Apology for Origen 1.1–2.1

Origen: "For just as, when many among the Greeks and barbarians promised the truth, we ceased to seek it among all who asserted it with false opinions once we came to believe that Christ is the Son of God and were persuaded that we must learn it from him, so, since there are many who think they hold the things of Christ, and some of them think differently from those before them, while the Church's preaching is preserved, handed down from the apostles through the order of succession and remaining in the churches to the present, that alone is to be believed as truth which in no way disagrees with the Church's tradition. One must know, however, that the holy apostles, when they preached the faith of Christ, handed down most plainly to all believers, even to those who seemed rather sluggish in the search for divine knowledge, whatever they believed necessary on some points, leaving the reasons for their statements to be investigated by those who would merit to receive the excellent gifts of the Spirit, and especially of speech, wisdom, and knowledge, through the Holy Spirit himself. On other points they said that these things are, but were silent as to how or whence they are; surely so that the more zealous among their successors, lovers of wisdom and knowledge, might have an exercise in which to show the fruit of their talent, namely those who would prepare themselves to be worthy and capable of wisdom.

"The particular points which are plainly handed down through the apostolic preaching are these. First, that there is one God, who created and arranged all things, and who made the universe to be out of nothing; God from the first creation and founding of the world, the God of all the righteous, of Adam, Abel, Seth, Enosh, Enoch, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, Moses and the prophets; and that this God in the last days, as he had promised beforehand through his prophets, sent the Lord Jesus Christ, to call first Israel, and second the Gentiles too, after the unfaithfulness of the people of Israel. This just and good God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, himself gave the law and the prophets and the Gospels; he is also the God of the apostles, and of the Old and New Testaments. Then, that Christ Jesus himself, who came, was born of the Father before every creature. After he had served the Father in the founding of all things (for through him all things were made), in the last times he emptied himself and became man; he was made flesh though he was God, and, made man, remained what he was, God. He took a body like our body, differing only in this, that he was born of the Virgin and the Holy Spirit. And since this Jesus Christ was born and suffered in truth and not in appearance, he truly died, undergoing this common death; for he truly rose from the dead; and after the resurrection, having spent time with his disciples, he was taken up. Then, they handed down that the Holy Spirit is associated in honour and dignity with the Father and the Son. In his case it is not yet plainly distinguished whether he was born or unborn."

Pamphilus: Whoever asks whether he was born or unborn plainly holds no opinion that he is a creature; otherwise he would have brought this too into the inquiry. And he adds:

Origen: "Or whether he too is to be held a Son of God or not. But these things must now be investigated, as far as we can, from holy Scripture, and searched out by careful inquiry. That this Holy Spirit inspired each of the saints, whether prophets or apostles, and that there was not one Spirit in the men of old and another in those who were inspired at the coming of Christ, is preached most plainly in the churches. After this, that the soul, having its own substance and life, when it departs from this world, will be dealt with according to its merits: either it will obtain the inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, if its deeds have secured this for it, or it will be handed over to eternal fire and punishments, if the guilt of its crimes has turned it that way. And also, that there will be a time of the resurrection of the dead, when this body, which is sown in corruption, will rise in incorruption, and what is sown in dishonour will rise in glory. This too is defined in the Church's preaching: that every soul is rational, with free choice and will; and that it has a contest against the devil and his angels and the opposing powers, because they strive to load it with sins, while we, if we live rightly and wisely, try to strip ourselves of such a burden. From this it follows that we understand that we are not subject to necessity, so as to be compelled in every way, even against our will, to do either good or evil. For if we are masters of our own choice, some powers may perhaps assail us toward sin, and others help us toward salvation; yet we are not compelled by necessity to act either rightly or wrongly. That this happens is supposed by those who say that the course and motions of the stars are the cause of human acts, not of those that happen outside the freedom of choice, but of those placed in our power. But concerning the soul, whether it is derived by transmission from the seed, so that its principle or substance is held to be inserted in the bodily seeds themselves, or whether it has another beginning, and whether this beginning is begotten or not begotten, or whether it is put into the body from outside or not, is not distinguished by sufficiently clear preaching. Concerning the devil and his angels and the opposing powers, the Church's preaching has taught that they exist; but what they are or how they exist it has not explained clearly enough. Most, however, hold this opinion: that this devil was an angel and, having become an apostate, persuaded very many of the angels to fall away with him, who even now are called his angels. There is further this in the Church's preaching: that this world was made and began at a certain time, and is to be dissolved because of its very corruptibility; but what was before this world, or what will be after the world, has not become plainly known to many, for no clear statement about these things is made in the Church's preaching. Then, that the Scriptures were written through the Spirit of God, and have not only the meaning that is plain but also another, hidden from very many. For the things written are the forms of certain mysteries and the images of divine things. On this the whole Church has one mind: that the whole law is spiritual, yet that the things which …"

