Jerome informs us that Tertullian, whose remains we have last examined,
lived to a very advanced age. Long, therefore, before his death
flourished Origen, one of the most celebrated lights of the primitive
Church. He was educated a Christian. Indeed his father is said to have
suffered martyrdom about the year 202. Origen was a pupil of Clement of
Alexandria. His virtues and his labours have called forth the admiration
of all ages; and though he cannot be implicitly followed as a teacher,
what still remains of his works will be delivered down as a rich
treasure to succeeding times. He was a most voluminous writer; and
Jerome asked the members of his church, "Who is there among us that can
read as many books as Origen has composed?" [Vol. iv. epist. xli. p.
346.] A large proportion of his works are lost; and of those which
remain, few are preserved in the original Greek. We are often obliged to
study Origen through the medium of a translation, the accuracy of which
we have no means of verifying. A difficult and delicate duty also
devolves upon the theological student to determine which of the works
attributed to Origen are genuine and which are spurious; and what parts,
moreover, of the works received on the whole as genuine came from his
pen. Of {134} the spurious works, some are so palpably written in a much
later age, and by authors of different religious views, that no one,
after weighing the evidence, can be at a loss what decision to make
concerning them; in the case of others, claims and objections may appear
to be more evenly balanced. I trust on the one hand to refer to no works
for Origen's testimony which are not confessedly his, nor on the other
to exclude any passage which is not decidedly spurious; whilst in one
particular case more immediately connected with our subject, I am
induced to enter further in detail into a critical examination of the
genuineness and value of a passage than the character of this work
generally requires. The great importance attached to the testimony of
that passage by some defenders of the worship paid to angels, may be
admitted to justify the fulness of the criticism. Lest, however, its
insertion in the body of the work might seem inconveniently to interfere
with the reader's progress in our argument, I have thought it best to
include it in a supplementary section at the close of our inquiry into
the evidence of Origen.
Coccius, in his elaborate work, quotes the two following passages as
Origen's, without expressing any hesitation or doubt respecting their
genuineness, in which he is followed by writers of the present day. The
passages are alleged in proof that Origen held and put in practice the
doctrine of the invocation of saints; and they form the first quotations
made by Coccius under the section headed by this title: "That the saints
are to be invoked, proved by the testimony of the Greek Fathers."
The first passage is couched in these words: "I will {135} begin to
throw myself upon my knees, and pray to all the saints to come to my
aid; for I do not dare, in consequence of my excess of wickedness, to
call upon God. O Saints of God, you I pray with weeping full of grief,
that ye would propitiate his mercies for me miserable. Alas me! Father
Abraham, pray for me, that I be not driven from thy bosom, which I
greatly long for, and yet not worthily, because of the greatness of my
sins."
Coccius cites this passage as from "Origen in Lament," and it has been
recently appealed to under the title of "Origen on the Lamentations."
Here, however, is a very great mistake. Origen's work on the
Lamentations, called also "Selecta in Threnos," and inserted in the
Benedictine edition (Vol. iii. p. 321.), is entirely a different
production from the work which contains the above extract. This
apocryphal work, on the other hand, does not profess to be the comment
of Origen on the Lamentations, but the Lament or Wailing of Origen
himself; or, as it used to be called, the Penitence of Origen. (In the
Paris edition of 1519 it is called "Planctus, seu Lamentum Origenis."
Pope Gelasius refers to it as "Poenitentia Origenis.") That this work
has no pretensions whatever to be regarded as Origen's, has been long
placed beyond doubt. Even in the edition of 1545, this treatise is
prefaced by Erasmus in these words, "This Lamentation was neither
written by Origen nor translated by Jerome, but is the fiction of some
unlearned man, who attempted, under colour of this, to throw disgrace
upon Origen." [Basil, 1545. vol. i. p. 498.] In the Benedictine edition
(Paris, 1733.) no trace of this work is to be found. They do not admit
it among the doubtful, or even the spurious works; they do not so {136}
much as give room for it in the appendix; on the contrary, they drop it
altogether as utterly unworthy of being any longer preserved. Instead,
however, of admitting the work itself, these editors have supplied
abundant reason for its exclusion, by inserting the sentiments of
Huetius, or Huet, the very learned bishop of Avranches. He tells us,
that formerly to Origen's work on Principles used to be appended a
treatise called, the Lament of Origen, the Latin translation of which
Guido referred to Jerome. After quoting the passage of Erasmus (as above
cited from the edition of 1545) in proof of its having been "neither
written by Origen nor translated by Jerome, but the fabrication of some
unlearned man, who attempted, under colour of this, to throw disgrace on
Origen, just as they forged a letter in Jerome's name, lamenting that he
had ever thought with Origen," Huet proceeds thus: "And Gelasius in the
Roman Council writes, 'The book which is called The Repentance of
Origen, apocryphal.' It is wonderful, therefore, that without any mark
of its false character, it should be sometimes cited by some theologians
in evidence. Here we may smile at the supineness of a certain heterodox
man of the present age, who thought the 'Lament,' ascribed to Origen, to
be something different from the Book of Repentance." [Vol. iv. part ii.
p. 326.]
