increase. So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.”? As, therefore, when a field has brought good and rich crops to perfect maturity, no one would piously and logically assert that the husbandman had made those fruits, but would acknowledge that they had been produced by God; so also is our own perfection brought about, not indeed by our remaining inactive and idle,’ [but by some activity on our part]: and yet the consummation of it will not be ascribed to us, but to God, who is the first and chief cause of the work. So, when a ship has overcome the dangers of the sea, although the result be accomplished by great labour on the part ve the sailors, and by the aid of all the art of navi- gation, and by the zeal and carefulness of the pilot, and by the favouring influence of the breezes, and the careful obser- 9 2 ‘Nostra perfectio non quidem nobis cessantibus et otiosis efficitur.” There is an ellipsis of some such words as, ‘* but by activity on our part.”
FROM THE GREEK, watereth; but God that giveth the increase.”? Now we could not piously assert that the production of full crops was the work of the husbandman, or of him that watered, but the work of God. So also our own perfection is brought about, not as if we ourselves did nothing;? for it is not completed ® by us, but God produces the greater part of it. And that this assertion may be more clearly believed, we shall take an illustration from the art of navigation. For in comparison with the effect of the winds,* and the mildness of the air,’ and the light of the stars, all co-operating in the preservation of the crew, what proportion® could the art of navigation be said to bear in the bringing of the ship into harbour?—since even the sailors themselves, from piety, do not venture to assert 2) NMETION TEALIWOLS OVX MYOry Auoy wWearavTay viveT el 5 aT OCTIC ET eb. YON.
EUx POG OY. aeouoy.
208 ORIGEN DE PRINCIPIS. [Book rt.
FROM THE LATIN.
vation of the signs of the stars, no one in his sound senses would ascribe the safety of the vessel, when, after being tossed by the waves, and wearied by the billows, it has at last reached the harbour in safety, to anything else than to the mercy of God. Not even the sailors or pilot venture to say, ‘‘T have saved the ship,” but they refer all to the mercy of God; not that they feel that they have contributed no skill or labour to save the ship, but because they know that while they contributed the labour, the safety of the vessel was ensured by God. So also in the race of our life we our- selves must expend labour, and bring diligence and zeal to bear; but it is from God that salvation is to be hoped for as the fruit of our labour. Otherwise, if God demand none of our labour, His commandments will appear to be super- fluous. In vain, also, does Paul blame some for having fallen from the truth, and praise others for abiding in the faith; and to no purpose does he deliver certain precepts FROM THE GREEK.
FROM THE GREEK.
often that they had saved the ship, but refer all to God; not as if they had done nothing, but because what had been done by Providence was infinitely’ greater than what had been effected by their art. And in the matter of our salvation, what is done by God is infinitely greater than what is done by ourselves; and therefore, I think, is it said that “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” For if in the manner which they imagine we must explain the statement,’ that “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneti, but of God that showeth mercy,” the commandments are superfluous; and it is in vain that Paul himself blames some for having fallen away, and approves of others as having remained upright, and enacts laws for the churches: it is in vain also that we give ourselves up to desire better things, and in vain also [to attempt] to run. But it is not in vain that Paul gives such advice, censuring some and approving of others; nor in vain 1 sig UwrepBoAny FOAARTA ATION. 2 ixrau have.
Crap. 1. | ORIGEN DE PRINCIPIIS. 209 FROM THE LATIN.
and institutions to the churches: in vain, also, do we our- selves either desire or run after what is good. But it is certain that these things are not done in vain; and it is certain that neither do the apostles give instructions in vain, nor the Lord enact Jaws without a reason. It follows, there- fore, that we declare it to be in vain, rather, for the heretics to speak evil of these good declarations.
19. After this there followed this point, that “to will and to do are of God.”* Our opponents maintain that if to will he of God, and if to do be of Him, or if, whether we act or desire well or ill, it be of God, then in that case we are not possessed of free-will. Now to this we have to answer, that the words of the apostle do not say that to will evil is of God, or that to will good is of Him; nor that to do good or evil is of God; but his statement is a general one, that to will and to do are of God. For as we have from God this very quality, that we are men,’ that we breathe, that we move; so also we 1Cf. Phil. ii. 15. 2 TToc ipsum, quod homines sumus.
