THE WORLDS BPoainmBm 
 
 Edited m Qupmm Smbaton. 
 
 z::^ 
 
 
 l\*t-:v.W fAiRWEATHEK, M /^ 
 
 \ 
 
Il.nllj. '0 
 
 ^^ PRINCETON, N. J. *^t'h 
 
 Purchased by the 
 Mrs. Robert Lenox Kennedy Church History Fund. 
 
 BR 1720 .07 F3 1901 ^ 
 ort^r^^'^r- William. 
 
 the':i"ogr °"'' ^"^^^^- 
 
 Or 
 

 'I: 
 
Prev ious Volumes in this Series : — 
 
 CRANMER AND THE ENGLISH REFORMATION. 
 By A. D. Innes, M.A. 
 
 WESLEY AND METHODISM. 
 
 By F. J. Snell, M.A. 
 
 LUTHER AND THE GERMAN REFORMATION. 
 By Prof. T. M. Lindsay, D.D. 
 
 BUDDHA AND BUDDHISM. 
 
 By Arthur Lillie, M.A. 
 
 WILLIAM HERSCHEL AND HIS WORK. 
 
 By J.\MES SiME, M.A., F.R.S.E. 
 
 FRANCIS AND DOMINIC. 
 
 By Prof. J. Herkless, D.D. 
 
 SAVONAROLA. 
 
 By Rev. G. M 'Hardy, D.D. 
 
 ANSELM AND HIS WORK. 
 
 By Rev. A. C. Welch, M.A., B.D. 
 
 For Complete List see End. 
 
THE WORLD'S EPOCH-MAKERS 
 
 Origen 
 
 Greek Patristic Theology 
 
 Rev. William Fairweather, M.A. 
 
 v/ 
 
 New York. Charles Scribner's Sons 
 
 1901 
 
"Vir magnus ab infantia." 
 
 Jerome. 
 
 " I love the name of Origen." 
 
 Newman. 
 
 "Like the influence of Socrates in 
 Greek philosophy, so the influence of 
 Origen in Church history is the water- 
 shed of multitudes of diff^erent streams 
 of thought." Farrar. 
 
PREFATORY NOTE 
 
 This volume cannot claim to be written in the popular 
 style adopted in some other volumes of the series, for 
 the simple reason that the subject scarcely admits of 
 being popularised. At the same time I have tried to 
 make the book readable, and to refrain as far as 
 possible from undue technicalities of pliilosophical and 
 theological language. It has been my aim to avoid on 
 the one hand the Scylla of catering for a public which 
 no art or device will ever induce to concern itself 
 about Greek Patristic Theology, and, on the other, the 
 Charybdis of scholastic pedantry. Rightly or wrongly, 
 I am convinced that my task will be most usefully 
 accomplished by furnishing a brief introduction to the 
 study of a subject on which, in English at least, there 
 are not too many easily accessible helps. In view 
 of the impossibility of assuming any very intimate 
 knowledge of Origen's writings on the part of the 
 general reader, or even of the average tlieological 
 student, I have further deemed it best, while not 
 refraining from criticism where it seemed called for, to 
 aim at being expository rather than critical. 
 
 In no sense does the book pretend to be a treatment 
 of the third century. Any attempt to deal with the 
 Church life of the period is debarred by the Hmits of 
 
viii PREFATORY NOTE 
 
 the present series. Such a method of treatment may 
 sometimes have its ad\antages, but it necessarily 
 thro\N's into tlie background the personality of the 
 individual. In the following pages it has been my 
 endeavour to concentrate attention upon the life and 
 writings, the doctrine and influence, of the great 
 teacher of the Greek Church. Chapter I. is in- 
 troductory, and intended to lead up to the main subject 
 by showing to what extent the way had already been 
 prepared for Origen. I regret that considerations of 
 space do not admit of prefixing as Prolegomena a 
 sketch of the birthplace and background of the Greek 
 theology, and of the Apologists of the second century ; 
 but while this may be a desideratum from the point of 
 view of the scientific student, the educated layman will 
 probably count it no loss. Chapters XI. -XIV, form, so 
 to speak, the epilogue, and indicate the nature and 
 extent of Origen's influence upon subsequent theo- 
 logical thought. 
 
 I have deemed it advisable to devote a separate 
 chapter to the life of Origen, instead of adopting the 
 perhaps more scientific, but immensely more com- 
 plicated plan of weaving in the biographical details 
 with other matter in strict chronological sequence. 
 Although in a monogram upon Origen more might, no 
 doubt, be made of this aspect of the subject, I venture 
 to hope that nothing very material has been omitted ; 
 but in any case it seems more important to make room 
 for some adequate account of the writings and theology 
 of one who did so much to " make Christianity a part 
 of the civilisation of the world " than to tell with 
 fuller detail the story of his life. 
 
 To those who may be inclined to question the utility 
 
PREFATORY NOTE ix 
 
 of studying tlie writings of an old-worltl personage 
 like Origcn, and to consider him as of little significance 
 for those living in the twentieth century, it may be 
 pointed out that the theme discussed seems likely to 
 assume growing importance in relation to present-day 
 problems in theology. There is a prevailing disposition 
 to get back to the sources, and it is not to be forgotten 
 that it was the Greek Fathers who laid the foundations 
 of theological science. An American author. Professor 
 A. V. G. Allen, in the Preface to a work the title of 
 which is given below, says : " If I were revising my 
 book I should try to enforce more than I have done the 
 importance of the work of Origen. He was a true 
 specimen of a great theologian, the study of whose life 
 is of special value to-day, as a corrective against that 
 tendency to underrate dogma in our reaction from 
 outgrown dogmas, or the disposition to treat the feel- 
 ings and instincts of our nature as if they were a final 
 refuge from the reason, instead of a means to a larger 
 use of the reason, — a process which, it is to be feared, 
 in many is closely allied with the temper which leads 
 men to seek shelter in an infallible Church." 
 
 In view of subsequent developments of theological 
 thought, within the Greek Church and beyond it, it is 
 equally important to note that while Origen valued 
 dogma, he abjured dogmatism. He refused to make 
 man's blessedness conditional upon the acceptance of 
 certain shibboleths. Although speculative to the verge 
 of audacity, he never failed to distinguish between his 
 own opinions and the rule of faith as contained in 
 Holy Scripture. If he himself was disposed to rate 
 knowledge too highly, at all events he did not confuse 
 it with faith, but was quite explicit in his declaration 
 
X PREFATORY NOTE 
 
 that the word of God is tlie sole source of absolute 
 certitude, and the sole repository of essential truth. It 
 would have been well for the Greek Church if she had 
 clung to this position. As it was, she did not properly 
 discriminate between the matter of revelation and the 
 scientific handling of it, and ultimately succumbed 
 under the incubus of a dead orthodoxy. 
 
 It only remains to mention the principal works 
 consulted in the preparation of this volume. Apart 
 from Origen's own writings, I have derived most help 
 from Redepenning's Origenes: Eine Darsiellung seines 
 Lehens unci seiner Lehre, 2 vols., Bonn, 1841-46 ; 
 Pressense's Tlte Early Years of Christianity, 1879 ; 
 Denis' De La Fhilosophie d'Origene, Paris, 1884 ; 
 Bigg's The Christian Plaionists of Alexand ria, 188Q ; 
 Harnack's History of Dogimi, Eng. tr. 1894-1899; 
 and the Church Histories of Mosheim, Neander, and 
 Kurtz. The following works have also been useful : 
 Schnitzer, Origenes uherdie Grundlehren der Glaubens- 
 wissenschaft, Stuttgart, 1835 ; Hagenbach's History 
 of Christian Doctrines, Eng. tr. 184G; Allen, The 
 Continuity of Christian Thought, 1884; Allin, Race 
 and Religion, 1899; and the articles on Origen in 
 Chambers's Encyclopwdia, Smith and Wince's Dictionary 
 of Christian Biograj)hy, Smith's Diet, of Greek and 
 Roman Biography, and the Encyclopadia Britannica. 
 
 The translations of passages quoted from the writings 
 of Origen are mostly taken from the two volumes 
 published in The Anie-Niccne Christian Library, but 
 sometimes they are those of Bigg or Pressens^, and in 
 a few instances they are my own. 
 
 W. FAIRWEATHER. 
 KiUK(.ALDY, Scjiicmbcr 1901. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PREFATORY Note 
 
 PAGE 
 
 vii 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 Precuksop.s of Origen 
 
 i. The Greek Tlieology ..... 
 
 ii. The Catechetical School of Alexandria 
 iii. Pantffinus aud Clemeut .... 
 
 iv. Rights and Limits of Secular Learning 
 
 V. Clement's View of Holy Scripture, and his Distinction o 
 
 Exoteric and Esoteric Doctrine . 
 vi. Extant AVritings of Clement : their Apologetic Drift . 
 vii. Clement's Dogmatic ..... 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 12 
 14 
 
 17 
 20 
 26 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 Life axd Character of Origen 
 
 i. Early Years in Alexandria 
 
 ii. The Persecution under Septimius Severus 
 
 iii. Ascetic and Philosopher 
 
 iv. Literary Labours and Foreign Travels 
 
 V. Collision with Demetrius 
 
 vi. Life at Caesarea 
 
 vii. The Persecution under Maximinus Thrax 
 
 viii. Journeys into Greece and Arabia 
 
 ix. The End : Beauty of Character 
 
 35 
 37 
 41 
 47 
 50 
 54 
 57 
 58 
 02 
 
Xll 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER III 
 Oeigen's View of Holy Scbiptuke 
 
 i. The Question of Canonicity . 
 
 ii. Insiiiratioii and Unity of the Sacred Writings 
 iii. The Twofold Object of Scripture 
 iv. The Allegorical Method and the Threefold Sense 
 
 V. Allegorism in relation to Apologetic . 
 vi. Economy or the Doctrine of Reserve . 
 vii. Radical Defect of Origen's Position 
 
 PAGE 
 
 65 
 67 
 
 70 
 73 
 77 
 81 
 82 
 
 CHAPTER IV 
 Religiovs Philosophy of Origen 
 
 i. Relation of Christian Doctrine to Greek Philosophy . 
 
 ii. Gnostic and Neoplatonic Elements in Origen's System 
 
 iii. Value of a scientific Conceiition of Christianity 
 
 iv. Origen's Idealism and the religious Ideal 
 
 V. Origen's Theory of Knowledge and its Relation to Faith 
 
 vi. The Deification of Humanity .... 
 
 84 
 87 
 89 
 92 
 94 
 96 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 The Wkitings of Oiugen 
 
 i. Contributions to Textual Criticism — the Hcxajila 
 
 ii. Apologetic Work of Oi'igen — the Contra Celsum 
 
 iii. Exegetical Writings .... 
 
 iv. Dogmatic Works — the Dc Pnncijnis . 
 
 V. Letters and Treatises on Practical Relitrioii . 
 
 99 
 105 
 120 
 125 
 133 
 
 CHAPTEE VI 
 
 Origen's Theology : God and His Self-Manifestations 
 
 i. The Nature of God . . . . . .142 
 
 ii. The Doctrine of the Trinity . . . . .148 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 xiu 
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 Origen's Theology : Ckeation and the Fall 
 
 PAGE 
 
 i. The World of created Spirits aud the Conception of formal 
 
 Freedom . . . . . • .161 
 
 ii. The Fall and the Creation of the Material World . . 168 
 
 iii. The Doctrine of Man . . . . . .171 
 
 V' 
 
 CHAPTER VIII 
 Okigen's Theology : Redemptiox and Restoration 
 The Four Revelations . 
 The Incarnation 
 The Sacrifice of Christ 
 The Soul's Return to God 
 The Last Things 
 
 177 
 180 
 
 202 
 
 CHAPTER IX 
 
 Successors of Origen 
 
 i. In Alexandria — 
 
 {a) Presidents of the Catechetical School : Heraclas, 
 Dionysius, Pierius, Tlieognostus, Peter the Martyr, 
 Didymus, and Rhodon .... 
 
 {b) Athanasius ...... 
 
 ii. In Asia — 
 
 («) Friends and Correspondents : Theophilus of Coesarea, 
 Alexander of Jerusalem, Finnilian, and Julius 
 Afrieanus ...... 
 
 (b) Gregory Thauniaturgus .... 
 
 214 
 220 
 
 224 
 225 
 
 CHAPTER X 
 
 Historical Services, General Characteristics, and Distinctive 
 Doctrinal Complexion of the Greek Theology 
 
 i. Services against Gnosticism and Montanism . 
 
 ii. Characteristics : Allegorism, the Doctrine of Reserve, lu- 
 tellcctualism. Catholicity, Spirituality, Humanitarian- 
 ism, Optimism ...... 
 
 iii. Outline of the Hellenistic Position .... 
 
 iv. The Three Main Pillars of the Greek Theology 
 
 228 
 
 230 
 233 
 235 
 
xiv CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER XI 
 Reaction against Origenism 
 
 PAQE 
 
 i. Dissatisfaction witli Origen's Doctrinal Position . . 238 
 
 ii. The Attack of Methodius ..... 240 
 
 iii. Defence by Pamiiliilus and Eusebius .... 241 
 
 iv. Quarrels among the Egyptian Monks . . .243 
 V. The Controversy in Palestine, Italy, Alexandria, and Con- 
 stantinople ...... 245 
 
 vi. Interference of the Emperor Justinian , . . 250 
 ' vii. Condemnation of Origen's Tenets by the Fifth General 
 
 Council at Constantiuoiile in A.IJ. 553 . . . 251 
 
 CHAPTER XII 
 Subsequent History ok Origenism 
 
 i. Disappearance as a Scientific System .... 252 
 
 ii. In the 7th Century represented by Maximus Confessor . 253 
 
 iii. In the West scarcely traceable during the Middle Ages . 258 
 
 iv. John Seotus Erigena ...... 255 
 
 V. Causes of the Neglect of Origen's Writings in East and West 257 
 vi. The Latin Church more lenient than the Greek in its Judg- 
 ment of Origcn ...... 258 
 
 vii. Opinions concerning him in more recent Times . . 259 
 
 Index ........ 2G3 
 
ORIGEN AND GREEK PATRISTIC 
 THEOLOGY 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 Precursors of Origen 
 
 Christianity had introduced a new idea of God, which 
 superseded not only the deities of classical mytholog5% 
 but also the Hebraic Deism which regarded God merely 
 as the God of the Jews, and as virtually separate from 
 the world. The Greek patristic theology was the 
 result of the application of the specific methods of 
 Greek philosophy to the new material supplied by the 
 Christian histor}^ with the view of constructing a 
 reasoned theory of God and the universe. As such it 
 was " the last characteristic creation of the Greek 
 o-cnius." In the New Testament God is represented 
 from a religious point of view ; but for the Greek mind, 
 which conceived God metaphysically as abstract Being, 
 a scientific theology was indispensable. The facts of 
 Christianity had to be so interpreted as to jaeld a 
 conception of God which would at once conserve His 
 unity, and yet admit of His organic connection with 
 man as Lord and Saviour. Naturally this result was 
 
2 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 reached only through a process of development. The 
 speculations of the Gnostics and the labours of the 
 Apolojj^ists, the constructive genius of Origcn and the 
 acute dialectic of Atlianasius, all contributed towards 
 the evolution of the matured scientific product of the 
 Greek thcolof,^y as defined by the Councils of Nica3a 
 and Chalcedon. 
 
 Everything combined to mark out Alexandria as the 
 place most likely to take the lead in any great intel- 
 lectual movement. Manj'^ currents of thought met and 
 mingled in this cosmopolitan city, which witnessed not 
 only the first attempts at a scientific theology, but 
 also the simultaneous rise of the last great s^'stem of 
 ancient philosophy. As a result of the syncretism of 
 the period, a remarkable spirit of toleration prevailed 
 in the community ; the adherents of different cults and 
 creeds lived side by side in mutual goodwill. Jews 
 and Samaritans, orthodox Christians and heretics, 
 pagans and philosophers of all schools gathered under 
 the same roof to listen to the prelections of Pantaenus 
 and Clement. Christian teachers in their turn, as we 
 know from the examples of Heraclas and Origen, sat 
 at the feet of some heathen professor of philosophy. 
 In these circumstances, even where there was every 
 disposition to be loyal to the faith they professed, it 
 was impossible for any to remain unaffected by the 
 general interchange of ideas. A certain mutual de- 
 pendence of Christian and heathen speculation was 
 thus one of the most pronounced features of the age. 
 Men of diverse creeds unconsciously influenced one 
 another both as regards the maimer and the subject- 
 matter of their thinking. From the standpoint of 
 dogma the Church of Alcxandi'ia came thus to play a 
 
PRECURSORS OF ORIGEN 3 
 
 foremost part, and to enjoy an unrivalled pre-eminence. 
 The intelloclual life of Antioch, where the new faitli 
 had first cai)tared the Gentile heart, was feeble in 
 comparison with that of Alexandria. Athens was too 
 intimately associated with the faded glories of poly- 
 theism to dispute with her the supremacy. The oenius 
 of Rome lay in the direction not of lofty speculation, 
 but of iron rule, and her Christian population naturally 
 imbibed something of her spirit. The Church of 
 Jerusalem was disqualified by its narrow Judaistic 
 sympathies from taking the lead in theological discus- 
 sion. This role fell therefore to the Alexandrian 
 Church, and was nobl}^ prosecuted and sustained, even 
 during times of persecution. 
 
 Philo and his predecessors had to a great extent 
 paved the way for a systematised expression, in terms 
 of Greek philosophy, of the contents of Jewish-Christian 
 tradition. Under the influence of philosophical and 
 Oriental ideas the jagged edges of Judaism had been 
 toned down, and elements of a metaphysical and 
 mystical nature assumed. In the doctrine of the 
 Logos a meeting-point had been found between Jewish 
 monotheism and Gentile philosophy. " All the elements 
 of Christian theology, except the historj*- of Christ, 
 were already prepared in the religious and philosophical 
 eclecticism of Philo and other Jewish Hellenists : the 
 absolute incomprehensibility of God, who, enclosed in 
 the unfathomable abyss of His infinity, acts and mani- 
 fests Himself only through His Son or the Word ; the 
 theory of the Word as necessary mediator between the 
 Most High and rational creatures ; that of the prophetic 
 Spirit who sustains and animates the world of souls, 
 and at the same time the entire universe ; a morality 
 
4 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 at once cosmopolitan and spiritualistic even to mysti- 
 cism ; the resurrection or the Zuioastrian- Jewish 
 (masdeo-juirc) doctrine ol" the future lii'e, tending 
 more and more to confound itself with that of the 
 immortality of the soul, or with the form which the 
 belief in a future life had assumed among the Platonists; 
 'in sliort, the very method that led to univei'sal con- 
 ciliation, and of which tlie principle was that 'the 
 letter killeth and the spirit giveth life.' " ^ The rap- 
 2W0chement between Jew and Greek was further 
 favoured by the general eclectic tendencies of the 
 period, and by the fact that in their turn the Greeks 
 allegorised their mythology with the view of showing 
 that the various popular deities were merely crude 
 expressions of the manifold activity of the one God. 
 • The special task, then, to which the Christian theo- 
 logians of Alexandria addressed themselves, was that 
 of harmonising the apostolic tradition concerning 
 Christ with the theological conclusions of the Jewish-' 
 Alexandrian philosophers — a task which necessarily 
 involved considerable modification of absolute state- 
 ment on the one side or the other. The problem had 
 been already attempted by the Gnostics, whose wild 
 speculation had on the one hand seriously endangered 
 Ciiristianity by nullifying both the divinity and the 
 humanity of Christ, and on the other amounted to a 
 gross abuse of the Greek philosophy, which was in 
 consequence being widely put under the ban. It was 
 the aim of the Alexandrian theologians to restore 
 philosophy to its true place by substituting for the 
 false gnosis of Basilides and Valentinus a true churchly 
 gnosis which should do justice to the Old and New 
 ' Denis, Dc la Fhilosojihic iVOrUjiiic, p. 7. 
 
PRECURSORS OF ORIGEN 5 
 
 Testaments alike. Certainly they were not hampered 
 in the execution of their task by any narrow, intoler- 
 ant, or particularistic view of the Christian tradition ; 
 their temptation, indeed, lay in the opposite direction. 
 They were in danger of distorting it, and of destroying 
 its essential character, by a too great readiness to 
 concede the demands of philosophy. So far were they 
 from consenting, with the fiery Tertullian, to denounce 
 philosophy as the fruitful source of heresies, and so 
 convinced were they of its possible value to the Chris- 
 tian faith, that they became themselves philosophers, 
 and proceeded to define their position with regard to 
 existing philosophical schemes of the universe. Not 
 that they exhibited no originality in their thinking, or 
 that it is impossible to decide with respect to funda- 
 mental doctrines whether they were derived from 
 Christian or from heathen (Greek or Oriental) sources. 
 But from the fact that many ideas were common to 
 both/the line between philosophy and theology neces- 
 sarily became very indistinct./ Both were developed 
 almost j)a7'i 2''^^^''-^- '-t'liere was an effort to enrich 
 Christian doctrine by the assumption of elements from 
 the schools, with the twofold result that Christian 
 gnosis was made to include the sum total of know- 
 ledge, and that the distinction between scientific in- 
 vestigation and ecclesiastical orthodoxy was obscured. 
 /The points of resemblance between philosophy and 
 Christianity were overestimated, and what was most 
 characteristic of the latter was to a large extent lost 
 sight oL/ 
 
 In order, then, to a right conception of the state of 
 matters in Alexandria at the beginning of the third 
 century, it must be recognised that there were growing 
 
6 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 and working on the fs;unc soil two twin schools, the 
 heathen and the Christian. Tlic history of the one is 
 interwoven with that of the other. They existed side 
 by side, opposed and j'et indebted to each other in 
 doctrine and teaching. In such circumstances it was 
 clear that a new era must open for Christianity. 
 Hitherto Christian writers had wa-itten only in the 
 interests of practical religion. They had been eminently 
 uncritical, and no system of theology had been elabor- 
 ated. Now, however, the Alexandrian teachers were 
 compelled to attempt something in this direction. The 
 prevailing pagan philosophy had to be met on its own 
 ground. To some degree the Gnostics may be said to 
 have opposed it, but they gave no fair exposition of 
 those Christian principles which they assimilated. The 
 situation of the Alexandrian Christians was thus in 
 many respects unique. They witnessed the fragments 
 of the old systems gathered together to produce, 
 through the introduction of Platonic ideas, a revived 
 and spiritualised paganism in opposition to Christianity, 
 for the ushering in of Neoplatonism by Ammonius 
 constituted the last prop of the old world. If, however, 
 we think to find in the writings of the Alexandrian 
 teachers a systematic refutation of Neoplatonism in its 
 various principles, we shall be disappointed. So, too, 
 if we look for a definite position against Christianity 
 in the works of Platouists. Neither system was as 
 yet sufficiently developed to admit of this. But there 
 was between the two systems an essential difference at 
 bottom, and the real conflict for the Church lay in its 
 being forced very much to leave jts own standpoint 
 and adopt that of its opponents. ^To combat Platonism 
 it must needs accommodate itself to philosophy, and in 
 
PRECURSORS OF ORIGEN 7 
 
 submitting to this it became fettered with philosophical 
 adjuncts to a danc^crously suicidal extent. As in its 
 conflict with Judaism, so also here, Christianity in- 
 sensibly assimilated part of the error against which it 
 strove. That errors, mystical, speculative, allegorical, 
 and pagan, began to choke it like so many weeds, is 
 clear from the works of the men who, from their 
 position as prefects of the Catechetical School, neces- 
 sarily became apologists for Christianity.,- All of them 
 were more or less tinctured with Platonic views. They 
 were themselves philosophers, and so could sympathise 
 with their opponents, whose error they were disposed 
 to view rather as one of defect than as a total perver- 
 sion of truth. In this way they were led to over- 
 estimate the similarity between pagan and Christian 
 wisdom. Prior to the latter part of the second century 
 Christian teaching, with very few exceptions, had been 
 true to apostolic example ; but after philosophers 
 embraced Christianity, and the new Platonism, which 
 allied itself to Orientalism, began to exert its influence, 
 the case was altered. The intellectual was frequently 
 represented as the chief or only side of Christianity to 
 be attended to ; it was regarded not so much as a rule 
 of life as a speculative scheme of doctrine. From this 
 the transition was easy to " mysteries " similar to those 
 of heathenism. Certain views were kept secret as a 
 higher species of doctrine suitable only for the cultivated 
 few. An attempt was made, in short, to provide the 
 gospel with a philosophy, and to resolve it into such a 
 system as philosopliers would end)race. 
 
 Nor is the explanation of all this far to seek. It 
 may at first sight seem strange that Christian teachers 
 could embrace doctrines known to be Platonic, but we 
 
8 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 must recollect that these same doctrines were supposed 
 to have been borrowed from Holy Scripture, which 
 tliey believed to be the revelation of God's wisdom to 
 men. Speculative theologians, moreover, have always 
 been influenced by contemporary philosophy, and these 
 Alexandrian Fathers only sought to express the doc- 
 trines of the faith in a form adapted to the spirit of 
 the times. Men like Justin and Clement had them- 
 selves passed over from heathen philosophy, and 
 naturally carried with them much of its influence ; 
 but they had nevertheless an ardent desire to see 
 Christian truth in its right place. It would be as 
 unwarrantable to seek the main source of their 
 theology in the philosophical speculation of the period 
 as it would be to say that the Hebrew religion was 
 essentially altered in the post-exilic period because it 
 embellished itself somewhat with Persian angclology. 
 After all, the Alexandrian Fathers " did not exchange 
 the gospel for Ncoplatonism." ^ They resolutely main- 
 tained the supreme authority of Holy Scripture ; and 
 with whatever distortions and incongruities it may 
 have been associated, the assertion of this principle of 
 an objective rule of faith was in itself of the utmost 
 value in combating a philosophy of which the 
 only standard lay in the subjective notions of its 
 advocates. 
 
 The moulding of Christian theology according to the 
 Greek type is specially identified with the Catechetical 
 School of Alexandria. The origin of this famous school 
 appears to have been as spontaneous as its growth 
 was marked. It arose out of the necessities of the 
 Alexandrian Church, but oi" its iirst beginnings we 
 ' KedL'iieuiiing, i. p. [)S. 
 
PRECURSORS OF ORIGEN 9 
 
 have no historical account. Owing, probably, to tliis 
 circumstance it has been variously described as a 
 school for catechumens, as a theological seminary, and 
 as a philosophical institute. While it had elements 
 represented by all of these names, it would be wrong 
 to associate it with any one of them exclusively. It 
 was a product of the gradual evolution of Church life 
 in an educated communit}', and as such adapted itself 
 to the changing necessities of the times. Ajiparently 
 destined at first for the education of catechumens after 
 the informal instruction of an earlier period no longer 
 sufficed, it soon became a famous school of theology ; 
 and in view of its environment and of the intellectual 
 bent of its most influential teachers, it is not wonderful 
 that it became a school of philosophy as well. Con- 
 tiguity to a great seat of learning has always an 
 influence on Church life, and in a university town 
 like Alexandria the Christian community as a whole, 
 and the Catechetical School in particular, were inevit- 
 ably affected in this way. The flower of their youth 
 — students like Ambrosius and Heraclas — listened to 
 the lectures of the Greek professors, while many of 
 the latter, like Celsus and Porphyry, applied them- 
 selves to the critical study of the Scriptures. This 
 nuitual iutoi'course between the Church and the shrine 
 of classical learning gave to the catechetical instruction 
 in Alexandria a more systematic and scholastic form 
 than it elsewhere assumed, and by the middle of the 
 second century it had crystallised into a regular 
 institution. 
 
 Although the catechist's office was not an ecclesi- 
 astical one in the sense of requiring any special con- 
 secration, his was not simply " the calling of a 
 
lo ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 philosopher who held pubHc lectures" (S/ar^/iS?;).^ No 
 one could exercise this office without the consent of 
 the bishop ; and only in so far as it was carried on 
 in his name and under his supervision was the in- 
 struction "public." Students were taught in tlie 
 catechist's own house, not in a building set apart for 
 the purpose. Although no salary was attached to the 
 office, the catechetical teacher^ were virtually supported 
 by their hearers. At first there may have been only 
 one, but sometimes tliere were several, and they were 
 free either to obtain an assistant or to vacate the post. 
 Also, to begin with, there were no set hours for teach- 
 ing;, and no irradation of classes. Sometimes the 
 teachers were in request the whole day long. The 
 aim of the instruction given was the preparation of 
 catechumens, es])ccially those drawn from the learned 
 heathen, for admission to Christian privileges and 
 for the service of the Church. These cultured 
 converts from paganism became in due time effective 
 Christian teachers, and had among their pupils 
 Christian youths and others who wished to gain a 
 student's knowledge of Christianity. When the im- 
 mediate disciples of the apostles no longer survived, 
 a converted philosopher seemed to many the most 
 reliable of guides. Thus in the second century we 
 find iimltitudes gathered round Justin Martyr at 
 Ivuiue, Aristidcs at Athens, and Pantaenus at 
 Alexandria. The method of instruction was varied 
 to suit pupils, who w^cre of both sexes and of different 
 ages. " We put the gospel before each one, as his 
 character and disposition may fit him to receive it." ^ 
 
 1 Schnitzcr, Origcncsiiherdie OrundlehrenderOlaubensmsscnschuft, p. v. 
 - Origeii, Contra Cclsnm, vi. 10. 
 
PRECURSORS OF ORIGEN ii 
 
 If to some were imparted only the elementary facts 
 of the Christian faith, otlicra were introduced to more 
 advanced studies in Christian doctrine, and trained 
 in philosophy as well. What was embraced in a 
 complete course of training is made clear from the 
 detailed account given by Gregory Tliaumaturgus of 
 the course of study prescribed by Origen for his 
 students.^ " He took us in hand as a skilled husband- 
 man may take in hand some hold unwrought ; " " he 
 put us to the question, and made propositions to us, 
 and listened to our replies ; " he trained " that capacity 
 of our minds which deals critically with words and 
 reasonings." His pupils, Gregory tells us, were next 
 introduced to natural science, geometry, and astronomy. 
 To this was added the study of philosophy on the 
 broad basis of a careful perusal of all the ancient poets 
 and philosophers " except only the productions of the 
 atheists." A programme like this would, of course, 
 give ample scope for a suggestive comparison of pagan 
 and Christian wisdom. The study of physical and 
 mental science M^as a preparation for the still more 
 important sul^jects of ethics and theology. Ethical 
 problems lend themselves peculiarl}- to keen dialectic 
 discussion after the Socratic method, and this was 
 the method adopted in the Catechetical School for the 
 expulsion of ignorance and error, and for the cultiva- 
 tion of a genuine love of truth. This Christian school, 
 moreover, was honourably distinguished from the 
 pagan schools of the period by making virtue a subject 
 for practice, and not merely for definition and dis- 
 
 ' Gregory is, indecfl, liere siieakiii^L^ of Oriyen's later work in C;r.sarea ; 
 but the methods and suhjucts adopted by him there were doubthss 
 those previously in use at Alexandria. 
 
12 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 course. Says Gregory oi" Urigcn, " he stimulated us 
 by the deeds he did more than by the doctrines lie 
 taught." But the grand distinctive feature of this 
 school was its theology — its declaration regarding the 
 incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as 
 the Saviour of the world. To this all other topics and 
 themes were reckoned subsidiary. It would be difficult 
 to conceive a more enlightened scheme of Christian 
 education than this, which the wisdom of the Alexan- 
 drian Fathers had already drawn up and put in force 
 at the close of the second century. It fairly harnessed 
 secular science to the chariot of Christian apologetics. 
 
 The Catechetical School first emerges from historic 
 obscurity about a.d. 190. It was then under the 
 mastership of Panta^nus, a convert from Stoicism. Of 
 his personal history little is known. According to 
 riiotius, his teachers were men wlio had seen the 
 apostles. Jerome represents him as an extensive 
 (allegorical) commentator, and as having discovered a 
 Hebrew version of St. Matthew's Gospel during a 
 missionary journey to the East; but, with the excep- 
 tion of a single remark about the use of the tenses 
 in the prophetic writings, his works have perished. 
 Ignorant as we are as to the particular nature of his 
 teaching, we know that he was the lirst to give to the 
 Alexandrian School its distinctive character as one 
 that mingled philosophy with religious instruction. 
 He was succeeded by his own pupil, the better known 
 Titus Flavius Clemens. 
 
 Clement was born, probably at Athens, about the 
 middle of the second century. His studies in religion 
 led him to forsake paganism and embrace Christianity. 
 The same inquiring spirit caused him afterwards to 
 
PRECURSORS OF ORIGEN 13 
 
 travel tlirou<j^li many lands in search of the most dis- 
 tiniruishcd Christian teachers. liel'ernnc: to this, he 
 says: "The last of those whom I met was first in 
 power. On falling in with him I found rest, having 
 tracked him while he la}^ concealed in Egypt. He 
 was, in truili, the Sicilian bee, and, plucking the 
 ilowers of the prophetic and apostolic meadow, he 
 produced a wonderfully pure knowledge in the souls 
 of the listeners." ^ The allusion here is obviously to 
 Fantasnus. Clement, who attained the rank of pres- 
 byter in tlie Church of Alexandria, discharged his 
 catechetical duties with much distinction, and counted 
 among his pupils Origen and Alexander, bishop of 
 Jerusalem. In the year 202, during the persecution of 
 Severus, he appears to have quitted Alexandria. Of 
 his subsequent movements nothing is known except 
 that in 211 he travelled to Antioch, and carried a 
 letter of recommendation from Alexander of Jerusalem, 
 who speaks highly of the service rendered by Clement 
 to the Church of his own diocese. 
 
 In the o:reat work of winning the Greek world for 
 Christianity, Clement was the innnediate precursor of 
 Origen, the forerunner without whom Origen, as we 
 know him, could not have been. His birth and 
 training, as well as his temperament and scholarly 
 acquirements, fitted him for the part he was destined 
 to play. He knew the world both on its pagan and 
 its Christian side. The Greek classics were as familiar 
 to him as the Christian Scriptures. He was equally 
 at home with the Greek philosophy and the Pauline 
 theology. Essentially a literary man, he quotes — 
 sometimes loosely, it must be confessed — from hun- 
 ^ Slromatcis, i. 1. 
 
14 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 drcds oi" authors, and evidently made good use of the 
 library in the Sarapieion. lie was neither an eloquent 
 orator nor a bustling ecclesiastic, neither a i)ublic dis- 
 putant nor a social reformer, but a genial man of 
 letters, of a meditative cast of mind, and with a certain 
 distaste for the strife and turmoil of everyday life. 
 
 The obscuration by the Gnostics, not only of the real 
 nature of redemption, but also of the character of God, 
 led Tertullian and others to pronounce Greek learning 
 the invention of demons. Clement's whole teaching- 
 amounted to a strenuous denial of this position. 
 Whatever its origin — and Clement still repeats the 
 old charge of "theft" from the Pentateuch^ — philo- 
 sophy was in his estimation no work of darkness, 
 but in each of its forms a ray of light from the Logos, 
 and therefore belonging of right to the Christian. 
 Strong as Gnosticism was in Alexandria, and strong 
 as were the orthodox party in the Church who took 
 their stand upon the creed simplicitcr, " even in that 
 age and place Clement saw and dared to proclaim that 
 the cure of error is not less knowledge but more."^ 
 With an ahnost passionate conviction he asserted not 
 only that there is in the Church a legitimate place and 
 function for secular learning, — e.g. in the exposition of 
 Scripture, — but also that .such learning is ethically in- 
 dispensable, inasmuch as it needs an intelligent Chris- 
 tian to act justly. Science, he contended, although it 
 lends grace and clearness to the preacher, is no mere 
 
 1 It h doubtful Low far Clement was really convinced of this, 
 although lie speaks of philosophy having been "stolen as the lire by 
 Pronietlieus," and allows that John x. 8 may be applicable to Greek 
 philosophers {Strom, i. 17). He knew, at any rate, that their dialectic 
 had not been borrowed by the Greeks. 
 
 - Bigg, The Christian I'latonists of Alccandria, p. 50. 
 
PRECURSORS OF ORIGEN 15 
 
 ornamental fringe to religion ; it is necessaiy to riglit 
 conduct. What pliilosoplicrs of all schools had been 
 aiming at was also the aim of Christianity, viz. a 
 nobler life. The difference, according to Clement, was 
 this : while the ancient philosophers had been unable 
 to get more than glimpses of the truth, it was left to 
 Christianity to make known in Christ the perfect 
 truth. The various epochs in the history of the world 
 all pointed forward to this final revelation ; and just 
 as the law prepared the Jews, so also philosophy pre- 
 pared the Greeks for Christ. Clement believed in a 
 similar evolution in the Christian life. As the world 
 must needs go through several stages preparatory to 
 the coming of Christ, so must a man advance by 
 degrees from faith {'rriang) to love, and from love to 
 knowledge (yvuaig), to the position of a perfect Chris- 
 tian. What he and his fellow-teachers set themselves 
 to do, therefore, was to educate philosophers up to the 
 point of accepting Christianity, which they represented 
 as only a higher development and further advance on 
 the same line as that along which they had themselves 
 been travelling.^ The same God had been recognised 
 by Greek, Jew, and Christian alike, but to the last 
 only had there been given a truly spiritual knowledge 
 of Him. Christianity was the ultimate goal for all 
 philosophy. Whatever was good in the latter was (as 
 Justin had already taught) the result 01 the teaching 
 of the same Logos who in Christianity had revealed 
 the totality of truth. While, therefore, Clement 
 admires, and within proper limits defends, philosophy, 
 
 ^ "There i.s in pliilosopliy ... a slonder spark capalilc of being 
 fanned into llame, a trace of wisdom and an impulse from God" 
 {Strom, i. 17). 
 
1 6 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 lie maintains its inadequacy as a (^nidc to the know- 
 ledge of Goil^ Although viewing it as good in itself, 
 as a useful weapon for the defence of Christian truth, 
 and as an invalual)le aid in the education of the 
 enlightened man — the true Gnostic, he clearly sees its 
 limits, and refuses to set it in the seat of Christ, the 
 one Physician of the soul. If on its intellectual side 
 Clement's theology is coloured by Greek philosophy, 
 on its religious side it is derived directly from Chris- 
 tianity. If he thinks as a Platonist, he feels as a 
 Christian. The two sources from which he drew — 
 Greek philosophy and literature on the one hand, and 
 the Bible and Christianity on the other — are no doubt 
 at many points imperfectly fused ; instead of an 
 intimate blending of philosophy and tradition, we 
 have them set merely in juxtaposition. For instance, 
 at one time, in characteristic philosophic fashion, he 
 strips God of all His attributes and conceives Him as 
 the pure Monad ; at another he al^andons this tran- 
 scendental position and apprehends God as the loving 
 Father of His creatures. But in the circumstances 
 this defect is not surprising; it arose from his being 
 at once an advocate and an opponent of philosophy. 
 
 Clement further maintained that, in order to a full- 
 grown Christian manhood, practical piety must be 
 combined with intellectual freedom. There must, he 
 held, be scope for reason as well as for faith, for know- 
 ledge as well as for love. This led him, in common 
 with others of the Alexandrian school, to attach less 
 importance to mere historical facts than to the undcr- 
 lyino- ideas. The letter of revelation he brought under 
 the judgment of reason. But not so as to make reason 
 
 ^ See Strom, i. 20. 
 
PRECURSORS OF ORIGEN 17 
 
 independent of faith, which he declared to be as neces- 
 Haiy for spiritual as breath for physical lifc.^ It was 
 his endeavour to do justice to both, and to represent 
 both as essential to a healthy piety. In this way 
 Clement at once anticipated the great principle of 
 Protestantism, and showed sympathy with the stand- 
 point of the Mystics, although with him the mystical 
 has always its roots in the rational. 
 
 In his view of Holy Scripture Clement stands mid- 
 way between Justin and theologians like Irenseus and 
 Tertullian. On the one hand he makes use of sacred 
 Christian writings as well as of the Old Testament. 
 But on the other hand he does not educe from the 
 Christian tradition a series of propositions purporting 
 to embrace the \vhole content of Christianity, and 
 represent these as an apostolic rule of faith. The 
 regida field of the Churches of Rome and Carthage 
 had not yet been established in the Alexandrian 
 Church. In Clement's view the enlightened man is 
 able to decide as to the truth of Christian doctrine. 
 Apart from the appearance of the Logos in flesh, the 
 most perfect revelation given to men in this life is 
 that contained in the Old and New Testaments, which 
 are throughout verbally inspired. Its simplicity of 
 language is intended to make it comprehensible to all ; 
 and as it affords everything needful for the soul's 
 peace and happiness, and is the best guide to holiness, 
 it should be read daily. While treating the law as 
 inferior to the gospel in respect of its teaching being- 
 more negative and more obscure, and based upon fear 
 instead of love, he yet asserts the unity of all scrip- 
 ture as emanating from the Most High ; " for faith in 
 ^ Stvom. ii. 6. 
 
1 8 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 Cliri.st and the knowledge oi" the gospel are the 
 explanation and fultilment of the law." In defending 
 the unity of Holy Scripture against the Gnostics, who 
 strongly impeached the morality of the Old Testament 
 in connection with such things, e.g. as the approval of 
 wars of extermination, Clement is content to maintain 
 that justice (severity) is not incompatible with good- 
 ness, being indeed but its obverse side. It was left 
 for Origen to attempt a systematic refutation of the 
 charges of immorality thus brought against Jehovah, 
 Assuming that whatever fragments of truth may be 
 in the possession of heathen authors must be con- 
 tained in the source from which they were all origin- 
 ally borrowed, Clement further seeks through inspired 
 Scripture to arrive at the solution of the speculative 
 questions canvassed in his time. 
 
 Corresponding to the twofold nature of the incarnate 
 Logos is the double sense of Scripture — the outward or 
 literal, and the inner or allegorical.^ The " method of 
 concealment," or the wrapping-up of truth in figures, 
 is both necessary and universal, — necessary, because 
 the inexpressible God of the universe can never be 
 committed to writing; universal, because common to 
 men of different nationalities and to sacred and pro- 
 fane writers alike.- In support of the latter statement, 
 
 ^ According to Clement [Strom, i. 28), Scripture has oven a fourfold 
 sense — the literal, the nij'stic, the moral, and the prophetic. For 
 TfT/saxws some would read rpix^^s, as the three last senses only are 
 specified, but the literal may be omitted as self-evident. Clement 
 also classifies "the Mosaic philosoiihy" as — (1) History, (2) Legislation 
 ( = Ethics), (3) Sacrifice ( = Physics), (4) TJieology or Ejioiiteia ( = Meta- 
 physics or Dialectics). This identification of the sacrificial witli physical 
 science is certainly very forced. Epoptcia or vision was the term used 
 of the highest stage of initiation into the mysteiios. 
 * Strom, v. 4. 
 
PRECURSORS OF ORIGEN 19 
 
 Clement points to the mystic meaning ol" the Mosaic 
 Tabernacle and its i'urniture, to the Egyptian hiero- 
 glyphics and sphinxes, and to the Greek oracles, poets, 
 and philosophers. 
 
 The practical outcome of these views is seen in the 
 distinction drawn between the true Gnostic or fully 
 enlightened Christian and the ordinary unsophisticated 
 disciple. The belief of the former is elevated into a 
 mystery which may not be revealed to the latter any 
 more than to the profane. When truth is veiled in 
 symbols, the true Gnostic apprehends where the ignor- 
 rant man fails; hence the inadvisability of exposing 
 the benefits of wisdom to all and sundry (Strom, v. 9). 
 Founding on Col. i. 25 ff., Clement holds that hidden 
 mysteries received by the apostles from the Lord had 
 been handed down in direct succession until those who 
 possessed the tradition of the blessed doctrine "came 
 by God's will to us also to deposit those ancestral and 
 apostolic seeds" (Strom, i. 1, vi. 8). These Christian 
 mysteries were not disclosed to the general body of the 
 pupils attending the Catechetical School. Their proper 
 diet was "milk" or catechetical instruction, and not 
 " meat " or mystic contemplation. On this principle 
 the lower grades among the catechumens were not 
 introduced to anything which he reckoned as Gnosis. 
 They had the fundamental dogmas of the Church 
 expounded to them, but not the abstruser speculations 
 about " the being of God, the origin of the world, the 
 last things, the relation of reason to revelation, of phil- 
 osophy to Christianity, of faith to knowledge," which 
 were reserved for the enlightened. It is clear, how- 
 ever, from some extant passages of works written by 
 Clement for general use, that he took note of heresies 
 
20 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 with the view ot" i'ortiryino- the catcehiiincns against 
 apostasy.^ All were taught the gospel from the stand- 
 point ot" one who acknowledged that even in paganism 
 there were finger-posts pointing to Christ ; all were 
 instructed, probably with much minuteness, in Chris- 
 tian ethics, both individual and social ; but only the 
 specially devoted were taken as it were into the Holy 
 of holies and secretly schooled in the deeper mysteries.] 
 
 Although his teaching does not seem to have been 
 characterised by orderliness, his daring flights of 
 thought, his lively speech, wnth its wealth of figure 
 and literary allusion, and his spiritual depth, must 
 have profoundly impressed his hearers, and probably 
 Origen among the rest. It seems more than likely that 
 the latter became orally acquainted with his views, and 
 imbibed from him the distinction of exoteric and esoteric 
 doctrine. At any rate his influence on Origen is un- 
 doubted. That writer never, indeed, quotes Clement 
 by name, but his W'Orks show how much he was in- 
 debted to his genial and erudite predecessor in the 
 Catechetical School. 
 
 With the exception of the treatise Qais Dives Sal- 
 vetur (" Who is the rich man that is saved?"), Clement's 
 extant waitings are limited to three great works wdiich 
 form a connected and graduated series. The idea under- 
 lying the whole of this tripartite work is that of the 
 activity of the Logos, the reason of the w^orld, and the 
 divine teacher of the human race. As such he " first 
 conducts the rude heathen, sunk in sin and idolatry, 
 to the faith ; then progressively reforms their lives by 
 moral precepts; and finally elevates those who have under- 
 gone this moral purification to the profounder knowledge 
 
 ' His own phrase is that he rlrcw round tlicm "a hedge" of learning. 
 
PRECURSORS OF ORIGEN 21 
 
 of divine tliinf;"s, which lie calls Chiosis." ^ Clement's 
 one great theme was this divinely wrought develojjment 
 in tlie spiritual life of men. The Protreptikos (" Exhor- 
 tation to the Heathen") is an appeal to his pagan 
 hearers to rise above the slavery of custom ; to abandon 
 a worship not only irrational in itself, but associated 
 with immorality and cruelty, and to take on them the 
 yoke of Christ. Brimful of classical lore, it is written 
 throughout in a cultured and Christian spirit, and con- 
 tains many passages of great beauty. The Poidagogos 
 (" Instructor ") is addressed to neophytes, and is designed 
 to train them in the art of Christian living as "an 
 indispensable preparation for the contemplative know- 
 ledge of God." In the tirst of the three books into 
 which it is divided Clement exhibits Christ as the 
 great Pcedagogus, dealing, however, more with the 
 method than with the substance of His teaching. The 
 second and third books contain very minute regulations 
 as to the behaviour required of a Christian in the 
 difi'ercnt experiences, relations, and circumstances of 
 life. Although no longer necessary, such an encyclo- 
 paidia of conduct may well have served a useful pur- 
 pose among those just emerging from heathenism and 
 beset with great temptations and difficulties. At the 
 close of the third book Clement gives a bird's-eye view 
 of the ethical side of Christian life ; and appended to 
 the " Instructor " are two hymns ascribed to his pen. 
 Stromateis (" Miscellanies," lit. coverlets made out of 
 odd pieces of cloth) is the fitting title given by Clement 
 to his largest work. It is a miscellaneous collection of 
 materials drawn partly from Greek philosophy and 
 literature, and partly from Scripture, without any 
 ^ Neaudcr, OJnirch Illstory, ii. p. 486. 
 
22 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 definite plan or arraiigcinciit, and designed to enable 
 those already i'ainiliar with the <li,scipline of the In- 
 structor to advance to a higher Christian gnosis founded 
 upon faith. It seeks to exhibit the attitude of the 
 true Cliristian Gnostic to philoso})hy. Of the eight 
 books of which it was composed the last appears to 
 have been lost, its place having been taken b}' a frag- 
 mentary treatise upon Logic which had originall}^ no 
 connection with the work. 
 
 According to some writers,^ it was Clement's inten- 
 tion to publish a further treatise suitable for more 
 matured Christians, somewhat on the lines of Origen's 
 De Pri7\ciinU,\\\t\\ the view of leading them, through 
 the help of philosophy, to a more recondite knowledge 
 of Christian truth. However this may be, it is at any 
 rate permissible to discount liberally Clement's state- 
 ment that he did not impart all he knew. He was 
 aware, of coui-se, that his work would be misused by 
 the heathen, and by some Christians as well, but he 
 was anxious to counteract Hellenic and heretical litera- 
 ture, and to protect esoteric doctrine from falsification 
 and destruction. For these reasons, and also to assist 
 his own memory in old age, he felt constrained to 
 write the above-mentioned works in which nothing 
 essential has been withheld. At the same time, he 
 appears to have resolved in all the circumstances not 
 to treat the esoteric doctrine systematically, but to 
 weave it in with his lectures in the form of hints to 
 those who could profit by them. Nor is Clement to be 
 taken too seriously when he represents the whole con- 
 tents of the Stromateis as tradition, for there was in 
 his day a strong desire to emulate the anti(juity of 
 ^ Eugene de Faye, Clement iV Alexcmdric. 
 
PRECURSORS OF ORIGEN 23 
 
 })liilosophical systems, and to regard the form of truth 
 arrived at as permanently iixed. Even then, it would 
 seem, there were ad\ocates of what has been wittily 
 termed " tinned theologj'." 
 
 From the necessity of the situation Clement's teach- 
 ing assumed a generally upolorjetic aspect, and accord- 
 ingly it is from the standpoint of apologetics, and not 
 from that of dogma, that it nnist be judged.^ By the 
 light which it threw upon the great problems raised by 
 philosophy regarding God, the world, and the human 
 soul, Christianity had awakened the dormant spiritual 
 sense in vast multitudes of men. But in the matter of 
 satisfying the spiritual needs of humanity it found a 
 rival claimant in Neoplatonism, which took for its 
 religious ideal the direct apprehension of the divine 
 essence. Thus, it was believed, would the traditional 
 worship receive a new impetus, and the desideratum, 
 for want of which men were seceding to Christianity, 
 be supplied. The promoters of Neoplatonism saw that 
 it' heathenism was to prevail, it nmst both get rid of 
 its more jjlarino; absurdities, and also strengthen itself 
 by a large accession of ideas, principles, and rites. 
 Thus they borrowed whatevei' appeared to them 
 good from every available source. They contemplated 
 nothing less than the introduction of a universal reli- 
 gion, constructed on principles so broad that the wise 
 of all the earth could adhere to it. It was their aim to 
 set matters right between philosophy and theology, 
 between doctrine and life, and to satisfy the needs of 
 the soul on a scale to which Christianity could make 
 no pretension. Such, then, was the situation which 
 Clement had to meet, and it fully explains the apolo- 
 ^ Dods, Eramnus and oilier Essays, p. 129. 
 
24 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 gctic drift of his writings as well as his constant 
 references to philosophy. 
 
 Before pronouncing a hasty ju<lgnient on the extent 
 to which Clement has allowed his philosophic bent to 
 influence his thcolog}'', we must take into account the 
 character of his environment. One of the dangers of 
 the prevailing eclecticism was that it tended too much 
 to speculation. Possibly for a Christian teacher in 
 Alexandria there was no choice ; either the gospel had 
 to be presented in the light in which it was presented 
 by Clement, or it could have obtained no hearing at 
 all. At any rate he deliberately chose his method of 
 stating the truth, and there is no reason to doubt that 
 he honestly tried to serve Christ by pleading His 
 cause in terms iittcil to appeal to the cultured Greeks 
 of his time. 
 
 Although no systematic theologian in the modern 
 sense, Clement may be said to have laid the foundation 
 of a true scientific Christian dogmatic. His position 
 marks a great advance upon that of Justin, who to 
 some extent anticipated him. Departing from the 
 purely apologetic aim of that writer, Clement conceived 
 his task to include a certain positive presentation of 
 Christian truth as well. To the idea of the Logos in 
 particular he gave a much fuller and more definite 
 content than Justin did, and made it the keystone of 
 his religious philosophy, and of his interpretation of 
 Christianity. The gospel is the highest revelation of 
 the Logos, who has given indication of his presence 
 wherever men rise above the level of the beasts and of 
 the uncivilised savage. All truth and goodness are 
 traced to the Light that lighteneth every man that 
 Cometh into the world. This" bold and joyous thinker" 
 
PRECURSORS OF ORIGEN 25 
 
 constructed in this way an optimistic theory of human 
 history of a singularly attractive kind, in wliich the 
 Saviour is represented as smiling upon and nurturing 
 every root of beauty and nobleness, of piety and vs^orth, 
 which has at any time and in any place sprung up on 
 the soil of humanity. A place was thus found within 
 the pale of Christianity for the whole of Hellenic 
 culture as a stage in the education of mankind. But 
 while the Logos is the moral and rational in every 
 degree of evolution, it is only from revelation that a 
 reliable knowledge of him can be gained. " In Christ 
 he is the officiating high priest, and the blessings he 
 bestows are a series of holy initiations which alone 
 contain the possibility of man's raising himself to the 
 divine life." ^ Christianity is thus, according to Clement, 
 the doctrine of the Logos, the creator, teacher, and 
 redeemer of men, whose finished product is found in 
 the man of true knowledge, the perfect gnostic. " His 
 great work, which has rightly been called the boldest 
 literary undertaking in the history of the Church, is 
 the first attempt to use Holy Scripture and the Church 
 tradition together with the assumption that Christ as 
 the Reason of the world is the source of all truth, as 
 the basis of a presentation of Christianity which at 
 once addresses itself to the cultured by satisfying the 
 scientific demand for a philosophical ethic and theory 
 of the world, and at the same time reveals to the 
 believer the rich content of his faith." - 
 
 It is impossible here to enter minutely on the subject 
 of Clement's dogmatic, which he made no attempt to 
 construct into a regular system. On the basis of the 
 
 ^ llaniack, Ilislory of Dogma, ii. p. 324. 
 - Harnack, loc, cit. 
 
26 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 materials scattered throughout his pages its main lines 
 may, however, be briefly indicated. 
 
 One of his merits is that he grasps so firmly tlie 
 doctrine of the Tj-inity. A "writer who pronounces his 
 scheme of doctrine " very meagre and latitudinarian " 
 certifies his soundness on this point.^ Distinctly as he 
 affirms the doctrine of the Ti'inity, it can scarcely be 
 said, however, that in his writings this doctrine appears 
 in a more advanced form of development than in those 
 of his predecessors. God is inexpressible, having neither 
 parts, qualities, nor relations. " He is formless and 
 nameless, tliough we sometimes give Him titles which 
 are not to be taken in their proper sense, — -the One, 
 the Good, Intelligence or Existence, or Father, or God, 
 or Creator, or Lord " {Strom, v. 12). This idea of God, 
 whom he further speaks of as the great " depth " or 
 "abyss," would hardly be distinguishable from tlie 
 empty abstraction of Philo and the Alexandrian Platon- 
 ists, were it not for tlie qualifying declaration that to 
 the Son of God there is nothing incomprehensible. 
 God is therefore not absolutely, but only relatively, 
 incomprehensible. It is owing to our limitations as 
 human beings that He is to us inscrutable. Clement 
 summons an old poet to express his meaning — 
 
 " llim .see I not, for round about, a cloud 
 Has settled ; for in mortal eyes are small, 
 And mortal pnjjils — only (lesh and Ijones grow there." 
 
 God is manifested through the Son, by whose grace as 
 Logos He has in some degree been known to the nobler 
 spirits of every age and country. In the New Testanient, 
 liowever. He is revealed as a Trinity — Father, Son, and 
 
 1 Ciuniiii,L;liaiii, Jfisi. Thcol. i. p. 1.^0. 
 
PRECURSORS OF ORIGEN 27 
 
 Holy Spirit. Wliilc the Fiithcr is not knowablc, tlic 
 Son as tlie mind or consciousness ol' the Father may 
 become the object of knowledge. After Philo, he 
 speaks of the Son as the Name, Energj'^, Face, etc., of 
 God ; but between the Father and the Son there is an 
 essential unity, and prayer may be offered to the Son. 
 Clement is not less explicit as to the coequalit}'- and 
 coeternit}^ of the First and Second Persons in tlie 
 Godhead. While his view of the relations of the Third 
 Person to the First and Second Persons is nowhere 
 clearly stated, he undoubtedly accepts the distinct 
 personality of the Holy Spirit. " O mystic marvel," 
 he exclaims, " the universal Father is One, and One 
 the universal Word, and the Holy Spirit is one and 
 the same everywhere." ^ The Spirit he also represents 
 as speaking by the prophets,^ and as the Sanctifier of 
 soul and body.^ It is, however, as Clement is careful 
 to explain in a quotation from the apostolic Barnabas, 
 not in essence, but in power, that the Holy Spirit 
 dwells in the heart, which from having been " the 
 house of demons " has become through faith the temple 
 of God.'' 
 
 Clement's general view of the creation is based upon 
 that of Philo, although he denies the pre-existence of 
 matter and of the soul. The creation of the world 
 through the Word is the outcome and the manifestation 
 of God's eternal goodness. It was this that prompted 
 Him to become Creator and Father. Man was the 
 special object of His love, and as such, in an important 
 sense, the end of creation. God communicated to man 
 what was peculiar to Himself, and made him a beauti- 
 
 1 rad. i. 6. 2 rrolrept. i. 8. 
 
 3 iitrom. iv. 2, 6. * Strom, v. 20. 
 
28 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 fill breathing instrument of music. " The Word of 
 God, despising tlic lyre and liarp, which arc hut lifeless 
 instruments, and having tuned by the Holy Spirit the 
 universe, and especially man, — ■\\'ho, composed of body 
 and soul, is a universe in miniature, — makes melod}^ to 
 God on this instrument of many tones." ^ This divine 
 element, imparted to man by the Word, constitutes 
 between him and God an essential spiritual atBnity 
 which has not been totally destroyed even by the 
 Fall. 
 