The Decree here referred to of Pope Gelasius, made in the Roman Council,
A.D. 494, by that pontiff, in conjunction with seventy bishops, contains
these strong expressions, before enumerating some few of the books then
condemned: "Other works written by heretics and schismatics, the
Catholic and Apostolic Church by {137} no means receives; of them we
think it right to subjoin a few which have occurred to our memory, and
are to be avoided by Catholics." [Conc. Labb. vol. iv. p. 1265.] Then
follows a list of prohibited works, among which we read, "the book
called The Repentance of Origen, apocryphal," the very book which Huet
identifies with the "Lament of Origen," still cited as evidence even in
the present day. (See Appendix A.)
The second passage cited by Coccius, and also by writers of the present
time, as Origen's, without any allusion to its spurious and apocryphal
character, is from the second book of the work called Origen on Job. The
words cited run thus: "O blessed Job, who art living for ever with God,
and remainest conqueror in the sight of the Lord the King, pray for us
wretched, that the mercy of the terrible God may protect us in all our
afflictions, and deliver us from all oppressions of the wicked one; and
number us with the just, and enrol us among those who are saved, and
make us rest with them in his kingdom, where for ever with the saints we
may magnify him."
This work, like the former, has no claim whatever to be regarded as
Origen's. It has long been discarded by the learned. Indeed so far back
as 1545, Erasmus, in his Censura, proved that it was written long after
the time of Origen by an Arian. (Basil, 1545. vol. i. p. 408; and
"Censura.") By the Benedictine editors it is transferred to an appendix
as the Commentary of an anonymous writer on Job; and they thus express
their judgment as to its being a forgery: "The Commentary of an
anonymous writer on Job, in previous editions, is ascribed to Origen;
{138} but that it is not his, Huet proves by unconquerable arguments.
This translation is assigned to Hilary, the bishop; but although it is
clear from various proofs of Jerome, that St. Hilary translated the
tracts or homilies of Origen on Job, yet there is no reason why that man
who wrote with the highest praise against the Arians, should be
considered as the translator of this work, which is infected with the
corruption of Arianism, and which is not Origen's." [Vol. ii. p. 894.]
Erasmus calls the prologue to this treatise on Job "the production of a
silly talkative man, neither learned nor modest."
It is impossible not to feel, with regard to these two works, the
sentiments which, as we have already seen, the Bishop of Avranches has
so strongly expressed on one. "It is wonderful, that they should be
sometimes cited in evidence by some theologians, without any mark of
their being forgeries."
Proceeding with our examination of the sentiments of Origen, I would
here premise, that not the smallest doubt can be entertained that Origen
believed the angels to be ministering spirits, real, active, zealous
workmen and fellow-labourers with us in the momentous and awful business
of our eternal salvation. He represents the angels as members of the
same family with ourselves, as worshippers of the same God, as servants
of the same master, as children of the same father, as disciples of the
same heavenly teacher, as learners of one and the same heavenly
doctrine. He contemplates them as members of our Christian
congregations, as joining with us in prayer to our heavenly Benefactor,
as taking pleasure when they hear in our {139} assemblies what is
agreeable to the will of God, and as being present too not only
generally in the Christian Church, but also with individual members of
it[50]. But does Origen, therefore, countenance any invocation of them?
Let us appeal to himself.
[Footnote 50: One or two references will supply abundant proof
of this: "I do not doubt that in our congregation angels are
present, not only in general to the whole Church, but also
individually with those of whom it is said, 'Their angels do
always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.' A twofold
Church is here: one of men, the other of angels. If we say any
thing agreeably to reason and the mind of Scripture, the angels
rejoice to pray with us." And a little above, "Our Saviour,
therefore, as well as the Holy Spirit, who spoke by the
prophets, instructs not only men, but angels and invisible
powers."--Hom, xxiii. in Luc. vol. iii. p. 961.
"Whoever, therefore, confessing his sins, repents, or confesses
Christ before men in persecutions, is applauded by his brethren.
For there is joy and gladness to the angels in heaven over one
sinner that repenteth. By them, therefore, as by brethren (for
both men and angels are sons of the same Creator and Father)
they are praised."--In Genes. Hom. xvii. p. 110.]
Celsus accused the Christians of being atheists, godless, men without
God, because they would not worship those gods many and lords many, and
those secondary, subordinate, auxiliary, and ministering divinities with
which the heathen mythology abounded: Origen answers, we are not
godless, we are not without an object of our prayer; we pray to God
Almighty alone through the mediation only of his Son.
"We must pray to God alone ([Greek: Mono gar proseukteon to epi pasi
Theo]), who is over all things; and we must pray also to the
only-begotten and first-born of every creature, the Word of God; and we
must implore him as our High Priest to carry our prayer, first coming to
him, to his God and our {140} God, to his Father and the Father of those
who live agreeably to the word of God." [Cont. Cels. § 8. c. xxvi. vol.
i. p. 761.]
