supposed were meant bodies, with which they became clothed after the fall, they having previously existed in Paradise without flesh and bones.* It should be observed, however, that Origen, in his commentary on the passage referred to, which is preserved, does not state this opinion as an undisputed dogma. He mentions a difficulty attending it; still he seems inclined to receive it. By the waters which are said to be above the firmament we are to understand, according to him, the holy and supernal powers, and by those over and under the earth, the opposite and demoniacal. To such an extent did he indulge his fondness for allegorical and tropological senses.§

* Epist. 38. al. 61. ad Pammach. † Opp. T. II. p. 29.

Jerome ad Pammach.

The following summary of Origen's principles of interpretation, is given, in substance, in Delarue's preface to his commentaries. Scripture has three senses, the literal, the moral, and the mystical or allegorical. In some parts the literal sense alone obtains, in others the moral, in others the mystical, in others the literal and the mystical united. Generally speaking, the literal sense is sufficient for the edification of the simple, but the letter often contains what is false, absurd, repugnant to itself, impossible, &c.; whence an infinity of errors have sprung. The mystical or allegorical sense is necessary to defend the truth of Scripture against its adversaries, and make it appear worthy of God. It is difficult, not to say impossible, to penetrate the mystical senses of Scripture. Yet there are certain rules, the observance of which will conduce to a knowledge of them. And, first, whatever is said relating to the ceremonial law is always to be understood not literally, but mystically. Again, whatever is said of Jerusalem, Egypt, Babylon, Tyre, and other places on earth, is to be referred wholly to corresponding places in heaven, where souls have a habitation. For in heaven is a region corresponding to Judea, a city corresponding to Jerusalem, a people corresponding to the Jewish people. There is a celestial Egypt, a celestial Babylon, a celestial Tyre and Sidon, and other cities and places of this sort, corresponding to cities and regions of the same name on earth. Finally, the mystical sense must be resorted to, and the letter deserted, whenever the latter appears false, unedifying, or unworthy of God. This summary is mostly taken from Origen's books Of Principles.' Origen appears not to have distinguished between the literal and the metaphorical sense, between what was meant to be understood strictly, according to the natural signification of the words, and what the views and purpose of the writer, the connexion of the discourse, and other considerations to be taken into view by the laws of approved criticism, require us to understand in a modified or restricted sense. He, therefore, often resorts to mystical or spiritual senses, when the supposition

Several of the Homilies and large fragments of the Tomes, or Commentaries, have been transmitted to us, constituting together nearly three fourths of all the works of Origen extant. Of a part we possess the original Greek, of other parts only the Latin translations of Rufinus, Jerome, and others. Those by Jerome are entitled to much respect, and those by Rufinus, for reasons stated below, to very little.

Of the other works of Origen one of the most considerable is the four books Of Principles.' The original of this is unfortunately lost. It was translated into Latin at the close of the fourth century by Rufinus, who, under the absurd pretext that it had been corrupted by the Arians, took the liberty of altering what did not please him. For this he was severely censured by Jerome, whom he had offended by some sinister praises bestowed on him in the preface, and which were designed to draw upon him the suspicion of Origenism. Rufinus admits that he had changed, expunged, and modified certain passages, which would not have been tolerated by Latin ears, but asserts that he had substituted others taken from the acknowledged writings of Origen. This Jerome denies, and Rufinus fails of proving; and much intemperate language passed between them. The result was that Jerome gave a new, and as he affirms, a faithful translation of the work in question. But this, with the exception of a few small fragments, has been suffered to perish, and for our knowledge of the work we are indebted almost solely to the corrupt version of Rufinus. The loss of the original is the more to be regretted, as this was one of Origen's most elaborate performances, was written after he had arrived at the full maturity of his powers, and con

of a popular or figurative use of language would have answered his purpose quite as well. For example, commenting on Gen. iii. 21. in which it is said, ' Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them,' he says that it would be foolish, and unworthy of God, to suppose that he took the skins of animals slain or which had otherwise perished, and by sewing them together, reduced them to the form of a coat. He therefore resorts to a mystical sense. Now the foundation of his error, it is obvious, lay in the supposition, that it is necessary either to take the words of Moses in their most literal acceptation, or to assign to them an allegorical or mystical sense, that there was no medium between the two. The same error led to the absurd application of some of the precepts of the Saviour, alluded to near the commencement of this article.

tained a full exposition of his views respecting the nature of the Saviour. The work, in its present form, can afford us little help in settling the question of the opinion of Origen on the interesting subject of the trinity. It was on this point that Rufinus undertook to correct it; on others, as Jerome informs us, he left Origen to speak his own sentiments.

Origen's great work was the Hexapla.† Of this work only a few fragments have come down to us. The original, which never seems to have been copied entire, was deposited in the library of Cæsarea, by Pamphilus, its founder. The library was destroyed during the irruption of the Saracens, and this monument of noble industry was thus lost to the world. The parts containing the corrected version of the Septuagint, had been transcribed by Eusebius and Pamphilus, with occasional extracts from other versions, but only fragments of these are now extant.

* Rufin. Invect. Jerome, Apol. adv. Rufin.