 The existence of sin Clement holds to be sufficiently 
 explained by the freedom of the human will.- Although 
 God foresaw who would prove rebellious, they were 
 not predestinated to evil ; obedience is possible to us. 
 There is no incompatibility between grace and freewill, 
 for " God's greatest gift is self-restraint." ^ Clement 
 repudiates the claim of the disciples of Basilides and 
 Valeutinus with respect to their enjoyment of a natural 
 advantage in the shape of a germ of superior excellence, 
 — a claim which based the salvation of the complete 
 Christian, not upon faith as the result of free choice, 
 but upon an arbitrary supramundane selection on the 
 part of God. Such necessitarianism would, he points 
 out, at once cancel the guilt of unbelief by freeing man 
 from responsibility, and leave no room for repentance, 
 or forgiveness, or baptism. Evil is the deliberate act 
 of man, and is not to be ascribed to any hereditary 
 taint in human nature. The soul is not begotten. 
 We fall as Adam fell, not because of his sin, but 
 
 ^ Protrepl. chap. i. 
 
 ^ The phrase liberum arhitrluin is T'l-tnllian's, liut it exactly expresses 
 Clement's meaning. 
 » mrom. ii. 20. 
 
PRECURSORS OF ORIGEN 29 
 
 through our own lust. Clement refuses to believe that 
 the newborn babe, who has done nothing, can rest 
 under any condemnation. It is only wilful sin that 
 God punishes. 
 
 While denying " original sin," Clement admits that 
 fallen man is powerless to restore himself to good. 
 Here we need the help of Christ. The eternal Word 
 has appeared as man in order to become our Teacher 
 and Saviour. " Lost as we already were, He accom- 
 plished our salwation. " ^ It was the object of His 
 incarnation and death to deliver us from the guilt, and 
 from the ignorance which constitutes the power, of sin. 
 Like the Alexandrians generally, Clement lays more 
 stress upon the latter aspect of redemption than upon 
 the former. The ideas of atonement and forgiveness 
 did not fit in well with their favourite belief as to the 
 unchanging God. Yet, in view of certain statements 
 contained in his own writings, it would be a mistake 
 to say that he entirely ignores the sacrificial character 
 of Christ's work. No doubt the term " Lamb of God " 
 is applied to Him only in respect of His innocence. It 
 is also true that Clement fails to grasp the expiatory 
 significance of the Mosaic sacrifices. For him they 
 simply express devotion to God and the return to 
 holiness. And the raisoii d'etre of Christ's sacrifice 
 upon the cross is in like manner to lead us back to the 
 practice of the good. Nevertheless — whether con- 
 sistently or not is another question — he speaks of the 
 Lord being immolated and bearing the wood of the 
 cross ;^ of the Word as Mediator ;=^ and of Christ as 
 giving Himself in sacrifice for us,* as the expiator of 
 
 ^ Peed. i. 4. - Peed. i. 5. => Pwd. iii. 1. 
 
 •* Strom. V. 11, vii. 3 ; Pitd. i. 11. 
 
30 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 sin, the Saviour, the Reconciler, the giver of peace.^ 
 He i'urthcr writes: "And He is the propitiator for our 
 sins, as John says ; Jesus who heals both our body and 
 soul," - and rei:»resents Jesus as addressing the sinner 
 in these terms : " I am the master of heavenly wisdom ; 
 I have wrestled with death for thee. I have abolished 
 that death which was thy due, on account of thy sins 
 and unbelief." 3 When all is said, however, there is no 
 doubt that, in the general view of Clement, salvation 
 hangs not upon atonement, but upon moral amend- 
 ment ; not upon Christ's finished work as a sacrificial 
 victim for the sins of men, but merely upon the fact of 
 a spiritual transformation wrought in us by the Word 
 as the Avorld's Instructor. He fails, though, to find 
 in such a position a solid basis for man's restoration to 
 goodness, and is obliged to fall back upon the distinction 
 of " First and Second Repentance." Only for pre- 
 baptismal sins, i.e. sins committed in the darkness of 
 ignorance, is there a free pardon in consideration of 
 the work of Christ. He who has received forgiveness 
 ought to sin no more. Yet God in his mercy has 
 vouchsafed a second repentance for the transgressions 
 of believers. These must be purged by corrective 
 discipline, which may not end with the present life, in 
 order that at length we may be raised to the highest 
 degree of heavenly glory. Meanwhile, those who have 
 entered on the distinctive Christian life must look 
 upon " the risen Lord, the fountain not of pardon, but 
 of life." As God, Christ forgives our sins, and as Man 
 trains us not to sin.* In Clement's view redemption is 
 not so nuich the restoration of what man lost by the 
 
 ^ Protrcpt. X. -Pad. iii. 12. 
 
 " "»/,/\' (//)■. .s7y//'. xxiii. ■* Poxl. i. 0. 
 
PRECURSORS OF ORIGEN 31 
 
 Fall as it is the grand climax of human destiny. "The 
 Word ol' God became man, that thou mayest learn 
 from man how man may become God."^ 
 
 As given to us at the first our reason is pure and 
 uncontamiuated. But we need more than reason and 
 Treewill in order to attain vital fellowship with God. 
 These afford adequate guidance for our earthly life, but 
 can lead us no higher. The true Gnostic builds up his 
 spiritual life on his faith, which is " a sort of natural 
 art," and contributes to the process of learning as the 
 earth's productive power co-operates with the seed cast 
 into it. In the higher life the faith of the ordinary 
 believer becomes knowledge, the hope and fear of the 
 lower life are supplanted by love, while holiness, or 
 the negative virtue of abstinence from what is evil, is 
 transmuted into righteousness. Man's salvation is thus 
 a gradual process. Beginning with faith, it rises into 
 love, and finally to perfect knowledge. We are fed by 
 Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist, He becomes 
 our Light and our Life, and we are led to " the moun- 
 tain beloved of God, not the subject of tragedies like 
 Cithajron, but consecrated to dramas of the truth, — a 
 mount of sobriety, shaded with forests of purity." ^ 
 
 The Christian must advance from faith to knowledge 
 by the path of simple obedience and rectitude. In 
 spite of his inadequate conception of the doctrine of 
 redemption, Clement's writings are pervaded by the 
 highest spirituality of tone and feeling, and embody 
 the noblest moral ideals. This is due to his having 
 made the love of God the fundamental principle of his 
 doctrine. If he fails to harmonise the divine love and 
 holiness, he nevertheless reaches by a path of his own 
 ^ Protrept. i. 8. - rivlirpt. xii. 
 
the great gospel truth ot" inaii's reconciliation to God 
 through the Word made tlesh, and with masterly ability 
 sums up its logical and practical results. For Clement, 
 Christian morality means the imitation of God. This 
 is the one great principle running through his often 
 very detailed treatment of Christian ethics. By the 
 aid of the incarnate Word we are enabled to become 
 imitators of God. The true Christian may engage in 
 any honourable occupation, or take part in public 
 affairs, without injury to the higher life. There is no 
 exceptional virtue in poNerty, celibacy, or martyrdom 
 as such ; for Christian morality is not a matter of 
 outward distinctions or circumstances, but of inner 
 love to Go<l. 
 
 When at length the Christian attains to gnosii^, he 
 no longer does anything evil, but has freed himself 
 from the dominion of passion, and lives according to 
 reason. Here we reach what is most characteristic in 
 Clement's teaching. The now familiar distinction be- 
 tween the Church visible and invisible was not yet 
 clearly drawn, and Clement, from w'hat he saw of the 
 lives of many who were flocking into the Church, was 
 driven back upon Philo's distinction of the two lives, 
 for which he found corroboration in St. Paul's anti- 
 thesis between milk and meat as the food suited 
 respectively for babes and full-growai men. In the 
 acquisition of this saving knowledge Clement leaves 
 more to man's unaided powers than is warranted by 
 Scripture, but he was probably led into overstatement 
 here by the denial on the part of the false Gnostics 
 that the spiritual destiny of man is in any way con- 
 tingent upon his OAvn will. 
 
 The Church is the city of God, a decorous body 
 
PRECURSORS OF ORIGEN 33 
 
 and assemblage of men regulated by the Word.^ She 
 is the Bride oi' Christ,-' and the Virgin Mother." She 
 is one, true, ancient, catholic, apostolic.^ We are 
 bound in no way to transgress the canon of the 
 Church.^ There is a wide difference between the 
 Church and "a school" set up by heretical sophists 
 and supported b}' human arts of their own invention.^ 
 Although Clement distinguishes between bishops and 
 presljyters,'^ and calls Peter the first of the apostles,*^ he 
 knows nothing of the claims of Rome to the power 
 of the keys. He is not concerned about the different 
 orders of clergy, his references to this subject being 
 of the most casual description. In particular, he never 
 alludes to it in connection with the Sacraments. For 
 Clement the real antitype of the Old Testament priest 
 is the Christian Gnostic, who offers with a pure mind 
 and unswerving abstraction from the body and its 
 passions the sacrifice of praise, and the incense of 
 prayer, upon the altar of the congregation of the 
 saints. Nor does he attach importance to consecrated 
 buildings. " For it is not the place, but the company 
 of the elect, that I call the Church."^ 
 
 For the rest, Clement held that after death perfect 
 blessedness will be reached through a further process 
 of spiritual development, accepted the Pauline doctrine 
 of a glorified resurrection body, and allowed the possi- 
 bility of repentance and reformation until the last 
 day, when probation would cease.^** He adhered to 
 
 1 Strom, iv. 26. ^ Strom, iii. 6. 
 
 3 rcud. i. 6. •» Strom, vii. 17. 
 
 ' Strom, vii. 7. ® Strom, vii. 15. 
 
 ''Peed. iii. 12 ; Strain, vi. 13. •* Quls div. salv. 21. 
 
 » Strom, vii. 5. '<* Strom, vii. 2, 16. 
 
 3 
 
34 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 tlic Platonic theory that the sole object of punishment 
 is amendment, — a theory which logically carries with 
 it the final restoration of all. The latter doctrine, 
 however, was not formulated b}^ Clement, although 
 sometimes he makes a close approach to it, as when 
 he says : " For all things are arranged with a view 
 to the salvation of the universe, both generally and 
 particularly." ^ ]3ut it was soon to receive full and 
 bold expression in the writings of Origcn, his great 
 successsor, whose master-thought was the unity under- 
 lying all phenomena and making steadily for the re- 
 moval of all discord and evil. 
 
 ^ Strom, vii. 2. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 Life and Character of Origen 
 
 Origen was born in Egypt, probably at Alexandria, 
 in or about the year 185. He bore the surname 
 Adamantios,^ which has been supposed by some to 
 point to the irresistible force ol" his arguments, and 
 by others to his own diligence. The latter idea 
 found further expression in the epithets Chalcenteros 
 (Man of brass), applied to him by Jerome, and 
 Syntactes {Composer), given him by others. It can- 
 not be inferi-ed from the name Origen {i.e. son of Or 
 or liorus, the Egyptian sun-god) that his parents 
 became Christians only after his birth, for such names 
 as Diotrephes, Hermas, ApoUinaris, etc., continued for 
 long to be quite customary among Greek Christians. 
 
 His father Lconides was a prominent member of the 
 Christian community at Alexandria, although the 
 statement of Suidas that he was " bishop " is not 
 otherwise corroborated. A man of means and culture, 
 and, perhaps, a professor of Greek language and 
 literature, Lconides was in a position personally to 
 
 ^ That this surname was self-assumed (Epiiihanius, Her. Ixiv. 74) 
 
 is, in view of his whole character, highly improbable ; it is much more 
 
 likely that it was given to him from his birth (Euscbiu.'!, H. E. vi. 14) ; 
 
 but it is possible that it was applied to him only after his death. 
 
 35 
 
36 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 superintend the education of his son. At an early 
 age tlie boy showed unusual talent, and liis training 
 both on the scientilic and on the Christian side was 
 to his father a matter of conscientious care. Drilled 
 in every branch of Greek learning as then practised 
 in the city which had virtually succeeded Athens as 
 " mother of arts and eloquence," his naturally acute 
 mind was disciplined and developed to the best 
 advantage. To the good Leonides the moral and 
 spiritual welfare of his son was an object of equal 
 and even greater solicitude. From his childhood 
 Origen, like Timothy, learned to knoAV the Holy 
 Scriptures, and imbibed the fundamental truths of 
 Christianity so thoroughly that none of his later 
 speculations could ever efface them from his heart. 
 Daily his father selected a portion of the Bible for 
 him to commit to memory, and heard him repeat it. 
 This was to the youthful Origen no uncongenial or 
 mechanical task. Already he began to exercise that 
 passionate eagerness to discover the deepest meaning 
 of the record of revelation which distinguished his 
 riper years. Leonides was frequently puzzled by his 
 demands for a fuller exposition of passages of which 
 the literal meaning only had been communicated, and 
 had even to pretend to chide his over-inquisitiveness 
 as not befitting his years, while secretly thanking God 
 for having given him such a son. He formed the 
 habit, it is said, of reverentially kissing the bosom of 
 the sleeping boy, in the firm conviction that the Holy 
 (Spirit had marked it for His dwelling-place. 
 
 Few further particulars are known with reference 
 to Origcn's early training. That he came under the 
 inlluence of i'antjunus, after the return of the latter 
 
LIFE AND CHARACTER OF ORIGEN 37 
 
 from his missionary enterprise in India, appears from 
 a letter written to Origen by Alexander, bishop of 
 Jerusalem, in which he alludes to the early friendship 
 existing between them as fellow-students. It is not, 
 however, anywhere distinctly affirmed that Origen 
 was the pupil of Pantoenus, as he certainly was of 
 Clement, the catechist of the Alexandrian Church. 
 In the cultured Christian circles of which these men 
 were the leading ornaments Origen formed an acquaint- 
 ance with Alexander, which was in a very marked 
 degree to aft'ect his future. JMeanwhile he continued 
 to slake his thirst at the fountains of knowledge. The 
 instruction imparted to him by his fatlier Leonides 
 was now supplemented by the prelections of Clement. 
 If these did not amount to sj^stematic training in 
 theology, they at least discussed the claims of 
 Clu'istianity as opposed to paganism, and cleared up 
 the relation of the current philosophies to revealed 
 religion. As he listened to such a teacher Origen's 
 splendid thinking faculties must have been greatly 
 stimulated, and his mental horizon vastly enlarged. 
 
 The terrible persecution of Christians which arose 
 in the tenth year of Septimius Severus (a.d. 20"2) bore 
 with special severity upon the Egyptian Church. One 
 of the first victims was Leonides, who was arrested 
 and thrown into prison. Although Origen had not 
 then completed his seventeenth year, he ardently 
 desired the martyr's crown,^ and was minded to appear 
 before the authorities as an avowed Christian in order 
 that he might die along with his father. As no 
 entreaties could dissuade him from his purpose, his 
 
 ^ In view of Matt. x. 23 he soon afterwards relin(]iuslied this 
 ambition, which was nevertheless in the end virtually to be realised. 
 
38 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 mother contrived effectually to defeat it by the simple 
 stratagem of hiding his clothes. Finding liiniself thus 
 tliwartcd, he wrote to his father imploring him to 
 stand firm, and not to change his mind out of con- 
 sideration for his family. Leonides did not disappoint 
 the hopes of his son — he died a martyr; but, as his 
 property was confiscated to the State, his widow and 
 family were left destitute. 
 
 The eldest of seven chilJron, Origen was at this 
 time hospitably received into the house of a noble 
 and philanthropic lady of Alexandria who had em- 
 braced Christianity, although, as it appeared, she had 
 allowed herself to be moved away from the simplicity 
 of the gospel. A certain false teacher, Paul of Antioch, 
 had so captivated the lady by his eloquence that she 
 adopted him as her son, and gave him permission to 
 propagate his Gnostic heresies by means of lectures 
 held in her house. To these lectures many of the 
 orthodox, as well as of the heretics, of the city re- 
 sorted ; but Origen held steadily aloof from them, 
 positively declining to hold fellowship with the Syrian 
 Gnostic by joining in his prayers. To have done so 
 would have been in his estimation a betrayal of Christ 
 and His Church. Origen's action in this matter has 
 often been thought to indicate a youthful intolerance 
 in marked contrast to the gentleness and liberal- 
 mindedness of his later years. But in view of his life- 
 long uncompromising opposition to the fundamental 
 doctrines of Gnosticism, this seems a wrong con- 
 struction to put upon it. Rather is it important to 
 note that this steadfastness in clinging to ascertained 
 truth was a very real trait in his character, and proved 
 his anchor in the wild sea of speculation on which he 
 
LIFE AND CHARACTER OF ORIGEN 39 
 
 was liiinself afterwards to embark. The cnvironmcut 
 in which Origen thus found himself, however, neces- 
 sarily proved irksome to him. He keenly felt 
 
 " How salt tlie savour is of others' bruad, 
 How liard the passage, to descend and cliinl) 
 By others' stairs." 1 
 
 To live in tlie same house with this Gnostic teacher, 
 and to come into daily contact with him, while con- 
 strained to repudiate his views and share his fellow- 
 ship, constituted for the high-minded youth a heavy 
 cross, and he resolved to carry it no longer than he 
 could help. He continued to prosecute with most 
 praiseworthy zeal the studies which he had begun 
 under the direction of his father, and his proficiency 
 in grammar, philology, and Greek literature soon be- 
 came a ladder to independence. He now stood on the 
 threshold of his great career. 
 
 Origen quickly made his mark as a teacher. At 
 iirst he gave instruction only in "grammar" and 
 ancient literature, but, like Christ Himself, His 
 servant's faith " could not be hid." It found ex- 
 pression so often as he had occasion to refer to the 
 theological position of pagan writers. One result of 
 this was that certain of the heathen applied to him 
 for instruction in Christianity, — among others, two 
 brothers, Plutarch and Heraclas, of whom the former 
 was destined to die a mart^'r's death, while the latter 
 was yet to hold the bishopric of Alexandria. That 
 Origen should have made two such converts, and that 
 many others of his pupils should have been ready to 
 follow Plutarch's example and seal their testimony 
 ' Dante, Parctdiso, xvii. 5S-G0. 
 
40 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 ^\ith tlu-ir l)loo<l, spoaks volumes for his tact ami 
 zeal.' 
 
 But if Origen's fame as a teacher brounht him into 
 notice, so also did his pronounced sympathy with those 
 who for Christ's sake suffered martyrdom. The per- 
 secution had become hotter under Aquila, who suc- 
 ceeded La^tus as proconsul of Egypt. But apparently 
 nothing could damp the ardour of the youthful 
 Christian teacher. By attending and encouraging the 
 martyrs in their last moments he exposed himself to 
 repeated and sei'ious peril. He was pelted with stones 
 and hunted from house to house. It is related -that 
 on one occasion he fell into the hands of a heathen 
 crowd, who arraj^ed him in the vestments of a priest 
 of Serapis, compelled him to stand with shorn head 
 upon the steps of the temple, and ordered him to 
 distribute palm-twigs, according to use and wont, to 
 those who entered, in order tliat they might lay them 
 upon the altar of the god. ]'>ut while doing what was 
 so imperiously required of him, Origen cried out in 
 clear and resolute tones : " Receive not the idol's palm, 
 but the palm of Christ." Nevertheless in God's great 
 providence he was marvellously preserved from hurt. 
 
 The persecution had practically obliterated the Cate- 
 chetical School, whose teachers, Clement included, liad 
 sought safety in llight, although their action appears 
 to have been dictated by a sense of duty, and not by 
 cowardly fear. Meanwhile Origen's intrepid devotion 
 on behalf of the martyrs drew forth the admiration of 
 his pupils, and attracted to his lectures some even of 
 
 ^ Euseliiiis inciitioiis I13' name six of liis converts wlio tlicil a inaitji's 
 deatli. 
 
 - Ej)il>lianius, JJar. \xiv. 1. 
 
LIFE AND CHARACTER OF ORIGEN 41 
 
 the philosophically cultured heathen. Although but a 
 stripling of seventeen, lie had by reason of his literary 
 attainments and his Christian zeal already won for 
 himself a front-rank place in the Egyptian Church. 
 This was recognised by Demetrius, bishop of Alex- 
 andria, who now appointed him to the oiSce of teacher 
 in the Catechetical School. Nor did Origen shrink 
 from tilling the post of eminence in the hour of danger. 
 ]\Ienaced at every turn by the emissaries of a now in- 
 tolerant paganism, he calmly pursued his course, 
 gathering and imparting knowledge with a zeal that 
 knew no respite, and inspiring the hearts of his 
 hearers, who were older than himself, with his own 
 unconquerable devotion to truth. 
 
 That Demetrius had made a wise choice the result 
 showed. In spite of the persecution, students flocked 
 in increasing numbers to sit at the feet of Origen ; 
 and so important did he deem his new work of 
 catechetical instruction that he discontinued his 
 literary classes in order to give his whole time and 
 strength to it. He insisted also on making it a 
 labour of love, declining to take fees as formerly. 
 Resolved to maintain his independence, and to keep 
 himself free from all worldly distractions, he fell upon 
 an ingenious scheme of self-endowment. By selling 
 to a literary collector his manuscripts of the Greek 
 classics — many of them carefully transcribed by his 
 own hand — in consideration of a pension of four obols 
 (about tivepence) a day, he solved the problem of his^ 
 maintenance. It was a miserable pittance, but he 
 made it suffice. Even so he trembled as he repeated 
 the words : " He that forsaketh not all that he hath, 
 cannot be My disciple." The very existence of such a 
 
42 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 man was a tower of strcngtli to Christianity ; for of 
 liiin it was literally true, as Eusebius says, tliat "he 
 tau_L;ht as lie lived, and lived as he taught." 
 
 At this period the Gra}eo-Ronian world, weary of an 
 enervating self-indulgence, turned wistfully from the 
 refinements of Epicureanism to the stern renunciations 
 of Stoicism, with the remai-kablc result tliat Jewish 
 theosoph}^ the later Platonism, and Christianity w^ere 
 all looking in the direction of self-denial as the key to 
 the deepest philosophy of life. Thus early, through 
 the high value set upon outward privations as a 
 means of sanctification, was the germ of monasticism 
 planted in the Church. And in this respect Origen 
 fully imbibed the spirit of the age. By the mortifica- 
 tion of the flesh he earnestly endeavoured to realise 
 the Christian ideal. Than liis a life of more rigid 
 asceticism, combined with severe application to study, 
 was probably never lived. Wine and luxuries in 
 general he abjured. He allowed himself but little 
 food, and practised frequent fasting. After toiling in 
 the school by day, he gave himself to the investigation 
 of the Scriptures by night, sleeping but for a short 
 time, and that upon the bare ground. Only his 
 " brazen " constitution prevented his health from being 
 entirely undermined, and even as it wan he had sown 
 the seeds of future bodily trouble. 
 
 But Oi'igen's deepest motive for self-sacrifice prob- 
 ably lay in the literal istic interpretation of Holy 
 Scripture which at this peiiod commended itself to 
 him. In view of the Saviour's precept not to have 
 two coats or to wear shoes, he restricted himself to a 
 single garment, and went barefooted for years. Eager 
 to mortify the flesh, to raise himself above suspicion in 
 
LIFE AND CHARACTER OF ORIGEN 43 
 
 his relations witli ^^outhful catcclminons of the other 
 sex, and to carry out wliat in connuou with many 
 Christians oi' liis time he mistakenly considered to bo 
 the injunction of our Lord (Matt. xix. 12), he also 
 rashly perpetrated an act of self-mutilation, which he 
 afterwards regretted, and which was yet adversely to 
 influence his future. That he could have done this 
 has been declared incredible,^ although upon in- 
 sufficient grounds. The fact is well attested. More- 
 over, the practice in question was far from uncommon 
 in the ancient world. Origen seems to have been 
 much disconcerted when his indiscretion became 
 publicly known, possibly because, wittingly or un- 
 wittingly, he had run counter to the conscience, if 
 not even to the rule, of the Church. Bishop Demetrius, 
 however, recognising the purity of his motives, treated 
 him sympathetically, and encouraged him to throw 
 himself heartily into the work of the Catechetical 
 School. But this did not, apparently, prevent him 
 from subsequently using this act of undisciplined zeal 
 as a handle ao'ainst Orio;en. 
 
 From this period, and in connection perchance with 
 this faux pa.<^, some would date the influence of the 
 Platonic philosophy upon Origen's thought. But there 
 is no evidence of his having undergone a sudden conver- 
 sion of this sort, although some uncertainty does obtain 
 as to the precise circumstances under which he became 
 indoctrinated with the spirit of the Greek master. 
 His own account of the matter is interesting so far as 
 it goes, but it does not clear up everything. In a 
 letter written in defence of his position as a student of 
 Greek philosophy, he says : " When I had devoted 
 ^ E.fjf. by Schnitzer and Baiir. 
 
44 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 niy.self entirely to theolo(,^y, uiid the i'anie of my skill 
 in that department began to be noised abroad, and 
 sometimes heretics, sometimes those who had studied 
 the Greek sciences, and philosophy in particular, came 
 to visit me, I deemed it advisable to investigate both 
 the doctrinal views o£ the heretics and what the phil- 
 osophers claimed to know of the truth." He then goes 
 on to say that Pantaenus and Heraclas were his pre- 
 cursors in this field, and that the latter had already 
 been five years in attendance upon "the teacher" of 
 the philosophical sciences before he himself began to 
 hear his lectures. There can be little doubt that the 
 reference is to Ammonius Saccas,^ the founder of 
 Neoplatonism, who was then a professor at Alex- 
 andria, and at the zenith of his reputation. Porphyr}^ 
 indeed, definitely calls Origen a pupil of Ammonius,^ 
 and it is reasonable to suppose that under the guidance 
 of this teacher his philosophical studies were perfected 
 and matured. The elements of such knowledge may 
 well have been already acquired by him under the 
 tuition of Clement, and the widening horizon and 
 fellowship of life in a learned centre such as Alex- 
 
 ' Euseb. H. E. vi. 19. "When Origen says lie found Heraclas irapa 
 "tco 5t5acr/cdXw" twc if>i\oab<po)v fxaOrjfxd.Tui', this is virtually to name 
 Ammonius, whose pre-eminence among the then philosophers of 
 Alexanilria was acknowledged. 
 
 ^'AKpodTTis 'Afxixuvlov [aj). Eusel). H. E. vi. 19). It is certainly 
 strange that Porphyry should represent Origen as being of heathen 
 extraction, and many have concluded that it is not the Cliristian 
 Origen at all that he refers to. So, e.g., Bigg, The Christian P/afonists, 
 etc., p. 120, and Denis, who thinks this hypothesis has been adopted 
 ".sans raisons sulhsantes" {Dc la I'hilos. d'Oriyine, p. 3). liut if 
 Porphyry was born c. 233, aiid Origen died c. 2;j1, the possibility of 
 thi-ir l)eing acquainted must lie admitted. According to Porjihyry, they 
 met in Tyre. Tiiis witness is accepted by Ttedepeniiing and Neander. 
 
LIFE AND CHARACTER OF ORIGEN 45 
 
 andria must have led hiin to desire deeper draughts 
 I'rom this -well. The necessity of meeting on their 
 own ground the philosophers and heretics whom he 
 mentions, was only the outward occasion for devoting 
 himself to a more tliorough prosecution of a line of 
 study that must all along have had for him a peculiar 
 charm. Even before he attached himself to the 
 Philosophical School, he had read the works of such 
 celebrated philosophers as Kronius and Numenius, 
 Moderatus and Nicomachus. And although for a 
 time, owing to absorption in his duties as catcchist, 
 and also, perhaps, to the advisability of refraining 
 from openly receiving instruction from a heathen 
 philosopher until the example of Heraclas and others 
 had shown that even a Christian might profit by the 
 teaching of a non-Christian, his philosophical studies 
 had been to a great extent suspended, he naturally 
 availed himself of the opportunity which at length 
 presented itself. But in all this there is nothing to 
 justify the assumption that about the time when he 
 began to attend the Philosophical .School, i.e. when 
 nearly thirty years of age, his whole theological 
 stajidpoint underwent a complete change.^ E(]ually 
 unfounded is the opinion, already rejected by Eusebius, 
 that he was thoroughly versed in the various branches 
 of secular learning prior to the commencement of his 
 studies in the Sacred Scriptures.- If he now gradu- 
 ated, so to speak, in Greek philosophy and culture, 
 this was simply the logical outcome of his early 
 education, his natural bent, his position as a Christian 
 teacher and apologist, and his environment. Of all 
 the different philosophical systems with which he 
 ^ Xcauder, Church Hist. ii. p. 496. - Sclmitzcr, Baxir. 
 
46 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 miisi luivc boconic aciiuaintcd, it was riatoiiism, in 
 the new form wliicli it had assumed, tliat alone 
 exercised a deep and histinL,^ influence on his j^eneral 
 standpoint and mode of thought. He was attracted 
 to it partly by liis natural aflinities for its mystic and 
 ascetic trend, and partly by the many aj^proximately 
 Christian elements by which it was characterised. 
 Needless to say, his familiarity with the speculations 
 of philosophy was the root from which sprang most of 
 the "heresies" which continued to agitate the Church 
 for quite two centuries after his death. 
 
 On the death of Severus in 211 the persecution 
 ceased, and Origcn, who valued Church fellowship, 
 took advantage of the opportunity thus offered of 
 visiting Rome, in order to make the ac(|uaintance of 
 the members and teachers of the metropolitan Churcli. 
 This journey w^as made during tlie papacy of 
 Zephyrinus (201-218), probably in the iirst year (^f 
 the reign of Caracalla, and certainly before Origen 
 w^as thirty years of age. Very soon he returned to 
 Alexandria, apparently w^itli the intention of devoting 
 liimself absolutely to study ; but at the urgent request 
 of Demetrius he resumed Ids catechetical duties. As, 
 however, the number of his students, pagan as well as 
 Christian, continued largely to increase, he handed 
 over the juniors to his accomplished friend lleraclas, 
 and charged himself with the instruction of the more 
 advanced pupils. Relieved thus of a part of his 
 labours in the Catechetical School, Origen now applied 
 himself with indomitable energy to the exegesis of 
 Scripture, and at the same time endeavoured to 
 acquire a competent knowledge of Hebrew so as to 
 (pialify himself for reading the Old Testament in the 
 
LIFE AND CHARACTER OF ORIGEN 47 
 
 orio'inal. Ilis proficiency in iliis language appears, 
 liowcver, until recently, to have been overrated. No- 
 where docs he himself claim to have a profound com- 
 prehension of it ; on the contrary, he confesses his ignor- 
 ance upon some points, and states that he was in the 
 habit of referring his difficulties to Jewish proselytes.^ 
 At the same time the extant fragments of his great 
 work, the Hcxapla, show that he had no mean acquaint- 
 ance with the traditional usage of the language, and 
 beyond this Hebrew scholarship then scarcely went. 
 
 About this time Origen formed a fast friendship 
 with Ambrosius, a rich and intelligent Alexandrian 
 who had previously attached himself to one of the 
 (inostic sects, but who now through Origen's teaching 
 embraced the orthodox faith, and found the true 
 ('jnosln which he had earnestly been seeking. The 
 formation of this tie was a fortunate thing for Origen, 
 and still more so for biblical science. The estimation 
 in which Ambrosius held the ability and scholarship 
 of his friend was equalled only by the persistent zeal 
 with which he spurred him on to the exercise of his 
 literary gifts, and by the generosity with which he 
 defrayed the costs of purchasing manuscripts for 
 collation, as well as of the transcription and publica- 
 tion of his own exegetical and theological writings. 
 He also furnished him with seven (or more if neces- 
 sary) expert scribes, who wrote by turn to his 
 dictation, and with an equal number of skilled cali- 
 graphists, who multiplied copies of his works. From 
 this time his literary labours assumed Herculean 
 proportions. In a letter to a friend he says : " The 
 work of correction leaves us no time for supper, or 
 ^ Dc Priucijtiiit, i. 5. 
 
48 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 after supper for exercise and repose. Even at these 
 times we are compelled to debate questions of inter- 
 pretation and to emend MSS. Even tlie nij^ht cannot 
 be given up altogether to the needful refreshment of 
 sleep, for our discussions extend far into the evening. 
 I say nothing about our morning labour, continued 
 from dawn to the ninth or tenth hour, for all earnest 
 students devote this time to the study of the Scrip- 
 tures and reading." Small wonder that Origen called 
 Ambrosius his " taskmaster." ^ Yet for one of his 
 scholarly instincts and Christian devotion tliose must 
 have been crowded years of glorious life, perhaps the 
 happiest he ever knew.'^ Tiie literary output secured 
 was enormous, although its quality must necessarily 
 have suffered. That Origen should have produced 
 such workmanship as he did under conditions so 
 adverse, leads one to wonder what he might have 
 accomplished if, instead of composing under this 
 high-pressure system, he had been able to command 
 adequate leisure. The object, however, wliieli his 
 " taskmaster " and himself had in view in publishing 
 the results of his exegetical and theological studies 
 was not line writing, Ijut the checkmating of the 
 Gnostics, who " under cover of the gnosis set them- 
 selves against God's holy Church."^ 
 
 ^ 'EpyodnoKT-qs. 
 
 - "There was something beautiful and noble in the association of these 
 two men, of whom the one placed all his fortune and all his interest at 
 the service of truth, and the other consecrated to it all his genius. 
 The house of Ambrose became a sort of scientific and Christian 
 monastery, where zeal alone imposed severe regulations, which were 
 freely accepted and joyfully observed. It was a sort of forosliadowing 
 of Port-Royal " (Pressense, Ear/]/ Vmrs, etc., ii. p. 305). 
 
 ^ I/i Juann. toni. v. 
 
LIFE AND CHARACTER OF ORIGEN 49 
 
 By this time Origen had made a name I'oi- himself 
 far beyond the confines of his native city. The 
 governor of the Roman province of Arabia wrote to 
 Bishop Demetrius and to the prefect of Egypt, re- 
 questing that the great Alexandrian teacher sliould 
 be sent to confer with liim, presumably on matters 
 spiritual. It was perhaps on this journey, which 
 involved only a short absence from the scene of his 
 literary activities, that he heard Ilippolytus preach.^ 
 An even more flattering invitation came to him from 
 Julia Mamma3a, mother of the emperor Alexander 
 Severus, who was then at Antioch. This noble lady, 
 of Syrian extraction, and interested perhaps in Chris- 
 tianity from her early days, desired to become 
 acquainted with the religious philosophy of the most 
 celebrated Christian teacher of the age. A military 
 escort was sent to conduct Origen from Alexandria to 
 Antioch. Here he found himself at a court where, if 
 there was no disposition to proscribe, there was just as 
 little to espouse, any particular form of religious be- 
 lief. According to Eusebius, he abode for some time 
 at the royal palace, and " after bearing powerful testi- 
 mony to the glory of the Lord and the worth of divine 
 instruction, hastened back to his accustomed studies." 
 
 In A.D. 216 Origen appears again to have left Egypt, 
 not for scientific or religious objects, but to escajoe the 
 fury of the emperor Caracalla, who, stung by some 
 sarcastic stanzas respecting the base murder of his 
 brother Geta, and believing them to have emanated 
 from Alexandria, arrived there in that year with an 
 army, and massacred thousands of the inhabitants. As 
 a prominent figure in the literary life of the city, 
 1 Jerome, Catal. c. Gl. 
 
50 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 Oi'ijjfen deemed it prudent to remove to safer quarters 
 in Palestine. There he was cordially welcomed b}?^ his 
 oM friend Alexander, l^sliop of Jerusalem, and subse- 
 quently by Tlieoktistus, bishop of Ca\sarea, an'Iid jointly 
 invited him to give expositor}' lectures in tlieir churches. 
 In this proposal, although as yet a layman, Origen 
 acquiesced, to the no small displeasure, however, of his 
 own bishop Demetrius, who, besides being a " high " 
 Churchman, was growing jealous of his gifted catechist. 
 The Palestinian bishops were able to plead precedents 
 for what they had done ; but the usage of the Egyptian 
 Church differed from that of the Palestinian with 
 respect to the point at issue, and Demetrius, declaring 
 it to be an unheard of innovation " that laymen should 
 deliver discourses in the presence of the bishops," 
 ordered the immediate return of Origen to Alexandria. 
 The latter loyally obeyed the summons, and once more 
 took up with zeal his labours as teacher and student. 
 During this journey to Palestine he is said to have 
 discovered in a wine jar at Jericho a translation of the 
 Old Testament, which he embodied in his Hexapla} 
 
 Origen's next journey was into Greece, and involved 
 two years' absence from Alexandria (228-230). He 
 went in response to the call of the heresy-distressed 
 Church of Achaia, apparently to act the part of peace- 
 maker, and armed with written credentials from his 
 bishop. His route lay through Palestine, and at 
 Cfesarea he was ordained a presbyter by the fi'iendly 
 bishops of those parts. It is probable that he desired 
 prosbyterial status in view of the difficult task await- 
 ing him in Greece, while on their part they may have 
 thought it well to obviate all risk of further rebukes 
 ' Presumably the Editio Quinta. 
 
LIFE AND CHARACTER OF ORIGEN 51 
 
 from Demetrius by liceusing him to preach. But if 
 their former attitude towards Origen had caused some 
 coohicss between the hitter and liis own bishop 
 Demetrius, the step now taken was yet to bring about 
 an open rupture. IMeanwhile Origen })ursued his 
 journey, carried ofK the honours at a public disputation 
 in Athens, and traxelled back to Alexandria by way of 
 Ephesus and Antioch. At Epliesus he appears to have 
 taken part in a conference with a view to settling 
 disputed points of doctrine, and wlierever he went he 
 evidently exercised a " sort of moral epi.scopac}'." 
 
 To this latter circumstance, far more than to the 
 fact of his supremacy as a theologian, is to be ascribed 
 the jealousy of Bishop Demetrius, which, in conjunction 
 with the long-cherished dislike of the more narrow- 
 minded section of the Church, was now to drive him 
 from Alexandria. In that capital of learning he had 
 for nearly a generation been a popular favourite, but 
 on returning from this tour he found himself in a 
 changed atmosphere. " Had Origen been transported 
 from his study in Alexandria to tlie deck of a trireme 
 in the Bay of Bi.scay, the contrast could not have been 
 more complete. So eft'ectually had the thoi-ns been 
 fixed in his nest during his absence, that a residence in 
 his native city was no longer possible." ^ Demetrius 
 had "nursed his wrath to keep it warm" against his 
 return, and Origen, fully gauging the situation, volun- 
 tarily left the city (231). With such a record as he 
 had behind him, with his unequalled ability, and with 
 such powerful friends as the bishops who had ordained 
 him, Origen might have become the leader of a great 
 party, and fought Demetrius on equal terms, had he so 
 ^ R. A. Vaughan, Essays and Remains, i, p. 17. 
 
5 2 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 chosen. But he abhorred scliism, and ^\■ilh noble 
 Christian unselfishness counted no sacrifice too great 
 in order to maintain the unity of Christ's Church. 
 Not waitint^ for any formal sentence of deprivation, he 
 quietly took leave of the place that was dearer to him 
 than any other on earth, never, as it chanced, to set 
 foot in it again. " Great even fi-om liis cradle," as 
 Jerome says, Origen never showed liimsclf greater 
 than at this critical juncture in his career. 
 
 This conciliatory action did not prevent Demetrius 
 from pressing matters to the {juick as regards his 
 quondam catechist. In hot liaste he convened a synod 
 of Egyptian bishops and presbyters, at wliich it was 
 resolved to exclude him from the Alexandrian Church 
 as one unworthy to fill the teacher's office. Origen 
 was perhaps tlie first illustrious teacher — alas ! that he 
 should not also have been the last — to be cast oft" by 
 the Church he loved, in order "to teach the world how 
 much it costs to serve steadfastly the cause of liberty." 
 But even so the wounded vanity and hierarchical pride 
 of the Alexandrian bishop were not sufficient!}^ appeased, 
 and at a second synod, attended b}^ bishops only, 
 Origen's deposition from the rank of presbyter was 
 decreed. This decision, whicli appears to have been 
 based on his alleged promulgation of heretical doctrines,^ 
 
 * According to Jerome {hi Eiifiii. ii. 18), liis writings were miich 
 corrupted even during his lifetime, wliile the zeal of Ambrosius had 
 outrun his discretion in the matter of publishing certain things which 
 were never meant to be given to the world (Jcr. Epist. 65). But even in 
 his (already published) Dc Princijnis heterodox teaching might have 
 been detected, and there may have been some justification in fact for 
 the old monkish e}iit.iph upon Origen — 
 
 "Sola mihi casum irepl dpx^i' dicta deilcrunt. 
 His me collectis undiipie tela ju'emunt." 
 
LIFE AND CHARACTER OF ORIGEN 53 
 
 and possibly also on his self- mutilation, was inti- 
 mated by circular letter to the foreign Churches, and 
 homologated — so inlluential was the Alexandrian See 
 — by all of them except those in Palestine, Phoenicia, 
 Arabia, Greece, and perhaps Cappadocia. Rome, in 
 particular, was ready to join in the condeuuiation ; and 
 though, according to some accounts, Origen afterwards 
 wrote to the Roman bishop Fabian, he met with no 
 favourable response. His old friend Heraclas is said 
 to have opposed him. Even a rumour that he had 
 become an apostate found currency. This would seem 
 to indicate that the only real charge against Origen 
 was the irregularity of his ordination, and that every- 
 thin<jc in his life or writino-s that was fitted to damacje 
 him was raked up to justify the severe measures talcen 
 against him. Unfortunately, owing to the loss in 
 great part of a treatise written by Pamphilus and 
 Eusebius in defence of Origen, and containing full 
 details of all these proceedings, our information on the 
 subject is meagre. This circumstance, and the some- 
 what fluid condition of Church law and discipline that 
 then obtained, render it difficult to adjudicate in this 
 quarrel. Very possibly, as Redcpenning suggests, 
 Origen may have believed himself within his rights, 
 while Demetrius may also have considered it his duty 
 to interfere. But if both were to some extent in the 
 right, both were also in the wrong. For Origen's 
 ordination was " undoubtedly an infringement of the 
 rights of tlie Alexandrian bishop ; at the same time it 
 was simply a piece of spite on the part of the latter 
 that had kept Origen so long without any ecclesiastical 
 consecration." ^ 
 
 ^ Ilarnack, art. " Ori^eu " in Ency. llrit. 
 
54 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 This episode, it may i'urthcr be noted, synclironiscs 
 with Origeii's final emancipation from the bondage of 
 the letter, and was followed within a 3'ear by the death 
 of Demetrius and the appointment of Heraclas as his 
 successor. That Heraclas took an active part in the 
 banishment of Origen is stated by Gennadius and 
 others, but may really have been an inference from 
 the fact that he succeeded Demetrius. On the other 
 hand, it does seem strange that under the reijiine of 
 his former friend, pupil, and colleague, nothing should 
 have been done to revoke the sentence against Origen ; 
 but the Eg3^ptian prelates had probably gone too far 
 to think of rescinding their former resolution. 
 
 Origen made his new home at Csesarea, in Palestine. 
 From several points of view this was a happy choice. 
 It brought him within easy reach of the scenes associ- 
 ated with Jesus, His disciples, and the prophets. It 
 was the centre of the civilised world, and therefore a 
 vantage-ground from Avhich his influence could be 
 widely felt. In some respects also this new field of 
 activity closely resembled that which he had left. As 
 the highly favoured embodiment of the splendid con- 
 ceptions of Herod the Great, CfBsarea was exceptionally 
 rich in all the adjuncts of culture. Although no change 
 of circumstances could have seriously aflfccted Origen's 
 innate love of scientific investigation, or his indefatig- 
 able devotion to literature, we may believe tliat such 
 congenial surroundings were helpful to hini. It had 
 been a great wrench for him to sever the ties that 
 bound him to Alexandria, and his work had been 
 rendered almost impossible by the tumult of conflicting 
 emotions thereby occasioned. " I have been enabled," 
 he says, " to reach my fifth volume on the Gospel of 
 
LIFE AND CHARACTER OF ORIGEN 55 
 
 Jolm, although the storm raised against me at Alexandria 
 threatened to hinder ; but Jesus spoke with authority 
 to the floods and to the sea." ^ At CiXisarea he i'ound a 
 luiven of rest, or at least a quiet anchorage; but it 
 furnished him with more than shelter. Troops of 
 steadfast friends gathered I'ound him, and showeretl 
 upon him every token of veneration and honour. In 
 the warm glow of this friendly sunshine his energies 
 rc\ivtHl. Besides preaching daily, he continued to toil 
 at his Hexapla, and at his exegetical commentaries on 
 the books of the Bible. The greatest hindrance he 
 had to contend with was the temporary lack of short- 
 hand writers. His attainments enabled him to give 
 systematic instruction in all branches of knowledge ; 
 and such was his reputation in the literary, scientific, 
 and theological world, that in a short time, and more 
 by the sheer force of his own personality than by the 
 countenance he received from the emperor Philip the 
 Arabian, he established in Ca3sarea a theological school 
 whose fame rivalled that of Alexandria itself. 
 
 As Demetrius attempted by letter to obtain recogni- 
 tion in Ca3sarea for Origen's degradation from the 
 office of presbyter, and set in motion against him " all 
 the winds of malice in Egypt," the latter wrote to 
 friends in Alexandria in vindication of his orthodoxy, 
 which seems also to have been impugned. In particular, 
 he exposes the falsification of the record of his dispu- 
 tation with Candidus the Valentinian, denies having 
 ever asserted the future salvation of the devil,^ and 
 
 ^ In Joint II. vi. 1. 
 
 - Although the ultimate salvation of the devil is undoubtedly an 
 articlo in the Christian philosophy of Origen, he was entitled to deny 
 the statement in the form in which it was quoted against him. Candidus 
 
56 ORIGEr^ AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 complains of a forced document purporting to give an 
 account of a disputation of his with a lieretic which 
 never came oft" at all. He also quotes certain passages 
 from the prophets which deprecate too much confidence 
 in leaders (Mic. vii. 5 ; Jer. iv. 22 [LXX]), and declares 
 such antagonists as his to be fit subjects, not for hatred 
 and cursing, but for pity and prayer. According to 
 Jerome (in Rujin. ii. 18), indeed, Origeu brought 
 railing accusations against Demetrius and bishops in 
 general ; but it is to be feared that, in his anxiety to 
 represent Origen as having shown animosity to 
 Demeti'ius, he has only succeeded in giving vent to 
 his own. 
 
 In spite of all eflbrts to damage him, Origen's career 
 continued to be brilliant and prosperous. Among 
 foreign Churches his counsel was greatly valued and 
 in much request. Leading theologians in Cappadocia 
 and Arabia corresponded with him. The Palestinian 
 bishops Alexander and Theoktistus were among those 
 who gladly sat at his feet. His fame, together with 
 the magnetic influence of his personality, attracted to 
 him a band of earnest-minded youths, who under his 
 tuition received a thorough training in theology. To 
 this class belonged Gregor}^, surnamed Thaumaturgus 
 ( Wonder-ivorker), who having come to Cajsarea along 
 with his brother Athenodorus on a visit to a relative, 
 met in with Origen and felt constrained to attend his 
 lectures, although it had been his intention to proceed 
 to Berytus in order to study Roman law. " We could 
 
 represented the ■nalurc of tlie devil as inrapalile of salvation, and Origen 
 rejilied tliat he fell hy liis own will, and can be saved. Tiiis was 
 wrested to mean that the nalurc of the devil is to he saved. Origen 
 taught, of course, not that the evil in him will be saved, hut that he 
 will be saved when he ceases to be evil. 
 
LIFE AND CHARACTER OF ORIGEN 57 
 
 not loose ourselves from his bonds ; " — so he declares in 
 his Panegyric upon Origen. In this address, delivered 
 by him, in accordance with ancient custom, on his 
 departure from Ca^sarea, after a pupilage of live years, 
 lie bears emphatic and loving testimony to Origen's 
 attaimcuts as a scholar, to his abilities as a teacher, to 
 his lovableness as a man, and to his piety as a Chris- 
 tian. If written in a somewhat rhetorical strain, it 
 nevertheless throws most valuable light upon the 
 nature and method of Origen's academical labours, 
 explains the kind of curriculum through which his 
 students were conducted, and helps us to understand 
 the extraordinary charm of his personal character. If 
 Gregory and his brother were fascinated by his dis- 
 courses, -which are described in the Panegyric as " un- 
 speakably winning, hallowed, and passing lovely," they 
 were not less so by the man himself, towards whom 
 they soon came to cherish an ardent affection. 
 
 During the persecution initiated by Maximin tlie 
 Thracian, who seated himself on the throne by murder- 
 ing his benefactor Alexander Severus (235), Origen 
 took refuge in the Cappadocian Cassarea under the 
 wing of his friend and correspondent Firmilian, bishop 
 of that city. But as the persecution broke out there 
 also, he was forced to -withdraw to the house of a 
 Christian lady named Juliana, where for two years 
 he lived in strict concealment. It so happened that 
 this lady had inherited the library and waitings of 
 S^'uimachus, the Ebionitic Greek translatoi" of the Old 
 Testament, and the use of these I\ISS. proved a welcome 
 windfall to Origen, who was (juietly working at his 
 critical recension of the Bible. But although he him- 
 self passed unscathed through this time of persecution, 
 
5 8 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 some of his associates were not so fortunate. His old 
 friend Ambrosius, and Protoktetus, a presbyter of 
 Ca3sarca, were seized and tin-own into prison. While 
 their fate still huno; in the balance, he wrote and 
 dedicated to them his treatise On Martyrdom, in 
 which he exhorts them to emulate the heroism dis- 
 played by the Jewish martyrs of the Maccabrean age, 
 to show their love to God by rising above the love 
 of the visible, and to sacrifice their lives if need be 
 for the truth. It fell out, however, that the murder 
 of Maximin in his tent at Aquileia in the year 238 
 relieved the Church from persecution. Ambrosius and 
 Protoktetus were set at libery, and Origen returned to 
 Csesarea in Palestine, where he resumed his former 
 activities. Besides lecturing daily, he zealousl}^ prose- 
 cuted his exegetical and critical labours. The com- 
 mentaries upon which he was at this time chiefly 
 engaged were those upon Isaiah and E/.ekiel, of 
 which only fragments have been preserved. A portion 
 of his time was also devoted to the monumental 
 Hcxai>la. 
 
 Years before, Origen had interniittcd his labours at 
 Alexandria in order to visit the Church in Greece, and 
 now we find him again in that country, where he 
 seems to have sojourned for a while. The precise 
 date and the occasion of this visit are, however, un- 
 certain ; we do not even know whether it was 
 ecclesiastical or private business that took him once 
 more to Athens. Travelling through Bithynia, he 
 spent several days at Niconiedia wath Ambrosius, who 
 had meanwhile become deacon. While there he re- 
 ceived a letter from Julius Africanus, a scholarly 
 Christian resident at Ennnaus (Nicopolis) in Palestine, 
 
LIFE AND CHARACTER OF ORIGEN 59 
 
 who had been present at a discussion in wliich Origen 
 quoted the .story of Susanna as an autlientic portion 
 of tlie Book of Daniel, and who now wrote disputing 
 this position, and requesting a further statement of 
 liis views. Origen replied in a lengthy letter from 
 Niconiedia ; but no ingenuity could undermine the 
 arguments adduced by Africanus, to whom the laurels 
 must be adjudged. It was the victory of the un- 
 biassed critic over the champion of Church tradition. 
 It seems odd that Origen should in this instance have 
 allowed his judgment to be so warped by pi-ejudice; 
 possibly he had taken alarm at the conmiotions which, 
 with no desire on his part, he had been instrumental 
 in raising within the Church. To this period also 
 should probably be ascribed Origen's letter to Gregory, 
 in which he declares that Greek philosophy has its 
 true function as a preparation for Christianity, and 
 that all scientific learning is rightly viewed as the 
 handmaid of Scripture. During his stay at Athens 
 Origen finished his commentarj^ on Ezckiel, and began 
 that on the Song of Songs. His important work on 
 St. John's Gospel seems to have been completed before 
 his sixtieth year, when he wrote his exposition of St. 
 Matthew, since in the latter work are tiuotcd passages 
 from the former which nuist have been written to- 
 wards the close of it. The bulk of his exegetical work 
 seems to have been done during the Ca3sarean period 
 of his life (231-249). 
 
 In the year 244 an Arabian sjniod was convened to 
 discuss the Christological views of In'ryllus, bishop of 
 Bostra. Pi-esumably in opposition to the peculiar 
 tenets of the Elkesaites, who inhabited the region to 
 the east of the Dead Sea, and whose leanings appear 
 
6o ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 to have been in the direction of a rude Tritheism, 
 Beryllus liad given expression to Patripassian views 
 about the divinity of Christ. His object was to con- 
 serve the unity of God without impairing the divine 
 worth of the Redeemer, and apparently he saw no 
 other way of doing tliis than that of adopting the 
 Unitarian position that there is only one Person in 
 the Godhead. The divinity of Christ he held to be 
 merely a new form of manifestation on the part of 
 God, — not a diorri; ibia, but only a (}i(irr,g 'XarpiY.ri. The 
 synod, which was largely attended, condemned Beryllus, 
 and vainly tried to bring him round to the orthodox 
 position. The mediation of Origen and others was 
 then called in. The "homeless presbyter," who was 
 an adept in the art of becoming all things to all men, 
 went to Bostra, interviewed the recalcitrant bishop in 
 private, and subsequently at a sj'^nodical disputation 
 succeeded in convincing him of his error. Beryllus 
 not only frankly recanted,^ but seems even to have 
 written a letter of thanks to Origen. ^ The wonder 
 is that even Demetrius did not capitulate before the 
 strange power wielded by this remarkable man. 
 
 Another question which agitated tlie Arabian Churcli 
 about this time, and wliich Origen was called in to 
 clear up, was that of the natural immortality of the 
 soul. According to Eusebius, one party maintained 
 that the soul dies with the body, and is to be revived 
 with it at the resurrection — a doctrine probably 
 derived from Jewish sources, and which has been 
 mooted oftener than once in the subsequent history 
 of the Church. TJirough Origen's influence thijse who 
 1h'|(1 this ci-roneous view were led to renounce it. On 
 Ku.scli. //. /<'. vi. o3. -.iLToiue, Calal. c. CO. 
 
LIFE AND CHARACTER OF ORIGEN 6i 
 
 this third visit to Ambia lie seems also to have suc- 
 ceeded in repressing the Elkesaitic heresy, based upon 
 a pretended revelation from heaven, that no moral 
 ([uality attached to the act of denying the faith in time 
 of persecution. 
 
 As he had formerly entered into intimate relations 
 with the household of Alexander Severus, so now 
 Origen, presumably by request, corresponded with the 
 emperor Philip the Arabian and his wife Severa, 
 who were favourable to Christianity. During Philip's 
 reign (244-24.9) he wrote his famous work against 
 Celsus, and his commentaries on IMatthew's Gospel 
 and the Twelve Prophets. It was at this period also, 
 when he had completed his sixtieth yeiiv, that he first 
 sanctioned the taking down of his discourses by short- 
 hand reporters. 
 
 Origen's life was not to have a peaceful sunset. The 
 storm-clouds of persecution rose darkly under the reign 
 of Decius (249-251), a lover of paganism, who sought 
 to extirpate Christianity as dangerous to the State. 
 Alike in extent and in severity, this was the most 
 serious persecution yet experienced by the Church. 
 The civil authorities were everywhere required to 
 leave no stone unturned in order to reclaim Christians 
 for the service of the gods. Gentler measures were 
 resorted to at first, and where these proved insufficient, 
 a gradual scale of increasing tortures was brought to 
 bear upon recusants. It was also part of the modus 
 operandi to strike at the men of mark among the 
 Christians. Those distinguished for their zeal, rank, 
 scholarship, or wealth were singled out as special 
 victims of this calculated cruelty. In these circum- 
 stances it was impossible for Origen to escape. After 
 
62 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 an unlliuchin^- confession, he was imprisoned and mal- 
 treated in the fiendish fashion prescribed. Eusebius 
 tells us that he was thrust into the innermost den of 
 the prison, wearing a heavy iron collar ; that his feet 
 were for days together strained on the rack ; and that 
 he was threatened with being burned at the stake. 
 But no pains or threats could move him to recant, and 
 although the cruelties to which he had been subjected 
 had shattered a frame alread}' weakened by a toilsome 
 and ascetic life, he survived the persecution, which 
 ceased with the death of Decius in 251. Not, however, 
 for long did he survive it. The three years that re- 
 mained to him he spent mostly in writing consolatory 
 letters to sufferers, and in brotherly fellowship with 
 his friends. About this time Dionysius of Alexandria, 
 who had succeeded Heraclas as bishop, sent him a 
 letter on martyrdon\. The communication came too 
 late, however, to lead to any renewal of Origen's old 
 relations with the Alexandrian Church. Now a worn 
 out old man, and reduced to po\'erty by the death of 
 his benefactor Ambrosius, he died, probably in A.u. 254, 
 in the seventieth j^car of his age, at Tyre, where a 
 marble monument contiiuied to mark his gi-ave until 
 the end of the thirteenth centur}^ 
 
 The personality and character of Origen are invested 
 with a rare charm. He was at once a great man and 
 a good. His was a rich and well-balanced nature, in 
 which the intellectual di<l not dwarf the moral, nor the 
 speculative the emotional. In the highest sense he 
 was "every inch a man." The resolute hrnniess which 
 already showed itself in his youthful repudiation of I'aul 
 the Gnostic teacher from Antioch distinguished liim 
 throughout, an<l carried him triumphant)}' through the 
 
LIFE AND CHARACTER OF ORIGEN 63 
 
 persecution that clouded his latter years. That he was 
 brave to the point of absolute fearlessness is demon- 
 sti'ated by his efiusive sympathy with the martyrs, 
 openly extended up to the hour of their death. His 
 diligence as a student, catechist, and scientific theo- 
 logian Avas phenomenal, and has certainly never been 
 surpassed. In his behaviour under the hard treatment 
 meted out to him by the Egyptian Church at the 
 instigation of Bishop Demetrius, he lias given an 
 object lesson in Christian meekness and forbearance 
 which is difficult to match in ecclesiastical history. 
 His lifelong self-denial brightly contrasts with the 
 sin-stained youth of Augustine, the only one among 
 the Fathers whose distinction and influence are com- 
 jxirable to his own. Other noteworthy elements in his 
 character were his holy earnestness, his love of truth, 
 his deep devotional feeling, and his unfaltering faith. 
 Nothing could exceed his scrupulous conscientiousness. 
 On one occasion, being at a loss to know the Hebrew 
 name of a tree mentioned in Scripture, he handed 
 several twigs to a company of Jews so as to ascertain 
 definitely the facts of the case. The same punctilious 
 care for accuracy in all his investigations appears also 
 in the deference with which he consulted Jewish 
 acquaintances upon other difficulties connected with 
 their language. What he was as a friend may be 
 gathered from the princely liberality of Ambrosius, 
 kept up while he lived, in giving him every facility 
 for research that money could provide, as well as from 
 the happy relations maintained from youth to old age 
 with Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem. To say that his 
 qualities as a teacher were of the highest order of 
 excellence would be to underrate them. In this de- 
 
64 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 partment he was a master genius, a professor whom 
 his students almost worshipped. From the Panegyric 
 of his pupil Gregory we learn how he inspired them 
 with his own spirit, and drew out their att'ection till 
 they were joined to him "as the soul of Jonathan was 
 knit to the soul of David." We could have no better 
 proof that, great as he was in intellect, he was equally 
 so in heart. In point of gentleness and winsomeness 
 of disposition Origcn may be fitly compared with 
 Melanchthon. He exercised an irresistible personal 
 magnetism over those with whom he came into close 
 contact. This accounts for his having been so fre- 
 quently employed as arbiter in matters of dispute, and 
 for his success in gaining over " heretics " to the side 
 of the Church. But he resembled the Reformation 
 theologian in saintliness also. In the purity and lofti- 
 ness of his Christian character, in the sincerity, depth, 
 and earnestness of his piety, we have the perfect 
 counterpoise to his extraordinary attainments as a 
 scholar, his singular acuteness as a thinker, and his 
 constructive powers as a theologian. His eye was 
 single, and therefore his whole body was full of light. 
 A character like this, so rich and so noble, so rounded 
 and complete, is a possession to the Christian Chui-ch 
 for all time, and one in view of which Origen is rightly 
 ranked as at once " the greatest of the Fathers," and 
 " the finest genius of Christian theology." 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 Origen's View of Holy Scripture 
 
 Although in liis (^veai work on the fundamental piin- 
 ciplos ol* Christianity Ori<;-en reserves his discussion 
 of Holy Scripture for the closing chapter, his whole 
 sj'stem of doctrine is necessarily based upon his views 
 regarding this subject, and in any review of his theology 
 it seems proper to give it precedence. 
 
