7 raw HE name of the illustrious Origen comes before us 4) in this volume in connection with his works De Principiis, Epistola ad Africanum, and Contra Celsum. Of these, the first two have been given entire, while of the third we have been able at present only to give the first book. A full account of the life and writings of the author will be prefixed to our next volume of his works, Meanwhile, we restrict ourselves to a brief notice of the three which have been mentioned.
It is in his treatise IIept ’Apywv, or, as it is commonly known under the Latin title, De Principiis, that Origen most fully develops his system, and brings out his peculiar principles. None of his works exposed him to so much animadversion in the ancient church as this. On it chiefly was based the charge of heresy which some vehemently pressed against him,—a charge from which even his firmest friends felt it no easy matter absolutely to defend him. The points on which it was held that he had plainly departed from the orthodox faith, were the four following:—First, That the souls of men had existed in a previous state, and that their imprisonment in material bodies was a punishment for sins which they had then committed. Second, That the human soul of Christ had also previously existed, and been united to the Divine nature before that incarnation of the Son of God which is related in the Gospels. Third, That our material bodies shall be transformed into absolutely ethereal Vili INTRODUCTORY NOTICE.
ones at the resurrection; and fourth, That all men, and even devils, shall be finally restored through the mediation of Christ. His principles of interpreting Scripture are also brought out in this treatise; and while not a little ingenuity is displayed in illustrating and maintaining them, the serious errors into which they might too easily lead will be at once perceived by the reader.
It is much to be regretted that the original Greek of the De Principiis has for the most part perished. We possess it chiefly in a Latin translation by Rufinus. And there can be no doubt that he often took great liberties with his author. So much was this felt to be the case, that Jerome undertook a new translation of the work; but only small portions of his version have reached our day. He strongly accuses Rufinus of unfaithfulness as an interpreter, while he also inveighs bitterly against Origen himself, as having departed from the catholic faith, specially in regard to the doctrine of the Trinity. There seems, however, after all, no adequate reason to doubt the substantial orthodoxy of our author, although the bent of his mind and the nature of his studies led him to indulge in many vain and unauthorized speculations.
The Lpistle to Africanus was drawn forth by a letter which that learned writer had addressed to Origen respect- ing the story of Susanna appended to the book of Daniel. Africanus had grave doubts as to the canonical authority of the account. Origen replies to his objections, and seeks to uphold the story as both useful in itself, and a genuine portion of the ancient prophetical writings.
The treatise of Origen Against Celsus is, of all his works, the most interesting to the modern reader. It is a defence of Christianity in opposition to a Greek philosopher named Celsus, who had attacked it in a work entitled ’AAnO7s Aoyos, that is, The True Word, or The True Discourse. Of INTRODUCTORY NOTICE. ix this work we know nothing, except from the quotations con- tained in the answer given to it by Origen. Nor has anything very certain been ascertained respecting its author. According to Origen, he was a follower of Epicurus, but others have regarded him as a Platonist. If we may judge of the work by those specimens of it preserved in the reply of Origen, it was little better than a compound of sophistry and slander. But there is reason to be grateful for it, as having called forth the admirable answer of Origen. This work was written in the old age of our author, and is composed with great care; while it abounds with proofs of the widest erudition. It is also perfectly orthodox; and, as Bishop Bull has remarked, it is only fair that we should judge from a work written with the view of being considered by the world at large, and with the most elaborate care, as to the mature and finally accepted views of the author.
The best edition of Origen’s works is that superintended by Charles and Charles Vincent de la Rue, Paris 1783, 4 vols. fol., which is reprinted by Migne. There is also an edition in 25 volumes, based upon that of De la Rue, but without the Latin translation, by Lommatzsch, Berlin 1831- 1848. The De Principiis has been separately edited by Redepenning, Leipzig 1836. Spencer edited the Contra Celsum, Cambridge 1677.