FROM THE GREEK.
that we give ourselves up to the desire of better things, and to the chase after things that are pre-eminent. They have accordingly not well explained the meaning of the passage.!
19. Besides these, there is the passage, “ Both to will and to do are of God.”? And some assert that, if to will be of God, and to do be of God, and if, whether we will evil or do evil, these [movements] come to us from God, then, if so, we are not possessed of free-will. But again, on the other hand, when we will better things, and do things that are more ex- cellent,’ seeing that willing and doing are from God, it is not we who have done the more excellent things, but we only appeared [to perform them], while it was God that bestowed them;* so that even in this respect we do not possess free- 1 ezesAnQaos Ta xaeTa Toy TOTOD. 2 Cf. Phil. ii. 13. 3 re SreeQipovra. 4 npesic pot EdcSapeey, 6 Of Osos Tatra towpyoaro.
ORIG. O 210 ORIGEN DE PRINCIPIIS. [Book ur.
FROM THE LATIN.
have from God [the faculty] by which we will, as if we were to say that our power of motion is from God,’ or that the performing of these duties by the individual members, and their movements, are from God. From which, certainly, I do not understand this, that because the hand moves, e.g. to punish unjustly, or to commit an act of theft, the act is of God, but only that the power of motion? is from God; while it is our duty to turn those movements, the power of execut- ing which we have from God, either to purposes of good or evil. And so what the apostle says is, that we receive indeed the power of volition, but that we misuse the will either to good or evil desires. In a similar way, also, we must judge of results.
1 Sicut dicamus, quod movemur, ex Deo est. * Hoc ipsum, quod movetur.
FROM THE GREEK, will. Now to this we have to answer, that the language of the apostle docs not assert that to will evil is of God, or to will good is of Him (and similarly with respect to doing better and worse); but that to will in a general’ way, and to run in a general way, [are from Him]. For as we have from God [the property] of being living things and human beings, so also have we that of willing generally, and, so to speak, of motion in general. And as, possessing [the pro- perty] of life and of motion, and of moving, e.g. these mem- bers, the hands or the feet, we could not rightly say? that we had from God this species of motion,’ whereby we moved to strike, or destroy, or take away another’s goods, but that ~ we had received from Him simply the generic* power of motion, which we employed to better or worse purposes; so we have obtained from God [the power] of acting, in respect of our being living things, and [the power] to will from the Creator,’ while we employ the power of will, as well as that of action, for the noblest objects, or the opposite. 1 26 xadcrov bere. 3 svrcyus. 3 x0 idsxoy TOO8. 4 6 peew yevixncy, TO xsveiobae. © On csoupyov.
Cuap. 1] ORIGEN DE PRINCIPIIS. 211 FROM THE LATIN.
20. But with respect to the declaration of the apostle, “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth. Thon wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”* Some one will per- haps say, that as the potter out of the same lump makes some vessels to honour, and others to dishonour, so God creates some men for perdition, and others for salvation; and that it is not therefore in our own power either to be saved or to perish; by which reasoning we appear not to be possessed of free-will. We must answer those who are of this opinion with the question, Whether it is possible for the apostle to contradict himself? And if this cannot be imagined of FROM THE GREEK.
FROM THE GREEK.
20. Still the declaration of the apostle will appear to drag us to the conclusion that we are not possessed of freedom of will, in which, objecting against himself, he says, “ Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”* For it will be said: If the potter of the same lump make some vessels to honour and others to dishonour, and God thus form some men for salvation and others for ruin, then salvation or ruin does not depend upon ourselves, nor are we possessed of free-will. Now we must ask him who deals so with these passages, whether it is pos- 212 ORIGEN DE PRINCIPIS. [Book 1.