But Celsus, in this well representing the weakness and failings of human
nature, still urged on the Christian the necessity, or at all events the
expediency, of conciliating those intermediate beings who executed the
will of the Supreme Being, and might haply have much left at their own
will and discretion to give or to withhold; and therefore the
desirableness of securing their good offices by prayer. To this Origen
answers:
"The one God ([Greek: Hena oun ton epi pasi theon haemin
exenmenisteon])--the God who is over all, is to be propitiated by us,
and to be appeased by prayer; the God who is rendered favourable by
piety and all virtue. But if he (Celsus) is desirous, after the supreme
God, to propitiate some others also, let him bear in mind, that just as
a body in motion is accompanied by the motion of its shadow, so also by
rendering the supreme God favourable, it follows that the person has all
his (God's) friends, angels, souls, spirits, favourable also; for they
sympathize with those who are worthy of God's favour; and not only do
they become kindly affected towards the worthy, but they also join in
their work with those who desire to worship the supreme God; and they
propitiate him, and they pray with us, and supplicate with us; so that
we boldly say, that together with men who on principle prefer the better
part, and pray to God, ten thousands of holy powers join in prayer
UNASKED ([Greek: aklaetoi])," [UNBIDDEN, UNCALLED upon.] [Cont. Cels.
lib. viii. § 64. vol. i. p. 789.]
What an opportunity was here for Origen to have stated, that though
Christians do not call upon demons and the subordinate divinities of
heathenism to aid {141} them, yet that they do call upon the ministering
spirits, the true holy angels, messengers and servants of the most High
God! But whilst speaking of them, and magnifying the blessings derived
to man through their ministry, so far from encouraging us to ask them
for their good offices, his testimony on the contrary is not merely
negative; he positively asserts that when they assist mankind, it is
without any request or prayer from man. Could this come from one who
invoked angels?
Another passage, although it adds little to the evidence of the above
extract, I am unwilling to pass by, because it beautifully illustrates
by the doctrine and practice of Origen the prayer, the only one adopted
by the Anglican Church, offered by the Church to God for the succour and
defence of the holy angels. Speaking of the unsatisfactory slippery road
which they tread, who either depend upon the agency of demons for good,
or are distressed by the fear of evil from them, Origen adds, "How far
better ([Greek: poso Beltion]) were it to commit oneself to God who is
over all, through Him who instructed us in this doctrine, Jesus Christ,
and OF HIM to ask for every aid from the holy angels and the just, that
they may rescue us from the earthly demons." [Cont. Cels. lib. viii. §
60. vol. i. p. 786.]
In the following passage Origen answers the question of Celsus: "If you
Christians admit the existence of angels, tell us what you consider
their nature to be?" [Cont. Cels. lib. v. § 4. p. 579.]
"Come," replies Origen, "let us consider these points. Now we
confessedly say, that the angels are ministering spirits, and sent to
minister on account of those who are to be heirs of salvation; that they
ascend, bearing with them the supplications of men into the most pure
{142} heavenly places of the world; and that they again descend from
thence, bearing to each in proportion to what is appointed by God for
them to minister to the well-doers. And learning that these are, from
their work, called angels ([Greek: aggeloi], messengers, ministers sent
to execute some commission), we find them, because they are divine,
sometimes called even gods in the Holy Scriptures; but not so, as for
any injunction to be given to us to worship and adore, instead of God,
those who minister, and bring to us the things of God. For every request
and prayer, and supplication and thanksgiving, must be sent up to Him
who is God above all, through the High Priest, who is above all angels,
even the living Word of God. And we also make our requests to the Word,
and supplicate Him, and moreover offer our prayer to Him; if we can
understand the difference between the right use and the abuse of prayer.
For it is not reasonable for us to call upon angels, without receiving a
knowledge concerning them which is above man. But supposing the
knowledge concerning them, wonderful and unutterable as it is, had been
received; that very knowledge describing their nature, and those to whom
they are respectively assigned, would not give confidence in praying to
any other than to Him who is sufficient for every thing, God who is
above all, through our Saviour, the Son of God, who is the word, and
wisdom, and the truth, and whatsoever else the writings of the prophets
of God, and the Apostles of Jesus say concerning Him. But for the angels
of God to be favourable to us, and to do all things for us, our
disposition towards God is sufficient; we copy them to the utmost of
human strength, {143} as they copy God. And our conception concerning
his Son, the Word, according to what is come to us, is not opposed to
the more clear conception of the holy angels concerning Him, but is
daily approximating towards it in clearness and perspicuity."
Again, he thus writes: "But Celsus wishes us to dedicate the
first-fruits unto the demons; but we to Him who said, Let the earth
bring forth grass, &c. But to whom we give the first-fruits, to him we
send up also our prayers; having a great High Priest who is entered into
the heavens, Jesus the Son of God; and this confession we hold fast as
long as we live, having God favourable unto us, and his only-begotten
Son being manifested among us, Jesus Christ. But if we wish to have a
multitude favourable unto us, we learn that thousand thousands stand by
Him, and ten thousand thousands minister unto Him; who, regarding those
as kinsfolks and friends who imitate their piety to God, work together
for the salvation of them who call upon God and pray sincerely;
appearing also, and thinking that they ought to listen to them, and as
if upon one watchword to go forth for the benefit and salvation of those
who pray to God, to whom they also pray." [Cont. Cels. lib. viii. § 34.
(Benedict, p. 766.)]
After these multiplied declarations of Origen, not only confessing that
Christians did not pray to the angels, but vindicating them from the
charge of impiety brought against them by their enemies for their
neglect of the worship of angels, is it possible to regard him as a
witness in favour of prayer to angels?