PROLOGUE OF RUFINUS TO THE DE PRINCIPIIS.
en KNOW that very many of the brethren, induced by their thirst for a knowledge of the Scriptures, Sf, have requested some distinguished men, well ~ versed in Greek learning, to translate Origen into Latin, and so make him accessible to Roman readers. Among these, when our brother and colleague’ had, at the earnest entreaty of Bishop Damasus, translated two of the Homilies on the Song of Songs out of Greek into Latin, he prefixed so elegant and noble a preface to that work, as to inspire every one with a most eager desire to read and study Origen, saying that the expression, “ The King hath brought me into his chamber,”? was appropriate to his feelings, and declaring that while Origen in his other works surpassed all writers, he in the Song of Songs surpassed even himself. He promises, indeed, in that very preface, that he will present the books on the Song of Songs, and numerous others of the works of Origen, in a Latin translation, to Roman readers. But he, finding greater pleasure in compositions of his own, pursues an end that is attended with greater fame, viz. in being the author rather than the translator of works. Accordingly we enter upon the undertaking, which was thus begun and approved of by him, although we cannot compose in a style of elegance 1 Jerome is the person alluded to. 2 Cant. i. 4.
xil PROLOGUE TO THE DE PRINCIPIIS.
equal to that of a man of such distinguished eloquence; and therefore I am afraid lest, through my fault, the result should follow, that that man, whom he deservedly esteems as the second teacher of knowledge and wisdom in the church after the apostles, should, through the poverty of my lan- guage, appear far inferior to what he is. And this consider- ation, which frequently recurred to my mind, kept me silent, and prevented me from yielding to the numerous entreaties of my brethren, until your influence, my very faithful brother Macarius, which is so great, rendered it impossible for my unskilfulness any longer to offer resistance. And therefore, that I might not find you too grievous an exactor, I gave way, even contrary to my resolution; on the condition and arrangement, however, that in my translation I should fol- low as far as possible the rule observed by my predecessors, and especially by that distinguished man whom I have men- tioned above, who, after translating into Latin more than seventy of those treatises of Origen which are styled Homi- lies, and a considerable number also of his writings on the apostles, in which a good many “ stumbling-blocks” are found in the original Greek, so smoothed and corrected them in his translation, that a Latin reader would meet with nothing which could appear discordant with our belief. His example, therefore, we follow, to the best of our ability; if not with equal power of eloquence, yet at least with the same strictness of rule, taking care not to reproduce those expressions occurring in the works of Origen which are inconsistent with and opposed to each other. The cause of these varia- tions we have explained more freely in the Apologeticus, which Pamphilus wrote in defence of the works of Origen, where we added a brief tract, in which we showed, I think, by unmistakeable proofs, that his books had been corrupted in numerous places by heretics and malevolent persons, and especially those books of which you now require me to under- take the translation, z.e. the books which may be entitled De Principiis or De Principatibus, and which are indeed in other respects full of obscurities and difficulties. For he there discusses those subjects with respect to which philo- PROLOGUE TO THE DE PRINCIPIS. xiil sophers, after spending all their lives upon them, have been unable to discover anything. But here our author strove, as much as in him lay, to turn to the service of religion the belief in a Creator, and the rational nature of created beings, which the latter had degraded to purposes of wickedness. If, therefore, we have found anywhere in his writings, any statement opposed to that view, which elsewhere in his works he had himself piously laid down regarding the Trinity, we have either omitted it, as being corrupt, and not the composi- tion of Origen, or we have brought it forward, agreeably to the rule which we frequently find affirmed by himself. If, indeed, in his desire to pass rapidly on, he has, as speaking to persons of skill and knowledge, sometimes expressed him- self obscurely, we have, in order that the passage might be clearer, added what we had read more fully stated on the same subject in his other works, keeping explanation in view, but adding nothing of our own, but simply restoring to him what was his, although occurring in other portions of his writings.
These remarks, therefore, by way of admonition, I have made in the preface, lest slanderous individuals perhaps should think that they had a second time discovered matter of accusation. But let perverse and disputatious men have a care what they are about. For we have in the meantime undertaken this heavy labour, if God should aid your prayers, not to shut the mouths of slanderers (which is impossible, although God perhaps will do it), but to afford material to those who desire to advance in the knowledge of these things. And, verily, in the presence of God the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, I adjure and beseech every one, who may either ‘transcribe or read these books, by his belief in the kingdom to come, by the mystery of the resur- rection from the dead, and by that everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels, that, as he would not possess for an eternal inheritance that place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, and where their fire is not quenched and their worm dieth not, he add nothing to Scripture, and take nothing away from it, and make no insertion or alteration, X1V PROLOGUE TO THE DE PRINCIPIS.
but that he compare his transcript with the copies from which he made it, and make the emendations and distinctions according to the letter, and not have his manuscript incorrect or indistinct, lest the difficulty of ascertaining the sense, from the indistinctness of the copy, should cause greater difficulties to the readers.
