A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

ORIGEN.

ORIGEN a 1.1 was born in the City of Alexandria, about the year 185, from the Birth of Christ. b 1.2 Besides the Name of Origen, he had moreover that of Adamantius. c 1.3 His Father, who * 1.4 was called Leonidas, educated him in the Faith of Jesus Christ, and did not only cause him in his Youth to learn the politer Learning, with all the profane Sciences, but he particu∣ly ordered him to apply himself to the understanding of the Holy Scripture, before any other kind of Learning, giving him every day some Portions thereof to learn and repeat. And it hapned very luckily, that the Son's Inclination exactly answered the Father's Design; for the pursued his Study with a most extraordinary Zeal and Fervency; and as he was endowed with a quick Apprehension, and very great Sagacity, he did not content himself with that Sense which at first view presented it self, but he afterwards endeavoured to dive into the mysterious and allegorical Explication of the Sacred Books, and sometimes would even puzzle his Father by asking him the meaning of some Passages of Scripture, which obliged this good Man seemingly to reprehend him, and to advise him not to soar above the reach of his Understanding, and to content himself with the most clear and na∣tural sense of the Scripture; though inwardly he was extreamly joyful, and returned Thanks unto God with all his Heart, for his great Mercy, in bestowing on him such a Son. But that these Opinions may not be attributed either to the blind Love of a Father for his Child, or to that Affection which Eufebius, who relates these things, had for Origen, it may be sufficient to observe, That S. Hierom, even then when he wrote against Origen, with the greatest Earnestness, was obliged to acknowledge, that he had been an extraordinary Person from his very Infancy Magnus vir ab infantiâ. Ep. 65. ad Pam∣machium de erroribus Origenis. When he was a little more advanced in Years, he had for his Master in Philosophy, the famous Ammonius, d 1.5 the Christian Philosopher; and in Divinity, the learned S. Clemens of Alexandria. He was not above sixteen or seventeen years of age, when the Persecution began at Alexandria, in the 10th Year of the Reign of Severus, and the 202d from the Birth of Christ. His Father being seized and imprisoned upon the account of the Christian Faith, he would also have offered himself to the Persecutors, out of the great Zeal he had to suffer Martyrdom; but his Mother opposed it very stiffly, and was even forced to hide his Cloaths, to prevent him from go∣ing abroad to put his Design in Execution: And being thus detained against his Will, he wrote a Let∣ter to his Father to exhort him to Martyrdom, wherein he expresses himself thus: Stand stedfast, my Father, and take care not to alter your Opinion upon our Account. Leonidas being animated by his Son's Exhortation, couragiously suffered Martyrdom, and was beheaded within a little while after. His Goods having been confiscated, Origen remaining with his Mother and Brethren, was reduced to ex∣tream Poverty; but a certain Lady of Alexandria, who was very rich, whether out of Compassion to his Misery, or out of the Respect she had for him, afforded him all kind of Assistance, and even took him into her House. There lived with her at the same time a famous Heretick of Antioch, whom she had adopted for her Son, who held Conferences in her House, where a great Number, not only of Hereticks, but also of Catholicks, were present. But though Origen was obliged of necessity to converse with this Man, yet he would never hold Communion with him in Prayer, keeping exact∣ly to the Ecclesiastical Constitutions, and testifying the Abhorrence that he had for the Doctrine of the Hereticks. However, in a little time he put himself into such a Condition, as not to stand any longer in need of his Ladies Assistance; for applying himself entirely, after his Father's Death, to the Study of Human Learning, he taught Grammar, and by his Employment he got a sufficient Compe∣tency to maintain himself.

Whilst he followed this Profession, the Chair of the School at Alexandria becoming vacant by the Retreat of S. Clement, and by the Flight of all those who were dispersed by the Persecution, some of the Heathens, who were willing to be converted, made their Application to him, though he was not then above eighteen years old. The two first of his Disciples were Plutarch, and Heraclas his Brother, who succeeded Demetrius in the See of Alexandria. At length, the Reputation and Number of those that were converted by him increasing every day more and more, Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria, confirmed him in the Employment of Catechist, or Professor of Sacred Learning in the Church of Alex∣andria. When he saw himself setled in this Charge, he left of teaching Grammar, not being willing to depend upon any other Profession for his Subsistence: He sold all his Books that treated of hu∣man Learning, contenting himself with four Oboli a day, which were allowed him by the Person who purchased them.

And then it was that he began to lead a very strict and severe Life, which contributed no less than his Learning to attract to him a great number of Disciples, notwithstanding the Fury of the Persecu∣tion, which being then begun at Alexandria, under the Government of Laetus, continued still with greater Violence under Aquila his Successor. He had several of his Disciples there, who suffered Martyrdom in the same Place; among others, Plutarch, Serenus, Heraclides, Hero, &c. And he was himself very often exposed to the Rage of the Heathens, when he went to the Assistance and Encou∣ragement of the Martyrs. He then carried his Austerities so far, as to commit an Act of thet Excess, as to be blamed even by those who have been his greatest Defenders, and which he himself afterwards condemned, though he might do it upon a good Motive, e 1.6 and out of an excessive Zeal for Charity. For as his Employment obliges him to be often with Women, whom he instructed as well as Men, that he might take away from the Heathens all pretence of Suspicion of any ill Conduct by reason of his Youth, he resolved with himself to execute to the Letter that Perfection which he was persuaded was proposed by Jesus Christ in these Words of the Gospel; That there are some who make themselves Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. He was willing to keep this Action private, and did all he could to conceal it from his Friends: but it was presently discovered; and being come to the Knowledge of Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria, he commended his Zeal, and the Fervency of his Faith, and bad him not be discouraged upon that Account, but to continue more earnestly in the Instruction of the Catechumens.

In the mean time, Origen's Reputation increased daily more and more, and procured him so great a Number of Disciples, that he himself alone was not able to manage it: and therefore he committed to his Friend Heraclas the Care of those who were to be instructed in the first Principles of Religion, reserving to himself such as were advanced to a higher Degree of Knowledge. It was about this time, in the beginning of the Reign of Antoninus, that he went to Rome, f 1.7 under the Pontificate of Ze∣phirinus; and much about the same time, he likewise composed that great and famous Work, called the Tetrapla; which was a Bible, wherein by the side of the Hebrew Text, he had transcribed in different Columns, the Translation of the Septuagint; that of Aquila; that of Symmachus, and that of Theodosion, distinguished by Verses; and he added thereunto afterwards two other Versions without any Authours Name, and a Seventh only upon the Psalms, which he found at Jerico in a Barrel: and these Versions, with the Hebrew, written both in Hebrew and Greek Characters, make up that Book which is called the Hexapla. g 1.8 These Works mightily increased his Reputation, and drew from all Parts into Alexandria a great Number of learned Persons to converse with Origen, and to be instruct∣ed by him. Ambrose was one of this Number: He anathematized the Heresie of Valentinus, in which he had been engaged, to embrace the Orthodox Faith. Origen was afterwards obliged seve∣ral times to leave Alexandria: For first he was sent for by an Arabian Prince, who wrote to Demetri∣us, Bishop of Alexandria, and to the Governour thereof, to send him to him to be instructed by him; and a little while after, this City being cruelly harrass'd by the War which the Emperor Antoninus Caracalla made against its Inhabitants for having affronted him by their Jears and Scoffs, Origen retired into Palestine; and being come to settle in the City of Caesarea, the Bishops of that Province desired him to expound publickly the Scripture in that Church and to instruct the People in their Presence, though he was not yet a Priest; to which Request of theirs he complied. Now whether Demetrius envied him this Honour, or whether he was persuaded that they had violated the Rules of the Church, he wrote to these Prelates, telling them, That it was a thing unheard of, and that it had been never practised till then, that Lay-men should Preach in the Presence of Bishops. But Alexander of Jeru∣salem, and Theoctistus of Caesarea, writing back to him, proved by several Instances, That this had been often put in Practice. In the mean time, Demetrius had written to Origen to come home; and having also sent some Deacons to press his Return, he was obliged to betake himself again to his first

Employment. Some time after, he was again diverted from it by Order of the Princess Mam••••••, who caused him to come to Antioch, that she might see, and discourse with him: but staying with her but a little while, he returned to Alexandria, and fell again to work upon the Holy Scripture, with the Assistance of his Friend Ambrose, who furnished him with Copyers. He continued there till the Year 228, when he departed from thence with Letters of Recommendation from his Bishop, to go into Achaia about some Ecclesiastical Affairs. h 1.9 It was in this Voyage, as he passed through Pa∣lestine, that he was ordained Priest by the Bishops of this Province, being 42 years old. This Ordi∣nation of Origen by Foreign Bishops extreamly incensed his Diocesan Demetrius against him, it having been done without his Permission. He wrote every where Letters against him, upbraiding him for the Action which he had committed in his Youth. However, Origen returned to Alexandria, where he continued to write his Commentaries upon the Sacred Scripture. It was then that he published his five Books of Commentaries upon the Gospel of S. John, eight Books upon Genesis, Commentaries up∣on the first Five and twenty Psalms, and uopn the Lamentations of Jeremiah; his Books de Principiis, and his Seromata.

All this while the Bishop of Alexandria was not at all appeased, but continued to persecute him: And in a Council which he assembled in the Year 231, it was ordained, That Origen should go out of Alexandria; that he should not be permitted to teach there any longer, nor so much as to live there; but that nevertheless he should not be deprived of his Dignity of Priesthood. Origen being ba∣nished from Alexandria, retired to Caesarea, his ordinary Place of Refuge, where he was very well re∣ceived by Theoctistus, Bishop of that City, and by Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem, who undertook to defend him, and commissioned him to expound publickly the Scripture, hearing him as if he had been their Master. But Demetrius not being satisfied with the first Judgment given against Origen, accused him in a Council of the Bishops of Egypt, i 1.10 aand having caused him to be Deposed, and even to be Excommunicated, according to S. Hierom, wrote at the same time to all Parts against him, to pro∣cure his being thrust out of the Communion of the Catholick Church. For when once a Priest was excommunicated, and deposed by his Bishop by the Consent of the Bishops of the Province, he could not be any longer received in any Church. There was no need of examining whether it was justly or unjustly that he had been condemned in his Province. So that it is no wonder if all the Bishops of the World, excepting those of Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia and Achaia, who were particularly ac∣quainted with Origen, and with whom he had a most familiar Intimacy, should consent to his Con∣demnation; and if Rome its self, having assembled its Senate against him, says S. Hierom, that is to say, its Clergy, did condemn him after the Example of his own Bishop. We believe, says S. Augustin, upon a Subject almost like this, whatsoever we are informed of by Letters from a Council, and we must not do otherwise. For those who had not any particular Knowledge of Origen, ought to believe him guilty; and those who knew him, that they might not violate that Order of Discipline, ought to consent to his Excommunication, after it was once signified to them by his own Bishop. And so it was that Marcion being excommunicated by his Father, and his Bishop, and being come to Rome, desiring to be received there into Communion, received this Answer from the Clergy of that Church: We cannot re∣ceive you, without the Consent of your Father; for as there is in the Church but one and the same Faith, so there ought to be therein but one and the same Spirit, and one and the same Discipline. Therefore, by a great Number of Canons and Ecclesiastical Constitutions, it was absolutely prohibited to any Bishop whatever, and even to the Bishop of Rome himself, to receive into Communion those Priests who had been excommunicated by their Bishops upon any Pretence whatever. Nevertheless Origen found, as we have said, some Protectors, especially in Palestine, where he continued to explain the Scripture at Caesarea with great Reputation, both in the Life-time, and after the Death of Demetrius, who lived not long after he had condemned Origen. All sorts of Persons, not only from that Province, but even from remote Countries, came to be his Disciples. The most famous were, Gregory, Sirnamed after∣wards Thaumaturgus, who was Bishop of Neocaesarea, and his Brother Athenodorus. But though after Demetrius's Death, the Persecution which he had raised against Origen abated a little, yet he was al∣ways looked upon as a Person excommunicated by all the Egyptians, and the Sentence which was gi∣ven against him by Demetrius continued under his Successors, l 1.11 Heraclas and Dionysius, though the first had been Origen's Disciple, and the second had a great Esteem for him. In this time he went on with his Commentaries upon S. John, and he began to compose some upon Ezekiel and Isaiah.

After the Death of Alexander, under whose Reign all this hapned, his Successor Maximinus stirred up a Persecution against the Church in the Year 235. Ambrose, Origen's Friend, and Theoctistus, Priests of Caesarea, having been taken and brought before this Emperor, upon the account of the Christian Religion, Origen sent then an Exhortation to Martyrdom. Nevertheless, he concealed himself during this Persecution, and retired for some time to the City of Athens, where he finished his Commentaries upon Ezekiel and went on with the Commentaries upon the Song of Solomon, which he finished when he returned to Caesarea in Palestine, from whence he went afterwards to Caesarea in Cappadocia, where he remained some time with Firmilian, who invited him thither.

