對教義大綱之我見(Origen, On First Principles, Preface & Book 1, (ANF IV))
By
Course Title : Church History
Date : November 11, 1985
播道神學院 Evangel Theological College
(now Evangel Seminary)
全文大意：
通過比較俄利根(Origen)與新柏拉圖主義(Neo-platonism)來強調他受此主義的影響．根據教義大綱(De Principiis)的內容．試圖分析他的假設，並進而批評這些假設．最後，再以積極的角度來看他的神學之價值．
[由於篇幅有限所以只是簡述.]
內容大綱 Content
II. 教義大綱中的假設與批評 pp.1-4
III. 他的神學之價值 p.5
Text quotations from De Principiis
Full text of De Principiis can be found in these two sites: ANF, meta-religion ；留意，教義大綱原文為希臘文，但因為不少譯本是譯自拉丁文譯本的，所以要小心其中的分別．加上不少關於俄利根(Origen)的資料皆是來自他的敵人；所以大家要分辨一下．
本文所用的希臘文主要使用SPIonic font.
俄利根生於亞歷山大城(主後185年)．父母皆信主．早年已為信仰大發慹熱心；並險些跟從父親殉道．主後２０３年接續革利免(Clement of Alexandra)作校長．他是有名學者，但因亞歷山大主教壓逼，而出走至巴勒斯坦的該撒利亞(Caesarea)．建立一學院．有傳說，他在此地於主後２５１年殉道；也有說是２５４年，死於推羅．
他著作甚多；耶柔米(Jerome)估計他至少有２０００年件作品．最著名有Hexapla（舊約六種譯本的平行比較），Contra Celsum (與Celsus的筆戰），De principiis（第一本系統神學）． (註1)
教義大綱內容附於附註．
１. (on rational creatures) "...or as falling away form good through the freedom of the will, ..." (Book 1, Chapter 5.3, De principiis.) 他主張因有自由意志，天使也會犯罪；並他也主張不是全部天使犯罪．這些觀點與新柏拉圖主義是相同的． (註2) [另參新柏拉圖主義對fate的看法.]
２. 他對新柏拉圖主義一樣相信復活是沒有肉體的．(註３) [留意：這是基於 a general Platonic worldview. ]
３. 他也認為肉體是神用來懲罰靈魂的方法．(註４)
4. 俄利根有一種三分法：他將神，天使，人分成以下的情況：
神－－－聖父，聖子，聖靈(Book I, Chapter I, II, III)
天使－－聖潔的，敗壞的，兩者之間的(Book I, Chapter 5.1, Chapter V.-On Rational Natures. Chapter VIII.-On the Angels. ) [full text of Book I, Chapter 5.1 see here.]
人－－－Spirit, Soul, Body
這種三分法的傾向，與新柏拉圖主義的倡導者Plotinus十分相似．
"There are two fundatmental trinity of divine principles, consisting of the Absolute or Godhead, which he calls indifferently the One and the Good, spirit and soul. The other is the tripartite division of man into spirit, sould and body." (註５)５. 除了以上四點之外，還有不少類同之處．在此我從畧．(註６)
1. 他看見腓羅(Philo)用希臘哲學來演譯，解釋猶太教相當成功．他深信基督教同樣有效．他借用寓意解經法將兩種思想連合在一起，而以新柏拉圖主義作為基礎思想．正因為此連合，與我們信仰不合的思想也引入在他的神學思想，中偏差是在所難免．歷代的神學家有嘗試用當代思想解釋信仰時，也容易犯上類似的問題．因此的確要小心排除其他不合用的假設．正因如此，我相信他並非有心引起偏差，只是未能排除不合用的假設．〔註：現代詮釋學正是提醒我們這個過程特性．參本網的釋經前設及先見，詮釋架構．〕
2. 因為他過份使用寓意解經法(Allegorical method)；甚至認為每節經文，皆有屬靈的解釋．他甚至將樂園(Paradise)也靈意化失去歷史性．因此他的解經法引起不少困難：
a) 所謂屬靈解釋有些是牽強附會，是強解聖經．
b) 並且也完全破壞聖經的歷史性．3. 他視父上帝(God the Father)為萬有的源頭和歸宿，超越理性和存有本身；例如：他說："God is incomprehensible, and incapable of being measured." (De Princ. 1, 1, 5) 另外，父上帝(God the Father)是完全的單子(Monad)，千真萬確的神(au)to/qeov)，唯一非生發(a)ge/nnhtov)．從生發的觀念開始，他解釋聖子和聖靈的來源．(註７)
但他最大的問題是隸屬論．他認為父是千真萬確的神(au)to/qeov)，而聖子卻是神( qeov ) [= a god, or divinity; 參本網Greek course: Lesson 8 : Case of Noun / Definite Article] ，而不是唯一的神(The God, o( qeov )．也就是聖子有性，但與獨一的真神有別．子和父相比之下，子配得次等尊榮 (De Princ. 1, 2, 13)．而且父，子，靈的影響範圍也有分別 (De Princ. 1, 3, 5)．4. 他相信道成肉身， 但不認為聖子的人性是永久或本質上的．他甚至相信耶穌的人性，漸漸被其神性所吸收．不單如此，他心目中真正的中保不是神－人耶穌基督(God-Man Jesus Christ)，而是道(Logos，Logov )．他雖然不願因太強調神性，而變成幻影說(Docetism),但他也不願視耶穌的肉身為自然肉體；只好解作自然肉體與魂之間的實質．(註８)
5. 他的神學中十分忽略聖靈，而且也限制祂的能力：〔留意這個限制是相對於聖父而言，他並非不視聖靈為神．〕
