ormer point of view fails, because the content of the text is
offensive; in that case it is only the second that applies. Origen
therefore was very far from finding the literal content of Scripture
edifying in every instance, indeed, in the highest sense, the letter is
not edifying at all. He rather adopted, to its widest extent, the
critical method employed by the Gnostics particularly when dealing with
the Old Testament; but the distinction he made between the different
senses of Scripture and between the various legitimate human needs
enabled him to preserve both the unity of God and the harmony of
revelation. Herein, both in this case and everywhere else, lies the
superiority of his theology. Read especially c. Celsum I. 9-12. After
appealing to the twofold religion among the Egyptians, Persians,
Syrians, and Indians--the mythical religion of the multitude and the
mystery-religion of the initiated--he lays down exactly the same
distinction within Christianity, and thus repels the reproach of Celsus
that the Christians were obliged to accept everything without
examination. With regard to the mythical form of Christianity he merely
claims that it is the most suitable among religions of this type. Since,
as a matter of fact, the great majority of men have neither time nor
talent for philosophy, [Greek: poia an alle beltion methodos pros to
tois pollois boethesai heuretheie, tes apo tou Iesou tois ethnesi
paradotheises] (l.c., 9). This thought is quite in the spirit of
antiquity, and neither Celsus nor Porphyry could have any fault to find
with these arguments in point of form: all positive religions have a
mythical element; the true religion therefore lies behind the religions.
But the novelty which neither Celsus nor Porphyry could recognise lies
in the acknowledgment that the one religion, even in its mythical form,
is unique and divine, and in the demand that all men, so far as they
cannot attain the highest knowledge, must subject themselves to this
mythical religion and no other. In this claim Origen rejected the
ancient contrast between the multitude and the initiated just as he
repudiated polytheism; and in this, if I see rightly, his historical
greatness consists. He everywhere recognised gradations tending in the
same direction and rejected polytheism.]

[Footnote 700: Bigg (l.c., p. 154) has rightly remarked: "Origen in
point of method differs most from Clement, who not unfrequently leaves
us in doubt as to t