 The pronouncement of Melito, ])ishop of Sardis, 
 limiting the Old Testament Canon, apparently remained 
 without influence in the Church. Christians regarded 
 with veneration the whole body of Jewish-Greek 
 literature, without drawing any hard and fast line in 
 respect of authority. That many books, such as those 
 of Solomon, had been lost, was held to be entirely 
 consonant with the divine purpose, and the importance 
 of tradition, as pointing to those which had met with 
 universal acceptance, was frankly recognised. 'But in 
 the third century no definite choice between the Hebrew 
 Canon and the Septuagint had been made ; and the un- 
 certainty is not dissipated by Origen.j Indeed "the 
 most striking features in the mass of facts furnished 
 by him are the uncertainty of the results, the want of 
 precision in his point of view, and the facility with 
 which he passes in turn from scientific discussion to 
 5 
 
66 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 popular usages. That is already >'isil)l«' in what he 
 says of the Old Testament."' Svhile Origen was 
 evidently acquainted with the Jewish Canon, and gave 
 a mystical signification to the number of its books, 
 there is no reason to suppose that he accepted it as 
 his own.^ His list of Old Testament books given by 
 Eusebius {H. E. vi. 25) agrees, indeed, in respect of 
 number, though not of order, with the Hebrew Canon, 
 yet in common with the Greek Fathers generally he 
 frequently quotes the Apocrypha as inspired Scripture. 
 Although used by his translator, the word canonical is 
 unknown to himself. With Origen apocryphal means 
 secret or hidden, and the pseudepigrapha as represented 
 by the Book of Enoch, etc^are not included by him 
 among the sacred writings. ^ Books which might claim 
 to serve as a rule for the Church he classifies as 
 authentic, spurious, and mixed. To the first category 
 belong all those which rank as sources of dogma ; to 
 the second, those which contain heretical additions ; 
 and to the third, those which, along with much that is 
 excellent, embody also elements either uncertain or 
 false. The genuineness of the separate books of Scrip- 
 ture was accepted by him without critical inquiry. 
 Thus he never seems to have doubted that Moses wrote 
 the Pentateuch, or David the Psalms, or that the Book 
 of Job was actual history^ 
 
 With Origen the New Testament was still less of a 
 fixed quantity than the Old. In admitting books to 
 canonical rank he was careful, however, to exclude 
 such as could not lay claim to general ecclesiastical 
 recognition, even although he himself believed them 
 to be genuine apostolic records. The Gospel of the 
 1 Reuss, Uislory of the Canon, etc., p. 129. 
 
ORIGEN'S VIEW OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 67 
 
 Hebrews lie prized lii^i;"lily because it teaches that tlie 
 Holy Gliost is the mother of the Lord, but he attached 
 canonical value to none but our Four Gospels. St. 
 Paul's Epistles he reckoned as fourteen in number, 
 ascribing as he did to that apostle the thou^-hts, al- 
 i hough not the language, of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 The Book of Revelation, which he interpreted allegori- 
 cally, he attributed to John the son of Zebedee. He 
 doubted the canonicity of 2 Peter, and of 2 and 3 John, 
 and w^as less clear about the Epistle of James than he 
 was about that of Jude. Writings bearing the marks 
 of non-inspiration he at once relegated to the category 
 of ordinary profane literature. Certain other records, 
 either on account of their apostolic origin, or because 
 of the valuable character of their contents, he desig- 
 nated as " mixed," these last forming, as Redepenning 
 happily observes, " the spacious forecourts around the 
 sanctuary of the covenant record." This corresponded 
 to Origen's view of the relation of the books of Scrip- 
 ture to one another, according to which some possessed 
 a higher degree of sanctity than others. Thus in the 
 Old Testament he ranked Ecclesiastes before Proverbs, 
 and Canticles before Ecclesiastes, while in the New he 
 gave precedence to the Four Gospels, and among these 
 again to the Gospel according to St. John. In this we 
 may trace the first beginnings of that distinction be- 
 tween Scripture and the word of God which has 
 bulked so largely in modern theology. 
 /TDrigen firmly believed in the inspiration of the 
 Scriptures. To him they are "divine writings," "the 
 word of God," and not "the compositions of men.]/^ 
 They are throughout pervaded by the fulness of the 
 divine majesty, having been " composed hy inspiration 
 
68 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 of tlie Holy Spirit, agreeably to tlie will of the Father 
 of all things through Jesus Christ."/*fhc inspiration 
 extends to all biblical books, and to every woi-d in 
 them, so that errors are impossible^ Apparent dis- 
 crepancies he explains either by assuming that two 
 separate events are recorded, or by resorting to the 
 allegorical method^In the case of solecisms and 
 grammatical defects he distinguishes between the ex- 
 ternal word in regard to which the writers were con- 
 scious of their liability to err, and its contents, which 
 are uniformly and absolutely devoid of error. The 
 medium of inspirati(jn is the Holy Ghost, who trans- 
 mits the self-revelation of God in the Son to those 
 whose special sanctity has fitted them to be the organs 
 of its communication to others. Tliis spiritual elevation, 
 to which alone such illumination has been granted, has 
 nothing in common with the ecstatic frenzy of heathen 
 soothsayers, but implies perfect mental control as well 
 as freedom. The inspired writers, therefore, were not 
 the mere mechanical instruments of the Spirit; they 
 arrano-ed their thoughts, and even balanced their 
 sentences, with care. To this extent there is a human 
 element in Scripture. While the impulse to speak 
 came directly from God, the writer conveyed the 
 message in his own words. Great stress is laid by 
 Orio-en upon the moral condition of the organs of 
 revelation. So far does he make this a determinating 
 factor in the case, that he bases upon it the claim that 
 there are different degrees of inspiration, Christ rank- 
 ino- ill this respect higher than Paul, and Paul than 
 Luke or Timothy. Each vessel is filled according to 
 its capacity, and the treasure is put into earthen 
 vessels that the triumph of the truth may be due to 
 
ORIGEN'S VIEW OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 69 
 
 no arts of human speech, but solely to the power of 
 God. 
 
 Origen finds evidence of its inspiration in the general 
 recognition accorded to the teaching of Scripture as 
 compared with the reception given to any of the 
 doctrinal systems elaborated by men. For the truths 
 of revelation, irrespective of nationality and in face 
 of persecution, many have abandoned their ancestral 
 worship; whereas, notwithstiindiiig all their parade of 
 logic, none of tlie philosophers have succeeded in 
 making disciples of any considerable fraction of even 
 a single nation. The same conclusion is borne out by 
 tlie fulfilment of prophecy. The Saviour's Ijirth and 
 dominion, the sins of the Jews and the election of the 
 Gentiles, were all foretold. It had been clearly pre- 
 dicted that from the time of Christ onwards there 
 would be no king in Judah, and that witli His appear- 
 ance the whole sacrificial service would be abolished. 
 But the argument from prophecy, which proves the 
 deity of Christ, proves also the divine inspiration of 
 the writings whicli prophesied of Him. The divine 
 origin of scriptural doctrine is further attested by the 
 superhuman power that watched over, and was reflected 
 in, the doings of the apostles. Finally, the very perusal 
 of the sacred writings begets in the reader's own inner 
 consciousness the feeling that the}' are inspired. 
 
 In every part of Scripture Origen traces the breath 
 of the same Spirit, and views both Testaments as con- 
 taining between them one complete covenant record. 
 He strongly asserted, in opposition to the Gnostics, the 
 unity of the sacred writings. His unswerving attitude 
 on tliis point did more than any other influence to 
 confirm the Church in the belief of the indissoluble 
 
70 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 connection between the Old and New Testaments, lie 
 loses no op})portunity of pointing out that in " the 
 volume of the book " the doctrine of Christ has been 
 gathered into one, and maintains that, like that of the 
 Paschal Lamb, the body of Scripture is indivisible. 
 He claims that the perfect harmony of law, prophecy, 
 and gospel is shown by, among other evidences, the 
 appearance of Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration. 
 While, however, essentially the same as regards their 
 contents, the Old and New Testaments stand related 
 to each other as shadow and substance.^ Both contain 
 the truth ; but in the one it is hidden, whereas in the 
 other it comes clearly to light. This is the result of 
 the advent of Christ, which fulfils and explains every 
 part of Holy Writ. The divinity of the prophetic 
 declarations, as well as the spiritual nature of the 
 truth embodied in the Mosaic law, is thus clearly 
 disclosed, and the veil removed by which the light 
 had been previously concealed. Origen's too exclusive 
 treatment of the law as the shadow of gospel condi- 
 tions prevented him, however, from doing justice to 
 its ethical side. 
 
 According to Origen, tlie Spirit's chief object in 
 Scripture is to communicate inefiable mysteries re- 
 garding the affairs of men, i.e. souls inhabiting bodies.- 
 But, passing forthwith into the region of the tran- 
 scendent, he remarks that among those matters wliicli 
 relate to souls we must rank as primary the doctrines 
 
 ^ His position with reference to tills point is not quite consistent. 
 For exiiniple, writing against the Gnostics, he even goes so far as to 
 declare a preference for the Old Testament over the New ; on the otlur 
 hand,' he asserts tltat for such as have true insight into the gospel the 
 Old Testament has no further value. — In Mali. x. 412. 
 
 ^ De Princ. iv. 11. 
 
ORIGEN'S VIEW OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 71 
 
 bearing upon God and His only-begotten Son, namely, 
 " of what nature He is, and in what manner He is the 
 Son of God, and what are the causes of His descending 
 even to the assumption of human flesh, and of complete 
 humanit}^ ; and what also is the operation of this Son, 
 and upon whom and wlien exercised." In the divine 
 teaching a place had also necessarily to be given, he 
 says, to the subjects of rational creatures, diversities of 
 souls, the nature of the world, and the origin and 
 habitat of sin., 'In short, the Scriptures are treated 
 by Origcn as a mine of speculative truths. Facts are 
 of importance mainly as the vehicles of ideas ; and 
 the ethical is subordinated to the metaphysical, in 
 keeping with the spirit of the age. But he never 
 departs from the position that the Bible is tlie sole 
 guide to those higher truths which, however they may 
 var}' as regards the form of their presentation, remain 
 always the same in substance, and which, while to 
 some extent we apprehend them here, can be fully 
 grasped only hereafter. Hence he is careful to in- 
 culcate the practical duty of reading the Scriptures. 
 They are the true nutriment of the spiritual nature, 
 and it is by partaking daily of this food that we arrive 
 at true fulness and richness of life, and are enabled 
 ever more completely to consecrate it to God. 
 
 But according to Origen the Spirit had a second 
 object in Scripture, namely, the concealment of 
 spiritual truths under cover of some narrative of 
 visible things or human deeds, or of the written 
 legislation. Although tluis in one sense mere wrap- 
 page, the letter of Scripture is capable of edifying 
 " the multitude," wlio cannot investigate the mysteries. 
 Seeing, however, there is much in Scripture besides 
 
72 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 the obvious, "the word uL' God has arranged that 
 certain stumbling-blocks, as it were, and offences, and 
 impossibilities, should be introduced into the law and 
 the histor}^" lest we should be beguiled from the true 
 doctrines by the mere charm of the language, or rest 
 satisfied with the letter. The ordinary narrative could 
 sometimes convey the mystical sense, but where it was 
 not suited for this, "the Scripture interwove in the 
 history the account of some event that did not take 
 place, sometimes what could not have happened ; some- 
 times what could, but did not." Instances are given 
 where the physical or moral impossibility of the case 
 should stimulate inquiry after the inner meaning. 
 Who, it is asked, can believe there was morning 
 and evening before the sun was created, or an actual 
 earthly paradise with a visible tree of life, or a moun- 
 tain lofty enough for Jesus to view from its to]5 all the 
 kingdoms of the world ? Some of the Mosaic precepts 
 Origen declares to be on a literal interpretation 
 irrational, as, e.g., that against eating vultures, which 
 famine itself would induce none to eat; and others 
 impossible, such as that which requires sitting at home 
 throughout the Sabbath. He speaks in a similar way 
 of some of the Saviour's injunctions to the apostles, 
 maintaining, for instance, that only "simple persons" 
 would believe that he ordered them to " salute no man 
 by the way." According to this view the literal sense 
 of such passages as those recording the episode of 
 Lot's daughters, the barbarities of the wars against 
 the Canaanites, and imprecations upon enemies, is also 
 discarded by the enlightened conscience. It seems 
 strange that Origen, who was so careful to make out 
 to the last detail the infallibility of Holy Scripture, 
 
ORIGEN'S VIEW OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 73 
 
 should have also denied the historical credibility of 
 such incidents as the sacrifice of Isaac, the cleansing 
 of the temple, the feet-washing, etc. Perhaps the 
 explanation is to be found partly in the inordinate 
 idealism of his age, which led him to doubt the 
 authenticity of whatever appeared to be contrary to 
 reason or unworthy of God, no matter what ecclesias- 
 tical standards might teach. Ilis doubts were certainly 
 not due to a sceptical tendency, for he cordially accepts 
 all the essential doctrines of the faith ; rather may we 
 with Redepenning regard them as the consequences of 
 an excessive inclination to believe. 
 
 The great instrument for discovering and interpret- 
 ing the deeper mysteries underlying the letter of 
 Scripture is the allegorical method. Origen uses this 
 in a twofold manner, — positively, so as by means of 
 it to teach and elucidate the doctrines of the faith ; 
 and negatively, in order to defend it against the 
 assaults of its adversaries. Allegorism in the inter- 
 pretation of Scripture was in vogue before Origen's 
 time, but he was the first who attempted to give it 
 a scientific basis. Not satisfied, like Clement, to accept 
 it as a traditional fact that the sacred books have an 
 allegorical meaning, he sought an abstract ground of 
 justification for this theory, as well as a more definite 
 method of applying it, so as to ascertain, if possible by 
 rule, the sense of particular passages. He starts from 
 the position that earthly things in general, and sacred 
 history and law in particular, are the shadows of 
 things heavenly and invisible. If God made man in 
 His own image, He may have made other creatures 
 after the image of other heavenly things. Thus by 
 means of the world that is seen the soul is led upwards 
 
74 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 to the unseen and eternal. Upon the terrestrial the 
 seeing eye can discern the stamp of the celestial. In 
 connection with this " law of correspondence " Origen 
 makes the pregnant remark : " He who believes the 
 Scriptures to have proceeded from Him who is the 
 author of nature may well expect to find the same 
 sort of difficulties in it as arc found in the constitution 
 of nature." ^ This was the seed-corn from winch sprang, 
 fifteen centuries later, Butler's famous Andhxj)/, and the 
 words are fittingly appended by Southey to his inscrip- 
 tion upon the bishop's monument in Bristol Cathedral. 
 Origen finds his ruling principle of interpretation 
 in Prov. xxii. 20 (LXX),- and in an analogy between 
 the Platonic doctrine of the constitution of man and 
 Scripture, which has been given for man's salvation. 
 As man is of a tripartite nature, consisting of body, 
 soul, and spirit, so also does Scripture possess a three- 
 fold sense — the literal, the moral, and the spiritual. 
 This triple sense he supports by an ingenious use of a 
 passage from 2' he Shepherd of Herrtias, where Grapte, 
 Clement, and Hennas arc made to typify the three 
 classes of readers to whom Scripture appeals.-^ Grapte 
 
 1 Philocal. p. 23. 
 
 2 The word translated (in A. V. and K. \'.) "excellent things" literally 
 means "thrice" or "in triple form," and is so rendered by the LXX 
 (T/)i(r(rws) and A'ulg. {triplicitcr), perhaps with the idea of repetition to 
 emphasise the truth. Origen uses the passage, so understood, as an 
 argument for his view of a threefold sense of Holy Scripture. I'crowne 
 [Camhridije Bible, etc., ad loc.) .says: "The word has been thought to 
 denote the chief of the three persons who formed the complement of an 
 ancient war-chariot, and so to mean principal or excellent." According 
 to R. V. marg. " the word is doubtful. Another reading is heretofore." 
 
 '" He also finds an allusion to the threefold sense in tlie waterpots 
 "containing two or three lirkins apiece" (John ii. 6). Hog Do Pr inc. 
 iv. 11, 12. 
 
ORIGEN'S VIEW OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 75 
 
 represents the orphans wlio are unable to call God 
 tlieir Father, and who are fit to apprehend only the 
 " body " or letter of Scripture ; Clement, the more 
 advanced, who are edified by its " soul " ; and Hermas, 
 tlie wise and grey-headed presbyters of the Church, the 
 perfect (1 Cor. ii. 6, 7), who are capable of apprehendiuo- 
 the spiritual law itself. This does not imply that from 
 every passage a threefold meaning is to be extracted. 
 Sometimes, where the literal sense is cither sufficiently 
 worthy of God or sufficiently surprising, Origen is con- 
 tent not to allegorise ; it is only the commonplace that 
 he considers it essential to explain. Some texts contain 
 only the " soul " and " spirit " of Scripture, i.e. have no 
 " bodily " or literal sense at all ; others, as the Ten 
 Commandments and all precepts of universal obliga- 
 tion, have an ethical import which is of itself sufficient. 
 It has frequently been held that Origen further 
 divided the spiritual sense into an allegorical and an 
 anagogical,^ but this claim can scarcely be made good. 
 Indeed it is not always easy or possible to differentiate 
 between the moral and spiritual senses, which shade 
 ofl' into each other like dissolving views. In numerous 
 instances, however, the threefold meaning is stated 
 clearly enough. The grain of mustard seed, for 
 example, is to be understood literally of the actual 
 seed ; morally, it denotes faith ; spiritually, it repre- 
 sents the kingdom of heaven. The moral signification 
 of the text seems to cover those uses of it which bear 
 upon the practical life of the soul in its relation to God 
 and duty ; the spiritual extends to all " mysteries " 
 
 ^ lu the Latiu Church tliis found current expression in the couplet — 
 " Litcra gesta docet, quid credis allegoria, 
 Moralis quid agas, quo teudis anayogia." 
 
tg origen and greek theology 
 
 connected with the Church and its history, both tem- 
 poral and eternal. But in many passages Origen 
 satisfies himself with the broad twofold distinction 
 between letter and spirit. Viewed purely as the 
 rudimentary stage of Christian culture, the merely 
 literal interpretation is at once useful and hannless, 
 but unless men outgrow this it becomes injurious. 
 Christ's woe pronounced upon tlic scribes and 
 Pharisees he applies to sucli as concern themselves 
 only with the literal meaning. To cling to the letter 
 after the veil has been taken from the law is the 
 root of much evil. For the Jew it means unbelief ; 
 for tlie Christian, a yoke of bondage ; for the Church, 
 a fruitful source of heresy; and for all, a misunder- 
 standing of God. 
 
 It is, then, according to Origen, the function of 
 allegorism to discover, exhibit, and expound the 
 deeper sense of Scripture. Only through the Holy 
 Ghost, however, can one acquire this noblest of all 
 arts. The spiritual penetration necessary in order to 
 the discovery of "mysteries" is essentially bound up 
 with the possession of faith and love to Jesus Christ. 
 Whilo no one has absolutely lost the faculty of appre- 
 hending the divine, men differ vastly in respect of 
 knowledge and receptivit}'. Some have not graspetl 
 the most elementary principles of morality and 
 religion ; others confountl their S3'stems of pliilosophy 
 with the highest truth. Among Christians who roally 
 possess this, some cling to the letter alone; whilo 
 others again, who have a deeper apprehension of 
 truth, differ in proportion to their zeal. There thus 
 opens up before the truly consecrated soul an ever- 
 widcuiiig and illimitable prospect of larger knowledge. 
 
ORIGEN'S VIEW OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 77 
 
 What led Origen thus to repudiate tlie literal sense 
 of so many passages of Scripture ? In general, it may 
 be said that his Platonic spiritualism, his attachment 
 to the Alexandrian idea of gnosis, and Ids extravagant 
 conception of inspiration already predisposed him in 
 favour of a mystical exegesis. More particularly it 
 would appear that he was impelled in tins direction 
 ])y the immediate necessities of the polemic against 
 Jews and heretics, and also perhaps by the homiletic 
 requirements of the age. To a certain extent 
 Origen is justified in claiming tlic Apostle Paul (i.e. 
 qua author of the Epistle to the Hebrews) as a pre- 
 decessor in the field of allegorical interpretation. Yet 
 tliere is a world of difference between the allegorising 
 of the New Testament Epistle and that of Origen, in 
 which, while they cannot extinguish his brilliant merit 
 as a biblical scholar, the most fanciful extravagances 
 — etymological, cosmological, and even arithmetical — 
 abound. His method is really a "play of the imagina- 
 tion, an excellent means of appearing to find what one 
 already possesses, but not of discovering what one 
 does not possess."^ It is at once illusive and fruit- 
 loss. Although involving much laborious exercise of 
 the mind and the imagination, it is labour in vain ; 
 it furnishes him with nothing new, and is after all 
 only the reflection of his own thoughts. He finds in 
 it a convenient way of compelling Scripture to yield 
 an answer to the many speculative questions that 
 agitate his own restless brain. But it is no proper or 
 satisfying answer that he thus obtains. Scripture is 
 merely turned into a cipher, of which he has not the 
 
 ' Deuis, Dc la Philosophie d'Origine, p. 33. Cf. in Exod., Horn, 
 xiii. 2. 
 
7?> ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 key. As a Jew, even Pliilo had to pay some regard to 
 the literal and historical sense of the Old Testament ; 
 but the reins of Origen's imagination knew no such 
 restraining influence. For him allegorical exegesis 
 meant licence to father his own speculations upon a 
 sacred text which was venerated as the depository of 
 all truth. 
 
 In opposition to the Jews and Judaising Christians, 
 who denied that their legal sacrifices and ritual were 
 denuded of their value and importance by the coming 
 of Christ, Origen maintained that to observe the law 
 outwardly in the letter now that its spiritual sense has 
 been revealed, is no longer religion, but superstition, 
 and a hindrance rather than a help to piety. " Com- 
 pared with the gospel, the law is like those earthen 
 vessels which the artist forms before casting the statue 
 in bronze ; they are necessary until the work itself is 
 finished, but their utility ceases with the completion of 
 the statue." ^ 
 
 With Origen the aggressiveness of the Gnostics 
 weighed even moi'e powerfully than the conservatism 
 of the Jews. Learned, versatile, speculative, this class 
 of opponents devoted their oratorical and literary 
 powers to wrecking the faith of the simple. Un- 
 doubtedly the strong point of Christian preaching was 
 an unbroken tradition reaching from the Creation to 
 the times of Christ. The Gnostics sought to under- 
 mine this position by violently separating the New 
 Testament stem from the Old Testament root. They 
 ridiculed the story of Noah's ark, and the God who 
 had to send His angels to ascertain what was happen- 
 ing in Sodom. They criticised mercilessly whatever 
 
 ' In Lcvit., Honi. x. 1. 
 
ORIGEN'S VIEW OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 79 
 
 ill the Old Testament offended their moral sense, e.c). 
 the atrocities of the Jewish wars, with the view of 
 representing them as sanctioned by a cruel God utterly 
 unlike the good God of the gospel. Cultured Greeks, 
 although otherwise drawn to the sacred writings, were 
 shocked at such tokens of barbarity, and hesitated to 
 declare themselves Christians. Under these circum- 
 stances Origen does not, like Clement, content himself 
 with pleading that in God justice and goodness are 
 harmoniously combined. He boldly cuts the knot by 
 maintaining that the narratives and commands to 
 which his opponents took exception are not literally 
 true ; that the kings slain by the Israelites are only 
 figurative names for vices that have dominion over 
 men ; and that the nations which they are said to 
 have exterminated are not to be regarded as composed 
 of men, but of the enemies that assail men's souls. 
 What the Spirit has in view in such passages is not 
 the narration of historical events, but the communica- 
 tion of mysteries, under the veil of facts, for the soul's 
 edification. They thus serve a pasdagogic purpose, 
 and are vehicles of the highest truth. The forbidding 
 aspect of the upper garment cannot alter the fact that 
 " the king's daughter is all glorious within," and while 
 it may repel the ignorant, it only acts as a spur to 
 redoubled effort on the part of the spiritually enlight- 
 ened. In the hands of Origen, therefore, allegorism in 
 its negative aspect becomes an apologetic weapon, by 
 means of which he defends Christianity against the 
 hide-bound externalism of the Jews and the blas- 
 phemous criticism of the Gnostics ; but as the result 
 of his fantastic interpretations, the history itself, of 
 course, disappears. Lest, however, his view should be 
 
So ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 regarded as invalidating entirely both the historical 
 and legislative portions of Scripture, Origen is careful 
 to state that the passages having a purely spiritual 
 meaning are few in comparison to those that are true 
 historically, and that in regard to the Decalogue and 
 such New Testament precepts as " Swear not at all," 
 etc., there is no doubt that they are to be observed 
 according to the letter, although in such cases a deeper 
 meaning also may disclose itself to the advanced 
 Christian. 
 
 It has been suggested that, even irrespective of any 
 controversy with Jews or heretics, Origen would still 
 have been driven to these extremities by the mere 
 conditions of preaching in his time. The preacher's 
 custom was one day to read and expound a page of 
 Scripture, the next day to read and expound the page 
 following. In the case of historical books, which were 
 not written exactly for edification, one can understand 
 what embarrassment he \\'Ould often experience. Only 
 by effacing their historical character could he draw 
 edifying lessons from texts but little edifying in them- 
 selves.^ Origen's Homilies certainly show how ready 
 he was to sacrifice the literal sense, and at all hazards 
 to discover a meaning suitable to the moral and 
 spiritual needs of his hearers.^ - Any other course 
 would in his opinion have been wrong. " Those do 
 injustice to Moses, who, when the Book of Leviticus 
 or some portion of Numbers is read in the church, 
 do not set forth spiritually what is written in the 
 law. For necessarily those present on hearing recited 
 in the church either the rites of sacrifice or the 
 observances of the Sabbath and other similar things, 
 ' Denis, p, 45. 
 
ORIGEN'S VIEW OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 8r 
 
 are displeased, and say, How is it necessary to read 
 that here ? Of what use to us are Jewish precepts and 
 the observances of a despised people ? That concerns 
 the Jews ; let them attend to it if they please." ^ 
 
 Round up with the positive aspect of allegorism as 
 the instrument for the discovery of mysteries was the 
 doctrine of reserve, or economy, as it was called. This 
 Avas based upon such passages as Pro v. v. 16; Tob. 
 xii. 7 ; Matt. vii. 6 ; Mark iv. 34 ; and while applied 
 partly to the hostile heathen, was used by Clement 
 and Origen chiefly as a justification for withholding 
 from Christians of the less educated order whatever 
 might tend to unsettle their simple faith. For such 
 the only safe path was held to be that of implicit 
 obedience to the divine law ; in no case were they to 
 ask the reason. " The holy apostles," says Origen, " in 
 preaching the faith of Christ, declared with the 
 utmost clearness whatever they thought necessary to 
 salvation, even to those who are slothful in the in- 
 vestigation of divine science, leaving the reason of 
 their assertions to be sought out by those who should 
 deserve the excellent gifts of the Spirit, and especially 
 the graces of utterance, wisdom, and knowledge. But 
 as to other things, they affirmed indeed that they are, 
 but why or whence they did not explain." - There is 
 a sense in which the doctrine of reserve may be 
 properly used by every teacher who would guard 
 against confusing his pupils by a too early intro- 
 duction to what is difficult and profound. But the 
 Alexandrian Fathers carried it far bej'ond the limits 
 of a prudential silence of this sort. They saw no 
 harm in winking at superstitious beliefs which they 
 ^ In Num., Horn, vii. 2. - Preface to Dc Princ. 
 
 6 
 
82 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 considered to be either luirinles.s or positively helpful 
 in the right direction. Such a standpoint reflects the 
 influence of the Greek philosophy, which did not 
 reckon Truth among the four cardinal virtues. It 
 makes the doctrine of economy "the screen of an 
 esoteric belief," and the domain of intellectual free- 
 dom the close preserve of the enlightened Christian. 
 Additional interest is lent to this doctrine from the 
 fact that, in conjunction with " tradition," it was made 
 the basis of the Tractarian Movement in England in 
 the nineteenth century. 
 
 Perhaps the most serious fault in Origen's position 
 with reference to this whole subject is his failure to 
 take account of the law of historical development in 
 divine revelation. In his view Moses and the prophets 
 had as deep an insight into the relations of the Persons 
 of the Godhead as the apostles, and he could probably 
 /- have found proofs of the resurrection as easily in the 
 Book of Genesis as in the Pauline Epistles. From this 
 standpoint there was, of course, nothing to prevent the 
 gospel records from being supplemented by the pro- 
 phecies; and in fact Origen treats the Psalms as 
 sources for the life of Christ. He regards the whole 
 - truth as having been revealed by the Spirit under the 
 Old Testament economy as well as under the New, the 
 only difterence being that in the former case com- 
 paratively few understood the spiritual significance 
 of the law, whereas it is now understood by multi- 
 tudes. It is true that in a certain degree the Old 
 Testament prefigured the New ; but neither was all 
 symbolic, nor did what symbols there were amount to 
 actual proofs of Christian doctrine. Even the shadows 
 of good things to come were only shadows, but Origen 
 
ORIGEN'S VIEW OF HOLY SCRIPTURE 83 
 
 confounded tlicni with those <^ood things tliemselves. 
 Nothing has operated more prejudicially against a true 
 understanding of the Bible than this absurd method of 
 treatment. Its mischievous results have been reflected 
 in all subse(iuent doctrinal development. For loiig the 
 glamour of Origen's genius led to widespread acqui- 
 escence in his wildest extravagances. But with the 
 dawn of grammatico-historical exegesis and the found- 
 ing of the new science of biblical theolog}^ this 
 antic juated method of handling Scripture has for ever 
 become impossible. At the same time " exact gram- 
 matical exegesis is by no means alien to his homilies 
 and commentaries, and many of his strangest uses of 
 Scripture may be viewed as practical applications 
 rather than scholarly expositions." ^ Other extenuat- 
 ing facts are his prayerful spirit, his toilsome effort, 
 and his recognition that Scripture is its own inter- 
 preter. When all is said, however, there remains the 
 irrepressible regret that " the eagle eye of Origen " 
 should have been so enchanted by a veritable Will-o'- 
 the-wisp, and that his colossal abilities should have 
 been so largely devoted to the building up of a false 
 system of interpretation. 
 
 ' Salmoad, ait. " Hermeneutics" in Ency. Brif. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 Religious Philosophy of Origen 
 
 The view taken by Origen of the relation of Christian 
 doctrine to Greek philosophy is substantially that of 
 Clement, although he rates philosophers somewhat 
 lower than does that wi-iter. Truth he regards as a 
 constant quantity, which from the beginning has been 
 imparted to man only in scattered rays. Of these 
 human wisdom, as embodied in the cii'cle of the sciences, 
 and in the secret doctrines of Chaldseans and Egyptians, 
 Jews and Greeks, has supplied its quota. Divine 
 wisdom, however, as revealed in Christianity, im- 
 measurably transcends the philosophical knowledge 
 of men. The Christian doctrine embraces whatever 
 elements of truth are contained in the Greek philo- 
 sophy, of which indeed it is the completion. While 
 philosophy is a divinely ordained means of arriving at 
 the truth, and is closely related to Christianity in 
 respect of the fundamental ideas of God and moral 
 justice which have been written indelibly by the 
 Creator upon the human heart, it is far from being of 
 uniform value. In the form of Epicureanism, for 
 example, it is even hostile to the truth ; in that of 
 Platonism, it partly coincides with it. Where its 
 development has been pernicious, this result is due to 
 
 84 
 
RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY OF ORIGEN 85 
 
 its corruption by demoniac transmitters and hniiian 
 teachers. On the other hand, besides the affinity 
 necessarily existing between philosophy and Chris- 
 tianity as being both of divine origin, there is also the 
 measure of resemblance caused by the borrowing of 
 philosophical doctrines from the Old Testament. 
 
 The religious philosophy of Origen is thus marked 
 by a finely tolerant spirit. Although viewing the 
 Scriptures as the sole guaranteed source of truth, 
 he shared Clement's opinion that human systems 
 of thought also miglit be at least relatively true. 
 Wherever a spark of good appeared, these Alexandrian 
 teachers gave it acknowledgment. As the principle of 
 perfection, their Christian gnosis tauglit them " to 
 honour the whole creation of God Almighty," and to 
 view ever3'thing from the relative standpoint. They 
 were students of Greek culture, and had a high idea 
 of what was becoming in a philosopher. " Origen 
 could already estimate the relative progress made by 
 mankind within the Church as compared with tho.se 
 outside her pale, saw no gulf between the growing 
 and the perfect, and traced the whole advance to 
 Christ." 1 
 
 If, however, he recognised philosophy as furnishing 
 a series of steps in the right direction, Origen was also 
 strongly convinced of its inade<}uacy. While it formed 
 an introduction to the higher wisdom, it was at best 
 an uncertain guide. Philosophers did not succeed in 
 conveying the truth to the popular mind ; they were 
 like physicians who attend only to the health of a 
 select few and neglect the multitude. After uttering 
 in the schools the grandest arguments about God, they 
 ^ Hainack, Hist, of Docjma, ii. p. 338. 
 
S6 ORIGKN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 straightway tVU into idolatry aiul sanctioned poly- 
 theism. This was in sharp contrast to the practice of 
 the very lowest Jew. The secret of the success of 
 the unlettered disciples of Jesus in impressin<^ men of 
 various nationalities, as compared with the failure of 
 the Greek philosophers to win adherents, lay in the 
 fact that in the one case the speakers possessed a 
 certain God-given power which was lacking in the 
 other. This was none other than the power of the 
 Logos, which everywhere manifested itself in the 
 Church by abolishing polytheism, and bringing about 
 the moral betterment of gospel hearers in proportion to 
 their capacity and willingness to receive that which is 
 good. In earlier times also through i\ro.ces the power 
 of divine revelation had been shown on a national 
 scale — " Would that the Jews had not transgressed 
 the law, and slain the prophets, and conspired against 
 Jesus : we should then have had a model of that 
 heavenl}' commonwealth which Plato has sought to 
 describe ; although I doubt whether he could have 
 accomplished as much as was done by Moses and those 
 who followed him." ^ 
 
 The true goal of the Greek philosophy, as well as of 
 the revealed wisdom proclaimed by the prophets, Avas 
 the incarnation of Jesus, which focusscd all previous 
 self-connauuications of the Eternal Reason. A know- 
 ledge essentially devoid of error is thus guaranteed 
 to us. Men could not reach this anterior to Christ's 
 coming, because it was unattainable apart from the 
 expiation of the world's sin. Without Him perfect 
 knowledge is an impossibility. Clement held that a 
 man's life is likely to be virtuous in proportion to his 
 ^ Contra Cclsum, v. 43. 
 
RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY OF ORIGEN S; 
 
 knowledge of the truth. Origcn makes an advance 
 upon this position by identifying human enligliten- 
 ment with redemption. Men wallc in light and practise 
 virtue through Him who is the truth, and who has 
 fulfdled all righteousness. By the union of the divine 
 and human natures in His own person, Christ has 
 become the source of the new life of humanity. 
 
 The cliaracter of Origen's theological system as a 
 philosophy of revelation accounts for the Gnostic and 
 Neoplatonic features mixed up with it. His specula- 
 tions often recall the theosophic dreams and fantastic 
 cosmology of Valentinus, and his methods are those 
 of that prominent heresiarch, and of the Neoplatonic 
 schools. In his doctrine of the pre-existenco of souls, - 
 in his theory of a threefold division of human nature,- 
 and in his highly symbolic interpretation of the 
 story of Paradise, his Christian theology clearly shows 
 affinity with those systems. The agreement, however, 
 is not in principle, but is due to the adoption in 
 common of particular Platonic tenets. He is even 
 more of an idealistic philosopher than Plato himself. 
 At the same time he holds the Scriptures of the Old 
 and New Testaments to be the only absolutel}^ reliable 
 sources for acquiring a knowledge of the truth, and 
 there is something to be said for the contention that in 
 Origen nuich has been ascribed to the influence of 
 Platonism that admits of a simpler and more natural 
 explanation.^ According to this view the doctrine of 
 the pre-cxistence of the soul, for instance, was not 
 peculiar to Pythagoras and Plato, but was also current 
 in the East, and may quite well have been suggested to 
 Origen by certain Jewish apocrypha in which there 
 ' Denis, Dc la Philosojihic cVOrigine, p. 57. 
 
88 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 was a largo admixture of Oriciital ideas. So also 
 with roo-ard to the ultimate triumph of tlie good, the 
 conversion of tlic devil, etc. The exaggerated and 
 axiomatic significance attached by Origen to certain 
 New Testament texts is further pointed to as the real 
 basis of many of his semi-Christian, semi-Oriental 
 theories. He finds, e.g., the distinction of the upper, 
 intermediary, and infernal worlds in the saying of 
 St. Paul, "that in the name of Jesus every knee 
 should bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, 
 and things under the earth" (Phil. ii. 10); and the 
 pre-existence of the soul in the statements: "When 
 Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped 
 in her womb " (Luke i. 41), and " There was a man 
 sent from God whose name was John" (John i. G). 
 Endowed with a very bold and lively imagination, and 
 breathing so constantly the atmosphere of the super- 
 natural, there was really no limit to the chimerical 
 notions which he was able to read into and extract 
 from the texts of Scripture. But his doctrines occupy 
 another level, and, from whatever sources they are 
 drawn, all bear the stamp of his own individuality. 
 While refusing to believe that in any of its main 
 essentials Origen derived his doctrinal system either 
 from Plato or the Stoics, Denis willingly concedes that 
 its linguistic framework, as well as many " hypotheses 
 which are like the stage-dressing of his ideas," are 
 borrowed from the Greek philosophers. He maintains, 
 however, that the doctrines themselves, as distinct 
 from their philosophical dress, were dei-ived from other 
 sources. Although the great Alexandrian owes his 
 idealism to Plato, whether directly or through the 
 medium of the Gnostics, it is not according to this view 
 
RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY OF ORIGEN 89 
 
 permissible to go into detailed analysis so as to say 
 of particular doctrines, " This Origcn borrowed from ■> 
 the Stoics, that from Plato." For the rest, they are 
 severally stated with much logical acumen, and even 
 where not originally evolved by his own mind, present 
 combinations so novel, adjustments so exact, and trans- 
 formations so profound, as to make them rank with the 
 most notewoithy contributions to theological thought 
 ever given to the woi-ld. 
 
 While, however, in 103'alty to the Church's rule of 
 faith ho accepts the gospel as in itself " the power of 
 God unto salvation to every one that believeth," Origen 
 also attaches the greatest value to a scientific con- 
 ception of Christianity. Hence the union in him of the 
 Platonic philosopher with the orthodox traditionalist. 
 Deeming it to be the object of Christianity that men 
 should become wise, he not only asserts the rights of 
 science in the Church, but distinctly subordinates faith <• 
 to knowledge, and regards the former as a stage in the 
 Christian life relatively inferior to the latter. For this 
 position he finds ample warrant in Scripture, which 
 contains many enigmatical and dark sayings expressly 
 designed to exercise the understanding of its readers. 
 The content of the Church's faith thus demands to 
 be idealised, and the most suitable appliances for this 
 purpose are the methods of the Greek philosophers. 
 ><A.s the revelation of the highest reason, Christianity^ 
 must lend itself to elucidation by the science of i-eason- 
 ing, and, in fact, it admits of being stated in clear 
 dogmatic propositions. To attain to such a systematic 
 grasp of ideas and doctrines is to reach the highest 
 stage of the Christian life. This, however, Origcn no 
 longer designates gnosis, but ivisdom.y/The spread of 
 
90 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 Gnostic heresy had apparently rendered it desirable to 
 employ a term not so liable to be misconstrued as that 
 Avhich had been used by Clement. In his public teach- 
 ing that writer had also withheld more of this higher 
 knowledge than did Origen, who considered it the only 
 vital Christianity, and therefore showed more eagerness 
 to impart it to all. 
 
 /A theory of Christianity which emphasised the dis- 
 tinction between piLs^i's and (jnosis required twofold 
 expression. Its teachers used one language for the 
 people and another for the initiated^' The idea of an 
 exoteric and an esoteric Christianity will always be 
 repulsive to some as savouring of dishonesty ; yet 
 there is another side to the matter. Even the modern 
 Christian teacher must suit liis language to his audience. 
 A professor of divinity does not discourse to his 
 students as he would to a home mission gathering, or 
 even to an ordinary congregation. •-l)ifFerent stages of 
 attainment in Christian kuoNvledge call for difi'erent 
 modes of treatment on the part of Christian teachers^ 
 And if Origen drew a clear distinction between the 
 simple and the perfect, he at all events did not separate 
 the two classes by an impassable gulf. On the con- 
 trar}', he sought to bi-idge over the distance between 
 them by proclaiming the entire compatibility of the 
 profoundest scientific culture with a sincere accept- 
 ance of the gospel. And it was just because of this 
 that he was so successful as a Christian missionary to 
 the Greeks. It would be wrong to say that he pro- 
 claimed two Christianities ^^'hat he really asserted 
 was that one Christian saw much more in Christianity 
 than another._^ 
 
 No doubt Origen's conception of Christianity had its 
 
RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY OF ORIGEN 91 
 
 drawbacks. For one ihiui;' iL amounted to the virtual 
 obliteration of the historical clement in Holy Scripture. - 
 Not that he denies in the majority of instances the 
 actual occurrence of facts, but by the application of 
 his hermeneutical methods he robs them of their signi- 
 licance. Thus even the Incarnation is emptied of its 
 peculiar value. To the perfect, Christ is nothing more ' 
 than the manifestation of the Loi^'os who has been from ^ 
 eternity with the Father, and whose activity has also ' 
 been eternal. It is not as the Crucified One, but merely' 
 as a divine teacher that He is of consequence to the 
 wise. " He was sent indeed as a physician to sinners, 
 but as a teacher of divine mysteries to those who are 
 already pure, and who sin no more." ^ The gospel 
 records are accordingly subjected to the allegorising 
 process, with the result that their true and simple 
 story disappears. Indeed the gospel itself is repre- 
 sented as merely " the shadow of the mysteries of 
 Christ " ; as such it occupies a middle position between 
 the law and "the eternal gospel" (Rev. xiv. 6), which, 
 as the full revelation of those mysteries, is the possession 
 only of the spiritual Church. " In the final utterances"*- 
 of religious metaphj-sics ecclesiastical Christianity, with - 
 the exception of a few compromises, is thrown oft' as a 
 husk. The objects of religious knowledge have no - 
 historj'^, or rather — and this is a genuinely Gnostic ~ 
 and Neoplatonic idea — they have only a supramundane_^ 
 one." "^ 
 
 As a substitute for the outward revelation and ordi- 
 nances which form the distinguishing characteristics of 
 positive religion, Origen makes use of the results of the - 
 speculative cosmology of the Greeks. He is familiar 
 
 ^ Contra Cdsum, iii. 62. - Harnaok, History of Dogma , ii. p. 343. 
 
92 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 with the various mythological and philosophical theories 
 as to the origin of the universe and the nature of matter. 
 That we must largely trace to this source the inspira- 
 tion of the marvellous and strangely complicated picture 
 of the world ^ which finds a place within his broad and 
 idealistic theolog}', is plain to every reader of the Contra 
 Cclsum. It was already recognised b}^ Porph3ay, whom 
 Eusebius quotes as saying of Origen : " 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." His cos- 
 mology, in fact, is an essential part of his theology. To 
 have a clear idea of God it is not enough to think of 
 Him abstractly and apart from His relation to the 
 world. It is precisely in connection with the latter 
 
 .point that these impressions arc produced which deter- 
 mine the real standpoint of a theologian, and show 
 whether he is pantheistic, dualistic, or Christian. That 
 Origen belongs to the latter category is proved by his 
 contention that there is only one eternal substance, by 
 his conception of God as the direct Creator of the world, 
 and by his view of Christ as the God-Man in whom and 
 by whom all things consist. 
 
 'i'he moral and religious ideal set forth in the sj'stem 
 of Origen is one which has its roots partly in Neopla- 
 tonic mysticism and partly in Holy Scripture. It had 
 long been a favourite theory with idealistic philosophers 
 that the most perfect life open to man is that which 
 consists solely in meditative introspection and contem- 
 plation of the eternal. According to this view actions 
 have the effect of entangling us jji all niannei'of woi'ldly 
 ' "L'esjjuce de poi'-nie crtsmogoiiique concn jtaiOiigriie " (Denis, p. 1G3). 
 
RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY OF ORIGEN 93 
 
 concerns, and therefore it is better for us not to act, but 
 just to remain absorbed in the absokite and the unseen, 
 and in the possession of a cahn tranquilHty whicli 
 more than anj'thing else tends to make us godhke. 
 To liave need of nothing is to be in closest contact 
 with the Deity ; to overcome the sensuous, and to live 
 in the habitual contemplation of tlie invisible, is to 
 attain at length the final aim of existence in ecstatic 
 union with God. This is the view of life that prompted 
 the ancient hermits to withdraw from the world and 
 take to their cells, and it is this that has laid the 
 foundation of the monastic system wherever it has 
 been practised. Whether, however, this abandonment 
 of the active for the contemplative life is in harmony 
 with the truo genius of Christianity may well be 
 doubted ; its note is not that of an isolated self- 
 sufficiency, but that of a yearning aspiration after 
 righteousness. In the Alexandrian Fathers we see 
 the union of both tendencies. While with Origen the 
 mystic element is )iot predominant, it is certainly 
 present, and there can be no mistake as to his " hunger 
 and thirst after righteousness." For him the ideal to 
 be sought by tlie human spirit is "the state without- 
 sorrow, the state of insensibility to all evils, of order 
 and peace — but peace in God." The way to attain 
 this is through self-knowledge, repression of the sen- 
 suous, and due cultivation of " the meditative hour " ; 
 but in all this he sees nothing inconsistent with the 
 most active endeavours to promote the kingdom of j 
 God. Christian pi'oductivity is a necessary conse- 
 quence of Christian receptivity. There M'ill always 
 be visible fruits of the power of Christ working in 
 the soul in the shape of freewill efforts after serving 
 
94 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 Goil Jind doiiii; ^'ot)(l to the bix'ilircn. Tliruiigh .such 
 - service, througli faith in and fellowsliip with the Logos, 
 " throu:;-li loyal subniis.sion to rrovidence, and tlirough 
 ^ the desire ol" heaven, the spirit of man becomes godlike 
 ' and eternally blessed. Viewing the soul as the mirror 
 <. of Deity, and believing that througli tlie contemplation 
 of herself the secret of deification is to be found, Origen 
 uses the ethical systems of Greek philosophy as stepping- 
 stones towards the ultimate attainment of this high 
 destiny. 
 
 Worthy of note also in this connection is Origen's 
 theory of knowledge and its relation to faith. In his 
 c: view knowledge is essentially recollection. It is the 
 result of recalling fundamental truths imprinted on the 
 human soul by the Creator, and even in its growth 
 through the continued energy of men's minds the 
 divine element, i.a. the beneficent influence of the 
 J^ogos, is at work. In this way knowledge may be 
 gleaned from the field of philosophy as well as from 
 that of revelation. It was this conviction that led 
 Origen to incorporate so man}^ philosophical doctrines 
 with those of Scripture, and to weave them into one 
 heterodox system, the essential harmony of which in 
 all its parts was, however, probably clear enough to his 
 own mind. And if he did admit elements alien to the 
 genius of Christianity, he must at least be acquitted of 
 having either accepted anything directly antagonistic 
 to it or sacrificed any of its fundamental docrines. 
 
 Faith Origen views as a whole-hearted belief mani- 
 festing itself in a ready obedience. While accepting 
 the doctrine of justification by faith alone, he holds 
 ~ that the faith which does not influence conduct is dead. 
 A living faith cannot consist with continuance in sin, 
 
RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY OF ORIGEN 95 
 
 but changes the whole walk and conversation. 11" we 
 really believe in Clirist as our peace, we sliall not stir 
 up strife ; it" we believe that oi" God He is made unto us 
 wisdom, we shall not turn again to folly ; if we believe 
 that He is the poM'cr of God, we shall not remain un- 
 fruitful disciples. Real faith, however, may be perfect 
 or imperfect. Of the former description was that 
 counted to Abraham for righteousness, seeing it had 
 already accredited itself through obedience; of the 
 latter is that of all who have still the spirit of fear 
 and have not received tlie spirit of sonship. But even 
 in its most imperfect measure real faith is alwa}^s im- 
 planted in tlic soul by divine power, and Avlien the 
 true liglit thus comes to a man lie will not fail to 
 advance by the aid of human learning as well as 
 through the enliglitenment of the Holy Gliost to an 
 ever clearer insight into the meaning of Scripture, and 
 to an ever fuller apprehension of the divine glor}^ of 
 the Redeemer. Faith thus gradually develops into 
 knowledge, and tlie life of faith advances with every 
 increase in the number of doctrinal projiositions the 
 trutli of which is recognised. While in its essential 
 content Faith need not embrace more than the main 
 articles of the Christian creed, its objects are alike 
 numerous and manifold, and as a divinely given and 
 gracious power within us it enables tlie true Christian 
 firndy to grasp tlic truth in all its bearings. When 
 Faith and Reason thus combine their forces, the re- 
 sultant product is Christian science. In this higher 
 knowledge there arc two main stages — gnosis or 
 understanding, and wisdom or the direct spiritual 
 vision of truth. 
 
 In the investigation of truth there is, however, 
 
96 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 no liiialiiy. Even to zeal reinforced by grace God's 
 judgments are unsearchable, and His ways past finding 
 out. Human knowledge at its highest reach is l)ut 
 patchwork ; we see in riddles, we know in part. The 
 figures we deal in only take us midway between the 
 shadows of the law and the truth itself. As sinful 
 mortals we have necessarily here a limited horizon, but 
 through the gateway of death the perfected Christian 
 shall pass to a state of larger knowledge in which he 
 shall see no longer through a glass obscurely, but face 
 to face. The treasures of wisdom and knowledge 
 formerly hidden from his view shall then be thrown 
 open to him ; as a veritable son of the Highest he shall 
 fully understand the Scriptures and feed upon the very 
 food of Christ. 
 
 The main idea underlying the religious philosophy of 
 
 *" Origen is that of the indestructible unity of God and 
 
 ' all spiritual essence. If, therefore, the created spirit 
 in the exercise of its own free will shall fall away 
 from God, it must still return to being in Him. The 
 
 - ultimate deification of humanity is a leading idea in 
 the Greek theology. At the same time there is no 
 confounding of Creator and created ; Origen distinctly 
 
 *■ contrasts the one transcendent Essence with the visible 
 creation. He does not, with many pagan philosophers, 
 conceive God as existing at an infinite remove and in 
 absolute isolation from the world. On the contrary, he 
 maintains that, as revealed in Christ, He is innnanent 
 in the whole creation. We live and move and have 
 our being in God just because by His power and reason 
 He fills and holds together all the diversity of the 
 world. The task to which Origen addresses himself 
 thus resendjles in certain respects that attempted by 
 
RELIGIOUS rillLOSOPIIY OF ORIGEN 97 
 
 the Neoplatonists ; for him as for tliciu the problem is 
 how to establish the organic unity of God and the 
 world, and counteract the dualism of Oriental theo- 
 sophics. In general, the system of Origen has much 
 athnity with that of Valentinus, but is distinguished 
 from the latter by the prominence given to the idea of' 
 the freedom of the individual will, and by the rigid 
 exclusion of a fall as applied to any part of the divine 
 pleroma itself. The effort to maintain along with His 
 absolute goodness the absolute causality of God, and to 
 retain the transcendental nature of the human spirit 
 while rejecting Stoic pantheism, has driven every form 
 of mysticism to a twofold conception of the spiritual, 
 and from this ambiguity the system of Origen is not 
 free. As tlie unfolding of the divine essence, the 
 spiritual belongs to God ; as that which is created, it 
 stands in contrast to Him. 
 
 Origen displays much ingenuity in bringing his 
 essentially heterodox system into line with tlie rule of 
 faith as already elaborated by Irengeus, who conceives 
 revelation as the history of salvation, and seeks to find 
 in the literal sense of Scripture and Cluircli tradition 
 the divine "categorical imperative" for men. It is 
 usual to regard Origen's philosophy as embodying (1) 
 the doctrine of God and the unfoldings of His essence, 
 (2) the doctrine of the Fall and its consequences, (3) the 
 doctrine of redemption and restoration.^ Denis' division 
 into (1) Theology, (2) Cosmology, (3) Anthropology, 
 (4) Teleology, while it covers the ground, is somewhat 
 too suggestive of the clear-cut categories of modern 
 systematic theology. 
 
 ^ So, e.g., Redepenning and Haruack. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 The Writings of Origen 
 
 Origen wielded the pen of a ready writer. He was 
 probably a more voluminous author than even moderns 
 like Calvin or Richard Baxter. It is, of course, impos- 
 sible to accept the traditional figure of six thousand as 
 any indication of the real number of his works; but 
 Jerome's (;[uestion, " Which of us can read all that he 
 has written ? " is a sufficient testimony to the magnitude 
 of his literary labours. As a result, perhaps, of the 
 growing suspicion attaching to his name in the Church, 
 the greater part of his writings has perished ; and 
 much of what we do possess is in the form of a by no 
 means accurate translation by Rufinus. The writings 
 of Origen are not limited to any one department of 
 theological investigation ; they range over the entire 
 field. Much, however, has been erroneously ascribed 
 to him, as, e.g., the Philosoj^humemc or Refutation of 
 all Heresies, which in tone and language appears to 
 be a Latin product rather than a Greek, and the 
 Dialogues of one Adamantius De recta in Deum 
 fide. That he should have been the reputed author 
 of the latter work within a century after his death 
 is scarcely surprising in view of the fact that even 
 during his lifetime he had to complain of undue 
 
THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN 99 
 
 liberties being taken alike with his works and with 
 his name. 
 
 i. Origen's Contributions to Textual Criticis^n 
 
 Jewisli opinion witli reference to the Septuagint had 
 been gradually changing. For long this translation 
 enjoyed great popularity among the Hellenists, and 
 seems to have been read even in some Palestinian 
 synagogues. Josephus makes extensive use of it. But 
 when by its help it was sought to establish the truth 
 of Christianity as against Judaism, the Jews began to 
 repudiate it as a mutilated rendering of the Hebrew 
 Scriptures, and gave preference to other translations, 
 especially to that of Aquila, which was more literal 
 and Hebraistic. Traces of disputes between Jews 
 and Christians regarding the LXX occur as early as 
 Justin's time ; ^ and a century later, wdien Origen was at 
 tlie height of his activity, the advocates of Christianity 
 had constantly flung in their teeth the taunt that the 
 proof texts they adduced either did not exist, or were 
 not recognisable in the Hebrew original. Through 
 frequent collisions with Jewish opponents who en- 
 trenched themselves behind this position, Origen must 
 soon have become cognisant of the corrupt state of the 
 LXX text in the MSS. then current. Its wide circula- 
 tion, the frequency and haste with which copies were 
 made, and the tendency of transcribers arbitrarily to 
 add or omit, to alter or improve, produced a tantalising 
 crop of " various readings," and even in Origen's time 
 must have rendered the recovery of the original text a 
 virtual impossibility. Yet, so far as it was practicable, 
 ' Dialogue with Tryjiho, cliaps. 71-73. 
 
lOO ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 the Herculean task of a critical restoration was under- 
 taken by tliis dauntless teacher of Alexandria. As an 
 example of sheer pluck and monumental industry there 
 is perhaps nothing in the annals of scholarship to 
 compare with this first achievement in the field of 
 biblical criticism. In entering upon this work, at 
 which he toiled for eight and twenty years, Origen's 
 aim was partly critical and partly polemical. On the 
 one hand, he aimed at the improvement of the text 
 of the LXX by providing a recension more reliable 
 than the text of any single manuscript then existing ; 
 on the other hand, he sought to exhibit the real state of 
 the case as between the LXX and the Hebrew text, so 
 that Christians might no longer be at a disadvantage in 
 their disputations with the Jews. The critical task was 
 the necessary preliminary to the securing of the con- 
 troversial vantage-ground desired. 
 
