Part 8 (1/2)
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 pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage than the character of this work generally requires. The great importance attached to the testimony of that pa.s.sage by some defenders of the wors.h.i.+p 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 pa.s.sages as Origen's, without expressing any hesitation or doubt respecting their genuineness, in which he is followed by writers of the present day. The pa.s.sages 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 t.i.tle: ”That the saints are to be invoked, proved by the testimony of the Greek Fathers.”
The first pa.s.sage 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 G.o.d. O Saints of G.o.d, 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 pa.s.sage as from ”Origen in Lament,” and it has been recently appealed to under the t.i.tle 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 pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage 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 G.o.d, and remainest conqueror in the sight of the Lord the King, pray for us wretched, that the mercy of the terrible G.o.d 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 a.s.signed 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 wors.h.i.+ppers of the same G.o.d, 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} a.s.semblies what is agreeable to the will of G.o.d, 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, G.o.dless, men without G.o.d, because they would not wors.h.i.+p those G.o.ds many and lords many, and those secondary, subordinate, auxiliary, and ministering divinities with which the heathen mythology abounded: Origen answers, we are not G.o.dless, we are not without an object of our prayer; we pray to G.o.d Almighty alone through the mediation only of his Son.
”We must pray to G.o.d 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 G.o.d; and we must implore him as our High Priest to carry our prayer, first coming to him, to his G.o.d and our {140} G.o.d, to his Father and the Father of those who live agreeably to the word of G.o.d.” [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 G.o.d ([Greek: Hena oun ton epi pasi theon haemin exenmenisteon])--the G.o.d who is over all, is to be propitiated by us, and to be appeased by prayer; the G.o.d who is rendered favourable by piety and all virtue. But if he (Celsus) is desirous, after the supreme G.o.d, 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 G.o.d favourable, it follows that the person has all his (G.o.d's) friends, angels, souls, spirits, favourable also; for they sympathize with those who are worthy of G.o.d'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 wors.h.i.+p the supreme G.o.d; 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d! 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 a.s.serts that when they a.s.sist mankind, it is without any request or prayer from man. Could this come from one who invoked angels?
Another pa.s.sage, although it adds little to the evidence of the above extract, I am unwilling to pa.s.s by, because it beautifully ill.u.s.trates by the doctrine and practice of Origen the prayer, the only one adopted by the Anglican Church, offered by the Church to G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 pa.s.sage 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.ds in the Holy Scriptures; but not so, as for any injunction to be given to us to wors.h.i.+p and adore, instead of G.o.d, those who minister, and bring to us the things of G.o.d. For every request and prayer, and supplication and thanksgiving, must be sent up to Him who is G.o.d above all, through the High Priest, who is above all angels, even the living Word of G.o.d. 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 a.s.signed, would not give confidence in praying to any other than to Him who is sufficient for every thing, G.o.d who is above all, through our Saviour, the Son of G.o.d, who is the word, and wisdom, and the truth, and whatsoever else the writings of the prophets of G.o.d, and the Apostles of Jesus say concerning Him. But for the angels of G.o.d to be favourable to us, and to do all things for us, our disposition towards G.o.d is sufficient; we copy them to the utmost of human strength, {143} as they copy G.o.d. 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.”