ORIGEN DE PRINCIPIIS.
PREFACE, ‘LL who believe and are assured that grace and truth were obtained through Jesus Christ, and who know Christ to be the truth, agreeably to His own declaration, “ I am the truth,”? derive the knowledge which incites men to a good and happy life from no other source than from the very words and teaching of Christ. And by the words of Christ we do not mean those only which He spake when He became man and tabernacled in the flesh; for before that time, Christ, the Word of God, was in Moses and the prophets. For without the Word of God, how could they have been able to pro- phesy of Christ? And were it not our purpose to confine the present treatise within the limits of all attainable brevity, it would not be difficult to show, in proof of this statement, out of the Holy Scriptures, how Moses or the prophets both spake and performed all they did through being filled with the Spirit of Christ. And therefore I think it sufficient to quote this one testimony of Paul from the Epistle to the I{ebrews, in which he says: “ By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaohi’s daughter; choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of the Egyptians.”? Moreover, that after His ascension into heaven He spake in His apostles, is shown ORIG. A 2 ORIGEN DE PRINCIPIIS.
by Paul in these words: “ Or do you seck a proof of Christ, who speaketh in me?”?
2. Since many, however, of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance, as e.g. regarding God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit; and not only regarding these, but also regarding others which are created existences, viz. the powers” and the holy virtues;* it seems on that account necessary first of all to fix a definite limit and to lay down an unmistakeable rule regarding each one of these, and then to pass to the investi- gation of other points. For as we ceased to seek for truth (notwithstanding the professions of many among Greeks and Barbarians to make it known) among all who claimed it for erroneous opinions, after we had come to believe that Christ was the Son of God, and were persuaded that we must learn it from Himself; so, seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think dif- ferently from thcir predecessors, yet as the teaching of the church, transmitted in orderly succession from the apostles, and remaining in the churches to the present day, is still pre- served, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition. | 3. Now it ought to be known that the holy apostles, in preaching the faith of Christ, delivered themselves with the utmost clearness on certain points which they believed to be necessary to every orie, even to those who seemed somewhat dull in the investigation of divine knowledge; leaving, how- ever, the grounds of their statements to be examined into by those who should deserve the excellent gifts of the Spirt, and who, especially by means of the Holy Spirit Himself, should obtain the gift of language, of wisdom, and of know- ledge: while on other subjects they merely stated the fact that things were so, keeping silence as to the manner or origin of their existence; clearly in order that the more zealous of their successors, who should be lovers of wisdom, might have a subject of exercise on which to display the fruit of their 12 Cor. xiii. 3. 2 Dominationes. § Virtutes.
ORIGEN DE PRINCIPIIS. 3 talents,—those persons, I mean, who should prepare them- selves to be fit and worthy receivers of wisdom.
4. The particular points’ clearly delivered in the teaching of the apostles are as follow: First, That there is one God, who created and arranged all things, and who, when nothing existed, called all things into being—God from the first creation and foundation of the world—the God of all just men, of Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Enoch, Noe, Sem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve patri- archs, Moses, and the prophets; and that this God-in the last days, as He had announced beforehand by His prophets, sent our Lord Jesus Christ to call in the first place Israel to Himself, and in the second place the Gentiles, after the unfaithfulness of the people of Israel. This just and good God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Himself gave the Jaw, and the prophets, and the gospels, being also the God of the apostles and of the Old and New Testaments.
Secondly, That Jesus Christ Himself, who came [into the world], was born of the Father before all creatures; that, after He had been the servant of the Father in the creation of all things—“ For by Him were all things made” ’—He in the last times, divesting Himself [of His glory], became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was; that He assumed a body like to our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit: that this Jesus Christ was truly born, and did truly suffer, and did not endure this death common [to man] in appearance only, but did truly die; that He did truly rise from the dead; and that after His resurrection He conversed with His disciples, and was taken up [into heaven].