Under the Reign of Gordianus, which began in the Year 238, Beryllus, Bishop of Bostra, in Arabia, fell into a very gross Errour, affirming, That our Lord, before his Incarnation, was not a Person sub∣sisting. Some Bishops being assembled to convince him of this Error, they caused Origen to come thither also. After that several Bishops had had Conferences and Disputes with this Bishop, Origen being desired to enter the Lists with him, discoursed him at first familiarly, being willing to be throughly informed of his Opinion; and after having perfectly understood his Error, and the Grounds upon which he pretended to maintain it, he convinced him by several Reasons, and set him again in the right Way, forcing him to acknowledge his Error. The Records of all that passed in this Affair were preserved for a long time after, wherein was to be seen the Sentiments of Beryllus, the Opinions of the Bishops who met there, the Questions proposed to him by Origen, and the whole Conference which they had together in his Church. S. Hierom takes notice, That in his Time, Ori∣gen's Dialogue with Beryllus was extant. This Bishop having acknowledged his Error, preserved the Purity of his Faith even to his Death, and had an extraordinary Kindness for Origen, to whom he wrote several Letters. S. Hierom places him among the Number of the Ecclesiastical Writers.

Afterwards Origen was called, under the Reign of Philip, to another Assembly of Bishops, which was held against some Arabians, who maintained, That the Souls of Men died, and were raised again with their Bodies. After having spoke in the Presence of them all, upon the Question which was in agitation, he defended the Truth, and attacked this Error with that Force of Argument, that he caused all those to change their Opinion, who had fallen into the Mistake.

He was then Threescore years old, or thereabouts, and yet this did not hinder him from carry∣ing on his Works with the same, or rather with greater Diligence; for he did not only compose se∣veral Books in his Study, but he made almost every day Discourses to the People, and for the most part without any time allowed to prepare them, which were nevertheless so well esteemed, that the Transcribers took them after him as he delivered them, and published them afterwards. This Employment did not take him off from composing several considerable Books; as his Eight Books against Celsus, Twenty five Volumes upon S. Matthew, Twenty five Volumes of Com∣mentaries upon the Minor Prophets, a Letter to the Emperor Philip, and one to Severa his Wife. m 1.12 S. Hierom says, That he wrote also a Letter to Pope Fabianus, wherein he sets forth his Recanting of the Errors which he had written, and laid the Blame of them upon Ambrose. If this be so, he did it to make this Pope favourable to him, that he might get again into the Communion of the Roman Church. He wrote also at this time against the Hereticks call∣ed Helcesaitae.

Afterwards, in the Persecution of Decius, which was about the same time, Origen suffered with great Constancy for the Faith. He was seized, put into Prison, loaded with Irons; he had for several Days his Feet in the Stocks, where they were cruelly extended, even to the greatest Extremity: They threatned him to burn him alive, and they rack'd him with se∣veral sorts of Tortures, to try his Patience to the utmost; but he endured all with an undaunted Resolution. n 1.13 Being come out of Prison, he held several Conferences, and wrote Letters worthy of a Holy Confessor of Jesus Christ. Lastly, After having laboured so much, and suffered with such great Credit and Glory, he died in the beginning of the Reign of Gallus,

in the Year Two hundred fifty two, from the Birth of Christ, and in the Sixty sixth Year of his Age. op 1.14

Though what we have remaining at present of the Works of Origen, makes up several consi∣derable Volumes, yet they are nothing in comparison to what he has wrote. q 1.15 Eusebius had made an exact Catalogue of his Works, in the Apology which he made for him, under the Name of the Martyr Pamphilus; and S. Hierom did the same in one of his Letters. But both of these Catalogues being lost, we have no knowledge of any, but those that have been cited by the Ancients; which still are much more in number than those which we have now re∣maining.

We may distinguish two kinds of Works written by Origen. The One are upon the Sacred Scri∣ptures, and the Others are separate Treatises upon different Subjects. He had composed three sorts of Books upon the Scripture, not to mention his Hexapla and Tretrapla, which were rather a Collecti∣on than a Work; to wit, Commentaries, Scholia, and Homilies. In his Commentaries, he wholly gave up himself to that Heat and Fire which was natural to him, to penetrate the height and depth of the Scripture, and the most mysterious Interpretation thereof, the better. His Scholia were, on the contrary, only short Notes to explain the difficult Places. These two kinds of Works were more for the Learned, than for the use of the People; whereas the Homilies, which the Latins call Treatises, and which we call Sermons, were Moral Instructions upon the Holy Scripture. We have none of the Scholia remaining, nor have we hardly any of the Homilies in Greek; and those which we have in Latin, are translated by Ruffinus and others with so much Liber∣ty, r 1.16 that it is a difficult matter to discern what is Origen's own, from what has been foi••ted in by the Interpreter. A great part likewise of his Commentaries are entirely lost. The following Table will present you in one View those Works which we know to have been composed by Origen upon the Scripture, what we have left of them in Greek, and what we have only remaing of them in Latin.

S. Epiphanius, and after him Cedrenus and Suidas, say, That Origen writ upon all the Books of the Holy Scripture. We shall here give the several Books in order, of which there remains now any knowledge.

The Books of Origen, of which we have any know∣ledge, and by whom they are cited.	The Books or Fragments of Origen, which we have in Greek, and whence they are taken.	The Latin Books of Ori∣gen, and their Transla∣tors.	Proofs and Notes upon the Table.
Thirteen Tomes of Com∣mentaries, and two Books of Mystical Homilies upon Gene∣sis. S. Hierom apud Ruffinum invect. 2. & Ep. ad Damasum. Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 24. But these thirteen Tomes went no far∣ther than Ver. 15. of the 4th Chap. where it is written, Omnis qui occiderit Cain, &c. S. Hierom ibidem ad Dama∣sum, q. 1. Two Books of Mystical Ho∣miles upon Genesis. Idem Ibid. Pamphilus in his Apology produces a small Fragment of his Preface upon Genesis.	Three Fragments of Tomes, some Commentaries upon Ge∣nesis, related by Eusebius in his Books de Praeparatione. The first upon Ver. 12. of the first Chapter of Genesis, ta∣ken from the 7th Book. The second taken out of the third Tome, upon Ver. 14. taken from the 6th Book, and in the 22d Chapter of the Philocalia. The third, which is in the Philocalia, cap. 14. is extract∣ed out of the same Tome up∣on the 16th Verse. Some Fragments taken from the Philocalia, cap. 16, & 17.	Seventeen Latin Homilies upon Genesis, translated by Ruffinus [1]. It is doubted whether they be not extracted from the two Books of Mysti∣cal Homilies, because they seem to be of the number of those which were made ex tempore, and transcribed by the Writers. The last Homi∣ly is imperfect.	[1] In the Prologue to Ur∣satius, which is written by Ruffinus, he says, That he has collected and translated into Latin, the Homilies of Origen upon the whole Pentateuch; so that though this Version in Merlin's Edition bears S. Hie∣rom's Name, yet it was made by Ruffinus, as Erasmus and Genebrard acknowledge. The Author of the Conclusion to the Version of the Commenta∣ries upon the Epistle to the Romans, which is also Ruffi∣nus, says positively, That he had translated Origen's Homi∣lies upon Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus: They are those that follow.
Commentaries upon Exodus in the Philocalia, cap. 26. Item, Some Scholia. And twelve Homilies.	Some Commentaries upon Exodus, and upon Leviticus [2].	Twelve Homilies upon Exo∣dus, translated by Ruffinus. Sixteen upon Leviticus, at∣tributed falsly to S. Cyril, translated also by Ruffinus.	[2] There is in the Philo∣ca••••a, cap. 1. a p••ssage taken from the second Homily upon Leviticus, which is not to be found in those Latin Homilies which we have. He must therefore necessarily have writ∣ten more than sixteen. Besides, in those which we have, Hom. 4, & 6. he cites more of them.
Scholia's upon Leviticus, and sixteen Homilies. Ruffin. invect. 2. & in Prologo Ho∣mil. in Num. Commentaries upon Deute∣ronomy, which he cites himself, Tom. 32. in Joan. and in the 8th Homily upon S. Luke. Cas∣siodorus had seen eight Books of them, de Inst. Divin. c. 7. Sfime Homilies. Ruffin. Pro∣log. ad Ursat.		Eight and twenty Homilies upon Numbers, which are doubtful, because they were translated by Ruffinus with great liberty [3].	[3] The Style is Ruffinus's, who has made a Preface there∣to; in which he affirms, and also in his Prologue to Ursa∣tius, That he has collected in this Work, and dispos'd in or∣der, all that he could find of Origens upon Numbers, whe∣ther they were written in Ho∣milies or Scholia; so that this Work is more Ruffinus's than Origen's; and we must not wonder, if we therein find some Explications which ap∣pear to be of a Latin Author, and later than Origen.
Six and twenty Homilies upon Joshuah.	A Fragment of the 20th Homily upon Joshuah, in his Philocalia, cap. 12.	Six and twenty Homilies upon Joshuah; to which there is a Preface attributed to S. Hierom; but 'tis more like∣ly to be by Ruffinus, as well as the Translation of this Work, both because of the conformity of Style in the Prologue and in the Version, as because he owns them in the conclusion of the Com∣mentaries upon the Epistle to the Romans.
Nine Homilies upon the Books of Judges.		Nine Homilies upon Judges, all translated by Ruffinus for the s••me Reasons.
Two Homilies upon the Kings: One upon the first Chapter of the first Book; And the oth••r Intituled, De Engastrimytho. Cassiodorus had seen another upon the first Book of Kings, one upon the Second, and a very long one upon the second Book of Chronicles. Lib. De∣cretal. Div. cap. 2.	The Homily de Engastri∣mytho was taken from a Ma∣nuscript of the Vatican Libra∣ry, and published by Leo Al∣latius in 1629. with Eustathi∣us in Hexaëmeron, who wrote against this Homily of Origen's. The Subject of this Discourse is, to enquire whe∣ther the Witch of Endor did really raise the Soul of Samu∣el, or whether the Devil only appeared in his shape. Origen maintains the first Opinion, and Eustathius the second, Authors are divided hereupon.	The first Homily upon the Kings, which is in all proba∣bility done by the same Inter∣preter.
He composed several Homi∣lies upon Job; witness Eusta∣thius in Diagnostico de Enga∣strimytho; and S. Hierom Ep. 75. The first of whom tells us▪ That he had said some things very childish concerning the Names of Job's Daughters▪ and the second, that he had said some things concerning the Stars, and against the De∣vil, which the Church does not receive. He was the first that made Commentaries upon all the Psalms, as S. Hierom tells us, Ep. 89. S. Hilary has copied and imitated them in several places. Trithemius says that he had seen them. He also wrote Homilies and Scholia upon the Psalms, as the Author of the Commentaries upon the Psalms, attributed to S. Hierom, assures us, A Commentary upon the Proverbs, cited by Pamphi∣lus.	A Fragment upon the first Psalm, taken from S. Epipha∣nius, Haeres. 6••. Three others taken from the Philocalia, cap. 2, & 3. Another Fragment contain∣ing the Catalogue of the Sa∣cred Books, taken from Euse∣bius's History, lib. 6. cap. 25. Another from S. Epiphani∣us, Ibid. Item, One upon the 4th Psalm, taken from the Philo∣calia, cap. 25. One upon the 40th Psalm, Ibid. And lastly, One upon the 82d Psalm, taken from a Ho∣mily; Eusebius Hist. lib. 6. cap. 38.	Nine Homilies upon the Psalms, translated by Ruffinus.

