Celsus denies that the Jewish prophets predicted any of the events which occurred in the life of Christ, and asserts that those who believe in the existence of another God, besides that of the Jews, cannot refute his objections; while Christians, who recognise the God of the Jews, rely for their defence on the alleged predictions regarding Christ: Remarks—[chap. ii.] Celsus declares Christians inconsistent in rejecting the ancient Grecian oracles of Delphi, Dodona, Clarus, Branchidæ, Jupiter Ammon, etc., which nevertheless were of high importance, while insisting that the sayings uttered in Judea are marvellous and unchangeably true: Detailed answer to this objection—[chaps. iii.]-viii. Asserts that many individuals assume the attitude of inspiration, and claim to be God, or the Son of God, or the divine Spirit, and to have come down to save a perishing world, and promise rewards to those who do them homage, and threaten vengeance upon others; and, moreover, to these promises add strange and unintelligible words, which may be applied by any impostor to his own purposes—[chap. ix.] Answer to these charges—[chaps. x.]-xii. Falsity of Celsus’ statement that God favours the commission of evil—[chap. xiii.] Celsus objects, that even if the prophets foretold that the great God would become a slave, or die, there was no necessity that He should do so simply because such things had been predicted: Answers—[chaps. xiv.]-xvii. Celsus objects further, that if the prophets of the God of the Jews foretold that Jesus was to be the Son of the same God, how could commands have been given through Moses that the Jews should accumulate wealth, extend their dominion, fill the earth, put their enemies to the sword, under threat of being treated by God as His enemies; whilst the man of Nazareth, His Son, delivered commands of a totally opposite kind? Errors of Celsus pointed out in detail, and the nature of the two dispensations explained—[chaps. xviii.]-xxvi. Falsity of assertion that Christians believe the Divine Being to be corporeal in His nature, and to possess a body like a man—[chap. xxvii.] Celsus alleges that the idea of a better land than this, to which Christians hope to go after death, has been borrowed from the divine men of a former age, and quotes from Homer and Plato in support of his assertion: Answers—[chaps. xxviii.]-xxxi. Celsus next assails the doctrine of the resurrection, and asserts that we uphold this doctrine in order that we may see and know God: Answer—[chaps. xxxii.]-xxxiv. The oracles of Trophonius, etc., to which Celsus would direct Christians, assuring them that there they would see God distinctly, shown to be demons—[chap. xxxv.] Language of Christians as to the manner in which they see God misrepresented by Celsus—[chaps. xxxvi.]-xxxix. Language of Celsus quite inappropriate as addressed to Christians, and applicable only to those whose doctrines differ widely from theirs—[chap. xl.] Celsus recommends Christians to follow the guidance of divinely inspired poets, wise men, and philosophers, without mentioning their names: Remarks on this—[chap. xli.] Proceeds to name Plato as an effective teacher of theological truth, quoting from the Timæus to the effect that it is a hard matter to find out the Maker and Father of the universe, and an impossibility to make Him known to all after having found Him; and remarking that Christians cannot follow the example of Plato and others, who proceed by analysis and synthesis, because they are wedded to the flesh: Answers—[chaps. xlii.]-xlv. General remarks upon the tone in which Christians carry on controversy with their opponents—[chap. xlvi.] Actions of those who, although seeming to be wise, did not yield themselves to the divine teaching—[chap. xlvii.] Purity of life exhibited by Christians—[chap. xlviii.] Even by those who are unable to investigate the deeper questions of theology—[chap. xlix.] Explanation of certain scriptural expressions regarding “birth” or “generation”—[chap. l.] Difference between Christians and those who received a portion of the divine Spirit before the dispensation of Christianity—[chap. li.] Celsus proceeds to say to Christians that they would have done better to have selected as the object of their homage some one who had died a glorious death, whose divinity might have received the support of some myth to perpetuate his memory, and names Hercules, Æsculapius, Anaxarchus, and Epictetus, as instances, alleging that Jesus never uttered under suffering any words that could be compared to their utterances—[chap. liii.] Answers—[chaps. liv.]-lv. Sneering remark of Celsus that we might better have given the name of Son of God to the Sibyl than to Jesus—[chap. lvi.] Scoffing advice of Celsus, that we had better choose Jonah than Jesus for our God: Answer—[chap. lvii.] Celsus asserts that the Christian precept, “Whosoever shall strike thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other also,” is an ancient saying, admirably expressed long ago, and reported by Christians in a coarser way, and quotes from Plato in support of his statement: Answer—[chaps. lviii.]-lxi. Celsus goes on to say that Christians cannot tolerate temples, altars, or images, and that in this peculiarity they resemble Scythians and other barbarous nations, adducing quotations from Herodotus and Heraclitus in support of his opinion that none, save those who are utterly childish, can take these things for gods—[chap. lxii.] Detailed answer—[chaps. lxiii.]-lxvi. Celsus remarks that Christians will not admit that these images are erected in honour of certain beings who are gods, but maintain that these are demons, and ought not to be worshipped: Remarks in answer—[chap. lxvii.] Asks why demons are not to be worshipped, and asserts that everything, whether the work of angels, demons, or heroes, is part of the providential government of the Most High God: Answers—[chaps. lxviii.]-lxx.