But it has been said that Origen in another passage (Cont. Cels. lib.
viii. § 13. p. 751.) {144} plainly implies, that he would not be
unwilling to discuss the question of some worship being due to angels
and archangels, provided the idea of that worship, and the acts of the
worshippers, were first cleared of all misapprehension. And I would not
that any Catholic, whether in communion with the Church of England or of
Rome, should make any other answer than Origen here gave to Celsus. Let
me speak freely on this point. I should not respect the memory of Origen
as I do, had he taught differently. The word which he uses is the Greek
word "therapeusis," precisely the same word with that which the learned
in medicine now use to describe the means of healing diseases. It is a
word of very wide import. It signifies the care which a physician takes
of his patient; the service paid to a master; the attention given to a
superior; the affectionate attendance of a friend; the allegiance of a
subject; the worship of the Supreme Being. Origen says, Provided Celsus
will specify what kind of "therapeusis" he would wish to be paid to
those angels and archangels whose existence we acknowledge, I am ready
to enter upon the subject with him. This is all he says. And we of the
Anglican Church are ready from our hearts to join him. Call it by what
name we may, we are never backward in acknowledging ourselves bound to
render it. We pay to the angels and archangels, and all the company of
heaven, the homage of respect, and veneration, and love. They are indeed
our fellow-servants; they are, like ourselves, creatures of God's hand;
but they are exalted far above us in nature and in office. By the grace
of God, we would daily endeavour to become less distant from {145} them
in purity, in zeal, in obedience. Origen here speaks not one word of
adoration, of invocation, of prayer. He speaks of a feeling and a
behaviour, which the Greeks called "therapeusis," and which we best
render by "respect, veneration, and love." Far from us be the thought of
lowering the holy angels in the eyes of our fellow-creatures; equally
far from us be the thought of invoking them, of asking them even for
their prayers. They are holy creatures and holy messengers: we will
think and speak of them with reverence, and gratitude, and affection;
but they are creatures and messengers still, and when we think or speak
of the object of prayer, we think and speak solely and exclusively of
God.
With regard to Origen's opinion, as to the invocation of the souls of
saints departed, a very few words will suffice. He clearly records his
opinion that the faithful are still waiting for us, and that till we all
rejoice together, their joy will not be full: he leaves among the
mysteries not to be solved now the question whether the departed can
benefit the human race at all; and he has added reflections, full of
edifying and solemn admonition, which would dissuade his
fellow-believers from placing their confidence in any virtues, or
intercessions, or merits of saints, and in any thing except the mere
mercy of God, through Jesus Christ, and our own individual labour in the
work of the Lord.
In his seventh homily on Leviticus, in a passage partly quoted by
Bellarmin, we read[51]--"Not even the Apostles have yet received their
joy, but even they are waiting, in order that I also may become a
partaker of {146} their joy. For the saints departing hence do not
immediately receive all the rewards of their deserts; but they wait even
for us, though we be delaying and dilatory[52]. For they have not
perfect joy as long as they grieve for our errors, and mourn for our
sins." Then, having quoted the Epistle to the Hebrews, he
proceeds,--"You see, therefore, that Abraham is yet waiting to obtain
those things that are perfect; so is Isaac and Jacob; and so all the
prophets are waiting for us, that they might obtain eternal blessedness
with us. Wherefore, even this mystery is kept, to the last day of
delayed judgment."
[Footnote 51: Vol. ii. p. 222. Nondum enim receperunt lætitiam
suam, ne apostoli quidem, &c. But see Huetius on Origen, lib.
ii. q. 11. No. 10.]
[Footnote 52: He thinks it probable, that the saints departed
feel an interest in the welfare of men on earth. See vol. iv. p.
273.]
Modern Roman Catholic writers tell us, that we must consider Origen here
as only referring to the reunion of the soul with the body; but his
words cannot be so interpreted. The cause of the saints still waiting
for their consummation of bliss, is stated to be the will of God, that
all the faithful should enter upon their full enjoyment of blessedness
together.
Again: it may be asked, whether the following passage could have come
from the pen of one who prayed to the saints, as already reigning with
Christ in heaven.
"But now whether the saints who are removed from the body and are with
Christ, act at all, and labour for us, like the angels who minister to
our salvation; or whether, again, the wicked removed from the body act
at all according to the purpose of their own mind, like the bad angels,
with whom, it is said by Christ, that they will be sent into eternal
fires;--let this too be {147} considered among the secret things of God,
mysteries not to be committed to writing." [Epist. ad Rom. lib. ii.
(Benedict. vol. iv. p. 479.) "Jam vero si etiam," &c.]
In a passage found in Origen's Comment on Ezekiel's text, "Though Noah,
Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver neither son nor
daughter, they should deliver only their own souls by their
righteousness," [Hom. iii. vol. iii. p. 372.] independently of the
testimony borne to the point before us, we read a very interesting and
awakening lesson of general application:--
"First, let us expound the passage agreeably to its plain sense, in
consequence of the ignorance of some who maintain the ideas of their own
mind to be the truth of God, and often say, 'Every one of us will be
able by his prayers to snatch whomsoever he will from hell,' and
introduce iniquity to the Lord; not seeing that the righteousness of the
righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be
upon him; so that each shall die in his own sin, and each live in his
own person. My father being a martyr profits me nothing, if I shall not
live well, and adorn the nobleness of my race,--that is, his testimony
and confession, by which he was glorified in Christ. It profiteth not
the Jews to say, 'We were not born of fornication, we have one father,
the Lord;' and, a little after, 'Abraham is our father.' Whatever they
may say, whatever they will assume, if they have not the faith of
Abraham they make their boast in vain; for they will not be saved on
account of their being children of Abraham. Since, therefore, some have
formed incorrect notions, we have necessarily brought in the plain sense
of the passage as to the letter, saying, Noah, Daniel, and Job will not
rescue sons or daughters; they only will be saved. Let no {149} one of
us put his trust in a just father, a holy mother, chaste brethren.