Two Commentaries upon the Song of Songs: One was made when he was young; The other, which he com∣posed when he was older, di∣vided into Ten Tomes, in which he has out-done him∣self; upon which account, S. Gregory Nyssen says, That he has taken extraordinary pains upon this Book of Scri∣pture, In Proaemio lib. Canti∣corum.	A Fragment taken from his first Commentary upon the Canticles, in the Philocalia, chap. 27. And one taken from his second, chap. 26.	Two passages taken from the Commentary upon the Canticles, in the Apology of Pamphilus, translated by Ruf∣finus, in S. Hierom Tom. 4. Hüetius believes, that the Latin Book upon the Canticles ought not to be divided into Homilies, since it is a continu∣ed Commentary, and that it is the very Commentary of Origen translated by Ruffinus. Sixtus Senensis, and several others, think that it is by a Latin Author. See the Re∣marks here at the side [4] Two Homilies translated by S. Hierom word for word.	[4] Not only the Protestant Criticks, as Perkins, Coke, Ri∣vet, and others, do reject this Work after Erasmus and Am∣erbachius, but likewise Sixtus Senensis, and several Papists. In some Editions it is attribu∣ted to S. Ambrose, in others to Peter Lombard, others, as Merlin, Genebrard, and Hue∣tius, believe it to be that of Origen; and even Blondel in his Apology is of this opinion, as well as Aubertin. The Rea∣sons against it are, That it ap∣pears to be by a Latin Author, 1. Because in his Prologue he cites the Greeks as strangers to him. 'Tis answered, That he opposes the Greeks, not to the Latins, but to the Christians. 2. 'Tis said, That the Author speaks as if he had written in Latin; for he explains the three Greek Names of the three parts of Philosophy; Ge∣nerales Disciplinae, says he, quibus ad scientiam perveni∣tur, tres sunt, qu••s Graeci E∣thicam, Physicam, & Theo∣riam appellaverunt, (nos has dicere possumus Moralem, Na∣turalem, & Inspectivam) non∣nulli sane etiam Logicam, quam nos rationalem possumus dicere. And in another place he says, That the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ought to be translated by diligere, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by dilectio. 'Tis answer'd, That these Explications are by the Interpreter. A third Reason, which is more considerable, is, That S. Hierom in his Prologue upon Origen's two Homilies upon the Canticles, which he translated, saith, That Origen in the ten Tomes explain'd the Translations of the Septuagint, of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and the fifth Version; which is not to be found in this Work: But this perhaps was left out by Ruffinus; besides, it may be said that this Commentary here may be accommodated to all these Versions: so the Reasons which are for the Negative are but weak, whereas those which are for the Affirmative are very strong. First, It is certain that Origen did write upon the Canticles. Secondly, This Commentary has the Character and Style of Origen, which gives an allegorical and figurative sense to every thing. Thirdly, There are some Sentences and Thoughts exactly like those which are in the Homilies translated by S. Hierom. Fourthly, It explains the Hebrew words, and draws from thence a mystical sense, after Origen's way. Fifthly, He here cites his other Works. Sixthly, He has peculiar Notions con∣cerning the Soul and the Angels. And lastly, That which is a convincing Proof, is, That the Greek Fragment of Origen upon the Canticles, cited in the Philocalia, is found here, though interpreted with a great deal of liberty. That it is a continued Commentary, and no•• Homilies, is proved by the Style, because there is a Preface written by the Author; and besides, all Origen's Homilies have a like form of Conclusion, whereas this Commentary is continued without this Conclusion. Ruffi∣nus is the Author of this Translation; and it is certain that it was not S. Hierom, who says in the Prologue of the two Homi∣lies, That this Translation would require too much leisure, pains, and expence, and that he durst not undertake it. Genna∣dius says, That all Origen's Works which were not translated by S. Hierom, were done by Ruffinus; and indeed the Style of it is very like Ruffinus's.
Thirty Books of Commen∣taries upon Isaiah. Five and twenty Homilies. And some Scholia. Hier. lib. 1. Apel. adversus Ruffin. cap. 3. & in Proaemio Comment. MSS. Eusebius Book 6. chap. 32. says, That the thirty Tomes went as far as the Visi∣on of the four-footed Beasts. Several Homilies upon Je∣remy: Cassiodorus and Raba∣nus Maurus tell us, That there were 45 of them.		Two passages taken from his Commentary upon Isaiah. One upon the 1 chap. and the other upon the 28th chap. in the A∣pology attributed to Pamphilus in the 4th Tome of S. Hierom. Nine Homilies translated by S. Hierom (as the same S. Hie∣rom in his Catalogue, and the conformity of the Style, makes it appear.) The 9th is imper∣fect, to which there is added the end of the 9th Homily up∣on Jeremiah.
Five Tomes of Commenta∣ries upon the Lamentions of Jeremiah; Eusebius.	Nineteen Homilies upon Je∣remiah, falsly attributed to S. Cyril, and publish'd by Cor∣derius, twelve whereof are translated by S. Hierom. A Fragment of the 39th ta∣ken from the Philocalia, chap. 1. A Fragment extracted from the 20th Tome, taken from the Philocalia, chap. 11.	Fourteen Homilies upon Je∣remiah, translated by S. Hie∣rom, twelve whereof are also in Greek; but the Translation differs very much from the Greek, and the Homilies are disposed without any order.
Five and twenty Books of Commentaries, and some Ho∣milies upon Ezekiel; Eusebius Book 6. chap. 32.		Fourteen Homilies upon Eze∣kiel, translated by S. Jerome, as the Prologue, Style, St. Je∣rome's own Testimony in Ca∣talogo assures us, and Ruffinus Invect. 2.
Some Commentaries upon Daniel; Orig. Tract. 24. in Matth.		S. Jerome inserted into his Commentaries upon Daniel, Origen's Scholia, taken out of his 10th Book of Stromata.
Five and twenty Volumes of Commentaries upon the lesser Prophets. S. Hieron. de Scriptorib. Ecclesiast. lib. 6. cap. 36. The Commentaries upon Hosea and Zachary are a part of them. S. Hierom makes mention of two little Books of Origen upon Hosea, in the Preface to his Commentary upon the Prophets: but he did not explain it entirely, as it appears by S. Hierom, and by the Philocalia.	A Fragment of the Commen∣tary upon Hosea, in the Philo∣calia, chap. 8.

[5] Five and twenty Tomes of Commentaries upon S. Mat∣thew, with Homilies and Scho∣lia. Euseb. lib. 6. cap. 36. and S. Hierom in Proaemio Com∣ment. in Matth.	A Fragment of the first Tome upon S. Matthew, in Eusebius lib. 6. Hist. cap. 25. Another taken from the first Tome in the Philocalia, chap. 6. The Commentaries from the 13th Chap. Ver. 36. to the 22d Chap. Ver. 33. are published by Hüetius, who has copied them from a Ma∣nuscript in the Queen of Swe∣den's Library; and from ano∣ther in the King's Library, from the 11th to the 16th ••••me, and comprizing the 17th.	A Fragment of the first Tome upon S. Matthew, in the Apology of Pamphilus. Another of the 7th Tome, ibid. Bullinger cites some passages thereof, in Disput. contra Casaubonum, p. 2. De∣amb. 3. p. 19. taken out of the Commentary upon the 6th Chap. and the 23d. The Translation of the Commentaries upon S. Mat∣thew, from the 13th Chap. Ver. 16. to the 27th, Ver. 66. is improperly divided into 36 Homilies, made by Erasmus from the 13th Chap. Ver. 36. to the 16th Chap. Ver. 20. The remainder is an anci••n Version, of which we do not know the Author [6].	[5] In the Preface attributed to S. Hierom, upon the Homi∣lies on S. Luke, there are 36. Ruffinus in his second Invective reckons 26 of them, We had better keep to the Account of Eusebius and S. Hierom. [6] Some have attributed it to S. Hierom; but he himself says in his Prologue upon S. Luke, that he would not undertake it. In his 65th Epi∣stle, he says, That no person dar'd till his time to interpret the Books de Principiis, and the Tomes of Origen, therefore it is not ancienter than S. Hie∣rom. Neither was it done by Ruffinus, who in his Version of the Apology of Pamphilus, translates some passages of this Commentary, and relates them after a different manner than what is to be found in this Version, which differs very much from the Text; and it is quite ano∣ther Style from that of S. Hierom, and of Ruffinus. 'Tis probably later than Genn••dius, who says that all that we have of Origen in his time was translated by S. Hierom, or Ruffinus. Aquinas relates some passages of them word for word, in his C••tena aurea: so that this Author is between Gennadius and Aquinas, and nearer the first than the last, because he cites a passage of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, Tract. 8. which was not quoted by Origen; which shews its Antiquity, besides the Style and the Terms are old. Hüetius, from whose Observations we have taken all this, believes that it was made in Cassiodo∣rus's time, and that it might be ascrib'd to Epiphanius Scholasticus, the Author of the Tripartite History, were not the Style quite different: Therefore he attributes it to one Bellator, a Friend of Cassioderus, who had translated several Greek Books, and particularly some of Origen's Homilies, at the desire of Cassiodorus.
Commentaries upon S. Luke. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Tomes. S. Hierom. Prol. 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ in Lucam. Origen T. 13. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Nine and Thirty Homilies upon S. Luke. Id. ibid. & in C••talogo.		Nine and thirty Homilies upon S. Luke, translated by S. Hierom [7].
Two and thirty Tomes of Commentaries upon S. John. Ruffin. Invect. 2.	There are but 9 Tomes up∣on S. John extant, 1. 2. 6. 10. 13. 19. 20. 28. 32. Ferrarius publi∣shed a Version divided into 32 Tomes, taken from a Venetian MS. Hiietius published the Greek from a MS. in the Kings Library. A Fragment of the 4th Tome. Philocal. c. 4. Another of the 5th Tome. Ibid. c. 4.
Some Homilies upon the Acts.	A Fragment of the Com∣ments upon the Acts. Ib. c. 7.		[7] He mentions it in the Catalogue of his Wo••ks, and in his Prologue to Paula & Eustochicum; and it is quoted by Ruffinus in his Invective. Ruffinus upbraids him for ha∣ving omitted and alter'd, in translating Origen's Homilies upon S. Luke, those passages which were against the Divi∣nity of the Son; and that when he quoted this passage, Ecce enim ut facta est vox, &c. he observes that he added, Prin∣cipium substantiae ejus; which is to be found in the 4th of those Homilies that we have still extant. Lastly, according to the report of Ruffinus, S. Hierom translated seventy of Origen's Homilies. Now he had translated 14 upon Jeremiah, 14 upon Ez••kiel, and 9 upon Isaiah, as appears by his Prologue upon Ezekiel; and there remains, to make up the 70, these 39 upon S. Luke; besides that those which we have under his Name, are written according to the style and manner of Origen. It is objected in the first place, That there are therein several Greek words turn'd into Latin: for example, it is observed, That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is to say, gratiâ plena; That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, sine ratione, That cadaver comes à casu; That in the Greek there is an Article. Homily 22, and Homily 25. Answ. These Explications are put in by the Interpreter. There are the like in those Books which we have at present in Greek, and which are undoubtedly his, and in the ancient Translators, as in him that interpreted S. Irenaeus, &c. Secondly, It is objected, That the Holy Ghost is there called the Third Person. Ans. Origen often said, That the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost were 3 Hypostases, and the Latins have translated the word Hypostasis by that of Person: for example, Ferrarius translated that passage of the second Tome in Joan. after the same manner. Third Objection: He makes a Dialogue between the Devil and Jesus Christ, and makes them hold long Discourses together. Ans. This is exactly Origen's way. Fourth Objection: He makes use of the Autho∣rity of Isaiah and the Psalms against the Sadducees, in the 39th Homily; whereas Origen said that the Sadducees admitted only the Law, and by consequence he would not have made use of any other Books against them. Answ. Origen never said that the Sadducees did not admit the Prophets, but only that they did not make use of them to prove the Doctrines of Faith.
Commentaries upon the E∣pistle to the Romans, which were to the number of 15 Tomes, according to Ruffinus in the Preface to his Version; or twenty, according to Cassi∣odorus.	A Fragment of the first Tome of the Commentary up∣on the Epistle to the Romans, chap. 24. of the Philocalia. Another taken from the 9th Tome, in the 9th chap. of the Philocalia.	Ruffinus translated 15 or 20 Tomes of Origen's Commen∣taries upon the Epistle to the Romans [8].	[8] Ruffinus ••bridg'd them into ••alf the compass, as he acknowledges in his Preface. Some attribute this Version to S. Hierom; but unjustly: for in the conclusion he strikes at S. Hierom in these words: Some perhaps may ask me why I put my Name, and may enquire why I have not set down, for ex∣ample, The Commentaries of Hierom upon the Epistle to the Romans. And he adds, That he translated the Books of S. Cle∣ment; and that we should not think that it was done by Hie∣rom, he puts the Name of Cle∣ment in the Title, which shews that this Translation was done by Ruffinus. We have also two Latin Passages taken from the Apology of Pamphilus.
Some Commentaries upon the first Epistle to the Corin∣thians; Hom. 17. in Luc. & Hier. Ep. 52. Some Commentaries, Homi∣lies and Scholia upon the Epi∣stle to the Galatians. S. Hie∣rom in Proaemio Commentar. Ep. ad Galat. & Ep. 89. ad August. Three Tomes upon the Epi∣stle to the Ephesians. Lib. 1. Apol. ad Ruff. 4, 5.

A Commentary upon the Epistle to the C••l••ssi••••s. Apo∣log. de Pamp••••lo.		Fragments of Commen••••ries upon 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Epistles 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Colossi∣ans and to T••tus, in the Apo∣logy of 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
One upon the Epistle to the Thessalonians. Hi••r. Ep. 52. One upon the Epistle to Titus. Apolog. Pamph.		S. Hier••••, in the Epistle to Mi••••erius & Alexander, ••e∣l•••••••• a Fragment of the Com∣mentaries of Origen upon the Epistle to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
Some Commentaries and Homilies upon the Epistle to the Hebrews. He promised a Commenta∣ry upon the Apocalypse, Tom. 3 in Matth.	E••s••bius lib 6. cap. 25. re∣lates a Fragment upon the E∣pistle to the Hebrews.	Lastly, There are some Frag∣ments of a Commentrry up∣on the Epistle to the Hebrews, in the Apology of Pamphilus.
	All these Greek Fragments are exactly collected by Hue∣tius in the two Volumes which he has published, containing all that remains in Greek o•• Origen's Works upon the Scri∣pture; and 'tis to him that we are indebted for almost all the Remarks that are here. He has not inserted the Fragments which are in the C••••enae, be∣cause he believes they are not of any great Authority.