[BOOK VIII.], [492]-559
Celsus, after his question regarding the worship of demons, proceeds to represent us as saying that it is impossible to serve many masters, and remarks that this is the language of sedition, and used only by those who stand aloof from all human society, etc. Consideration of the true language of Scripture upon this and kindred points, in answer to this statement—[chaps. ii.]-viii. Reckless language of Celsus, who would have us believe that we are led by our worship of God to that of other things which belong to God, without injury to ourselves, and who yet adds, “We may honour none except those to whom that right has been given by God:” Remarks—[chap. ix.] Nature of the honour which Christians pay to the Son of God—[chap. x.] Celsus asserts that those who uphold the unity of God are guilty of impiety: Answer—[chap. xi.] That if Christians worshipped one God alone, they would have valid arguments against the worship of others, but they pay excessive reverence to one who is the servant of God: Refutation—[chaps. xii.]-xiv. Celsus quotes from the opinions of some obscure heretical sect, contained in what is called a Heavenly Dialogue, to the effect that we suppose another God, who is above the heavens, to be the father of Him whom we honour, in order that we may honour the Son of Man alone; whom also we assert to be stronger than God, who rules the world and who rules over them: Answers—[chaps. xv.]-xvi. Celsus goes on to say, that our shrinking from raising altars, statues, and temples, has been agreed upon among us as the badge of a secret society: Answer—[chaps. xvii.]-xx. Assertion of Celsus, that those devoted to the service of God may take part in public feasts or idol offerings: Answer—[chap. xxi.] Answer to objection that Christians themselves observe certain days, as the Preparation, the Passover, and Pentecost—[chaps. xxii.], [xxiii.] Reasons urged by Celsus why Christians may make use of idol offerings and public sacrifices at public feasts; examination of these—[chaps. xxiv.]-xxvii. Celsus proceeds to state that if Christians abstain from idol offerings, they ought, in consistency, to abstain from all animal food, like the Pythagoreans: Answer—[chaps. xxviii.]-xxxii. Celsus alleges that if we come into the world at all, we must give thanks, and first-fruits, and prayers to demons, that they may prove good and kind: Answer—[chaps. xxxiii.], [xxxiv.] Celsus remarks that the satraps of a Persian or Roman monarch could do great injury to those who despised them, and asks, will the satraps and ministers of air and earth be insulted with impunity? Answer—[chaps. xxxv.], [xxxvi.] Asserts that if Christians invoke those whom they address by barbarous names they will have power, but not if invoked in Latin and Greek; falsity and absurdity of this statement—[chap. xxxvii.] Misrepresents the language addressed by Christians to the Grecian statues—[chap. xxxviii.] Scoffing language of Celsus to the Christians on the rejection of Jesus, whom he terms a demon, and on his inability to save His followers from being put to death—[chap. xxxix.] Contrast between the Christian and heathen doctrine of punishment—[chap. xl.] Railing address of Celsus, to the effect that although Christians may revile the statues of the gods, they would not have reviled the gods themselves with impunity; that nothing happened to those who crucified Jesus; that no father was ever so inhuman as was the father of Jesus, etc. etc.: Answers—[chaps. xli.]