"I am of opinion, then, that the working of the Father and of the Son takes place as well in saints as in sinners, in rational beings and in dumb animals; nay, even in those things which are without life, and in all things universally which exist; but that the operation of the Holy Spirit does not take place at all in those things which are without life, or in those which, although living, are yet dumb; nay, is not found even in those who are endued indeed with reason, but are engaged in evil courses, and not at all converted to a better life. " (De. Princ. 1, 3, 5). 他相信聖靈的工作只存於聖徒當．中聖靈也是創造主(創１：２），因此絕對不只在聖徒當中運行，祂是充滿萬，有並且在未信的人心中運行，感動他信主．所以，限制祂的影響範圍是有問題的．實質上，整個救恩計劃，聖父，聖子，聖靈同榮同權的一同參與，只在推行時的角式有不同．另一方面，他也認為基督只管理有理性活物(rational beings)．同樣，也是影響三位一體同榮同權的問題．耶穌基督在馬太福音２８章１８－２０節提到 [18]耶穌進前來，對他們說：「天上地下所有的權柄都賜給我了。
[19]所以，你們要去，使萬民作我的門徒，奉父、子、聖靈的名給他們施洗（或作：給他們施洗，歸於父、子、聖靈的名）。
[20]凡我所吩咐你們的，都教訓他們遵守，我就常與你們同在，直到世界的末了。」
[18]And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power (or authority) is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
[19]Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
[20]Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
他宣稱有所有的權柄，然包括非理性的實體；而 the name( to\ o!noma ) 是單數，也就是同榮同權，因為神的名字是代表權能，特性的．(註９)6. 他認為神是絕對慈愛，公平；所以他強調人的自由志來解釋人的犯罪與被刑罰（指被放在肉身中）．他的推理如下：
(a) 神是慈愛的，所以刑罰不是從祂而來；而是因活物(creatures)的罪．
(b) 活物因有自由意志(free will)，因此便會不穩定，以至犯罪．
(c) 因犯罪而被放在身體(body)之內．〔這觀念來自新柏拉圖主義〕
(d) 因為有身體(body)便暗示有犯罪；因此復活時是沒有身體的．
在他的推理中，引起最大問題是(c) 點開始的推論．如果有身體(body)便暗示有犯罪，那麼亞當在未犯罪之前必沒有肉體，而且基督的復活必是沒有肉體的．這兩點明顯是與聖經相違背．但歸根到底是因引入了(c) 這個假設．這正是這推理中的至命傷．
另外，他相信有未出生存在的靈魂(pre-existent soul)，因犯罪而被罰之想法，也是借自新柏拉圖主義．７. 他相信基於神的慈愛和新柏拉圖主義的假設，他拒絕接受地獄的存在．也因為如果撒旦尚存在，便反映救贖不完全．因此撒旦必然，最後也得救．其他所有一的一切活物終必得救．因為也相信創造是不完全的，而且需要通過受苦，而使靈魂得救，更新．中包括有一斷演進的觀念．
當然普救論和放棄地獄之說法是不合聖經的．但問題來自他的假設和推論：
(a) 神是慈愛的；
(b) 創造與世界之末必是合一的(unity) or 有序的(orderliness)：有靈魂不得救反映神不慈愛．而且撒旦在地獄中代表有勢力反對神，便是不合一了．
(c) 他相信不斷創造(continuous creation)．有演進的觀念．
他的推理中最引起問題的是(c) ，而且加上他深信神是慈愛的，所以應該全部得救．但撒旦因犯罪而受罰，所以不能得救，這也是他的矛盾．事實上，他要解決的問題的確不易．因為一方面在世界終局萬物皆必在神面前，但神又要按各人，各活物所行報應各活物．當然也有地獄．這個問題的解汏不能在此詳談了．
〔編者註：在(a) 神是慈愛的也有一個問題；他的概念是完全慈愛，沒有公義．所以，推論才會出現問題．因為神是同時慈愛及公義，這個才是聖經的教導．要解決這個問題，可能要參考光的波粒二元同時存在的特性．波和粒是完全不同概念，在不少情況皆是不可以同時存在的；而光卻可以．這個引伸使人相信神在萬有之外，更有可能同時存有我們認為矛盾的特性．〕８. 總括來說，他的問題產生於完全引用新柏拉圖思想作分析基礎，而引起寓意強解聖經，隸屬論，有肉體代表犯罪，復活無肉體，普救論，放棄地獄之說等偏差．事實上，一個人的確難排除自己思想上的假設來分析事物．特別是以哲學思想為分析基礎的系統神學．〔編者註：現代詮釋學正是提醒我們這個過程特性．參本網的釋經前設及先見，詮釋架構．〕
在談到他的神學貢獻之前，我想先談新柏拉圖主義之價值．首先我相信不應因為它是非聖經的(non-Biblical)，便否定它的價值．它可說是歐洲哲學的高峰傑作．它影響超過一千多年，一直到十三世紀也有影響；而它對付了二種哲學系統－－物質主義(materialism), 懷疑主義(scepticism),和二元論( dualism)．(註１０)
8. Then, finally, that the Scriptures were written by the Spirit of God, and have a meaning, not such only as is apparent at first sight, but also another, which escapes the notice of most. For those (words) which are written are the forms of certain mysteries,(13) and the images of divine things. Respecting which there is one opinion throughout the whole Church, that the whole law is indeed spiritual; but that the spiritual meaning which the law conveys is not known to all, but to those only on whom the grace of the Holy Spirit is bestowed in the word of wisdom and knowledge.