The other Treatises of Origen are not near so many in Number as his Works upon the Holy Scri∣pture: and yet they were very considerable: for not to mention his Commentaries upon the Philoso∣phers, which Eusebius speaks of in the 6th Book, Chap 18. of his History, he wrote s 1.17 2 Books of the Re∣surrection; the Treatise de Principiis, divided into 4 Books; 10 Books of Stromata, t 1.18 witness the same Eusebius, Chap. 24. The Book of Martyrdom, mentioned in the 28 Chapter. The 8 Books against C••••sus in the 36 Chap. The Letter to Africanus, concerning the History of Susanna; to which we may add, the Dispute which he had with Beryllus, which was extant in Eusebius's Time, u 1.19 and some Discourses & Letters which Eusebius collected, and divided into three Books, as he declares in the same 5th Book, Chap. 36. S Hierom mentions almost all his Works; and besides these, two other Dialogues of the Re∣surrection, and a Treatise explaining the Hebrew Names of the New Testament, which he added; to that of Philo, concerning the Explanation of those of the Old. x 1.20 And also in the Apology of Pam∣philus, there is mention made of a Treatise concerning Prayer, composed by Origen. Theodoret often cites our Author against divers Heretick: y 1.21 but we must not therefore think that he composed so many express Treatises against these Hereticks; they are only some Passages of his Works, where he confutes several Errors, whilst he is writing upon other Subjects.

The Chief of all these Books is the Discourse against Celsus, divided into eight Books, which were published in Greek long since, with the Translation of Gelenius, and the Notes of Haeschelius, and of one Christoph. Persona, printed at Rome in the Year 1471, and afterwards very correctly in England in

••658. The Exhortation to Martyrdom has ••een lately published by W••••st••nius, the Greek Professor as Basil, together with the Letter to Africanus, concerning the History of Susanna, which was former∣ly set forth in part by Haeschelius, in the Year 1602. We have likewise the Version of the four Books de Princip••••s, composed by Ru••••inus. But he has taken so much Liberty aa 1.22 that we cannot discern what is Origen's own. There are some Latin Fragments of the Books of the Resurrection, cited in the Apology of Pamphilus, which we have only in Latin. The Letter to S. Gregory Thaumaturgus is entire in Greek in the Philocalia. Ruffinus relates a Fragment of a Letter to those of Alexandria, where he complains that they had corrupted his Books. S. Hierom accuses him for having omitted, that in this same Letter Origen railed at Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria, and at those others who had condemned him. Eusebius also produces, as we have already said, some Fragments of two Letters. The Book of Prayer, which Hiietius had promised, has been lately published in Greek and Latin in England. This Work was addressed to Ambrose and Tatianus, and it may be divided into three Parts. In the first, he treats of the Necessity, the Advantage, and the good Effects of Prayer. In the Se∣cond, he discourses of the different kinds of Prayer, and particularly explains the Lord's Prayer. In the Last, he speaks of the Circumstances and Conditions which ought to prec••de, accompany and follow our Prayers. Lastly, We may joyn to Origen's Works the Philocalia, which is a Collection of several Passages of Origen, relating to the Holy Scripture, made by S. Basil, and S. Gregory N••zian∣zen, and published by Tarinus in the Year 1618, and the Book of the Apology of Pamphilus, of which we have the Translation done by Ruffinus, which is amongst S. Hierom's Works in the Fourth Tome.

We ought also to have reckoned here the Dialogue against Marcion, which bears his Name, if it was not more probable that it was composed by another Author bb 1.23, who has introduced Origen in this Dialogue defending the Churches Cause, and therefore has given it Origen's Nam••: as Cicero gave that of Laelius and Cato to his Books of Friendship and Old Age.

But we must reckon amongst the Supposititious Books two different Commentaries upon Job, Printed in Latin under Origen's Name; the first divided into three Books, which concludes about the middle of the third Chapter of Job. We do not certainly know whether it was composed in Latin, or whether it was translated from the Greek cc 1.24: however, 'tis certain that it was not written by O∣rigen dd 1.25, but by some other Author, who lived since the Time of Arius ee 1.26, and one that was an Ari∣an himself.

The other Commentary upon the Book of Job, translated by Perionius from a Manuscript of the King's Library, is also by an Arian ff 1.27, but different from the first, though he commends the Mar∣tyr Lucian as well as Origen, and speaks of the Manichees. The four Homilies upon Job, which were published under Origen's Name in the first Edition by Genebrard, were left out in the second, because they are not Origen's, no more than S. Chrysostom's, to whom they are still attributed. It is observed in a Letter prefixed to Er••smus's Edition, that there were still remaining under Origen's Name, some little Notes upon Job, which they would not insert in his Works, because they appeared to be of a quite different Style and Genius.

There is in the King's Library, a Commentary upon S. Mark, ascribed likewise to Origen, which is certainly none of his gg 1.28.

The ten Homilies upon several Passages of the Gospel, collected by Merlinus, are all written by others hh 1.29, being written after a quite different manner, and almost all of them composed by a La∣tin.

The Book concerning Sighs, or Penance, attributed to Origen, and placed by Gelasius among the Number of the Apocryphal Pieces, is without doubt counterfeit, as well as his Preface. Morellus caused to be printed under Origen's Name, in the year 1601, some Scholia upon the Lord's Prayer, and upon the Hymn of the Blessed Virgin, and of Zachary; but the Bibliotheca Patrum, &c. ii 1.30 informs us. That they were written by Petrus Laodicensis. Besides, there were found in the Vatican Library, some Homilies upon Jeremiah, some whereof were printed by Chifletius in the Year 1623, which also are none of his. The Book concerning Coelibacy of the Clergy, which is amongst S. Cyprian's Works, bears the Name of Origen in a Manuscript of the King's Library kk 1.31, but 'tis the Work of a Latin Author. It is said also, That there are in Libraries some Treatises under this Author's Name ll 1.32, which are very dubious, they not being cited by the Ancients, and being for the most part upon such Subjects, upon which it is not likely that Origen should have written.

I shall not stand to set down in particular the several Editions of Origen's Works, as well in Greek as in Latin, having already taken notice of the greatest part of them: It shall suffice me to say, That all Origen's Works that are in Latin, have been collected by Merlinus, and afterwards by Erasmus, and printed in two Volumes at Paris in the Year 1512, and at Basil in the Years 1526, 1545, and 1571. That Genebrard has since made a larger Collection, printed at Paris in 1574, 1604, and 1619; and at Basil in 1620. That all the Greek Fragments of Origen's Books upon the Scripture, are published with a Translation by the Learned Hiietius, and printed in France in two Volumes, in the Year 1667, but that he has not yet set forth the other Works of Origen, as he promised. That his Books against Celsus, and the Philocalia were printed in England in 1658. That Wetstenius, Greek Professor at Ba∣sil, caused to be printed there, in 1674, the Dialogue against Marcion, the Exhortation to Martyr∣dom, and the Letters of Africanus and Origen, concerning the History of Susanna; and lastly, That the Book concerning Prayer has been lately printed in England. So that to have all Origen's Works, as well those which we have only in Latin, as those in Greek, we must have Genebrard's Edition, Hu∣etius's two Volumes, the Books against Celsus, with the Philocalia, printed in England iu Quarto; the Quarto Volume set forth by Wetstenius, and the little Treatise concerning Prayer, lately printed in England.

It would be very tedious, and to little purpose, to give here an Abridgment of all Origen's Works, and particularly of his Homilies, and his Commentaries upon the Scripture, which are almost all full of Allegories and Morality; besides, having only the Version of the greatest part of the Homi∣lies, we cannot be certain whether that which relates to Doctrine and Discipline, be Origen's own, or Ruff••nus's: I ••••all therefore content my self to give a Summary of his Doctrine upon the principal Points of our Religion, examining at the same time whether he be guilty of those Errors of which he is accused.

If we had had his Books of Principles in Greek, we might easily have been informed of all his Opi∣nions; for these Books contained the Abridgment of his Doctrine: But since we have only Ruffinus's Translation, in which he himself confesses that he altered and omitted several Passages, wherein Origen discourses concerning the Mystery of the Trinity, which he believes were corrupted by the Hereticks, we cannot be assured of Origen's Doctrine from this Version, except it be in those things for which he is condemned: so that we must have recourse to those Works of Origen which we have in Greek.

Origen's Notions concerning the Nature and the Attributes of God are very Orthodox; he be∣lieves that he is a Spiritual, Invisible, Simple, and Eternal Essence. He is wrongfully accused for believing that God had a Body, since * 1.33 he says directly contrary in several places, and proves it by many convincing Arguments. He discourses admirably concerning the Knowledge and the Providence of God. Some have accused him of having set Bounds to his Power, because he says, That he is called Omnipotent only because he governs all things, and not because he can create any thing new. Justinian cites in his Letter to Mennas, a Passage taken from the second Book of Origen's Principles, where he says that the Power of God is finite, and that he made all the Creatures that he can govern. Russinus also taxes him of this Error. He seems indeed to have believed that God created that Matter from all Eternity, whereof he has made the World, and of which he will make successively several other Worlds.

The Ancients are extreamly divided as to the Judgment that is to be given of Origen's Doctrine concerning the Trinity.

S. Hierom, John Bishop of Jerusalem, S. Epiphanius, S. Austin, and after them Theophilus, Justinian, and the fifth Council, have accused him of several Errors about this Mystery: On the contrary, Didymus, S. Athanasius, S. Basil, S. Gregory Nazianzen, and anonynious Author, of whom Photius speaks in the 117th Volume, S. Chrysostom and Russinus have either cited him against the Arians, as an Author who had Orthodox Notions concerning the Trinity, or defended him against the Accusations of his Enemies; the One by giving a favourable Sense to his Words, and the Others by maintaining that those Passages which were found not to be agreeable to the Faith of the Church were added; and that there were other contrary Expressions, which were entirely conformable to the Doctrine of the Church. It is certain that in Ruffinus's Latin Versions which we have of the Book de Principiis, and the Apology of Pamphilus, and of his other Works, the Doctrine of the Tri∣nity is explained after a very Orthodox manner. But we must confess, that we cannot rely upon Ruffinus's Credit, who acknowledges that he added and altered several Passages relating to the Trinity. It is true, he says he has taken what he has added from other Places of Ori∣gen; but S. Hierom denies it, and we are not obliged to believe Ruffinus upon his own word. So likewise we ought not to give Credit entirely to what St. Hierom says against Origen, since he was as violent against him, as Ruffinus was passionate for him. Therefore, Neither believing his Enemies, nor his zealous Defenders, let us consult those Pieces of his Works which we have in Greek And here still we are in a Labyrinth, from which it will be difficult to extricate our selves. Herein we find some things which appear no less contrary, than the Opinions themselves of the Authors who who have written for and against him. He often speaks very ex∣cellently of the WORD, which gives us reason to believe that he * 1.34 was persuaded of his Godhead: He says, That he was from the be∣ginning in the Father; That he is the Image of the Father; That He was begotten of the Father from all Eternity; That he is a Sub∣sistence, and a Person distinguished from the Father; That he is the Wisdom of God, and that he is God himself; That he never leaves his Father; That those are in an Error, who deny that the God-head of the Father and the Son is the same, though their Substance be different; That he is God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, though he be not the Source and Original of the Godhead, as the Father is, whom upon that account he calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, That he is above all Creatures; That we may address our Vows and our Prayers to Him, as to God the Father; That he is only known by the Father; That he ought to be honoured as the Father, and that he has the same Power. Lastly, S. Athanasius cites two formal Pas∣sages for the Eternity of the WORD, and for his Equality with the Father; and S. Basil also cites one which is very clear for the Divinity of the Holy Ghost.