 Financed and encouraged by Ambrosius, Origen 
 began to collect MSS. of the Septuagint. His collation 
 of these revealed an amount of wanton divergence that 
 rendered it hopeless to arrive at the true text by mere 
 comparison of MSS. Nor, believing as he did that the 
 Hebrew text had been tampered with by the later 
 Jews, could he hope by its means to reconstruct the 
 Greek text in its original form, although in passages 
 where there could be no reason to suspect intentional 
 falsification, the Hebrew text might prove a valuable 
 aid. There remained, liowever, one other important 
 factor in the case. This was the existence of several 
 Greek translations of the Old Testament other tlian the 
 Alexandrian. Reference has already been made to that 
 of Aquila, a Jewish proselyte of Sinope, which appeared 
 during the reign of Hadrian, and was afterwards issued 
 
THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN loi 
 
 ill a second edition even more IlelDraistic than tlic 
 first. Half a ceiitiiiy later, Tlieodotion, au Ebiunite of 
 Ephesus, publiblied what is practically a revised edition 
 of the LXX with a new translation of the Book of 
 Daniel, which entirely superseded the older Alexandrian 
 version, and is still printed in copies of the LXX. 
 Shortly afterwards a third Greek translation was 
 executed by Symniachus, also an Ebionite, and of 
 Samaritan extraction. His translation is freer than 
 Aquila's, and is also characterised by greater elegance 
 and purer Greek. In addition to these Origen made 
 use of other three anonymous versions, known, in 
 accordance with the position assigned to them in his 
 great work, as the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh. Of the 
 latter, however, he only makes partial use ; possibly 
 they were incomplete, or the copies which he possessed 
 may have been so. One of them was found by him 
 at Jericho; another he discovered at Nicopolis, while 
 journej'ing to Greece ; when and where he secured 
 the third is uidcnown. All of them were probably 
 older, as they were also more of the nature of free 
 paraphrases, than the translations of Tlieodotion and 
 Symniachus. While unable to adjudge any one of 
 these versions to be in itself superior to the LXX, 
 Origen saw how the latter might be corrected and 
 supplemented by comparison with them as well as 
 with the Hebrew. They were more or less based upon 
 (presumably ditferent texts of) the LXX, and had not 
 as yet suffered from arbitrary perversions. Having 
 collected the available MSS., Origen set to work upon 
 Ids great edition of the Old Testament. It is usually 
 called the Hcxai')la, from the circumstance that each 
 page consisted of six parallel columns, showing at a 
 
102 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 <rlancc the whole of the material for arrivinsj at tlic 
 most reliable text of tlie Sept\ui<^int, and for ascertaiii- 
 incr how far that text reall}' coincides with, or deviates 
 from, tlie original Hebrew. The first column to the 
 right contained the Hebrew text, the second the same 
 text transliterated into Greek, the third the translation 
 of Aquila, the fonrth that of Symmaclms, the fifth the 
 Septuagint, and the sixth the version of Theodotion. 
 While the entire Old Testament was thus dealt with, 
 certain of the books composing it were set down in 
 two, and in some instances tliree, additional columns 
 containing the so-called Fifth, Sixth, and >Se\cnth 
 versions.^ 
 
 In forming his Hexaplar text Origen proceeded on 
 the principle of retaining the original LXX, and making 
 use of critical signs to indicate how and where it 
 differed from tlie Hebrew. Wliat was lacking in the 
 LXX, but occurred in the Hebrew and in one or more 
 of the other translators, was marked with an asterisk 
 (*) and the name of the source ; - what stood in the 
 LXX, but had no equivalent in the Hebrew, he marked 
 with an obelus (^).3 Where different MSS. of the 
 LXX deviated from one anotlier, lie gave preference 
 
 ^ See specimen page in De Wette's Introduction to the Old Trsfamenf, 
 01" in Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Itomem Biograjihy ctnd Mytho- 
 logy. 
 
 2 These lactmce were supplied mostly from Theodotion, but not seldom 
 from A(juila, and sometimes from Symmaclms. 
 
 ^ " In later copies these marks were unfortunately often omitted. 
 The Hexaplar text became mixed up with the true LXX, and the 
 modern critic is sometimes tcmiited to forget how much the Eastern 
 Cliurcli owed to this first attempt to go back to tlie Hebrew Old Testa- 
 ment, in his impatience at the obliteration by the adoption of Hexaplar 
 corrections of imjiortant divci-gcncos of the LXX Irom the JIassoretic 
 text" (W. Robertson Smith, art. "Bible" in Uncy. Brit.). 
 
THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN 103 
 
 to the reading' which had the support of the other 
 translators. 
 
 Origen also prepared another edition of the Old 
 Testament containing only the text of the Scptuagint, 
 and the versions of Aquila, Thcodotion, and Sym- 
 machus. This was arranged on the same plan as the 
 larger work, and was known as the Tetrcqjla. As to 
 its precise relation to the Hexapla, however, scholars 
 are not agreed. Some regard it as the earlier work 
 upon which the Hexapla was based, and as having 
 contained the LXX in the usual text merely ; according 
 to others, it was issued later than, and as a minor 
 edition of, the Hexapla, with the improved text of the 
 LXX reproduced from the latter, but without the 
 critical signs and the suggested additions and omissions. 
 To both works Origen supplied short marginal notes, a 
 large proportion of which consisted of mystical explana- 
 tions of Hebrew proper names, while some appear to 
 have contained a Greek version of readings found in 
 the Samaritan and Syriac texts. 
 
 Little now remains of these great early monuments 
 of Chi'istian erudition. They were too huge for tran- 
 scription, and seem to have perished in the destruction 
 of Cffisarea by the Arabians in 653. About the begin- 
 ning of the third century they were brought to that 
 city and placed in the library of Pampliilus, who in 
 collaboration with Eusebius extracted the Hexaplar 
 text of the LXX, along with its diacritical signs, etc., 
 and circulated it broadcast among the churches of 
 Palestine. Jerome, who speaks of these MSS. as 
 Palcvstinensos codices} also made extensive use of it. 
 As separate copies of the later translations were also 
 ' Fra/. in Paraliji. 
 
104 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 multii^lied, many Church Fathers, oven without access 
 to the Hexaphi itseli", were able to avail themselves 
 of its contents; and since Petrus ]\lorimis (in the 
 sixteenth century) led the way, several attempts 
 have been made to restore as far as possible the 
 lost work by collecting the extant frat^mcnts from 
 the patristic writings.^ In the seventli century a 
 slavishly literal Syriac translation was made from 
 the Hexaplar text of the LXX, retaining the Ori- 
 genic signs, but without specifying the sources from 
 which additions have been adopted. Arabic versions 
 liave also been prepared from the Greek Hexaplar 
 text. 
 
 The important critical work done by Origen for the 
 text of the Septuagint, his strong declaration as to the 
 want of uniformity in the text of the Gospels,- and a 
 misunderstanding of Jerome's references to " the MSS. 
 of Adamantius," ^ led to the erroneous belief that he 
 also prepared a recension of the New Testament text. 
 As an exegete, of course, he sought the correct read- 
 ings, and the great amount of textual variation in the 
 Greek MSS. of the New Testament caused him care- 
 fully to revise and correct obvious errors of tran- 
 scription in his own manuscript or manuscripts.^ His 
 reverence for the letter of Scripture prex'ented him, 
 however, from admitting any merely conjectural 
 emendations into his text, although he adopted several 
 
 ■* Cf. especially Field, Orir/cnis Hcxajiloriim qivc sujiersinit, 2 vols., 
 Oxon, 1867-1874. 
 
 2 In Malt. xix. 19. 
 
 ^ I.e. the MSS. used liy Origen, and not a recension of liis own. 
 
 * He used more than one, and did not confine himself to one " family," 
 the text of Mark used liy liim for in Malt, being (accordinj,' to Griesliach) 
 Western, while that cited in the in Joann. is Alexandrian, 
 
THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN 105 
 
 in liis commentaries.^ It is furtlicr probable that 
 Ori^cu'.s ])uritie(l text was, along with the major part 
 of his works, copied by Pamphilus, that it was i'ollowed 
 by Eusebius, whose quotations so remarkably coincide 
 with those of Origen, and that it obtainccl wide 
 currency in the fifty copies ordered through Eusebius 
 by the emperor Constantine. Its influence is even 
 clearly traceable in the text us receptus of the present 
 day. Still, Origcn made no such recension of the New 
 Testament as he did of the text of the LXX in the 
 Jlexapla, upon wliich his fame as a critic mainly rests. 
 Biblical scholarship owes to him a lasting debt of 
 gratitude as the brilliant pioneer of that critical treat- 
 ment of the sacred writings which has jaclded such 
 valuable results in our time. 
 
 ii. Apologetic Work of Orujen 
 
 Towards the close of the reign of Marcus Aurelius 
 (c. 176) a strong attack upon Christianity was made 
 in a work entitled 'aa>)()/)5 Aoyog, or the True Discourse. 
 This was written by Celsus, doubtfully identified by 
 some with Celsus the friend of Lucian, who wrote a 
 work on magic, and was an Epicurean. The s^'^idpoint 
 of the author of the True Discourse is substantially 
 Platonic. Origen, who does not profess to know the 
 facts, suggests that he either concealed his Epicurean 
 views, and had become a convert to a better system, 
 or was merely a namesake of Celsus the Epicurean 
 
 ^ In JIatt. viii. 23 and parallel passacjcts he supports the reading 
 Tepyeayji'Qu, although he found it in no MS., and in John i. 28, misled 
 by a popular legend, he preferred to read " Bethabara " for " Bethany " ; 
 but altliough both of these readings gained currency through his inllu- 
 ence, it does not appear that he actually inserted thcni in his text. 
 
io6 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 (iv. 54); and wliilc he hiiii.scl£ on the whole inclines to 
 the former of these alternatives, the real state of the 
 case favours the latter. 
 
 Great interest and importance attach to this work as 
 the first onslaught upon Cliristianity by one possessing 
 a fairly competent knowledge of its real character and 
 claims. Celsus perceived that it was a power which 
 had to be reckoned with, and in his acute and able 
 treatise, which anticipates many of the scientific argu- 
 ments used against Christianity in modern times, he 
 virtually urged all that could be said against the 
 religion of Christ from the standpoint of cultured 
 paganism. Celsus was not ill-fitted for his task. He 
 was familiar not only with Greek thought and litera- 
 ture, but also with the Christian literature of the 
 period (iv. 52, viii. 15); he had some acquaintance 
 with the Old Testament; lie knew the Four Gospels, 
 especially that of Matthew ; he had an idea of the 
 main trend of the Pauline theology ; he had obviously 
 made diligent inquiries among the Jews, and liml 
 apparently read some Jewish and apocryphal works ; 
 he had travelled much, and had frequently conversed 
 with Christians. Not only, however, is he well in- 
 formed ",' :t ^''-' scarcely an exaggeration to say that no 
 more plausible dissertation against the Christian faith 
 has ever been penned. As an illustration of the art of 
 putting an opponent's case in tlie worst light it is 
 singularly clever. Yet it " lost its whole point " owing 
 to a serious misconception on the part of Celsus. 
 Altliough aware of the distinction between "the great 
 Church " and tlie heretical sects (v. 59), he nevertheless 
 treats as Christian doctrine whatever any sectary 
 calling liiiiiself by the Christian name chose to teach, 
 
THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN 107 
 
 and is thus o'uilty, as Origon complaius, ui" the i^Tossesfc 
 iiusreprcsentation (iii. 13, vi. 24). 
 
 Anotliei" interesting feature of the True Discourse 
 is that it shows Celsus antl Origen to have been not so 
 far apart in their fundamental postulates. Philoso- 
 phically and theologically, they were more closely 
 allied than Origen suspected, and he is sometimes able 
 to meet his antagonist only by speculatively recon- 
 structing the Church doctrine in dispute. Both were 
 Platonists, but witli a difference. As an eclectic 
 philosopher Celsus strove to bring his Platonic prin- 
 ciples into harmony witli the doctrines of Heraclitus, 
 I'ythagoras, and others; Origen rejected the dualism 
 wliich lay at the root of these systems. Celsus held 
 that matter is uncreated and coeternal with God ; 
 Origen taught that God is the Creator of all things. 
 Even where their presuppositions do coalesce there are 
 divergences ; yet with all these there is affinity. 
 Celsus conceived God as pure Intelligence, re\'ealing 
 Himself in the totality of ideas, of which the world 
 of sense is the reflection. Sun, moon, and stars are 
 revelations of God, who exercises a general providence 
 through the laws of nature, and a special care for His 
 creatures through the mediation of the " demons " or 
 lower deities. These are the gods of the old national 
 religions, Greek and barbarian alike. They are super- 
 intending spirits who guard the various quarters of 
 the earth (v. 25), and this is the element of truth 
 underlying the ancient mythologies. Some of them 
 are scarcely higher than man, others are almost purely 
 divine. As the gods of those who can rise to virtue 
 but not to knowledge, their relation to the life of the 
 soul is Gnostic rather than Christian ; yet on the whole 
 
io8 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 tlicy form, in tlic .system of Celsus, a sort of counter- 
 part to the Christian dcjctrine of angels. 
 
 If, however, Celsus and Origen may be .said to have 
 started from principles common to both, they neverthe- 
 less arrived at diametrically opposite results. Origen 
 was all for Clu-ist ; Celsus liad not a good word either 
 for Christ or for Christians. Even for the impressive 
 sufterings of the former, and the silent martyrdom of 
 the latter, he had only insulting cpitliets of mockery 
 and scorn. In the bitterness of his attack upon 
 Christianity he at once outdistanced all its opponents 
 — many of whom, e.g. Plotinus and Porphyry, acknow- 
 ledge the piety of Jesus wliile they freely lash Kis 
 followers — and abandoned the ground so firmly taken 
 up by Origen, who evidently grudged him the name 
 of Platonist, and would fain have classed him with 
 the less honoured Epicureans. As a fierce antagonist 
 and merciless critic of the Christian 'religion, Celsus 
 was "the Voltaire of the second century." 
 
 Owing to the extensive verbatim extracts preserved 
 in Origen's reply, and the consecutive method therein 
 ai.lopted, we can form a tolerabl}'- accurate notion of 
 Celsus's treatise as a whole. In his Introduction he 
 charges Christians with maintaining secret associations 
 in violation of the law, and then proceeds with an air 
 of impartiality to refer to their doctrinal and ethical 
 .systems. The one is of barbarian origin, and the other 
 contains nothing new. The attitude of Christians 
 towards idolatry is correct, but was adopted by 
 Heraclitus long before them. C]iri.st was a sorcerer, 
 and His followers practise incantations. One might 
 as well worship the phantoms of Hecate as exercise 
 the blind faith of Christians, who say, "Do not 
 
THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN 109 
 
 examine, but believe." In order furtlier to asperse 
 the origin of Christianity, he excludes the Jews from 
 tlie eateij^ory of ancient and learned nations holding 
 in common certain rational principles by means of 
 which they all laid some stone on the cairn of truth, 
 and asserts that Moses borrowed his doctrines and laws 
 from Egyptian and other sources. In the main body of 
 his Discourse Celsus, availing himself of the a fortiori 
 argument, attempts to show (1) that Christianity is 
 untenable from the standpoint of Judaism, as Jesus 
 does not fit the character of the Jewish Messiah ; and 
 (2) that as the IMessianic idea of i\\Q Jews is in itself 
 preposterous, Christianity is thus deprived of the last 
 vestige of support. While this expresses accurately 
 the general trend of his work, he does not strictly 
 follow any clear-cut plan. He cared little for artistic 
 effect so long as he could <leal a deadly blow at 
 Christianity. To strike at it through Judaism showed 
 consummate skill in tactics, although in view of the 
 renewed attack from his own philosophical standpoint it 
 involved a certain amount of repetition and confusion.^ 
 The main part of his work, in which he seeks to 
 destroy the fundamental doctrine of Christianity, 
 Celsus supplements by a critical review of particular 
 doofmas. Amonof the doctrines thus dealt with are 
 those concerning humility and the kingdom of heaven, 
 a supcrcelestial God, Satan, the Son of God, the 
 creation of the world, and the sending of God's Son 
 to a corrupt race like the Jews. What is true in 
 Christianity is represented as an inferior version of 
 the teaching of the Greek philosophy, or as a feeble 
 
 ' For a careful summary of the True Discourse the student is referred 
 to Patrick's I'he Apology of Origm. 
 
no ORIGEN AND GRKEK THEOLOGY 
 
 echo of otlier religions systems. All the ioli<^ious con- 
 ceptions of Christians, even that of eternal life, are 
 characterised as grossly material, and many of them 
 as inconceivably absurd. The True Discourse closes 
 with a spirited defence of pagan worship, and a some- 
 what pathetic appeal to Christians to co-operate with 
 the king as loyal citizens. This is creditable both to 
 the sagacity and to the temper of its author. But 
 " when the persecutor thus found his weapons break in 
 his grasp, and stooped to appeal to the generosity of his 
 victim, it is evident that the battle was already lost." ^ 
 During the reigns of Gordian and Philip the Arabian, 
 the Church was hai^pily free from persecution. The 
 effect of this was to accelerate its growth to an extent 
 which could hardly fail to arouse the opposition of the 
 heathen. In view of the weight attached in pagan 
 circles to the work of Celsus, and in view also of their 
 own incapacity, many Christians avowedly desiderated 
 a thoroughgoing defence of their faith, to which they 
 could confidently refer every gainsayer. Accordingly, 
 more than half a century after its publication, the 
 work of Celsus was sent by Ambrosius to Origen with 
 a request that he would refute it. Although singularly 
 well equipped for the task, Origen undertook it with 
 reluctance, believing Christianity to be its own best 
 apology. Yet he threw himself into the controversy 
 with characteristic energy, and in his reply kept in 
 view not only the demolition of the arguments of 
 Celsus, but also the positive presentation of Christian 
 ti'utli. Needless to say, the eight books which compose 
 the treatise against Celsus, and which are extant in 
 the original Greek, are of great value as a source for 
 ' Bigg, Christian Plalonids, etc., p. 2G7. 
 
THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN iii 
 
 the history and condition of tlic Churcli in the first 
 half of the third century. They are marked by keen 
 spiritual insight, vast erudition, masterly ability, and 
 mature thought. They form the Apology par excel- 
 lence of Christian antiquity, and have been the armoury 
 from which weapons have all along been drawn for the 
 defence of the Christian faith. Accordinor to Eusebius 
 of Csesarea, Origen's reply, as a refutation of all objec- 
 tions, actual or possible, past or future, left notliing to 
 be desired ; while centuries later it was still spoken 
 of as " a golden work which can never be sufficiently 
 pi-aised." ^ Still, the Contra Celsuni is not without its 
 defects. The brightness of Origen's own faith in the 
 ultimate triumph of Christianity leads him to under- 
 rate his antagonist, of whose work, in spite of its 
 learning and ability, he constantly speaks in very dis- 
 paraging terms. The method adopted is also confusing 
 and tiresome for the reader. Departing from the 
 systematic treatment at first contemplated hy him, he 
 takes up the objections of Celsus seriatim, and replies 
 with great vehemence to each. This change of plan 
 may have saved time to Origen, but has had the 
 opposite effect for his readers, involving, as it does, 
 needless repetition, besides marring the unity of the 
 work. " As the book stands, we have all the materials 
 for an apology, but they lie without order or propor- 
 tion ; it is ' a quarry of weighty dogmatic disquisitions,' 
 but not a symmetrical building ; and it is only by 
 bringing together isolated and scattered thoughts that 
 we can ascertain what Origen taught on the great 
 problems of Christian Apologetics." ^ It must further 
 
 1 Voss, quoted by Fabricius, Delectus Argumentorvm, p. 63. 
 - Patrick, The Ai)ologij of Orirjcn, p. 119. 
 
112 ORIGEN AND GREEK TIIEOEOGY 
 
 be admitted that in details Origen's reasoning occasion- 
 ally descends to the level of casuistry. Celsus brings 
 forward objections which he either ignores or — con- 
 sidering that he is dealing with one who does not 
 share the Christian presuppositions — fails fairly to 
 meet. Yet, when all is said, the fact remains that 
 many of the best things Origen ever wrote are con- 
 tained in this apologetic work. It is, moreover, 
 pervaded by a fine Christian spirit. In spite of the 
 provokingly biting sarcasm of his opponent, he never 
 indulges in anything like abusive language ; " this low 
 jester Celsus" (iii. 22) is perhaps tke worst epithet he 
 applies to him. With the most persevering patience 
 he traverses nearly every specific objection raised by 
 that writer against Christianity, and he candidly 
 admits that on some points he is correct in his view 
 (iii. 16). Every justice is done to the culture of the 
 ancients. In the entire work there is nothing out of 
 keeping with the ideal of Christian meekness so 
 impressively drawn in its opening sentence : " When 
 false witnesses testified against our Lord and Saviour 
 Jesus Christ, He remained silent ; and when unfounded 
 charges were brought against Him, He returned no 
 answer, believing that His whole life and conduct 
 among the Jews were a better refutation than any 
 answer to the false testimony, or than any formal 
 defence against the accusations." 
 
 The nature of Celsus's attack necessarily determined 
 the general scope of Origen's reply. It w^as not within 
 his purview to combat the essential errors of paganism ; 
 his task was the narrower one of answering the specific 
 objections urged against Christianity. Meanly enough, 
 Celsus had prefaced these with the declaration that its 
 
THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN 113 
 
 votaries were di.sl(\yal i-cbels who adliered to an illegal 
 secret system, well knowing that to bring such a 
 charge was a virtual sentence of death. Origen replies 
 tliat, so far from being unpatriotic, Christians are pre- 
 eminently benefactors of their countr3^ If they do 
 not fight for kings with the sword, they render them 
 still more effective help by their prayers ; if they 
 decline public offices, it is that they may perform a 
 diviner service in the Church of God (viii. 73-75). 
 Their " secret associations " amount to nothing more 
 than a league against the tyranny of the devil (i. 1) ; 
 their doctrine is better known to the world than the 
 tenets of philosophers (i. 7). What likelihood is there 
 of those rebelling against the State whose Master for- 
 bids slaughter, violence, and revenge (iii. 7, 8), and 
 whose religious principles re([uire a willing subjection 
 to civil rulers ? Philosophers are not censured for 
 abandoning their country's customs ; why then should 
 Christians be ? A distinction must be made between 
 the written law of cities and the law of nature, i.e. the 
 law of God ; and where these clash. Christians are only 
 reasonable in seeking to regulate their lives by the 
 prescriptions of the latter, which is " king of all things" 
 (v. 35-40). 
 
 As a philosopher, Celsus is biassed against Chris- 
 tianity on several grounds. For one thing, he views it 
 as fit only for unlettered rustics. The style of the 
 sacred writings he despises as rude and simple, and 
 their contents, where true, as a coarse recliauffe of 
 what has been more elegantly expressed before. He 
 cites the Christian precept, " Whosoever shall smite 
 thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also," 
 and represents it as a vulgar reproduction of the 
 
114 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 Platonic version of the same trutli : " We must never 
 do injury to any ; we must not even, as most people 
 think, take revenge for evil done " (vii. 58). To this 
 Origen wisely replies that the style of address adopted 
 in Scripture and by our Lord Himself was one suited 
 to a gospel intended for the multitude, and that while 
 comparatively few have profited by the beautiful and 
 polished style of Plato, books written in simpler style 
 have been of service to many. This Origen says with- 
 out disparaging Plato, " for the great world of men has 
 usefully produced him also." 
 
 Another thing laid by Celsus to the charge of 
 Christianity is that it exalts faith at the expense of 
 reason, and so puts a premium upon foolishness. It 
 was the habit of Christians, he says, to represent that 
 there was no need for investigation, and to keep re- 
 peating, " Your faith will save you." Origen answers 
 that this is not a true statement of the case ; that in 
 the Christian system there is ample scope for investiga- 
 tion; and that in laying stress upon faith Christians 
 are only giving effect to a principle underlying all 
 things human. The sailor exercises faith when he 
 puts out to sea ; so does the farmer when he casts seed 
 into the ground. Even into the choice of a particular 
 school of pliilosophy faith must enter ; and if we must 
 repose faith in the founder of such a school, is it not more 
 reasonable to trust in God Himself, and in Him whose 
 words exert such a marvellous power in the lives of 
 the believing ? However desirable it might be for all to 
 study philosophy, only a few have leisure and talent for 
 this. Is it not therefore well that so many should have 
 been redeemed from the practice of wickedness through 
 r.iilh alone, and apart from pliilosopliical reasons? 
 
THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN 115 
 
 The rooted antipathy of Celsus to Christianity was 
 further due to its attitude towards the sinful and the 
 worthless. In this aspect it ran counter to his philo- 
 sophical beliefs, " for to change nature thoroughly is 
 exceedingly difficult," as well as to his sense of pro- 
 priety, for he fully endorsed the Pharisaic complaint, 
 "This man receiveth sinners." Origen replies that 
 there is no absolute preference shown for the sinner as 
 such ; it is only where the element of penitence comes 
 in that he is ranked higher than one who is reckoned 
 a lesser sinner, but who is devoid of tlie conscious- 
 ness of sin, and proud of his good qualities. Moreover, 
 although the gates of the Church are open to the most 
 sinful, it is from the ranks of the virtuous that her 
 adherents are mostly drawai (iii. 65). 
 
 Celsus does not content himself with giving ex- 
 pression to such prejudices against Christianity; he 
 deliberately seeks to undermine the foundation on 
 wdiich it rests. To begin with, he denies the need for 
 a revelation. Origen shows that, apart from such a 
 source, no ade(|uate knowledge of God can be acquired 
 by men, and (quotes from Plato's Timcaiis to prove 
 that this is acknowledged by philosophers themselves. 
 Celsus goes on to affirm that, even assuming a revela- 
 tion to be necessary, the Scriptures do not possess that 
 superiority, that originality, or that worthy conception 
 of Deity which would alone entitle them to such a 
 character. While granting that philosophy and Chris- 
 tianity have some truths in common, Origen asserts 
 that on a comparison the superiority of the latter is 
 disclosed ; that in no case has a Christian dogma been 
 bon-owed from Greek philosophy ; and that it is absurd 
 to suppose that uneducated men like Peter and John 
 
ii6 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 should liave based their teaching about God on a mis- 
 representation of passages in the epistles of Plato. 
 The originality of the Christian doctrines is attested 
 by their moral force. Philosophers will gravely dis- 
 course about the soul, and then straightway sacrifice a 
 cock to Esculapius; whereas the power of those Scrip- 
 tures which Celsus calls " vulgar " is such as to convert 
 multitudes from vice to virtue, and inspire cowards 
 with a moral courage tliat despises death (iii. 6). The 
 scriptural conception of God is not, as Celsus main- 
 tains, debasing and purely material ; its anthropomor- 
 phisms are simply an adaptation to our weak capacitj^ 
 and are to be understood figuratively. Origen agrees 
 so far with Celsus that man's knowledge of God is 
 limited, but affirms that we know some of His 
 attributes. Although being incorporeal He cannot be 
 seen, the vision of Him is yet possible to a pure heart. 
 It is the inner man that is created after the image of 
 God. 
 
 Celsus's criticism of the Scriptures is positive, how- 
 ever, as well as negative. The Mosaic cosmogony and 
 Old Testament records in general he views as replete 
 with silly absurdities, and the distinctive rites of 
 Judaism as borrowed from other nations. He denies 
 that a race like the Jews could have been " belo\ ed of 
 God," and represents Christianity as at once based 
 upon and in sharp conflict with Judaism. Origen 
 defends the inspiration of the Mosaic writings, and 
 points to the monotheism as well as to the lofty stand- 
 ard of morality that obtained among the Jews in 
 proof of their divine calling. They were forsaken by 
 God only when they sinned, and were never utterly 
 abandoned until they slew Jesus. Circumcision and 
 
THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN 117 
 
 abstinence from swine's ilesli may have been practised 
 by others than Jews, but with a different motive. The 
 divine authority of Scripture is attested by the fulfil- 
 ment of prophecy. Christians accept the inspiration 
 of the Hebrew Scriptures, but differ from the Jews as 
 to their interpretation. It is not with the letter, 
 but the spiritual truth of Judaism that the Christian 
 has to do ; for this is not a national, but a cosmopolitan 
 religion. " We have to say, moreover, that the gospel 
 has a demonstration of its own, more divine than any 
 established by Grecian dialectics. And this diviner 
 method is called by the apostle the 'demonstration of 
 the Spirit and of power': of 'the Spirit' on account 
 of the prophecies, wliich are sufficient to produce faith 
 in any one who reads them, especially in those things 
 wliich relate to Christ ; and of ' power,' because of the 
 signs and wonders which we must believe to have been 
 performed, both on many other grounds and on this, 
 that traces of them are still preserved among those 
 who regulate their lives by the precepts of the gospel " 
 (i. 2). 
 
 But it was the doctrine of the Incarnation that con- 
 stituted the main point in the controversy between 
 Celsus and Origen. In attacking this Celsus had tried 
 to storm the citadel of the Christian faith. With great 
 vigour Origen repels the assault, and shows that Celsus 
 proceeds upon a misapprehension as to the nature of 
 God, the value of man, and the moral results of Chris- 
 tianity. No Christian, he says, maintains tlie descent 
 of God into humanity in the sense that He tliereby 
 vacated His throne in heaven. It was man's work, 
 not God's, that needed repair. Tlie advent of Christ 
 was not the outcome of a sudden impulse, but the 
 
ii8 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 final sta<j^c in a long development. That He who was 
 previously in the form oi' God should lay aside His 
 glory so as to be accessible to men involves no such 
 change as that alleged by Celsus ; — not from good to 
 evil, for He did no sin ; nor from honour to shame, for 
 He knew no sin ; nor from happiness to misery, for 
 He humbled Himself, and was none the less blessed. 
 Who would suggest such a process of degeneration in 
 connection with the work of a physician, whose benev- 
 olence leads him to view and handle repulsive objects 
 in order that suiierers may be cui'ed ? 
 
 If Celsus thought that the Incarnation degraded 
 God, he also considered that it unduly exalted man. 
 In his pantheistic materialism he virtually puts man 
 on a level with the brute creation. Origen, on the 
 other hand, affirms man's position in creation to be 
 uni(j[ue. To liken to a worm of the earth him who 
 was made in the image of God is to calumniate human 
 nature. While Celsus cannot conceive of God as 
 coming into contact with matter, Origen knows no 
 pollution save that of moral evil. The consecrated 
 body is the temple of God. It is for man chiefly, 
 though not exclusively, that all things have been 
 framed by the Creator. The dogs eat of the crumbs 
 which fall from the master's table. The comparison 
 ^\•hich Celsus makes between the actions of men and 
 those of ants and bees afFoi-ds no proof of their equality. 
 God is not angry with apes or flics, but He punishes 
 men who transm-ess His law. While according to 
 Celsus there is in this perfect universe no moral dis- 
 order, no sin, and therefore no need of redemption, 
 Oi'igen maintains that in the exercise of his freedom 
 the rational creature has brought moral confusion into 
 
THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN 119 
 
 the cosmos, and that in order to repair this disaster 
 God lias revealed Himself through conscience, prophecy, 
 and the Incarnation. 
 
 Celsus was further led by his doctrine of evil to 
 maintain that the end of tlie Incarnation is unattain- 
 able. Redemption is impossible ; moral evil cannot be 
 cured ; everytliing revolves in a circuit ; history liter- 
 ally repeats itself. " If this be true," Origen replies, 
 " our free will is annihilated ; Christians will be re- 
 deemed and unredeemed by turns, and Celsus will 
 periodically write over again this treatise of his ! " 
 Necessitarianism like this is, of course, fatal to Chris- 
 tianity, which makes its appeal to the moral nature of 
 man as a free agent. There is a flavour of piety about 
 the saying of Celsus, that apparent evil may promote 
 the good of the whole ; but evil is none the less evil 
 because it is overruled for good. The position taken 
 up by Celsus amounts to the negation of moral evil. 
 " This is the opiate administered by pantheism in all 
 ages to soothe conscience, deaden human sensibilities, 
 and enable men to contemplate with philosophic in- 
 difference the moral condition of the world, as at once 
 irremediable and not needing remedy." ^ While Origen 
 recognises the value of the evidence of prophecy and 
 miracle, he bases his apology chiefly on moral grounds. 
 To liim tlie proof of the truth of Christianity is the 
 power which it exerts over the hearts and lives of 
 men. In answer to the contention of Celsus that 
 Christians were the adherents of One who had failed, 
 Origen triumpliantly appeals to the circumstance that 
 Christian Churches were everywhere rising up like 
 stars in the surrounding darkness, and that although 
 ^ Bruce, A^iolofjelics, \\- 14. 
 
120 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 it was most inlluciitially opposed, the progress of tlic 
 gospel was in inverse ratio to tlie liostility directed 
 against it. All the assertions an<l arguments of its 
 opponents were invalidated by the incontrovertible 
 lojric of visible fact. 
 
 ^to' 
 
 iii. Exegdical Writings of Origen 
 
 In this department Origcn's labours are prodigious, 
 and range over nearly tlic entire field of Scripture. 
 They comprise (1) Scholia, brief notes, mostly gram- 
 matical, and not necessarily always original, upon 
 obscure and diflicult passages ; (2) Commentaries, 
 which, in spite of the allegoric and dogmatic elements 
 with which they are cumbered, in many respects still 
 serve as models for commentators; (3) Homilies, or 
 expository lectuivs which aimed at edification. Of 
 these works not mucli has been preserved in the Greek 
 original, but considerable portions are extant in Latin 
 translations by Rufinus and Jerome. 
 
 Properly speaking, Origen was the first exegete. 
 Everything done in this direction previously {e.g. by 
 Theophilus of Antioch, Melito of Sardis, and even 
 Pantsenus and Clement) had been merely preparatory 
 to a scientific interpretation of Scripture which views 
 each separate passage in relation to tlie whole. While, 
 of course, no fair comparison can be made between him 
 and modern conmientators, it is no exaggeration to say 
 that the best of tliem are debtors to Origen. One of 
 his great merits is tliat he never shirks a difiiculty ; 
 indeed, from pure love of discussion he frequently 
 suggests doubts to the reader. Nothing could exceed 
 liis passioji for verbal and grammatical accuracy, or 
 
THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN 121 
 
 his linguistic and critical insight, while his knowledge 
 of the ancient theology is uni([ue. And despite recent 
 attempts to belittle his scientific attainments/ there 
 can be no doubt that, relatively to his own age, these 
 were of the highest order. If in handling the Septua- 
 gint he was hampered by his imperfect acquaintance 
 with Hebrew, he was under no such disability with 
 reference to the New Testament. The Greek grammar 
 and language he knew as thoroughly as any Greek 
 scholar of his time. His commentaries, however, are 
 not without faults. They are marred by their excessive 
 length and discursiveness ; they often lack clearness ; 
 they are overloaded with irrelevancies and wearisome 
 repetitions. His view of inspiration compelled him 
 also to adopt the allegorical method, according to 
 which the sacred books are treated ostensibly as an 
 encyclopa3dia of philosophical and dogmatic wisdom, 
 but in reality as a peg on which to hang the com- 
 mentator's own ideas. The plan he follows is that 
 of giving consecutively verse by verse the literal, 
 moral, and spiritual sense. By means of his allegoric 
 spiritualism he can thus gain from any word an 
 outlook into the universal.-^ " The text is but the 
 
 ^ See Denis, Introduction, p. 12 fl". 
 
 - The strange blending of granunatical ami specnlativc exposition so 
 distinctive of Origen is well illustrated in what he gets out of the 
 Inscriptions of the Psalms. The word usually rendered "For the 
 chief musician" he renders "To the end." This leads to an enumera- 
 tion of the notions of different philosophers upon the subject of the 
 end, and is followed by a discussion about the essence and name of 
 God. "Upon Gittith " he interprets to mean "concerning the wine- 
 press," and finds in this the idea of the Church, where the devotion 
 olfered to God represents the coml)in('d outpouring of many hearts, just 
 as in the wine-press the contents of many grape-dusters go to form the 
 wine. 
 
122 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 tlircsliing-floor on wliicli lie pours out all llic harvest 
 of his knowledge, his meditations, his hopes." ^ 
 
 Origcn's principal New Testament commentaries are 
 those on St. Matthew, St. John, and llomans. Chrono- 
 logically, the commentary on St. John was his first 
 great excgetieal work. It was composed of more than 
 thirty-two books, of which, apart from fragments, we 
 possess only nine. Like our modern commentaries, it 
 is prefaced by a general Introduction, dealing with the 
 peculiar characteristics of the Fourth Gospel, and 
 according to it the highest place on account of the 
 stress it lays on the divinity of our Lord. The ex- 
 position itself is marked by that breadth of treatment 
 which is a feature of all Origen's writings. The style 
 is on the whole clear, but sometimes involved and 
 usually diffuse. " In the beginning was the Word " — 
 this forms the subject-matter of the whole of the first 
 book. At the outset he gi\-es all possible senses of 
 this statement, with special consideration of the mean- 
 ings put upon it by heretics. This is followed by a 
 discussion of " the Word," and this again by a disquisi- 
 ti(jn upon the doctrine of creation out of nothing. The 
 second book continues the exposition only as far as 
 chap. i. 7. 
 
 The commentary on Romans was written after his 
 sixtieth year. It was translated, edited, and abbre- 
 viated by Rufinus, and it is not always possible to 
 distinguish between what is his and what is Origen's 
 own. But from Greek fragments still extant, and from 
 other translations, as well as from what we otherwise 
 know of Origen's views, it is clear that Rufinus allowed 
 himself a good deal of latitude in excising whole pas- 
 
 ^ Bigg, Ohrislian PliUonistx, \\. 101 f. 
 
THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN 123 
 
 sajfcs aii<l in correcting: wliat bo deemed heterodox. This 
 is very noticeable as regards, for example, the doctrine 
 of the Trinity. 
 
 A still later date must be assigned to the commentary 
 on St. Matthew, the nine opening books of which 
 have almost entirely perished. The remainder of the 
 work still exists in a somewhat uncouth, but apparently 
 faitliful, Latin translation. As might have been ex- 
 pected, these later products of Origen's pen exhibit a 
 soberness of spirit, a maturity of judgment, and a 
 freedom from exaggeration in strong contrast to the 
 vehement impetuosity of his earlier daj'^s. In them 
 he expresses himself with the calmness of one who 
 has had experience of human life and the feelings 
 incidental to it. Nor does he hesitate in his com- 
 mentary on Matthew to retract the view of chap. 
 xix. 12 wliich led to his own youtliful indiscretion. 
 But with all this there is no deviation from the essen- 
 tial principles of biblical interpretation and exegesis 
 held and practised by him all his life through, and 
 certainly there is no reason to suppose with Ernesti 
 that allegory was merely a weakness of his old age. 
 
 Speaking with tongues was distinctly a gift of a 
 transient kind (1 Cor, xiii. 8). In Origen's time a 
 growingly rigorous Church discipline had virtually 
 banished the practice from Christian gatherings ; only 
 among the Montanists did it to some extent linger on. 
 A substitute for it was found in the Discourse or 
 Homily. This was the name given to the popular 
 expository address which was now regularly delivered 
 in the Churches. Divine service was conducted twice 
 daily, but except on Sundays and feast-days was only 
 very sparsely attended. The audiences were not always 
 
124 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 devout, and it was particularly difficult to secure .silence 
 on the part of garrulous and gossiping women. The 
 Scriptures were read consecutively, and the preacher 
 expounded a portion of what was read, either choosing 
 his text himself or having it given to him by the pre- 
 siding bishop or by the presbyters. All were welcomed 
 at tlie daily services, but the unbaptized were not 
 admitted to the Lord's Supper. In respect of intelli- 
 gence and moral fibre the audiences were of a decidedly 
 mixed character. Some took a very materialistic view 
 of gospel promises ; some conceived God as ruling with 
 despotic cruelty; others were lax enough to fre(juent 
 the racecourse as well as the church. 
 
 To Origon belongs the distinction of being the first 
 great preacher. Li his Homilies ho aims chiefly at the 
 edification of his hearers, and concerns himself more 
 witli allegorical interpretation than with the literal 
 sense of the passages expounded. There is, however, 
 little of the sentimental or pietistic vein about his 
 discourses. The products of a robust mind, they 
 appeal in the main to the intellect rather than to the 
 emotions, and are based on the principle, " Come now, 
 and let us reason together." They are marked by 
 lofty dignity, transparent sincerity, deep moral earnest- 
 ness, and width of outlook. Their author's cultivated 
 scriptural intelligence is reflected in the numerous 
 biblical quotations with which his discourses are inter- 
 spersed. The hortatory element is not conspicuous, 
 but in tlie closing sentences his hearers are usually 
 urged to the performance of some Christian duty. 
 Fr('f|U('ntly ^ he concludes with a summons to rise and 
 play. Of the Iloiiiilli's still extant th(.' most important 
 ' E.fj. ill Luc. SG, 39, 
 
THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN 125 
 
 arc those 011 the Pentateuch, Jeremiali, and St. Luke. 
 A large proportion of the whole were delivered at 
 Caisarea after Origen was sixty years of age. They 
 were taken down by shortliand writers, and owe their 
 inornate and diffuse style to their extemporaneous 
 delivery. They have, however, a charm of their own. 
 " Origen is emphatically ' a man of God,' strong and 
 subtle, yet infinitely humble and gentle, a true Ductor 
 duhitantiuTn, because he knew there was much that 
 he did not know, and yet was not afraid." ^ 
 
 iv. Origen's Dogmatic WorLs 
 
 Of Origen's dogmatic works there is only one com- 
 plete specimen extant, namely, the ITEPI APXHN {De 
 Princpiis, On the Fundamental Doctrines). It is, 
 however, a work of first-rate importance, being indeed 
 the most notable production of the ante-Nicene age. 
 For the most part, unfoi-tunately, we possess it only in 
 the Latin translation of Rufinus. Believing that 
 Origen's works had been malevolently corrupted by 
 heretics, this writer undertook the translation on the 
 express understanding that he should follow the method 
 adopted by Jerome in his translation of the Homilies, 
 that, namely, of excising or amending heterodox state- 
 ments. His motive was, he says, to prevent Origen 
 from being slandered ; and so far as he may have been 
 able to free the text from real corruption his work was 
 no doubt praisewortliy ; yet on many accounts it is 
 permissible to wish that his editorial supervision had 
 been spared. As it is, one can never be certain as to 
 what is Origen's and what is due to Rufinus, except 
 ^ Bigg, Christian Platmiists, p. 130. 
 
126 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 iudccd where the original Greek lias been preserved.^ 
 Happily, however, it is frequently possible to ascertain 
 the real views of Origcn from the Philocalia, — a selec- 
 tion of " choice thoughts " from his works jointly 
 compiled by Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzen. 
 There are also preserved in Photius and in the defence 
 of Origen by Pamphilus certain fragments which are 
 useful for purposes of comparison. 
 
 Written prior to A.D. 228,- the De Prbicipiis falls 
 within the earlier period of Origen's literary activity. 
 It reflects, however, with substantial accuracy the 
 views of his later years. Intended for readers familiar 
 with the philosophical teaching of the times, it aims at 
 giving objective reality to the metaphysical abstractions 
 in which men busied themselves, and is notable as the 
 first attempt at a scientific Christian dogmatic. By 
 such a presentation of the leading doctrines of the one 
 positive religion Origen sought to supersede the gnosis 
 which meant speculation about all forms of religion ; 
 and although frequently the fundamental truths them- 
 selves are overshadowed by the general philosophical 
 speculations of the age, the work displays throughout 
 a spirit of unswerving loyalty to Scripture and to the 
 creed of the Church. The former supplies the material, 
 the latter regulates the use to which it is put in the 
 buildino- up " by all the resources of the intellect and 
 of speculation " of the first system of Christian dogma. 
 As individual opinions are freely expressed in connec- 
 
 ^ This applies to considerable sections of IJooks III. and IV. 
 
 - So Harnack. Sclinitzer, aiiparently upon insuHlcicnt grounds, 
 would date it as earlj^ as 213 ; while Redepenning, erring jirohaMy in 
 the ojiposite direction, thinks it nuist have been composed after Origen's 
 fiftieth year (235). 
 
THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN 127 
 
 (ion witli tlu' elucidation of the several doctrines, the 
 book is really a philosophy of Christianity — though 
 not, as some have thought, a Christian philosophy of 
 the oriirin of beinu" ' — and in its measure a solution of 
 a problem unattempted by Clement, Judged by 
 modern standards, it may lie open to criticism on the 
 ground of occasional vagueness, strained interpretations, 
 digressions, repetitions, etc. It maj' also appear as if 
 the peculiar " trutlis of salvation " are kept too much 
 in the background owing to Christian doctrine being 
 treated as a matter of knowledge. To the former 
 criticism it is sufficient to reply that Origen's was the 
 first attempt " to form a connected series and body of 
 truths " ; to the second, it may be answered that for 
 Origen Christianity was essentially a doctrine of salva- 
 tion. In his view, however, men need not only to be 
 saved from sin, but also, and very specially, from error 
 in science and religion. This explains why to him and 
 to his age doctrine formed the essential content of 
 Christianity. 
 
 Origen's starting-point is the Christian tradition. 
 The facts and customs thus transmitted are to be 
 implicitly accepted as the basis of all further investiga- 
 tion. But the apostles did not clear up everything. 
 Frequently they contented themselves with a brief 
 statement of doctrines, leaving the scientific proof of 
 them to be established by the exercise of Christian 
 talent. In some instances they left the disciple to 
 rely upon science even for the precise definition of 
 dogmas, as well as for the elucidation of their mutual 
 relations and the deduchig of the consequences. The 
 
 ^ This has heon conchisively shown by Schnitzer (p. 22 ff.) in his 
 excellent remarks upon the meaning of the title Jlepl dp^wc 
 
128 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 fiiitli has been once for all delivered to the saints, but 
 it is the t'uuction of the enlightened Christian reason 
 to forniiilate and develop it, and to apply it to the 
 practical wants of men. In short, tliere is perfect 
 liberty of thought and opinion on every point not 
 included in tlie apostolic tradition or rule of faith, of 
 whicli, according to Origen, tliis is the sum — (1) there 
 is one God who created all things out of nothing, who 
 is just and good, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 and the God of the Old and New Testaments; (2) 
 Jesus Christ was begotten of the Father before all 
 creatures, was the servant of the Father in the work 
 of creation, and became man without ceasing to be 
 God ; He was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit ; 
 He did truly suffer, rise again, and ascend into heaven ; 
 
 (3) the Holy Spirit is associated in lionuur and dignity 
 with tlie Father and the Son, and inspired all the 
 saints both under the old and under the new economy ; 
 
 (4) tliere will be a resurrection of the dead, when the 
 body which is sown in corruption will rise in incorrup- 
 tion, and hereafter the soul will inherit eternal life or 
 endure eternal punishment according to its deeds ; (5) 
 ever}' rational soul is a free agent, lured to sin by evil 
 spirits, and helped by good angels to salvation, yet not 
 forced to act rightly or wrongly; (6) tlie Scriptures 
 were wiittcn by the Spirit of God, and have not onlj' 
 an ob\ious meaning, but also a hidden sense perceived 
 by those only on wliom is conferred the grace of the 
 Holy Spirit in tlic word of wisdom and knowledge.^ 
 
 Althcnigli tlie work is not strictly metliodical, it is 
 broadly accurate to say that the first book treats of 
 God and the spirits ; the second, of the world and 
 ^ Preface, p. 4 IT. 
 
THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN 129 
 
 man ; and the third, of sin and redemption. In each 
 of these tln-ee books tlie entire Christian conception of 
 the world is set forth from a different standpoint. Tlie 
 fourth book deals with Holy Scripture. 
 
 In the tirst book (,)rio-en discusses the nature of God 
 and the special relations of the Three Persons of the 
 Godhead to men, who " derive their existence from 
 God the Fatlier, their rational nature from the Word, 
 and their holiness from the Holy Spirit." The true 
 goal of humanity is union with God ; but this can be 
 reached only by a gi'adual process of enlightenment and 
 purification. " By the renewal of the ceaseless working 
 of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in us, in its various 
 stages of progress, shall we be able at some future time 
 perhaps, although with difficulty, to behold the holy 
 and the blessed Mfe, in which (as it is only after many 
 struggles that we are able to reach it) we ought so to 
 continue that no satiety of that blessedness should 
 ever seize us ; but the more we perceive its blessedness, 
 tlie more should be increased and intensified within us 
 the longing for the same, while we ever more eagerly 
 and freely receive and hold fast the Father, the Son, 
 and the Holy Spirit " (i. 3. 8). Negligence may, how- 
 ever, induce general declension ; man may sink lower 
 as well as rise higher. And, in fact, the present position 
 occupied by each rational being has been determined 
 by his previous use of his opportunities and gifts ; it is 
 not due to some having been created essentially holy, 
 others essentially wicked, and others still capable both 
 of virtue and vice. It is because of merit, and not 
 from constitutional necessity, that some rank higher 
 than, and exercise power over others; just as it is 
 owing to their own actions that some have degenerated 
 
I30 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 into iiialiguani dcinons. In Orifi;en's view tlie liiiman 
 race was formed of those occupying an intermediate 
 position, i.e. of those removed from their primal state 
 of blessedness, but not irrecoverably so. He clunf^ to 
 " the larger hope," believing that wliilc at the end of 
 the world God will bestow on each what he deserves, 
 the divine goodness in Christ may bring all His creatures 
 togetlier into a great unity. " Meanwhile," he says, 
 " both in the ages which are seen and temporal, and in 
 those wliich are not seen and eternal, all rational 
 beings wlio have fallen are dealt with according to the 
 order, the character, tlie measure of their deserts. 
 Some in the first, others in the second, some, again, 
 even in the last times, throuii^li "■reatcr and lieavier 
 sufferings, borne through many ages, reformed by 
 sharper discipline, and restored at first by the insti'uc- 
 tion of the angels, and subsequently by tlie powers of 
 a higher grade, and tlms advancing stage by stage to 
 a better condition, reach tliat which is invisible and 
 eternal." But though the rational soul may thus pass 
 from one order to another, it can never sink into the 
 condition of irrational animals (i. 8. 4). 
 
 Under the head of incorporeal and corporeal beings 
 Origen raises a curious and, as he says, " bold " question 
 as to the position of the heavenly bodies — the sun, 
 moon, and stars. On what he regards as adetjuate 
 scriptural grounds, he maintains that they are living 
 and rational beings ; that their spirit was implanted in 
 them from without, and did not come into existence 
 along with their bodies; and tluit at tlie end of the 
 world they shall be released from their bodies, and 
 from the bondage of giving light to the human 
 race, and si i all lonii part of the kingdom which 
 
THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN 131 
 
 Christ sluill deliver up to God the Father that lie 
 may be all in all. 
 
 The second book is mainly devoted to a consideration 
 of the present condition of the world and man, — the 
 rencwino- influence of the incarnation of Christ, and 
 the doctrine of the last things. According to Origen, 
 the great diversity of condition among rational beings 
 is due to the varying degrees of their declension from 
 goodness. But in his ineffable wisdom and power God 
 "grasps and holds together all the diversity of the 
 world," and adapts the vast medley of motives and 
 movements to one harmonious whole. Bodily nature 
 he regards as the result of the infusion of certain 
 qualities into created matter, and as destined to dis- 
 solution when all luive been subjected to Christ. 
 Another fall of rational creatures, however, would 
 necessitate its coming again into existence, though the 
 new world thus called into being would not be a 
 duplicate of the old.^ After showing that there is no 
 deiDiurge, but that the God of the Old Testament is 
 identical with the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and 
 unites in Himself the attributes of justice and goodness, 
 our author proceeds to deal with the incarnation of 
 Christ. On this important subject he advances beyond 
 the position of Clement, who had spoken of the union 
 of the Logos with a human body but not with a human 
 soul, and goes on to develop the doctrine of the 
 Saviour's perfect humanity as accepted by the Church 
 
 ^ Origen suggests two otlier possible views with reference to the end 
 of all things and the sui)reme blessedness, — the one that the bodily 
 snbstance will be changed into an eternal condition corresponding to 
 the merits of those who assume it, and the other that beyond the 
 planetary spheres there is a good land, the abode of the meek, and 
 forming part of that " heaven " which is the home of the perfected. 
 
132 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 ever since. He tljen levci'ts to the subject ol" tlie Holy 
 Spirit and the manifold nature of His working. This 
 is followed by a section upon the soul, which he derives 
 from the understanding (N^ous), and to wliich he assigns 
 an intermediate position between the weak flesh and 
 the willing spirit. Of rational creatures there is a 
 definite number, sufficient for the adorning of the 
 world. They have the power of voluntary action, and 
 may develop in a good <]irection or a bad ; hence the 
 great diversity of circumstances among them. Diversity 
 was not the original condition of the creature, but is 
 the result of each one's lot being equitably ordered 
 according to the deserts of his previous life. The 
 book closes with a discussion of the doctrines of the 
 resurrection, future punishment, and the life everlasting. 
 The third book treats of free will, the conflict with 
 the evil powers as well as with error and temptations 
 of purely human origin, and the ultimate realisation by 
 man of the di^'ine likeness in the consummation and 
 restoration of all things. Nothing is more distinctive 
 of Ori gen's system than the doctrine of free will. This 
 constitutes its ethical basis. Just because man is at all 
 times free to choose between good and evil, it is on the 
 one hand made possible for him to attain to perfection, 
 and on the other impossible for him to divest himself 
 of responsibility for failure. While the decision in 
 each case rests with ourselves, it is none the less true 
 that all that happens to us is sent of God. Origen does 
 not strictly regard sin as inherited, but assumes that 
 guilt has been contracted by the individual in a pre- 
 mundane existence, and that his present material and 
 spiritual endowment has been determined accordingly. 
 In spite of the struggle involved in the existence of 
 
THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN 133 
 
 hostile powers and inner temptations, all (including 
 Satan liiniscll") may advance towards the dignity of the 
 divine likeness. The final re-establishnicnt, however, 
 of a state of unity in which God shall be all in all must 
 Ije slow andgiadual, "seeing that the process of amend- 
 ment and correction will take place imperceptibly in 
 the individual instances during the lapse of countless 
 and unmeasured ages, some outstripping others, and 
 tending by a swifter course towards perfection, while 
 others again follow close at hand, and some again a 
 long way behind (iii. 6)." 
 
 The substance of the fourth book, containing Origen's 
 views on Scripture and its interpretation, has been 
 already dealt with. A brief resume of the principal 
 topics discussed in it brings the work to a close. 
 
 V. Origen's Letters and Treatises on Practical 
 Religion 
 
 Of Origen's letters only two have been preserved, 
 the one addressed to Julius Africanus, and the other 
 to Gregory Tliaumaturgus. The circumstances of 
 their composition, and the nature of their contents, 
 have been already referred to.^ His extant works on 
 practical religion are also two in number, and treat of 
 Prayer and Martyrdom. Between them they cover 
 practically the whole subject of the appropriation of 
 salvation. 
 
 Origen's treatise on Prayer was addressed to Ambro- 
 
 sius and Tatiana,- with the view of clearing up certain 
 
 difficulties felt by them upon this subject. The exact 
 
 year of its composition cannot be determined. Pam- 
 
 ^ See p. 58 f. " Perhaps the sister of Ambrosias. 
 
134 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 phihifs i^roups it along witli the works on Martyrdom 
 and tlie Resurrectio a as being written more directly 
 from the heart than any others of Origen's numerous 
 writings. Besides being comparatively free from his 
 characteristic faults, it contains many sjDiritually sug- 
 gestive, tender, and inspiring thoughts. Of this nature 
 are, for example, his remarks on the utility of so 
 composing the mind for prayer as to realise the im- 
 mediate presence of God; on the peculiar love and 
 .sympathy shown by the holy dead for tliose who are 
 still fighting life's battle; on the saintly life as one 
 great ceaseless prayer ; and on the devotional spirit as 
 implying the laying aside of all anxieties and grudges, 
 and the lifting up to God of the soul before tlie hands, 
 of the mind before the eyes. 
 
 Origen .starts from the position that the highest 
 truth is incomprehensible to our fallen nature, and 
 can only be grasped by us through the rich and im- 
 measurable grace of God, ministered to us through 
 Christ and the Holy Spirit. There is nothing good 
 in the creature save what has been bestowed by the 
 Creator. Hence the necessity of prayer. But of our- 
 selves " we know not what we should pray for as we 
 ought " ; we need the Spirit of the Lord to direct us. 
 After tracing the scriptural meaning and usage of 
 the word praj-er, Origen proceeds to deal with two 
 arguments against the efficacy of prayer which had 
 caused perplexity to his correspondents. These were 
 that prayer is vain (1) if God foresees tlie future as it 
 will actually unfold itself; (2) if all things happen 
 according to His will, and His decrees are fixed, and 
 nothing of what He desires can be changed. Origen's 
 reply is that, although His foreknowledge is of the 
 
THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN 135 
 
 cliaracter represented, God aiiswer.s prayer uevertheless ; 
 fur Avliile He foresees, He does not control, tlie nature 
 oi" our choice, our actions, and our desires. Divine 
 prescience neitlier interferes witli tlie exercise of our 
 free will, nor divests us of responsibility for our actions. 
 By way of enforcing the duty of prayer, the writer 
 points to the example of Christ and the saints. The 
 Son of God is the high priest of our oblations, and our 
 advocate with the Father; He prays for those who 
 pray. So do the angels who are sent to minister to us, 
 and the souls of the saints who have already fallen 
 asleep. If Jesus prays, nor prays in vain, but through 
 prayer obtains His requests, and presumably would not 
 obtain them without prayer, which of us can neglect to 
 pray ? He who always prays will always be heard. 
 In the Babylonian den the lions' mouths were closed 
 l)y the pra3'er of Daniel ; Jonah was heard from the 
 whale's belly. These are emblems of spiritual experi- 
 ences, of deliverances from more hurtful beasts, and 
 from the billows of keener trial. Besides being in 
 itself a valuable moral tonic, prayer brings down the 
 fertilising rain of spiritual blessing which has been 
 retarded by sin, dissolves the poison instilled into the 
 pra^'cr-neglecting soul by the powers of evil, and 
 quenches the fires of temptation. It is more properly 
 concerned with those spiritual and heavenly things of 
 which things earthly are but the shadow. Pra3'er 
 should penetrate the whole life, yet not so as to sink 
 the special exercise in the general devotional attitude 
 of the soul. Thrice daily at least, as well as once 
 during the night, ought one to pray. Many words, or 
 polished sentences, are not nccessar}-, but the praj'er 
 must be without wrath or excitement. Founding upon 
 
136 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 1 Tim. ii. 1, Origen distinguishes four varieties of 
 prayer, and illustrates these by examples from Scrip- 
 ture. His conclusion is that while intercession and 
 thanksgiving may fitly be offered to men, and all three 
 lower forms of petition to the saints, " prayer " strictly 
 so called must be addressed to God only. It is not 
 proper to pray to the Son as apart from the Father, 
 nor to the Son conjointly with the Father; our prayers 
 must be directed to God alone, the supreme Father of 
 all, to whom the Saviour Himself also prayed. But 
 they must be offered through the only-begotten Son 
 as the high priest whom the Father Himself has 
 appointed ; and without Him no prayer can be offered 
 to the Father. Origen bases his view on the Saviour's 
 words, " Whatsoever ye shall ask the Fatlier, He will 
 give it you in My name." By putting the question, 
 " Are we not divided if we pray some to the Father, 
 some to the Son ? " he seems to indicate that at the 
 time he wrote there was a lack of uniformity in the 
 practice of the Church upon this point, and that he was 
 urging a return to earlier usage. Prayer to Christ as 
 God is nowhere disallowed by him ; on the contrary, he 
 justifies it by a reference to the prayers of the thief on 
 the cross and of the martyr Stephen. And in several 
 passages of his writings he practises it himself.^ 
 
 Was Origen consistent in this? At some points, 
 perhaps, his doctrine requires correction. He writes, of 
 of course, throughout as a subordinationist and an 
 advocate of the view that Christ's humanity ceases 
 with His exaltation. It is certain, however, that his 
 position upon this subject was not dictated by any 
 want of devotion to Jesus, or by any doubt as to His 
 
 ^ Ilom. in Jcr. 4 ; in Kzcch. 12 ; in Luc. 15, etc. 
 
THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN 137 
 
 divinity. Katlicr may it have been due to a Tear lest 
 ill the mind of tlie Church the Father should be over- 
 shadowed by the Son. In the Western Church more 
 particularly there was a tendency to confuse the First 
 and Second Persons of the Trinity and to practise the 
 absolute adoration of the Son in a manner derogatory 
 to the sovereio-nty of God. It was a further and later 
 consequence of the same tendency tliat the glory of the 
 Son was hidden behind the halo that surrounded the 
 Virgin and the saints. Certainly Origcn did great 
 service in emphasising the need for a more exact con- 
 ception of what prayer is, — even although his exposition 
 of 1 Tim. ii. 1, and his use of other parts of Scripture 
 in which the same words occur, be somewhat arbitrary, — 
 and in clearing up the Son's relation to the Father and 
 to the fellowship of Christians. His view practically 
 amounts to this, that there is an invocation of the Son- 
 which is permissible and proper, but which is different 
 ill degree from the adoration of the Father. We may 
 directly supplicate the Son for blessings which it is his 
 prerogative to confer, but in the highest act of worsliip 
 the soul must reach forth to Him whose Being is 
 absolute and underived. 
 
 A considerable section of Origeu's work on Prayer 
 (chaps. 18-30) is devoted to an exposition of St. 
 Matthew's version of the Lord's Prayer, with reference 
 also to the similar praj^er recorded by St. Luke. In 
 the closing chapters (31-33) Origen enters into par- 
 ticulars regarding the proper spirit of prayer, the fit 
 place and posture for the exercise, the direction in 
 wliich the suppliant is to turn, and the component 
 parts of whicli his prayer should consist. He who 
 would pray aright must approach God with reverent 
 
138 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 coinposuic, aiul talk with Him as to an actual onlooker 
 and listener. It is also fitting that he stand upright, 
 with hands outstretched and eyes uplifted. Except in 
 sickness, no one should pray sitting or reclining. The 
 penitent should pray on bended knee. It is advisable 
 to have a set apartment for prayer, and that one which 
 is never desecrated. Of all places the most suitable to 
 pray in is the church, where the faithful are gathered 
 in the inuuediate presence of the angels, of the power 
 of our Lord and Saviour, and of the spirits of the 
 departed. Origen thinks it natural that in prayer we 
 should turn to the East as symbolising the outlook of 
 the soul upon the dawn of the true light. The parts 
 of prayer are these : — the ascription of glory to God 
 through Christ in the Holy Spirit; tiianksgiving, 
 general and special ; confession of sin ; petition for 
 great and heavenly things both for one's self and for 
 all, particulai-ly for acquaintances and friends. As 
 prayer begins, so should it end with praising and 
 glorifying the Father of all through Jesus Christ 
 in the Holy Spirit, to whom be glory for ever and 
 ever. 
 
 The treatise on Martyrdcni was addressed to Ambro- 
 sius and Theoktetus (a presbyter of Csesarea), who 
 were cast into prison during the persecution under 
 Maximinus Thrax. It has been justly styled " a golden 
 work." Even the essay on Prayer, in which Job is 
 held up as " the athlete of virtue," contains a rich vein 
 of comfort for the afflicted; but in the Exhortation 
 to Martyrdo7)i we have a solid reef of this spiritual 
 gold. The subject is one upon which Origen was pre- 
 eminently qualilied to speak, and in his little book " we 
 catch the prolonged echo of the manly words which in 
 
THE WRITINGS OF ORIGKN 139 
 
 childhood he sent to his captive father: "Flinch not 
 for us." 1 
 
 He be(!;ins by reminding liis friends tliat in accord- 
 ance with the principle laid down in Isa. xxix. 9-11 
 (LXX) they must, as no longer babes in Christ, expect 
 trial upon trial, but that he who has borne tribulation 
 like a strenuous athlete receives also hope upon hope. 
 On this he founds the exhortation to steadfast endur- 
 ance of temporary suffering. Perfect love to God 
 implies not only a willingness to put off the earthly 
 tabernacle, but the withdrawal of the soul from every- 
 thing corporeal. Origen does not, however, with 
 certain of the Gnostics, excuse denial of Christ upon 
 the plea that it is only the inner faith of the heart 
 that is important. Those who believe on Him with 
 the heart must confess Him with the mouth. Nor is 
 it, as some pretend, a matter of indifference whether 
 we worship God as Jehovah or Jupiter or Apollo ; we 
 must call upon Him by proper and scriptural names. 
 A great rewai'd in heaven awaits those persecuted for 
 righteousness' sake, wliile he who denies Christ is 
 divided from Him as it were by a sharp sword. The 
 faithful martj'r's endurance of pain and utter self- 
 denial will be recompensed by the direct vision of 
 God. Origen exhorts his readers to act in terms of 
 their baptismal vows, and to recollect that their struggle 
 to maintain the Christian religion is witnessed by all 
 the angelic and infernal powers. Their N'ictory would 
 rrive deliiiht in heaven ; their fall would be hailed 
 
 OCT * 
 
 by the demons witli glee. He points them likewise to 
 
 the examples of Eleazar and the seven brethren, to 
 
 show how piety and tlie love of God can triumph oxer 
 
 ^ Pressense, Early Years of Chrislianity, ii. p. 3'20. 
 
140 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 the most cruel tortures. Martyrdom is Turtlier set 
 forth as the ideal expression of gratitude to God for 
 His bejicfits. It is " the cup of salvation." Althouoh 
 we cannot again be baptized with water and the Spirit 
 for tlie remission of sins, ilierc is given us the baptism 
 of martyrdom, whicli carries with it the expiation of 
 post-baptismal sins. The souls of those who have been 
 slain for the testimon}' of Jesus surround the heavenly 
 altar and minister forgiveness of sins to those who 
 pray. In offering up himself the martyr is an im- 
 maculate priest who offers an immaculate sacrifice, and 
 in this respect resembles the great high priest Jesus 
 Christ. For him the winter storms are followed l)y 
 the flowers of spring. So much may be gathered from 
 the Saviour's warning forecast to the apostles regard- 
 ing the treatment they should receive from the world, 
 and from His declaration that those who confess Him 
 before men will be confessed by Him in heaven, while 
 those who have denied Him He will in turn deny. No 
 one therefore need be ashamed to carry the cross of 
 Jesus. " Be slow to love the things which jDass away, 
 but do the will of God, that you may be worthy to be 
 made one with the Son and the Father and the Holy 
 Spirit according to the prayer of the Saviour: that 
 they also may be one in us." ^ Created in His image, 
 the human soul yearns for this union with God; yet 
 man loves life. Why should we hesitate to accept 
 freedom from the burden of the flesh, that with Chri.st 
 we may enjoy the rest of the blessed ? Let us show 
 that the good seed has found in our souls receptive 
 soil, and tliat we have built our house upon the rock ; 
 let us, as those who despise the trials and cares, the 
 1 Oral. 39. 
 
THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN 141 
 
 wealth and pleasures of this Avorld, in the spirit of 
 wisdom and freedom from anxiety hasten towards the 
 riches tliat do not decei%'e, and towards the joys of 
 paradise. Tlic martyr's bk:)od cries to heaven like the 
 blood of Abel. Perhaps, too, as we were purchased 
 by the precious blood of Jesus, so also may some be 
 purchased by the precious blood of martyrs, since these 
 occupy a rank superior to that of the merely rigliteous. 
 By their death the}^ exalt themselves and glorify God. 
 Origen concludes by expressing tlic hope that what 
 he has written may for the present be useful to his 
 friends, and that through the words and wisdom of 
 God, which far excel anything human, they may gain 
 a still clearer insight into the divine mysteries and 
 be made perfect. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 Origen's Theology: (Jod and His Self- 
 Manifestations 
 
 i. The Nature of God 
 
 In his teaching with reference to tlie divine nature, 
 Origen puts in the forei'ront tlie absohite ininiateriaht}'- 
 of God. He is pure Spirit, and devoid of every element 
 of corporeity ; pure intelligence, and not to be conceived 
 in a physical sense either because compared in Scripture 
 ■with fire and light, or because many saints participate 
 in the Holy Spirit. "It must not be supposed, then, 
 tliat God is either a body or in a body ; He is a simple 
 intellectual nature, admitting of no addition at all. 
 There is in Him no greater or less, no higher or lower, 
 for He is tlie monad, unit, mind, the fountain of all 
 mind." ^ Strictly speaking, perhaps, God is not sub- 
 stance, being bei/ond it ; but if the corporeal clement 
 be excluded, tliis term may be applicable. Either 
 way, however, it is inaccurate to say tliat God 
 pai'takes of substance, for He does not partake of, 
 but is partaken of by, whatever has being. He is 
 " of nothing," the One in contrast to the many, the 
 absolute, Existence as contrasted with conditioned 
 
 1 Dc rrinc. i. L 6. 
 142 
 
ORIGEN'S THEOLOGY 143 
 
 existences, and revealed by the dependence, tlie order, 
 and the yearning- of the manifold as tlie Source of 
 all good. 
 
 Since in its operations mind is independent of time, 
 space, and bodily maonitnde, God as entirely spiritual 
 is also eternal and uncluiui^cable. His work in the 
 field of the temporal may produce the impression that 
 He is Himself subject to change. In reality He is 
 above it, exalted above time in an everlasting now, 
 and dwelling in space only as tlie architect may be 
 said to inhabit his work. Not that He is to be con- 
 sidered the soul of the world in the Stoical sense ; His 
 all-comprehending presence takes the purely spiritual 
 form of an almighty superintending providence. He 
 is potentially e\er3' where, and His presence in one 
 place does not imply His absence from another. His 
 throne was not left vacant when, rich in mercy, He 
 came down in the person of Jesus to share and to 
 elevate the life of humanity. 
 
 Subject to no change, God is also devoid of passion. 
 Only in condescension to our weakness does Scripture 
 ascribe to Him vengeance, anger, regret, and the like. 
 As He is altogether impassible, these are feelings quite 
 foreign to His nature, and such passages as ascribe 
 them to Him are not to be interpreted literally ; we are 
 to "seek in them a spiritual meaning, that we may 
 think of God as He deserves to be thouglit of." If, 
 for example, He is called a consuming fire, it is only 
 in the sense of destroying the evil that finds its way 
 into our minds, and so into our actions. To speak of 
 the wrath of God will yet become an impossibility 
 through the final restoration of all things. No 
 man is hated by God, who loves His whole creation. 
 
144 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 Punishment is not His work, but the inevitable wages 
 of sin. 
 
 Abstract as are many of his notions with respect to 
 the Deity, Origen liolds firmlj'- to the absolute causality 
 of God as a self-conscious Being who gives expression 
 to His will in that Avhich He creates. His conception 
 of God is therefore more personal than that of the 
 Neoplatonists, who view Him as first developing the 
 consciousness of Himself through tlie Logos. Accord- 
 ingly, wliile conceiving God as entirely free from the 
 emotional disturbance of passion, and as framing His 
 decrees in the calmness of wisdom, Origen by no means 
 regards Him as devoid of attributes. " The Fatlier 
 Himself and God of all," he says, "is long-suffering, 
 merciful, and pitiful. Has He not then in a sense 
 passions ? The Father Himself is not impassible. He 
 has the passion of love."^ Tliis may seem scarcely 
 consistent with his general position as indicated above, 
 and indeed occasionally Origen is tempted to go so far 
 in this direction that he virtually w^ithdraws his own 
 statements.^ It is perhaps a fair thing to say that he 
 " liad experienced that state of consciousness exempli- 
 fied for us by all exalted Christian spirits, in which 
 joy and sorrow cease to be passions and are no longer 
 contraries. He did not clearly see that what is true 
 of goodness and justice is true of love and sympathy. 
 They differ not in themselves but in their objects."^ 
 
 In opposition to the Gnostics, who sought to dis- 
 tinguish between the just God of the Old Testament 
 and the merciful Father of tlie Lord Jesus Christ, 
 
 ^ In Ezcch., Horn. vi. 6. 
 
 ^ E.g. in Num., Horn, xxiii. 2. 
 
 ^ Bigg, Christian riatonists, p. 158, note 1. 
 
ORIGEN'S THEOLOGY 145 
 
 Origon stoutly maintains tlieir identity. Not only so ; 
 he maintains the identity of the attributes of goodness 
 and justice tliemselves. In this he diverges from the 
 view of Irena3us and Tertullian that these are opposite 
 attributes, yet necessarily coexisting in God. Accord- 
 ing to Origen, the indiscriminate bestowal of benefits 
 upon all, irrespective of conduct, argues a perverted 
 notion of goodness, whereas punishment inflicted as a 
 deterrent from evil implies real goodness. God recom- 
 penses in justice and punishes in kindness; with Him 
 justice is a manifestation of goodness. 
 
 Although a relative knowledge of Him is derivable 
 from the Manifold, God is in fact incomprehensible. 
 Clouds and darkness are round about Him ; His ways 
 are past finding out. It is possible through strenuous 
 effort and by the aid of enlightening grace to go a 
 certain length in this direction, but behind what we 
 may thus discover tliere stretches so to speak a bound- 
 less region of unexplorable territor}^ He dwells far 
 above the reach of our feeble perception. As the sun- 
 beams that stream through a chink in the wall to the 
 sun itself, so is the knowledge of God derived from the 
 beauty of His works. These are merely "rays as it 
 were of the nature of God in comparison with His real 
 substance and being." Brighter is the revelation which 
 we have in Christ, " the image of the invisible God." 
 He that has seen Him has seen the Father, yet onl}^ in 
 the measure made possible to him by divine grace. 
 That God is meanwhile incomprehensible to us is not 
 due to anything in the divine nature or in our own. 
 God is light, and in proportion as we get nearer to 
 Him will the shadows flee away. One day He shall 
 impart to us His Spirit without measure, and we shall 
 10 
 
146 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 know Him as He is known by tlie only-begotten Son, 
 and see Him face to face. 
 
 Inasmuch as he never conceives of God apart from 
 revehition, which is necessarily partial, Origen does not 
 hesitate to bring in his relative view of things even 
 with respect to the Doity. God is not without limita- 
 tion either as to His knowledge or His power. He 
 foresees, indeed, all that comes to pass ; but this is due 
 to the fact that in the beo-innin"^ He created, accordino- 
 to a definite standard of number and measure, as many 
 rational beings and material bodies as He knew would 
 admit of being governed by Him and be sufficient for 
 the adorning of the world, as well as to the further 
 circumstance that the duration of the world is limited. 
 In respect of omnipotence also God is not unconditioned. 
 From the very nature of the case His power is limited. 
 Were it not so, it would be incomprehensible even to 
 Himself. But in fact He can do only what He wills.^ 
 He is thus limited not by the resistance of created 
 matter, but through His own nature, in virtue of His 
 own reason and His own goodness. It is, moreover, 
 morally certain that God cannot do what is evil, and 
 logically certain that He can do nothing contrary to 
 nature, alth<nigh some of His miracles may appear to 
 be incredible. Finally, tliere arc evils inseparable from 
 the carrying out even of the wisest plans of the Creator : 
 " Evils in the strict sense are not created by God ; yet 
 some, though but few in comparison with the great, 
 
 1 Contra Cdsum, v. 23. Oi'igcn was afterwards accused by his enemies 
 of teaching that God cannot do anything tliat He has not done. Tins 
 was perhaps in reality only an int'eienoe from his teaching — not qnito 
 unwarrantable, it must be said ; liut this view was in later times 
 expressly taught by Abelard, who further maintained that God cannot 
 leave undone anything that is good. 
 
ORIGEN'S THEOLOGY 147 
 
 well-ordered whole o£ the world, have of necessity 
 adhered to the objects realised, as the carpenter who 
 executes the plan of a building- does not numao-e 
 without chips and similar rubbish, or as architects 
 cannot be made responsible for the dirty heaps of 
 broken stones and filth one sees at the sites of build- 
 ings." ^ The truth is, Origen has none of the modern 
 reverence for the word infinite. To him as a Christian 
 Platonist it is nearly ecjuivalent to evil, and the very 
 perfection of the divine attributes lies in their mutually 
 limiting character. 
 
 It is upon this consideration that Origen bases his 
 view of the created universe as at once limited in extent 
 and timeless in the sense that there was no time when 
 it was not. If JBons did elapse before it existed, then 
 in those aeons God cannot have been what He is as 
 Lord of all. But to grant this would be to deny His 
 unchangeableness, and to suppose Him capable of a 
 transition from lower to higher, from the potential to 
 the actual— an impossible position, which amounts to a 
 denial of His perfection. The idea of a Creator neces- 
 sarily involves that of a creation ; it is in virtue of 
 creating that God becomes Creator. As, however, time 
 did not exist before the world, and has an end, God as 
 First Cause of the world is above time, and must be 
 conceived as existing prior to matter. Matter is there- 
 fore not coeternal with Him whose being- is everlasting 
 and timeless, with whom it is always to-day. If it be 
 suggested that in this case God must have been idle 
 before the world began, Origen replies that God's work 
 did not begin with the making of this world, which 
 was preceded, as it will be followed, by countless others. 
 ' Contra Celsum, vi. 55. 
 
148 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 ii. The Dodrine of ihe Trivify 
 
 Tlie doctrine of the Trinity had been clearly defined 
 in the baptismal formula, and had been mentioned by 
 Ju.stin and others as a necessary part of the Church's 
 creed. Towards the close of the second centuiy we 
 find it definitely named, and its significance grasped as 
 affirmino- both unity in trinity and trinity in unity. 
 From this time it became tJie problem of Christianity. 
 The conception of one God in three Persons liad been 
 distinctly reached, but as to the nature and relations of 
 these Persons somewhat vague notions still prevailed. 
 Writers like Athenagoras and Tertulliau show, how- 
 ever, the general trend of ecclesiastical tradition with 
 reference to these questions. This was a lead whicli 
 Clement and Origen felt constrained to follow. If 
 they were bold speculative thinkers, they were also 
 loyal sons of the Church, and their attachment to the 
 latter proved the dominating influence. What renders 
 this all the more remarkable is that Greek Christianity 
 undoubtedly drew much of its inspii-ation from Jewish 
 tlieosophy. For the thought of Clement and Origen 
 the Apologists of the second century are of little account, 
 it is Philo who is their "guide, philosopher, and friend." 
 Yet, altliough it is in the writings of this brilliant 
 Alexandrian that the first traces of Trinitarian doctrine 
 occur, their Trinity is not Philo's, but a fuller develop- 
 ment of the New Testament doctrine on the lines already 
 marked out by the tradition of the Church, While it is 
 ti-ue that " Clement neglects almost as much as Philo 
 the third hypostasis of the Trir.ify," he at any rate 
 avoids the inconsistency wliich leads tliat writer to 
 suggest several different trinities. And if Clement 
 
ORIGEN'S THEOLOGY 149 
 
 says nothing explicit as to tlic nature ol" the tliiixl 
 Person, His relation to the other two Persons, and His 
 special function, the writings of Origen exhibit a most 
 palpable advance in this respect. To some extent this 
 is true even as regards his treatment of the first two 
 hypostases of the Trinity, but is most notable in his 
 discussion of questions pertaining to the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Already in 0)-igen's time, particularly at Rome, the 
 air vibrated with strife as to the sense in which God is 
 One, and at the same time Three. The latter aspect of 
 the problem formed the more immediate subject of con- 
 troversy. It was not so much the truth of the divine 
 unity that exercised the minds of disputants as the 
 precise significance to be attached to certain real dis- 
 tinctions in the divine Essence, the existence of which 
 is a matter of revelation. Of most crucial importance 
 was the question as to the distinct personality of the 
 Son. What Origen and the theologians of his age were 
 chiefly concerned to show was, that while Jesus is God 
 He is nevertheless not the Father. But, broadly speak- 
 ing, the task they set themselves was the elaboration of 
 the doctrine of three Persons or Subsistences in the 
 Godhead.^ 
 
 The Father. — Although maintaining that God is in- 
 comprehensible, Origen yet regards Him as to some 
 extent knowable, for apart from a certain knowledge 
 of Him we could not even know that He is incompre- 
 hensible, and in what respects He is so. On the ques- 
 tion as to how we attain to a knowledge of God, Origen 
 
 1 Suhstantia and persona are used by Latin writers as the equivalents 
 of the Greek hypostasis and ousia. It was peculiarly unfortunate, and 
 the prolific source of much misunderstanding, that the Greek word for 
 person should have been thus interchanged with the Latin word for 
 substance. 
 
150 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 holds as against Celsus that the notion oi" God cannot 
 1)0 arrived at by analysis and synthesis, hut only 
 thron»ili "a certain grace iiiboi'n in the soul, not with- 
 out CJod, but with a certain enthusiasm." It is a special 
 gil't of intuition. This position is etiually subversive of 
 the method oi" abstraction employed by Clen\ent, who 
 attempts through a process of exhaustion — namely, by 
 eliminating in succession the conditions of creaturely 
 existence — delinitely to determine the idea of God. It 
 was a fundamental axiom in the tlujught of Origen, as 
 subsequently in that oi' Leibnitz, that God is not to be 
 discovered by any scientilic demonstration, but is near 
 us in our hearts. 
 
 In the idea of God thus intuitively implanted within 
 us there is a positive element which the method of 
 negation only serves to bring into sharper relief. 
 According to Origen, this is the idea of goodness ; ^ and 
 however incomprehensible God may be in the dcptlis of 
 His being, yet because of tlie intimate relation in wliich 
 the idea of the good stands to reason, He becomes in- 
 telligible to His rational creatures. Goodness is in 
 Him an essential attribute of His nature ; with Him 
 to be is to be good. To Him alone belongs the fulness 
 of being and of goodness. Partaking of nothing, whilst 
 He is Himself partaken of by all, He is the principle 
 alike of existence and of Deity. He is God in Himself, 
 the true God, the God of gods. It is only, however, 
 through the study of the relation of the First Person of 
 the Trinity to the Second and the Third that Origen's 
 theory of the Father can be exempted from the cate- 
 gory of obscure generalities. 
 
 ' Thiy is .siiiii.ly Plato's idea of tlic good, but in a somewhat move 
 pLTSDiial t'oini. 
 
ORIGEN'S THEOLOGY 151 
 
 The Son. — It belongs to the idea of God as the abso- 
 hitely good to reveal or communicate Himself. The 
 life which has its source in Him must necessarily flow 
 forth to other beings. And as God is unchangeable, 
 this process never had a beginning ; it is eternal. But 
 it is only through the Logos that God acts upon the 
 world. He must lay aside His absolute apathy as pure 
 Intelligence, and assume this form in order to come into 
 close touch with the Manifold. While Origen's doctrine 
 of the Logos bears a general resemblance to that of 
 Pliilo, and is not free from the contradictory elements 
 contained in the latter, it is characterised by more 
 crispness of definition, and by a clearer affirmation of 
 the distinct personality of the Logos, whom he iden- 
 tifies with Christ. According to Origen, the Logos who 
 appeared in Christ is the Word or Son of God, His 
 Wisdom hypostatically existing, eternally begotten, and 
 of like essence with the Father. He is the truth and life 
 of all things which exist. He is not an emanation from 
 God, who is indivisible, but the complete self -revelation 
 of the Father, " the brightness of His glory, and the 
 express image of His person." As Creator of the 
 world He is innneasurably exalted above it; yet as 
 Himself derived, He is subordinate to the Father, who 
 is the alone Absolute. He is truly God, but " second 
 God." Origen contends equally for the independent 
 personalit}^ and for the true divinity, of the Son, 
 although he is led by the exigencies of debate some- 
 times to emphasise His subordination to, and at other 
 times to claim for Him virtual equality with, the 
 Father. His aim, of course, is to represent the Father 
 as the one foundation of Godhead, while at the same 
 time conserving true Deity for the Son. The main 
 
152 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 positions here deuiaiul, pevliaps, somewhat fuller state- 
 ment. 
 
 The Son is coeternal with tlie Father : " there never 
 was a time when He was not." God and His Wisdom 
 are as inseparable in tlionght as are light and splendour. 
 Something like an act of the will, wdiich proceeds from 
 the understanding without being divided from it, is the 
 begetting of the Son by the Father. He proceeds from 
 the Father's essence as the Son of His will. It is not, 
 however, an act that has taken place at some definite 
 moment, for it had no beginning, and is a continual and 
 eternal process. Neither by thought nor figure can this 
 begetting be adequately explained to the human mind ; 
 but tlic resultant Logos is a living being,i ^^ second 
 person, -with an independent existence. Tliis thought 
 of the eternal generation of the Son, whicli tlie Chris- 
 tian Church has accepted as " the truest human expres- 
 sion of one side of the mystery of the essential Trinity," 
 was first worked out by Origen. 
 
 As incorporeal and invisible, as the perfect image of 
 God's person and the unspotted mirror of His power, 
 as being, so to speak, the very soul of God, tlie only- 
 begotten Son is truly God, sharing in TTis essence, i)ossess- 
 ing all His attributes, and therefore also coequal with 
 Him — "the same in substance with the Father." That 
 the omnipotence of Fatlier and Son is one and tlie same 
 is, he says, shown by tlie woi'ds of St. John in the Apoca- 
 lypse: "Thus saith the Lord God, wdiicli is, and wliicli 
 was, and which is to come, the Almiglity." " For who 
 else was ' He which is to come ' than Christ ? " As the 
 purest efflux of the glory of the Almiglity, Wisdom, 
 
 ^ "Animal viveiis." Origen (juotes the expression from the Acts of 
 Paul, a siiurious ecclesiastical treatise mentioned by Eusebius. 
 
ORIGEN'S THEOLOGY 153 
 
 which is Christ, can sa}^ " All Mine arc Thine, and Thine 
 are Mine"; and also, as the stainless mirror of the 
 working of God, " What things soever the Father doetli, 
 these also doeth the Son likewise." From this point of 
 view Origen concludes that there is " no dissimilarity 
 whatever between the Son and the Father." 
 
 When, however, he asserts that this is true only in 
 relation to the world, the statement loses much of its 
 force. Although from our standpoint He is tlie mani- 
 fest essential God, yet "as soon as the catcgoiy of 
 causality is applied, 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 creature and demiurge, but all 
 the utterances about the quality of His essence receive 
 a limitation." ^ His coequality with the Father is con- 
 ditioned by the fact tliat the Son's existence is some- 
 thing derived. Althougli not created. He is begotten. 
 As distinct from God the Father, who is tlic First 
 Cause, the Son is " that which is caused." Tlius the 
 Father is greater than the Son. Wliat He is the Son 
 derives from the Father, so that even those properties 
 which belong to His Deity do not exist in Him in the 
 same absolute sense as in tlie Father. As the first 
 stage in the transition from the uncreated One to the 
 created Many, His unchangeableness is only relative. 
 His goodness is not absolute, but the perfect image of 
 the absolute goodness of the Father, who is exalted 
 above the Son as far as the Son Himself is exalted 
 above all thrones, principalities, and powers. The 
 all-embracing Kingdom of the Father is more extensive 
 than that of the Son, which is confined to ■ rational 
 ^ Harnack, History of Do(jma, ii. p. 357. 
 
154 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 beings, and which in turn is greater than that oi" the 
 Holy Spirit, wliich extends only to the saints. Christ's 
 Kingdom conies to an end ; after all has been subjected 
 to Him, Ho shall be subjected to the Father, and God 
 shall be all in all. There is nowhere any attempt to 
 detract from the divinity of the Son; on the contrary, 
 pra}'er ma}'' be made to Him. But along with this 
 there is everywhere the reminder that God is the 
 Father of all that is. Strictly speaking, however, the 
 subordination here taught by Origen is not a subordina- 
 tion of essence, but one of function in relation to the 
 manifestation of the Persons of the Godhead to creatures; 
 that is to say, the Son as Son is inferior to the Father 
 as Father. Its basis, moreover, is scriptural rather than 
 metaphysical. It was dictated by no spirit of presump- 
 tion, but by a loj'^al and courageous acceptance of Christ's 
 own testimony when He says, " None is good save One," 
 and " My Father is greater than I." 
 
 The Son's relations to the world are set forth in 
 Scripture under a variety of titles. While in this 
 respect the Father as the highest absolute unity can 
 only be One, the Son is Manifold. As the perfect 
 image of the mind of God He is first of all Wisdom ; 
 then as the medium of revelation He is the Word ; 
 further, as the source and sustainer of rational beings 
 and inanimate nature. He is the Truth and the Life. 
 But tliese qualities, which belong to Christ immutably 
 as the only-begotten Son of God, Origen distinguishes 
 from those hiiman and accidental properties which He 
 assumed for the purpose of redemption. To this latter 
 class are reckoned His functions as the God - Man, 
 Physician, Shepherd, Lamb of God, etc. The two 
 categories Origen likens to the higher and lower steps 
 
ORIGEN'S THEOLOGY 155 
 
 of the ascent to the Holy oC holies. With all this he 
 disclaims any intention of introducing a distinction 
 into the essence oi" the 8on. It is not implied that 
 Christ will ever divest Himself of His glorified body, 
 or that we shall ever be able to do withont Him as 
 the Life and the Truth. If one day we shall see the 
 Father even as the Son sees Him, and the work of 
 redemption and mediation thus take end, this will only 
 be because we shall be " of one spirit with the Lord." 
 
 In Origen's doctrine of the Logos, however, far more 
 stress is laid upon His significance as Creator and 
 Teacher than upon His work as Redeemer. Indeed it 
 is the mark of the true Christian that he has outgrown 
 the need of redemption viewed as forgiveness, and no 
 longer requires the Physician's healing or the Shep- 
 herd's care. Thus, in order to the fulfilment of the 
 purpose of redemption, we must ultimately pass l)eyond 
 the crucified Jesus to the Word. As this is, according 
 to Origen, the path to the higher life, it is small wonder 
 that, often as the name recurs in his writings, tlie 
 Person of Christ is of no real importance to his con- 
 ception of the Logos. The weakness of Origen's 
 position lies indeed just here; he confounds the two 
 conceptions Logos and Son, and fails firmly to grasp 
 that of the premundane personality of the Logos. 
 
 Tlie spirit. — Origen remarks that while the Greek 
 philosophers have by the light of nature and of the 
 human mind been able to recognise God as the Father 
 of the universe, and in some cases also have even 
 attained to an idea of the existence of the Son as the 
 word or reason of God, the belief in the Holy Spirit is 
 confined entirely to Christianity. This eflfectually dis- 
 poses of the contention of those who would ascribe his 
 
156 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 heterodox views upon tlic Trinity to his fondness for 
 Plato. No specuhitivc necessity led him to place the 
 Spirit alongside of the Father and the Son ; he did so 
 entirely out of deference to the rule of faitli, according 
 to which the Holy Spirit is " associated in honour and 
 dignity with the Father and the Son." In affirming the 
 tliree Persons, he, of course, implies the distinct person- 
 ality of the Spirit, and He expressly speaks of His 
 divinity,^ although he nowhere definitely calls Him God. 
 The thought, however, is unquestionably present to his 
 mind ; it lay wrapped up, indeed, in the Ijaptismal 
 formula. Prayer may be directed to Him as to the Sun. 
 His essential Godhead, moreover, involves His eternity ; 
 it is He who in the beginning moved upon the face of the 
 waters. He is the inspirer of both prophets and apostles, 
 and is designated in Old and New Testament alike Spirit 
 or Holy Spirit. It is through the Spirit that men arc 
 enabled to receive Christ as Justice and Wisdom ; it is 
 through the Spirit that they are sanctified and perfected. 
 Although Origen represents the Spirit as sliaring in 
 tlie work of creation,^ he states that the Church in his 
 time had reached no settled view as to whether He 
 Himself is created or uncreated. This is a point, he 
 says, demanding "careful investigation," but he fails 
 to formulate any clear and consistent doctrine regard- 
 ing it. In general, he avoids language wliich would 
 suggest that the Spirit is a creature ; but while some- 
 times he asserts that He is not to be reckoned among 
 the "all things" made by the Son, at other times he 
 takes the very opposite view.^ In spite of tin's vacilla- 
 
 1 JJc Frinc. ii. 7. 3. - De Priiic. iv. 30. 
 
 ^ Both views arc expressed even iu comments upon the same passage 
 {John ii. 6). 
 
ORIGEN'S THEOLOGY 157 
 
 tion, he appears to arrive at the conclusion tluxt the 
 Spirit " is become " through tlie Son. In other words, 
 the Spirit is created, but in a peculiar sense ; He is the 
 tirst creation of the Fatlier througli the Son, and there- 
 fore subordinate to the Son, as the Son is to the 
 Father. In connection with His acceptance and treat- 
 ment of the mysterious dogma of tlie Trinity, it is very 
 apparent on the one hand tliat Origen does all he can 
 to eliminate every idea that savours of the created, 
 and on the other tliat in passing from the considera- 
 tion of the concept God to that of the two other divine 
 Persons, he experiences extreme difficulty in avoiding 
 the use of language which tends to reduce the Son and 
 the Holy Spirit to the rank of creatures. Although 
 his doctrine of the Holy Spirit is worked out witli an 
 explicitness unknown to any of his predecessors, he 
 was certainly far from happy in his mode of conceiving 
 the Spirit's personality. 
 
 While all things derive their existence from God the 
 Father, and are subject to His power, and while the 
 Son as the principle of reason imparts reason to all 
 rational beings, the Spirit's sphere of action is limited 
 to the saints. Hence the special ministry of the Spirit, 
 although the most important, is also the most circum- 
 scribed. That of the Father and of the Son extends 
 without distinction to every creature, but only the 
 sanctified have a share in the Holy Spirit. The 
 difference in the circumference of these concentric 
 circles into which existence is thus divided is, however, 
 only of temporary duration, for in the end the wliole 
 rational creation will be raised to the level of the holy. 
 This result is attained through the grace of the Holy 
 Spirit. Not that His dignity is greater than tliat of 
 
158 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 the Father and the Son ; on the contrary, the Father's 
 power is greater tlian tliat oi" the Son, and that of the 
 Son greater than that oi' the Holy Spirit. But from 
 the point of view of Origen's system, this formula 
 really lacks the precision which it seems to possess. 
 For as only the rational creation is abiding, all else 
 being doomed to vanish away, and as all rational beings 
 are destined to holiness, the action of the three Persons 
 of the Trinity in relation to creatures does not ulti- 
 mately \'ary in extension. The terms Father, Son, and 
 Holy Spirit merely mark, as regards its three principal 
 movements, the one though diverse activity of God. 
 
 Father, Son, and Spirit form a Trinity in which 
 there is no difference, and in which accordingly nothing 
 can be called greater or less. The three Persons are of 
 the same nature and essence, equal in dignity and 
 honour. Their consubstantiality is such that the Spirit 
 of the Father is the same as the Spirit of the Son, the 
 same as the Holy Spirit. Hence the Trisagion of 
 Isa. vi. 3; the cherubim are not content with crying 
 " Holy " once or twice, but their threefold ascription 
 corresponds to the triple sanctity of God as represented 
 by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In spite 
 of this apparently explicit statement as to the equality 
 of the Persons, which is possibly due to the correcting 
 hand of Rufinus, Origen's Trinity is a graduated one, 
 based upon the absolute Godhead of the Father, from 
 whom the two other Persons proceed. Clement and 
 Origen had completely established the coeternity and 
 consubstantiality of the three Persons, but it was re- 
 served for the Fathers of the fourth century to put the 
 finishing touch to the labours of the great Alexan- 
 drian teachers, by divesting themselves entirely of the 
 
ORIGEN'S THEOLOGY 159 
 
 swaddling-clothes of Jewish-Christian tradition, and 
 unequivocally assertino- their equality as well. As 
 God cannot be thought ui" apart from revelation, this 
 Trinity, which in Origen's view constitutes the deepest 
 mystery of the faith, remains a Trinity of revelation. 
 "The gift of the Spirit is made known through the 
 Son, and operated by God the Father." 
 
 Not only the Son and the Holy Spirit, but all other 
 rational beings as well, proceed by a sort of timeless 
 emanation from the primal Deity, and in some way 
 share in the divine life and the divine nature, without 
 however having identity of essence as parts of the 
 Godhead. According to Origcn, the rational element 
 is one and the same throughout the entire domain of 
 the spiritual. Indeed this is the pivot upon wdiich his 
 whole doctrinal system turns. The restoration of the 
 oneness of the spiritual through the removal of the 
 disturbance caused by the development of the worldly 
 in antagonism to the divine — in other words, the 
 deification of humanity — is the goal, as it is also the 
 starting-point, of the Greek theology. 
 
 Although not so immediately concerned with the 
 question of the unity in trinity as with that of the 
 trinity in unity, Origen and his school were already 
 being challenged by Celsus and other opponents to 
 explain their position with reference to tiie former 
 problem. Their doctrine of the threefold Personality, 
 it was contended, could not consist with belief in the 
 divine unity. An endeavour was made to impale them 
 upon the horns of a dilemma. Either Christianity was 
 monotheism as conceived by Celsus, in which case it 
 was merely on a level with the religion of the ancient 
 
i6o ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 Pcrsiau.s ; or it was inonotlieism as conceived by 
 Noetus/ in wliicli case the work of Jesus was purc-ly 
 visionary. In spite oi' the humble diffidence with 
 which he expresses liimself regardin^j- these profoundly 
 mysterious themes, Origen tenaciously adheres to the 
 view that God is at once Three and One. While 
 alfirming the distinction of Persons, he denies that 
 there is therefore actual division ; " for to ascribe 
 division to an incorporeal beini^- is not only the height 
 of impiety, but a mark of the greatest folly." ^ He 
 holds that between Father and Son there is complete 
 mutual circumincession or interpeneti'ation, unity of 
 substance, and identity of will ; and the same thing 
 holds good with regard to the entire Trinity. 
 
 ' Noetus was a presbyter of Smyrna, who held by "modalistic 
 monarehiani.sm," i.e. the opinion that Jesus was a mere man, and 
 constituted tlie Son of God only because of the unique degree in which 
 He was filled with divine power and wisdom. 
 
 - De Princ. i. 2. C. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 Origen's Theology: Creation and the Fall 
 
 i. The World of created Spirits and the Conception of 
 format Freedom 
 
 The ultimate reason of the creation of rational beings, 
 which are of different ranks, and include human souls, 
 is the divine goodness ; God desired those on whom He 
 might lavish His benefits. Although to us they are 
 innumerable, the number of these intelligences is not 
 infinite. Called into existence through the Son, they 
 are in reality the unfolding of the fulness that dwells 
 in Him. But inasmuch as the idea of createdness was 
 already more firmly coupled with the Holy Ghost than 
 with the Son, the former rather than the latter marks 
 the transition to the inferior spirits. While, however, in 
 the graduated series of spirits which represent created 
 reason these occupy the stage next to Him, there is never- 
 theless between them and the Holy Spirit a wide gulf of 
 cleavage. For although He is the first of the creatures, 
 who are all of the same substance, it is the essential 
 property of His nature to be good. The inferior spirits, 
 on the other hand, while destined for the highest good, 
 must yet reacli it through their own free choice. 
 
 That free will is the prerogative of all moral creatures 
 
 II 
 
1 62 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 is a doctrine oi" cardinal importance in the .system of 
 Origan. " Every rational creature is capable of earning 
 praise or blame — praise, if, in conformity to tliat reason 
 whicli it possesses, it advance to better things ; blame, 
 if it fall away from the right course." ^ It is as much 
 the characteristic mark of the created spirit to be free, 
 as it is that of the Deity to be unchangeable. Not 
 that the Son and the Holy Spirit liave not freedom, 
 but in their case, as in that of the Father, freedom and 
 necessity are one. It belongs essentially to their nature 
 constantly to embrace and hold fast the good, whereas 
 the lower spirits, having only a capacity for the highest 
 good, may and do abandon it, and must regain it 
 through renewed effort. 
 
 In opposition to the Gnostics, who held by the 
 doctrine of absolute predestination, Origen vigorously 
 defends his theory that free will is bound up witli 
 reason, and is the possession of every created spirit. 
 While inanimate things such as wood and stone are 
 moved from without, animals and plants have their 
 motive power within themselves. But in the case of 
 rational beings there is, further, the faculty of reason, 
 which enables them to choose good or evil. Such 
 freedom implies responsibility. Those who possess it 
 are not the lielpless prey of external influences. One 
 man, for example, will fall before some particular 
 temptation; another will resist it. Some rise from 
 vice to virtue, others fall from virtue to vice. But in 
 either case, whether there be a transformation for the 
 better, or a process of degeneration and declension, we 
 are to trace the change not to external causes, but to 
 tlie decision of the will. 
 
 ' Br Princ. i. r>. 2. 
 
ORIGEN'S THEOLOGY 163 
 
 In support of this contention Origcn adduces passages 
 of Scripture wliicli presuppose the freedom of the luinian 
 will, and place clearly before men for their deliberate 
 choice the alternative paths of life and deatli.^ Special 
 stress is laid upon the words of Jcsus,^ and of the 
 Apostle Paul.^ At the same time he discusses with 
 great minuteness other passages which seem to pre- 
 clude the idea of free will, and which were therefore 
 the favourite weapons of the Gnostics. The mere fact 
 that God " hardened Pharaoh's heart " disproves the 
 assertion that his was a ruined nature incapable of 
 salvation. Turning for an illustration to the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews, Origen insists that just as the same 
 rain makes cultivated ground fruitful and leaves 
 neglected soil barren, so " by one operation God has 
 mercy upon one man while He hardens another, 
 althous:!! not intendino- to harden." The hardeninof 
 of some is due to their inherent wickedness. The 
 same sunshine melts wax and hardens clay; and the 
 same divine influence that hardened Pharaoh prevailed 
 with some of the Egyj)tians who cast in their lot 
 with the Hebrews. Many bad slaves are made worse 
 through the kindness of their masters, and many 
 sinners are hardened through their contemptuous dis- 
 regard of the riches of God's goodness. It may also be 
 said that God hardens those whom He abandons for . 
 their own advantage, reserving the cure of their sin , 
 for the other life, as a wise ph3^sician who knows all, 
 and governs souls with reference to the future. Again, 
 changing the figure, he remarks that the great Husband- 
 man, who is acquainted with the seasons and the nature 
 
 ^ Mic. vi. 8 ; Dent. xxx. 15 f., etn. 
 
 2 Matt. V. 39, vii. 26, etc. 3 i|o,n_ ^i 4_io. 
 
i64 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 of the soil, frequently refrains from casting the seed on 
 rocky ground, where it would spring up too precipitately. 
 Wlicn this docs take place the object is by gratifying 
 its desire to lead the soul subsequently to receive the 
 slower husbandry which is more beneficial for it. It 
 is not ahva3\s for the advantage of the sick to be 
 rapidly cured, and in bestowing benefits God occasion- 
 ally procrastinates rather than communicate things 
 which, when seen and heard, would only add to the 
 sin of those whom even such peculiar privileges would 
 fail to convince. When God engages to substitute for 
 stony hearts the heart of flesh, the promise is not made 
 without reference to the will of those concerned ; on 
 - the contrary, they must lend their co-operation by 
 ^ voluntarily submitting themselves to His power, just 
 as an ignorant person must yield himself up to his 
 instructor to bo taught, and as the sick were cured 
 only by coming to the Saviour to be healed. When it 
 is said that " it is not of him that runneth, but of God 
 that showeth mercy," all that is meant to be conveyed 
 is that God does far more for our salvation than we do 
 ourselves. Althougli it is God that saves the ship 
 from destruction, it is not brought safe to port without 
 skilful navigation on the part of the crew. If the 
 apostle speaks of God as "working in us both to will 
 and to do," this is simply on a level with the general 
 statement that our power of locomotion is from God. 
 It merely asserts the divine origin of our power of 
 volition and of action ; we may use tliis power either 
 in a good or an evil direction. In conclusion, Origen 
 discusses the difficult passage Rom. ix. 18 fF. Unless 
 we are to charge the apostle with self-contradiction, 
 how are we to reconcile his censure of the wicked 
 
ORIGEN'S THEOLOGY 165 
 
 (2 Cor. V.) and praise of tlie virtuous (2 Tim. i. IC IK) 
 with the view that according to him it is the fault of 
 the Creator that one vessel is in honour and another in 
 dishonour? Besides, does not St. Paul himself say 
 that " if a man purge himself ... he shall be a vessel 
 unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the Master's use " 
 (2 Tim. ii 21), thereby referring tlic whole back to 
 ourselves ? The two forms of statement are not really 
 contradictory ; they arc the opposite poles of a higher 
 truth which we must extract from both. 
 
 When hard pressed by his opponents, Origen had 
 always a seconcl line of defence to fall back upon. He 
 fought them stoutly, and on the whole successfully, on 
 the scriptural arena ; but he could retreat, if necessary, 
 into the stronghold afforded by a doctrine almost as 
 dear to him as that of free will itself — tlie doctrine of ; 
 the pre-existence of the soul. That one vessel has j 
 been created for honour and another for dishonour is ' 
 due to causes antecedent to the present life. 
 
 Origen looks on everything from this standpoint of 
 freedom ; for him it is the key to the interpretation of 
 the cosmos as it exists. We have already seen that in 
 his system human souls form one of the orders com- 
 posing the category of created spirits. In the interest 
 of the divine omnipotence, moreover, it is necessary to 
 assume that the whole of the spirits were created from 
 all eternity, for " He must ahvays have had those over 
 whom He exercised power." Otherwise we are landed 
 in the absurdity of reducing the Almighty to the level 
 of a finite being who came into possession of them by 
 a kind of progress. God created all tlie spirits equal 
 and alike, because there was in Himself no reason for 
 producing variety and diversity. Viewed with respect 
 
1 66 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 to their origin, they arc of the same divine substance, 
 share the same spiritual light, and arc innnortal in 
 essence. That some have advanced through imitation 
 of God, while others have failed througli negligence, is 
 due to the freedom of the individual will and to the 
 dilierent offices assigned to them. Although, strictly 
 speaking, all rational natures are incorporeal, yet as 
 liable to change, and as finite beings who have been 
 created, they are weighted with a kind of materiality, 
 and possess from the first a body or envelope suited to 
 their environment. This is true alike of angels and of 
 men. Absolute innnateriality belongs to God alone. 
 It is further noteworthy that, idealist as he is, Origcn 
 confines his attention to the actual constitution of the 
 spirit world, and does not in tl\e least concern liimself 
 with the question as to what would have been the 
 proper development for all. He is content to view 
 them in their existing relations and diverse conditions 
 as regulated by their progress in, or departure from, 
 goodness. 
 
 In the matter of overcoming evil the ability botli to 
 will and to do is the gift of God ; only the actual clioice 
 is our own. As the will to embrace the good is thus 
 due to the influence of the Holy Spirit, bestowed in 
 . proportion to our merit, there is in every good deed of 
 ours a commingling of our own choice and the divine 
 aid; but the latter plays infinitely the greater part. 
 The freedom of the created spirits is therefore only 
 relative, and amounts to no more than the power of 
 controlling their own destiny for a time. It is on 
 every liand condition(^d, and exists only within very 
 narrow limits. The rational creature has his environ- 
 ment given to him ; it is beyond his power to command 
 
ORIGEN'S THEOLOGY 167 
 
 the success of his own action ; and even the decision to 
 act is dependent upon earlier decisions. After these 
 deductions are made, and in view of the fact that all 
 rational existence niu.st ultimately find its goal in God 
 Himself, what is there left to the province of free 
 determination ? What appears as freedom is in reality 
 nothing else than the necessary evolution of the created 
 spirit. Origen refrains, however, from drawing this 
 inference himself. For him freedom means unfettered 
 liberty of choice, the unconditioned possibility of 
 descending from the higher to the lower, and of again 
 ascending to the good; and it means no more. His 
 conception of freedom is limited to this its purely 
 formal side, no account being taken of what lies beyond 
 the mere act of choosing, namely, the attainment of 
 the good, and the consummation of freedom in the 
 onward progress of the being. What escapes him is 
 that freedom is essentially free devotion to the good, 
 which, originating in freedom of choice, afterwards 
 becomes an inalienable spiritual possession. Origen 
 indeed ascribes to God a higher freedom than mere 
 liberty of choice ; but the constant necessity of dealing 
 with Gnostic and Neoplatonic denials of freedom 
 apparently prevdited him from perceiving that for the 
 created spirit free will is only a stepping-stone towards 
 that higher freedom which consists in voluntary 
 fdhesion to the divine law and tlie consequent normal 
 development of the being. Owing to this inadequate 
 conception of freedom, " religious histor}^ l^ccomes, in 
 the system of Origen, a drama without a conclusion, 
 wliich is perpetually recommencing, and, as it were, 
 repeating itself." ^ This defect is, however, in some 
 ' Pressens^, The Early Years of Christianity, iii. p. 314. 
 
i68 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 degree atoned for by the lofty morale pervading the 
 view of the world M'itli which it is associated. 
 
 ii. The Fall and the Creation of the material World 
 
 In Origen's view the Fall was premnndane ; it took 
 place before time began. The possession of fi'ee will 
 made it possible for rational creatures either to advance 
 to the point of attaining divine wisdom or to become 
 involved in wickedness. When the good that was in 
 
 * them potentially becomes their own they reach perfec- 
 tion, and give place to a succession of worlds which 
 serve as scenes of discipline for those who stand in need 
 of it. For not all created spiiits have chosen the path 
 of virtue. In some cases " slothfulness and a dislike of 
 labour in preserving what is good, and an aversion to, 
 and a nco'lect of, better thing's, furnished the beginning 
 of a departure fr©m goodness," and the lack of good- 
 ness is positive wickedness. Their sin, which assumed 
 a multiplicity of forms, in every case involved a 
 diminution of true being, which is one with the good. 
 
 - Where the movements of souls are wrongly conducted, 
 the power implanted in their substance by the good- 
 ness of their Maker disappears; it was not their own 
 originally, and may be taken from them as it was given 
 to them. 
 
 It was with a view to the purification of the fallen 
 spirits that God created the visible world. What we 
 are accustomed to regaixl as the creation of the world 
 is thus, in Oi'igen's conception, not the conniicncement, 
 
 ^ but an intermediate stage of sj)iiitual history. It is the 
 result of occurrences prior to the existence of the earth, 
 which is both a place of punishment and a house of 
 
ORIGEN'S THEOLOGY 169 
 
 correction. Lii'o on eartli is tlic continuation oi' an 
 antecedent existence. Our present lot is the logical 
 and moral consequence of our conduct in a prior state. 
 The diversitj^ that is in the world is due to the varying 
 de<rrecs in which rational beings have fallen from the 
 jirimal unity in which they were at first created by 
 Uod. Hence the difterent orders and ranks of angels ; 
 hence the inequalities among men. If one man is born 
 to the life of an uncivilised savage, another to tlie 
 enjoyments of learning and the fine arts, and another 
 to the privileges of Christian fellowship, this nmst be 
 regarded as the result of their own individual previous - 
 choice, and not, as the Gnostics maintained, of pre- 
 destination. Every man's earthly circumstances are to 
 be interpreted as a judgment passed upon his behaviour 
 in a pre-existent state. 
 
 The most immediate consequence of the Fall was 
 corporeal being. In order to give external shape to 
 moral decisions, God created matter as a mobile sub-- 
 stance capable of undergoing all manner of trans-, 
 formations, and thus of ser\ing as a shroud to the soul, 
 whatever may have been the extent of its rebellion. 
 As the servant of angelic beings it sliines in celestial 
 splendour ; when di-agged down to furnisli the habitat 
 of beinos of a lower order it assumes a grosser form. 
 No longer harmoniously united in God, the spirits 
 diverge from one another upon the assumption of their 
 material garb, which, owing to its infinite adaptability 
 as the outward expression of the manifold tendencies of 
 the spiritual nature, becomes a veritable " coat of many 
 colours." Those who steadfastly adhered to that which 
 is good have obtained the rank of angels, and inhabit- 
 the ethereal bodies of the stars. Their exact place in 
 
I/O ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 the heavenly hierarchy of "gods," thrones, dominions, 
 
 principalities, and powers, has been determined by their 
 
 own quality and merit. Those who have utterly fallen 
 
 "^ away from God and goodness have become demons, 
 
 with a passionate thirst for evil. These have had their 
 
 glory turned into dust, and exist in hideously ugly, 
 
 though invisible, dark bodies.^ In addition to these 
 
 good and evil powers the spirit world includes the 
 
 . intermediate and probationary class of human beings. 
 
 Deeply as men have fallen from their primal state of 
 
 blessedness, the)'' have not sunk so low as the malignant 
 
 demons ; the love of God has not in man's case been 
 
 wholly quenched. It has, however, become cold ; to 
 
 ^ use Origen's own expression, the spirit has " cooled " 
 
 - into a soul. The moral cliaracter of "souls" varies 
 
 accordincf to the dewee in which tlie lower or higher 
 
 nature gains the upper hand ; yet all souls are at least 
 
 capable of being restored through chastisement to a 
 
 condition of perfect spirituality. 
 
 Although they differ vastly from each other in their 
 mental conformation and in their motives, God by His 
 ineffable wisdom has contrived that the various purposes 
 ^ of the creatures shall be usefully adapted to the 
 ' harmony of one world, and that their collective activity 
 shall make for one end of perfection. That every spirit 
 shall be free to take his own course, and tliat while 
 some, for example, should need help, others should be 
 in a position to give it, is the deliberate arrangement 
 of God with a view to ensuring the salvation of all 
 
 ^ Cf. what Dante says of those toil-worn souls whose avarice has 
 landed tluiu in hell — 
 
 "That iguol.le life 
 Which made them vile before, now makes them dark. 
 And to all knowledge indiscernible." — {Inferno, vii. 53-55.) 
 
ORIGEN'S THEOLOGY 171 
 
 His creatures. In spite of its \'aricd complexion, the 
 condition ot" the world is not one oi" internal discord ; 
 rather is it like "some luio-c animal kept toc^etlier by 
 the power and reason of God as by one soul." On the 
 other hand, however, tliis vast and orderly creation 
 docs participate in the misery attendant upon sin ; 
 " the wliole creation groanetli and travaileth together 
 in pain until now." The heavenly bodies and the 
 angels ol" God must act perforce as ministering spirits to 
 man, being thus made subject to vanity "not willingly, 
 but by reason of Him who hath subjected the same in 
 hope," namely, of " tlie manifestation of the sons of 
 God." The far-reaching evil of sin is further evidenced 
 by the fact tliat the glory of the Saviour Himself is - 
 not perfect witliout His people, for whom He waits in ' 
 order to " drink wine " in the kingdom of God, 
 
 iii. Tlic Doctrine of Man 
 
 Jerome wrongly charges Origen with holding the 
 doctrine of tl\e transmigration of the soul from one 
 human body into another, or even into the body of a 
 beast. But if at this point the Christian theologian of 
 Alexandria severs himself from Platonism, he certainly 
 puts himself in line with it on the question of the soul's 
 pre-existence. This latter doctrine forms an integral 
 part of his pliilosophical system. He does not, like •*- /• 
 many of the early Fathers, regard man as virtually the 
 sole end of creation, but constantly assumes that he is — 
 merely one factor in the general world of spirits.^ So ~ 
 essential is the belief in pre-existence to his whole 
 theory of the universe that he is not even careful, 
 ^ This is quite consistent with his reply to Celsus, 
 
172 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 either by means of Plato's expedient of partial recollec- 
 tion or otherwise, to offer an explanation of the lack 
 of any connecting link in consciousness between the 
 present and the former life. By the position he takes 
 up wit] I reference to the pre-existcnce of souls he of 
 course ranks -himself as an opponent of both the 
 creationist and traducian theories as to tlie origin of 
 the human soul. 
 
 In his psychology Origen adopts the Platonic and 
 Pauline doctrine of trichotomy. The constitution of 
 man is threefold, consisting of spirit, soul {-^^vyj, amiina), 
 and body. Of these elements of human nature the 
 highest is tlic spirit, wliich has descended from the 
 upper world, and is joined to the body through the 
 medium of tlie animal soul. The soul thus stands 
 midway, so to speak, between the weak flesh and the 
 willing spirit, and constitutes the peculiar individualitj'- 
 of tlie man. To Origen this triple division of man's 
 constitution is necessary in order to account for our 
 antagonism to God, which can be traced neither to a 
 purely pliysical cause, nor to the rational spirit, which 
 must remain intact. This is scarcely in keeping, how- 
 ever, witli what Origen says about the spirit in man 
 having been "chilled" or transformed into a soul. 
 Such a process involves a certain measure of defection 
 from God, and where this takes place tlie integrity of 
 the rational spirit must necessarily be impaired. Nor 
 is his fanciful derivation of the Greek name for soul 
 from a verb signifying to w^ax cold, and his consequent 
 description of tluj soul as dixorced from the divine fire, 
 easily reconcilable witli his statements regarding the 
 sinless soul of Josus. In fact "the soul is treated just 
 as inconsistently as the Logos : it is a spirit grown 
 
ORIGEN'S THEOLOGY 173 
 
 cold, and yet no spirit." ^ It is, however, only fair to 
 say tliat Origen particularly disclaims doo-matisni with 
 reference to the conversion of the understanding into a 
 soul, and the different degrees in which in different 
 instances the intelligence is thus sensualised. These 
 and other kindred matters he brings forward, lie says, 
 " as topics of discussion for our readers." 
 
