73. Origen, too, in many of his expositions of the Psalms, we find using the form of doxology “  with the Holy Ghost.” The opinions which he held concerning the Spirit were not always and everywhere sound; nevertheless in many passages even he himself reverently recognises the force of established usage, and expresses himself concerning the Spirit in terms consistent with true religion. It is, if I am not mistaken, in the Sixth  14  The quotation is from the Eighth Book. Book of his  Commentary on the Gospel of St. John that he distinctly makes the Spirit an object of worship. His words are:—“The washing or water is a symbol of the cleaning of the soul which is washed clean of all filth that comes of wickedness;  15  cf. 1 Pet. iii. 21. but none the less is it also by itself, to him who yields himself to the God-head of the adorable Trinity, through the power of the invocations, the origin and source of blessings.” And again, in his  Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans “the holy powers,” he says “are able to receive the Only-begotten, and the Godhead of the Holy Spirit.” Thus I apprehend, the powerful influence of tradition frequently impels men to express themselves in terms contradictory to their own opinions.  16  As to Origen’s unorthodoxy concerning the Holy Spirit St. Basil may have had in his mind such a passage as the following from the First Book of the De Principiis, extant in the original in Justinian, Ep. ad Mennam. Migne, Pat. Gr. xi. p. 150. ὅτι ὁ μὲν θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ συνέχων τὰ πάντα φθάνει εἰς εκαστον τῶν ὄντων μεταδιδοὺς ἑκάστῳ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἰδίου τὸ εἶναι· ὢν γὰρ ἔστιν· ἐλάττων δὲ παρὰ τὸν πατέρα ὁ Υἱ& 232·ς φθάνει ἐπὶ μόνα τὰ λογικά· δεύτερος γάρ ἐστι τοῦ πατρός· ἔτι δὲ ἧττον τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐπὶ μόνους τοὺς ἁγίους διικνούμενον· ὥστε κατὰ τοῦτο μείζων ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Πατρὸς παρὰ τὸν Υἱ& 232·ν καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον πλείων δὲ ἡ τοῦ Υἱοῦ παρὰ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον The work does not even exist as a whole in the translation of Rufinus, who omitted portions, and St. Jerome thought that Rufinus had misrepresented it. Photius (Biblioth. cod. viii.) says that Origen, in asserting in this work that the Son was made by the Father and the Spirit by the Son, is most blasphemous. Bp. Harold Browne, however (Exposition of the xxxix. Art. p. 113, n. 1), is of opinion that if Rufinus fairly translated the following passage, Origen cannot have been fairly charged with heresy concerning the Holy Ghost: “Ne quis sane existimet nos ex eo quod diximus Spiritum sanctum solis sanctis præstari. Patris vero et Filii beneficia vel inoperationes pervenire ad bonos et malos, justos et injustos, prœtulisse per hoc Patri et Filio Spiritum Sanctum, vel majorem ejus per hoc asserere dignitatem; quod utique valde inconsequens est. Proprietatem namque gratiæ ejus operisque descripsimus. Porro autem nihil in Trinitate majus minusve dicendum est, quum unius Divinitatis Fons verbo ac ratione sua teneat universa, spiritu vero oris sui quæ digna sunt, sanctificatione sanctificet, sicut in Psalmo scriptum est verbo domini cœli firmati sunt et spiritu oris ejus omnis virtus eorum.” De Princ. I. iii. 7. On the obligations of both Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus to Origen, cf. Socrates iv. 26. Moreover this form of the doxology was not unknown even to Africanus the historian. In the Fifth Book of his  Epitome of the Times he says “we who know the weight of those terms, and are not ignorant of the grace of faith, render thanks to the Father, who bestowed on us His own creatures, Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world and our Lord, to whom be glory and majesty with the Holy Ghost, for ever.”  17  Of the chief writings of Julius Africanus (called Sextus Africanus by Suidas), who wrote at Emmaus and Alexandria c. 220, only fragments remain. A Letter to Origen is complete. His principal work was a Chronicon from the Creation to a.d. 221, in Five Books. Of this Dr. Salmon (D.C.B. i. 56) thinks the doxology quoted by Basil was the conclusion. The rest of the passages may peradventure be viewed with suspicion; or may really have been altered, and the fact of their having been tampered with will be difficult to detect because the difference consists in a single syllable. Those however which I have quoted at length are out of the reach of any dishonest manipulation, and can easily be verified from the actual works.

I will now adduce another piece of evidence which might perhaps seem insignificant, but because of its antiquity must in nowise be omitted by a defendant who is indicted on a charge of innovation. It seemed fitting to our fathers not to receive the gift of the light at eventide in silence, but, on its appearing, immediately to give thanks. Who was the author of these words of thanksgiving at the lighting of the lamps, we are not able to say. The people, however, utter the ancient form, and no one has ever reckoned guilty of impiety those who say “We praise Father, Son, and God’s Holy Spirit.”  18  Ps. cxli. was called ὁ ἐπιλύχνιος ψαλμός (Ap. Const. viii. 35). In the Vespers of the Eastern Church an evening hymn is sung, translated in D.C.A. i. 634, “Joyful Light of the holy glory of the immortal Father, the heavenly, the holy, the blessed Jesus Christ, we having come to the setting of the sun and beholding the evening light, praise God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It is meet at all times that thou shouldest be hymned with auspicious voices, Son of God, Giver of Life: wherefore the world glorifieth thee.” And if any one knows the Hymn of Athenogenes,  19  Identified by some with two early hymns, Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις, and φῶς ἱλαρόν. which, as he was hurrying on to his perfecting by fire, he left as a kind of farewell gift  20  The mss. vary between ἐξιτήριον and ἀλεξιτήριον, farewell gift and amulet or charm. In Ep. cciii. 299 Basil says that our Lord gave His disciples peace as an ἐξιτήριον δῶρον, using the word, but in conjunction with δῶρον. Greg. Naz., Orat. xiv. 223 speaks of our Lord leaving peace “ὥσπερ ἄλλο τι ἐξιτήριον.” to his friends, he knows the mind of the martyrs as to the Spirit. On this head I shall say no more.