But, on the other side, in his Books we meet with many Expressions which are very harsh, little conformable to the Orthodox Doctrine, and which seem to favour the Arians. He says, That the Word is an Hypostasis different from * 1.35 the Father; and he takes the Word Hypostasis to signifie Nature and Substance. He says likewise, That the Father and the Son are One in Concord and in Will; and that the last is not properly God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but only called God, because he is the Image and Resem∣blance of the Divinity; That the WORD and the Holy Ghost were made by the Father; That we must not compare the Father with the Son; and that the Father is greater than the Son, who is inferior to Him, though he be superior to all Creatures, as the Sun-beam is inferior to the Sun; and lastly, That the WORD is the Minister of the Father. These Ex∣pressions, and some others like them, are hard indeed; but when there are Contradictions in Au∣thors, we ought always, in my Opinion, to take the most favourable Side. Besides, That it is more easie to put a good Construction on these last Expressions, which were very common before the Council of Nice, than to put a bad one upon the First: For, without making use of Ruffinus's way of defending him, who says that these Places are either added or corrupted; and without alledging in his Excuse, that being to dispute against the Sabellians, he was obliged to make use of some Terms which might seem to favour the opposite Error: without making use, I say, of these general Defences I believe we may explain in a very Catholick Sense, those Expressions which I have just now related. When he says, That the Father and the Son were Two Hypostases; he understands by the Word Hypo∣stasis, all that is opposed to nothing; and he had no other Design than to maintain against the Sabelli∣ans, That the WORD was not a Vertue or a Quality from the Father, but a Person subsisting. It is certain, That in Origen's Time the Word Hypostasis and Substance were synonymous Terms; but so too by the Word Substance, was often understood a Person subsisting; and some Catholick Authors, not only before the Council of Nice, but even afterwards have affirmed that the Father was a Substance, the Son a second Substance; understanding, as S. Hilary observes, by Substance, the Persons subsisting. In the second Place, Origen does not say that the Son is a Creature: He does not deny but that he is God, but he only denies that he is God of himself, as the Father is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and this is what he would explain by the Comparison of the Sun and the Sun-beam, which the Fathers, who lived after the Council of Nice, thought to be very proper for the explaining the Mystery of the Trinity. And thus it is, that going upon this Principle, he says, That the Son is inferiour to the Father, and that the Father was greater than the Son; not that he believed them to be of a different Nature, since he owned that they are One and the same Divinity, and One and the same Substance; That the Son was equal to the Father, and that he was in him from all Eternity; but because the Son derives his Divinity from the Father, who is the Source of the Godhead. As to what he says, That the Son is

the Minister of the Father; That the Father made use of him in making the World; and that the Son was created. These are Expressions that are too common amongst the Ancints, to be particular∣ly objected to Origen as a Crime.

S. Hierom accuses Origen, for saying, That the Son, in comparison * 1.36 of the Father, was not Goodness it self, but only the Image and Re∣presentation of Goodness; and Huetius confirms this to have been * 1.37 Origen's Opinion by some of his Greek Passages. The same S Hie∣rom upbraids him also for affirming that the Son in comparison of the Father, was a lesser Light; That he was not the Truth, but the Image of the Truth; That he was Visible, and the Father Invisible; but we may easily discern that these Expressions, as harsh as they may seem, being considered separately, were meant by Origen in a good sense, he having no o∣ther Design than to prove that the Father was the Source and Original of Goodness and Truth; and that the Son received it from him; and that in this sense he was the Image of the Father's Good∣ness, the Brightness of his Godhead: Expressions which in this sense are very Orthodox. As to what he says, that the Father is Invisible, and the Son Visible, we have shewn in other Places what the An∣cients meant by this way of speaking.

Lastly, It is easie to answer what S. Epiphanius and several others object to Origen, That he denied that the Father was Visible to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost: for he affirms so expresly in so many places, That the Father is perfectly * 1.38 known of the Son, and even of the Holy Ghost, that he must of ne∣cessity have had some other meaning, when he seems to assert the contrary. Ruffinus answers this Ob∣jection, That he denied that the Father was visible to the Son, as Bodies are visible to Bodies that he might confute the Error of the Valentinians, who believed that God was Corporeal; and he cites a Passage of Origen, where he distinguishes betwixt Seeing and Knowing, and affirms, That we may say that the Son knows the Father, but that we cannot say that he sees him, because Seeing is the Property of a Body. I shall not make any Answer to other more trivial Objections, because it is easie to satis∣fie them, as well by what we have just now said, as by what we have observed upon the other Fathers. a 1.39 There are no very con∣siderable Objections made against Origen's Doctrine concerning the Incarnation; for though he be accused of several Errors, he affirms so positively in all his Works, That the WORD had taken a Body and a Soul like ours in the Womb of a Virgin, by the Operation of the Holy Ghost; That Jesus Christ had true Fesh; That he really suffered; That he is altogether God and Man, in that the Human Nature was united with the Divine Nature in one and the same Per∣son: That it is impossible to accuse him of any Error concerning the Mystery of the Incarnation. Perhaps, as he was of Opinion, That the Souls were in Heaven before they came down into their Bodies, he might think the same thing of the Soul of Jesus Christ. But this was only a particular Error, for which he was not very earnest.

He is accused of believing that the Death of Christ was of Advantage to all reasonable Creatures, as Angels, Devils, and even insensible things; and 'tis certain that he does assert this wild Notion in several places of his Works. He has feigned a Spiritual Death of Jesus Christ in the other World, which has given occasion to tax him for holding that Jesus Christ died several times. He believed that Christ did not come out of the Virgins Womb by Penetration; and he accuses the Virgin Mary of Di∣strust. But these are but slight Errors, and common among the Ancients.

As he believed that the only Point of Faith relating to the Angels, was, That there were such Be∣ings, and that neither Scripture nor Tradition had determined any thing as to their Nature and their Number; so he has taken the Liberty to deliver his own Thoughts hereupon: He imagines that they are Corporeal, though invisible, having nevertheless a Spiritual Soul. He says, That the good Angels have a finer, and the Evil ones a grosser Body. The Principle from whence he has drawn this Con∣clusion, is, That all intelligent and spiritual Creatures having been created in Heaven with a perfect Freedom of Will, they have been afterwards, for a Punishment of their Faults, confined to Bodies more or less gross, according to the Quality of their Crimes, and ranked in such and such Orders or Degrees of Creatures inferior one to another: yet so, nevertheelss, as that after having suffered this Exile, if I may so say, for some Ages, they may by living vertuously, return to the Place from whence they were banished. b 1.40 And go∣ing upon this Principle, he affirms, That men may become Angels, and Angels Men; That the Angels being free, do often commit Faults; That the Devils shall one day be delivered; That the An∣gels are guilty of several Offences in their Administration of things here below, for which they are immediately rebuked, and for which they shall be judged in the Day of Judgment. All these Fancies, and several others, are the Conse∣quences of Plato's Doctrine, to which Origen was wonderfully addicted. We must nevertheless ac∣knowledge, that he does not propose these things as Doctrines of our Religion, but only as his Opini∣ons and Conjectures.

c 1.41 He says in several Places, That the Angels take care of Men; That every Church, every Society; and lastly, every Man has his Guardian-Angel; and even in some places he says, That every one has his good and evil Angel; in other Places, That several Angels have the Care of one particular Person; and in others, That they take care of inanimate Things. Though he denies that we ought to address to the Angels the same Prayers, and the same Adorations as to God, yet he allows that they may be prayed unto, and honoured according as they deserve.

Concerning the Soul, he says in the Preface to his Books of Principles, that it is not determined by the Tradition of the Church, whether it be produced by another Soul, or whether it comes from else-where; whether it be Eternal, or created at a certain time; whether it animates the Body, or whe∣ther it be only confined there. This is what he says in the Language of an Ecclesiastical Author: But following the Principles of Plato's Philosophy, he holds, That Souls are intelligent Creatures, which have been from Eternity, which are sent into Bodies as into a Prison, for a Punishment of their Sins; That they pass from Body to Body; That they become Angels; and lastly, That they are in a continual Motion. He asserts all these things in his second Book of Principles, Chap. 6, and 7. and in several other places of his Works. d 1.42 He says in some Places, That the Soul is Corporeal; but in others, he assures us, that it is Spiritual and Incorporeal.

e 1.43 He holds it as an Article of Faith, That there is a Free Will in all reasonable Creatures; from whence it follows, That though a Man may be excited to Good by some C••lestial Power, and spurr'd on to Evil by the Devil, yet he is never constrained to do Good or Evil. This is what he says agree∣ably to the Doctrine of the Church; but he extends this Liberty, by following Plato's Principles, to all sorts of Conditions; and he pretends, That an intelligent Creature is, and will always be free to do Good and Evil, in whatsoever State and Condition he is; for in this he makes Free Will to consist. f 1.44 He does not seem to have made any Distinction between Adam's State, and that of Mankind after the Fall.

He attributes very much to Free-will, and Nature, and he speaks but very little of Grace, which he believes was infused into Souls according to the Merits which they have, before they are confined in Bodies; and afterwards it is augmented according to the Good and Evil which they do in making use of their Natural Liberty. He ascribes in several Places the Conversion of a Man, and all the Good which he acts, to Free Will; and allows hardly any thing to Grace, so that it was not without Reason that St. Hierom accuses him for having furnished the Pelagians with Principles; though yet in some places he speaks very advantagiously of Grace; and of the Assistance of God. He is taxed for holding, that Men may arrive to such a Degree of Perfection, that they shall be no more subject to Temptation, nor commit any more Sins: And indeed there are some Relicks of this Error in his Books. He has also affirmed, that those who have sinned, after having receiv∣ed the Holy Ghost, could obtain no more Pardon for their Sin. g 1.45 And upon this account he maintains, that St. Peter had not as yet received the Holy Ghost, when he denied Christ, and that being forsaken by God, it was impossible for him not to sin. h 1.46 When he explains that Passage of the Fifth Chapter of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Ro∣mans he discourses of Original Sin after a very obscure manner; as if he doubted of it: And we must not wonder after this, that he did not admit of any other Predestina∣tion, than that which has respect to Merits.

He believed that the Stars were animated with reasonable Souls confined to these Bodies. i 1.47 He owns the Resurrection of the Bo∣dy, but by Philosophizing too nicely upon this Matter, he has, if I may so say, Spiritualized it.

He admits of two Resurrections; That of the Righteous, and that of the Wicked. He acknowledges the last Judgment, wherein Men and Angels shall be Judged; but he seems to make a doubt in what Place it should be, if all Men were there to be judged. k 1.48 He says, That Jesus Christ shall ap∣pear there, but that we neither know the Place where he will ap∣pear, nor the Manner how. He rejects the Opinion of the Millena∣ries. He confesses that Good Men shall against be recompenced with Eternal Blessedness, and the Wicked punished with Eternal Fire; but he destroys the Simplicity of this Faith by Reasoning too much on this Subject. He believes that all Men, even the most Holy, shall pass through the Fire: That after Men have passed through the Fire, the Wicked shall be cast into Hell, that is to say, into the Lowest Place, and they shall be there tormented with Eternal Fire. This

Fire (as l 1.49 he Explains it in other Places) is Remorse of Consci∣ence, and Vexation of Spirit. n 1.50 He makes Blessedness to consist in an Union with God. He says that Souls come to it by degrees; that after they are separated from their Bodies, they are for some time upon Earth, in order to be purified, that afterwards they are taken up into the Air, and instructed by Angels, that they pass through several Places, where they remain for some time, and that at last they come to the Highest Heaven, in comparison whereof the Firmament is but a Hell; that the more they retain of Earth in them, the longer they are upon this Journey: That the Souls which are arrived at this Sovereign Degree of Bliss, may fall from it, and that they are sent back again into Coelestial Bodies, or others, and that they afterwards return from whence they were driven; that so Blessedness may have an End, and that Torments shall have a Conclusion likewise. n 1.51 He says in his Preface to the Book de Principiis, that God Created the World, that it had a Beginning and that it must have an End; but that it is not determined by Tradition, what it was before, and what it will be after. He imagines that it was made, if I may so express it, to be a Place of Banishment for all. In∣telligent Creatures. He makes no Difficulty of asserting, that there were more Worlds before this, and that there shall be more after it. He says, That God always had the Matter upon which he wrought, which supposes that it is Eternal, since God Created it from all Eternity.

o 1.52 He says, That the Earthly Paradise was in Heaven, and he has explained of the Souls which were there, that which is said in Genesis concerning Adam and Eve. He understands by the Fig-Leaves, wherewith they covered themselves after the Fall, the Mortal Bodies to which the Souls were Chained.

It may be concluded from all, that we have already said concerning Origen's Doctrine upon the Tenets of our Religion, that although he professed to believe the Doctrine of the Church, p 1.53 yet he sets up some Philosophical Prin∣ciples, the Consequences of which were found contrary to what was taught by the Christian Religion; which obliged him, in order to accomodate these things which were so directly opposite one to the nother, to invent several Opinions that were very far from the Sim∣plicity of the Faith. So that we must distinguish in Origen what he says according to the way of Speaking used by the Church in his Time, and what he says according to the Principles of Plato's Philosophy, and then we need not wonder, if after, having acknowledged the Truths of Christianity, he should lose himself by advancing such Platonick Notions as are destruct••••e to them. And this, in my Opinion, is the reason of his principal Errors, which are all of them found∣ed upon three Principles taken from the Platonick Philosophy; which are: First, That Intelligent Crea∣tures have always been, and shall eternally exist. Secondly, That they have always been free to do Good and Evil. And Lastly, That they have been precipitated into the Lower Places, and confined to Bodies for a Punishment of their Sins. Let any one throughly examine▪ all Origen's Errors, of which we have just now spoken, and he will easily perceive that they all proceed from this, that he was wil∣ling to accommodate the Truths of the Christian Religion to these Platonick Principles.