 The fallen human spirit still retains its freedom, and 
 has not lost the power of restoring itself to its former 
 condition. By our culpable descent to this world, how- 
 ever, we form part of a system of things which in- 
 evitably affects us for good or for evil. To this extent 
 Origen felt with Tennyson that 
 
 "The indiviihial -withers, and llic worhl is more and more." 
 
 The individual cannot entirely dissociate himself from 
 humanity in the aggTegate. Between parents and 
 cliildren there is a subtle spiritual affinity of such a 
 kind that all who ai'e born into the world are " not 
 only the sons, but the disciples of sinners." Yet there 
 remains in fallen man a spark of tlie divine, a germ 
 of goodness through tlic development of which he 
 may rise not only to the level of the angels, but even 
 to complete likeness to God Himself. According to 
 Origen, " the image of God " stamped upon man at his 
 creation guarantees to him the possibility of attaining 
 to perfection ; but the perfect realisation of the divine 
 " likeness " is reached only through the exercise of his 
 own diligence in the imitation of God. 
 
 In his intermediate position between the angels and 
 the demons man is constantly subjected to two cross- 
 winds of inspiration and impulse. His present position 
 ^ Haruack, Outlines of (he History of Dogma, p. 161. 
 
174 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 is thcrei'orc one of severe mental and moral conflict. 
 The liostile powers of evil, with Satan at their head, 
 instigate him to sin. Saints have to " wrestle not 
 against flesh and blood, but against principalities, 
 against powers," etc. On the other hand, they are 
 assisted by the angels of God, who are stationed over 
 the way of light as are the angels of Satan over the 
 way of darkness.^ Everyone has his good angel who 
 incites him to well-doing, and his evil angel who 
 lures him on to wickedness.^ We may resist the evil 
 suggestion, and we may disobey tlie divine call to 
 better things. Under every temptation we liave the 
 necessary power to enable us to overcome it. If we 
 choose to exercise it cUligently we shall conquer, but if 
 we use it slothfully we are defeated. All depends upon 
 the use we make of our faculty of free will. Victory 
 consists in the due mastery of the passions, in keeping 
 them, that is, within the natural bounds of moderation, 
 and in free devotion to the good. It is achieved througli 
 prayer, which weakens the influence of the demons. 
 God is " the just president " of the struggle, and nothing 
 that befalls us happens without His permission, or even 
 in the last resort apart from His providential guidance, 
 tliough the latter is, of course, exercised subject to the 
 liberty we possess. 
 
 Origen's conception of sin is dominated on the one 
 hand by the doctrine of pre-existence, and on the other 
 by tliat of free will. Tlie first establishes the fact, the 
 second the guilt, of sin. Already in its former state 
 the human soul was stained witli sin, so that it enters 
 upon terrestrial life in a sinful condition. Sin is in- 
 
 ' Ejiistle of Barnabas, chap, xviii. 
 - Shepherd of Ilermas, Com. vi. 2. 
 
ORIGEN'S THEOLOGY 175 
 
 separable from man's wliole earthly enviroiuiK-nt ; it is 
 the inevitable shadow east upon the spirit that has - 
 wandered from its source. Ori^'en appears to have 
 been satislied witli this view of the case until in 
 Csesarea he encountered the practice of infant baptism, 
 with its manifest bearing upon the question of original 
 sin. This led him further to conclude that there is a 
 certain hereditarj^ pollution attaching to all tlie children 
 of Adam. " Spermatic germs " of good and evil are 
 inherent from tlie first in every human being. The 
 narrative of the Fall in Genesis he interprets alle- 
 gorically as a delineation of the defection of the 
 entire human race. Adam is the type of moral agents 
 generally. But though Orio-en thus regards the sin of *) 
 all men as inherited from tl^ir first father, he by no ', 
 means accepts the doctrine of total depravity. Man is 
 moved by noble impulses which are the fruit of long 
 latent germs of good. He has an innate disposition 
 not only towards the lower realm of things that appeal 
 to the senses, but also towards the divine, eternal, and 
 invisible. In other words, he has a conscience, whicli - 
 is virtually a reminiscence of a former and better , 
 existence. This is the peculiarly spiritual element in | 
 man, and is directly related to tlie Spirit of God. It is, ) 
 in short, the law of God written upon the heart. 
 
 The guilt of sin is bound up with the idea of freedom. 
 Even .since the Fall man might have concpiered evil, 
 but he has chosen to listen to the solicitations of the 
 demons until to his original sin there has been added w 
 much actual transgression. Not that the body, altliough 
 the result of the Fall, is in its nature impure. The 
 devil is not the cause of our natural appetites. For 
 instance, concupiscence is not in itself sinful ; guilt is 
 
176 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 contracted only when we yield to it. In \iew, how- 
 ever, of unr lleshly constitution, wliicli renders evil 
 inevitable, and in view of the error inseparable from 
 temporary wrong development, our freedom is to a 
 * large extent illusory. No man can be sinless. In 
 Adam all sin, just as in Adam all die. Moral evil does 
 not originate in God, although in His government of 
 the world it is made subservient to the good ; nor does 
 it spring from matter, which is consequent upon sin ; it 
 ^ has its source in the freedom of the created spirit, 
 ^'that is, not in freedom itself, but in the free act of 
 declension from God. Origen conceives it, however, 
 as something negative ; in its essence it is neither real 
 nor eternal. It is the opposite of true being, which is 
 one with the good. With God's aid evil is not in- 
 vincible. In point of fact Origen believes strongly 
 in the ultimate complete triumph of the good. The 
 rebellious spirits must therefore return to God, the 
 devil himself not excepted. When this consummation 
 is reached, the present material world will come to 
 an end. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 Origen's Theology: Redemption and Restoration 
 
 In the matter of salvation Origeii insists upon the 
 necessity of the utmost moral cftbrt on tlic part of the 
 individual spirit. But in %icw of the extent to which, 
 through our own fault, the powers of evil have 
 gradually tightened their grip upon us, he is equally 
 explicit in affirming the necessity of divine help being 
 extended to us on a grander scale even than that im- 
 plied in the assistance of all the good powers, if we are 
 to be delivered from Satan's thraldom and restored to 
 a state of perfection. God Himself must come to our 
 help. Thus no human cfibrt can save apart from 
 divine grace. 
 
 i. Tlte Four Revelations 
 
 Ever since the Fall God lias been rendering help 
 through the medium of a manifold and progressive 
 revelation. To begin with. He has placed us under the 
 tuition of the natural law of conscience, which is bind- 
 ing upon all rational creatures, angels and sidereal 
 spirits, equally with men, being subject to its sway. 
 No man has perfectly kept this law ; " there is none 
 that doeth good ; no, not one," Yet where, through the 
 
178 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 cultivation of the ray ol' liglit tlins implanted in the 
 lunnan spirit, sometliing has been accomplisliod in tliis 
 direction, men shall not go altogether unrewarded. 
 Philosophy, however, is no passport to the kingdom of 
 heaven, from which the pagan is shut out because he 
 does not believe in Christ, and is not born again of 
 water and the Spirit.^ Elsewhere, it must be said, 
 Origen speaks with more licsitancy. What he clearly 
 says is that the natural light of reason, implanted by 
 the Word, is insufficient. 
 
 The next stage in the onward march of revelation 
 for the relief of the fallen spirit is that reached in the 
 law and the prophets. Through the precepts and 
 sacrificial sj^stem of the Mosaic law the power of sin 
 received a distinct check. Yet it was only a shadoNv 
 of better things to come, the clay model as it were of 
 the future bronze figure, the sclioolmaster whose train- 
 ing smooths the way for the reception of more perfect 
 principles. Even when supplemented by prophecy, it 
 cannot concpicr sin and error. The prophets were pure 
 spirits whose bodily nature was not the result of their 
 own declension from God. Although clotlied in mortal 
 flesh, they were sent by tlie Word to minister to men 
 battling with temptation, and to shed upon their moral 
 darkness some rays of celestial liglit. Their mission 
 was confined to a selected nation, so tliat it might 
 become the centre from mIucIi the salvation of God 
 should go forth to the ends of the earth. But these 
 measures still proved inadequate. 
 
 The liglit of conscience and the force of law having 
 failed to bring back the fallen spirits to the divine life, 
 the Word Himself had to appear in order that this end 
 ' III Rom. ii. 7. 
 
REDEMPTION AND RESTORATION 179 
 
 might be achieved. Hence the humiliation of the only- 
 begotten Son. Althongli man could not rise, He could 
 stoop. The Word and Wisdom of the Father assumed 
 tlic form of a servant in order that by His obedience 
 unto death He might teach the art of free obedience to 
 those for whom there is no other road to blessedness. 
 This is the fuller revelation of the gospel — a revelation 
 adapted to the various needs of the different orders 
 of rational creatures, from the highest angel down 
 to the lowest demon. To all men burdened with this 
 corporeal nature tl\e Word has at length visibly 
 appeared to bestow upon them redemption and eternal 
 blessedness according to the measure of their recep- 
 tivity. The two factors in our justification are our 
 faith and Christ's blood ; " of the two, however, it is 
 much more the blood of Christ than our faith that 
 justifies." ^ 
 
 Even this is not the final revelation of God to men. 
 The gospel is related to the perfect truth as the Old 
 Testament to the New, or as the legislation of 
 Deuteronomy to the rest of the Pentateuch. It is 
 only the shadow of the realities to be ushered in after 
 our a3on has run its course. Temporary and mutable, 
 it awaits its full unveiling through the second advent 
 of Christ. Then it will resolve itself into the eternal 
 gospel, which as the complete revelation of the divine 
 purposes has "no outer shell and no representation." 
 This eternal gospel lies concealed in Scripture, although 
 to some extent it is discernible to the reader who can 
 understand the mystic sense. It is the help aflbrded 
 to the perfect, and in heaven the saints shall live 
 according to its laws. 
 
 ^ In Mom. V. 8 f. 
 
1 80 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 ii. TJlc Incarnation 
 
 To Origen's mind tlie wonder of wondtTs is that the 
 very Word and Wisdom of God should liave existed 
 within the frame of that Man who appeared in Judcea, 
 should have been born and uttered cries as an infant, 
 should have sorrowed, died, and risen again. The 
 combination in Him of (pialities so human and so 
 divine baffles the understanding. If we think of a 
 God, we see a mortal; if of a man, we behold Him 
 returning from the grave laden with tlie spoils of 
 vau(]uished death. Indeed this is a mystery the ex- 
 planation of which is perhaps hidden from even tlie 
 celestial powers. In speaking of it therefore Origen is 
 
 ' careful to state that he is not dogmatising, but only 
 surmising. 
 
 A true-liearted Christian, Origen loyally accepts this 
 fundamental doctrine of the gospel ; he is deeply 
 touched with the love of the Saviour who " abased 
 Himself ... in order to benefit our race." Viewed 
 in itself, moreover, and a2)art from his system, his 
 teaching upon tlie Incarnation takes rank with his 
 best work. In this connection he may even be said 
 to have rendered special service, for never until he did 
 so, tlu-ougli an able analysis of its constituent parts, 
 had the completeness of the human nature of the 
 Redeemer been adequately set forth. But obviously 
 
 - the dogma of the Incarnation does not fit well into his 
 speculative system, one of the root principles of which 
 
 » is the immutability of the divine life. Upon such a 
 
 V presupposition the Word could neither suffer nor die. 
 Besides as pure spirit He could not unite Himself 
 directly with sin - tainted corporeal nature. These 
 
REDEMPTION AND RESTORATION i8i 
 
 apparent contradictions Origen tries to solve by means 
 of his ingenious doctrine of tlie intermediary human* 
 soul of Jesus. It was with this soul, which was alike 
 capable of assuming a body and of receiving God, that 
 the Word united Himself : His union with the body 
 existed only in so far as it was mediated through the ^ 
 soul. In thus indicating the metaphysical basis of this 
 redemptive union with the Word, Origen makes it 
 clear that the soul chosen for this honour was one - 
 that had never fallen away from God or ceased to live ^ 
 in closest fellowship with the Word. Not that the 
 soul of Jesus was in any respect different from all 
 other human souls ; but in the exercise of its freedom 
 it elected to love lighteousness, and that with such 
 ardour as to destroy all susceptibility for change. It 
 was thus raised beyond the possibility of sin; from 
 being a fact its sinlessness became a necessity. The ^ 
 Logos, however, did not so dwell in the soul and body-y 
 of Christ as to preclude his operation on other re-/ 
 ceptive souls according to their merit ; on the contrary. 
 His action continued to be as widespread as before. 
 But in no case was the union so close as in that of ' 
 Jesus. The various functions and attributes of the 
 Word made flesh are presented by Origen as a flight 
 of steps, so to speak, which the Christian ascends as 
 his knowledge increases. But here too the ideal ethical 
 union is that between the Word and the human soul of 
 Jesus. Through the immensity of its love the latter 
 was so closely joined to God as to be of one spirit 
 with Him. Using an illustration of epoch-making- 
 importance in the history of dogma, Origen compares - 
 the union of the two to a mass of redhot iron. The^ 
 soul lies perpetually in the Word, the humanity in the ' 
 
1 82 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 divinity, as iron in the fire. As tlic niclal is capable 
 of cold and heat, so is the soul capable of deification ; 
 the soul of Christ is completely transfused with the 
 divine fire ; " in all that it does, feels, and understands," 
 it is God, and that imnuitably. Accordinoly, in Scrip- 
 ture the human nature is frequently spoken of in terms 
 of the divine, and vice versa. Real and intimate as 
 this union is, however, it does not amount to actual 
 - intermingling of the soul and the Word ; rather does 
 the former cleave inseparably to the latter by a con- 
 stant exercise of will. 
 
 Although tlie Alexandrian theologians rejected 
 Docetism in its grosser forms, tlierc is nevertheless a 
 certain Docetic tinge about their views regarding the 
 Lord's body. Clement especially comes very near to 
 divesting it of all reality. According to him the body 
 of Jesus, being sustained by a divine power, retjuired no 
 food. It was also impervious to pain. Ilis doctrine of 
 the human soul of Christ enaljled Origen to ascribe to 
 it tlie sensations incidental to bodil}" existence, and 
 to maintain the impassibility of the Logos. Jesus 
 really hungered and thirsted, was tired and slept, ex- 
 -perienced sorrow and suffering; but these sensations 
 
 - were confined to the soul and the body, which were 
 -both truly human. Yet through its intimate union 
 
 - with the divine the body of Jesus had a special 
 character of its own. Not only was it pure and un- 
 defiled, as the offspring of a virgin conceived by "the 
 Holy Ghost; throiigli the will of the Logos acting 
 upon matter, wliicli is essentially mobile, it also 
 possessed the property of assuming the particular 
 f(jnn most calculated to impress the beholder. That 
 
 "^ Jesus appeared thus in different forms to ditl'erent 
 
REDEMPTION AND RESTORATION 183 
 
 persons, according to the measure of their ability to 
 receive llini, is sliown by the exclusion i'rom the Mount 
 of Transfiguration of all His apostles except the three 
 who were alone fit to behold His glorification. He had 
 one aspect to the sick, another to tlic strong who 
 followed Him up the mountain slope where He taught 
 them the Beatitudes. To some He was without form 
 or comeliness, but for others the divine beauty shone 
 through the material frame. At Gethsemane it needed 
 the traitor's kiss to disclose Him to the insusceptible 
 crowd. It is thus evident that Origen's view of matter *■ 
 as a changing substance qualifies to some extent his- 
 admission of the reality of Christ's body. On this 
 account it has even been said that " the incarnation, as 
 he represents it, is more nearly allied to the religion of 
 India than to that of the apostles." ^ 
 
 It was further held by Origen that during Christ's 
 earthly life there took place a gradual glorification of f^ 
 the soul by the Logos, and of the body l^y the soul, so -^ 
 that from this standpoint also the body of Jesus had 
 no stereotyped form even prior to the resurrection. 
 After that event, which was a reality and no mere 
 appearance, it was a uniformly glorified body, and 
 became more and more glorified until it reached the 
 point of complete volatilisation. This explains why he 
 showed Himself alive after His passion only to the 
 disciples ; there was no longer about Him anything _, 
 Avhich the unenlightened could see.^ Transformed at 
 length into pure spirit, and received into the Godhead, 
 He is no longer man, but is identical with the Word. 
 
 In building up his theory of the incarnation Origen 
 
 ' Piessensd, The Early Vuars of Christianity, iii. p. 327. 
 ^ Contra Cclsiivi, ii. G4, 
 
1 84 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 makes use of material gathered i'rom sundry sources. 
 Indeed, with the single exception of " modalism," it is 
 hardly too much to say that " all conceivable heresies 
 are here touched upon, but guarded by cautions." ^ 
 Apart from the Docetic element already alluded to, 
 perhaps the most notable blemishes in Origen's theory 
 are its vacillation between a personal and an im- 
 personal Logos, its virtual subversion of the reality of 
 the union of the Word with humanity (seeing that 
 according to his own system the perfect soul of Jesus 
 cannot be a human soul at all), its semi-dualistic con- 
 ception of the Redeemer's person, and its suggestion 
 that human nature is but a temporary garb, and not 
 destined for eternal glorification. On the other hand, 
 the great merit of Origen's conception is that Avithin 
 the framework of a scientific Christology an ample 
 place is found for the humanity alongside of a full 
 recognition of the divine nature and personality of the 
 Word. Thus at length the human nature came to its 
 rights, and the idea of the incarnation was really 
 accepted. 
 
 Origen was the first to use the term God-Man. In 
 striking out this bold expression he sought to indicate 
 the value of Christ's person, not only as the revelation 
 in bodily form of the fulness of the Godhead, but also 
 as showing the possibility of the human spirit becoming 
 wholly divine. In the incarnation of the Logos we see 
 the restoration of the original unity between the divine 
 and the human, and the earnest of. the re-deification of 
 the entire spiritual world. He did not, like the Latin 
 theologians, propound a doctrine of two natures, but 
 set himself to show that the man Christ Jesus became 
 ' Harnack, Outlines of the Histonj of Dogma, p. 10 1, 
 
REDEMPTION AND RESTORATION 185 
 
 gradually one in will and in I'eelino- with the Deit}^- 
 and is in this respect a model for the perfect Christian 
 to whom alone His person can be known. The tendency 
 of his speculation, however, was to obscure the reality 
 of the Redeemer's person. By representing Him as all 
 that Christians can conceive Him to have been, Origen 
 virtually reduces Christ to the sj'mbol of a many-sided 
 redemption. For the advanced Christian His humanit}'' 
 together with its history has no real significance. What 
 the true Gnostic finds in Him is the revelation of the 
 divine Reason. The only important consideration for 
 him is that whereas, hitherto, the Logos had dwelt only 
 very partially in mankind, his indwelling in Jesus 
 inaugurates his more complete indwelling in men. He 
 is not concerned with Christological problems. Ques- 
 tions regarding the divinity or humanity of Christ 
 are only for imperfect Christians, who, however, are 
 entitled to look to the perfect for their solution, and 
 for the defending of the same against eii'or, whether 
 Docetic or Ebionitic. 
 
 iii. The Sacrifice of Christ 
 
 In Origen's view redemption is in no sense an 
 exaltation of the created spirit to a higher position 
 than that which it originally occupied; rather is it 
 essentially a restoration to that position of perfect life 
 in God which the spirits in the exercise of freedom 
 deliberately abandoned. The redeemed are those who, 
 purified from every stain of sin, find once more in God 
 their all in all. It is through Christ that this consum- 
 mation is reached. In Him the unit}'' of God and the 
 created spirits, which had been broken by the rebellion 
 
1 86 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 of the latter, is a^ain actually established ; and He is 
 thus the rallying point for the re-elevation of the 
 entire spiritual world to the divine. 
 
 No one can read Origen without being struck with 
 the vastness of the atniospliere. The Avide sweep of 
 his imagination, his speculative boldness, and his noble 
 spirituality are in e\idence almost on every page. It 
 Mas a natural result of his view of the solidarity" of all 
 things that he should have regarded the death of 
 Christ as a sacrifice for the whole w^orld. Its bene- 
 ficial effects are not limited to men ; they extend to 
 angels as well. After His ascension He became to the 
 angels an angel, as He had become a man to men, and 
 so is made all things to all. His blood, shed on 
 Calvary for men, has been mystically sprinkled upon 
 the heavenly altar for the redemption of celestial 
 beings, if not for sin, yet in order to an increase of 
 their blessedness. Christ was thus a double victim, by 
 the blood of whose cross the Father has reconciled all 
 things unto Himself, whether they be things in earth 
 or things in heaven. The effect of the Saviour's 
 offering of love extends to the utmost reach of the 
 disturbance that has marred God's plan of creation. 
 Even in Hades, whither His soul descended whilst His 
 body lay in the tomb. His salvation was imparted to 
 the sjjirits that were willing to receive Him. So true 
 is it that " in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, 
 of things in heaven, and things in earth, and tilings 
 under the eartlt." 
 
 Origen was the first among the early Fathers to 
 elaborate a theory of the Atonement. In doing so he 
 made use not of the Scriptures only, but also of such 
 current popular conceptions as appeared to him ethically 
 
REDEMPTION AND RESTORATION 187 
 
 valuable. Among those, one of the most widespread 
 was that which viewed the death oi* Christ as a ransom 
 paid to the devil, who held us in bondage. Through 
 sin Ave sold ourselves to him, the coin he paid for us 
 being that of murder, adultery, and theft. Christ's 
 death was necessary to redeem us from this slavery. 
 With this view Origen linked on the Gnostic notion, 
 (founded, doubtless, upon tlie ancient principle that 
 sincerity towards an enemy is not obligatory), that the 
 devil allowed himself to be duped. God offered to him 
 the human soul of Christ in exchange for the souls of 
 men. This the devil himself greatly desired, considering 
 that with Jesus in his power he could make an easy 
 prey of the whole human race. Through the Lord's 
 betrayers and murderers he took possession of the soul 
 of Jesus, as he had erstwhile done of Job's substance. 
 But the torments caused him by that sinless soul were 
 so intolerable to him that he could not retain his hold 
 upon it. Jesus has thus vanquished death and him 
 that had the power of it. Not only so ; His victory is 
 also the emancipation of all who believe on Him. The 
 true King dethroned the usurper even where he had set 
 up his dominion ; He went down into the realm of 
 death to set the prisoners free. Thus, then, is Christ 
 our ransom. The God who became man, the divine 
 high priest within the Redeemer, paid the price of our 
 redemption from the sovereignty of Satan ; and the 
 offering which He laid upon the altar was that of His 
 human soul. The body, as essentially unreal, could 
 have no share in the atonement, and His spirit the 
 Saviour had already committed to the Father. 
 
 Origen further regards the death of Christ as an 
 expiation offered to God. Christ has reconciled us to 
 
1 88 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 the Father by siiffciinp^ the puni.slimcnt of death to 
 Avhicli our o;uilt had rendered us liable. Although 
 Origeii did not develop the concei^tion of the vicarious 
 character of Christ's sacrifice, as was subsequently done 
 by Ansehn, lie undoubtedly took this view of it. So 
 much i.s implied even in his constant use of the epithet 
 " our Saviour " ; but Ave find this standpoint definitely 
 adopted in his writings, which represent Christ as 
 having put on, so to speak, our filthy garments, and 
 drunk the cup of suffering that we might be spared its 
 bitterness, while God has " willed the intervention of a 
 proj^itiator, that those might be justified by faith in 
 Him who could not be justified by their own works." 
 It was divinely decreed that salvation should rest upon 
 sacrifice, that the power of sin should yield only to the 
 power of crucified love. In Origen's view punishment 
 is never "identified with vengeance, but is always 
 -connected M'itli the amendment of the sinner." There 
 - is no such thing as divine wi-ath. When through the 
 dominion of sin chastisement no longer availed to make 
 men better, then in His love the Father sent the Son, 
 who, through His self-sacrificing death, destroyed the 
 power of sin, and won for us remission from punish- 
 ment. Christ's sacrifice is thus a satisfactioli not to 
 God's penal justice, but to His loving will. 
 
 By His death upon the cross and His glorious resur- 
 rection Christ has also, according to Origen, triumphed 
 over the demons and freed us from their dominion. 
 Their weakness stands out in sharp relief against the 
 bright background of the holiness revealed in the 
 Redeemer's sufferings. It is this holiness that gives to 
 these sufferings their power. In virtue of it the 
 demons are repulsed, and we are enabled to enter upon 
 
REDEMPTION AND RESTORATION 189 
 
 the new life of those "risen witli Christ." If His 
 death has overcome all hostile powers of evil, it is no 
 less efficacious in subduing sin in believers themselves. 
 But only those w^ho in penitence and faith yield them- 
 selves wliolly to Him can experience the sanctifying 
 power which goes forth from Him, and which consumes 
 sin in everyone who receives it, as fire consumes the 
 flesh of the sacrificial victim. It is through His dcatli, 
 which was in every way indispensable to the world's 
 redemption, that this divine power of salvation has 
 come to full realisation. Freed thereby from every 
 corporeal and local limitation, He places His divine 
 love at the service of all, and by the breath of His 
 mouth withers up evil. In the martyrdom of the 
 saints there is a virtual continuation of the crucifixion. 
 As a true priest offering the sacrifice of himself, the 
 martyr too, in his own measure, conquers evil. All 
 innocent blood diminishes the empire of evil, its efficacy 
 in this direction depending upon the value of him who 
 surrenders his life. 
 
 While Origen does not, like the Gnostics, deny the 
 historical chaiactcr of Christ's redemptive work, nor, 
 like Clement, virtually ignore its objective character ; 
 while, on the contrary, he maintains that for less 
 advanced Christians it is quite essential, he yet holds 
 that this aspect of the truth is not the highest. Owing 
 to the diversity of the spirits, particularly of men, the 
 redeeming work of the Word is not confined to one 
 stereotyped form. While its material aspect as a 
 visible redemption from the powers of evil appeals 
 most strongly to those of weaker capacity, there are 
 others to whom the work of Jesus is primarily one of 
 enlightenment. In communicating to them fulness of 
 
I90 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 knowledge He also makes Ihem sharers ol' His oAvn 
 life. Tlirouo-li tlie help of the Divine Teacher they are 
 restored to fellowship with God and attain to deifica- 
 tion. This is the goal for all, and the object of 
 Christianity in all its stages ; but the true Gnostic 
 reaches it not through faith in the crucified, but 
 through knowledge and love. In this way he rises 
 above the historical Christ, and lays hold of the very 
 essence of the Son revealed through His teaching in 
 the eternal gospel. The Christ of the perfect is not the 
 Christ of faith, but the Christ who dwells in us ; not 
 the Christ of history, but the Christ of experience. In 
 thus maintaining the objective reality of Christ's 
 sacrifice, while yet relegating it to a subordinate 
 position, Origen has recourse to what Harnack calls 
 his " masterly art of reconciling contradictions," in this 
 case the respective views of the orthodox Christians and 
 of the Gnostics. But the clear-cut manner in which he 
 separates the divine and human elements in the person 
 of Jesus, to the destruction of its unity, constitutes the 
 chief blot upon his theory. 
 
 iv. TJlc Soid's Return to God 
 
 If, by His conquest of sin and Satan, Christ has 
 rendered our salvation possible, there must still be on 
 our part an appropriation of it. The human ^vill must 
 co-operate with the divine grace. Christ's work leaves 
 scope for our freedom and our faith. No doubt " in 
 good things the human will is of itself weak to accom- 
 plish any good, for it is by divine help that it is 
 brought to perfection in everything," ^ yet it is equally 
 ^ Dc rrinc. iii. 2. 2. 
 
REDEMPTION AND RESTORATION 191 
 
 true that " God wislics us to be saved by means ol" our- 
 selves." It is only Avlien avc have freely clioscn the 
 good part that grace comes to our aid. The measure 
 of its bestowal is regulated by our spiritual progress. 
 As the soul ascends by successive stages to the divine, 
 it is gradually and proportionately endowed witli 
 grace. 
 
 In the soul's return to God the starting-point is 
 repentance, whicli must be earnest, and repeated a\ ith 
 every new transgression. Like John the Baptist, it is 
 the Lord's forerunner, preparing His way in the soul. 
 Even a good man will stumble, but he does not, like 
 the wicked, abide in his sin ; rising up again, he turns 
 to the Lord Avith bitter tears and fasting, and so escapes 
 like a bird from the snare of the fowler. In the 
 absence of repentance Christ's redemptive work is 
 rendered nugatory, but it will avail us even after 
 grievous post-baptismal sin if we abandon it in true 
 penitence. As punishment is proportioned to trans- 
 gression, so is forgiveness to repentance ; a partial 
 repentance means only a partial salvation. True 
 repentance finds vent in confession, not only to the 
 Lord, but to such Christian brethren as are wise 
 spiritual pli3'sicians, and especially to " a priest of the 
 Lord," by whose instruction and warnings the sinner 
 may be helped to overcome his sin. Christ has been 
 expressly commissioned in ordrr tliat tlie (evil) 
 thoughts of many hearts may be revealed, and that 
 tlu'ougli his atoning death tliey may be destroyed. If 
 we thus acknowledge our sin now, the Lord will heal 
 us; but if we fail in this way to anticipate our accuser, 
 we must, in tliat day when all secrets shall be dis- 
 closed, share his fate in hell. The genuine penitent is 
 
192 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 also careful to reform his life. Apart from such 
 amendment, repentance is vain and conversion unreal. 
 No less necessary in order to our spiritual recovery 
 is faith, or the reception into the heart of that which 
 is believed. For faith is not mere assent, but a heart- 
 fellowship with God which expresses itself in cor- 
 responding works of righteousness. It is our own 
 act, although for all increase of faith we are dependent 
 upon divine aid. Faith is the essential prerequisite of 
 true knowledge; to know Christ we must believe on 
 Him. In seeking Him we must aim at no partial 
 appropriation of His grace and truth. It is towards 
 the whole Christ " in His indivisible and higher nature " 
 that our desire must be directed. Yet we may and do 
 partake of Him in different degrees. The majority 
 know Christ only according to the flesh, i.e. as cruci- 
 fied ; and while even so they occupy a higher position 
 than the idolater or star-worshipper, or heathen philo- 
 sopher, they are yet but the slaves of the Lord, who 
 must rise by successive stages to be disciples, little 
 children, children, brothers of Jesus, and sons of God. 
 Christ is tlius formed in us only gradually, and dwells 
 in every soul in proportion to its receptivity.^ Our 
 knowledge is a gi-owing quantity. Beginning with 
 the religious apprehension of tilings visible, it rises 
 to that of things invisible. From the vision of the 
 crucified, the mind passes to the contemplation of the 
 glorified. Redeemer, and grasps, so far as in it lies, the 
 divine essence itself. 
 
 ^ If Origen was a speculative latitudiiiarian, he was also a sincerely 
 pious mystic — a forerunner of Bernaid oC Clairvaux and the unknown 
 author of the De imUationc Chridi, of Tauler and Bidimen, of Feuc'lon 
 and Madame de Guyon. 
 
REDEMPTION AND RESTORATION 193 
 
 This result, however, is not reached througli know- 
 ledge alone, apart from love. The true knowledge 
 is not of a cold and purely intellectual nature; it 
 is essentially love, and its fruit is holiness. Man's 
 God is what he superlatively loves. The cooling of 
 the spirits in their devotion to God was their fall, for 
 it meant that they turned with zest to the inferior. 
 Man is so constituted that he must love, whether the 
 object of his affection be the truly or only apparently 
 good ; and wliere he chooses wrongly, and becomes 
 addicted to any form of idolatry, God recalls him 
 through loving chastisement to the right path. The 
 lever that raises us is the divine power in Christ ; and 
 when we have by this means ascended from the depths 
 of sin and worldliness to the heights of holiness, M^e 
 once more love God in Christ with all our heart and 
 soul. This love also manifests itself as obedience ; it 
 inspires us to leave all and follow Him. In doing so 
 we become spiritually regenerate. The work of Christ 
 throws open to us the path of regeneration; but, as 
 conceived by Origen, this is not a definite renewal of 
 the inward nature. It is merely a process, wliich is 
 lifelong; and, owing to our constant liability to 
 deteriorate, it may be tortuous. Of regeneration in 
 the sense of a new birth or radical change of heart, 
 accompanied by Christ's royal rescript sealing our 
 pardon and opening for us the heavenly sanctuary, 
 Origen's theological system knows nothing. This 
 means that no one can make sure of heaven. But 
 thus to take away the element of assurance is to 
 emasculate religion by depriving men of the peculiar 
 rest and enju}'ment which the doctrine of forgiveness 
 is fitted to afford. While, however, in this way the 
 13 
 
194 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 very marrow of evangelical doctrine may be said to 
 be alien to Origen's system of thought, he is not 
 careful always to wear the strait waistcoat. Not 
 only docs he style baptism the bath of regeneration : 
 again and again, in setting forth the love of God the 
 Fatlier, and tlic blessings of adoption and sonship 
 " first given in the new covenant," his words reflect 
 in no inadequate degi'cc the true message and spirit of 
 the gospel. 
 
 In its progress Godward, then, the soul rises step 
 by step, and advances from one stage of recovery to 
 another. Beginning with faitli in the crucified Re- 
 deemer and the acceptance of Holy Scripture in its 
 literal sense, our knowledge of the trutli is deepened 
 and widened through the enlightening influence of the 
 Spirit, until its sanctifying power cleanses us from sin 
 and elevates us once more to the level of the heavenly. 
 Faith becomes a higher knowledge wliich reaches its 
 consunmiation in the direct spiritual vision of trutli. 
 Enlightenment by the Spirit is bestowed concurrently 
 with, and in proportion to, the sanctification of the 
 heart, and as the result of this twofold spiritual pro- 
 cess the redemption brought by Christ is realised in 
 us. In other words, this is the path along which 
 humanity can reach its destined goal of deification. 
 
 Although he confidently contrasts the Christian with 
 the heathen, Origen admits that owing to the inborn 
 tendency to sin as well as the constraint of evil habits, 
 there is in every case much required in order to com- 
 plete sanctification. But the Spirit of God can effect 
 tliis in the face of all obstacles. Where there is the 
 willing heart, and no lack of spiritual exercise, there 
 will be progress in holiness. What is evil in us will 
 
REDEMPTION AND RESTORATION 195 
 
 be cast out; what is hostile to our spiritual life will 
 be overcome. The Sa\ioui' waits to wash hands, and 
 feet, and head, until we be entirely purged from sin. 
 Perfect sinlessness, however, is not always effected 
 wherever Christianity is embraced ; indeed, this result 
 is attained by but few professing Christians, and apart 
 from the acceptance of Christian doctrine it cannot be 
 attained at all. 
 
 In Origen's system Christian ethics is based on Christ 
 as "the substance of the virtues." The moral quality 
 of an action is determined by its ultimate relation to 
 Him. Those who profess to be His disciples, and yet 
 let tlie cares of this life or the deceitfulness of riches 
 crush him out of their minds, are wreathing his brow 
 afresh with the crown of thorns. It is not slavish 
 obedience to the outward letter of the law, but the free 
 obedience of the spirit proceeding from love, that con- 
 stitutes true holiness. It is in the heart that good and 
 evil are reall}^ accomplished, and to the pure in con- 
 science all things are pure. Under the Christian 
 dispensation tlie only fasting of real value is fasting 
 from sin, and the only consecrated altar is that of the 
 believing heart. Neitlier is there any such distinction 
 of days as in Judaism, for all days alike are days of 
 the Lord. Lofty as is the spiritual character of this 
 teaching, Origen takes a somewhat narrow view of 
 certain points connected with individual and social 
 ethics. This was no doubt due to the fact that in his 
 time the State was based not upon Christian but upon 
 pagan ideas. He was thus constrained to teach that 
 Christians may serve kings by praying for them, but 
 must not bear arms or " slay men." They must even 
 decline public office in the interests of a diviner service 
 
196 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 in the Churcli of CJod.^ " Things strangled " are not fit 
 food for a Christian ; an oath of any sort is not for 
 him. To contract a second marriage is highly censur- 
 able ; to attend a theatre or a circus is to commit sin. 
 Most astonishing of all is it to find Origen following 
 Plato in maintaining the necessity of "the medicinal 
 lie " l^ecause of its corrective effect upon the patient. 
 In spite of these blemishes, however, liis ethical stand- 
 point must be pronounced singularly exalted and 
 pure. 
 
 In his idea of the Churcli Origen dissociates himself 
 from the view accepted in the West since Cyprian's 
 time, that it consists of all wlio are baptized. He lays 
 stress upon tlic distinction between the Church visible 
 and invisible, and in this particular he represents a 
 distinct advance upon the view of his predecessor 
 Clement also. For Origen the Church is the com- 
 munity of the holy, the one family of the saints in 
 heaven and upon earth, tlie great company whose 
 ruling impulse is the will of God. It is the Lord's 
 bride, His house, His temple. His body, and is without 
 spot or wrinkle. Its members are confined to those 
 who truly believe, and outside of it there is no salva- 
 tion. In the visible Church, despite the utmost effort 
 to secure purity, there will always be some tares 
 among the wheat. Open sinners are to be cast out of 
 the congregation, as are also even lesser offenders 
 whom repeated warnings fail to affect. As Origen, 
 however, had reason to knoAV, there may be sucli a 
 thing as unjust excommunication on the part of 
 "envious and self-seeking bisliops," but in this case 
 there is no exclusion from tlie kingdom of heaven, just 
 ' Contra Cchum, viii. 73-75. 
 
REDEMPTION AND RESTORATION 197 
 
 as, on the contrary, such exckision does take place 
 in the case of the sinnei- against whom no eccle- 
 siastical sentence has been pronounced. Those who 
 are wrongly cast out of the Church must bow to the 
 unjust decree, and await tlie unerring judgment of the 
 future. 
 
 The unity of the Church is spiritual, and exists 
 iTuder a variety of outward organisation. Many 
 clmrches go to form the Church visible, which in 
 Origen's view, as in Clement's, is the reflex of the 
 heavenly Zion. Noteworthy and interesting in this 
 connection is his attitude towards the Roman See. 
 While not animated by the hierarchical spirit of the 
 West, and while maintaining that every Christian who 
 adopts Peter's confession shares in the privilege con- 
 veyed in the Saviour's words, " Whatsoever thou 
 slialt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and 
 whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in 
 heaven," he nevertheless felt a genuine veneration for 
 the antiquity of the Church of Rome, and was ready 
 in a limited sense to admit its primacy. If the Lord 
 did not found the Church upon Peter to the exclusion 
 of tlie rest of the apostles, He nevertheless by His words 
 distinguished him above them all. Orio-en did not 
 regard this distinction as the hereditary possession of 
 Peter's successors at Rome, but at the same time he 
 looked upon " the eternal city " as the most ancient 
 and honourable seat of the Christian faith. With 
 great zest he made a pilgrimage to it in order that lie 
 might witness and hear for himself the worship and 
 doctrine of what had already become the leading 
 Church in Christendom, and perhaps his keenest pang 
 in connection with his condemnation by Demetrius was 
 
198 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 caused by the knowledge that it was acquiesced in by 
 the Italian See.^ 
 
 Accoiding to Ovigen every Christian is a priest in 
 virtue of the spiritual sacrifice which he offers. Through 
 almsgiving, charity, self-niortification, niartj'rdom, we 
 share in the saciiiicc of Christ, and so in His priest- 
 hood. But it is only in this moral and figurative sense 
 that an}' layman can bo failed a priest. Origen did 
 not allow the treatment meted out to himself to lead 
 him to belittle the office of the ministry. He magnifies 
 it more than Clement does, and shows a distinct leaning 
 towards a restricted use of the priestly name. Those 
 who bear it, however, must have a character in keeping 
 with it. In short, " his doctrine of clerical authority is 
 not unlike that of Wiclif. The power to bind and 
 loose depends upon the spiritual worthiness of him 
 who wields it."- No fixed conclusion had been arrived 
 at regarding the extent of this power. A distinction 
 was generally made between mortal and ^■enial sins, 
 but it remain(>d a question whether mortal sins such as 
 nmrder or idolatry, connnitted after baptism, could be 
 forgiven on earth. In some cases a single absolution 
 was allowed, but already in Origen's day the Church 
 of Rome regarded no sin as unpardonable if duly 
 repented of. His f)\\ai view on the subject appears to 
 liave undergone a change. In his earlier writings he 
 uncomj^ronn'singly affirms that no death-sin can be 
 forgiven by the Church. Not that in such a case the 
 sinner is hopelessly lost; God may forgive him in some 
 
 ^ At all events, if we may trust Eusehiiis, he wrote to Pope Fabian in 
 vindication of liis ortliodoxy, and requesting to be readmitted to fellow- 
 sliij>. See above, p. 53. 
 
 ^ Bigg, Christian Plaiouists, p. 215. 
 
REDEMPTION AND RESTORATION 199 
 
 future 03011. Latterly, liowever, he represents the most 
 heiiious sins as the subjects of priestly absolution, and 
 reserves the excommunication of the Church for tlie 
 obdurately impenitent. 
 
 Orioen was no sacrainentarian. He attached but 
 little importance to the visible. In his view the 
 sacraments have only a S3''mbolic value, and belong to 
 the categoiy of veiled forms and images by which the 
 truth can be communicated to the "common man." 
 For the latter, indeed, they are essential, while even to 
 the advanced Christian they are of some consequence. 
 
 Baptism with water is merely the symbol of the 
 soul's purification. It does not effect this ; it only 
 represents it. The puiihcation itself is antecedent to 
 baptism ; we must be dead to sin before we can through 
 baptism be buried with Christ. A certain impurit}'', 
 moral as well as physical, attaches to birth, but in 
 baptism we have the visible counterpart to this. It is 
 thus a second birth, by means of which the stains of 
 the first are erased. Not that this result is due to the 
 water, for baptism is essentially a birth from above 
 through the Holy Ghost. Where it is not such, it has 
 no purifying power. Those who seek baptism without 
 laying aside their sins do not thereby obtain pardon. 
 While the Saviour baptizes the holy with the Spirit, 
 He relegates the sinful to the fire. The same outward 
 ceremony may thus be fraught with salvation or with 
 condemnation. To receive baptism unto salvation is 
 far from easy. There is no magical or necessary con- 
 nection between baptism with water and the reception 
 of the Holy Spirit. But where it is properly received, 
 and the Spirit communicated, the s3nnl)olic character 
 of baptism is transcended, so to speak, and it becomes, 
 
200 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 through the power of the invocation of the Trinity, 
 "the beginning and source of divine gifts of grace," 
 operating tlic forgiveness of all former sins, and filling 
 the heart with the Holy Spirit. The pardon of post- 
 baptismal sins must be procured by ourselves through 
 repentance, charity, constant striving after what is 
 good, and should it so please God, tlirough the bloody 
 baptism of a martyr's death. In accordance witli 
 apostolic tradition, the Church administers baptism 
 even to infants in recognition of the fact tliat in every 
 human being are real stains of sin which require to be 
 washed away by water and the Spirit. 
 
 Quite in keeping witli this view of baptism is 
 Origeu's doctrine of the Lord's Supper. In no case 
 does he attach value to the external and the material, 
 and accordingly it is not the sign but the thing 
 signified that has importance for him. Not that the 
 water in baptism or the bread and wine in the Supper 
 are worthless ; they do confer something, but only in 
 the same way as the external in the life of Christ 
 whose miracles were fraught with temporal advantage 
 to those on whom they were wrought, while yet as 
 helps to faith their true significance was a spiritual 
 one. With the sacrifice of the Lamb of God for the 
 sin of tlie world, otlier sacrifices have ceased. In the 
 Eucharist, tlierefore, there is no material sacrifice, no 
 bloodless repetition of the sin-offering on the Cross, the 
 only sacrifice associated with it being tluit of the 
 Christian liimself ; and no material presence of Clu'ist, 
 who is, liowever, rcall}'' and spiritually, and really just 
 because S2:)iritually, present. When the Saviour speaks 
 of His body and blood. He does so in a sj)iritual sense. 
 These terms refer to His teaching:. When we receive 
 
REDEMPTION AND RESTORATION 201 
 
 them we are said to eat His flesh and drink His blood. 
 " For it was not that visible bread which He held in 
 His hands that God the Word called His body, but the 
 word as a symbol whereof that bread was to be broken. 
 Nor was it that visible cup that He called His blood, 
 but the word as a symbol whereof that wine was to be 
 poured out." ^ The body and blood of Christ can only 
 be that word which nourishes and delights our souls. 
 "Inasmuch as He is perfectly pure, His whole flesh is 
 food ; and because His every act is holy and His every 
 word true, His whole blood is drink. For by the flesh 
 and blood of His word, as if by pure food and drink, 
 the whole human race is refreshed." ^ Of this true 
 bread from heaven the desert-manna was the type, and 
 the Lord's Supper is the appointed memorial. In this 
 commemorative feast w^e are re-endowed with the grace 
 of God, not, of course, through the mere external act of 
 communicating, but through the spiritual enjoyment of 
 the mystic bread. We renew the memory of Christ's 
 body and blood by exercising trust in Him and by ex- 
 pressing our confidence in prayer. Although Romanists 
 have claimed his support, there is no ground for the 
 opinion that Origen held the doctrine of transub- 
 stantiation in any form. No change takes place in 
 the elements used ; they do not " become " the body 
 and blood of Christ. He does, however, refer to the 
 idea of a bodily presence in the Supper as distinctive 
 of the elementary Christian who is in bondage to the 
 letter, so that already in his time this strange super- 
 stition had apparently arisen. Origen calls attention to 
 the fact that Christ did not say, " This is the bread of 
 the New Testament," as He said of the cup, " This is 
 ' In Malt., Scries 85. " In Lev., Honi. vii. 5. 
 
202 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 My blood of the Now Testament," because the bread is 
 the word of righteousness or of the Old Testament, 
 wliile the wine is the word of the knowledge of Christ. 
 Old Testament righteousness cannot confer blessedness 
 apart from faith in His passion. It is written, " Blessed 
 is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God." 
 There, however, there will be no eating and drinking 
 of a corporeal nature, but a partaking of that angelic 
 food of whicli our Lord speaks when He saj's, " My 
 meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me." This is 
 meat indeed and drink indeed. The elements used in 
 the sacrament are merely symbols to assist our weak- 
 ness. The bread in itself is and remains corruptible. 
 It can do us no good apart from a living faith, a pure 
 heart, and an upright conscience. It is not leaving off 
 to eat of the consecrated bread that works us harm, 
 but the wickedness that leads to such omission; nor 
 does the observance of the sacrament do us good if we 
 be lacking in regard to a virtuous life. In listening to 
 Christ's words we drink His blood as truly as we do in 
 the Supper ; the only difference is the introduction in 
 the latter case of tlie symbolical. What is of service 
 to those who observe it not unworthily is not the 
 material bread, but the prayer of faith which has been 
 uttered over it; and wliat injures those who partake 
 of it unworthily is not the bread itself, but the power 
 of the truth in the words buund up witli it. 
 
 V. The Lost Thiv(js 
 
 Origen dissociates himself entirely from those who 
 paint the future in colours of sensuous attractiveness, 
 and look to it for a repetition on a luxurious scale of 
 
REDEMPTION AND RESTORATION 203 
 
 such bodily pleasures as may be tasted in tliis life. 
 He rejects tlie notion that the earthly Jerusalem will 
 be rebuilt, and that the favoured inhabitants will live 
 on the wealth of other countries, whose sons shall 
 minister to their enjoyment. To cherish such mis- 
 taken ideas is to interj)ret the Scriptures " in a sort of 
 Jewish sense," and to show an incapacity to understand 
 metaphor. It is absurd to suppose that, when the 
 Saviour makes a promise to the disciples concerning 
 the joy of drinkino- wine with them in His Father's 
 kino-doui, or asserts the blessedness of those who hunger 
 and thirst, He intends His words to be applied in a grossly 
 literal sense. This would be to extract from them a mean- 
 ing unworthy of the divine promises. The food of the 
 saints will be the bread of life, and their drink the cup 
 of divine wisdom. So far from being of a sensuous char- 
 acter, the future glory of God's kingdom will be such as 
 it hath not entered into the heart of man to conceive. 
 
 When a soul departs this life, the evil spirits endeav- 
 our t(5 make a prey of it. In this they are successful, 
 should it reflect their own avarice, envy, and other bad 
 qualities ; but those souls that have followed Christ 
 are delivered fi'om their power. Only a few, such as 
 the saints and martyrs, are fit to enter at once on 
 the direct vision of God ; the vast majority require to 
 undergo a process of purification before they can reach 
 the hiohest blessedness. At death the good are borne 
 by angels to a great lofty island situated somewhere 
 upon this earth.^ This earthly paradise is the first 
 
 » Cf. Dante— 
 
 "Me God's angel took, 
 Whilst lie of hell exclaimed : thou from heaven ! 
 Say wherefore hast thou robbed me ? " 
 
 {Funjatory, v. 101-103.) 
 
204 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 place oi' trial, and witnesses the initiatory stage of 
 purification from those heaver offences whicli could not 
 be visited with due chastisement in tliis life. Origen 
 describes it as " a school of souls," in which they are 
 taught by angels tlie meaning of what they saw on 
 earth, and also receive some insight as to the course of 
 future events. Here, too, they are instructed regarding 
 tlie nature of soul and spirit, as well as the full 
 significance of Holy Scripture. From this lower para- 
 dise souls ascend to a higher, in order to undergo still 
 further purification. This ascent does not take place 
 with uniform speed; some rise more slowly than 
 others. But each as he mounts upwards through the 
 spheres to the kingdom of heaven sees what is done in 
 these regions of tlie air, and discovers wh}' things are 
 so done. At last, liaving passed through all gradations, 
 and being purged from every defilement, the soul rises 
 in the pure ether to God, and passes into the heavens 
 as a follower of Him who has said, " I will that where 
 lam there ye maybe also." In this way many may 
 reach the kingdom of God before tlie final consumma- 
 tion of the Avoi-ld. 
 
 The souls of the wicked are incapable of such an 
 ascent, and remain behind in Hades, the place of 
 punishment. Indeed, till Christ descended and released 
 them, even the souls of the patriarchs and the prophets 
 could not pass the i^ery sword that barred the way to 
 paradise. Those who died before His advent had to 
 wait for Him in Hades.^ Now, however, though all 
 
 ' Cf. Dantc'.s lines — 
 
 "I was new to that estate, 
 Wlien I beheld a jiuissant one arrive 
 Amongst us, with victorious trophy crownVl. 
 He foitli the sliade of our first parent drew, 
 
REDEMPTION AND RESTORATION 205 
 
 must still pass through the fire, the righteous can do so 
 unscorched, because in tliem there is notliing on Avhicli 
 it can seize.^ But the godless are " tormented in this 
 flame," which the Lord has kindled to consume evil ; 
 they are, that is to say, the prisoners of remorse. For 
 the flames of Hades are not material ; they are the 
 tortures of an accusing conscience, a vivid recollection 
 of sin, and the agony caused by the separation of soul 
 and spirit. But for the guilty this is punishment 
 enough. Indeed we can no more conceive the misery 
 of the condenmod than we can imagine what God has 
 prepared for them that love Him. There is, however, 
 a limit to their punishment ; it is not really eternal, 
 though so called. Still, it may last for ages, for the 
 uttermost farthing must be paid. But sin that is un- 
 pardoned in this, may be pardoned in some future 
 ason. Punishment, too, has always been a pinifying 
 power; its sole purpose is to purify; and the time 
 must come when the worst may escape from the penal 
 fire. Every soul must ultimately pass out of purgatory, 
 and every world-epoch must end in the rescue and 
 deification of all spirits in order to make way for a 
 new one. " The end of the world, and the final con- 
 Abel his child, ajid Noah righteous man, 
 Of jMoses lawgiver for faith approv'd, 
 Of patriarch Aliraham, and David king, 
 Israel with his sire and with his sons, 
 Nor without Kachel whom so hard he won, 
 And others many more, whom he to bliss 
 Exalted."— (/w/croo, iv. 49-59.) 
 ^ So, too, Dante : — 
 
 "I am so framed by God, thanks to His grace! 
 That any sufferance of your misery 
 Touches me not, nor flame of that fierce fire 
 Assails me." — {Inferno, ii. 90-93.) 
 
2o6 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 summation, Avill take place \\\wn every one shall be 
 subjected to punishment for liis sins; a time which 
 God alone knows, when He will bestow on each what 
 he deserves. We think, indeed, that the goodness oi" 
 God, through His Christ, may recall all 1 lis creatures to 
 one end, e\en His enemies being conquered and siibdued." 
 Thus did Origen cling to the larger hope, although He 
 regarded this as an esoteric doctrine ; " for the multitude 
 it is sufficient to know that the sinner is punished." 
 
 Corresponding to this development of the destiny 
 of the individual soul after death there is a general 
 development of God's kingdom upon earth. The gospel 
 gains increasing acceptance ; the Jews are con\-erted ; 
 and there is a reign of peace. So far, however, even 
 under these circumstances, is sin from being destroyed, 
 that there W'ill be a final rally of all the poM'ers of evil 
 under Antichrist, in accordance with the prophecy of 
 Daniel and the writings of St. Paul. After a period of 
 war and famine, earthquakes and pestilence, during 
 which some repent w^hile others persist in wickedness, 
 the end of the world shall come suddenly and un- 
 expectedly, w^hilc men cat and drink, buy and sell, 
 build and plant. The dissolution of the earth by fire, 
 which only the more simple understand in the literal 
 and material sense, is merely a metaphorical way of 
 delineating those inward heart-throes by which evil 
 is erased from the souls of the penitent. There will, 
 however, be a new heaven and a new earth, in so far as 
 " the fashion of tliis world passeth away." But tliis docs 
 not involve the destruction of the material substance of 
 the universe ; it implies only a change of (juality. 
 
 At the close of the present aeon Christ will return to 
 judge the world in righteousness. This event is spoken 
 
REDEMPTION AND RESTORATION 207 
 
 of in Scripture alter the analogy of a liinnan trilnnial 
 in order to give it Aividncs.s, but in fact there will be 
 no outwardly visible appearance of the Lord. His 
 return is not material, but spiritual. The symbolic 
 imagery used by the propliets in speaking of this sub- 
 ject is to be spiritually interpreted. Christ appears 
 actually, in power and glory, revealing His true nature 
 to all, to the wicked as well as to the righteous, yet not 
 otherwise than He even now unfolds Himself to the 
 eye of faith. Although this is the sense in which he 
 understands the second coming, Origen is careful to 
 explain that he does not rt^ect "the second presence of 
 the Son of God more simply understood." Not men 
 alone, but all spirits nuist appear before Christ for 
 judgment. To the demons ai-e meted out the punish- 
 ments reserved for them, and in the endurance of which 
 their wickedness will be gradually puiged. By this 
 means the very devil himself will in the end be re- 
 covered to goodness. Even although, strictly speaking, 
 he is not to be classed as a universalist, never certainly 
 has universalism found more thoroughgoing expression 
 than in the thought of Origen. In regard to the parti- 
 cular question of the salvation of Satan, it is curious 
 and interesting to find an answering echo to the boldly 
 optimistic creed of the great Alexandrian in the breast 
 of our own Scottish poet Burns — 
 
 " But, fare you weel, auld Kickie-ben ! 
 O wad ye talc a thought an' men' ! 
 Ye aiblins might — I dinna ken — 
 
 Still hae a stake: 
 I'm wae to think upo' yon den 
 
 Ev'n for your sake ! " ^ 
 
 Address to the Dcil. 
 
2oS ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 The doctrine oi" the resurrection of tlie body Origcn 
 accepted as an integral part of the Church's creed, and 
 even defended it in opposition to heretics. What made 
 it possible for him to take up this position — that 
 he liad difficulties about the ecclesiastical doctrine is 
 evident from Contra Cel.s. v. 14 fF. — was the language 
 used by St. Paul regarding a spiritual body. This 
 enabled him to get rid of his doubts, and to take refuge 
 in certain characteristic refinements upon the apostle's 
 words. In this way he was led to hold that at the 
 resurrection we shall be clothed a second time with the 
 body tliat we now inhabit. It will be the same, but 
 with a difference. Owing to a change in its material 
 substance, it will be spiritual, glorious, incorruptible. 
 By the power and grace of the resurrection there 
 will be educed from the animal body a spiritual body 
 devoid of all material attributes, and even of members 
 witli sensuous functions, a body resplendent as the 
 stars of heaven. Tliis is possible, because in the sub- 
 stance of the body there is an indestructible germ 
 wliicli raises it up and restores it, as the germinative 
 principle in the grain of wheat which dies in the 
 ground restores the grain into a body having stalk and 
 ear. The will of God who made it what it is can raise 
 this present body of ours to the purity and splendour of 
 a spiritual body " according as the condition of things 
 requires, and the deserts of our rational nature shall 
 demand." ^ The differences in the degree of glory 
 among those who rise again are explained by the fact 
 that the soul's new tenement is conditioned by its 
 worth. In every case the general features will be 
 preserved, and the body suited to its new environment. 
 ' Uc Frinc. ii. 10. 3 ; iii. 6. 4. 
 
REDEMPTION AND RESTORATION 209 
 
 Origen holds strongly that " the end imist be like tlie 
 beginning," a perfect unity in God. As the result of 
 the soul's progress through discipline, there will be 
 efl'ected a restoration exhibiting the perfect equilibrium 
 of a perfect life. Law shall not clash witli freedom, 
 nor justice collide M'ith love. But this great con- 
 summation, the complete return of the all to the 
 original unity with God, lies still beyond the resurrec- 
 tion, which only brings it nearer. One by one the 
 wholly sanctified reach their goal, no more to wander ; 
 but many must be still further instructed and purified 
 before they can stand around God's throne. Towards 
 this result, however, all things tend, and at length the 
 end comes. Tlien all know the Father even as He is 
 known by the Son. E\'il is abolished by the conversion 
 of the wicked, and that goal of happiness is reached in 
 which God is said to be " all in all." Not that even 
 then all are on a level. There are " many mansions," 
 many degrees of blessedness. Through sin the soul 
 may for ever be unfitted for gaining the loftiest heights, 
 and from this standpoint, at any rate, Origen declares 
 the eternity of punishment. 
 