-xliv. Celsus asserts that it is of no use to collect all the oracular responses that have been delivered, for the world is full of them, and many remarkable events have happened in consequence of them, which establish their reality and divinity; general remark in answer—[chap. xlv.] Contrast between conduct of Pythian priestess, who frequently allowed herself to be bribed, and that of the prophets, who were admired for their downright truthfulness—[chap. xlvi.] Assertion of Greeks, that the Jewish history contains fabulous accounts, refuted—[chap. xlvii.] Endeavour of Celsus to show that the doctrines delivered at the celebration of the pagan mysteries are the same as those of the Christians; absurdity of this—[chap. xlviii.] Celsus reproaches Christians with inconsistency in their treatment of the body: Answer—[chaps. xlix.], [l.] Celsus approves the Christian doctrine that the righteous shall enjoy everlasting life, and the wicked shall suffer everlasting punishment; inconsistency of this on the part of Celsus—[chap. li.] Anxiety of Origen to bring all men to receive the whole system of Christian truth—[chap. lii.] Doubtful manner in which Celsus speaks of certain weighty matters, and reluctance on his part to set down any of them as false; inconsistency of this with the manner in which he treats the doctrines of Christianity, which he regards with a hostile spirit—[chaps. liii.], [liv.] Celsus asserts that Christians must make their choice between two alternatives; nature of these: Answer—[chaps. lv.]-lvii. Seeks to degrade the souls of men to the worship of demons, by referring to certain practices and beliefs prevalent among the Egyptians: Answer—[chaps. lviii.]-lix. Admits that there is a dangerous tendency in demon-worship: Remarks—[chaps. lx.]-lxii. Yet adds that the more just opinion is that demons desire and need nothing, but that they take pleasure in those who discharge towards them offices of piety: Answer—[chaps. lxiii.]-lxv. Celsus admits that no worshipper of God should submit to anything base, but should encounter any torments or death, rather than do anything unworthy of God; and yet to celebrate the sun, or the praises of Minerva, is only to render higher praise to God; inconsistency of this—[chaps. lxvi.], [lxvii.] Maintains that the Homeric saying must be observed, “Let one be king, whom the son of crafty Saturn appointed;” sense in which this must be understood by Christians—[chap. lxviii.] Inconsistency on the part of Celsus, after what he has said, in asking whether God would fight for the Romans, if they were to become converts to the worship of the Most High—[chaps. lxix.], [lxx.] Further misrepresentations of Celsus pointed out—[chap. lxxi.] Time will come when the Word will change every soul into His own perfections—[chap. lxxii.] Celsus enjoins us to help the king with all our might, and, if required, to fight under him, or lead an army along with him: Answer—[chap. lxxiii.] Also to take office in the government of the country, if necessary for the maintenance of the laws and the support of religion: Answer—[chap. lxxv.] Conclusion, in which Origen mentions that Celsus had announced his intention of writing a second treatise, which Origen requests Ambrose to send him if he should have carried his intentions into execution.
LIFE OF ORIGEN.