There are besides some other slighter Errors in Origen, into the greatest part of which he fell by confining himself too much to the Allegorical Sense of the Scripture; for Example, q 1.54 Explaining Christ's Words concerning the Power of Binding and Loosing, which he granted to St. Peter, he seems to reserve this Power to those Bishops and Priests who imitate the Virtues of this Apostle, and in the same Sense he says, that all Spirituall Men are this Rock, upon which Jesus Christ has built his Church. So likewise r 1.55 explaining that Passage of Scripture, where it is said: Not that which goeth into the Mouth defileth a Man, he speaks of the Eucharist after so Obscure and, Allegorical a manner, that it is very difficult to comprehend his Meaning, s 1.56 He likewise explains Alllegorically what is said of the Eucharist in other Places of the Word of God. It is easie however to defend him against the Protestants upon the Subject of the Real Presence, since he acknow∣ledges in the Eighth Book, that the Loaves which are offered in the Church are made a Holy Body by Prayer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. We might easily bring other Examples of the O∣versights that he has committed, endeavouring too much to Spiritualize the Words of the Scripture, but I shall pass them over in Silence.

He speaks of the Sacred Scripture after a very excellent manner, as of a Book written by Persons who were inspired by God. His Passages upon this Subject have been collected by St. Basil, and St. Gregory Nazianzen, in a Book which they have En∣tituled Philocalia. t 1.57 He distinguishes the three Senses of Scripture, but he applies himself particularly to the Allegorical Interpretation, and he affirms that there are some Places which have no literal Meaning. He proves that every Body ought to read the Scripture.

Now for some Points of Discipline which may be observed in his Works. The Christians assem∣bled together in his Time in the Churches, not only on Sundays, and Festivals, but also on other Days. u 1.58 He often speaks against those who neglected to do it, and who did not hear the Word of God with due Respect. There were Priests and Bishops in his Time, who were chosen by the People. And their Duty was to teach the People, they instructed the Catechumens, and prepared them for Baptism for a considerable time. They Baptized the Children; and Baptism was never reiterated; they anointed those who were Bap∣tized with Oyl. They observed Lent; and also fasted Wednesdays and Frydays. They expelled out of the Church, such as committed Publick Crimes after baptism: And x 1.59 he observes in his Book a∣gainst Celsus, that there were some Persons set apart on purpose to take care of the Manners of the Faithful. They allowed of Penance but once, and that rarely too. Excommunication was the greatest Ecclesiastical Penalty. Nevertheless, It was not doubled but that those who were unjustly Excommunicated, might be saved. Simony also was Prohibited.

In his time Sins were confess'd to the Priests, and they examined those who were to teach in Pub∣lick. They believed that one ought to live a very Holy Life, to approach the Blessed Sacrament, and that as it was very advantagious to those who received it Worthily, so it was Damnation to those who received it Unworthily. They did not admit Persons that were twice Married to Holy Orders. They concealed the Mysteries, and principally of the Eucharist from the Infidels and the Catechu∣mens. They Prayed to God on their Knees, and turning towards the East. They celebrated Good-Fryday, Easter, Witsontide, and Sundays, with very great Solemnity.

And these were the Principal Points of Discipline, that can be observed in the Books of Origen: It would be too tedious to take notice of Points of Morality that he discourses of in his Homilies, which are all filled with them. We shall here present you only with some of them.

He says, that we ought not to make use of Marriage, but only for the Sake of having Children: that he who does Good out of servile Fear, shall be less rewarded than him who does it out of Love. y 1.60 There are in his Homilies upon Exodus, a great many curious Allegories upon the Necessity of Renouncing the World, and leading a Christian Life. He says, that Pharaoh represents the World, who slew the Male Children, that is, the righteous, and preserved the Females, that is to say, Vicious and Effeminate Persons; and he makes a pretty Moral upon this Allegory. He says, that Aegypt is the Type of the World, from whence we must depart, not only in Body, but in Mind, by renouncing it entirely. There are a great many other Allegories and Moral Thoughts of the same Nature. He distinguishes two 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Sins; Great Sins, and Lesser Sins. He ranks among the number of lesser Sins, such as may prove Mortal; and by great Sins, he understands such, for which we can do Pennance but once. He gives se∣ven Remedies for Sins, Baptism, Martyrdom, Alms-deeds, Forgiving of our Enemies, the Conversion of our Brethren, Charity, and Laborious Pennance, and lastly, that Repentance and Unction of which St. James speaks. z 1.61 He says, that we must not presently reprehend publickly the Sin of our Bro∣ther, but that we ought first to rebuke him in Private, afterwards before one or two Wit∣nesses; and lastly, if he did not reform, then we are to tell it to the Church. a 1.62 He shews that true Fasting is an Abstinence from Sin, and that we ought to Fast in order to Feed the Poor. His Ho∣milies up Numbers, Joshuah, and the Judges are more filled with Allegories than Morality. Those which he composed upon the Psalms have more Morality in them: He there discourses of Humility, of Prayer, of Patience, of Meekness, of the Prosperity of the Wicked, of Repentance, of that Holiness which is required to Communicate worthily, of the Choice of a Guide. His other Homilies are mixed with Morality and Allegories: His large Commentaries have more Learning in them. He therein handels several Questions very learnedly, and makes very judicious Remarks upon them. He gives some Explications upon the Holy Scripture, that are very curious and ingenious: But he goes ••••o, far from the Le••••er, to find out Allegorical Senses, and he amuses himself in Explaining too scru∣pulously all the Words of Scripture, that he might the better give them a Mystical Sense. He is a Great Enemy to. Hereticks, he attacks them as often as he discourses of any Subject that has any relation to their Errors. He does not let any of them escape; sometimes he writes a∣gainst Simon, Basilides, Carpocrates, Valentinus, Marcion, and Montanus: at other times he attacks the Ebionites, the Helcesaites, the Encratites, the Ophites, and the Sabellians. b 1.63 He acknowledged for Canonical Books of the Old Testoment, only those which were in the Canon of the Hebrews to the Number of Two and Twenty: c 1.64 He ranks the Book of Esther in this Number, and joyns the Book of Ruth with the Book of Judges, and Baruch with that of Jeremiah. As for the Books of Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, and Wisdom, he commends them as Good Books, profitable for Catechumens, but such as are out of the Canon of the Books of the Sacred

Scripture. He calls them nevertheless in some places Divine Books. He cites the Book of Wisdom under the Name of the Scripture. He cites likewise the Maccabees, and the Book of Ec∣siasticus, which he affirms to be among the Books of Solomon. We have already taken notice of his Opinion concerning the History of Susanna. He receives as Canonical Books of the New Testa∣ment, the Four Gospels, the Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul; d 1.65 He says however, concerning that to the Hebrews, that the Thoughts of this Epistle are St. Paul's; but that it was Composed by some other Person, and that there is none but God who knows the Author of it, though some attribute it to S. Clemens, others to S. Luke. He says that there is but one Epistle of S. Peter, which was received by all the Churches, but that we may grant the Se∣cond likewise to have been his. He says the same thing of the Two last Epistles of S. John. He cites the Epistles of St. Jude, and St. James in his Commentary upon the Epistle to the Romans. He likewise quotes the Revelations, and attributes them to St. John. Besides these Books, he often cites Apocryphal Writings, as the Gospels according to the Aegyptians, and according to the Hebrews; the Book of Hermas, the Epistle of S. Bar∣nabas, the Book of Enoch, and even some Heretical Books, as the Apocalypse of S. Paul, a Book con∣terning the Twelve Apostles, the Doctrine of S. Peter, the Acts of S. Paul, the History of Isaiah, and and some others.

Origen had very quick Parts, a very strong and Extensive Phancy: but he relied too much on the Vivacity of his Genius; and often lost himself out of too great earnestness to fathom, and subtilize every thing. He had a very happy invention, and a much more happy delivery of what he had in∣vented: But he had not that exactness in his Inventions, nor all that Gracefulness in the Delivery as might be wish'd. He carried on his Work with so great ease, that he is said to have Dictated to Seven or Eight Persons at a time, and he was so ready in Expressing himself, that he made the greatest Part of his Homilies Extempore. Upon which account his Style was not very Correct, nor Coherent; He had a vast Memory, but he often trusted too much to it. He was a Person of most profound Learn∣ing; and he particularly Studied Plato's Philosophy, which he understood to Perfection, and indeed he was too much addicted to it for a Christian. He understood likewise the Maxims of the other Phi∣losophers. He had apply'd himself mightily to the Study of Humane Learning: He was neither Ig∣norant of History, nor Mythology, and he had as great knowledge in all the Profane Sciences, as those who had Studied nothing else all their whole Lives. But he particularly excell'd in the know∣ledge of the Holy Scripture, to the Study of which he entirely addicted himself. He had Learned it all by heart, and that he might not neglect any thing which might be of use for the understanding the Letter thereof, he carefully Examined all the Versions of the Bible, which were in his time, and compared them all together with the Hebrew Text, adding thereto a Literal Commentary upon the most difficult Places. He was not very well skill'd in the Hebrew; yet he knew enough of it to un∣derstand it, and to observe the Differences of the Text, and the Translations; but he did not keep to the Literal Explication of the Bible. He thought it necessary for the setting off of the Holy Scrip∣ture to the best advantage, which appeared but plain and simple to the Heathens, and for the rendring it of greater use to all the World, to give Mystical or Allegorical Interpretations of every thing in it. And herein imitates the way of Philo and Aristobulus, and followed the Genius and Manner of the Platonists. We have already taken notice, that Hippolitus explained the Scripture Allegorically, and that it was in imitation of him that Origen undertook this way of Writing. St. Clement of Alexandria his Master, is also full of Allegories, and 'tis not to be denied but that the Hellenistical Jews, and the Primitive Christians made very frequent use of them: But Origen has carried on an Allegory as far as it can possibly go, and he has furnished Matter to all the Greek and Latin Fathers who have imitated him, and have hardly done any thing else than copy him. This way of explaining the Holy Scripture by continual Allegories, seems to me to be very defective. For though it may be good sometimes to awaken, if I may so say, the Auditor, and to direct him by such kind of Allegories, yet they become useless and tedious, when they are perpetual; and the Mind, which requires great Ap∣plication for the comprehending of them, is tired, and soon looses the Consequence both of Reason∣ing and Thought: Besides, that by minding only the Allegorical Sense, we neglect the Literal, which is oftentimes more excellent, and of greater Advantage than all the Allegories in the World, that di∣vert the Mind without instructing it, and strike the Imagination without affecting the Heart. Last∣ly, If in explaining the Holy Scripture, we should only stick to the Allegory, as Origen has done, it might give occasion to believe, that the Scripture taken barely in the Literal Sense would be but of ve∣ry little Advantage, which is a very great Error. 'Tis therefore a very ill way of defending Origen in this Point, to say with a modern Author, that he seems to have been excusable in this, because he had learned by Experience, that the Letter of the Scripture was but of little use for Instruction. For this is to make him assert a thing which is very false, the Letter of the Scripture being of exceeding use for Instruction and even more profitable than any Allegory, which is not to be us'd, but only now and then to awaken the Auditors.

Origen's Books against Celsus are an excellent Work, and stored with extraordinary Learning. He answers the Objections of Celsus, who of all the Heathens that have written againg the Christian Re∣ligion, had made the most cunning ones, and proposed them the most maliciously, very solidly. He establishes by convincing Proofs, the History of Jesus Christ, his Miracles, his Divinity and Resurrecti∣on. He confutes the Calumnies and Impostures of Celsus, and of the other Heathens against the Chri-Christians;

and Lastly, he proves the Truth and Excellency of the Doctrine and Religion of Jesus Christ. This Book is written very Politely, and with great Care and Exactness. 'Tis not only the best of Origen's Works, but also the most accomplish'd and best Composed Apology for the Christians which we have of all the Antients. The Books of Principles were likewise written with great Care, and they had been of very great use, if he had contented himself to explain the Principles of Religion according to Scripture and Tradition, without mixing therewith his own Philosophical Notions. His Commentaries upon the Scripture are more Polite than his Homilies, they are full of Learning, but they are not very Exact, and we may observe therein a great many Fancies which are useless, obscure, and perplexed. Often after having begun one Explication, he passes to another, without finishing the first. His Homilies are plainer and intelligible, but their style is less Elegant.

The Treatise concerning Prayer is an Excellent Piece of Devotion. It contains a great many Ex∣cellent Principles of Morality, and is full of very profitable Instructions. We may also find there se∣veral Curious Remarks relating to the Discipline of that Time. But it is not absolutely free from the Errors and Defects which we have observed in the other Works of Origen. As this Discourse is very Instructive and not very much known, I have thought it convenient to give a Summary of it.