Then, thirdly, the apostles related that the [oly Spirit was associated in honour and dignity with the Father and the Son. But in His case it is not clearly distinguished whether He is to be regarded as born or innate,’ or also as a Son of 3 Innatus. The words which Rufinus has rendered ‘‘natus an innatus” are rendered by Jerome in his Epistle to Avitus (94 alias 59), ‘‘ factus 4 ORIGEN DE PRINCIPIIS., God or not: for these are points which have to be inquired into out of sacred Scripture according to the best of our ability, and which demand careful investigation. And that this Spirit inspired each one of the saints, whether prophets or apostles; and that there was not one Spirit in the men of the old dispensation, and another in those who were inspired at the advent of Christ, is most clearly taught throughout the churches.
5. After these points, also, the apostolic teaching is that the soul, having a substance’ and life of its own, shall, after its departure from the world, be rewarded according to its deserts, being destined to obtain either an inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, if its actions shall have procured this for it, or to be delivered up to eternal fire and punish- ments, if the guilt of its crimes shall have brought it down to this: and also, that there is to be a time of resurrection from the dead, when this body, which now “is sown in corruption, shall rise in incorruption,” and that which “is sown in dis- honour will rise in glory.”* This also is clearly defined in the teaching of the church, that every rational soul is pos- sessed of free-will and volition; that it has a struggle to maintain with the devil and his angels, and opposing influ- ences,” because they strive to burden it with sins; but if we live rightly and wisely, we should endeavour to shake ourselves free of a burden of that kind. From which it follows, also, that we understand ourselves not to be subject to necessity, so as to be compelled by all means, even against our will, to do either good or evil. For if we are our own masters, some influences perhaps may impel us to sin, and others help us to salvation; we are not forced, however, by any necessity either to act rightly or wrongly, which those an infectus.” Criticising the errors in the first book of the Principles, he says: ‘‘ Origen declares the Holy Spirit to be third in dignity and honour after the Father and the Son; and although professing ignorance whether he were created or not (factus an infectus), he indicated after- wards his opinion regarding him, maintaining that nothing was uncrcated except God the Father.” Jerome, no doubt, read yesnros 4 ayivnzo;, and Rufinus yevynros 4 &yévyntos.—R. 1 Substantia. 21 Cor. xv. 42. 3 Virtutes.
ORIGEN DE PRINCIPIIS. 5 persons think is the case who say that the courses and move- ments of the stars are the cause of human actions, not only of those which take place beyond the influence of the freedom of the will, but also of those which are placed within our own power. But with respect to the soul, whether it is derived from the seed by a process of traducianism, so that the reason or substance of it may be considered as placed in the seminal particles of the body themselves, or whether it has any other beginning; and this beginning itself, whether it be by birth or not, or whether bestowed upon the body from without or no, is not distinguished with sufficient clearness in the teach- ing of the church.
6. Regarding the devil and his angels, and the opposing influences, the teaching of the church has laid down that these beings exist indeed; but what they are, or how they exist, it has not explained with sufficient clearness. This opinion, however, is held by most, that the devil was an angel, and that, having become an apostate, he induced as many of the angels as possible to fall away with himself, and these up to the present time are called his angels.
7. This also is a part of the church’s teaching, that the world was made and took its beginning at a certain time, and is to be destroyed on account of its wickedness. But what existed before this world, or what will exist after it, has not become certainly known to the many, for there is no clear statement regarding it in the teaching of the church.
8. Then, finally, that the Scriptures were written by the Spirit of God, and have a meaning, not such only as is appa- rent at first sight, but also another, which escapes the notice of most. For those [words] which are written are the forms of certain mysteries,’ and the images of divine things. Re- specting which there is one opinion throughout the whole church, that the whole law is indeed spiritual; but that the spiritual meaning which the law conveys is not known to all, but to those only on whom the grace of the Holy Spirit is bestowed in the word of wisdom and knowledge.
The term dowparor, i.e. incorporeal, is disused and un- 1 Sacramentorum.
6 ORIGEN DE PRINCIPITS.
known, not only in many other writings, but also in our own Scriptures. And if any one should quote it to us out of thie little treatise entitled The Doctrine of Peter,’ in which the Saviour seems to say to His disciples, “ Iam not an incorporeal demon,’* I have to reply, in the first place, that that work is not included among ecclesiastical books; for we can show that it was not composed either by Peter or by any other person inspired by the Spirit of God. But even if the point were to be conceded, the word dowparov there does not con- vey the same meaning as is intended by Greek and Gentile authors when incorporeal nature is discussed by philosophers. Ifor in the little treatise referred to he used the phrase “incorporeal demon” to denote that that form or outline of demoniacal body, whatever it is, docs not resemble this gross and visible body of ours; but, agreeably to the inten- tion of the author of the treatise, it must be understood to mean that IIe had not such a body as demons have, which is naturally fine,’ and thin as if formed of air (and for this reason is either considered or called by many incorporeal), but that He had a solid and palpable body. Now, according to human custom, everything which is not of that nature is called by the simple or ignorant incorporeal; as 1f one were to say that the air which we breathe was incorporeal, because it is not a body of such a nature as can be grasped and held, or can offer resistance to pressure.
