having a definite place in the church organization (Hom. in Is. vi. § 3; Hom. in Luc. xvii.), yet not apparently combined in any order (in Rom. x. §§ 17, 20).
As yet no absolute rule existed as to the celibacy of the clergy. Origen himself was inclined to support it by his own judgment (Hom. in Lev. vi. § 6). "No bishop, however, or presbyter or deacon or widow could marry a second time" (Hom. in Luc. xvii.): such Origen held to be in a second class, not "of the church without spot" (l.c.; but cf. note on I. Cor. vii. 8). It was a sign of the difficulties of the time that some "rulers of the church" allowed a woman to marry again while her husband (presumably a Gentile who had abandoned her) was still living (in Matt. t. xiv. § 23). Origen's own example and feeling were strongly in favour of a strict and continent life (cf. c. Cels. vii. 48; Hom. in Gen. v. 4), while he condemns false asceticism (in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 10). He enforces the duty of systematic almsgiving (ib. § 61); and maintains that the law of offering the firstfruits to God, that is to the priests, is one of the Mosaic precepts which is of perpetual obligation (Hom. in Num. xi. 1; c. Cels. viii. 34). Usury is forbidden (Hom. iii. in Ps. xxxvi. § 11). The rule as to food laid down in Acts xv. 29 was still observed (in Rom. ii. § 13, p. 128 L; c. Cels. viii. 30).
The reverence of Christian burial is noticed (Hom. in Lev. iii. § 3; c. Cels. viii. 30). Military service Origen thinks unlawful for Christians (c. Cels. v. 33, viii. 73), though he seems to admit exceptions (ib. iv. 82).
ORIGEN AS CRITIC AND INTERPRETER.—Origen regarded the Bible as the source and rule of truth (Hom. in Jer. i. § 7). Christ is "the Truth," and they who are sure of this seek spiritual knowledge from His very words and teaching alone, given not only during His earthly presence, but through Moses and the prophets (de Princ. Praef. 1). The necessary points of doctrine were, Origen held, comprised by the apostles in a simple creed handed down by tradition (ib. ii.), but the fuller exhibition of the mysteries of the gospel was to be sought from the Scriptures. He made no sharp division between O. and N. T. They must be treated as one body, and we must be careful not to mar the unity of the spirit which exists throughout (in Joh. x. 13; cf. de Princ. ii. 4). The divinity of the O.T. is indeed first seen through Christ (de Princ. iv. 1, 6).
(1) The Canon of Scripture.—In fixing the contents of the collection of sacred books Origen shews some indecision. In regard to O.T. he found a serious difference between the Hebrew canon and the books commonly found in the Alexandrine Greek Bible. In his Comm. on Ps. i. he gives a list of the canonical books (αἱ ἐνδιάθηκοι βίβλοι) according to the tradition of the Hebrews, 22 in number (ap. Eus. H. E. vi. 25). In the enumeration the Book of the Twelve (minor) Prophets is omitted by the error of Eusebius or of his transcriber, for it is necessary to make up the number; and the "Letter" (Baruch vi.) is added to Jeremiah, because (apparently) it occupied that position in Origen's copy of the LXX., for there is no evidence that it was ever included in the Hebrew Bible. The Books of the Maccabees, which (I. Macc.) bore a Hebrew title, were not included (ἔξω τούτων ἐστί). But while Origen thus gives a primary place to the books of the Hebrew Canon, he expressly defends, in his letter to Africanus, the use of the additions found in the Alexandrine LXX. (cf. p. 122). He was unwilling to sacrifice anything sanctioned by custom and tending to edification. His own practice reflects this double view. He never, so far as we know, publicly expounded any apocryphal books of O.T., while he habitually quotes them as having authority, though he frequently notes that their authority was challenged. He quotes the Book of Enoch (c. Cels. v. 55; de Princ. iv. 35; Hom. in Num. xxviii. 2), the Prayer of Joseph (in Joh. ii. 25, εἴ τις προσίεται), the Assumption of Moses (Hom. in Jos. ii. 1), and the Ascension of Isaiah (ib.; de Princ. iii. 2, 1; cf. in Matt. t. x. 18) ; and it is probably to books of this class that his interesting remarks on "apocryphal" books in Prol. in Cant. p. 325 L. refer.
How far Origen was from any clear view of the history of O.T. may be inferred from the importance he assigns to the tradition of Ezra's restoration of their text from memory after the Babylonian captivity (Sel. in Jer. xi. p. 5 L.; Sel. in Ps. id. p. 371).
His testimony to the contents of N.T. is more decided. He notices the books which were generally acknowledged as possessing unquestionable authority: the Four Gospels [the Acts[1]], I. Peter, I. John, thirteen Epistles of St. Paul. To these he adds the Apocalypse, for he seems to have been unacquainted with its absence from the Syrian Canon (ap. Eus. H. E. vi. 25). In another passage, preserved only in the Latin trans. of Rufinus (Hom. in Jer. vii. 1), he enumerates all the books of the received N.T., without addition or omission, as the trumpets by which the walls of the spiritual Jericho are to be overthrown (the Four Gospels, I. and II. Peter, James, Jude, the Epistles and Apocalypse of St. John, the Acts by St. Luke, fourteen Epistles of St. Paul). This enumeration, though it cannot be received without reserve, may represent his popular teaching. In isolated notices he speaks of the disputed books as received by some but not by all (Hebrews; ap. Eus. H. E. vi. 25; Ep. ad Afric. § 9; James; in Joh. xix. 6; II. Peter; Hom. in Lev. iv. 4; Jude; in Matt. t. x. 17, xvii. 30); and he apparently limited doctrinal authority to the acknowledged books (Comm. Ser. in Matt. § 28).
Origen quotes frequently and with the greatest respect the Shepherd of Hermas (e.g. de Princ. i. 3, 3, iv. 11; in Matt. t. xiv. § 21; in Rom. x. 31, p. 437 L.).[2] He quotes or refers to the Ep. (i.) of Clement, "a disciple of the apostles" (de Princ. ii. 3, 6; in Joh. t. vi. 36; Sel. in Ex. viii. 3); "the Catholic Ep. of Barnabas" (c. Cels. i. 63; de Princ. iii. 2, 4; cf. Comm. in Rom. i. § 18), the Gospel according to the Hebrews (in Joh. t. ii. 6,
- ↑ Not specially mentioned, but Origen's usage is decisive as to the position he assigned to it. The tacit omission well illustrates the danger of trusting to negative evidence.
- ↑ The statement of Tarinus (Philoc. p. 683) that Origen wrote a commentary on the Shepherd is a false deduction from the word διηγούμεθα (ib. i. p. 22, 11).