Origen begins it by a Common Place, to wit, that there are an Infinite Number of Things which we cannot know without being enlightned from Heaven. He applies this Reflection to his Present Subject, saying, that it would be impossible for him, without the Assistance of Heaven, to explain how we ought to Pray, what we ought to say when we Pray, and what are the most Proper Times for Prayer. That he who treats of this Matter, must be enlightned by the Heavenly Father, instructed by the Son, and inspired by the Holy Ghost: That in order to Pray as we ought, 'tis not sufficient to repeat some certain Prayers, but we must have Good Dispositions; and that our Prayer may be acceptable to God, it must be accompanied with a Conscience, Pure, and without Blemish. After∣wards entring upon his Subject he observes that the Greek Word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies Prayer, is mentioned in Scripture the first time, in that Place where it is said that Jacob coming from Mesopota∣mia, made a Vow to offer unto God the Tenth of all that he should bring from that Country. He adds that the Word is often taken in this Sense, to signifie a Promise or Vow of Performing a Thing, if God grants us what we ask of him in our Prayers. But he observes at the same time that there are other Places where it is taken for Prayer it self; and he sets down some Examples wherein it is taken in both Senses.

After having spoken of the word Prayer, he treats of the necessity of the thing it self: He confutes the Arguments of those who pretended to maintain that it was to no purpose to pray; he observes, that this Errour could not be maintained by any but notoriously-wicked Persons, and by Atheists, who deny God's Providence: but that the Devil endeavouring by all means to spread detestable Doctrines among those that bear the Name of Christ, had put it into the hearts of some persons to reject every thing that is sensible in Religion, to despise the Holy Eucharist and Baptism, and to neglect Prayer as a useless thing. Now these are the Reasons which these Persons bring for their Opinion: First, God knows every thing, say they, therefore what need is there of Praying? Secondly, He does not only know what must happen, but he ordains it; therefore what necessity is there of asking that of him, which shall infallibly come to pass? Thirdly, If we are Predestinated before our Birth, it is to no purpose to pray, since we shall be necessarily Sav'd or Damn'd. Fourthly, God being immutable, we do but deceive our selves in believing that we are able by our Prayers to make him alter his Decrees. Ori∣gen, in answer to these difficulties distinguishes Three sorts of Things which are in motion. The first are those that are moved by a Foreign Power, such as, Inanimate Beings. The second are those that are moved by their own Nature, but without Knowledge, as Animals and Plants. The Third are those that move themselves, and determine themselves, as Intelligent Creatures. He proves, That these are free, and that Prescience and Predestination does not at all destroy this Liberty, because God or∣dains nothing relating to free Actions, but what he has foreseen that intelligent Creatures would do freely: And that so Prescience is not the cause of Things, nor of Actions which are done freely; but it only supposes that these things will be, or will not be; and that the knowledge which God has of them, is followed by the Decree, whereby he is resolved to grant or not to grant his Grace, to hear or not to hear; That he foresees the Good and Evil which Men shall commit; That he knows whe∣ther they will repent or no; and that, in consequence of this knowledge, he Predestinates or Repro∣bates them. He adds, That God has appointed Angels over Men to preserve them, as long as they deserve it. One might here take notice of his particular Opinion concerning the Sun, the Moon, and Stars, which he says are intelligent and free Agents.

After having confuted the Reasons of those who reject Prayer, he shews the advantage of it. He says in the first place, That he who prays, puts himself in a condition of presenting himself before God, and of conversing with him; That in order to this, he ought to drive away all evil Thoughts, to banish all earthly Affections, to raise up his mind towards Heaven, to forget Injuries, to pardon his Enemies, and by no means to repine against God. From hence he concludes, That Prayer cannot be of any advantage, if it be not preceded with great preparation. Secondly, He assures us, That Christ Jesus, the High-Priest of our Offerings, prays with us; That the Angels pray with him, and that the Saints which are departed pray with us, (and this here is one of the most ancient and excellent Monu∣ments to prove the Intercession of Saints.) His words are these: The Souls of the Saints which sleep among the number of the Just, pray with us, as it is said in the Book of Macchabees.—And since the imperfect Knowledge which we have in this World is made perfect in the other Life, 'tis a very great Absur∣dity not to believe the same thing of the other Virtues, and principally Charity towards our Neighbour, which

we ought to believe to be much stronger in the Saints than in mortal•• Men, who are subject to Weaknesses and Imperfections. He adds, That every faithful Person has his Angel that hears him, and preserves him whilst he prays. Lastly, He proves the necessity of continual Prayer, by the Example of Jesus Christ, by that of Just Persons, and by the reckoning up of those Benefits and Graces which have been be∣stowed upon Men from their Prayers: He exhorts the Faithful to pray for spiritual and heavenly Things, rather than for earthly and sensual Goods, such as Beauty, Nobility, Riches: He shews the meanness and the vanity of these things.

He distinguishes four kinds of Prayers, after the Apostle S. Paul in his first Epistle to Timothy. The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is to say, Supplication, which is to ask any Good of which we stand in need. The second called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is, according to Origen, a request that is made in any danger, with assurance of ob∣taining what we desire: He observes, that this kind of Prayer is commonly joined with Doxology, that is to say, with Praising of God's Holy Name; The third 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is a Prayer made by a Person who has great confidence that he shall obtain what he asks, he being much in God's Favour. The last is, Giving of Thanks for the Benefits which we have received. He gives Examples taken from the Holy Scripture, of each of these kinds of Prayer.

This first Part of his Treatise concerning Prayer, is followed with an Explication of the Lord's Prayer.

He maks two Observations upon these first words, Our Father▪ The first is, That it is only in the New Testament, where there is given to God with assurance the Title of Our Father. The second, That if we would say these words as we ought, we must be of the number of the true Children of God, that is to say, Free from Sin, and in a state of Grace.

He says upon these words, which ar•• in Heaven, That we must not understand them in a gross sense, as if God was in Heaven after a corporeal manner.

Upon these words, Hallowed be thy Name, That it is not as if God were not Holy in himself, but only that we desire that men should acknowledge this Holiness in his Conduct. He observes, That this and the following Forms are in the Imperative, but that it is taken for the Optative Mood. And from hence he takes occasion to confute Tatian, who affirmed that these Words of God in Genesis, Let there be light, was not an express Command, but only a simple Wish. By these other Words, Thy kingdom come, the faithful Person prays the Lord, That the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, which is in him, may be perfected and compleated by the expectation of the Day of Judgment. By these, Thy will be done, we desire of God, That men may fulfil God's Will upon Earth, as it is accomplished in Heaven; or else, That the Wicked, being represented by the Earth, should perform God's Will, as it is already done by Just Persons. Origen would not have us understand these following words, Give us this day our daily bread, of bodily Bread; but he understands them of the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, weo is our Bread and our Nourishment. He observes, that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Supersub∣stantialis, which we render by DAILY, is not to be met with in any Author; and that it is peculiar to the Evangelists. In order to explain it, he tells us, That as bodily Bread is changed into our Substance, so this Bread of the Word of God communicates its Nature and Efficacy to our Souls. By Daily Bread, he means Eternity. Upon these Words, And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us, he explains the several Duties of Men. He says, That they owe to themselves the good of their Souls, that they owe very much to their Guardian Angels, but that they are above all things indebted to Jesus Christ, and to the Holy Ghost; that every Condition and every Estaté has its peculiar Duties. There is one Duty, says he, of a Wife, another Duty of a Widow, another of a Dea∣con, another of a Priest, another of a Bishop, whose Charge is much the greater, and he shall render an exact Account to God, who will punish him very severely, if he does not acquit himself well of his Duty. He adds, That as we are indebted to others, so others are indebted to us; and that if we call to mind those Duties wherein we have been wanting towards others, we shall easily pardon those who have been deficient therein towards us, as God forgives us the faults which we have committed against him; That the Priests forgive in the Name of Jesus Christ the Sins of Men; but that, in imitation of the Priests of the Old Law, they must be instructed by the Holy Ghost who those are for whom they ought to offer up Sacrifices, when, and after what manner they must do it. Wherefore he blames those who not being sensible of what is beyond their Power, boast of their being able to pardon Idolatry, and to forgive Adultery and Fornication; which shews, that at that time they refused Communion to Idolaters in some Churches. Upon these words, And lead us not into temptation, Origen says, That it is impossible to pass through this life without temptations; and he proves it, by giving a Catalogue of those temptations to which we are exposed in all conditions and at all times: from whence he con∣cludes, That we ought not to pray not to be tempted, but only not to sink under temptation. He ob∣serves, That God suffers us to fall therein, for a punishment of our sins. He here delivers his Opini∣on of those Souls that were always free, which were sent into this world for a punishment of the faults which they had committed in the other life. He afterwards discourses of the advantage of tempta∣tions, for the trial and proving of our Vertue. Lastly, Upon these words, But deliver us from evil, he says, That God does not deliver us from all the troubles and afflictions of this life, but that he makes us support them with patience.

After having explained the Lord's Prayer, he discourses of the temper and disposition of mind that is requisite for Prayer, of the place where we are to pray, and of the time proper for Prayer. He would have him that is to pray, to recollect and prepare himself, that so he may perform it with the greater attention and fervency; and that after having purified his mind from the thoughts of this World, and banished from his heart all passions and earthly affections, he should reflect upon the excellency of

the life to come; That he should drive from his heart all thoughts of hatred and enmity; That he should lift up his hands and eyes towards Heaven, when nothing hinders him; for he allows sick Per∣sons to pray sitting or lying. He observes that kneeling is necessarily when we ask God pardon for our Sins. Concerning the place of Prayer, he says that every place is proper to pray in, but that Custom will have it that we should chuse the most retired part of the House for our Prayers; and that we should prefer the place which is set apart for the Assemblies of the Faithful, where the Angels are present, where we may be sensible of the Efficacy of Jesus Christ, of that of the Holy Ghost, and of the Suffrages of the Saints departed. He would have us always turn our selves towards the East▪ whether we be in our Chamber, or in an open place. Lastly, He distinguishes four Branches, or Com∣mon-Places of Prayer; The Doxology, which ought to be said, says he, at the beginning of Prayer, praising and glorifying the Father of Jesus Christ through the Holy Ghost; It ought to be followed with Thanksgiving; Afterwards we must make a Confession, or an Accusation of our selves for our Sins; to which we ought to add the craving of Heavenly Benedictions for us and our Friends. Lastly, We must conclude our Prayer by praising God through the Son in the Holy Ghost. And this is a great part of what is contained in this Treatise of Origen's, which sufficiently shews it to be of great use. There is nevertheless one passage which may create a great deal of difficulty to those that read it: For he therein affirms, That we ought to address our Prayers only to God the Father, and not to Jesus Christ; because the Son of God being different from the Father, 'tis absurd to direct our Prayers to him. This expression is very harsh, and difficult to excuse: yet we may say, That he would have us address our Prayers to the Father alone, for fear we might seem to acknowledge several Gods; and that when he says, That Jesus Christ is an Essence different from the Father, he takes the term Essence for Pers••n. And indeed he owns in several other places, and principally in the fifth and eighth Book against Celsus▪ That we may and ought to direct our Prayers to Jesus Christ. Be the thing as it will, it cannot be denied but that he has asserted in this place several Propositions favourable to the Opinion of the Arians, on which it is difficult to put a good Construction.