FROM TITE LATIN. an apostle, how shall he appear, according to them, to be just in blaming those who committed fornication in Corinth, or those who sinned, and did not repent of their unchas- tity, and fornication, and uncleanness, which they had committed? How, also, does he greatly praise those who acted rightly, like the house of Onesiphorus, saying, “The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: but, when he had come to Rome, he sought me out very dili- gently, and found me. The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day.”’ Now it is not consistent with apostolic gravity to blame him who is worthy of blame, z.e. who has sinned, and greatly to praise him who is deserving of praise for his good works; and again, as if it were in no one’s power to do any good or evil, to say that it was the Creator’s doing that every one should act virtuously FROM THE GREK. sible to conccive of the apostle as contradicting himself. I presume, however, that no one will venture to say so. If, then, the apostle docs not utter contradictions, how can he, according to him who so understands him, reasonably find fault, censuring the individual at Corinth who had com- mitted fornication, or those who had fallen away, and had not repented of the licentiousness and impurity of which they had been guilty? And how can he bless those whom he praises as having done well; as he does the house of Onesiphorus in these words: “The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: but, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me. The Lord grant to him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day.”* It is not consistent for the same apostle? to blame the sinner as worthy of censure, and to praise him who had done well as deserving of approval; and again, on the other hand, to say, 19 Tim. i. 16-18. 2 ov xara Toy artEy 04 ATCOTEACY EOTk Cnap. I. | ORIGEN DE PRINCIPIIS. 213 FROM THE LATIN. or wickedly, seeing He makes one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour. And how can he add that statement, “We must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, that every one of us may receive in his body, according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad?”! For what reward of good will be conferred on him who could not commit evil, being formed by the Creator to that very end? or what punishment will deservedly be inflicted on him who was unable to do good in consequence of the creative act of his Maker?? Then, again, how is not this opposed to that other declaration elsewhere, that “in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and of earth, and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himsclf from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the Master’s use, prepared unto every good work.”* Ile, accordingly, who 4-2 Cor. ¥..10. * Ex ips’ conditoris creatione. 32 Tim. ii. 20, 21.
FROM THE GREEK. as if nothing depended on ourselves, that the cause was in the Creator’ why the one vessel was formed to honour, and the other to dishonour. And how is this statement correct:* “For we must all appear before the judement-seat of Christ; that every one may receive tlic things done in his body, ac- cording to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad,”’ since they who have done evil have advanced to this pitch of wickedness* because they were created vessels unto dis- honour, while they that have lived virtuously have done good because they were created from the beginning for this pur- pose, and became vessels unto honour? And again, how does not the statement made elsewhere conflict with the view which these persons draw from the words which we have quoted (that it is the fault of the Creator that one vessel is in honour and another in dishonour), viz. “that in a great house there are not only vessels of goid and silver, but also : lise Tb TOYTO WPK TEAS @.
TAA THY AITIAY TE6Y Uniesoupyouv.
mem 9 thie 214 ORIGEN DE PRINCIPIIS. [Book 111.
FROM THE LATIN, purges himself, is made a vessel unto honour, while he who has disdained to cleanse himself from his impurity is made a vessel unto dishonour. From such declarations, in my opinion, the cause of our actions can in no degree be referred to the Creator. For God the Creator makes a certain vessel unto honour, and other vessels to dishonour; but that vessel which has cleansed itself from all impurity He makes a vessel unto honour, while that which has stained itself with the filth of vice He makes a vessel unto dishonour. The conclusion from which, accordingly, is this, that the cause of each one’s actions is a pre-existing one; and then every one, according to his deserts, is made by God either a vessel unto honour or dishonour. Therefore every individual vessel has furnished to its Creator out of itself the causes and occasions of its being formed by Him to be either a vessel unto honour or one unto dishonour. And if the assertion appear correct, as it certainly is, and in harmony with all picty, that it is due to previous causes that every vessel be prepared by God FROM THE GREEK. of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If aman therefore purge himself, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and mect for the Master’s use, and prepared unto every good work;”? for if he who purges himself becomes a vessel unto honour, and he who allows himself to remain unpurged? becomes a vessel unto dishonour, then, so far as these words are concerned, the Creator is not at all to blame. For the Creator makes vessels of honour and vessels of dishonour, not from the beginning according to Ilis foreknowledge,’ since He does not condemn or justify beforehand according to it; but [He makes] those into vessels of honour who purged themselves, and those into vessels of dis- honour who allowed themselves to remain unpurged: so that it results from older causes® [which operated] in the forma- 192 Tim. ii. 20, 21. 2 ciwepixudaoroy Exuroy Teo owy. 3 xcoyywoly. * cpoxnaranoives Y ™podin cso.