The term a)sw/maton, i.e., incorporeal, is disused and unknown, not only in many other writings, but also in our own Scriptures. And if any one should quote it to us out of the little treatise entitled The Doctrine of Peter,(14) in which the Saviour seems to say to His disciples, "I am not an incorporeal demon,"(15) I have to reply, in the first place, that that work is not included among ecclesiastical books; for we can show that it was not composed either by Peter or by any other person inspired by the Spirit of God. But even if the point were to be conceded, the word a)sw/maton there does not convey the same meaning as is intended by Greek and Gentile authors when incorporeal nature is discussed by philosophers. For in the little treatise referred to he used the phrase "incorporeal demon" to denote that that form or outline of demoniacal body, whatever it is, does not resemble this gross and visible body of ours; but, agreeably to the intention of the author of the treatise, it must be understood to mean that He had not such a body as demons have, which is naturally fine,(16) and thin as if formed of air (and for this reason is either considered or called by many incorporeal), but that He had a solid and palpable body. Now, according to human custom, everything which is not of that nature is called by the simple or ignorant incorporeal; as if one were to say that the air which we breathe was incorporeal, because it is not a body of such a nature as can be grasped and held, or can offer resistance to pressure.
5. Having refuted, then, as well as we could, every notion which might suggest that we were to think of God as in any degree corporeal, we go on to say that, according to strict truth, God is incomprehensible, and incapable of being measured.(12) For whatever be the knowledge which we are able to obtain of God, either by perception or reflection, we must of necessity believe that He is by many degrees far better than what we perceive Him to be. For, as if we were to see any one unable to bear a spark of light, or the flame of a very small lamp, and were desirous to acquaint such a one, whose vision could not admit a greater degree of light than what we have stated, with the brightness and splendour of the sun, would it not be necessary to tell him that the splendour of the sun was unspeakably and incalculably better and more glorious than all this light which he saw? So our understanding, when shut in by the fetters of flesh and blood, and rendered, on account of its participation in such material substances, duller and more obtuse, although, in comparison with our bodily nature, it is esteemed to be far superior, yet, in its efforts to examine and behold incorporeal things, scarcely holds the place of a spark or lamp. But among all intelligent, that is, incorporeal beings, what is so superior to all others-so unspeakably and incalculably superior-as God, whose nature cannot be grasped or seen by the power of any human understanding, even the purest and brightest?