9. We shall inquire, however, whether the thing which Greck philosophers call dowparov, or “incorporeal,” is found 1 Kusebius (J2celes. Hest. iii. ¢. 36), treating of Ignatius, quotes from his Epistle to the Church of Sinyrna as follows: ‘‘ Writing to the Smyrnzans, he (Ignatius) has also employed words respecting Jesus, I know not whence they are taken, to the following effect: ‘ But I know and believe that He was seen after the resurrection; and when He came to Peter and his companions, He said to them, Take and handle me, and see that [ am not an incorporcal spirit.’” Jerome, in his cata- logue of ecclesiastical writers, says the words are a quotation from the Gospel of the Nazarenes, a work which he had recently translated. Origen here quotes them, however, from The Doctrine of Peter, on which Ruseus remarks that the words might be contained in both of these apocryphal works. 2 Deemonium. 3 Subtila.
Seer i —— pape ama, —ay -— a ee. ot — sy ORIGEN DE PRINCIPHS. 7 in holy Scripture under another name. For it is also to be a subject of investigation how God Himself is to be under- stood,—whether as corporeal, and formed according to some shape, or of a different nature from bodies,—a point which is not clearly indicated in our teaching. And the same inquiries have to be made regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit, as well as respecting every soul, and everything possessed of a rational nature.
10. This also is a part of the teaching of the church, that there are certain angels of God, and certain good influences, which are His servants in accomplishing the salvation of men. When these, however, were created, or of what nature they are, or how they exist, is not clearly stated. Regarding the sun, moon, and stars, whether they are living beings or with- out life, there is no distinct deliverance.
Every one, therefore, must make use of elements and foundations of this sort, according to the precept, “ Enlighten yourselves with the light of knowledge,”* if he would desire to form a connected series and body of truths agreeably to the reason of all these things, that by clear and nccessary state- ments he may ascertain the truth regarding each individual topic, and form, as we have said, one body of doctrine, by means of illustrations and arguments,—either those which he has discovered in holy Scripture, or which he has deduced by closely tracing out the consequences and following a correct method.
1 Hos. x. 12. The words in the text are not the rendering of the authorized version, but that of the Septuagint, which has Guriceze favrois Qus yvaorws. Where the Masoretic text has ny (ct tempus) Origen evidently read my (scientia), the similarity of Vau and Daleth accounting for the error of the transcriber.
BOOK I.
CHAPTER I. ON GOD.
IKKNOW that some will attempt to say that, even according to the declarations of our own Scrip- tures, God is a body, because in the writings of Moses they find it said, that “ our God is a consuming fire;”* and in the Gospel according to John, that “God is a Spirit, and they who worship Fim must worship Him in spirit and in truth.”? Fire and spirit, according to them, are to be regarded as nothing else than a body. Now, I should like to ask these persons what they lave to say respecting that passage where it is declared that God is light; as John writes in his epistle, “God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.”* ‘Truly He is that light which illuminates the whole understanding of those who are capable of receiving truth, as is said in the thirty- sixth Psalm, “In Thy light we shall see light.”* For what other light of God can be named, “in which any one sees light,” save an influence of God, by which a man, being enlightened, either thoroughly sees the truth of all things, or comes to know God Himsclf, who is called the truth?
Such is the meaning of the expression, “In Thy light we shall see light;” te. in Thy word and wisdom, which is Thy Son, in Himself we shall see Thee the Father. Because He is called light, shall He be supposed to have any resemblance to the light of the sun? Or how should there be the Book 1.] ORIGEN DE PRINCIPIIS, 9 slightest ground for imagining, that from that corporeal light any one could derive the cause of knowledge, and come to the understanding of the truth?