Bin wpes2urinoy aiziay, SSE Pa Ls. ——n 3, a, eee, eee eee, ee eee, of Ue so—"nwg_: Crap. 1. | ORIGEN DE PRINCIPIS. 215 FROM THE LATIN. either to honour or to dishonour, it does not appear absurd that, in discussing remoter causes in the same order, and in the same method, we should come to the same conclusion respecting the nature of souls, and [believe] that this was the reason why Jacob was beloved before he was born into this world, and Esau hated, while he still was contained in the womb of his mother.
21. Nay, that very declaration, that from the same lump a vessel is formed both to honour and to dishonour, will not push us hard; for we assert that the nature of all rational souls is the same, as one lump of clay is described as being under the treatment of the potter. Seeing, then, the nature of rational creatures is one, God, according to the previous grounds of merit,’ created and formed out of it, as the potter out of the one lump, some persons to honour and 1 Secundum precedentes meritorum causas.
FROM THE GREEK.
tion of the vessels unto honour and dishonour, that one was created for the former condition, and another for the latter. But if we once admit that there were certain older causes [at work] in the forming of a vessel unto honour, and of one unto dishonour, what absurdity is there in going back to the subject of the soul, and [in supposing] that a more ancient cause for Jacob being loved and for Esau being hated existed with respect to Jacob before his assumption of a body, and with regard to Esau before he was conceived in the womb of Rebecca?
21. And at the same time, it is clearly shown that, as far as regards the underlying nature,’ as there is one [piece of] clay which is under the hands of the potter, from which piece vessels are formed unto honour and dishonour; so the one nature of every soul being in the hands of God, and, so to speak, there being [only] one lump of reasonable beings,” certain causes of more ancient date led to some being created 1 Sao ex TN UToMemen QucEi. 2 Ede Dupearos Tay Aoyixnay UTOTTAOEWD.
216 ORIGEN DE PRINCIPIS. [ Boox 111.
FROM THE LATIN.
others to dishonour. Now, as regards the language of the upostle, which he utters as if in a tone of censure, “ Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?” he means, [I think, to point out that such a censure does not refer to any believer who lives rightly and justly, and who has con- fidence in God, z.e. to such an one as Moses was, of whom Scripture says that “ Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice;”’ and as God answered Moses, so also does every saint answer God. But he who is an unbeliever, and loses confidence in answering before God owing to the unworthi- ness of his life and conversation, and who, in relation to these matters, does not seek to learn and make progress, but to oppose and resist, and who, to speak more plainly, is such an one as to be able to say those words which the apostle indicates, when he says, “ Why, then, does He yet find fault? for who will resist His will?”—to such an one may the censure of the apostle rightly be directed, “ Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?” This censure accordingly Pex, xis. 19.
Pex, xis. 19.
FROM THE GlEEKR. vessels unto honour, and others vessels unto dishonour. But if the language of the apostle convey a censure when he says, “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?” it teaclies us that he who has confidence before God, and is faithful, and has lived virtuously, would not hear the words, “Who art thou that repliest against God?” Such an one, e.g. as Moses was, “ For Moses spake, and God answered him with a voice;”? and as God answers Moses, so does a saint also answer God. But he who does not possess this confidence, manifestly, cither because he has lost it, or be- cause he investigates these matters not from a love of know- ledge, but from a desire to find fault,” and who therefore says, “Why does He yet find fault? for who hath resisted His will?” would merit the language of censure, which says, “ Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?” Now to 1 Cf. Ex. xix. 19. 2 yata Ciroveiniay.
oe eee ee — ee Guar. 1. ] ORIGEN DE PRINCIPIS. 217 FROM THE LATIN. applies not to believers and saints, but to unbelievers and wicked men.
Now, to those who introduce souls of different natures,’ and who turn this declaration of the apostle to the support of their own opinion, we have to reply as follows: If even they are agreed as to what the apostle says, that out of the one lump are formed both those who are made to honour and those who are made to dishonour, whom they term of a nature that is to be saved and destroyed, there will then be no longer souls of different natures, but one nature for all. And if they admit that one and the same potter may un- doubtedly denote one Creator, there will not be different creators cither of those who are saved, or of those who perish. Now, truly, let them choose whether they will have a good Creator to be intended who creates bad and ruined men, or one whi is not good, who creates good men and those who are prepared to honour. For the necessity of returning an answer will extort from them one of these two alternatives. But according to our declaration, whereby we say that it is owing to preceding causes that God makes vessels either to honour or to dishonour, the approval of God’s justice is in no respect limited. Tor it is possible that this vessel, which 1 Diversas animaruia naturas.