On Christ : select Book I, Chapter 2, 13
13. It remains that we inquire what is the "image of His goodness; "and here, I think, we must understand the same thing which we expressed a little ago, in speaking of the image formed by the mirror. For He is the primal goodness, doubtless, out of which the Son is born, who, being in all respects the image of the Father, may certainly also be called with propriety the image of His goodness. For there is no other second goodness existing in the Son, save that which is in the Father. And therefore also the Saviour Himself rightly says in the Gospel, "Them is none good save one only, God the Father,"(54) that by such an expression it may be understood that the Son is not of a different goodness, but of that only which exists in the Father, of whom He is tightly termed the image, because He proceeds from no other source but from that primal goodness, lest there might appear to be in the Son a different goodness from that which is in the Father. Nor is there any dissimilarity or difference of goodness in the Son. And therefore it is not to be imagined that there is a kind of blasphemy, as it were, in the words, "There is none good save one only, God the Father," as if thereby it may be supposed to be denied that either Christ or the Holy Spirit was good. But, as we have already said, the primal goodness is to be understood as residing in God the Father, from whom both the Son is born and the Holy Spirit proceeds, retaining within them, without any doubt, the nature of that goodness which is in the source whence they are derived. And if there be any other things which in Scripture are called good, whether angel, or man, or servant, or treasure, or a good heart, or a good tree, all these are so termed catachrestically,(55) having in them an accidental, not an essential goodness. But it would require both much time and labour to collect together all the titles of the Son of God, such, e.g., as the true light, or the door, or the righteousness, or the sanctification, or the redemption, and countless others; and to show if or what reasons each one of them is so given. Satisfied, therefore, with what we have already advanced, we go on with our inquiries into those other matters which follow.
On the Holy Spirit: Book I, Chapter 3, 5
5. Nevertheless it seems proper to inquire what is the reason why he who is regenerated by God unto salvation has to do both with Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and does not obtain salvation unless with the co-operation of the entire Trinity; and why it is impossible to become partaker of the Father or the Son without the Holy Spirit. And in discussing these subjects, it will undoubtedly be necessary to describe the special working of the Holy Spirit, and of the Father and the Son. I am of opinion, then, that the working of the Father and of the Son takes place as well in saints as in sinners, in rational beings and in dumb animals; nay, even in those things which are without life, and in all things universally which exist; but that the operation of the Holy Spirit does not take place at all in those things which are without life, or in those which, although living, are yet dumb; nay, is not found even in those who are endued indeed with reason, but are engaged in evil courses, and not at all converted to a better life. In those persons alone do I think that the operation of the Holy Spirit takes place, who are already turning to a better life, and walking along the way which leads to Jesus Christ, i.e., who are engaged in the performance of good actions, and who abide in God.
On rational creatures: Book I, Chapter 5, 1
1. After the dissertation, which we have briefly conducted to the best of our ability, regarding the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it follows that we offer a few remarks upon the subject of rational natures, and on their species and orders, or on the offices as well of holy as of malignant powers, and also on those which occupy an intermediate position between these good and evil powers, and as yet are placed in a state of struggle and trial. For we find in holy Scripture numerous names of certain orders and offices, not only of holy beings, but also of those of an opposite description, which we shall bring before us, in the first place; and the meaning of which we shall endeavour, in the second place, to the best of our ability, to ascertain. There are certain holy angels of God whom Paul terms "ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation."(90) In the writings also of St. Paul himself we find him designating them, from some unknown source, as thrones, and dominions, and principalities, and powers; and after this enumeration, as if knowing that there were still other rational offices(91) and orders besides those which he had named, he says of the Saviour: "Who is above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come."(92) From which he shows that there were certain beings besides those which he had mentioned, which may be named indeed in this world, but were not now enumerated by him, and perhaps were not known by any other individual; and that there were others which may not be named in this world, but will be named in the world to come.