Blessed is the man who hath his hope in himself, and in the right way.
But to those who place confident trust in the saints, we bring forward
no improper example,--'Cursed is the man whose hope is in man;' and
again, 'Trust ye not in man.' And this also, 'It is good to trust in the
Lord rather than in princes[53].' If we must hope in some object,
leaving all others, let us hope in the Lord, saying, 'Though a host of
men were set against me, yet shall not my heart be afraid.'"
[Footnote 53: These observations may perhaps refer more
especially to the saints still on earth; but they apply to all
helpers, save God alone.]
He finishes the homily thus: "The righteous see three periods; the
present, the period of change when the Lord will judge, and that which
will be after the resurrection,--that is, the eternity of life in heaven
in Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."
Can this confessor of the Christian faith have ever taught his
fellow-believers to plead the merits of the saints, or to pray for their
intercessions? How strongly are the above sentiments contrasted with a
passage in the third of the spurious homilies called In Diversos; the
first clause of which is referred to by Bellarmin, as containing
Origen's approbation of giving honour to the saints[54].
[Footnote 54: I hardly need detain the reader by any proof of
the spuriousness of this passage; the whole work from which it
is taken is rejected altogether by the Benedictine editors:
"Reliqua ejusmodi spuria omittenda censuimus, qualia sunt ...
Homiliæ in diversos;" and they have not allowed a single line of
it to appear in their volumes, not even in the small
character.--Vol. iv. p. 1.]
"The memory of these (the Innocents) is always {149} celebrated, as is
right, in the Churches. These, therefore, since they were unjustly or
impiously put to death in peace and rest, having suffered much for the
name of the Lord, were taken from this world, to remain in the eternal
Church for ever in Christ. But their parents for the merits of their
suffering will receive a worthy recompense of reward from the just and
eternal Lord God." Here we have strongly marked indeed the difference
between Origen himself, and the errors fastened upon him by the design
or ignorance of subsequent times.
Were not his testimony a subject of great moment, I should plead guilty
to having detained my readers too long on Origen; and yet I cannot
dismiss him without first refreshing our minds with the remembrance of
some of his beautiful reflections on a Christian's prayer. We need not
read them with a controversial eye, and they may be profitable to us
all.
"I think, then, (says this early teacher in Christ's school) that when
proceeding to prayer, a Christian will be more readily disposed, and be
in a better tone for the general work of prayer, if he will first tarry
a little, and put himself into the right frame, casting off every
distracting and disturbing thought, and with his best endeavour
recalling to mind the vastness of HIM to whom he is drawing near, and
how unholy a thing it is to approach him with a carelessness and
indifference, and, as it were, contempt; laying aside also every thing
foreign to the subject;--so to come to prayer as one who stretcheth
forth his soul first, before his hands; and lifts up his mind first,
before his eyes, to God; and before he stands up, raising from the
ground the leading [150} principle of his nature, and lifting that up to
the Lord of all. So far casting away all remembrance of evil towards any
of those who may seem to have injured him, as he wishes God not to
remember evil against him, who has himself been guilty, and has
trespassed against many of his neighbours, or in whatever he is
conscious to have done contrary to right reason." [De Oratione, vol. i.
§ 31. p. 267.]
"Having divided prayer into its several parts" (he continues), "I may
bring my work to a close. There are then four parts of prayer requiring
description, which I have found scattered in the Scriptures, all of
which every one should embody in his prayer:--
"First, we must offer glory (doxologies) to the best of our ability in
the opening and commencement of our prayer, to God through Christ who is
glorified with Him in the Holy Spirit, who is praised together. After
this each person should offer general thanksgivings both for the
blessings granted to all, and for those which he has individually
obtained from God. After the thanksgiving, it appears to me right, that
becoming, as it were, a bitter accuser of his own sins to God, he should
petition first of all for a remedy to release him from the habit which
impels him to transgress, and then for remission of the past. And after
the confession, I think he ought in the fourth place, to add a
supplication for great and heavenly things, both individual and
universal, and for his relations and friends. After all, he should close
his prayer with an ascription of glory to God through Christ in the Holy
Ghost." [Sect. 33. p. 271.] {151}
* * * * *
SECTION VI.--SUPPLEMENTARY SECTION ON ORIGEN.
I have above intimated my intention of reserving for a separate section
our examination of a passage ascribed to Origen, in which he is
represented as having invoked an angel to come down from heaven, to
succour him and his fellow-creatures on earth. The passage purports to
be part of Origen's comment on the opening verse of the prophecy of
Ezekiel, "The heavens were opened." After the fullest investigation, and
patient weighing of the whole section, I am fully persuaded, first, that
the passage is an interpolation, never having come from the pen of
Origen; and secondly, that, whoever were its author, it can be regarded
only as an instance of those impassioned apostrophes, which are found in
great variety in the addresses of ancient Christian orators. But since
some of the most respected writers of the Church of Rome have regarded
it as genuine, and deemed it worthy of being cited in evidence, I feel
it incumbent to state at length, for those readers who may desire to
enter at once fully into the question, the reasons on which my judgment
is founded; whilst others, who may perhaps consider the discussion of
the several points here as too great an interruption to the general
argument, may for the present pass this section, and reserve it for
subsequent inquiry.