Pamphilus: And after a little he says:

Origen: "This too is in the Church's preaching: that there are certain angels of God and good powers, who serve him in bringing the salvation of men to completion; but when these were created, or of what kind they are, or how they exist, is not distinguished plainly enough. About the sun and moon and stars, whether they are living beings or without souls, nothing is plainly handed down. Anyone, then, who desires to construct a sequence and a body out of the reasoning of all these things must use elements and foundations of this kind, according to the commandment that says, 'Light for yourselves the light of knowledge', so that by clear and necessary statements he may search out on each point what is true, and produce, as we said, a single body, with examples and assertions, either those he finds in the holy Scriptures or those he discovers by investigating their consequences and by right reasoning."

Pamphilus: These things he discussed at the beginning of the first book of On First Principles, to show which things are plainly handed down in the Church's preaching and which are not openly defined. He discusses each of these here and there in the rest of the body of the books, according to the division he showed above. The things which he taught above are preached by the Church as defined, he asserts more plainly and more firmly from the holy Scriptures, applying every proof; but on those which he showed are not preached in the Church plainly or as defined, he uses opinions, and such thoughts as could occur to him as he discussed and treated such matters, rather than any certain and defined assertions; that is, he discusses and examines rather than affirms. In all things, however, he keeps in mind the statement he set out above, when he says that that alone is to be received and believed as truth which in no way opposes the apostolic and ecclesiastical doctrines. And not only in the books we mentioned above, but in all his expositions of the Scriptures, he is accustomed to use this principle, especially in those in which he sets out several interpretations of one passage, asserting that, so as to omit nothing that could be said, he has put forward several or differing views as he was able to perceive them, but that what the apostolic and ecclesiastical reader approves is to be held. He does the same also when he discusses the sects of the heretics; and when all of them have been refuted … To gather all his statements is quite long, and would be as burdensome for us who write as tedious for those who read. It is enough to bring forward a few, in which the indications of all will surely be easily recognized. For one must not think, contrary to the Lord's saying, that one who is found faithful in a few things should not also be held and believed faithful in many. First, then, we will set out from his books an example that agrees with the one above, from the book he wrote on the Epistle of the apostle Paul to Titus, on the passage in which the Apostle says: "Avoid a heretical man after one admonition, knowing that such a one is perverted and sins, being condemned by himself." There he says what kind of man the heretic is, and what kind the catholic and churchman.

Origen: "The word heresy, so far as I could discover, is designated also in the Epistle to the Corinthians thus: 'For there must be heresies, so that those who are approved may become manifest among you.' And again, in the Epistle to the Galatians, the word heresy is also listed among the works of the flesh, as he says: 'Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, anger, quarrels, dissensions, heresies, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I tell you beforehand that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.' From this we know that, just as those who are stained with fornication or impurity and licentiousness and the worship of idols will not inherit the kingdom of God, so also those who have turned aside into heresy. For we must not think that so absolute a sentence of so great an apostle could waver in any way. For he is the apostle of all the churches of Christ, chosen not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father. Therefore, according to the authority of his sentence, we must avoid the name of heresy as we avoid the other evils he listed, and not mix in fellowship of prayer with such people."

Pamphilus: And after this, with a few things inserted in between, he added:

