To the doctrine of the Atonement continual references are made.
The recognition is not less distinct, both by Celsus, and Origen, of the doctrine of Justification by Faith, as the opinion of the early Christians. “You tell sinners,” says Celsus, “not to examine, but believe; and their faith will save them.” { 43b} This is precisely the language in which an uncandid opponent might be expected to state that doctrine. A more patient examination of the system would have taught him, that “examine yourselves,” { 43c} and “search the Scriptures,” { 43d} were lessons taught by the same Master who insisted upon the efficacy of a true and living faith.
There are two doctrines, original sin, and the eternity of punishment, as to one of which the language of Origen is contradictory, and as to the other it is heterodox.
On the doctrine of original sin, he asserts, in one place, “that no soul came vicious from the hands of God, { 44a} but that many persons so corrupt themselves by bad education, or example, or advice, that sin becomes as it were natural; but that it is not very difficult, much less impossible to conquer this, corruption by the word of God.” In the latter clause he supposes the assistance of the Spirit of God, because he elsewhere says, “We cannot give ourselves a pure heart, without the help of the Holy Spirit: { 44b} we must therefore pray, Create in me a new heart, O God.” { 44c} He acknowledges in another place that Adam sinned, and that we, in our bodies, { 44d} are naturally prone to sin by our descent from him. Celsus states the doctrine after the manner of the Fatalists; asserting an original bias to evil, and accounting that bias to be insurmountable.
The language of Origen as to the doctrine of future punishments is so obscure, as to make it difficult to determine what were his opinions. He seems however, in general to speak the language { 45} of Plato, upon a state of future existence, rather than that of Christ; and to furnish a convenient basis for the doctrine of purgatory, which the Church of Rome afterwards introduced among the credenda of Christianity. Although he distinctly states his own opinion upon this subject, yet he treats it with a caution almost amounting to suspicion, as to its practical consequences. This proves to us two things. First, That a belief of the eternity of future punishment was generally held by the Christians, or he would have stated his own opinion without reserve. Secondly, That Origen in some measure apprehended that the doctrine on this subject which he held, was not consistent in its operation with that gospel, which teaches that, “denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present life.” { 46a} Could he fear this and yet be firmly convinced of the truth of his own doctrines? Could he believe that the different parts of Christianity had an opposite tendency—that its Almighty framer would pull down with one arm what he erected with the other. It is remarkable that we learn from Celsus, what Origen as to this point might not have taught us; that the eternity of punishments was the common faith of the Christian Church. His words are, “They (the Christians) persuade themselves that the good, { 46b} after this life, shall be happy, the wicked shall be plunged into everlasting wretchedness: from which opinion, neither let them, nor any other mortal depart.”
