rtions. In some of Origen's teachings
a modalistic aspect is also not quite wanting. See Hom. VIII. in Jerem.
no. 2: [Greek: To men hupokeimenon hen esti, tais de epinoiais ta polla
onomata epi diaphoron]. Conversely, it is also nothing but an appearance
when Origen (for ex. in c. Cels. VIII. 12) merely traces the unity of
Father and Son to unity in feeling and in will. The charge of Ebionitism
made against him is quite unfounded (see Pamphili Apol., Routh IV. p.
367).]

[Footnote 737: [Greek: Ouk estin ote ouk en], de princip. I. 2. 9; in
Rom. I. 5.]

[Footnote 738: [Greek: Peri archon] I. 2. 2-9. Comm. in ep. ad. Hebr.
Lomm. V., p. 296: "Nunquam est, quando filius non fuit. Erat autem non,
sicut de aeterna luce diximus, innatus, ne duo principia lucis videamur
inducere, sed sicut ingenitae lucis splendor, ipsam illam lucem initium
habens ac fontem, natus quidem ex ipsa; sed non erat quando noa erat."
See the comprehensive disquisition in [Greek: peri archon] IV. 28, where
we find the sentence: "hoc autem ipsum, quod dicimus, quia nunquam fuit,
quando non fuit, cum venia audiendum est" etc. See further in Jerem. IX.
4, Lomm. XV., p. 212: [Greek: to apaugasma tes doxes ouchi hapax
gegennetai, kai ouchi gennatai ... kai aei gennatai ho soter hupo tou
patros]; see also other passages.]

[Footnote 739: See Caspari, Quellen, Vol. IV., p. 10.]

[Footnote 740: In [Greek: peri archon] IV. 28 the _prolatio_ is
expressly rejected (see also I. 2, 4) as well as the "conversio partis
alicuius substantiae dei in filium" and the "procreatio ex nullis
substantibus."]

[Footnote 741: L.c. I. 2. 2].

[Footnote 742: L.c. I. 2. 3].

[Footnote 743: De orat. 15: [Greek: Eteros kat' ousian kai hupokeimenon
ho huios esti tou patros]. This, however, is not meant to designate a
deity of a hybrid nature, but to mark the parsonal distinction.]

[Footnote 744: C. Cels. VIII. 12.: [Greek: duo te hypostasei pragmata].
This was frequently urged against the Monarchians in Origen's
commentaries; see in Joh. X. 21: II. 6 etc. The Son exists [Greek: kat'
idian tes ousias perigraphen]. Not that Origen has not yet the later
terminology [Greek: ousia, hypostasis, hypokeimenon, prosopon]. We find
three hypostases in Joh. II. 6. Lomm. I., p. 109, and this is repeatedly
the case in c. Cels.]

[Footnote 745: In Joh. I. 22, Lomm. I., p. 41 sq.: [Greek: ho Theos men
oun pante hen esti kai aploun ho de soter hemon dia ta polla]. The Son
is [Greek: idea