 Origen looked with disfavour upon the primitive 
 Christian eschatology, which connected blessedness 
 with the second advent of Christ and the last judgment. 
 For him the state of perfect felicity is reached im- 
 mediately upon the severance of the believing soul 
 from the mortal body. The brilliant attempt which he 
 makes to convey an adequate idea of bliss, while yet 
 eliminating all sensual delights, deserves to rank as 
 one of the grandest efforts of genius. The notion of 
 a purgatory or cleansing fire, based upon 1 Cor. iii. 
 13-15, is a legacy to the Church from the Alexandrians. 
 14 
 
2 10 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 After Clement and Origen, however, the only one of 
 the Greek Fathers who seems to have retained the idea 
 was Gregory of Nyssa. It ultimately passed through 
 Ambrose into the Western Church, where it soon 
 became naturalised ; and in the great poem of Dante it 
 has received such graphic and striking expression as to 
 secure for it a permanent place among the conceptions 
 that have moulded and dominated theological thought. 
 One of the least satisfactory features of the eschatology 
 of Origen, and of the Greek theologians who followed 
 him, is the extent to which it ignores the thought of 
 the judgment and the responsibility before God of 
 every individual soul. In primitive Christianity these 
 were matters that were not allowed to slip into the 
 background, and to cease to lay stress upon them is to 
 reduce forgiveness to an empty name. Yet, whatever 
 may have been the view taken by the general body of 
 the people belonging to the Eastern Cliurch, this was 
 certainly the case as regards " scientific " theology. Not 
 that the term judgment was no longer employed, but it 
 was robbed of its real significance. In his conception 
 of the consummation of being, it is unfortunate that 
 Orio-en so frequently fails to distinguish between the 
 close of the present world and the close of all things. 
 Again and again the reader is confused by this mixing 
 up of ideas belonging to two separate categories. A 
 distinct delineation of perfect life in absolute repose 
 is perhaps beyond the resources of human thought 
 and lano-uaofe. Another criticism to which, ever since 
 Jerome's day, this part of Origen's system has been 
 exposed, is that the hope of final harmony is irrecon- 
 cilable with the doctrine of free will. If in the future 
 life the will is still entirely free, what security is there 
 
REDEMPTION AND RESTORATION 211 
 
 that tliifs " final restoration " will bo final ? The created 
 spirit may fall again as it fell before, and under such 
 conditions tliere may be a perpetual process of alternate 
 falling and rising, which after the lapse of countless 
 ages leaves the end as far off as ever. This objection 
 may be logically sound, yet it is unfair to Origen, and 
 misrepresents his meaning. Without in the slightest 
 degi'ee infringing upon the inalienable liberty of 
 rational creatures, and granting that the soul is free to 
 rebel as long as it chooses, we may yet surely with 
 reason decline to infer from our observation of tliis 
 short life that it will be eternally obdurate. 
 
 Such, then, in brief outline, is the system of Origen. 
 It has been described by one modern writer as " sub- 
 lime," ^ and by another as " a precious repertory of 
 profound thought." ^ Characterised by great boldness 
 and originalitj', it certainly forms the high-water mark 
 of Christian thought in that fresh and formative period. 
 It was also calculated to exert a healing influence in 
 view of the antagonisms then abroad. Origen was 
 opposed alike to the unreasonable rejection of human 
 knowledge so common in the Church of that age, and 
 to the arbitrary use made of it by the Gnostics ; and 
 although he erred no doubt in not sufiiciently sifting 
 what he appropriated from Greek speculative philo- 
 sophy, it is not to be forgotten that he writes in no 
 hidebound spirit of dogmatism. Where divergent views 
 are irreconcilable, the reader is invited to choose 
 between them. If, moreover, his religious philosophy 
 seeks to focus and present in complete form the 
 scientific knowledge of his time, it makes no pretension 
 ' PressensS. ^ Redepenning. 
 
212 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 to be anything beyond an honest and reverent attempt 
 to arrive at a truly spiritual conception of Christianity. 
 He was a pioneer, and ought to be judged as such. 
 Yet he was far more than a pioneer. " Orthodox 
 theology of all creeds has never yet advanced beyond 
 the circle first mapped out by his mind."^ Within the 
 sphere of Christian dogma he was the first, and he has 
 been the only independent, builder. Even Augustine 
 and the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, etc.), the only other 
 t}q)ical builders in the history of dogma, never aimed 
 at being anything more than vcbuilders. Much of 
 Origen's speculative thinking, which the Church was 
 constrained to accept, has been indissolubly bound up 
 with the simple faith itself, and the rule of faith has 
 thus gradually assumed a more philosophic aspect. 
 If the Cliurcli has outgi'own many of his modes of 
 doctrinal statement, his beautiful and ardent spirit will 
 be a source of inspiration to her so long as the world 
 endures. 
 
 ^ Harnack, History of Dogma, ii. p. 334. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 Successors of Origen 
 
 In one sense Origen had no successor. Nature is not 
 so prolific in men of his moral and intellectual stature 
 as to keep up an unbroken apostolical succession of 
 this sort. Those choice spirits that tower like Alpine 
 peaks above the general level of humanity appear only 
 at intervals upon the stage of history. They are indeed 
 " the world's epoch-makers," the uncrowned kings of 
 learning, thought, and science. Origen is undoubtedly 
 entitled to a place amongst these giant souls. What 
 Carljde says of Frederick the Great may with still 
 more fitness be said of him, " his movements were 
 polar." No one can study his life and writings without 
 being impressed with the greatness of his personality 
 and the versatility of his genius. His "woik in any 
 single department of theological study would have 
 brought him fame, but he excelled in all departments. 
 He was the founder of scientific theology, the pioneer! 
 of a reverent criticism, the champion of free and un- 
 restricted investigation, and a bold speculative thinker ; 
 but he was also at the same time a great Christian 
 preacher, a believing expositor, a devotional writer, \ 
 and an orthodox traditionalist. All parties drew 
 material from his writings, and the champions of 
 
2 14 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 conflicting schools of thought claimed him with equal 
 confidence for their side. This was perhaps partly due 
 to the fact that " on many subjects tlie opinions of 
 Origen resemble the moving statues of Dtedalus, 
 now here, now there ; they are not to be fixed on a 
 pedestal and identified by a name " ; ^ but, apart from 
 the extent to which his inconsistencies may be ex- 
 plained by the distinction he made between exoteric 
 and esoteric teaching, it is absurd to judge him by the 
 rigid dogmatic standard of modern theology. Due 
 allowance must be made for the fact that he lived in 
 an age of freedom when as yet Christian belief was in 
 a more or less fluid condition, and tradition was in the 
 course of formation. Only when we regard him not in 
 the light of later dogmatic opinion, but in that of one 
 who furnished many stones for the future ecUtice of 
 Christian thought, can we possibly do justice to Origen. 
 [Here suffice it to recognise that for long he was the 
 I dominating force in the theological world ; that all 
 subsequent theology has been largely shaped by liim ; 
 and that even when every deduction has been made 
 for his errors, he must still, as regards spirit and 
 method, take rank as the ideal Christian theologian. 
 But if in respect of genius and influence Origen had 
 no immediate successors, either at Alexandria or else- 
 where, there were not wanting those upon whom to a 
 certain extent his mantle had fallen, and who, as they 
 ^ were able, continued to propagate his principles. No 
 fewer than seven teachers followed him in direct 
 succession as presidents of the Catechetical School, 
 namely, Heraclas, Dionysius, Pierius, Theognostus, 
 Peter the Martyr, Didymus, and Kliodon. Although 
 
 ' K. A. N'aughan, T!ssmjs ami Ilnnaiim, vol. i. p. 31. 
 
SUCCESSORS OF ORIGEN 215 
 
 all of them were in sympathy with Origen's philosophy 
 — this Avas true eveu of Peter the Martyr, who made 
 certain corrections upon Origen's system where he 
 considered its conclusions inconsistent with the rule of 
 faith — the school seems to have made little headway 
 after the disappearance of the great master himself. 
 Indeed the tide, instead of flowing, began to ebb, and 
 after the time of Theognostus its adherents were 
 obliged to assume the defensive. Partly this was due 
 to the rival attractions of Neoplatonism, which at the 
 commencement of the fourth century became the pre- 
 vailing philosophy in Christian as well as in pagan 
 circles, and partly to the circumstance that the Church 
 was wliolly engrossed with debates upon one particular 
 subject — that of the Trinity, and could not give a 
 thought to the elaborate philosophy of Origenism. 
 
 It is evident that Origen's influence in Alexandria 
 was not extinguished, or even diminished, by his con- 
 demnation at the hand of Demetrius. On the death 
 of the latter, Heraclas, the friend and pupil of the 
 exiled teacher, was chosen bishop. This was the 
 reply of the Eastern Church to the unworthy treat- 
 ment meted out to Origfen, and a sio;nificant connnent 
 upon the exclusion of presbyters from the synod con- 
 vened to pronounce sentence against him. Prior to 
 his elevation to tlic leading Egyptian See, Heraclas had 
 acted, first as colleague, then as successor, to Origen in 
 the Catechetical School ; and when the latter went into 
 exile, it must have been some mitigation of his sorrow 
 to reflect that the work he loved was in safe hands. 
 Of the actual teaching of Heraclas, however, we possess 
 no details. He died in a.d. 249. 
 
 When Heraclas became bishop, he was succeeded as 
 
2i6 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 liead of tlic titiining school by Dionysius (Alexandrinus), 
 perhaps the most learned, and certainly not the least 
 enthusiastic, of Origen's disciples. Distinctly inferior 
 to him in speculative power, there is no evidence to 
 show that he developed in any important respect the 
 teaching of his master. He was i-aiscd to the bishopric 
 of Alexandria in the year 248, and died in 2G5. 
 Without exceptional gifts as a professor of theology, 
 he was undeniably a rare success in the episcopate. 
 His ecclesiastical leadership was characterised by much 
 wisdom, and even in his own time won for him the 
 title of the Great. Calm and coui-ageous, gentle and 
 generous, tirm and faithful, he possessed that i^eculiar 
 combination of (jualitios which go to the making of an 
 ideal Church ruler. No prominent ecclesiastic ever had 
 less of the implacable, dictatorial, or official spirit. 
 Amid the many controversies, doctrinal and ecclesi- 
 astical, in M'hich he was called upon to take part, he 
 bore himself with splendid moderation and unfailing 
 brotherliness. While frankly contending for what he 
 believed to be the right, he alwaj^s favoured free dis- 
 cussion, and never was guilty of anytliing approaching 
 to hierarchical assumption. It was by the path of free 
 investigation that he himself had been convinced of 
 the tnith of the gospel ; and to this princij)le he 
 adhered alike through good report and bad, refusing 
 to condemn what he had not read, even when less 
 scrupulous persons represented to him that the perusal 
 of so many heretical writings might seriously injure 
 his own soul. He would have scorned to use against 
 an opponent the convenient weapon of excommunica- 
 tion. So far from anathematising those who held 
 millcnarian views, he held a protracted conference 
 
SUCCESSORS OF ORIGEN 217 
 
 with them, and expressed his love for Nepos their 
 leader; and wlieii writing to Novatiis tlic Schismatic 
 he was careful to call him "brother." His life, in short, 
 is a notable illustration of the far-reaching influence 
 of a conciliatory and self-denying spirit. 
 
 From fragments of a work written by Dionysius 
 after the death of Nepos on the millenarian question, 
 a work in whicli he argues against the genuineness 
 of the Book of Revelation, it is clear that his ability 
 as a critic was of no mean order, although in combat- 
 ing error he seems to have allowed his zeal sometimes 
 to outrun his discretion, and so to have fallen into 
 error liimself. The same thing is true with regard to 
 his contending against Sabellianism, which found favour 
 with the bishops of Egypt: in his eagerness he uses 
 lanjjuaii:e which amounts to a subordinationist denial 
 of the unity of the three Persons in the Godliead. 
 " The Son of God," he says, " is a creature born of God, 
 and not identical with Him in nature. In substance 
 He differs from the Father as does the husbandman 
 from the vine, and the shipwriglit from his boat. 
 Furthermore, as a creature the Son did not exist before 
 His creation." ^ But when, in answer to a complaint 
 addressed to him by the bishops of Libya, Dionysius 
 of Rome issued a treatise in wliich he trenchantly 
 exposed the erroneous expressions employed by the 
 Alexandrian bishop, the latter, while endeavouring to 
 explain the assertions to which exception had been 
 taken, practically withdrew what he had so unad- 
 visedl}'^ spoken. It is not quite clear what was his 
 precise position with reference to the great dogmatic 
 question of his age, but he appears to have occupied a 
 ^ Atlianasius, Dc Sententia Dionysii, c. 4. 
 
21 8 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 standpoint midway betAveen tlie Unitarianism of Alius 
 and the Trinitarianism of Athanasius. 
 
 Tlic behaviour of Dionysius during the Decian 
 persecution was singular!}'- dignified, prudent, and 
 brave. A troop of soldiers sent to seize him scoured 
 the neighbourhood, leaving unsearched only his own 
 house, where for four days he placidly awaited them. 
 Having then shown himself out of doors he was 
 arrested, only to be speedily liberated by a band of 
 Christians whom he vainly besought to allow him to 
 secure the martyr's crown. He knew nothing of the 
 craven spirit displayed many centuries later by 
 Cranmer. From the hidden fastnesses of tlie Libyan 
 desert he controlled the affairs of his Church until the 
 death of Decius. Driven again into exile under 
 Valerian, because of his unflinching testimony to 
 Christian truth, he became the herald of the gospel 
 in various quarters. The accession of Gallienus in 
 260 reopened the way for the return of Dionysius to 
 Alexandria, where his exertions during a time of 
 pestilence exhausted the energies of an outworn frame 
 and hastened his death. He remained true throughout 
 to the spiritualism of Origen, his indebtedness to whom 
 he was always proud to acknowledge ; and when his 
 beloved master was imprisoned, under the Decian 
 persecution, he wrote to him a letter of consolation. 
 
 In the direction of the school of catechists Dionysius 
 was followed by Pierius, an eloquent teacher, who was 
 called " a second Origen." He led an ascetic life, and 
 wrote a commentary on Hosea ; but with the exception 
 of a few fragmejits preserved by Photius we know 
 nothing of his teaching. It was as a pupil of Pierius 
 that Pamphilus imbibed his strong admiration for 
 
SUCCESSORS OF ORIGEN 219 
 
 Origen's theology. Regarding the doctrine of Theo- 
 gnostus, liis immediate successor, we are also compara- 
 tivel}' ignorant. Photius criticises his views, but lauds 
 liis eloquence ; while Athanasius speaks highly of him 
 as a man of culture who was not satisfied with giving 
 an exposition of dogma, but followed Origen's plan of 
 suggesting questions for debate. His great dogmatic 
 work {Hypotyposes), unliappily no longer extant, was 
 not, however, like Origen's, written in sections, each 
 dealing with the whole under reference to one ruling 
 tliouglit, but so as to form one connected and consecu- 
 tive exposition. In adopting this method he anticipated 
 all future workers in the same field. From some re- 
 maining fragments of his work it is clear that he 
 adhered closely to Origen in liis theological position. 
 This appears particularly from his exposition of the 
 sin against the Holy Ghost, which is founded on the 
 view that as the sphere of the Spirit extended only to 
 the perfect, the sin against the Holy Ghost, as the sin 
 of the perfect, Avas unpardonable. Peter, the next 
 president, was raised to the bishopric of Alexandria in 
 recognition of his renown as an ascetic, but was cut off 
 in the Decian persecution after three years' tenure of 
 that office. He asserted the complete humanity of 
 Christ, denied the pre-existence of the soul, and 
 denounced the tenet of a preniundane fall as a " pre- 
 cept of Greek philosophy which is foreign and alien to 
 those who desire to live piously in Christ." But 
 although distinctly opposed to Origen upon these 
 points, it was his aim rather to correct than to 
 repudiate the doctrines of the master. So far as they 
 were in keeping with the rule of faith, he taught and 
 upheld them. 
 
2 20 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 DidynuiH, wlio also acted as catechist in Alexandria, 
 was a prolific author in spite of his almost lifelong 
 blindness, but few of his works are extant. Like liis 
 predecessors, he was strong in his admiration for 
 Origen, but under the pressure of the influences of his 
 time he w^as induced to tone down the doctrines of the 
 De Principiis, especially those regarding the Trinity, 
 until his theology was virtually brought into line with 
 the prevailing orthodoxy, which was soon, by means of 
 a^cumenical councils, to gag the freedom of belief. Of 
 Rhodon, the last of the superintendents mentioned in 
 connection with the Catechetical School, nothing is 
 known to us but the name. 
 
 Li this connection there remains to be mentioned the 
 great name of Athanasius. Born at Alexandria in 296, 
 and educated doubtless at the Catechetical School, he 
 became the most prominent Church leader of his time. 
 In consideration of his services against Arianism, he 
 was venerated as " the father of orthodoxy." His great 
 talents and learning, his clear insight and his earnest 
 spirit, his indomitable energy and strength of will, his 
 liumble faith and dauntless courage, formed a rare 
 combination of qualities, and one by means of which he 
 was fitted to play a most distinguished part in the 
 history of the Christian Church. Although his gifts 
 lay in the direction of ecclesiastical statesmanship 
 rather than in that of speculative thought, his is 
 essentially a Greek mind — subtle, flexible, and philo- 
 sophical. In the line of Greek theologians he ranks 
 }iext to Origen in importance, if not in direct chrono- 
 logical succession. None of those who lived in the 
 intervening century have so indelibly left their mark 
 upon the doctrinal standards of the Church as he has. 
 
SUCCESSORS OF ORIGEN 221 
 
 Prior to tlie commencement of tlic Aiian controversy 
 in 819, AthanasiuH wrote two short apologetical treatises 
 under the titles Against the Gentiles and On the Incar- 
 nation of the Word. In the former he denies the 
 assertion of Greek polytheists, that intermediary deities 
 are necessary to the oovernment of the world, and 
 maintains tlie divine immanence in creation ; in the 
 hitter he argues that this principle lends confirmation 
 to the fact of the incarnation, seeing that it is just as 
 reasonable that God should dwell in a single man as 
 that He sliould dwell in the world. Through the 
 incarnation Christ as the God-Man becomes the medium 
 by wliich God acts upon the universal life, and in His 
 person the wliole human race has been redeemed and 
 raised even to the height of deification. " As when a 
 mighty king entering some great city, although he 
 occupies but one of its houses, positively confers great 
 honour upon the whole city, and no enemy or robber 
 any longer throws it into confusion by his assaults, but 
 on account of the presence of the king in one of its 
 houses, the city is rather thought worthy of being- 
 guarded with the greatest care ; so also is it in the 
 case of Him who is Lord over all. For when He came 
 into our country and dwelt in the body of one like 
 ourselves, thenceforth every plot of the enemy against 
 mankind was defeated, and the corruption of death 
 that formerly operated to destroy men lost its power." ^ 
 
 It was as archdeacon of Alexandria that Athanasius 
 accompanied his bishop (Alexander) to the Council of 
 Nicaea in 825. Although not a regular member, he 
 seems to have been permitted to share in its discussions. 
 He was strongly opposed to the teaching of Arius, who, 
 1 Be Incur, c. 9. 
 
222 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 as a son of Antiocli, and even more nnder the influence 
 of Orientalism than of Hellenism, conceived of God as 
 the absolutely transcendent, for whom no contact with 
 the world or witli man was possible. On such a view 
 of Deity Arius had to deny the incarnation. Rejecting 
 the idea of the eternal generation of the Son, he taught 
 that He had been created by the Father in order to the 
 creation of the world through Him. Christ therefore 
 he regarded as higher than man but inferior to God, 
 and the revelation made by Him not as the disclosure 
 of the divine character, but as an ethical code for the 
 guidance of conduct. Athanasius, on the other hand, 
 contended that the Father and the Son participate alike 
 in the divine essence, and that the Son is coequal with 
 the Father. Tlie decision of the Nicsean Council was 
 against Arius, who was excommunicated. Alexander 
 died shortly after his return from Nicjea to the labours 
 of his own diocese, and at the early age of thirty 
 Athanasius found himself installed as his successor. 
 The morning of his episcopate seems to have dawned 
 peacefully enough, but long ere noon dark storm- 
 clouds filled the sky, and continued to loom overhead 
 until the sunset was at hand. 
 
 His life and writings were really devoted to one 
 great cause — the fight against Arianism. It is a very 
 significant commentary upon the strenuousness with 
 which he maintained the conflict, that nearly one half 
 of the forty-five years of his episcopate should have 
 been spent in exile. Deposed and banished by Con- 
 stantine i. to Gaul, he was restored to his flock by 
 Constantine ii., only to be expelled once more by 
 Constantius, another son of the elder Constantine, who 
 reigned in the East. In the latter case a Cappadocian, 
 
SUCCESSORS OF ORIGEN 223 
 
 Gregory by name, was by force of arms installed in 
 the office of the uncompromisintj defender of the faith. 
 But Athanasius appealed to Home, which so warmly 
 espoused his cause that a regular rupture took place 
 between the Eastern and the Western Church. At the 
 Council of Sardica in 343 the Eastern bishops declined 
 to confer with their compeers of the West, because the 
 latter were resolved upon ignoring the sentence of 
 deposition that had been pronounced against Athan- 
 asius. Meanwhile, the intruded bishop, Gregory, a man 
 of harsh and tj^rannical spirit, ha\'ing been murdered 
 by an infuriated Alexandrian mob, the emperor con- 
 sented to the return of the much-loved bishop. This 
 took place amid great public rejoicing in the year 346. 
 According to Gregory of Nazianzen, the inhabitants 
 went streaming forth " like another Nile " to welcome 
 him. For a whole decade Athanasius continued at his 
 post, but in the year 356, owing to the machinations of 
 the Arian party, he was condemned at the Council of 
 Milan, while those bishops who were friendly to him 
 were driven into exile. That his own life was once 
 more in jeopardy was proved by the intrusion of an 
 armed band into a church where he was conducting 
 service. He succeeded, however, in escaping to the 
 wilds of the Egyptian desert, where he composed his 
 Discourses against ihe Avians. Six years later, the 
 death of Constantius and the accession of Julian 
 enabled Athanasius to return to his See. But the 
 success of the Christian bishop soon proved distasteful 
 to an emperor who desired the supremacy of paganism, 
 and on the pretext that he acted as a disturbing 
 influence, Athanasius was banished yet again. Within 
 the year, however, Julian died, and the next emperor. 
 
224 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 Jovian, was prepared to tolei'ate the Arians and the 
 Nicene party alike. Accordingly, Athanasius again 
 took up liis episcopal duties, but under Valens was once 
 more obliged to flee. This was his last period of exile. 
 After four months' absence he was recalled, and from 
 this date (366) ho carried on the manifold work of his 
 diocese without further molestation. He laboured in- 
 cessantly until his death in 373, manifesting to the last 
 that intrepid spirit which has received fit commemora- 
 tion in the sajnug, Atlianasius contra inundam. 
 
 The significance of Athanasius for theology lies in 
 the leading part which he took in the great contro- 
 versy regarding the Trinity. On this subject three 
 views were propounded and discussed with the keenest 
 dialectic subtlety. Christ was declared by some to be 
 of a different essence from the Father, b}^ others to be 
 of a similar essence, and by others still to be of the 
 same essence. The last was the view espoused by 
 Athanasius, and that it ultimately triumphed was 
 largel}' due to his strenuous advocacy. Origen's idea 
 of an economic and relative trinit}'' he discarded in 
 favour of the immanent and absolute trinitj'. 
 
 Origen's influence, however, was by no means limited 
 to Alexandria ; it was equally strong in Arabia, 
 Palestine, and Asia Minor. He was on terms of 
 intimate friendship with such men as Theoktistus 
 bishop of Caesarea, and Alexander, bishop of Jeru- 
 salem, who not only opened to him their pulpits, but 
 venerated him as their master ; Firmilian, bishop of 
 Caesarea in Cappadocia, who sheltered him during the 
 persecution under Maximin the Thracian ; and Julius 
 Africanus, bishop of Nicopolis, whose correspondence 
 with him regarding the authenticity of the History of 
 
SUCCESSORS OF ORIGEN 225 
 
 Susannah has been preserved.^ But the most clis- 
 tingui.shed of Ori<;-cii's disciples in Asia was Gregory 
 Tliaumaturgiis, to whose touching panegyric upon his 
 master we have ah-eady referred. Originally he bore 
 the name of Theodorus, and belonged to a noble and 
 wealthy heathen family of Neocaesarea in Pontus. 
 His parents had chosen for him the profession of an 
 advocate, and he became a diligent student of Roman 
 law. But his accidental meeting with Origen under 
 the circumstances mentioned ^ changed the whole 
 current of his life, and led him to consecrate his 
 energies to higher ends. That great master, perceiving 
 him to be a youth of talent, set himself to draw out 
 his thinking powers, imbued him with the spirit of free 
 investigation, and initiated him into the sweets of 
 intellect. A course of geometry and astronomy, so far 
 as calculated to explain the Sacred Scriptures, and one 
 of Greek philosophy, in which its various systems were 
 made to cast their mites into the treasury of truth, was 
 followed by instruction in the revealed oracles of God. 
 The earnest study of Holy Scripture, with Origen as 
 interpreter, opened up to Gregory's vision a new and 
 higher world, and in his parting address to his beloved 
 teacher he thanks "that God who conducted us to 
 thee." It was with most poignant regret that he 
 separated himself from one to whom his soul was knit, 
 as was the soul of Jonathan to that of David. But he 
 did so in the consciousness that he went forth bearino- 
 as a lasting possession those seeds of truth which he 
 had received from him, and in the hope that God would 
 permit him to return to him, bringing with him the 
 fruits and sheaves yielded by those seeds. In a letter 
 
 ^ See above, p. 58 f. ^ Sy^ above, p. 56. 
 
 15 
 
226 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 still extant Origen expresses his conviction that 
 Gregory's natural abilities were such as to ensure 
 him success cither as a Roman lawyer or as a professor 
 of Greek pliilosophy, but at the same time intimates 
 liis desire that he should devote his talents to Chris- 
 tianity, and employ his scientific knowledge in the 
 service of theology, so as to make everything else 
 subserve the divine calling. He exhorts him to bend 
 all his energies in the direction of biblical study, and 
 prayerfully to investigate the sense of the sacred word, 
 which so many have missed. 
 
 Sometime after his return to his own country 
 Gregory was, by the joint influence of Origen and 
 Phsedimus, bishop of Amasia, literally dragged from his 
 life of quiet asceticism, and installed as bishop of his 
 own town of Neocsesarea, an office which he held and 
 adorned for about thirty years. The legendary element 
 has unfortunately entered largely into the story of his 
 episcopate, and in the account of his life and labours 
 composed by Gregory of Nyssa, the distance of a century 
 lent so much enchantment to the view that the result 
 is not a sober narrative of facts, but a highly coloured 
 portrait of a Christian wizard at whose word the rocks 
 are moved and the plague ravages the city. But, apart 
 from such spurious fables, there is no reason to doubt 
 that Gregory was a conspicuously pious and influential 
 servant of the Church. This is the real meaning of the 
 tradition that at his death the number of pagans 
 in Neocaesarea was only seventeen, or precisely the 
 number of Christians resident there when he assumed 
 the bishopric. It is a singular testimony to his worth, 
 that, notwithstanding the interruption of his work 
 caused by the Decian persecution, and the debasing 
 
SUCCESSORS OF ORIGEN 227 
 
 iiiUuenccs connected with an invasion of the Goths, lie 
 slioukl have so impressed liimself as a moral force upon 
 the men oi" his time. In his general views upon the 
 Trinity and the Person of Christ Gregory's position 
 may be described as Origenistic. But, in face of a 
 decided tendency towards a polytheistic conception of 
 the Trinity, he felt constrained to lay special stress on 
 the unity of God. According to Basil, he spoke of the 
 Father and the Son as "two in thought, but one in 
 substance " ; at any rate he was accused of Sabellianism. 
 Although his gifts w'ere administrative rather than 
 speculative, he took his fair share in the doctrinal con- 
 troversies of the period, and won for liimself an assured 
 place among the leading Fathers of the Church. Besides 
 his Panegyric upon Origen, he wrote what Jerome 
 styles a " short but useful " Paraphrase of Ecciesiastes, 
 and a Canonical Letter dealing with the exercise of 
 discipline in the case of Christians w^ho had abandoned 
 the faith under stress of persecution, but W' ere desirous 
 of being restored to Church fellowship. Gregory died 
 in 270, so that he survived Origen by about seventeen 
 years. 
 
CHAPTER X 
 
 Historical Services, general Characteristics, 
 
 AND distinctive DOCTRINAL COMPLEXION OF THE 
 
 Greek Theology 
 
 From Justin to Gregory the Greek Fathers had opposed 
 the Gnostics, and so rescued the Church from being 
 paganised. It was through their conflict with Gnosti- 
 cism that they first became theologians. Ever since 
 the days of St. Paul the Church had produced saints 
 and martyrs, but not thinkers ; the task of the Chris- 
 tian had been to love God and his neighbour, but not to 
 unravel hard questions or engage in bold speculations. 
 When, however, the Gnostics began to discuss the 
 deepest problems of existence — the nature of God, the 
 origin of evil, the redemption of the world — the Greek 
 Fathers were compelled to formulate their own theology 
 in reply to the erroneous views that were being dis- 
 seminated. 
 
 They were further led to combat the frenzied extra- 
 vagances of the Montanists, a sect claiming to have 
 the spirit of prophecy in active operation amongst its 
 adherents, and somewhat resemblino; the Irvino-itcs of a 
 later time. Montanism had its rise in Phrygia, but its 
 influence extended to North Africa, Italy, and even 
 Gaul. Ecclesiastical rather than doctrinal questions 
 
 228 
 
HISTORICAL SERVICES 229 
 
 underlay the movement. The disorders which St. Paul 
 rebukes in his letters to the Thessalonians were re- 
 produced under Montanistic teaching, which placed in 
 the forefront the nearness of Christ's second advent in 
 the flesh. The movement was chiefly a protest against 
 the growing hierarchical assumption of the clergy. It 
 condcnnied as a pure figment the doctrine of apostolical 
 succession, which was first formulated by Cyprian, 
 bishop of Carthage. The Montanists maintained tliat 
 Christ had no successor save the Holy Spirit, and by 
 way of emphasising their belief that in His com- 
 munications to men the Spirit was not necessarily 
 limited to the clergy, they appear to have found their 
 chosen oracles in women rather than in men. They 
 had certainly some reason for protesting against the 
 encroaching secularism and sacerdotalism of the Church. 
 But they soon developed a proud spirit of Pharisaic 
 legalism. While standing for much that was true, 
 Montanism contained also many false elements which 
 operated as seeds of dissolution. More especiall}^ it 
 was characterised by an element of fanaticism ; it lacked 
 the virtue of self-restraint. After they broke with the 
 Church the Montanists " became narrower and pettier 
 in their conception of Christianity," ^ until in the 
 fourth century their conventicles were deserted even in 
 the land of their origin. Although in many respects 
 strictly orthodox, in popular estimation they were 
 usually regarded as equally heretical with the Gnostics. 
 It was by defeating these two " isms " — Gnosticism 
 and Montanism — that the Greek Fathers made the 
 " Catholic " Church. 
 
 They also overthrew Chiliasm. This is the rather 
 ^ Haruack. 
 
230 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 inappropriate name given to the ancient Christian 
 eschatology, from the circumstance tliat one of its 
 tenets was the doctrine of the millennium. It embraced, 
 however, many other features, of which some were 
 fixed, and some were being continually modified. Of 
 the latter sort were the ideas about the Antichrist, 
 and about the place, extent, and duration of Christ's 
 glorious kingdom. After the decay of Montanism, 
 Chiliastic views lost caste, so to speak, and were de- 
 nounced as Jewish ; and the early Christian hope with 
 respect to the future was gradually undermined by the 
 speculative mysticism of the Alexandrians. 
 
 Such were the main currents of contro\cisy in which 
 the Greek theology took shape, and such tlie conditions 
 amid which it rendered eficctive and lasting service to 
 Christianity. A few words will suffice to indicate its 
 more general characteristics. As we have already seen, 
 it overdid the use of allegory in the interpretation of 
 Scripture, and made it easy to discount the conclusions 
 arrived at by any other sort of exposition. There lay 
 also in its doctrine of reserve a source of potential 
 mischief which has oftener than once in the histoiy 
 of the Church ceased to be potential and become 
 actual. ]\Ioreover, all the Greek Fathers, not excepting 
 Methodius himself, were intellectualists ; neither Justin 
 nor any of his successors ever renounced philosophy as 
 did the teachers of the Latin Church. But while it 
 may with truth be said that they were too intellectual, 
 too subtle, and that they developed mind at the expense 
 of heart, they were thereby saved at all events fi-om 
 mawkish sentimentality. They breathed the air of 
 intellectual freedom, and their waitings are healthy, 
 breez}'', and manly. Another noteworthy feature of the 
 
HISTORICAL SERVICES 231 
 
 Greek tlicology is its true catholicity. "As the soul 
 is the principle which holds the body together, so 
 Christians hold together the world itself." What finer 
 expression could we have of the idea of the Church's 
 worth and universal mission than in this saying from 
 the Epistle to Diognetus, penned even before the days of 
 Clement and Origen, but bearing distinct marks of the 
 same Hellenic culture that influenced them ? The 
 writings of the Greek Fathers are further marked by a 
 high moral tone and a deep spiritualit}?- ; in this respect 
 they are fit to be our teachers still. We may note also 
 their pronounced humanitarianism, and their unquench- 
 able optimism, which was really part of their creed. 
 Believing as they did in the ultimate restitution of all 
 rational beings, and unoppressed with thoughts of total 
 depravity or eternal punishment, they knew no morbid 
 feeling of dread or despair, and were as joyous in spirit 
 as they were daring in thought. Bright and in some 
 respects truly Christian as is this optimistic vein in 
 the Greek patristic writers, there is another side — the 
 cschatological — from which it appears in a less satis- 
 factory light. Their conceptions of the intermediate 
 state are anything but clear and precise. It was only 
 the final goal of the deification of humanity that they 
 were really concerned with ; all else was of minor 
 importance. Thus the great Christian truth, that a 
 time will arrive when at the judgment-seat of Christ 
 every one shall receive according to his deeds, was 
 releirated to the backOTOund as a mere mode of re- 
 demption, one of the "channels through which it 
 works." Augustine, on tlie other hand, sought to 
 emphasise this truth, with the result that the Western 
 Church continued to be inspired by one great motive to 
 
232 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 which the Eastern Church l)ecame in larije measure 
 indifferent — the fear of the Judge. Closely connected 
 •with the certainty of the judgment is the sense of sin, 
 whicli was also much stronger in the Latin Cluu'cli 
 than in the Greek. The latter had no doctrine of 
 original sin, saw no such schism in the divine nature as 
 to require the appeasing by sacrifice of outraged justice 
 before love could pardon, and gave no place to the idea 
 that Christ endured sufferings equal in significance to 
 the eternal sufferings of the wliolc human race. But 
 when complaints are made of the deficient sense of sin 
 manifested by the Greek theologians, it would pcrliaps 
 be fairer to speak of their overmastering appreciation 
 of Christ's redemption. That this charge, although 
 not altogether groundless, is ncvertlieless more ancient 
 than forcible, is sliown by the fact that it was levelled 
 by Judaisers against the Apostle Paul for proclaiming 
 tlic doctrine of justification bj^- faith. The truth is that 
 the doctrine of grace as tauglit in the Western Church 
 is simply the Latin substitute for the Greek principle of 
 the indwelling of God in luimanity. 
 
 It is tlie Latin conception of the gospel that has 
 been embodied in the traditional creed of the Western 
 Church. It was first formulated by tlie acute and 
 profound mind of Augustine, whose writings constitute 
 an epoch in theological literature and thought. Strongly 
 favoured by Rome, it soon impressed itself upon the 
 entire West, and for many centuries lias presented 
 the appearance of an impregnable fortress. Yet it is 
 certainly not tlie oldest type of Christianity. In tlie 
 history of Cliristian tliought tlio Hellenistic theology 
 occupies a prior place, and in recent times many have 
 declared it to be based upon a truer pliilosophy of God 
 
HISTORICAL SERVICES 233 
 
 and man. The very fact that a reversion to the earlier 
 conception of gospel truth should have been seriously- 
 advocated, and that the Augustinian theology should 
 have been condemned as by comparison narrow and 
 pessimistic, " harsh and loveless," makes it doubly 
 interesting and important to inquire as to what is 
 doctrinally distinctive in the school of Origen. It will 
 be obvious tliat those whose motto is " Back to the 
 Greek theology " are for the most part universalists. 
 Their whole standpoint necessarily conflicts with the 
 Augustinian doctrines of total depravity, predestination, 
 the loss of freedom, and eternal punishment, and is 
 virtually that reflected in the closing lines of Tenny- 
 son's In Mcmoriam, where he speaks of 
 
 "One God, one law, one element, 
 And one far-off divine event. 
 To which the whole creation moves." 
 
 The following brief outline of the Hellenistic position 
 is from the pen of one of its champions : " In the 
 thought of Hellenism a profound unity underlies all 
 phenomena, and works steadily and surely towards 
 the elimination of all discord and evil. This purpose, 
 namely, ' The Restoration of all things,' is clearly re- 
 vealed in Holy Scripture ; this larger hope or certainty 
 is indeed 'the glad tidings of great joy' which the 
 gospel promises. The agent in this process is the 
 immanent Logos manifested in the flesh, made man for 
 us and for our salvation. But as the universe is really 
 One, the work of the Logos cannot be confined to this 
 earth ; it extends to the entire spiritual world, and 
 is eftoctive wherever the logical, i.e. rational, creature 
 sins and suft'ers. The Incarnation is thus the cxprcs- 
 
234 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 sion of a universal purpose of unification, education, 
 restoration. This plan may be traced in all God's 
 dealings with us. His "wrath and vengeance are really 
 the expressions of love eternal. Fire, penalty, judg- 
 ment, are but moments in the great redemptive process. 
 The resurrection is its climax. 
 
 " In the Hellenistic vocabulary, such Western phrases 
 as imputation, satisfaction, substitution, probation, are 
 wanting ; sin, however grievous, is always curable, 
 because residing in the will, and not penetrating to the 
 nature of man. While the ties of heredity are recog- 
 nised, yet infant innocence is firmly hold. The Church, 
 if not technically, is yet potentially and vitally a 
 synonym for the whole human family. The crude 
 absolutism which has always characterised the Latin 
 ideal of God, and which is reflected in the claims of the 
 Pope as God's vicegerent, is also wanting in Hellenistic 
 theology. This indeed recognised the divine sovereigntj^, 
 but it is the supremacy of a reasonable and loving 
 Creator and Parent. To man a special interest and 
 dignity is assigned, stamped as he is indelibly with the 
 divine image, a child of the All Father, a pupil whom 
 the Heavenly Tutor is educating. But man is more 
 than this. He is the microcosm or mirror of the 
 universe, God's representative and vicegerent, a common 
 bond and centre uniting the spiritual and sensible 
 universe." ^ 
 
 We quote this statement not only on account of its 
 intrinsic interest, but also because it is fair to let the 
 advocate of a new (if likewise old) theology speak for 
 liimself. While we cannot here discuss the merits of 
 the (|uestion raised, we may briefly advert to the three 
 ^ Allin, llacc and Hclhjion, Preface, p. 7 ff. 
 
HISTORICAL SERVICES 235 
 
 great pillars on wliich the Greek theology seems to 
 rest. 
 
 The first is the immanence of God in the universe. 
 This is a root principle with far-reaching consequences, 
 for in theology everything must ultimately depend 
 upon our conception of God. History and experience 
 go to show that there are two fundamentally different 
 ways of regarding Him. He may be viewed as dwell- 
 ing within His creation, or as transcendently exalted 
 above it. In the Mosaic period the people thought of 
 Him as dwelling among tliem by the shechinah, but in 
 the later days of post-exilic Judaism God was absolutely 
 conceived as reimiini; in the remote heaven. It was 
 the latter view that commended itself to Latin Chris- 
 tianity. Augustine found it dominant in the Church 
 at the time of his conversion, accepted it as part and 
 parcel of the divine revelation, and defended it with all 
 the resources of a powerful intellect. The history of 
 the Christian Church resembles that of the Jewish in 
 so far as it, too, shows a transition from the one stand- 
 point to the other. The earlier interpretation of Chris- 
 tianity adopted by the Greek Fathers and rejected by 
 the Western Church in favour of a theological system 
 of which the transcendence of Deity is the ruling 
 principle, was based upon the thought of the divine 
 immanence in creation and in the life of man. In the 
 two ways of looking at the subject is reflected the 
 spirit of the two races as exhibited in their respective 
 mythologies. While for the Roman the gods were 
 distant and unfamiliar beings, for the Greek they were 
 gracious presences ever by his side. There can be no 
 doubt as to which of the two conceptions of Deity is 
 the higher and more worthy. It was surely a retro- 
 
2 36 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 grade step for tlic Church of the West to abandon that 
 of the Greek theology in order to set on a far distant 
 throne Him who is " not far from every one of us," and 
 through whose indwelling spirit men become " tlic 
 temple of God." Yet there was one great danger to 
 which the Greek conception of Deity exposed its 
 adherents — that of pantheism. They did not always 
 find it easy so to hold the divine immanence as to 
 avoid identifjang God with the world. 
 
 The second keystone of the Greek theology is the 
 Incarnation. Stress is laid upon this, however, not as 
 a device for repairing the injury wrought l)y the Fall, 
 but as the completion of God's eternal purpose " before 
 the foundation of the world." The divine revelation 
 in Jesus is the complement of the divine revelation in 
 nature. This view is already propounded by Clement. 
 " Since Christ is the indwelling God, His incarnation is 
 not a thing new or strange, an abrupt break in the 
 continuity of man's moral history; it had not been 
 decreed in the divine counsels in order to avoid some 
 impending catastrophe which suddenly confronted or 
 threatened to disappoint the divine purpose; it was 
 not merely an historical incident by which he came 
 into the world from a distance, and, having done His 
 work, retired again from it. He was in the world 
 before He came in the flesh, and was preparing the 
 world for his visible advent. As indwelling Deity, He 
 was to a certain extent already universally incarnated, 
 as the light that lighteth every man, the light shining 
 in the darkness, the light and life of men in every age." ^ 
 To the Greek theologian, then, the incarnation is not 
 ' only a natural, but almost a necessary redemptive 
 ' Allen, The Continuity of Christian Thouyht, p. 47. 
 
HISTORICAL SERVICES 237 
 
 manifestation in order to succour sinful and suffering 
 luinianity, and carries with it the salvation of the race. 
 He is not careful, like the writers of the West, to 
 construct theories of the atonement, which is viewed 
 virtually as an extension of the incarnation. For liiin 
 the point of consequence is not that Christ was cruci- 
 fied, but that Christ became flesh. " Hellenism sat by 
 the cradle, while Latinism stood by the cross of the 
 Lord." 
 
 The third cardinal principle in the Greek theology 
 is that of the All-Fatherhood of God. Christ's life and 
 death are viewed as the proof of God's identification 
 with, and love for, mankind. The thought of God's 
 justice is not allowed to dwarf that of His goodness ; 
 man does not quail before an angry judge, for the Just 
 One is good, and the Parent-source of every blessing, 
 including that of redemption. In taking this ground 
 the Greek Fathers were at all events true to the funda- 
 mental idea of the gospel as a revelation of divine love. 
 Whatever may be its merits otherwise, the Latin theo- 
 logy, which built upon sin and fear and j)ropitiation, 
 undoubtedly erred in permitting the great truth that 
 God is love to slip too much into the background. 
 And in these days when this fact is growingly recog- 
 nised it will be reckoned to the credit of the Greek 
 theology that it did justice to the " magnetic force and 
 universal range and efficacy " of that Love which said : 
 " I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto Me." 
 
CHAPTER XI 
 
 Reaction against Origenism 
 
 Love and liatred encircle the name of Origen. Tliis 
 was the case ah-eady in his lifetime. Some distrusted 
 him as a heretic, others invoked his aid to silence 
 heretics ; by some he was almost worshipped, by others 
 he was bitterly disliked. And sometimes he suffered 
 as much at the hands of injudicious partisans as from 
 the opposition of his deadliest enemies ; for if the latter 
 unscrupulously misrepresented his views, the former 
 frequently retined upon them. Generally speaking, 
 however, for at least a century and a half after his 
 death, he was regarded with respect and even with 
 veneration. It was towards the end of the fourth 
 century that Origen's doctrinal position began to be 
 \'iewed in many quarters with disapprobation. Sub- 
 stantially, it was still adopted by Gregory of Nyssa, 
 although Jerome bitterly accuses him of having aban- 
 doned the orthodox faith. On the subject of the 
 Trinity in particular, Origen had held that the Son 
 was eternally begotten of, and yet subordinate to, the 
 Father. It came to be felt that these were two 
 incompatible propositions. Those who adhered to the 
 first asserted that the Son was of the same substance 
 with the Father (Ilomoousia) ; those who adopted the 
 
 23!J 
 
REACTION AGAINST ORIGENISM 239 
 
 second tau<;'lit that there were two natures. Many 
 Origcnists were prepared to accept a compromise, and 
 propounded tlie view tliat while there was not identity, 
 tliere was similarity, oi" .sul)stance {Honiolousia). Sub- 
 sequently, when to the Nicene Creed there had been 
 added a declaration of the equality of the Holy Spirit 
 with the Father and the Son, there took place in the 
 theological thought of the period a vigorous reaction 
 against the speculati^'e spiritualism of the school of 
 Origen, and a strong drift in favour of primitive and 
 traditional belief. Thus it came about that, in the 
 fifth century, Origen was reckoned a heretic in respect 
 of his teaching upon many points. Particular exception 
 was taken, however, to his views with reference to (1) 
 the pre-existcnce of the soul, and its incarceration in 
 the body after rebellion against God ; (2) the human 
 soul of Jesus ; (3) the resurrection of the body ; (4) 
 the ultimate restoration of all, and the possibility of 
 redemption for the de\'il ; and (5) the continued creation 
 of new worlds. " The Church," says Harnack, " has 
 produced two fundamental S3^stems, Origen's and 
 Augustine's. But the history of theology in the East 
 is the history of the setting aside of Origen's system, 
 and the same is to be said of the Augustinian in the 
 Catholic West. Only the procedure in the East was 
 more thoroughgoing and open than in the West. 
 In the former Origen was condemned, in the latter 
 Augustine was constantly celebrated as the greatest 
 doctor ecclesicc. In both cases, however, the rejection 
 of the theological system caused the loss of a coherent 
 and uniform Christian conception of the world." ^ 
 
 The first regular attack upon the writings of Origen 
 ' Ilistanj 0/ Dufjma, iii. p. 139. 
 
240 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 was made in the last decade of the third century by 
 Methodius, bisliop of Olympus and Patara in Lycia, 
 and subsequently of Tyre in Phoenicia. In a treatise 
 on Thinys Created, fragments of which have been 
 preserved by Photius, he assails the cosmology of 
 Origen, and charges him with having "fabled many 
 things concerning the eternity of the universe." But 
 his criticism is so ineffective as almost to justify the 
 remark that it is sometimes difficult to know whether 
 he is imitating or opposing Origen.^ This is probably 
 due to the fact that, while strongly advocating the 
 popular concejDtion of the Church's creed, and main- 
 taining the literal truth of sacred history, Methodius is 
 as much a Platonist as Origen himself. His antagonism 
 finds, however, more pronounced expression in a work 
 upon the Resurrection. Although an allegorist himself, 
 he condemns Origen's method as well as his doctrine. 
 On the question at issue he denies that the soul alone 
 is man, and that the body was given to the soul as a 
 fetter after the Fall, and maintains that if there were 
 no resurrection of the flesh Christ would have agreed 
 with the Sadducecs who invented tlic parable about 
 the woman and the seven brethren. " If," he argues, 
 "the soul be immortal, and the body be the corpse, 
 those who say that there is a resurrection, but not of 
 the flesh, deny any resurrection." Methodius also 
 rejects the teaching of Origen with respect to the 
 eternity of the Logos, the pre-existence of the soul, 
 and the merely temporary character of the bodily 
 nature as a moment in the process of development. 
 All God's creatures are capable of permanence. So 
 far from salvation necessitating separation of soul and 
 ^ Schnitzer, Origciics, p. 43. 
 
REACTION AGAINST ORIGENISM 241 
 
 body, it implies tlic reverse; it is a union oi" elements 
 in the constitution of man which had been unnaturally 
 divorced. Unfortunately the strictures of Methodius 
 are conceived more in the spirit of a champion of 
 orthodoxy than in that of a disinterested seeker after 
 truth. He misrepresents, as well as assails, the views 
 of Origen. His aim was to " unite the theology of 
 Irenseus and Origen, ecclesiastical realism and philo- 
 sophic spiritualism, under the badge of monastic 
 mysticism." 1 In the praise of virginity, and in the 
 reverence for " mother Church " enjoined upon the 
 individual soul that would become the bride of Christ, 
 we have undoubtedly the distinctive notes of the 
 mysticism associated with the cloister. Methodius 
 was not alone in his attacks, his aversion to the 
 spiritualism of Origen being shared by, among others, 
 Diodorus of Tarsus, Eustathius of Antioch, Theophilus 
 of Alexandria, and Nepos the cultured bishop of 
 Arsinoe, who wrote a work against " the allegorists." 
 
 The defence of Origen was taken up with great zest 
 by his pupils Pamphilus the Martyr, and Eusebius the 
 historian, bishop of Caesarea. Out of loving devotion 
 to his memory they made a collection of his works for 
 the Church library of the city to which he had brought 
 so much renown, and wrote in six books, of which only 
 the first is extant in a translation by Rufinus, an 
 elaborate Apology for Origen. Their enthusiasm for 
 their master was genuine and lifelong, and led them 
 occasionally to run riot in directions unsanctioned by 
 him. In his views of Christ, for instance, Eusebius is 
 loose and unsatisfactory; he virtually represents the 
 Mediator as a created and secondary God. Pamphilus 
 
 J Harnack, History of Dnrjma, ii. p. 13. 
 i6 
 
242 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 relieved the trdiuia ol' iinprisoniiient during the 
 Maximinian persecution by working at the Apology. 
 It was his last task before his martyrdom. In meet- 
 ing the charge of subordinationisra in the Son's rela- 
 tion to the Father, Pamphilus adduces evidence from 
 Origen's writings to show that he accepts the divinity 
 of Christ, and that his views are neither of an emana- 
 tionist nor of a docetic character. It is further 
 asserted by this loyal disciple that many loud accusers 
 of his master had no better foundation for their charges 
 than that of idle rumour. Considering it heretical to 
 read Origen's works at all, they were not only for the 
 most part quite ignorant of the writings they denounced, 
 but they even charged him with errors wliich he had 
 been at pains to refute. It was impossible that these 
 silly slanders could produce much effect so long as 
 Origen's own pupils lived to contradict them, and for 
 a time his authority was not sensibly diminished ; in 
 the West it even seemed to grow. Nearly all the 
 leading Fathers of the fourth century regarded him 
 with honour, and even down to the middle of the fifth 
 century there was no one whose prestige was compar- 
 able to his own. At tlic Council of Nice Athanasius 
 appealed to him in support of his doctrine of the 
 Trinity, and his testimony is quoted by the Church 
 historian Socrates against Origen's critics and enemies, 
 whom he stigmatises as " vain and ambitious ob- 
 scurantists, hero-lcNelling fellows." ^ Hilary of Poitiers 
 rendered into Latin his commentaries on Job and St. 
 Matthew ; Ambrose of Milan and Eusebius of Vercelli 
 did the same for certain of the Commentaries or 
 Homilies. Jerome, too, whose early enthusiasm led 
 ^ See Harnack, Htstonj of Dorjma, iii. p. 146. 
 
REACTION AGAINST ORIGENISM 243 
 
 him to regard Origen as " a Church teacher .second 
 only to the apostles," translated into Latin his dis- 
 courses on St. Luke and Canticles, and in his biblical 
 works avowedly "pilfered" from the exegetical 
 treasure-stores of the great Alexandrian. Origcn's 
 theological views were also espoused by the three 
 Cappadocian Fathers, the philosophical Gregory of 
 Nyssa, his elder brother Basil, and Gregory Nazianzus. 
 By writing in the spirit of the Dc Principiis a guide 
 towards the apologetic presentation of Christian 
 doctrine, the first-mentioned of these Fathers seriously 
 imperilled his reputation for orthodoxy. To the two 
 latter we owe the PJtilocalia, which has preserved for 
 us a considerable portion of the De Principiis in the 
 original Greek. 
 
 In the East neither the onslaughts of Peter, bishop 
 of Alexandria, nor the hostile attitude of Eustathius 
 of Antioch had seriously injured Origen's reputation. 
 Towards the close of the fourth century, however, the 
 tide began to turn. A strong feeling of antipathy 
 to his views was developed among a section of the 
 Egyptian monks. While those of the Nitrian desert, 
 who M'erc distinguished for their mystical spiritualism, 
 were enamoured of his doctrines, those of the Scetian 
 desert regarded them with aversion, and in their re- 
 coil from his idealistic speculations embraced the 
 grossest anthropomorphism. As the Arians had 
 claimed the support of Origen for their side, the 
 fanatical opponents of Arianism had gradually come 
 to regard him as the source of all heresy. His name 
 was dragged into all the subsequent controversies of 
 the period, — the Pelagian, the Nestorian, the Eutychian, 
 — and this very circumstance tended to increase the 
 
244 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 suspicion i'ustcrcd hy his views about pre-existeucc and 
 the resurrection. His teaching on the subject of the 
 eternal gospel had also excited the imagination of 
 many of the Palestinian and Egyptian monks to an 
 extent that led the ecclesiastical authorities to look 
 with disfavour upon writings that produced such 
 effects. So palpably did those monks who favoured 
 Origenistic views exaggerate everything, that they 
 must be carefully distinguished from what may be 
 termed the orthodox Origenists, who held by the 
 genuine doctrines of the master. It was, however, an 
 unhappy thought on the part of the latter to attempt 
 to adduce evidence from Origen's writings to show 
 that he was orthodox according to the standard of the 
 Nicene Creed. With this design, towards the end of 
 the fourth century, Didymus of Alexandria wrote 
 commentaries on the De Principiis, and more than a 
 century later Evagrius and others were still writing 
 in a similar vein. Apart from the fact that fetters 
 were thus placed upon individual freedom of thought, 
 this whole policy lent itself too readily to the manipula- 
 tion of the text of Origen's writings, and in conse- 
 quence to the lasting injury of theological learning. 
 As time passed, the controversial din over the grave of 
 Oricren waxed louder and louder. The bitterest in- 
 vectives were used; Church fellowships were broken 
 up ; private friendships were dissolved. Ultimately 
 the orthodox party triumphed ; but their victory did 
 them little honour. If they were actuated by zeal for 
 truth, it was a zeal untcmpered by Christian charity. 
 Owing to their increasingly complex character, it 
 is somewhat difficult to trace the course of these 
 Origenistic wrangles. In not a few instances the 
 
REACTION AGAINST ORIGENISM 245 
 
 inaiu issues disappeared in the vortex of personal 
 disputes. One of these quarrels arose in Palestine. 
 Jolin, bisliop of Jerusalem, lived on terms of intimate 
 friendship witli the two Latin theologians Rutinus 
 and Jerome, both of whom shared his admiration for 
 Origen. The latter, in particular, was an eager collector 
 and translator of the master's works. To appreciate 
 Origen as a writer he considered a sign of intelligence ; 
 his detractors lie designated " barking dogs." To be 
 his peer in scholarship was his great ambition. But 
 suddenly, in the year 394, the spirit of his dream was 
 changed. A Western theologian Vigilantius, and an 
 Egyptian monk Aterbius, having arrived in Jerusalem 
 and commented adversely upon Rufinus's and Jerome's 
 attitude towards Origenistic heresy, the latter, dread- 
 ing any imputation upon his orthodoxy, began to kick 
 his former idol. Writing to Theophilus he says, " If 
 you believe me, I never was an Origenist ; if you do 
 not believe me, I have now ceased to be one." He was 
 further incited to resile from his partiality for Origen 
 by the heated diatribes of Epiphanius, bishop of 
 Salamis, who, at the instigation of the Scetian monks, 
 had sailed for Palestine. Invited or permitted to 
 preach, this prelate uttered a violent tirade against 
 Origenism, to which John made a spirited reply, 
 vindicating the credit of Origen, and denouncing 
 anthropomorphism. After vainly endeavouring to get 
 him to abandon his Origenistic views, Epiphanius in- 
 duced Jerome and the monks at Bethlehem to renounce 
 Church fellowship with John and his sympathiser 
 Rufinus. The controversy was further embittered 
 through the action of Epiphanius in invading John's 
 episcopal rights by ordaining Paulinianus, a brother 
 
246 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 of Joroine, as pvesliytev for the recalcitrant monks 
 at Betlileheni. Ultimately, in 896, Theopliilus of 
 Alexandria was called in as arbiter, and Jerome and 
 Rufinns were reconciled before the altar. 
 
 A new storm-centre now arose in the West. Rufinus 
 returned to Rome, and in 397 published a translation 
 of the Dc Pi'incipiis. While avowedly omittino- several 
 of the most compromisino- passages, and affirming that 
 Origen's works in general, and this book in particular, 
 had been maliciously corrupted by heretics, he rather 
 maladroitly recalled in his preface Jerome's early 
 enthusiasm for Origen. Tiie wrath of the latter, on 
 hearing of this, knew no bounds. He issued a literal 
 translation of the work in question, and continued to 
 fulminate furiously not only against Origenism, but also 
 against his old friend and associate. As a Pelagian, 
 Rufinus adhered to Origen's teaching with respect to 
 pre-existence and free will, but being no Arian, he 
 rejected his doctrine of the Trinity. On the latter 
 point, as well as with regard to the resurrection, he 
 asserted the orthodoxy alike of himself and of the 
 Bishop of Jerusalem. At the same time he severely 
 condemned the detractors of Origen, and the contro- 
 versy grew hotter than ever, Rufinus devoted three 
 years to a treatise in which he defended himself and 
 attacked Jerome ; the latter replied in a similar vein 
 and at equal length. Partisans on both sides rushed 
 into the fray. Tlie Roman bishop Siricius, who had no 
 great liking for Jerome, threw his a3gis over Rufinus; 
 but in the year 400, under his successor Anastasius, he 
 was formally censured for translating the De Prin- 
 cijnis. His friend John of Jerusalem fared worse, a 
 Bull of excommunication havinij: been issued airainst 
 
REACTION AGAINST ORIGENISM 247 
 
 liiin. The odd thing about these proceedings was that, 
 according to his own naive confession, Anastasius had 
 never even heard of Origen before the translations of 
 Rufinus appeared. Perhaps this absolute ignorance of 
 his works made it easier for him to gratif}'' Jerome's 
 disciple Marcella, who called for their condemnation. 
 