On rational creatures: Book I, Chapter 5, 3
3. After the enumeration, then, of so many and so important names of orders and offices, underlying which it is certain that there are personal existences, let us inquire whether God, the creator and founder of all things, created certain of them holy and happy, so that they could admit no element at all of an opposite kind, and certain others so that they were made capable both of virtue and vice; or whether we are to suppose that He created some so as to be altogether incapable of virtue, and others again altogether incapable of wickedness, but with the power of abiding only in a state of happiness, and others again such as to be capable of either condition.(95) In order, now, that our first inquiry may begin with the names themselves, let us consider whether the holy angels, from the period of their first existence, have always been holy, and axe holy still, and will be holy, and have never either admitted or had the power to admit any occasion of sin. Then in the next place, let us consider whether those who are called holy principalities began from the moment of their creation by God to exercise power over some who were made subject to them, and whether these latter were created of such a nature, and formed for the very purpose of being subject and subordinate. In like manner, also, whether those which are called powers were created of such a nature and for the express purpose of exercising power, or whether their arriving at that power and dignity is a reward and desert of their virtue. Moreover, also, whether those which are called thrones or seats gained that stability of happiness at the same time with their coming forth into being,(96) so as to have that possession from the will of the Creator alone; or whether those which are called dominions had their dominion conferred on them, not as a reward for their proficiency, but as the peculiar privilege of their creation,(97) so that it is something which is in a certain degree inseparable from them, and natural. Now, if we adopt the view that the holy angels, and the holy powers, and the blessed seats, and the glorious virtues, and the magnificent dominions, are to be regarded as possessing those powers and dignities and glories in virtue of their nature,(98) it will doubtless appear to follow that those beings which have been mentioned as holding offices of an opposite kind must be regarded in the same manner; so that those principalities with whom we have to struggle are to be viewed, not as having received that spirit of opposition and resistance to all good at a later period, or as failing away from good through the freedom of the will, but as having had it in themselves as the essence of their being from the beginning of their existence. In like manner also will it be the case with the powers and virtues, in none of which was wickedness subsequent or posterior to their first existence. Those also whom the apostle termed rulers and princes of the darkness of this world, are said, with respect to their rule and occupation of darkness, to fall not from perversity of intention, but from the necessity of their creation. Logical reasoning will compel us to take the same view with regard to wicked and malignant spirits and unclean demons. But if to entertain this view regarding malignant and opposing powers seem to be absurd, as it is certainly absurd that the cause of their wickedness should be removed from the purpose Of their own will, and ascribed of necessity to their Creator, why should we not also be obliged to make a similar confession regarding the good and holy powers, that, viz., the good which is in them is not theirs by essential being, which we have manifestly shown to be the case with Christ and the Holy Spirit alone, as undoubtedly with the Father also? For it was proved that there was nothing compound in the nature of the Trinity, so that these qualities might seem to belong to it as accidental consequences. From which it follows, that in the case of every creature it is a result of his own works and movements, that those powers which appear either to hold sway over others or to exercise power or dominion, have been preferred to and placed over those whom they are said to govern or exercise power over, and not in consequence of a peculiar privilege inherent in their constitutions, but on account of merit.
(1) 參 Bengt Haegglund, History of Theology, pp.63-64.
(2) James Hastings, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, T & T Clark, p. 314.
Plotinus, the founder of Neo-Platonism, believes the souls inheave can sin and 'part of' the soul remain above,." Although some of the later Neo-Platonists, like Iamblichus, Proclus, Simplicus maintain that the souls come down entirely; some like Theodorus and Damascius follow Plotinus. I think Origen follow this line.
(3) Ibid, p.314. " Resurrection, he says pointedly is an awakening from the body, not with the body."
(4) Ibid, p.314. "Unrighteous souls are sent into other bodies, even the bodies of ignoarble beasts, as a punishment."
例：(a) (God is) " The term a)sw/maton, i.e. incorporeal. ..." (Preface 8)
(b) "God is incomprehensible, and incapble of being measured." (Book 1, Chapter 1.5) ．其他從畧．
(7) 凱利, 早期基督教教義， 第五章， 第六節，pp.88-89．
(8) 凱利, 早期基督教教義， 第六章， 第五節，pp.106．
(9) 凱利, 早期基督教教義， 第五章， 第六節，pp.86-87．俄利根認為父，子，靈是三位格( u(posta/seiv ) ．他認為這三的每一位從亙古就是不同的位格，不僅在功能裡彰顯時才如此．這想法是直由永恆生發的觀念而來．
(10) ) James Hastings, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, T & T Clark, p. 309.