Origen was born in all probability at Alexandria, about the year 185 A.D.[[1]] Notwithstanding that his name is derived from that of an Egyptian deity (Horus or Or[[2]]), there seems no reason to doubt that his parents were Christian at the time of his birth. His father Leonides was probably, as has been conjectured,[[3]] one of the many teachers of rhetoric or grammar who abounded in that city of Grecian culture, and appears to have been a man of decided piety. Under his superintendence, the youthful Origen was not only educated in the various branches of Grecian learning, but was also required daily to commit to memory and to repeat portions of Scripture prescribed him by his father; and while under this training, the spirit of inquiry into the meaning of Scripture, which afterwards formed so striking a feature in the literary character of the great Alexandrine, began to display itself. Eusebius[[4]] relates that he was not satisfied with the plain and obvious meaning of the text, but sought to penetrate into its deeper signification, and caused his father trouble by the questions which he put to him regarding the sense of particular passages of Holy Writ. Leonides, like many parents, assumed the appearance of rebuking the curiosity of the boy for inquiring into things which were beyond his youthful capacity, and recommended him to be satisfied with the simple and apparent meaning of Scripture, while he is described as inwardly rejoicing at the signs of talent exhibited by his son, and as giving thanks to God for having made him the parent of such a child.[[5]] But this state of things was not to last; for in the year 202, when Origen was about seventeen years of age, the great persecution of the Christians under Septimius Severus broke out, and among the victims was his father Leonides, who was apprehended and put in prison. Origen wished to share the fate of his father, but was prevented from quitting his home by the artifice of his mother, who was obliged to conceal his clothes to prevent him from carrying out his purpose! He wrote to his father, however, a letter, exhorting him to constancy under his trials, and entreating him not to change his convictions for the sake of his family.[[6]] By the death of his father, whose property was confiscated to the imperial treasury, Origen was left, with his mother and six younger brothers dependent upon him for support. At this juncture, a wealthy and benevolent lady of Alexandria opened to him her house, of which he became an inmate for a short time. The society, however, which he found there was far from agreeable to the feelings of the youth. The lady had adopted as her son one Paul of Antioch, whom Eusebius terms an “advocate of the heretics then existing at Alexandria.” The eloquence of the man drew crowds to hear him, although Origen could never be induced to regard him with any favour, nor even to join with him in any act of worship, giving then, as Eusebius remarks, “unmistakeable specimens of the orthodoxy of his faith.”[[7]]
Finding his position in this household so uncomfortable, he resolved to enter upon the career of a teacher of grammar, and to support himself by his own exertions. As he had been carefully instructed by his father in Grecian literature, and had devoted himself to study after his death, he was enabled successfully to carry out his intention. And now begins the second stadium of his career.
The diligence and ability with which Origen prosecuted his profession speedily attracted attention and brought him many pupils. Among others who sought to avail themselves of his instructions in the principles of the Christian religion, were two young men, who afterwards became distinguished in the history of the Church,—Plutarch, who died the death of martyrdom, and Heraclas, who afterwards became bishop of Alexandria. It was not, however, merely by his success as a teacher that Origen gained a reputation. The brotherly kindness and unwearied affection which he displayed to all the victims of the persecution, which at that time was raging with peculiar severity at Alexandria under the prefect Aquila, and in which many of his old pupils and friends were martyred, are described as being so marked and conspicuous, as to draw down upon him the fury of the mob, so that he was obliged on several occasions to flee from house to house to escape instant death. It is easy to understand that services of this kind could not fail to attract the attention of the heads of the Christian community at Alexandria; and partly, no doubt, because of these, but chiefly on account of his high literary reputation, Bishop Demetrius appointed him to the office of master in the Catechetical School, which was at that time vacant (by the departure of Clement, who had quitted the city on the outbreak of the persecution), although he was still a layman, and had not passed his eighteenth year. The choice of Demetrius was amply justified by the result. Origen discontinued his instructions in literature, in order to devote himself exclusively to the work of teaching in the Catechetical School. For his labours he refused all remuneration. He sold the books which he possessed,—many of them manuscripts which he himself had copied,—on condition of receiving from the purchaser four obols[[8]] a day; and on this scanty pittance he subsisted, leading for many years a life of the greatest asceticism and devotion to study. After a day of labour in the school, he used to devote the greater part of the night to the investigation of Scripture, sleeping on the bare ground, and keeping frequent fasts. He carried out literally the command of the Saviour, not to possess two coats, or to wear shoes, and consummated his work of mortification of the flesh by an act of self-mutilation, springing from a perverted interpretation of our Lord’s words in Matt. xix. 12, and undertaken from a desire to place himself beyond the reach of temptation in the intercourse which he necessarily had to hold with his youthful female catechumens.[[9]] This act was destined to exercise a baneful influence upon his future fortunes in the Church.
