divine seed.1 The words of Celsus, like poisoned arrows, had wounded the souls of some who were not absolutely protected by the panoply of God: Origen sought to extract the dart, and apply a rational remedy to the wound. In carrying out this object, he gives a series of prescriptions, but behind every prescription there is a principle. After he had finished the opening section, for the sake of economising his time he altered his plan. His original intention was to take a note of the heads of the objections of Celsus and reply to each head, and then to give a systematic form to the argument. Instead of doing so, he takes up the statements of Celsus one by one, and "wrestles with them specifically." This change of plan destroys the unity of the work, and gives rise to frequent repetitions: when Celsus repeats himself, Origen as a rule does the same; when Celsus contradicts himself, Origen contradicts the contradiction. The result is that, as the book stands, we have all the materials for an apology, but they lie without order or proportion : it is "a quarry of weighty dogmatic disquisitions," 5 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. From first to last 1 Pref., 4. 4 4 συγγραφικῶς ἀγωνίσασθαι πρὸς τὰ Κέλσου καθ ̓ ἡμῶν ἐγκλήματα— Pref., 6. 5 Redepenning, vol. ii. p. 153. the central figure of the Divine Man stands out conspicuous; in every argument the ethical impulse is paramount; from beginning to end one note rings out loudly and clearly, the note of certain victory;1 throughout is dominant the conviction which he had implanted in his disciple Gregory, that "nothing would withstand the saving Word, which was and would be the king of all."2 In this ever-present consciousness of the ultimate triumph of the cause which he represented probably lay the secret of his contempt for his antagonist. 1 viii. 68. 2 Greg., Paneg. in Orig., c. 6 (Lomm., vol. xxv. p. 356): où yáp ἐστιν ὅ τι αὐτῷ ἐνστήσεται, πάντων καὶ ὄντι καὶ ἐσομένῳ βασιλεῖ. 121 CHAPTER II. DEFENCE OF THE SCRIPTURES. ON the threshold of his inquiry Celsus would learn that Christianity was not based on floating traditions, but on a historic record which claimed to possess a unique character. The authority of that record, of the Jewish as well as of the Christian portions, was recognised by all sections of the Church except the followers of Marcion; and to impugn the validity of its claims was a necessary preliminary to the attack of the system which was founded upon it. From the method of argumentation which he adopted, Celsus did not, it is true, pursue this criticism in a logical fashion: sometimes he attacked the principle of authority in order to throw doubt on the details; more frequently he attacked the details in order to disprove the authority. The reply of Origen to his criticism may be presented in two sections: I. Defence of the idea of Revelation generally. II. Defence of Judaism in itself, and in its relation to Christianity. I. A Revelation-so we may put the thought of Celsus is not necessary; but if it be necessary, it must be marked by certain distinctive excellences. It must be original, or it is superfluous; it must be superior to other writings, or its claims may be set aside; it must present a right conception of Deity, or it is self-condemned. Applying these tests to the Scriptures, Celsus found them utterly wanting. There was in them nothing original to confirm their lofty claims, and much that was directly borrowed; they were in all respects inferior to the writings of the Greek thinkers; they presented an unworthy and irreverent conception of Deity. As an apologist, Origen acknowledged it to be imperative to maintain not only the antiquity but the venerable character of Scripture and the consistency of its parts, to explain seeming incongruities, and to show that there was in them nothing evil, nor shameful, nor unholy.1 1. A Revelation is necessary, for the knowledge of God is beyond the grasp of human nature. The necessity of it is virtually acknowledged by philosophers, when they speak of the hardness of finding out the Father and Creator of the universe. Man must himself use every effort to attain to this knowledge: the revelation is granted to such as strive, and acknowledge their need of aid. A Revelation must be ori 1 iv. 20; vii. 12. 2 vii. 44. 3 vii. 42. ginal, but by originality is not meant absolute novelty. On the contrary, the germs of those truths which are taught by God in Christ and the prophets have been sown by Him in the souls of all men. The law was written on the tablets of the hearts of men before it All the principles by higher life are God was written on tables of stone.1 which men are stimulated to given: 2 all truth in Plato or others is due to His inspiration.3 The common notions of good and just, of evil and unjust, are in no man utterly lost. The beauty and piety of the Christian doctrines are selfevident: 5 they are in harmony with the common notions which have been implanted in men, and the soul at once recognises their affinity to that which is highest in itself. Take as an illustration the teaching of Scripture concerning idolatry. It is contrary to the common consciousness of mankind to conceive of God as corruptible wood or stone; and when the rational soul hears in Scripture the condemnation of idols, "it recognises what is related to itself, casts aside those things which it has long regarded as divine, and recovers its natural affection towards its Creator; "7 and in consequence of that natural affection 1 τὸν αὐτὸν θεὸν, ἅπερ ἐδίδαξε διὰ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος, ἐγκατεσπαρκέναι ταῖς ἁπάντων ἀνθρώπων ψυχαῖς——i. 4. Cf. Tertull. adv. Judæos, c. 2. 2 iv. 4. 3 vi. 3. 4 viii. 52. Cf. viii. 63. 5 v. 65. 6 τὰ τῆς πίστεως ἡμῶν, ταῖς κοιναῖς ἐννοίαις ἀρχῆθεν συναγορεύοντα -iii. 40. 7 φίλτρον δ' ἀναλαμβάνει φυσικὸν τὸ πρὸς τὸν κτίσαντα—iii. 40. |