FROM THE GREEK. those who introduce different natures, and who make use of the declaration of the apostle [to support their view], the following must be our answer. If they maintain’ that those who perish and those who are saved are formed of one lum), and that the Creator of those who are saved is the Creator also of them who are lost, and if He is good who creates not only spiritual but also earthy [natures] (for this follows from their view), it is nevertheless possible that he who, in conse- quence of certain former acts of righteousness,” had now been made a vessel of honour, but who had not [afterwards] acted in a similar manner, nor done things befitting a vessel of 1 a ie gulaues. ix WpeTicay Tivo xarootawsruy 218 ORIGEN DE PRINCIPIIS. [Book ir.
FROM THE LATIN. owing to previous causes was made in this world to honour, may, if it behave negligently, be converted in another world, according to the deserts of its conduct, into a vessel unto dishonour: as again, if any one, owing to preceding causes, was formed by his Creator in this life a vessel unto dishonour, and shall mend his ways and cleanse himself from all filth and vice, he may, in the new world, be made a vessel to honour, sanctified and useful, and prepared unto every good work. Finally, those who were formed by God in this world to be Israelites, and who have lived a life unworthy of the nobility of their race, and have fallen away from the grandeur of their descent, will, in the world to come, in a certain degree’ be converted, on account of their unbelief, from vessels of honour into vessels of dishonour; while, on the other hand, many who in this life were reckoned among Egyptian or Idumean vessels, having adopted the faith and practice of Israelites, when they shall have done the works of Israelites, and shall have entered the church of the Lord, will exist as vessels of honour in the revelation of the sons of God. From which it is more agreeable to the rule of piety to believe that every rational being, according to his purpose and manner of life, is converted, sometimes from bad to good, and falls away sometimes from good to bad: that some 1 Quodammodo.
1 Quodammodo.
FROM THE GREEK. honour, was converted in another world into a vessel of dis- honour; as, on the other hand, it is possible that he who, owing to causes more ancient than the present life, was here a vessel of dishonour, may after reformation become in the new creation “a vessel of honour, sanctified and meet for the Master’s use, prepared unto every good work.” And perhaps those who are now Israclites, not having lived worthily of their descent, will be deprived of their rank, being changed, as it were, from vessels of honour into those of dishonour; and many of the present Egyptians and Idumeans who came near to Israel, when they shall have borne fruit to a larger oe a ~ eee, 98 ee. pee ee ee e.g F ee oe _ Cuap. 1. ] ORIGEN DE PRINCIPIIS. 219 FROM THE LATIN. abide in good, and others advance to a better condition, and always ascend to higher things, until they reach the highest grade of all; while others, again, remain in evil, or, if the wickedness within them begin to spread itself further, they descend to a worse condition, and sink into the lowest depth of wickedness. Whence also we must suppose that it is pos- sible there may be some who began at first indeed with small offences, but who have poured out wickedness to such a degree, and attained such proficiency in evil, that in the measure of their wickedness they are equal even to the opposing powers: and again, if, by means of many severe administrations of punishment, they are able at some future time to recover their senses, and gradually attempt to find healing for their wounds, they may, on ceasing from their wickedness, be restored to a state of goodness. Whence we are of opinion that, seeing the soul, as we have frequently said, is immortal and eternal, it is possible that, in the many and endless periods of duration in the immeasurable and different worlds, it may descend from the highest good to the lowest evil, or be restored from the lowest evil to the highest good.
22. But since the words of the apostle, in what he says regarding vessels of honour or dishonour, that “if a man therefore purge himself, he will bea vessel unto honour, sanc- FROM TITE GREEK.
extent, shall enter into the church of the Lord, being no longer accounted Egyptians and Idumeans, but becoming Israelites: so that, according to this view, it is owing to their { varying] purposes that some advance from a worse to a better condition, and others fall from better to worse; while others, again, are preserved in a virtuous course, or ascend from good to better; and others, on the contrary, remain in a course of evil, or from bad become worse, as their wickedness flows on.