The design of the Hexapla was to correct the text of the Greek version of the Old Testament, which was then in common use, but was found to contain many false readings, which occasioned some embarrassment in the controversies between the Christians and the Jews, who often appealed to the Hebrew original as differing from the version of the Seventy. For this purpose Origen collected all the versions of the Old Testament within his reach, which he transcribed and arranged in parallel columns. First stood the Hebrew text; then the same in Greek characters. This was followed by the very literal version of the Jew, Aquila, then recently published. The next column was occupied by the more free, but, as it is said, faithful translation of Symmachus, an Ebionite. Then followed the version of the Seventy, corrected by a comparison of it with the Hebrew text. After this stood the Greek version of Theodotion, also an Ebionite. To these he added two obscure anonymous versions then recently brought to light, and on the Psalms still another, making the seventh. The work was called Biblia Hexapla, either because it contained six versions, the fragment on the Psalms not being taken into the account; or because it was originally composed of six columns, the Hebrew text, and the same in Greek characters forming two, and the translations of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion making up the remaining four. The two anonymous versions being afterwards added, it obtained the name of the Octapla, as it then consisted of eight columns, and finally of Enneapla, because, with the version of the Psalms last added, it exhibited nine. Eusebius informs us that Origen afterwards prepared the Tetrapla, consisting of the four principal versions already enumerated. In opposition, however, to this testimony, several modern critics have contended that the whole formed originally but one work, variously denominated according to the number of columns, or number of translations, entire or partial, which it contained.

The eight books Against Celsus' contain much good reasoning, and many acute and striking remarks. But Origen was trammelled by the superstitions and errors of the age. A belief of the power of magic, and force of names and incantations, was common as well among Christians as Pagans, and appeared sensibly to impair the evidence of Christianity from miracles. To this belief Origen was not superior. Magic,' he says, 'is not, as the disciples of Epicurus and Aristotle maintain, a futile thing, but certain and constant,' and belongs to a recondite theology.

Many of Celsus's objections, too, were levelled, as have been those of unbelievers since his time, not against Christianity itself, but against its corruptions, which even then abounded; and to these objections, Origen, of course, could furnish no satisfactory reply.

Again, several of the narrations of the Old and New Testament were treated by Celsus with levity and ridicule, and Origen thought to blunt the point of his weapons by interposing the shield of allegory and mysticism; and no doubt his esteem for allegory was increased by the vain belief that it would help to defend Scripture against profane cavils. But this was to yield the victory to the enemy. Minds formed after the mould of Celsus's were not to be convinced by these methods, which in their view only exposed the weakness of the cause they were meant to serve. * It should

* Beausobre has some just reflections on this subject. Alluding to a remark of Origen in his seventh homily on Leviticus, that if we adhere to the letter, and adopt the Jewish or vulgar exposition, we must blush to think that God has given such laws, since those of the Romans and Athenians were incomparably more equitable, he says, 'It must be acknowledged, that these confessions of the Fathers are very prejudicial to the Old Testament. The heretics, who were not prepossessed in favor of the Hebrew revelation, knew well how to profit by them, and had not docility enough to submit their reason and their faith to allegorical expositions. In fact, what authority, what evidence can allegories possess, which necessity alone invents, which are only the sport of imagination, only meteors formed, so to speak, of vapors exhaled by a spirit pressed with difficulties? The Christians derided the Gentiles, when, to conceal the shame of their religious fables, they pretended that they were only veils designed to envelope natural truths. It is not then surprising, that not only the Pagans, but heretics, in turn laughed at the orthodox, when, to defend the history and laws of Moses, they employed the weapons, which they had been the first to break in pieces.' Histoire Critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme. T. i. p. 287.

be recollected, however, that the design of the performance was less to convince minds of this sort, than to confirm weak, and perhaps faltering Christians. With all its defects, however, it was a noble effort, and is generally esteemed the best defence of Christianity, which has descended to us from the early ages.

Of Origen's life and writings it is unnecessary to say more. We propose in a future number to give some account of his opinions, which may be regarded as a subject of curiosity and interest alike to the philosophical inquirer and the theologian.

[For the Christian Examiner.]

ART. IV. On the Morality of our Political Situation.

As our present Number appears within a few days of the great political anniversary of the country, we embrace the opportunity to offer some remarks on the morality of our political situation; and as we are a little too early to review the Orations, we must even put forth our thoughts independently of them, and contribute our own mite to the great and interesting occasion.

Simple as the matter may seem to be, we believe it is no easy thing to form a just and true appreciation of political freedom. And we are persuaded that much will be done towards leading men to a right use of this favored condition, when they are brought rightly to consider it. It was under the influence of such an impression, without designing to overrate efforts of this nature so humble as ours must be, that we endeavoured some time since to show that liberty is not only a blessing, but a trust; and that, in fact, it never is or can be a blessing, but when used as a trust. In pursuance of the same general design, and to bring the principle we then stated to a still more practical application, we shall now undertake to show that freedom, rightly considered, implies not only the highest state of privilege, but the loftiest condition

* Celsus was dead when Origen wrote, as he informs us; Cont Cel. Præf.