 In Egypt, too, Origenism liad come under a cloud. 
 Compelled at lir.st by the violence of the Scetian monks 
 to anathematise Origen's writings, Theophilus of Alex- 
 andria afterwards became of one spirit with them, and, 
 breaking away from his former predilection for their 
 rivals of the Nitrian desert, condemned Origen at a 
 synod held in Alexandria in 399. Epiphanius, who 
 had a keen scent in such matters, made it convenient 
 to attend and assist, and greatly rejoiced over the 
 defeat of Amalek. According to Jerome, the sentence 
 was adopted by many other bishops both in the East 
 and in the West. Two years later, Theophilus, who 
 was a scheming, vindictive prelate rather than a 
 theologian, denounced Origenistic views in a violent 
 manifesto, which Epiphanius blessed and Jerome ren- 
 dered into Latin. Troops were employed forcibly to 
 dislodge from the Nitrian mountains the monks who 
 refused to renounce the writings of Origen. Although, 
 however, Theophilus ordered Origen's works to be 
 destroyed, he continued to read them himself, on the 
 plea that he " culled the flower and passed by the 
 thorn." ^ Many of the monks took refuge in Constan- 
 tinople, where they hoped to plead their cause before the 
 emperor. There, too, tliey enjoyed the kindly protection 
 of the noble-minded Chrysostom, who, without being 
 exactly an Origenist, put a high value on the service 
 1 Socrates, //, E. vi. 7. 
 
248 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 rendered by Oiigcn, and apparently had little idea of 
 the fierce enmity directed against his admirers. 
 
 The Byzantine capital now became the headipiarters 
 of the Orioenistic controversy. Theophilus forgot 
 everything else in the desire to humiliate Chrysostom. 
 At first it did not look as if he would succeed, for at 
 the instance of the monks the empress Eudoxia induced 
 Arcadius the emperor to cite Theophilus to appear be- 
 fore a s3niod to be presided over by his hated rival. 
 The Alexandrian prelate invoked the aid of the ever 
 zealous Epiphanius, \\'ho, however, being an honest 
 bigot, withdrew from Constantinople on ascertaining 
 that he had been misled by false pretences. But 
 Theophilus, finding another ally in the faithful preach- 
 ing of Cluysostom, who had not shrunk from rebuking 
 the vices of a licentious court, contrived to turn the 
 tables upon his opponent, and to become the accuser 
 instead of the accused. In the year 403 Chrysostom, 
 after refusing to attend a council organised and packed 
 by Theophilus, was excommunicated and sent into 
 exile. The Alexandrian Ijishop wrote to Theotimus of 
 Scythia requesting liis concurrence, but only to get the 
 retort that " he would neither besmirch the fair fame of 
 a sainted man long since gone to his rest, nor have the 
 presumption to condenni what none of his predecessors 
 had rejected." ^ Within a few days of his banishment 
 an earthquake, together with the indignation of the 
 populace, led to the recall of Chrysostom and to the 
 flight of Theophilus. Ere long, however, on St. John's 
 day, Chrysostom was rash enough to compare the 
 empress to Herodias, and the friends of Theophilus at 
 court took care to foster her indignation, with the 
 
 ' SocialoR, //. E. vi. 12. 
 
REACTION AGAINST ORIGENISM 249 
 
 result that at Easter, in tlic j^ear 404, Chrysostom was 
 seized and deported to Armenia. Thereupon the brutal 
 Theophilus had the eli'rontery to write, " Babylon is 
 fallen, is fallen." ^ This second exile Chrysostom en- 
 dured witli Christian heroism, and to his attached fl'jck 
 he continued to write words of comfort until his death, 
 which occurred in 407 while he was on the march to 
 a still drearier place of exile by the Black Sea. A 
 generation later, under Theodosius 11., the protests of 
 his flock were still loud enough to secure that his bones 
 sliould be brought to Constantinople and laid in an 
 honoured grave. 
 
 During the fifth century there was a comparative 
 lull in the storm that raged around Orig-en and his 
 writings. It was, however, marked by two incidents 
 worth noting, the one at its connnencement, the other 
 at its close. In Spain, where Pelagianism had already 
 obtained a footing, a certain Avitus sought to introduce 
 the doctrines of Origen; but about the year 410 this 
 attempt was thwarted by Orosius, a presbyter of that 
 country. Eighty-six years later, in A.D. 496, by a decree 
 of the Roman bishop Gelasius, lie was i)ronounced a 
 schismatic (! ), and all his works were abjured except 
 those which had been translated by Jerome. 
 
 In the sixth century the controversy was renewed in 
 
 all its bitterness. About the year 530 the convent of 
 
 St. Sabas, in Palestine, became a hotbed of Origenism. 
 
 Among the abbots there, Domitian and Theodore 
 
 (Askidas) were especially distinguished for their de- 
 
 ' By some tlie letter iu wliidi this occurs is ascribed to Jerome. But 
 oue is loth to think that, fiery fanatic as he could sometimes be, that 
 learned Father could thus glory over the ruin of a great man of God, 
 whose only offence consisted in the [uactice of Christian charity towards 
 the persecuted. 
 
250 ORIGKN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 votion to Oiii;x'n. .Some oi' the more fanatical ot" the 
 party even had it in view to demolish the monasteries 
 of their antagonists. Before his death, however, Sabas 
 himself requested the emperor Justinian formally to 
 condemn the arch-heretic. In a famous letter to 
 Mennas, patriarch of Constantinople (c. 538), Justinian 
 tabulated the errors of Orio-en and oave instructions to 
 have him condemned, and his works suppressed, by 
 synodal decree. The stress laid in this document 
 upon the heresy of pre-existencc is in itself eloquently 
 suggestive of the period of the JMonophysite contro- 
 versy, and of the opposing camps of the ProU>ldlsU and 
 the IsocJirists, into which the Origcnists were divided. 
 The former were so called with respect to the doctrine 
 of the pre-existence of the soul of Jesus ; the name 
 applied to the latter marked them out as defenders of 
 the view that all souls will ultimately be restored and 
 be on a level witli Christ. The diocesan synod called 
 v^ for hy Justinian was held at Constantinople in 541, 
 and expanded the emperor's nine anathemas against 
 Origen and his works into fifteen.^ Tliere were still, 
 however, at court secret disciples of the Alexandrian 
 teacher. Through the empress Theodora and bishop 
 Theodore of Coesarea, whose sympathies were with the 
 Monophysites, these were able to devise retaliatory 
 measures. Anxious to put an end to the unrest caused 
 by the Monophysite controversy in Egypt, Justinian 
 was led to expect that his object could be achieved 
 provided " the three chapters " — the Nestorian writings 
 of Theodore of Mopsuestia, the polemical tractates of 
 Theodoret of Cyrus against Cyril, and the letter of 
 
 ^ The student will fuul these cuunifratcd in TI;iiiiai;k's Hi-4ory of 
 Doyma, iv. p. 348 f. 
 
REACTION AGAINST ORIGENISM 251 
 
 Ibas of Edcssa to Maris — were condciuiu'd. Action 
 was accordingly taken on these linos in 544 ; but the 
 bishops of the West refused to subscribe the edict, as 
 being derogatory to the authority of the Council of 
 Chalcedon. In 547 Vigilius of Rome, a weak and 
 vacillating man, who had climbed to place and power 
 as the tool of the empress, was summoned to Constanti- 
 nople and compelled to acquiesce; but shortly after, 
 finding that the African bishops and others had re- 
 nounced Church connnunion with him, he withdrew 
 this approval. Thereupon Justinian condemned the 
 three chapters afresh (551). After nmch dissension 
 matters were at length settled at the Fifth General 
 Council, which Justinian sunnnoned to meet at 
 Constantinople in the year 553. The three chapters 
 were condemned. Origen also, it would appear, was 
 anathematised. He was not, however, singled out for 
 special treatment, liis name being mentioned only in a' 
 list of more ancient heretics. With this deliverance 
 the long and bitter series of Origenistic disputes came 
 to a close. 
 
CHAPTER XII 
 
 Subsequent History of Origenism 
 
 The subsequent history of Origenism is disappointing. 
 It no longer, indeed, had a ]ii,story in the same sense as 
 formerly ; but it had, or ratlicr remained, an influence 
 that could never die out. Like Hellenism, it was an 
 atmosphere, a spirit, a subtle force pervading thought 
 and life. But although all down the centuries it has 
 lacked neither advocates nor assailants, it has ne\'er 
 again become the battle-cry of opposing parties in the 
 Church. For a time, in the domain of theology, it 
 remained 
 
 " The imperial ensign ; wliicli, full liigli ailvanced, 
 Slione like a meteor, streaming to the wind." 
 
 But only afterwards to disappear in a bog ; irrecover- 
 ably, as a complete scientific system, yet, happily, not 
 so as a storeliouse of great thouo-hts frauo-ht Avith 
 
 o o o 
 
 blessing for the world still. ^ 
 
 In the Eastern Church, after Gregory of Nyssa, the 
 most prominent names associated with Origen down to 
 the seventh century were those of iEneas of Gaza, 
 Zacharias of Mitylene, and "the divine philosopher" 
 Maxinuis Confessor. iEneas and Zacluirias, wIkj lived 
 in tlie fifth and sixth centuries respectively, exhibit, 
 
 252 
 
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF ORIGENISM 253 
 
 according to Denis, " incontestable traces of Origenism, 
 but tlicy arc only disjointed reminiscences, and con- 
 sequently of no great significance."^ They were 
 rhetoricians rather than theologians. In the seventh 
 century Origenism was represented by Maximus, an 
 Eastern monk, an able thinker, a learned scliolar, and 
 a fearless controversialist. ]5y denying the right of 
 the emperor to intermeddle in disputed questions of 
 dogmatic, he anticipated the contendings of later 
 reformers with respect to the Church's independence 
 of the State. In common with others who upheld the 
 affirmations of the Chalcedonian creed regarding two 
 natures and two wills, he denounced the imperial 
 " Typus " — a document forbidding all controversy as to 
 whether Christ had only one will or two — on the 
 ground that it robbed Him not only of His wills, 
 but also of His action, and therefore of His natures 
 generally. His theology was of the scholastic type, 
 and a combination of Aristotelian philosophy and 
 Alexandrian mysticism. His great theme is the soul's 
 rec^tivity ; he has little to say about active effort. In 
 his doctrine of grace he resembles Origen rather than 
 Augustine, holding that whatever of being there is in 
 us is good, because being comes from God. Even 
 though the taint of sin has tarnished our race, there 
 always remains in us " the germ and the faculty of 
 good." Maximus adhered likewise to the teaching of 
 Origen and Gregory of Nyssa with regard to universal 
 salvation. The labours of the Cappadocians and of 
 Maximus, together with the philosophy of Aristotle, 
 prepared the way for Greek scholasticism as represented 
 by John of Damascus. It would appear that by the 
 
 ^ Dc la Philosophie d'Origene, p. 549. 
 
254 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 end oi" tlic fourth century ilic llcllcnistic; spirit had 
 virtually exhausted itself. It no longer welled up in 
 living and creative power. Even the writings of 
 Maximus arc largely a melange of the ideas of Gregory 
 of Nyssa and those of the pseudo-Dionysius, who lived 
 early in the fifth century. But naturally, as inde- 
 pendent thinking waned, increased attention was 
 bestowed upon form and method. The intellectual 
 treasures, of which they were the custodians, no longer 
 stinuilated the Greek theologians to add to their bulk 
 and their beauty ; rather did they constitute a burden- 
 some, if sacred, heritage, which it cost much labour to 
 preserve and transmit. John is not an independent 
 author ; he is a diligent editor, a scholastic through whose 
 dialectic skill orthodox Christianity attained a fixed 
 form in the Greek Church. But with this it lost much 
 of its living interest, and men's minds began to be 
 occupied with questions of worship rather than with 
 problems of theology. As Ilarnack says, " The history 
 of dogma came to a close in the Greek Church a 
 thousand years ago, and its reanimation cannot easily 
 be conceived." ^ Such a situation must ever appear 
 regrettable in view of the sparkle and brightness which 
 the Greek mind might have imparted to Christianity. 
 
 Until the time of the Pelagian controversies Origen 
 was scarcely known in the West ; and even then, if we 
 except the accusations of Jerome, his name was not 
 much canvassed either in orthodox or in heterodox 
 circles. The welcome extended to the writings of 
 Augustine was tantamount to the rejection of those of 
 Origen. What more particularly sapped the founda- 
 tions of Origenism was Augustine's doctrine of sin and 
 
 ^ Hidory of Do'jma, iv. p. 352. 
 
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OE ORIGENISM 255 
 
 (jjrace, with its literal acceptance both of the tradition 
 of original sin and of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. 
 For fully three hundred 3'^ears the Augustinian position 
 was scarcely challenged ; yet this apparently complete 
 victory of the great Latin Father's teaching over that of 
 the Greek was due not so much to its own superiority 
 in depth and logic, as to the gross darkness induced by 
 the disintegration of the empire of the West. Amid 
 the chaotic confusion of the revolutionary period that 
 witnessed the general overthrow of institutions and 
 customs, there was no dispasition to investigate the 
 foundations of belief or to stir new questions for 
 debate. What mental energy was left to those who 
 represented theological study had to be expended in 
 the summarising of results already reached. The only 
 real trace of Orio^en's influence in the Middle Ao;es is 
 found in the writings of John Scotus Eiigena (flSOS). 
 It is uncertain whether his knowled(;e of Oricjen 
 was gained at first-hand or not. There is nothing 
 improbable in the supposition that through Theodore 
 of Tarsus, who became archbishop of Canterbury, he 
 may have had access to the writings of the Alexandrian 
 Father. But although Scotus frequently mentions 
 Origen by name, and uses language closely akin to his, 
 he docs not appear ever to quote him directly. While 
 referring freely to other Greek Fathers also, he 
 studiously ignores the Latin Fathers, with the excep- 
 tion of Augustine (" who is really mentioned only 
 honoris causa") and Ambrose. The latter attracted 
 him chiefly through his Hexmneron, an allegorical 
 treatise of more pronouncedly Alexandrian type than 
 any other of his writings, and possibly John's know- 
 ledge of Origen may have been wholly derived from 
 
2 56 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 Ambrose and Grc^^oiy of Nyssa. In affirming that 
 " true pliilosopliy is true religion, and true religion is 
 true philosophy," Scotus at once reveals his affinity to 
 Origcn, whom he specially resembles in speculative 
 boldness. Nor is the similarity between the two 
 men confined to a mere general bent of mind; it is 
 doctrinal as well. For instance, he summarily rejects 
 the Augustinian doctrine of predestination. Like 
 Origcn, too, Scotus asserted the eternity of the world, 
 and held that had God existed before and without the 
 world, creation would have been an accident in the 
 divine life. Only in the sense in wliich cause must 
 exist anterior to effect, i.e. by a logical interval, but 
 not an interval of measurable time, did God exist 
 before the world. His position is exactly tliat of 
 Origen, except that for him ci'cation is an emanation, 
 and not a real creation by an act of will. In his 
 spiritualising tendency he even goes beyond Origen. 
 For him the popular notions about a material hell are 
 simply a relic of paganisin. Conscience constitutes 
 both heaven and hell : " there is no other joy than to 
 see Christ, no other punishment than not to see LLim." 
 In the soul's return to God he distinguishes five stages — 
 death, resurrection, the transformation of the fleshly 
 body into a spiritual body, the return of the spirit to 
 lirst causes, and finally deification. On the other 
 hand, in his doctrine of man, whom lie views as a 
 microcosm, Scotus deviates from Origen ; and on 
 various topics he takes for his master the pseudo- 
 Dionysius, who was a theosophic mystic. To a certain 
 extent the spirit of Origen reappears also in the 
 Neapolitan monk Joachim, more especially in his free 
 interpretation of the sacred text, but it is doubtful 
 
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF ORIGENISM 257 
 
 whether he had any acquaintance with the writings of 
 the great Alexandrian. 
 
 Enough has been said to show that Origen's . 
 influence upon succeeding ages was by no means 
 commensurate with the boldness and grandeur of his • 
 system. This may be accounted for in several ways. 
 For one thing it was not " compactly built together " ; 
 through its looseness and discursiveness it was at a 
 disadvantage as compared with the more firmly 
 welded Neoplatonism of Plotinus. The furious strife 
 that raged round his name from the time of his 
 death until the middle of the sixth century was due 
 more to personal antipathies than to any great living 
 force in his philosophy. No gi-eat book was produced 
 on either side. The doctrines of pre-existence and of 
 tlie eternity of the world were no doubt taught in 
 many of the philosophical schools, — the former, in 
 particular, has shown a persistent tendency to assert 
 itself at intervals in the subsequent history of the 
 Church, — and that of the final restoration of all spirits 
 received the support of Gregory of Nyssa and of 
 Maximus the Confessor. It is clear from the Church 
 history of Socrates that in the fifth century Origen's 
 influence was in certain circles still undiminished ; but 
 if the Greek Church as a whole had held him in much 
 esteem, it would surely have been at more pains to 
 preserve his works. The truth is, his name was no 
 longer one to conjure with in the East ; and it was still 
 less so in the West. The thunders of Jerome rendered 
 him an object of general suspicion. The prestige of 
 the Augustinian theology, which had occupied the 
 field, as well as the barbarism and ignorance fostered 
 by repeated invasions on almost every side, likewise 
 17 
 
258 ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 tended to bring- about the general neglect of Origen's 
 writings even after they were accessible to readers in 
 the Latin tongue. Not until the ninth century did any 
 gleam of his influence appear ; and if three centuries 
 later it manifested itself with greater strength in the 
 pages of Duns Scotus, it was overlaid and virtually 
 stifled with Neoplatonic mysticism drawn from the 
 pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. " During the Middle 
 Ages Origen was only a name. In modern times his 
 writings have been restored to the light of day, but life 
 has not been restored to his doctrines. Some of his 
 ideas have crept into Jacob Behmen, into Poiret, into 
 St. Martin ; his system has remained alien to them." 
 So writes Denis/ who is probably correct in thinking 
 that, owing to the cosmology of its founder, the re- 
 conciliation of the modern spirit with Origenism is 
 almost inconceivable. 
 
 Apart altogether from the (juestion of the influence 
 exerted by him, it may be noted that the West has 
 been much more generous in its treatment of Origen 
 than the East. This is curious enough, and yet it is 
 only another illustration of the well-attested principle 
 that "no prophet is accepted in his own country." 
 During the Middle Ages, throughout the Greek Church, 
 his name was held in execration, and the margins of 
 his MSS. were covered with the bitter denunciations of 
 anonymous scribblers, who were greatly shocked at 
 what they considered his deadly heresies and intoler- 
 able blasphemies. Even yet the Church whose creed 
 he did so much to mould regards liim with decided 
 aversion. In the Latin Church opinion has always 
 been more divided as to his merits, some having 
 ^ De la rhiloso2)hie d'Origenc, p. 611. 
 
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF ORIGENISM 259 
 
 written in condemnation, others in defence, of liis 
 views. Augustine, though opposed to his theology, 
 had that respect for liis memory wliicli it was fit that 
 one great man should entertain in relation to another. 
 Vincentius of Lerinum pointed to Origen as a warning 
 example of how the most scholarly and illustrious 
 teacher might deviate from the highway of truth. 
 Others, doubtless, have considered him literally beyond 
 redemption, and the question of his salvation has been 
 discussed in more than one printed treatise. But those 
 who doubted of his salvation did not scruple to help 
 themselves to the fruit of his labours ; they were 
 adherents of that type of ecclesiastical " science " which 
 cares little for historical truth, and " lives on fragments 
 of the men whom it declares to be heretics." But at 
 the beginning of the ninth century Pope Leo in. in- 
 cluded among the patristic readings in the Roman 
 breviary several selections from his writings, and all 
 along many were disposed to regard as wanton inter- 
 polations by heretics what of heterodoxy they con- 
 tained. In the fourteenth century the pious Mechtildis 
 claimed to have had it revealed to her in a vision that 
 in spite of his errors God had shown him mercy. 
 
 Among the admirers of Origen in more recent times 
 special mention is due to the learned Erasmus. Besides 
 writing his life, this greatest of all the Humanists 
 translated some of his Commentaries into Latin, 
 thereby confirming his declaration that he " learned 
 more Christian philosophy from a single page of 
 Origen than from ten of Augustine." Luther took a 
 diametrically opposite view : Origeneni^amditdiim 
 diris devovi ; but Luther was not without strong 
 dogmatic bias — witness the fact that he called the 
 
26o ORIGEN AND GREEK THEOLOGY 
 
 Epistle of St. James " an Epistle of straw." The great 
 Reformer's unfavourable estimate of Origen was 
 possibly due, however, more to the impatience Avith 
 which a practical mind is apt to view the idealist and 
 his long-spun theories than to anj^thing else. It is 
 worth recalling that in his Table Talk he quotes w^ith 
 approval what Origen says about the power of devils 
 being broken by the saints.^ Beza, the friend of Calvin, 
 had also a poor opinion of Drigen. Mclanchthon 
 regarded him with mixed feelings, approving of his 
 doctrine of the Trinity, but rejecting his view of 
 Justification. While not homologating his opinions, 
 the venerable Bede and the saintly Bernard revered 
 his memory. In Genebrard he found a zealous 
 defender and industrious editor of his works.^ 
 Since the seventeenth century, when Augustinian 
 divines still referred to Origen in terms of heavy 
 censure, there has been a disposition to extend to him 
 a kindlier judgment. In some quarters he is even 
 
 ^ Of the Devil and his Works, dcvii. 
 
 ^ These were first printed by Merlin in 1512. His emendations are 
 quite uncritical. Although finely printed, the edition of Erasmus 
 (Basel, 1545) is lacking in care and exactness. Rather better than 
 these is the edition of Genebrard (Paris, 1574). A great advance in 
 every respect is shown in that of the Benedictine De la Hue, 4 vols, fol., 
 Paris, 1656-1659, — reprinted by Lommatzsch, 25 vols. 8vo, Berlin, 
 1831-1848, and by Migne, Patrologiie Cursus Co7npletus, ser. Grrece, 
 vols, xi.-xvii. The sidcndid edition of the Greek Fathers now being 
 issued l)y the Berlin Academy provides the world at last with a com- 
 })lete critical edition of Origen's extant writings. In the Journal of 
 Theological Studies (October, 1900) there is an article by E. C. Butler 
 upon "The New Tractatus Origenis," — "a series of twenty homilies in 
 Latin discovered in two manuscripts (10th and 12th centuries re- 
 spectively), by Mgr. Batiffol, Rector of the Institut Catholiquo of 
 Toulouse," and published by him in the early part of last year. The 
 probability appears to be that they are of purely Latin origin. 
 
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF ORIGENISM 261 
 
 hailed as tlie real author of much that is accounted 
 modern in the religious thought of the present day. 
 For our own part, we are inclined to accept as just 
 and Christian the calmly conceived and finely expressed 
 estimate of the author of Hours with the Mystics : " Of 
 the merits of Origen we must judge in the spirit of 
 charity. His labours entitle him to no less at our 
 hands. Of this victim of unmeasured censure — this 
 idol of indiscriminate praise, we can now form a dis- 
 passionate estimate. The uproar of the contests which 
 ensued upon his death has died away. Those funeral 
 games are ended. We are not, like his contemporaries, 
 applauding now Jerome and now Rufinus, as they 
 strain and turn in their grapple of hatred. Let not 
 the evil which was no part of his design be laid to 
 his charge. Let his love to the Most Holy, whom he 
 wished to serve, be present with us when we think 
 upon the multitude of his errors. His whole life he 
 ottered up as a sacrifice to his Maker — calumny alone 
 would snatch the offering from the altar. ' I shall 
 know after death,' said he, 'whether those stars are 
 indeed animated.' We believe that he now does know 
 — in heaven." ^ 
 
 ^ R. A. Vauglian, Essays and Bemains, vol. i. p. 44. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Abelarp, 146 ». 
 
 Aoliaia, Churcli of, 50. 
 
 Adarnantius, 98. 
 
 Adamaiitius = Ongen, 104. 
 
 /Eneas of Ga;;a, 252. 
 
 Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, 
 
 221 f. 
 Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, 13, 
 
 37, 50, 56, 63, 224. 
 Alexandria, 2, 14, 24, 3.o, 44, 46, 
 
 49 ff., 54 f., 58, 220 f., 224, 247. 
 Alexandrian Church, 8, 37, 52, 62. 
 Alexandrian Fathers, 8, 81, 93, 209. 
 Allen, quoted, Pref., 236. 
 Allin, quoted, 223 f. 
 Ambrose, 210, 242, 255 f. 
 Ambrosius, 9, 47, 58, 62 f., 100, 
 
 110, 133, 138. 
 Ammonius Saceas, 6, 44. 
 Anastasius, bishop of Rome, 246 f. 
 Anselin, 188. 
 Antichrist, 206, 230. 
 Antioch, 3, 13, 49, 51, 62, 222. 
 Apologists, the, 148. 
 Aquila, proconsul of Et^ypt, 40. 
 Aquila.translatorofLXX, 99,101 If. 
 Ai|uileia, 58. 
 
 Arabia, 49, 53, 56, 61, 224. 
 Arabian Church, 60. 
 Arcadius, 248. 
 Arianism, 220, 222, 243. 
 Aristides, 10. 
 Aristotle, 253. 
 Arius, 218, 221 f. 
 Asia Minor, 224 f. 
 
 Aterbius, 245. 
 
 Athanasius, 2, 217 h., 218 ff. 
 
 Athenagoras, 148. 
 
 Atbenodorus, 56. 
 
 Athens, 3, 10, 12, 36, 51, 58 f. 
 
 Atonement, Origen's theory of the, 
 
 186 ff. 
 Augustine, 63, 212, 231 f., 235, 
 
 239, 254 f., 259. 
 Augustinian theology, 257. 
 Aurelius, ilarcus, 105. 
 Avitus, 249. 
 
 Barnabas, 27. 
 
 Basil the Great, 126, 243. 
 
 Basilides, 4, 28. 
 
 Baur, referred to, 43 7i., 45 Ji. 
 
 Baxter, Richard, 98. 
 
 Bede, 260. 
 
 Behmen, 192 »., 258. 
 
 Bernard, 192 ?i., 260. 
 
 Beryllus, 59 f. 
 
 Berytus, 56. 
 
 Beza, 260. 
 
 Bigg, quoted or referred to, 110, 
 
 121, 125, 198. 
 Bithynia, 58. 
 Bostra, 59 f. 
 Bruce, quoted, 119. 
 Burns, quoted, 207. 
 Butler, 74. 
 
 C^SARKA, 50, 54 ff, 103, 175. 
 Cffisarea in Cappadocia, 57, 224. 
 Calvin, 98, 212, 260. 
 
 263 
 
264 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Candidus, the Valentinian, 55. 
 
 Cappadoeia, 53, 5G. 
 
 (Jappadocian Fathers, 243, 253. 
 
 Caraealla, 46, 49. 
 
 Carlyle, 213. 
 
 Carthago, Cluirch of, 17. 
 
 Cateclietical School, 2, 8, 12, 19 f., 
 40 f., 43, 46, 214 f., 220. 
 
 Celsus, 9, 61, 10511'., 150, 159. 
 
 Celsus the Epieuiean, 105. 
 
 Clialcedon, Council of, 2, 251. 
 
 ChaUU^ans, tlie, 84. 
 
 Chiliasm, 229 f. 
 
 Christianity, 1, 4, 7, 13, 15 ff., 19, 
 23 If., 36 ir., 49, 61, 84, 89 f., 
 93 f., 99, 105 f., 109, lllfl"., 127, 
 159, 229, 232, 254, 
 
 Chrysostoui, 247 IT. 
 
 Church, Origen's idea of the, 196 f. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, 2, 1311'.; 
 attitude of towards Greek philo- 
 sophy, 1 4 ff. ; place assigned by 
 to reason, 16 ; his views of Holy 
 Scripture, 17 ff.; his distinction 
 of the true Gnostic from the 
 ordinary disciijle, 19 f.; his in- 
 fluence on Origen, 20 ; his writ- 
 ings, 20 (T. ; apologetic tread of 
 his teaching, 2:i f. ; founder of a 
 scientific Christian dogmatic, 24 ; 
 his theology, 26 ff., 37, 40, 44, 
 73, 79, 81, 84 tf., 90, 120, 131, 
 148, 158, 189f., 196 ff., 210, 236. 
 
 Constantine l., 105, 222. 
 
 Constantino 11., 222. 
 
 Constantinople, 247 f., 250 f. 
 
 Constantins, 222. 
 
 Cranmer, 218. 
 
 Cunningham, referred to, 26. 
 
 Cyprian, 196, 229, 
 
 Cyril, 250. 
 
 Dante, quoted or referred to, 39, 
 
 170 n., 203 (f., 210. 
 Decian persecution, 61 f., 218 f. 
 Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, 
 
 41, 43, 46, 49 ff., 60, 63, 215. 
 Denis, quoted or referred to, 3f., 
 
 77, 80, 87 f., 92, 97, 121, 253, 
 
 258. 
 
 Didymus, 214, 220, 244. 
 Diodorus of Tarsus, 241. 
 Diognetus, Epistle to, 231. 
 Dionysius of Alexandria, 62, 214, 
 
 216 ff. 
 Dionysius of Rome, 217. 
 Discourse, The I'rue, 105, 107, 
 
 109 ff. 
 Dods, referred to, 23. 
 Domitian, abbot of St. Sabas, 249. 
 
 Eastern Church, 210, 215, 223, 
 
 231, 252. 
 Egypt, 13, 35, 49, 55, 247, 250. 
 Egyptian Church, 37, 41, 50, 63. 
 Egyptian monks, 243. 
 Egyptians, 84, 163. 
 Eleazar, 139. 
 Elkesaites, the, 59, 61. 
 Emmaus (Nicopolis), 58. 
 Ephcsus, 51, 101. 
 Epicureanism, 42, 84. 
 Epicureans, 108. 
 Epiphanius, 245, 247 f. 
 Erasmus, 259. 
 Ernesti, 123. 
 Eudoxia, 248. 
 Eusebius of Ciesarca, 42, 45, 49, 
 
 53, 60, 62, 66, 92, 103, 105, 111, 
 
 152 ?i., 198 ?i., 241. 
 Eusebius of Vercelli, 242. 
 Eustathius of Antioeh, 241, 243. 
 Eutychian controversy, 243 f. 
 Evagrius, 244. 
 
 Fabian, bishop of Rome, 53, 198 ». 
 
 Fenelon, 192 n. 
 
 Fifth General Council, 251. 
 
 Firmilian, 57, 224. 
 
 Free will, the doctrine of, 132, 161 ff. 
 
 Gallienus, 218. 
 
 Gaul, 228. 
 
 Gelasius of Rome, 249. 
 
 Genebrard, 260. 
 
 Gennadius, 54. 
 
 Geta, 49. 
 
 Gnostics, 2, 4, 6, 14, 18, 48, 78 f., 
 
 88, 139, 144, 162 f., 169, 189, 
 
 211, 228. 
 
INDEX 
 
 265 
 
 Gordian, 110. 
 
 Gospel, The Elernal, 179, 190, 214. 
 
 Gosjiels, tlie, 67, 101. 
 
 Goths, the, 227. 
 
 Greece, f)0, .13, 58, 101. 
 
 Greek Church, 232, 257 f. 
 
 Greek Fathers, 210, 220, 228 f., 
 
 230 f., 237, 255. 
 Greek jihilosophy, 82, 84 ff., 91, 
 
 115, 211, 219, 225 f. 
 Greek theology, 228 f. 
 Gregory the Cappadocian, 223. 
 Gregory ot'Naziauzen, 126, 223, 243. 
 Gregory of Nyssa, 210, 226, 238, 
 
 243, 252 ff., 257. 
 Gregory Thaniiiaturgus, 11, 56 f., 
 
 59, 64, 133, 225 ff. 
 Giiyon, Madame de, 192 Jt. 
 
 Hades, 204 f. 
 
 Hadrian, 100. 
 
 Harnack, quoted or referred to, 25, 
 53, 85, 91, 97, 126, 153, 172 f., 
 190, 212, 239, 241 f., 250, 254. 
 
 Hellenism, 233, 252. 
 
 Hellenistic theology, 232 ff. 
 
 Heraclas, 2, 9, 39, 44 If., 53 f., 62, 
 214 f. 
 
 Heraclitus, 107f. 
 
 Hermas, The Shc2)hcrcl of, 74. 
 
 Herod the Great, 54. 
 
 Ilcxapla, The, 47, 50, 55, 58, 101 ff. 
 
 Hilary of Poitiers, 242. 
 
 Hippolytus, 49. 
 
 Ibas of Edessa, 250. 
 
 Incarnation, doctrine of the, 117 ff., 
 
 131, 180 ff., 236. 
 India, 37. 
 
 Irenrens, 17, 145, 241. 
 Irvingites, the, 228. 
 Italy, 228. 
 
 Jericho, 50, 101. 
 
 Jerome, 12, 35, 52, 56, 98, 103 f., 
 120, 125, 171, 210, 227, 238, 
 542, 245 ff., 254, 257, 261. 
 
 Jerusalem, 3, 63, 203, 224, 245 f. 
 
 Je-sns Christ, 12, 18, 24, 54, 86 f., 
 95 f., 108 f., 116 f., 135ff.,145f., 
 
 149, 151 ff., 163, 172, 178 f, 
 
 181 ff., 229, 250. 
 Joachim, 256. 
 
 John of Damascus, 253 f. 
 
 Jolui of Jerusalem, 245 f. 
 
 John Scotus Erigena, 255 f., 258, 
 
 Josephus, 99. 
 
 Jovian, 224. 
 
 Judaism, 3, 99, 109, 116 f., 195. 
 
 Julia Mammaja, 49. 
 
 Julian, 223. 
 
 Juliana, 57. 
 
 Julius Africanus, 58 f., 133, 224. 
 
 Justin, 8, 10, 15, 24, 99, 148, 228, 
 
 230. 
 Justinian, 250 f. 
 
 Kroxius, 45. 
 
 L^TUS, 40. 
 
 Latin Church, 230, 232. 
 
 Latin Fathers, 255. 
 
 Leibnitz, 150. 
 
 Leo III., Pope, 259. 
 
 Leonides, 35 ff". 
 
 Libya, bishops of, 217 ; desert of, 
 
 218. 
 Logos, the, 3. 14 f., 17, 24 ff., 86, 
 
 94, 131, 144, 151 f., 15.'., 172, 
 
 182 ff., 240. 
 Lucian, 105. 
 Luther, 212, 259 f. 
 
 Marcella, 247. 
 
 Maris, 251. 
 
 Martin, St., 258. 
 
 Maximinus Thrax, 138, 224. 
 
 Maximus Confessor, 252 ff. 
 
 Mechtildis, 259. 
 
 Melanchtlion, 64, 260. 
 
 Melito, bishop of Sardis, 65, 120. 
 
 Meunas of Constantinople, 250. 
 
 Methodius, 230, 240 f. 
 
 j\lilan. Council of, 223. 
 
 Moderatus, 15. 
 
 Monophysite controversy, 250. 
 
 Montanists, the, 123, 228 ff. 
 
 Morinus, Petrus, 103. 
 
 Moses, 82, 86, 109. 
 
 Mystics, the, 17. 
 
266 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Neandek, 20 f., 44 7!.. 
 NeocTsarea in Pontus, 22.') f. 
 Neoplatonisiii, 6, 23, 4-1, 215, 257. 
 Neoiilatonists, 96, 144. 
 Nepos of Arsinoo, 217, 241. 
 Nestorian conlrovLi.-v, 243. 
 Nica>a, Council of, 2," 221 f., 242. 
 Nicoiiiaclnis, 4;"). 
 Nicomedia, 58 f. 
 Nicopolis, 58, 101, 224. 
 Nitrian monks, 243, 247. 
 Noetus, 160. 
 Novatus, 217. 
 Nuruenius, 45. 
 
 Origex, 2, 11 ff"., 18, 20, 34 ; his 
 birtli, surname, jiarenta^e, and 
 early education, 35 ff. ; meaning 
 of the name, 35 ; Origcn as a 
 teaclier, 39 ; his sj-mpathy witli 
 Christian martyrs, 40 ; his un- 
 ■worldliness, 41 ; liis asceticism, 
 
 42 f. ; his self-mutilation, 43 ; 
 his devotion to Greek ])lii]osopliy, 
 
 43 (T. ; his knowledge of Hebrew, 
 K 46 f.; his literary labours, 47 f ; 
 
 journeys to Arabia and Antioch, 
 49 ; sojourn in Palestine, 50 ; 
 his ordination by the Palestinian 
 bishops, 50 ; visit to the Churcli 
 of Acliaia, 50 f.; liis final depar- 
 ture from Alexandria, 52; his 
 deposition from the rank of 
 presbyter, 52 ; settlement at 
 Civsarea, and establishment of a 
 theological scliool tliere, 54 f. ; 
 the counsellor of foreign Churches, 
 56, 60 ; his magnetic influence 
 over liis pupils, 56 f. ; his two 
 years' concealment in the Capjia- 
 docian Ca?sarea, 57 f. ; second 
 visit to Greece, 58 ; letters to 
 Julius Africanus and to Gregor}', 
 
 59 ; Ins exegctical work, 59 ; his 
 mediation in the case of Beryllus, 
 
 60 ; correspondence with Philip 
 the Aral)ian, 61 ; imprisonment 
 and toiture under Dccius, 62 ; 
 his death, 62; his character, 62 If. 
 
 Origen's vievj of Holy Scripture, 
 
 05 fl'.; Ills belief in inspiration, 
 67 ff. ; unity of the sacred writ- 
 ings, 69 f.; the Sj)irit's twofold 
 object in Scrijiture, 70 If. ; the 
 allegorical method, 73 f. ; his 
 ruling principle of interjiretation, 
 or the threefold sense, 74 f. ; the 
 function of allegorism to discover 
 "mysteries," 76 ; his reasons for 
 adopting an allegorical exegesis, 
 77, 80 ; futility of tiiis method, 
 77; relation between the law 
 and the gospel, 77 ; liis negative 
 use of allegorism as an ajiologetic 
 weapon, 79 ; the doctrine of 
 economy or reserve, 81 ; Origen's 
 failure to recognise historical de- 
 velopment in revelation, 82. 
 
 Origen's rdicfious philosophy, 84 fl'. ; 
 relation of Christian doctrine to 
 Greek philosophy, 84 f.; philo- 
 sophy relatively true, but in- 
 adequate, 85 f. ; the incarnation 
 of Jesus the true goal alike of 
 Greek philosojihy and of revealtd 
 wisdom, 86 ; Gnostic and Neo- 
 lilatonic features of Origen's 
 theological system, 87 ; his doc- 
 trines, as distinguished from 
 their philosophical dress, derived 
 from Scripture, 87 f.; value at- 
 tached by him to a scientific 
 conception of Christianity, 89 ; 
 his distinction between exoteric 
 and esoteric Cliristianity, 90 ; 
 drawbacks of Origen's conception 
 of Christianity, 91 ; his use of 
 the Greek cosmology, 91 f. ; his 
 moral and religious ideal jiartly 
 Neoplatonic, partly scrijitural, 
 92 f. ; his theory of knowledge 
 and its relation to f\iitli, 94 ; re- 
 lation of faith to obedience, 94 f. ; 
 imperfection of all human know- 
 ledge, 95 f. ; the deification of 
 humanity, 96 ; main outlines of 
 Origen's philosojdiy, 97. 
 
 Origen, UTitings of, 98 ff.; contri- 
 butions to textual criticism, 
 99 ff.; hia apologetic work — the 
 
INDEX 
 
 267 
 
 Contra Celsum, 105 fT.; cxegetical 
 writings, 120 tf. ; dogmatic works 
 — the De Principiis, 125 ff.; 
 letters, and treatises on Prayer 
 and Martyrdom, 133 fF. 
 
 Origen's Tlicolocjy, 142-212 ; nature 
 of God, 1-12 if. ; doctrine of the 
 Trinity, 148 ff.; the world of 
 created spirits and the concep- 
 tion of formal freedom, 16111'.; 
 Creation and the Fall, 168 if.; 
 the doctrine of man, 171 tf ; the 
 Four Kevelations, 177 ff.; the 
 Incarnation, 180 ff.; the sacrifice 
 of Christ, 185 if ; the soul's re- 
 turn to God, 190 ff.; the last 
 things, 202 ff. 
 
 Origen, versatility of his genius, 
 213 ; successors of Origen, 213ff. ; 
 hisintluence in Alexandria, 215 ff. ; 
 in Asia Minor, 224 ff. ; decay of 
 his iniluence towards the end of 
 the fourth century, 243 ; attack 
 on his writings by Methodius, 
 239 ff. ; his defence undertaken 
 by Pamphilus and Eusebius, 
 241 f. ; further Origenistic con- 
 troversies, 243 ff. 
 
 Orosius, 249. 
 
 Palestine, 50, 53 f., 58, 103, 224, 
 
 245. 
 Pampiiilus, 53, 103, 105, 126 133, 
 
 218, 241 f. 
 Pantrenus,2, 10, 12f , 36f., 44, 120. 
 Patrick, quoted or referred to, 109, 
 
 111. 
 Paul, the Apostle, 32, 77, 163, 165, 
 
 228 f., 232; his theology, 13, 33, 
 
 172 ; his writings, 206. 
 Paul, the Gnostic, 38, 62. 
 Pauliniauus, 245. 
 Pelagian controversy, 243, 249, 
 
 254. 
 Peter the Martyr, 214 f., 219, 243. 
 Phfi'dinuis of Amasia, 226. 
 Philip the Arabian, 55, 61, 110. 
 Philo, 3, 26f., 32, 78, 148. 
 PUlocalia, The, 126, 243. 
 Phoenicia, 53, 240. 
 
 Photius, 12, 126, 218 f., 240. 
 
 Phrygia, 228. 
 
 Pierius, 214, 218. 
 
 Plato, 86 ff, 114 ff., 150«., 156, 
 
 172, 196. 
 Platonisni, Off., 34, 42 f., 40, 84, 
 
 87, 171 f. 
 Platonists, 6, 26, 107. 
 I'lotinus, 108, 257. 
 Plutarch, 39. 
 Poiret, 258. 
 
 Porphyry, 9, 44, 92, 108. 
 Prayer to Christ, 136 f. 
 Pressensc, quoted or referred to, 
 
 48 ?i., 107, 211. 
 Protestantism, 17. 
 Protoktetus, 58. 
 
 Pseudo-Dionysius, 254, 256, 258. 
 Pythagoras, 87, 107. 
 
 Redepenning, quoted or referred 
 
 to, 8, 44 ?i., 53, 67, 73, 97, 126, 
 
 211. 
 Reuss, quoted, 65 f. 
 Rhodon, 214, 220. 
 Rome, 46, 149, 197, 246 ; Church 
 
 of, 17, 53, 197 f., 232. 
 Rufinus, 98, 120, 122, 125, 158, 
 
 241, 245 ff., 2G1. 
 
 Sabas, St., monks of, 249. 
 Sabellianism, 217, 227. 
 Sacraments, Origen's view of the, 
 
 199 ff. 
 Salmond, quoted, 83. 
 Sarapieion, the, 14. 
 Sardia, Council of, 223. 
 Scetian monks, 243, 245, 247 f. 
 Schnitzer, quoted or referred to, 
 
 10, 43, 45, 126 f., 240. 
 Septuagint, 99 ff., 121. 
 Serapis, 40. 
 
 Scvera, wife of Philip thcArabian, 61. 
 Sevcrus, Alexander, 49, 57, 61. 
 Severus, Septimius, 13, 37, 46. 
 Sinope, 100. 
 
 Siricius, bishop of Rome, 246. 
 Socrates, the historian, 242, 247, 
 
 257. 
 Southey, 74. 
 
268 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Stoicism, 42, 97. 
 Stoics, 88 f. 
 Suidas, 35. 
 Synimaehus, 57, 101. 
 
 Tatiana, 133. 
 
 Tauler, 192 71. 
 
 Tennyson, quoted or referred to, 
 
 173, 233. 
 Tertullian, 5, 14, 17, 145, 148. 
 Tctrapla, The, 103. 
 Theodora, tlie empress, 250. 
 Theodore (Askidas), 249. 
 Tlieodore of Cresarea, 250. 
 Tlieodore of JMopsuestia, 250. 
 Theodore of Tarsus, 255. 
 Theodoret of Cyrus, 250. 
 Theodosius ii., 249. 
 Theodotion, 101 f. 
 Theognostus, 214 f., 219. 
 Theoktetus, 138. 
 Theoktistus of Coesarea, 50, 56. 
 Theoplnlus of Alexandria, 241, 
 
 245 i\. 
 
 Theophilus of Antiocli, 120. 
 
 Theotimus of Scythia, 248. 
 
 " The Three Chapters," 250 f. 
 
 Timotliy, 36. 
 
 Tractarian Movement, the, 82. 
 
 "Typus," 253. 
 
 Tyre, 02, 240. 
 
 Valens, 224. 
 
 Valentinus, 4, 28, 87, 97. 
 
 Valerian, 218. 
 
 Vaughan, R. A., quoted or referred 
 
 to, 51, 214, 261. 
 Yigilantius, 245. 
 Vigilius of Rome, 251. 
 Vincentius of Leriuuni, 259. 
 Voltaire, 108. 
 
 Western Church, 210, 223, 231 f., 
 
 235. 
 Wiclif, 198. 
 
 Zaoharias of Mitylene, 252. 
 Zephyrinus, 40. 
 
T. and T. Clark's PuUications. 
 
 THE WORLD'S 
 
 EPOCH-MAKERS. 
 
 A Series of Biographical Studies dealing with Prominent Epochs in Theology, 
 Philosophy, and the History of Intellectual Development. 
 
 Edited by OLIPHANT SMEATON. 
 
 Each Volume contains on an average 250 pages, and is published at $1.25, 
 The Volumes will not appear in strict chronological sequence. 
 
 I. BUDDHA AND BUDDHISM. The First Bursting of the Fetters of 
 Ignorance and Superstition. By Akthuu Lillie, M.A., London. 
 
 [Now ready. 
 
 II. SOCRATES. The Moral Awakening of the Western World. By Rev. 
 J. T. Forbes, M.A., Edinburgh. [Shortly. 
 
 III. PLATO. By Professor D. G. Ritchie, M.A., University of St. 
 
 Andrews. 
 
 IV. MARCUS AURELIUS AND THE LATER STOICS. The Last and 
 
 the Greatest Age of Stoicism, By F. W, Bussell, D.D., Vice- 
 Principal of Brasenose College, Oxford. [Shortly. 
 
 V. ORIGEN AND GREEK PATRISTIC THEOLOGY, By Rev. W. 
 Fairweather, M.A. [Xow ready. 
 
 VI, AUGUSTINE AND LATIN PATRISTIC THEOLOGY. By Rev. 
 Professor B. B. Warfield, D.D., Princeton. 
 
 VII. MUHAMMAD AND HIS POWER. By P. De Lact Johnstone, 
 M.A.(Oxon.). [Now ready. 
 
 VIII. ANSELM AND CUR DEUS HOMO. By Rev. A. C. Welch, B.D. 
 
 [Notu ready. 
 
 IX. FRANCIS AND DOMINIC AND THE MENDICANT ORDERS, 
 By Rev. Professor J, Herkless, D.D., University of St. Andrews. 
 
 [Novj ready. 
 
 X, SCOTUS ERIGENA AND HIS EPOCH. By R. Latta, Ph.D., D.Sc, 
 Professor of Moral Philosophy in the University of Aberdeen, 
 
 XI. WYCLIF AND THE LOLLARDS. By Rev. J, C. Carrick, B.D. 
 
 XIL THE MEDICI AND THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE. By Oliphant 
 Smeaton, M.A., Edinburgh. 
 
 [Continued on next page. 
 
T. and T. Clark's PuUications. 
 
 THE WORLD'S EPOCH-MAKERS-eon^mwei. 
 
 XIII. THE TWO BACONS AND EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE. Show- 
 
 ing how RociER Bacon prepared the way for Francis Bacon 
 Lord Verulam. By Rev. W. J. Couper, M.A. 
 
 XIV. SAVONAROLA. By Rev. G. M'Hardy, D.D. [Now ready. 
 
 XV. LUTHER AND THE GERMAN REFORMATION. By Rev. 
 Professor T. M. Lindsay, D.D., U.F.C. College, Glasgow. 
 
 [Now ready. 
 
 XVI. CRANMER AND THE ENGLISH REFORMATION. By A. D. 
 Innes, M.A.(Oxon.), London. [Nmo ready. 
 
 XVII. CALVIN AND THE REFORMED THEOLOGY. By Rev. 
 Principal Salmond, D.D., U.F.C. College, Aberdeen. 
 
 XVIII. PASCAL AND THE PORT ROYALISTS. By Professor W. 
 Clark, LL.D., D.C.L., Trinity College, Toronto. 
 
 XIX. DESCARTES, SPINOZA, AND THE NEW PHILOSOPHY. 
 By Rev. Professor J. Iverach, D.D., U.F.C. College, Aberdeen. 
 
 XX. WILLIAM HERSCHEL AND HIS WORK. By James Sime, 
 M. A. , F. R. S. E. [Kuw ready. 
 
 XXI. WESLEY AND METHODISM. By F. J. Snell, M.A.(Oxon.). 
 
 [Now ready. 
 
 XXIL LESSING AND THE NEW HUMANISM. Including Baumgarten 
 and the Science of .(Esthetics. By Rev. A. P. Davidson, M.A. 
 
 XXI II. HUME AND HIS INFLUENCE ON PHILOSOPHY AND 
 
 THEOLOGY. By Professor J. Orr, D.D., Glasgow. 
 
 XXIV. ROUSSEAU AND NATURALISM IN LIFE AND THOUGHT. 
 
 By Professor W. H. Hudson, M.A., Leland Stanford Junior 
 University, California. 
 
 XXV. KANT AND HIS PHILOSOPHICAL REVOLUTION. By Pro- 
 fessor R. M. Wenley, D.Sc, Ph.D., University of Michigan. 
 
 XXVI. SCHLEIERMACUER AND THE REJUVENESCENCE OF 
 THEOLOGY. By Professor A. Martin, D.D., New College, 
 Edinburgh. [Shortly. 
 
 XXVII. HEGEL AND HEGELIANISM. By Professor R. Mackintosh 
 D.D., Lancashire Independent College, Manchester. 
 
 XXVIII. NEWMAN AND HIS INFLUENCE. By C. Sauolea, Ph.D., 
 Litt. Doc, University of Edinburgh. 
 
BIBLE ©LASS fRIMERS. 
 
 Edited by Rev. Pkincipal Salmond, D.D. 
 Price 20 cents each, nett. 
 
 Tlie History of the English Bible, and How It has come down to Us. By 
 
 Kev. W. lUntNET 1 iiomson, M.A., B.D. Witli Illustrations of .MSS. 
 Historical Geography Of the Holy Land. With 42 Illustnitious. By Kev. 
 
 S. i;. MArniAii,, D.W 
 Our Lord's Illustrations. By Rev. R. Resker, M.A, 
 Elijah and Elisha. I'.y Kev. II. G. MacIntyue, B.D. 
 The Exile and the Restoration. By Professor A. B. Davidson, D.D. 
 The Miracles of Our Lord. By Profcssu- J. Laidi.aw, D.D. 
 Christian Conduct; Christian Character: A Study in New Testament 
 
 ]\[oi;ility. By Professor 1". B. Kii.i'Atuick, D.D. 
 The Free Church of Scotland. By Rov. O. G. M'Giue, D.D. 
 The Making of Israel. By Jxov. 0. A. Scott, B.D. 
 The Truth of Christianity. I'y Rev. Professor Ivekacii, D.D. 
 The Sabbath. r>y Rev. rrincijjal Salmond, D.D. 
 Our Christian Passover. By Rev. C. A. Salmond, M.A. 
 The Kingdom of God. A Plan of Study. In Throe Parts. By Rev. 
 
 V. 1 1 K.KBEUT Stkad, M.A. (Or the Three Parts in one vol. , cloth, 45 cents.) 
 The Parables of Our Lord. By Kev. Principal Salmond, D.D. 
 Life of St. John. By Paton J. Gloag, D.D. 
 Life of Abraham. ]'.y Rev. C. A. Scott, B.D. 
 Historical Connection between the Old and New Testaments. By Eev. 
 
 I'rotVssor .John Skinner, M.A. , D.D. 
 The Life of Christ. By Rev. Principal Salmond, D.D. 
 The Shorter Catechism. In Three Parts. By Rev. Principal Salmond, 
 
 D.D. (Or in one vol., cloth, 45 cents.) 
 The Period of the Judges. By the Rev. Professor Patekson, D.D. 
 Outlines of Protestant Missions. By John Robson, D.D. 
 Life of the Apostle Peter. By Rev. Principal Salmond, D.D. 
 Outlines of Early Church History, By the late Eev. Henry Wallis 
 
 Smith. D.D. 
 Life of David. By the late Rev. Peter Thomson, M.A. 
 Life of Moses. By Rev. Professor Iverach, D.D. 
 
 ' Accmatelv done, clear, mature, and scholarly.' — Christian. 
 Life of PavQ. By Paton J. Gloag, D.D. 
 
 'Tills little lionk eould not weU be surpassed.' — Daily Review. 
 Life and Reign of Solomon. By Rev. Ratner Wintkrboth am, M. A., LL.B. 
 
 'Every teacher shoulil liavi- it.'— Rev. C. H. Spuroeon. 
 The History of the Reformation. By Rev. Professor Witherow. 
 
 ' A vast amount of information set forth in a clear and concise manner.' — United 
 Freshjiti rinn Magazine. 
 
 The Kings of Israel. By Rev. "W. Walker, M.A. 
 
 ' a in.astcrpieee of lucid condensation.'— C7iris</rtu Lender. 
 The Kings of Judah. By Rev. Professor Given, Ph.D. 
 
 ' Admir.ilily arrauseii ; the style is sufficiently simple and clear to bo quite within 
 the compass of young people.' — British Messenger. 
 Joshua and the Conquest. By Rev. Professor Croskert. 
 
 ' This carefully written manual will be much appreciated.' — Daily Review. 
 
 Bible Words and Phrases. Explained and Illustrated. By Rev. Charles 
 JticHiK, M.A. 18rao, cloth, 40 cents. 
 ' Will be found interesting and instructive, and of the greatest value to youiif 
 students and teachers. '—Athen(EKm. 
 The Seven Churches of Asia. By Deborah Alcock. 18mo, cloth, 40 cents. 
 
 Edinburgh : T. & T. CLARK, 38 George Street. 
 New York: CHARLES SGRIBNER'S SONS. 
 
T. and T. Clark's PuUications. 
 
 A NEVy AND CHEAPER EDITION. 
 
 In crowa 8vo, Tiiikd Edition, price §1.50, 
 
 BEYO/\/D THE STARS; 
 
 OR, 
 
 ?^£al)en, Eta 3:n!)abitant0, ©ccupations, nntj ILtfe. 
 By THOMAS HAMILTON, D.D., 
 
 PRESIDENT OF QUEEN'S COLLEGE, BELFAST ; 
 AUTHOR OF ' HISTORY OF THE IRISH PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH,' ETC. KTC. 
 
 CONTENTS:— Chap. I. 'Introductory.— II. A Settling of Localities.— III. 
 God.— IV. The Cheruhim.— V. The Angels.— VI. The Saints.- VII. 
 Children in Ueaven. — VIII. Do they know one another in Heaven? — 
 
 IX. Common Objections to the Doctrine of Kecognition in Heaven. — 
 
 X. Between Death and the Kesurrection. — XI. How to get there. 
 
 PRESS NOTICES. 
 
 ' A good book upon a grand subject. ... His writing is solid, he dissipates 
 dreams, but he estalilishes authorised hopes. . . . This is a book which a 
 believer will enjoy all the more when he draws nearer to those blessed fields 
 " beyond the stars."' — Mr. Spi-rgeox in Sword and Troicel. 
 
 ' The work of a man of strong sense and great power of lucid thought and 
 expression, one who has deep springs of tenderness. He puts himself well 
 in touch with his audience, and arranges what he has to say in the clearest 
 manner.' — British Weekbj. 
 
 ' The author's natural and sympathetic eloquence lends at times a bright- 
 ness, and again a more pathetic charm, to his theme. We cannot doubt that 
 his book will comfort as well as interest a wide circle of readers.' — Scottish 
 Leader. 
 
 ' Many a bruised heart will be made joyful on reading this book. . . . On 
 a former occasion, when reviewing a book by the same author, we congratu- 
 lated the Irish Presbyterian Church on having among her younger ministers 
 a %vriter of such promise and power. We believe we may now congratulate 
 the wider Christian Church on a teacher and guide whose words will fortify 
 and cheer wherever the English language is spoken.' — Presbyterian Messenger. 
 
 ' There is not a dry or uninteresting page in it, and most of the chapters 
 are profoundly absorbing in their style and matter. It reads like a novel, 
 yet there is nothing mawkish or sentimental about it; but it is reverent, 
 devout, frank, manly, and orthodox in its tone and character.' — Christian 
 Advocate. 
 
 ' The tone is reverent, the style is clear, the reasoning is careful. Its 
 capital type will recommend it to the weary sight of some to whom the " land 
 of distances" is no longer the land that is verj' far off.' — Church Bells. 
 
 ' Dr. Hamilton endeavours to tell in plain and popular language all that 
 the Bible reve.als about the other life. The tone of the book is admirable ; 
 devout and modest throughout.' — London Qvxirterly lievieio. 
 
 CHAKLES SCRIBNER'S SONS, New York. 
 
Princeton Theological Sem;na7,.L'^;3r'" 
 
 ■i 1012 01207 2981 
 
 Date Due 
 
':* i 
 
 ff^-l 
 
 ' t ■ '• 1 -■ ' ■' 
 
 f. 
 
 ^ '■ :■?•*-»?