22. But since the apostle in one place does not pretend that the becoming of a vessel unto honour or dishonour depends upon God, but refers back the whole to ourselves, saying, “If, then, a man purge himself, he will be a vessel 220 ORIGEN DE PRINCIPHS. — [Book ut.
FROM THE LATIN. tified and meet for the Master’s service, and prepared unto every good work,” appear to place nothing in the power of God, but all in ourselves; while in those in which he declares that “the potter hath power over the clay, to make of the same lump one vessel to honour, another to dishonour,” he seems to refer the whole to God,—it is not to be understood that those statements are contradictory, but the two meanings are to be reduced to agreement, and one signification must be drawn from both, viz. that we are not to suppose either that those things which are in our own power can be done without the help of God, or that those which are in God’s hand can be brought to completion without the intervention of our acts, and desires, and intention; because we have it not in our own power so to will or do anything, as not to know that this very faculty, by which we are able to will or to do, was bestowed on us by God, according to the distinc- tion which we indicated above. Or again, when God forms vessels, some to honour and others to dishonour, we are to FROM THE GREEK. unto honour, sanctified, meet for the Master’s use, and pre- pared unto every good work;” and elsewhere does not even pretend that it is dependent upon ourselves, but appears to attribute the whole to God, saying, “ The potter hath power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another to dishonour;” and as his statements are not contradictory, we must reconcile them, and extract one complete statement from both. Neither does our own power, apart from the knowledge? of God, compel us to make pro- «ress; nor does the knowledge of God [do so], unless we our- selves also contribute something to the good result; nor docs our own power, apart from the knowledge of God, and the use of the power that worthily belongs to us,” make a man Lroeg’ nuiv. 2 isistgun; probably in the sense of roavywuse. 3 ris matayoyocus TOV zat aziev tov ED zuiv. “Nec sineusu liben nostri arbitrii, quod peculiare nobis et meriti nostri est” (Redepenning).
Cuap. 1. ] ORIGIN DE PRINCIPIIS. 221 FROM THE LATIN.
suppose that He does not regard either our wills, or our pur- poses, or our deserts, to be the causes of the honour or dis- honour, as if they were a sort of matter from which He may form the vessel of each one of us either to honour or to dis- honour; whereas the very movement of the soul itself, or the purpose of the understanding, may of itself suggest to him, who is not unaware of his heart and the thoughts of his mind, whether his vessel ought to be formed to honour or to dis- honour. But let these points suffice, which we have discussed as we best could, regarding the questions connected with the freedom of the will.
FLOM THE GREEK.
become [a vessel] unto honour or dishonour; nor does the will of God alone’ form a man to honour or dishonour, unless He hold our will to be a kind of matter that admits of varia- tion,” and that inclines to a better or worse course of conduct. And these observations are sufficient to have been made by us on the subject of free-will.
1 Gore Tov Emi Ta Osw pecuoy. 2 uAny Tine O1aQopas.
222 ORIGEN DE PRINCIPIIS. [Book 111.
CHAPTER II. ON THE OPPOSING POWERS.
1. WE have now to notice, agreeably to the statements of Scripture, how the opposing powers, or the devil himself, contends with the human race, inciting and instigating men tosin. And in the first place, in the book of Genesis,’ the serpent is described as having seduced Eve; regarding whom, in the work entitled The Ascension of Moses? (a little treatise, of which the Apostle Jude makes mention in his epistle), the archangel Michael, when disputing with the devil regarding the body of Moses, says that the serpent, being inspired by the devil, was the cause of Adam and Eve’s transgression. This also is made a subject of inquiry by some, viz. who the angel was that, speaking from heaven to Abraham, said, “ Now I know that thou fearest God, and on my account hast not spared thy beloved son, whom thou lovedst.”* For he is manifestly described as an angel who said that he knew then that Abraham feared God, and had not spared his beloved son, as the Scripture declares, although he did not say that it was on account of God that Abraham had done this, but on his, that is, the speaker's account. We must also ascertain who that is of whom it is stated in the book of Exodus that he wished to slay Moses, because he was taking his departure for Egypt;* and after- 1 Gen. iii.