It will be, in the first place, necessary to quote the whole passage
entire, however long; for the mere extract of that portion which is
cited as Origen's prayer to an {152} angel, might leave a false
impression as to the real merits of the case.
"The heavens are opened. The heavens were closed, and at the coming of
Christ they were opened, IN ORDER THAT THEY BEING LAID OPEN THE HOLY
GHOST MIGHT COME UPON HIM in the appearance of a dove. For he could not
come to us unless he had first descended on one who partook of his own
nature. Jesus ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, he received
gifts for men. He who descended is the same who ascended above all
heavens, that he might fill all things; and he gave some as apostles,
some as prophets, some as evangelists, some as pastors and masters, for
the perfecting of the saints." [Vol. iii. p. 358. Hom. i. in Ezek.]
"[The heavens were opened. It is not enough for one heaven to be opened:
very many are opened, that not from one, but from all, angels may
descend to those who are to be saved; angels who ascended and descended
upon the Son of man, and came to him, and ministered to him. Now the
angels descended because Christ first descended, fearing to descend
before the Lord of all powers and things commanded. But when they saw
the chieftain of the army of heaven dwelling in earthly places, then
they entered through the opened road, following their Lord, and obeying
his will, who distributes them as guardians of those that believe on his
name. Thou yesterday wast under a devil, to-day thou art under an angel.
Do not ye, saith the Lord, despise one of the least of those who are in
the Church? Verily, I say unto you, that their angels through all things
see the face of the Father who is in heaven. The angels attend on thy
salvation; they were granted for the ministry of the Son of God, and
{153} they say among themselves, If he descended, and descended into a
body, if he is clothed in mortal flesh, and endured the cross, and died
for man, why are we resting idle? Why do we spare ourselves? Haste away!
Let all of us angels descend from heaven! Thus also was there a
multitude of the heavenly host praising and blessing God when Christ was
born. All things are full of angels. COME, ANGEL, take up one who by the
word is converted from former error, from the doctrine of demons, from
iniquity speaking on high, and taking him up like a good physician,
cherish him, and instruct him. He is a little child, to-day he is born,
an old man again growing young; and undertake him, granting him the
baptism of the second regeneration; and summon to thyself other
companions of thy ministry, that you all may together train for the
faith those who have been sometime deceived. For there is greater joy in
heaven over one sinner repenting, than over ninety and nine just persons
who need no repentance. Every creature exults, rejoices with, and with
applause addresses those who are to be saved; for the expectation of the
creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. And although
those who have interpolated the apostolical writings are unwilling that
such passages should be in their books as may prove Christ to be the
Creator, yet every creature waiteth for the sons of God when they shall
be freed from sin, when they shall be taken away from the hand of
Zabulon[55], when they shall be regenerated by Christ. But now it is
time that we touch somewhat on the present place. The Prophet sees not a
vision, but visions of God. {154} Why did he see not one, but many
visions? Hear the Lord promising and saying, I have multiplied visions.
8. 'The fifth month.' This was the fifth year of the captivity of king
Joachim. In the thirtieth year of Ezekiel's age, and the fifth of the
captivity of Joachim, the prophet is sent to the Jews. The most merciful
Father did not despise the people, nor leave them a long time
unadmonished. It is the fifth year. How much time intervened? Five years
elapsed since they were captives in bondage.]
(The portion between brackets is what I regard as an interpolation.)
[Footnote 55: This word is frequently used for "Diabolum." Thus
in a hymn used in the Roman ritual on Michaelmas-day we read,
"Michaelem in virtute conterentem Zabulum."]
"Immediately the Holy Spirit descends. He opened the heavens, that they
who were oppressed by the yoke of bondage might see those things which
were seen by the prophet. For when he says, The heavens were opened, in
some measure they see with the eyes of their heart what he had seen even
with the eyes of his flesh."
Now the question is, Can this apostrophe to an angel be admitted as
evidence that Origen held, and in his own person acted upon the doctrine
of the Invocation of Angels?
The nature of the present work precludes us from entering at length on
the broad question, how far we can with safety regard the several
writings which now purport to be translations of Origen's compositions,
as on the whole the works of that early Christian writer. A multitude of
those works which, until almost the middle of the sixteenth century,
were circulated as Origen's, have long been by common consent excluded
from the catalogue of his works[56]. On this subject I {155} would refer
any one, who desires to enter upon the inquiry, to the several prefaces
of the Benedictine editors, who point out many sources of information,
as well from among their friends as from those with whom they differ.
Our inquiry must be limited within far narrower bounds, though I trust
our arguments may assist somewhat in establishing the principles on
which the student may at first guide himself in the wider range of
investigation.
[Footnote 56: See preface to vol. iv. of the Benedictine
edition.]
We will first look to the external evidence bearing on the passage in
question, and then to the internal character of the passage itself.
