture is from God, it ought to have the dis-
tinctive characteristics of the Divine works: truth,
unity, and fullne.ss. The word of God cannot possi-
bly be untrue; hence no errors or contradictions can be
admitted in Scripture (In Joan., X, iii). The author
of the Scriptures being one, the Bible is less a collec-
tion of books than one and the same book (Philoc,
V, iv-yii), a perfect harmonious instrument (Philoc,
VI, i-ii). But the most Divine note of Scripture is its fullness: "There is not in the Holy Books the small- est passage (xepaia) but reflects the wisdom of God" (Philoc, I, xxviii, cf. X, i). True there are imper- fections in the Bible: antilogies, repetitions, want of continuity; but these imperfections become perfec- tions by leading us to the allegory and the spiritual meaning (Philoc, X, i-ii).
At one time Origen, starting from the Platonic trichotomy, distinguishes the body, the soul, and the spirit of Holy Scripture; at another, following a more rational terminology, he distinguishes only between the letter and the spirit. In reality, the soul, or the psychic signification, or inoral meaning (that is the moral parts of Scripture, and the moral applicaHons of the other parts) plays only a very secondary role, and we can confine ourselves to the antithesis : letter (or body) and spirit. Unfortunately this antithesis is not free from equivocation. Origen docs not understand by letter (or body) what we mean to-day by the literal sense, but the grammatical sense, the proper as op- posed to the figurative meaning. Just so he does not attach to the words spiritual meaning the same signi- fication as we do: for him they mean the spiritual sense properly so called (the meaning added to the literal sense by the express wish of God attaching a special signification to the fact related or the manner of relating them), or the figurative as contrasted with the proper sense, or the accommodative sense, often an arbitrary invention of the interpreter, or even the literal sense when it is treating of things spiritual. If this terminology is kept in mind there is nothing absurd in the principle he repeats so often: "Such a passage of the Scripture has no corporal meaning." As examples Origen cites the anthropomorphisms, metaphors, and symbols which ought indeed to be understood figuratively.
Though he warns us that these passages are the exceptions, it must be confessed that he allows too many cases in which the Scripture is not to be under- stood according to the letter; but, remembering his terminology, his principle is unimpeachable. The two great rules of interpretation laid down by the Alexandria catechist, taken by themselves and inde- pendentlj' of erroneous applications, are proof against criticism. They may be formulated thus: (1) Scrip- ture must be interpreted in a manner worthy of God, the author of Scripture. (2) The corporal sense or the letter of Scripture mu-st not be adopted, when it would entail anything impossible, absurd, or un- worthy of God. The abuse arises from the applica- tion of these rules. Origen has recourse too easily to allegorism to explain purely apparent antilogies or antinomies. He considers that certain narratives or ordinances of the Bible would be unworthy of God if they had to be taken according to the letter, or if they were to be taken solely according to the letter. He justifies the allegorism by the fact that otherwise cer- tain accounts or certain precepts now abrogated would be useless and profitless for the reader: a fact which appears to him contrary to the providence of the Divine inspirer and the dignity of Holy Writ. It
will thus be seen that though the criticisms directed
against his allegorical method by St. Epiphanius
and St. Methodius were not groundless, yet many of
the complaints arise from a misunderstanding. Cf.
Zollig, "Die Inspirationslehre des Origenes" (Frei-
burg, 1902).
B. Subordination of the Divine Persons. — The three Persons of the Trinity are distinguished from all crea- tures by the three following characteristics: absolute immateriality, omniscience, and substantial sanctity. As is well known many ancient ecclesiastical writers attributed to created spirits an aerial or ethereal en- velope without which they could not act. Though he does not venture to decide categorically, Origen in- clines to this view, but, as soon as there is question of the Divine Persons, he is perfectly sure that they have no body and are not in a body; and this charac- teristic belongs to the Trinity alone (De princip., IV, 27; I, vi, 4; II, ii, 2; II, iv, 3 etc.). Again the knowl- edge of every creature, being essentially hmited, is always imiierfect anfl capable of being increased. Hut it would be repugnant for the Divine Persons to pass from the state of ignorance to knowledge. How could the Son, who is the Wisdom of the Father, be ignorant of anything ("In Joan.", 1, 27; "Contra Cels.", VI, xvii). Nor can we admit ignorance in the Spirit who "searcheth the deep things of God" (De princip., I iii, 4; iv, 3.5). Finally, holiness is acci- dental in every creature, whereas it is essential, and therefore immutable, in the Trinity. Origen in- cessantly recalls this principle which separates the Trinity from all created spirits by an impassable abyss ("De princip.", I, v, 4; I, vi, 2; I, vii, 3; "In Num. hom.", XI, 8 etc.). As substantial holiness is the exclusive privilege of the Trinity so also is it the only source of all created holiness. Sin is forgiven only by the simultaneous concurrence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; no one is sanctified at baptism save through their common action; the soul in which the Holy Ghost indwells possesses likewise the Son and the Father. In a word the three Persons of the Trinity are indi\-isible in their being, their presence, and their operation.
Along with these perfectly orthodox texts there are some which must be interpreted with diligence, re- membering as we ought that the language of theology was not yet fixed and that Origen was often the first to face these difficult problems. It will then appear that the subordination of the Divine Persons, so much urged against Origen, generally consists in differences of appropriation (the Father creator, the Son re- deemer, the Spirit sanctifier) which seem to attribute to the Persons an unequal sphere of action, or in the liturgical practice of praying the Father through the Son in the Holy Ghost, or in the theory so widespread in the Greek Church of the first five centuries, that the Father has a pre-eminence of rank (rdfis) over the two other Persons, inasmuch as in mentioning them He ordinarily has the first place, and of dignity (aiiu/m), because He represents the whole Di\-imty, of which He is the principle (dpxv), the origin (afrios), and the source (ti)7')). That is why St. Athanasius defends Origen's orthodoxy concerning the Trinity and why St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nazianzus replied to the heretics who claimed the support of his authority that they misunderstood him.
C. The Origin and Destiny of Rational Beings. — Here we encounter an unfortunate amalgam of phi- losophy and theology. The system that results is not coherent, for Origen, frankly recognizing the contra- diction of the incompatible elements that he is trying to unify, recoils from the consequences, protests against the logical conclusions, and oftentimes cor- rects by orthodox professions of faith the heterodoxy of his speculations. It must be said that almost all the texts about to be treated of, are contained in the "De principiis", where the author treads on most