[73] Ἤδη δὲ καὶ Ὠριγένην ἐν πολλαῖς τῶν εἰς τοὺς ψαλμοὺς διαλέξεων εὕρομεν, σὺν τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι τὴν δόξαν ἀποδιδόντα, ἄνδρα οὐδὲ πάνυ τι ὑγιεῖς περὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος τὰς ὑπολήψεις ἐν πᾶσιν ἔχοντα: πλὴν ἀλλὰ πολλαχοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς τῆς συνηθείας τὸ ἰσχυρὸν δυσωπούμενος, τὰς εὐσεβεῖς φωνὰς ἀφῆκε περὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος. Ὅς γε κατὰ τὸ ἕκτον οἶμαι τῶν εἰς τὸ κατὰ Ἰωάννην Εὐαγγέλιον ἐξηγητικῶν, καὶ προσκυνητὸν αὐτὸ φανερῶς ἀπεφήνατο, οὑτωσὶ γράφων κατὰ λέξιν: «Ὅτι τὸ τοῦ ὕδατος λουτρὸν σύμβολον τυγχάνει καθαρσίου ψυχῆς, πάντα ῥύπον τὸν ἀπὸ κακίας ἀποπλυνομένης: οὐδὲν δὲ ἧττον καὶ καθ' ἑαυτὸ τῷ ἐμπαρέχοντι ἑαυτὸν τῇ θεότητι τῆς προσκυνητῆς Τριάδος, διὰ τῆς δυνάμεως τῶν ἐπικλήσεων, χαρισμάτων ἀρχὴν ἔχει καὶ πηγήν.» Καὶ πάλιν ἐν τοῖς εἰς τὴν πρὸς Ῥωμαίους ἐπιστολὴν ἐξηγητικοῖς: «Αἱ ἱεραί, φησί, δυνάμεις χωρητικαὶ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς καὶ τῆς τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος θεότητος». Οὕτως, οἶμαι, τὸ τῆς παραδόσεως ἰσχυρὸν ἐνῆγε πολλάκις τοὺς ἄνδρας καὶ τοῖς οἰκείοις αὐτῶν δόγμασιν ἀντιλέγειν. Ἀλλ' οὐδὲ Ἀφρικανὸν τὸν ἱστοριογράφον τὸ τοιοῦτον εἶδος τῆς δοξολογίας παρέλαθε. Φαίνεται γὰρ ἐν τῷ πέμπτῳ τῆς τῶν χρόνων Ἐπιτομῆς, οὕτω καὶ αὐτὸς λέγων: «Ἡμεῖς γὰρ οἱ κἀκείνων τῶν ῥημάτων τὸ μέτρον ἐπιστάμενοι καὶ τῆς πίστεως οὐκ ἀγνοοῦντες τὴν χάριν, εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ παρασχομένῳ τοῖς ἰδίοις ἡμῖν Πατρὶ τὸν τῶν ὅλων Σωτῆρα καὶ Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν: ᾧ ἡ δόξα, μεγαλωσύνη σὺν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.» Τὰ μὲν οὖν ἄλλα τυχὸν καὶ ἀπιστηθῆναι δύναται, ἢ καὶ μεταγραφέντα δυσφώρατον ἔχειν τὴν κακουργίαν, ἐν μιᾷ συλλαβῇ τῆς διαφορᾶς ὑπαρχούσης: ἃ δὲ διὰ μακροτέρας τῆς λέξεως παρεθέμεθα, καὶ τὴν ἐπιβουλὴν διαφεύγει, καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἀπ' αὐτῶν τῶν συγγραμμάτων εὐαπόδεικτον ἔχει. Ὃ δὲ ἄλλως μὲν ἴσως μικροπρεπὲς ἦν εἰς μέσον ἄγεσθαι, τῷ δὲ καινοτομίαν ἐγκαλουμένῳ ἀναγκαῖον εἰς μαρτυρίαν διὰ τοῦ χρόνου τὴν ἀρχαιότητα, τοῦτο δὴ καὶ προσθήσω. Ἔδοξε τοῖς πατράσιν ἡμῶν μὴ σιωπῇ τὴν χάριν τοῦ ἑσπερινοῦ φωτὸς δέχεσθαι: ἀλλ' εὐθὺς φανέντος εὐχαριστεῖν. Καὶ ὅστις μὲν ὁ πατὴρ τῶν ῥημάτων ἐκείνων τῆς ἐπιλυχνίου εὐχαριστίας, εἰπεῖν οὐκ ἔχομεν: ὁ μέντοι λαὸς ἀρχαίαν ἀφίησι τὴν φωνὴν, καὶ οὐδενὶ πώποτε ἀσεβεῖν ἐνομίσθησαν οἱ λέγοντες: «Αἰνοῦμεν Πατέρα καὶ Υἱὸν καὶ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ.» Εἰ δέ τις καὶ τὸν ὕμνον Ἀθηνογένους ἔγνω, ὃν ὥσπερ ἄλλο τι ἐξιτήριον τοῖς συνοῦσιν αὐτῷ καταλέλοιπεν, ὁρμῶν ἤδη πρὸς τὴν διὰ πυρὸς τελείωσιν, οἶδε καὶ τὴν τῶν μαρτύρων γνώμην ὅπως εἶχον περὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος. Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν εἰς τοσοῦτον.