Origen: "What a heretical man is, let us describe as far as we can, according to what we can perceive. Everyone who professes to believe in Christ, and yet says that the God of the law and the prophets is one God and the God of the Gospels another, and says that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is not the one proclaimed by the law and the prophets but some other, unknown to all and unheard of by all, such men we designate heretics, however varied, diverse, and fabulous the fictions with which they dress these things up, like the followers of Marcion, Valentinus, and Basilides, and those who call themselves Tethians. Apelles too, although he does not entirely deny that the law and the prophets are of God, is nevertheless designated a heretic, since he declares that this Lord who produced the world built it for the glory of another, unbegotten and good God, and that that unbegotten God at the end of the age sent Jesus Christ to amend the world, at the request of the God who had made it, that he would send his Son for the correction of his world. And if only one who thinks otherwise of God the Father than the rule of piety requires were to be held a heretic, what has been said above would suffice. But now the very same must be believed also of one who thinks anything false about our Lord Jesus Christ: whether with those who say that he was born of Joseph and Mary, as are the Ebionites and Valentinians; or with those who deny that he is the firstborn, and the God of all creation, and the Word, and the Wisdom which is the beginning of the ways of God, established before the ages and begotten before all the hills, before anything was made, but call him only a man; or with those who confess that he is God, yet say that he did not take a soul and an earthly body, and who, under the pretext of paying the Lord Jesus a fuller glory, testify that everything he did seemed to be done rather than was truly done; and who do not confess that he was born of the Virgin, but say that he appeared in Judea as a man of thirty years. Others believe that he was born of the Virgin, but affirm that the Virgin thought she gave birth rather than truly gave birth; for they assert that the mystery of the supposed birth was hidden even from the Virgin. How should these not be set far from the Church, since, sick with the disease of love of leadership, they have set up doctrines by which to turn disciples aside to their own name? As for those who say that the Lord Jesus was a man foreknown and predestined, who did not exist substantially and properly before his coming in the flesh, but that, born a man, he had in himself only the deity of the Father, it is not without danger to associate even these with the number of the Church; and the same holds for those who, superstitiously rather than religiously, so as not to seem to speak of two gods nor again to deny the Saviour's deity, assert one and the same subsistence of Father and Son, that is, one that admits two names according to the difference of causes, yet one hypostasis subsisting, that is, one person underlying two names; in Latin they are called Patripassians. And if there are any who say that the Holy Spirit who was in the prophets is one, and the one who was in the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ is another, they commit one and the same crime of impiety as those who, as far as lies in them, cut the nature of the deity and split the one God of the law and the Gospels. Those too who say that not all human souls are of one and the same nature or substance, but that there are different natures of souls, are to be counted among those heresies which speak iniquity against the Most High and accuse him of injustice and iniquity. So too those who strive to take the power of free choice away from souls are to be judged as bringing in pernicious doctrines, a kind of ruin to the common life of mankind and to the virtue of continence, so that it should not be thought a matter of human purpose to do, say, or think anything good; from which the human mind will be shaped to contempt and neglect of the divine judgment. Let there also be in the Church's order the belief concerning the punishments of sins, and concerning those who will receive the rewards of good conduct and life in the kingdom of the Lord by his just judgment. If, then, anyone tries to change or subvert any of the things we have set out above, he is to be held by us too, who obey his precept, as perverted and condemned by himself, according to the Apostle's sentence. Together with all that we have set out above, let the churchman be marked also by faith in the resurrection of the dead, concerning which the holy apostle Paul pronounces thus: that if anyone denies the resurrection of the dead, it follows that he denies the resurrection of Christ. Let there likewise be in the Church's order an account of the devil and of all his army: that they stir up struggles and contests against all men, but especially against those who believe in our Lord Jesus Christ; and that they cannot impose a necessity of sinning through these struggles and contests, but they can persuade and deceive to their overthrow those who do not fortify their hearts with every guard. It is to be held in the Church's observances that no human being has been handed over by God to perdition, but each of those who perish perishes by his own negligence and fault, since, having freedom of choice, he both could and should have chosen what is good. This must be held of the devil himself too, who is described as having stood against the face of the almighty Lord and as having abandoned his state, in which he had been unstained; he could certainly have persevered until the end in the state in which he was from the beginning, had he wished. We have designated and described, I think, as far as we could, who and what kind of man the heretic is, which are his doctrines and false opinions and in what they consist, and what the purity of the Church's observance is."

Pamphilus: And after a little he added this:

Origen: "Some have indeed asked whether those called Cataphrygians should be called a heresy or a schism, since they follow false prophets and say: 'Do not come near me, for I am pure; for I have not taken a wife, nor is my throat an open grave, but I am a Nazirite of God, not drinking wine as they do.'"