2. If, then, they acquiesce in our assertion, which reason itself has demonstrated, regarding the nature of light, and acknowledge that God cannot be understood to be a body in the sense that light is, similar reasoning will hold true of the expression “a consuming fire.’ For what will God con- sume in respect of His being fire? Shall He be thought to consume material substance, as wood, or hay, or stubble? And what in this view can be called worthy of the glory of God, if He be a fire, consuming materials of that kind? But let us reflect that God does indeed consume and utterly destroy; that He consumes evil thoughts, wicked actions, and sinful desires, when they find their way into the minds of believers; and that, inhabiting along with His Son those souls which are rendered capable of receiving His word and wisdom, according to His own declaration, “I and the Father shall come, and we shall make our abode with him,”! He makes them, after all their vices and passions have been consumed, a holy temple, worthy of Himself. Those, more- over, who, on account of the expression “ God is a Spirit,” think that He is a body, are to be answered, I think, in the following manner. It is the custom of sacred Scripture, when it wishes to designate anything opposed to this gross and solid body, to call it spirit, as in the expression, “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life,” * where there can be ne doubt that by “letter” are meant bodily things, and by “spirit” intellectual things, which we also term “ spiritual.” The apostle, moreover, says, “Even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart: nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”* For so long as any one is not converted to a spiritual understand- ing, a veil is placed over his heart, with which veil, te. a gross understanding, Scripture itself is said or thought to be covered: and this is the meaning of the statement that a 10 ORIGEN DE PRINCIPUIS. [Boox 1.
veil was placed over the countenance of Moses when he spoke to the people, i.e. when the law was publicly read aloud. But if we turn to the Lord, where also is the word of God, and where the Holy Spirit reveals spiritual know- ledge, then the veil is taken away, and with unveiled face we shall behold the glory of the Lord in the holy Scriptures.
3. And since many saints participate in the Holy Spirit, He cannot therefore be understood to be a body, which being divided into corporeal parts, is partaken of by each one of the saints; but He is manifestly a sanctifying power, in which all are said te have a share who have deserved to be sanctified by His grace. And in order that what we say may be more easily understood, let us take an illustration from things very dissimilar. There are many persons who take a part in the science’ or art of medicine: are we there- fore to suppose that those who do so take to themselves the particles of some body called medicine, which is placed before them, and in this way participate in the same? Or must we not rather understand that all who with quick and trained minds come to understand the art and discipline itself, may be said to be pertakers of the art of healing? But these are not to be deemed altogether parallel instances in a comparison of medicine to the Holy Spirit, as they have been adduced only to establish that that is not neces- sarily to be considered a body, a share in which is possessed by many individuals. For the Holy Spirit differs widely from the method or science of medicine, in respect that the Holy Spirit is an intellectual existence,? and subsists and exists in a peculiar manner, whiereas medicine is not at all of — that nature.
4. But we must pass on to the language of the Gospel itself, in which it is declared that “God is a Spirit,’ and where we have to show how that is to be understood agreeably to what we have stated. For let us inquire on what occasion these words were spoken by the Saviour, before whom He uttered them, and what was the subject of investigation. We find, without any doubt, that He spoke these words to 1 Disciplina. 2 Subsistentia.
Book 1.] — ORIGEN DE PRINCIPHS. 11 the Samaritan woman, saying to her, who thought, agreeably to the Samaritan view, that God ought to be worshipped on Mount Gerizim, that “ God is a Spirit.” For the Samaritan woman, believing Him to be a Jew, was inquiring of Him whethér God ought to be worshipped in Jerusalem or on this mountain; and her words were, “ All our fathers wor- shipped on this mountain, and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where we ought to worship.”* To this opinion of the Samaritan woman, therefore, who imagined that God was less rightly or duly worshipped, according to the privileges of the different localities, either by the Jews in Jerusalem or by the Samaritans on Mount Gerizim, the Saviour answered that he who would follow the Lord must lay aside all pre- ference for particular places, and thus expressed Him- self: “The hour is coming when neither in Jerusalem nor on this mountain shall the true worshippers worship the - Father. God is a Spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.”? And observe how logically He has joined together the spirit and the truth: He called God a Spirit, that He might distinguish Him from bodies; and He named [im the truth, to distinguish Him from a shadow or an image. For they who worshipped in Jerusalem worshipped God neither in truth nor in spirit, being in subjection to the shadow or image of heavenly things; and such also was the case with those who wor- shipped on Mount Gerizim. |