Origen's Commentaries on Ezekiel were divided into no fewer than
twenty-five volumes, which he is said to have begun in Cæsarea of
Palestine, and to have finished in Athens. Of these only one single
fragment remains, namely, part of the twenty-first volume[57]. Jerome
says that he translated fourteen of Origen's homilies on Ezekiel. Of
these not one passage in the original language of Origen is known to be
in existence. We must now, therefore, either receive the existing
translations generally as Origen's, (whether they are Jerome's
translations or not,) or we must consider Origen's homilies on Ezekiel
as altogether lost to us. But supposing that we receive these works as
containing, on the whole, traditionary translations of Origen, the
genuineness of any one passage may yet become the subject of fair
criticism. And whilst some persons reject whole masses of them
altogether, the history of his works cannot but suggest some very
perplexing points of suspicion and doubt.
[Footnote 57: See Benedictine edition, vol. iii. p. 351. and
Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. lib. vi. c. 6. there referred to.] {156}
The great body of his homilies, Origen probably delivered extempore in
the early part of his ministry to the Christians of Cæsarea. Eusebius
tells us, that not before Origen had reached his sixtieth year did he
sanction the notaries (persons well known to history and corresponding
to the short-hand writers[58] of the present day) in publishing any of
his homilies. [Eccles. Hist. lib. vi. c. 36.] But the Benedictine
editor, De la Rue, conceives that those men might surreptitiously and
against the preacher's wishes have published some of Origen's homilies.
Be this as it may. Suppose that the homilies on Ezekiel were published
by Origen himself, and were translated by Jerome himself, our doubts are
not removed even by that supposition. The same editor in the same
preface tells us, "It is known to the learned that it was Jerome's
habit, in translating Greek, sometimes to insert some things of his
own[59]." Not that I for a moment conceive the passage under
consideration to have come in its Latin dress from the pen of Jerome;
for my conviction being that it is an interpolation of a much later
date, I mention the circumstance to show, that even when Jerome, with
his professed accuracy, is the translator, we can in no case feel sure
that we are reading the exact and precise sentiments of Origen.
[Footnote 58: The Latin word "notarius" (notary) does not come
so near as our own English expression, "short-hand writer," to
the Greek word used by Eusebius,--"tachygraphus,"
"quick-writer." The report of Eusebius as to the homilies of
Origen having been delivered extempore, and taken down by these
"quick-writers," is confirmed by Pamphilus the martyr, as quoted
by Valesius, in the annotations on this passage of
Eusebius.--Apol. Orig. lib. i.]
[Footnote 59: Cui in vertendis Græcis sciunt eruditi solemne
esse nonnulla interdum de suo inserere.] {157}
Ruffinus, his celebrated contemporary, accused Jerome of many
inaccuracies in his translations; and yet what were the principles of
translation adopted by Ruffinus himself, as his own, we are not left to
infer; for we learn it from his own pen. His voluntary acknowledgment in
the peroration which he added to Origen's Comment on the Epistle of St.
Paul to the Romans, strongly and painfully exhibits to us how little
dependence can safely be placed on such translations whenever the
original is lost; how utterly insufficient and unsatisfactory is any
evidence drawn from them, as to the real genuine sentiments and
expressions of the author. Ruffinus informs us, that with regard to many
of the various works of Origen, he changed the preacher's extemporary
addresses, as delivered in the Church, into a more explanatory form,
"adding, supplying, filling up what he thought wanting[60]."
[Footnote 60: Dum supplere cupimus ea quæ ab Origene in
auditorio Ecclesiæ extempore (non tam explanationis quam
ædificationis intentione) perorata sunt.... Si addere quod
videar, et explere quæ desunt.--Orig. vol. iv. p. 688.]
Moreover, he proceeds so far as to tell us[61] that his false {158}
friends had remonstrated with him for not publishing the works under his
own name, instead of retaining Origen's, his changes having been so
great; a point, which he was far from unwilling to acknowledge. This
must appear to every one unsatisfactory in the extreme, and to shake
one's confidence in any evidence drawn from such a source. Indeed, the
Benedictine editor, with great cause and candour, laments this course of
proceeding on the part of Ruffinus, as throwing a doubt and uncertainty,
and suspicion, over all the works so tampered with. "This one thing
(observes that honest editor) would the learned desire, that Ruffinus
had spared himself the labour of filling up what he thought deficient.
For since the Greek text has perished, it can scarcely with certainty be
distinguished, where Origen himself speaks, or where Ruffinus obtrudes
his own merchandise upon us." This is more than enough to justify our
remarks. I must, however, refer to the conduct of another editor and
translator of Origen, of a similar tendency. It unhappily shows the
disposition to sacrifice every thing to the received opinions of the
Church of Rome, rather than place the whole evidence of antiquity before
the world, and abide by the result. How many works this principle, in
worse hands, may have mutilated, or utterly buried in oblivion, and left
to perish, it is impossible to conjecture; that the principle is
unworthy the spirit of Christianity will not now be questioned. That
editor and translator, in his advertisement on the Commentary upon St.
John, thus professes the principles which he had adopted: "Know,
moreover, that I have found nothing in this book which {159} seemed to
be inconsistent with the decrees of holy Mother Church: for had I found
any, I would not have translated the book, or would have marked the
suspected place." [Quoted by the Benedictine, vol. iv. p. viii.] The
Benedictine proceeds to say, that the writer had not kept his word, but
had allowed many heterodox passages to escape, whilst he had
deliberately withdrawn others.
