The synthesis of Greek philosophy and Hebrew scriptures remained more or less haphazard and fragmentary until the time of Origen ( A.D. 185-254). Origen, like Philo, lived in Alexandria, which, owing to commerce and the university, was, from its foundation to its fall, the chief centre of learned syncretism. Like his contemporary Plotinus, he was a pupil of Ammonius Saccas, whom many regard as
____________________
* Or rather the author of an Epistle attributed to Saint Paul—ColossiansII, 8.
-326-
the founder of Neoplatonism. His doctrines, as set forth in his work De Principiis, have much affinity to those of Plotinus—more, in fact, than is compatible with orthodoxy.There is, Origen says, nothing wholly incorporeal except God-Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The stars are living rational beings, to whom God has given souls that were already in existence. The sun, he thinks, can sin. The souls of men, as Plato taught, come to them at birth from elsewhere, having existed ever since the Creation. Nous and soul are distinguished more or less as in Plotinus. When Nous falls away, it becomes soul; soul, when virtuous, becomes Nous. Ultimately all spirits will become wholly submissive to Christ, and will then be bodiless. Even the devil will be saved at the last.Origen, in spite of being recognized as one of the Fathers, was, in later times, condemned as having maintained four heresies:
1. The pre-existence of souls, as taught by Plato;
2. That the human nature of Christ, and not only His divine nature, existed before the Incarnation.
3. That, at the resurrection, our bodies shall be transformed into absolutely ethereal bodies.
4. That all men, and even devils, shall be saved at the last.
Saint Jerome, who had expressed a somewhat unguarded admiration of Origen for his work in establishing the text of the Old Testament, found it prudent, subsequently, to expend much time and vehemence in repudiating his theological errors.
Origen’s aberrations were not only theological; in his youth he was guilty of an irreparable error through a too literal interpretation of the text: «There be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.» * This method of escaping the temptations of the flesh, which Origen rashly adopted, has been condemned by the Church; moreover it made him ineligible for holy orders, although some ecclesiastics seem to have thought otherwise, thereby giving rise to unedifying controversies.
Origen’s longest work is a book entitled Against Celsus. Celsus was the author of a book (now lost) against Christianity, and Origen set to work to answer him point by point. Celsus begins by objecting to
____________________
* Matthew XIX, 12.
-327-
Christians because they belong to illegal associations; this Origen does not deny, but claims to be a virtue, like tyrannicide. He then comes to what is no doubt the real basis for the dislike of Christianity: Christianity, says Celsus, comes from the Jews, who are barbarians; and only Greeks can extract sense out of the teachings of barbarians. Origen replies that any one coming from Greek philosophy to the Gospels would conclude that they are true, and supply a demonstration satisfying to the Greek intellect. But, further, «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 ‘manifestation of the Spirit and of power; of ‘the Spirit,’ on account of the prophecies, which are sufficient to produce faith in any one who reads them, especially in those things which 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.» *
This passage is interesting, as showing already the twofold argument for belief which is characteristic of Christian philosophy. On the one hand, pure reason, rightly exercised, suffices to establish the essentials of the Christian faith, more especially God, immortality, and free will. But on the other hand the Scriptures prove not only these bare essentials, but much more; and the divine inspiration of the Scriptures is proved by the fact that the prophets foretold the coming of the Messiah, by the miracles, and by the beneficent effects of belief on the lives of the faithful. Some of these arguments are now considered out of date, but the last of them was still employed by William James. All of them, until the Renaissance, were accepted by every Christian philosopher.
Some of Origen’s arguments are curious. He says that magicians invoke the «God of Abraham,» often without knowing who He is; but apparently this invocation is specially potent. Names are essential in magic; it is not indifferent whether God is called by His Jewish, Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, or Brahman name. Magic formulæ lose their efficacy when translated. One is led to suppose that the magicians of the time used formulæ from all known religions, but if Origen is
____________________
* Origen, Contra Celsum, Bk. I, Ch. II.
-328-
right, those derived from Hebrew sources were the most effective. The argument is the more
curious as he points out that Moses forbade sorcery. *
Christians, we are told, should not take part in the government of the State, but only of the «divine nation,» i.e., the Church. †This doctrine, of course, was somewhat modified after the time of Constantine, but something of it survived. It is implicit in Saint Augustine’s City of God. It led churchmen, at the time of the fall of the Western Empire, to look on passively at secular disasters, while they exercised their very great talents in Church discipline, theological controversy, and the spread of monasticism. Some trace of it still exists: most people regard politics as «worldly» and unworthy of any really holy man.
Church government developed slowly during the first three centuries, and rapidly after the conversion of Constantine. Bishops were popularly elected; gradually they acquired considerable power over Christians in their own dioceses, but before Constantine there was hardly any form of central government over the whole Church. The power of bishops in great cities was enhanced by the practice of almsgiving: the offerings of the faithful were administered by the bishop, who could give or withhold charity to the poor. There came thus to be a mob of the destitute, ready to do the bishop’s will. When the State became Christian, the bishops were given judicial and administrative functions. There came also to be a central government, at least in matters of doctrine. Constantine was annoyed by the quarrel between Catholics and Arians; having thrown in his lot with the Christians, he wanted them to be a united party. For the purpose of healing dissensions, he caused the convening of the oecumenical Council of Nicæa, which drew up the Nicene Creed, ‡ and, so far as the Arian controversy was concerned, determined for an time the standard of orthodoxy. Other later controversies were similarly decided by oecumenical councils, until the division between East and West and the Eastern refusal to admit the authority of the Pope made them impossible.
The Pope, though officially the most important individual in the
____________________
* Origen, op. cit., Bk. I, Ch. XXVI.
€ Ibid., Bk. VIII, Ch. LXXV.
â
€ Not exactly in its present form, which was decided upon in 362. ¡
-329-
Church, had no authority over the Church as a whole until a much later period. The gradual growth of the papal power is a very interesting subject, which I shall deal with in later chapters.The growth of Christianity before Constantine, as well as the motives of his conversion, have been variously explained by various authors. Gibbon * assigns five causes:
«1. The inflexible, and, if we may use the expression, the intolerant zeal of the Christians, derived, it is true, from the Jewish religion, but purified from the narrow and unsocial spirit which, instead of inviting, had deterred the Gentiles from embracing the law of Moses.
«2. The doctrine of a future life, improved by every additional circumstance which could give weight and efficacy to that important truth.
«3. The miraculous powers ascribed to the primitive Church.
«4. The pure and austere morals of the Christians.
«5. The union and discipline of the Christian republic, which gradually formed an independent and increasing state in the heart of the Roman empire.»
Broadly speaking, this analysis may be accepted, but with some comments. The first cause—the inflexibility and intolerance derived from the Jews—may be wholly accepted. We have seen in our own day the advantages of intolerance in propaganda. The Christians, for the most part, believed that they alone would go to heaven, and that the most awful punishments would, in the next world, fall upon the heathen. The other religions which competed for favour during the third century had not this threatening character. The worshippers of the Great Mother, for example, while they had a ceremony —the Taurobolium—which was analogous to baptism, did not teach that those who omitted it would go to hell. It may be remarked, incidentally, that the Taurobolium was expensive: a bull had to be killed, and its blood allowed to trickle over the convert. A rite of this sort is aristocratic, and cannot be the basis of a religion which is to embrace the great bulk of the population, rich and poor, free and slave. In such respects, Christianity had an advantage over all its rivals.
As regards the doctrine of a future life, in the West it was first taught by the Orphics and thence adopted by Greek philosophers.
____________________
* The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Ch. XV.
-330-
The Hebrew prophets, some of them, taught the resurrection