Pamphilus: These are the words of the man who is accused as a heretic and as the corruption and ruin of souls by those who never learned from the Prophet to set a door on their mouth and bars on their lips. He did not say these things in public, that is, in the common assembly of the Church, lest it be thought that he adapted his speech to win the favour of his hearers; but we have brought them out of those books which he dictated privately, by himself, with no witness present. Here I want you to consider more attentively what he said: that if anyone changes any of these things he is a heretic, and sins, being in a state of subversion, and is condemned by himself, according to the Apostle's sentence; and we, obeying the Apostle's authority, must think the same. Since this is so, I think it follows to ask these very accusers of his whether they themselves think otherwise about the heretic or the catholic than is marked out by his words. Let them say what other doctrines of the Church there are, if they are not these which he set in order above. These, then, are the things he said generally about all the doctrines of the Church. Let us go on to indicate what he thought specifically about each, and especially about the chief matters, the holy and blessed Trinity, that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, bringing into the open what he left inserted in various volumes of his work, so that his opinion on the greatest and divine matters may be shown, and every word of his defence may stand on two or three witnesses from his own words. He indicates, then, what he thought about God the Father almighty in these very books, which the accusers cite most of all, that is, On First Principles, writing this:

Origen: "Having refuted, then, as far as we could, every notion that suggests that God should be understood as something bodily, we say that God in truth is incomprehensible and beyond estimation. For whatever we have been able to perceive or understand about God, we must believe that he is in many ways far better than what we have perceived. Suppose we see someone who can scarcely look at a spark of light or the light of a very small lamp, and whose eyesight cannot take in more light than we have mentioned: if we wished to lead him to the brightness and splendour of the sun, would we not have to tell him that the splendour of the sun is unspeakably and inestimably better and more excellent than all this light that he sees? So our mind, when it is shut within the bars of flesh and blood and made duller and blunter by its share in such matter, though it is held to be far superior to bodily nature, yet, when it strains toward incorporeal things and seeks to look upon them, scarcely holds the place of a spark or a lamp. And what among all intellectual, that is, incorporeal, beings is so surpassing all, so unspeakably and inestimably excellent, as God? His nature certainly cannot be gazed upon and beheld by the sharpness of the human mind, even the purest and clearest mind. It does not seem absurd, however, to use another comparison too, to make the matter plainer. Sometimes our eyes cannot look at the nature of light itself, that is, the substance of the sun; but looking at its radiance or its rays pouring in, perhaps through windows or through any small openings for light, we can consider how great is the source, the very fountain of bodily light. So the works of divine Providence and the art of this universe are like rays of God's nature, compared with his substance and nature itself. Since, then, our mind cannot by itself behold God himself as he is, it understands the Father of the universe from the beauty of his works and the comeliness of his creatures. God, therefore, is not to be thought to be a body, or to be in a body, but a simple intellectual nature, admitting no addition at all in himself, so that he may not be believed to have in himself anything greater or lesser, but is in every respect a monad and, so to say, a henad, and the mind and source from which the whole intellectual nature, or mind, takes its beginning. And mind, in order to move or act, has no need of bodily place, nor of sensible size, nor of bodily shape or colour, nor of anything at all else that belongs to bodies or matter. Therefore that simple nature, wholly mind, can have no delay or hesitation in moving or doing anything, lest the simplicity of the divine nature seem to be in any way circumscribed or hindered by such an addition, and lest what is the principle of all things be found compound and diverse, and be many, not one; for, being foreign to all bodily admixture, it must consist, so to say, in the one sole form of deity."

Pamphilus: This he writes about the divine nature in the first book of On First Principles. In the second, he sets out that the same God is God of the Old and the New Testament, in this way:

Origen: "These things having been briefly set out in order as far as we could, it follows, according to what was proposed from the beginning, that we refute also those who think that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is another God besides the one who gave Moses the answers of the law and sent the prophets, who is the God of the fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For we must first be made firm in this article of the faith. We must consider, then, what is often said in the Gospels and added to each of the deeds of our Lord and Saviour: 'That what was spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled', this one or that; since it is plain that the prophets belong to the God who made the world. From this very sequence, then, it is concluded that he who sent the prophets himself foretold what was to be done concerning Christ; and there is no doubt that it was not someone foreign to him, but his Father, who foretold these things. The fact, too, that examples from the Old Testament are often brought forward by the Saviour or by his apostles indicates nothing other than that the Saviour and his disciples give authority to the ancients. And when the Saviour, urging his disciples to kindness, says, 'Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect, who commands his sun to rise on the good and the evil, and sends rain on the just and the unjust', he suggests a most evident understanding to anyone of even slight intelligence: that he sets before his disciples for imitation no other God than the maker of the sun and the giver of the rains."

Pamphilus: After this, in what follows, he affirms with many arguments and examples from the Scriptures, and shows, that one and the same God is God of the law and of the Gospels, of the prophets and of the apostles, just and good, Lord of things visible and invisible and of the whole universe. How he thought of God the Father, then, has become clear from these writings of his set out above. Let us see now how he discusses the Son of God too.