[Footnote 61: His words, as indicative of his principles of
translation, and bearing immediately on the question, as to the
degree of authority which should be assigned to the remains of
Origen, when the original is lost, deserve a place here: "I am
exposed to a new sort of charge at their hands; for thus they
address me,--In your writings, since very many parts in them
(plurima in eis) are considered to be of your own production,
give the title of your own name, and write, for example, The
Books of Explanations of Ruffinus on the Epistle to the
Romans,--but the whole of this they offer me, not from any love
of me, but from hatred to the author. But I, who consult my
conscience more than my fame, even if I am seen to add some
things, and to fill up what are wanting, or to shorten what are
too long, yet I do not think it right to steal the title of him,
who laid the foundations of the works, and supplied the
materials for the buildings. Yet, in truth, it may be at the
option of the reader, when he shall have approved of the work,
to ascribe the merits to whom he will."]
Many works probably, of the earliest ages, have been wholly or in part
lost to us from the working of the same principle in its excess. Rather
than perpetuate any sentiments at variance with the received doctrines
of the Church, it was considered the duty of the faithful to let works,
in themselves valuable, but containing such sentiments, altogether
perish, or to exclude the objectionable passages.
I would now invite you to examine the passage itself, and determine
whether it does not bear within it internal evidence of its having been
altogether interpolated.
In the first place, on the words upon which it professes to be a
comment, the author had already given his comment, and assigned to them
another meaning. "The heavens were opened," he says: "Before the time of
Christ the heavens were shut; but at his advent they were opened, THAT
THE HOLY SPIRIT MIGHT DESCEND FIRST ON HIM;" quoting also among others
the passage which speaks of Christ taking captivity captive. And then
after the passage in question, in which he assigns a totally different
reason for the opening of the heavens; without any allusion to the
intervening ideas, he carries on, and concludes the comment which he had
begun,--in words which fit on well with the close of that comment, but
which, as they stand now at the close of the intervening passage about
the angels, are abrupt and incoherent--"Forthwith the Holy Spirit {160}
descended;" recurring also again to the idea which he had before
introduced of Christ benefiting those who were in captivity. A passage
which affixes to the words commented upon, a different interpretation
from one already given in the same paragraph; and which forces itself
abruptly and incoherently in the middle of a brief comment, must offer
itself to our examination under strong grounds of suspicion, that it has
been interpolated. But when we examine the substance of the passage, its
sentiments, the ideas conveyed, and the associations suggested, and then
think of the author to whom it is ascribed, few probably will be
disposed to regard it as a faithful mirror in which to contemplate the
real sentiments of Origen.
How utterly unworthy of the sublime burst of Christian eloquence which
now delights us in undoubted works of Origen, is this strange and
degrading fiction! The true Origen THERE represents the tens of
thousands of angelic spirits ten thousand times told, as ever
surrounding the throne of God, and ministering for the blessing of those
in whose behalf God himself wills them to serve. [Vol. i. p. 767. Contr.
Cels. viii. 34.] Here he represents the revelation of the holiest of
holies as a throwing open of the various divisions or compartments of
the celestial kingdom for all the angels to hasten forth together, from
their several places of indolence and carelessness and self-indulgence,
(for such he represents their state to have been,) to visit this earth.
Surely such a comment would better suit the mythology of the cave and
dens of Æolus and his imprisoned winds (velut agmine facto qua data
porta ruunt) than the awfully sublime revelation vouchsafed to the
prophet Ezekiel. And how unworthy and degrading is that representation
of the {161} heavenly host, resting inactive, and sparing themselves
from toil, until they witnessed Christ's descent and humiliation; and
then when chid and put to shame and rebuke, and mutually roused to
action by their fellows, coming down to visit this earth, and rushing
through the opened portals of heaven.
Again, we see how incoherent is the whole section which contains the
alleged prayer to angels: "Thou wast yesterday under a demon, to-day
thou art under an angel: the angels minister to thy salvation; they are
granted for the ministry of the Son of God, &c. All things are full of
angels. Come, Angel, take up one who is converted from his ancient
error, &c. And call to thee other companions of thy ministry, that all
of you alike may train up to the faith those who were once deceived."
Indeed the passage seems to carry within itself its own condemnation so
entirely, that what we have before alleged, both of internal and
external evidence, may appear superfluous. Surely the conceit of a
preacher of God's word addressing an angel, (which of them he thus
individually addresses does not appear; for he says not "My Angel," as
though he were appealing to one whom he regarded as his guardian, the
view gratuitously suggested in the marginal note of the Benedictine
editor, "the invocation of a guardian angel,") and bidding some one
angel, as a sort of summoner, to go and call to himself all the angels
of heaven to come in one body, and instruct those who are in error, is,
even as a rhetorical apostrophe, as unworthy the mind of a Christian
philosopher, as it is in the light of a prayer totally inconsistent with
the plain sentiments of Origen on the very subject of angelic
invocation. Even had Origen not left us his deliberate opinions in works
of undoubted genuineness, such a {162} strange, incoherent, and childish
rhapsody could never be relied upon by sober and upright men as a
precedent sanctioning a Christian's prayer to angels; no one would rely
upon such evidence in points of far less moment, even were it
uncontradicted by the same witness.
* * * * *