During the episcopate of Zephyrinus (201-218) Origen visited Rome, and on his return again resumed his duties in the Catechetical School, transferring the care of the younger catechumens to his friend and former pupil Heraclas, that he might devote himself with less distraction to the instruction of the more advanced, and to the more thorough investigation and exposition of Scripture. With a view to accomplish this more successfully, it is probable that about this time he set himself to acquire a knowledge of the Hebrew language, the fruit of which may be seen in the fragments which remain to us of his magnum opus, the Hexapla; and as many among the more cultured heathens, attracted by his reputation, seem to have attended his lectures, he felt it necessary to make himself more extensively acquainted with the doctrines of the Grecian schools, that he might meet his opponents upon their own ground, and for this purpose he attended the prelections of Ammonius Saccas, at that time in high repute at Alexandria as an expounder of the Neo-Platonic philosophy, of which school he has generally been considered the founder. The influence which the study of philosophical speculations exerted upon the mind of Origen may be traced in the whole course of his after development, and proved the fruitful source of many of those errors which were afterwards laid to his charge, and the controversies arising out of which disturbed the peace of the Church during the two following centuries. As was to be expected, the fame of the great Alexandrine teacher was not confined to his native city, but spread far and wide; and an evidence of this was the request made by the Roman governor of the province of Arabia to Demetrius and to the prefect of Egypt, that they would send Origen to him that he might hold an interview with one whose reputation was so great. We have no details of this visit, for all that Eusebius relates is that, “having accomplished the objects of his journey, he again returned to Alexandria.”[[10]] It was in the year 216 that the Emperor Caracalla visited Alexandria, and directed a bloody persecution against its inhabitants, especially the literary members of the community, in revenge for the sarcastic verses which had been composed against him for the murder of his brother Geta, a crime which he had perpetrated under circumstances of the basest treachery and cruelty.
Origen occupied too prominent a position in the literary society of the city to be able to remain with safety, and therefore withdrew to Palestine to his friend Bishop Alexander of Jerusalem, and afterwards to Cæsarea, where he received an honourable welcome from Bishop Theoctistus. This step proved the beginning of his after troubles. These two men, filled with becoming admiration for the most learned teacher in the Church, requested him to expound the Scriptures in their presence in a public assembly of the Christians. Origen, although still a layman, and without any sacerdotal dignity in the Church, complied with the request. When this proceeding reached the ears of Demetrius, he was filled with the utmost indignation. “Such an act was never either heard or done before, that laymen should deliver discourses in the presence of the bishops,”[[11]] was his indignant remonstrance to the two offending bishops, and Origen received a command to return immediately to Alexandria. He obeyed, and for some years appears to have devoted himself solely to his studies in his usual spirit of self-abnegation.
It was probably during this period that the commencement of his friendship with Ambrosius is to be dated. Little is known of this individual. Eusebius[[12]] states that he had formerly been an adherent of the Valentinian heresy, but had been converted by the arguments and eloquence of Origen to the orthodox faith of the Church. They became intimate friends; and as Ambrose seems to have been possessed of large means, and entertained an unbounded admiration of the learning and abilities of his friend, it was his delight to bear the expenses attending the transcription and publication of the many works which he persuaded him to give to the world. He furnished him “with more than seven amanuenses, who relieved each other at stated times, and with an equal number of transcribers, along with young girls who had been practised in caligraphy,”[[13]] to make fair copies for publication of the works dictated by Origen. The literary activity of these years must have been prodigious, and probably they were among the happiest which Origen ever enjoyed. Engaged in his favourite studies, surrounded by many friends, adding yearly to his own stores of learning, and enriching the literature of the Church with treatises of the highest value in the department of sacred criticism and exegesis, it is difficult to conceive a condition of things more congenial to the mind of a true scholar. Only one incident of any importance seems to have taken place during these peaceful years,—his visit to Julia Mammæa, the pious mother of Alexander Severus. This noble lady had heard of the fame of Origen, and invited him to visit her at Antioch, sending a military escort to conduct him from Alexandria to the Syrian capital. He remained with her some time, “exhibiting innumerable illustrations of the glory of the Lord, and of the excellence of divine instruction, and then hastened back to his accustomed studies.”[[14]]