There is nothing more for me to do, to compleat all that relates to Origen, than to give an Account of the Quarrels and Disputes which arose in the Church after his Death, upon the Ac••ount of his Per∣son and his Writings: But this not being a Subject which any ways relates to the Design which I have proposed in this Work, I do not think it necessary to engage my self in this Relation, which otherwise would be but of very little use.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Origen.] There is not any Ecclesiastical Author, whose Life we have more exactly. Eusebius, who was his great Admirer, has described it very parti∣cularly. 'Tis from him that we have taken, with∣out citing him, almost all that we have related con∣cerning him. We must add thereunto S. Hierom in his Catalogue, and in several other Places. Ruffinus against S. Hierome; S. Epiphanius in the 64th Heresie; Photius in the 118th Volume, where he has given an Abridgment of the Apology of Pamphilus, and what Origen says of himself, Tom. 6. in Matth. & alibi. We have also made use of the Assistance of the Mo∣derns, and particularly of that famous Work of Hu∣etius, intituled Origeniana; of the Life of Tertullian and Origen, written in French by a worthy Man; which we say as much to do them Justice, as to take off from our selves the Imputation of being a Plagi∣ary. [Our Author means Dr. Allix, Treasurer of the Church of Sarum, who had a great Esteem paid to him in his own Country for his extraordinary Learning, till the late Persecution forced him hither for Relief.
• b 1.2

  Was born in the City of Alexandria, about the year 185 from the Birth of Christ.] S. Epiphanius says, That he was an Alexandrian. Eusebius says, That he was seventeen years old at the time of the Perse∣cution of Severus, which was in the year 202 from the Birth of Christ, and by consequence he was born in 185.
• c 1.3

  He had moreover that of Adamantius.] Photius be∣lieves that he had this Name by reason of the strength of his Reasonings. S. Hierom says, That he had it because he resisted Errors like a Diamond. But this is only guessing: we may say the same of those who seek for the Etymology of the Name of Origen, out of a needless Curiosity.
• * 1.4

  Origen.
• d 1.5

  He had for his Master in Philosophy, the famous Ammonius.] There were two Origens Disciples to Ammonius: The first of whom, Porphyry speaks of in the Life of Plotinus, and Longinus, who wrote no∣thing but a small Treatise of Daemons, and lived but to the Reign of Gallienus, and who was Porphyry's Disciple and Friend, which does not agree with our Origen, as has been observed by Valesius and Huetius.
• e 1.6

  And which he himself afterwards condemned, though he might do it upon a good Motive.] Eusebius, his great Advocate, speaks of it in such a manner as shews he was ashamed of it. The Passages where Origen him∣self has condemned it, are in the 15th Sermon upon S. Matthew, Chap. 19. Ver. 12. and against Celsus, Book 7. We do not know whether he made use of Iron, or of some particular Simple; nor is it any great matter if we did know it.
• f 1.7

  In the beginning of the Reign of Antoninus, that he went to Rome.] Baronius places this Voyage under Heliogabalus, and says that Origen was sent for to Rome by Mammaea; but he is mistaken, for Mammaea caused him to come to Antioch, and not to Rome.
• g 1.8

  That Work which is called the Hexapla.] See Valesius upon Eusebius, where he proves that the Hexapla do comprehend six entire Versions, and that the seventh was only upon the Psalms. Eusebius writes, that they were composed at this time. S. Epiphanius be∣lieves that they were made at Tyre. As they are great Works, and tedious to compose, 'tis likely that he began them then, and finished them afterwards.
• h 1.9

  About some Ecclesiastical Affairs.] This Business was without doubt to confute Heresies which were at that time very numerous in Achaia, as S. Hierom and Ruffinus relate. 'Tis probable it was in this Voy∣age that he wrote, whilst he was at Nicomedia, (as he himself observes) his Letter to Africanus concerning the History of Susanna. It was likewise at this time that he convinced two Hereticks of falsifying the Conferences which he had with them, and of making him say what he never said. Ruffinus relates this in the Book de Adul. lib. Orig.
• i 1.10

  Accused him in a Council of the Bishops of Egypt.] Photius, Cod. 118. makes mention of these two Councils, and S. Hierom. Lib. 2. in Ruff. c. 5.
• l 1.11

  The Sentence which was given against him by Deme∣trius continued under his Successors.] Gennadius says, That Theophilus reports that Heraclas drave Origen out of the Church; and the Author of the Life of St. Pa∣chomius, says the same thing, as well as Peter of A∣lexandria, cited by Justinian in his Letter against O∣rigen. It is most certain that the Sentence given a∣gainst him was not revoked, and that not one of the Egyptians would have any thing to do with him.
• m 1.12

  A Letter to the Emperor Philip, and one to Sever•••• his Wife.] Some have believed that this Emperor was a Christian, and say that Babylas deprived him from the Communion of the Church till he had repented for the Murthers which he had committed; but this Story is very uncertain.
• n 1.13

  But he endured all with an undaunted Resolution.] S. Epiphanius accuses him for approaching to the Hea∣then Altars, and for making as if he would offer In∣cense to the Gods: But this Story, and almost every thing that Epiphanius says concerning Origen, is fa∣bulous, and invented by some Enemy to Origen, who deceived S. Epiphanius, a Man easily imposed upon. To shew that this Story is false, 'tis sufficient to ob∣serve, that even Origen's greatest Enemies, as Theo∣philus, S. Hierom, Justinian, &c. who have omitted nothing to cry him down, have taken no notice at all of it; and that his Defenders, Eusebius and Pam∣philius, are so far from excusing him from this Crime, that they have on the contrary commended his Con∣stancy and Resolution. 'Tis true, S. Epiphanius does not say that this hapned in the Persecution of Decius, as Nicephorus does; but in what time soever they fix this Accident, it is equally overthrown by the Ob∣servation we just now made. It is also less probable, when it is referred to the time of Maximinus's Per∣secution; for what likelihood is there that Origen, after having committed so gross a Fault, should be honoured, as he was, by the Bishops of Palestine?
• op 1.14

  He died in the Year 252 from the Birth of Christ, and in the 66th Year of his Age.] According to Euse∣bius, Lib. 7. cap. 11. he died in the first Year of the Reign of Gallus; and S. Hierom, in his 65th Epistle, written 400 years after Christ, says, That it was 150 years after Origen's Death. It is certain, accord∣ing to Eusebius, that in the Year 202 Origen was se∣venteen years old, and that in the third year of the Emperor Philip he was above sixty years old, So that if we suppose him to have lived but sixty six years, as S. Hierom assures us in his Book of Ecclesiastical Wri∣ters, he must have died in the beginning of the Reign of Gallus, in the Year 252; but if he lived sixty nine years, as Eusebius writers, he must have liv∣ed to the end of the Reign of Gallus; that is to say, till the year 254 or 255.
• q 1.15

  Yet they are nothing in comparison to what he has written.] It is certain that he composed a very great Number of Books; and he made them with that ease, that he could hardly find Scribes enough, as both his Friends and Enemies agree. S. Hierom in his 65th Letter to Pammachius, speaking of Origen, says, Who is there of you that can read as many Books as he has composed? And in another Place, he says, That he compiled an innumerable company of Books. Theophilus says the same thing. Eustathius says, That he filled the World with his Works. Vincentius Liri∣nensis affirms, That none has written more than him; and it is upon this Account that he had the Name gi∣ven him of Chalcenterus, and Syntacticus. S. Epiphanius and Ruffinus say, That he writ 6000 Volumes. S. Hi∣erom seems to dispute it, telling us, That there is not not the third part of them in Eusebius's Cata∣logue. By the Word Volumes, we must not under∣stand such Tomes as are now adays, but only small Works; so every Homily, every part of a Book, is in this sense a Volume: so that we need not admire, though he had written 6000 Volumes.
• r 1.16

  Are translated by Ruffinus and others with so much Liberty.] Ruffinus says it himself in the Conclusion to his Version of the Commentaries upon the Ro∣mans; and S. Hierom also somewhere upbraids him with it. And besides, this appears by the Translati∣on it self, which is full of Figures and Allusions to Latin Words, of Terms taken in another sence than what they were in Origen's Time, where the Trini∣ty and other Mysteries are expressed in such Terms as were not used till after the Council of Nice, and where there are Points of Discipline more modern than Origen's Age; which has given occasion to those who have not considered the Liberty that Ruffi∣nus took of adding or leaving out what he pleased, to doubt whether the greatest part of these Works were Origen's or no. The Liberty which Ruffinus has given himself is still more evident, by what he has written in the Prologue to his Version of the Commentary upon the Epistle to Romans, which he says he has Abridged by above the half. S. Hierom's Versions are not more exact; and the most faulty of all is that of an ancient Translator, who has inter∣preted the Commentaries upon S. Matthew.
• s 1.17

  He wrote two Books of the Resurrection.] S. Hierom in Ru••••in. lik. 2. Invect. says, That Origen composed two Books, and two Dialogues of the Resurection. The same in his 6th Epistle cites the 4th Book of the Resurrection. Methodius wrote against this Work.
• t 1.18

  The Treatise de Principiis, divided into four Books, and ten Books of Stromata.] This last Book was composed in imitation of that of S. Clement of Alex∣andria; witness S. Hierom, Ep. 84. who says, That Origen compared therein the Opinions of the Philo∣sophers and Christians, and proved our Doctrines from Plato, Aristotle, Numenius and Cornutus. In the tenth Book he explained the Epistle to the Galatians, and some Passages of Daniel.
• u 1.19

  And some Discourses and Letters which Eusebius had collected.] Eusebius has related a Fragment of that which he wrote to his Father, being then very young, lib. 6. cap. 2. Item, of another against those who accused him of applying himself too much to the Study of Human Learning, Chap. 19. He makes mention in the 28th Chapter of the Letters which he wrote in the time of the sixth Persecution; after∣wards in the 36th Chapter, of a Letter to the Em∣peror Philip, and of one to Severa his Wife; and lastly, of one to Fabianus, and of several others, cited at large in the 39th Chapter. S. Hierom in his Catalogue, cites the three last, together with a Let∣ter to Beryllus. Ruffinus cites a Letter to his Friends, Lib. de Adult. lib. Origenis; where he complains that some had falsified his Writings. In the 13th Chap∣ter of Philochalia, there is part of one set down to Gregory Thaumaturgus; ••edr••nus and Suidas have pre∣served a Fragment of another Letter.
• x 1.20

  Concerning the Explanation of those of the Old.] S. Hierom in Praefat. ad lib. Hebr. Nom. The Author of the Orthodox Questions, attributed to S. Justin, Quest. 82, and 86.
• y 1.21

  Theodoret often cites our Author against divers Hereticks.] Lib. 1. cap. 2. He says, that he wrote against Menander. In the 4th Chapter against Basi∣lides and Isidorus; in the 7th, against the Helcesaites; Eusebius says, concerning these last, That it was in his Homilies. In the 19th Chapter, against Appelles; in the 3d Book, Chap. 2. against the Nazareans. He attributes to him in the 5th Chapter, the little La∣byrinth against Theodotus, which is by another Author.
• aa 1.22

  But he has taken therein so much Liberty.] He de∣clares it himself in his Preface, where he says, that he has retrenched and added several things concern∣ing the Trinity. The Passages out of these Books, related in the Apology, are quite different from this Version, as well as those which are in the Ph••∣l••••••lia.
• bb 1.23

  If it was not more probable that it was composed by another Author.] This Dialogue is a Dispute against the Marcionites, and the Valentinians, wherein he in∣troduces Origen, defending the Doctrines of the Church; M••gethius, and Marcus taking the Part of the Marcionites; Droferius, Valens, and Maximus, that of the Valentinians, and Eutropius as a Judge between them. We have three different Versions of it, that of Peri∣nius, that of Picus, printed in 1655, and that of Humfredus in 1557, which is much the exactest. But it has been lately published in Greek by a Learned English-man, who pretends that it is Origen's. Hi••e∣tius after Halloixius and Rivet believes that it is not Origen's, and this Opinion seems the most probable. 'Tis indeed cited in the Philocalia, as a Work of Origen's: But it is possible that S. Gregory and S. Basil might have been deceived because it bears his Name; or that believing that this Book containing nothing but Origen's Opinions, and go∣ing under his Name, they might quote it in a Work wherein they made a Collection of his Opinions. Be∣sides it appears by the Title, that they had taken this Passage from Eusebius, who relates it word for word as it is in the Philocalia, in his 7th Book de Praepara∣ti••••e Evangelicâ, as taken from the Treatise of one M••ximus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is to say, concerning Matter; and at the end they add the following Remark: This is extracted from Eusebius's Book, De Praeparatio∣ne Evangelicâ; the Author thereof is Maximus, a fa∣mous Writer among the Christians, as Eusebius observes; but it is likewise found almost in the same T••rms in Ori∣gen's Dialogue against the Marcionites and other Here∣••ick••, in which Megethius is the Disputant▪ and Eutro∣pius the Judge. This Observation makes it appear, that the Authors of the Philocali•• believed that this Passage did really belong to Maximus, relying upon Eusebius's Authority; but having also found it in a Dialogue which bears Origen's Name, they believed that they might cite it as his, without examining whether he was the Author of it; for 'tis a thing very unlikely to affirm, that Origen had taken this Passage from Maximus, to insert it into his Dialogue, since it is already in Eusebius in form of a Dialogue, though the Names be suppressed. So it seems that we may say that Maximus was the Author of this Di∣alogue, wherein he introduces Origen, disputing a∣gainst the Hereticks, and Eutropius as Judge. But there are considerable Difficulties raised against this Hypothesis. The first, That Maximus was more anci∣ent than Origen, as appears by Eusebius, who in the first Book of his History, Chap. 27, places him a∣mongst the Authors, who flourished under the Em∣perours Commodus and Severus. The Second is, That it is not likely the Treatise of Maximus should be this Dialogue, because it was Entitled concerning Mat∣ter, and he only proved therein, that Matter was a created Substance, whereas this Dialogue contains several other Points of Religion. We may answer to the first Reason, That Eusebius was not exact in setting down the Times of Authors, and especially of those about whose Lives he was not particular. The second Objection is more difficult; though we may say, that Eusebius having extracted out of this Book of Maximus, only what relates to the Original of Evil, and the Creation of Matter, he gave it the Title of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & unde sit malum, though it treated of other Subjects; besides that, this Dia∣loguew as chiefly designed to confute the Error of the Marcionites, who admitted of several Principles for the explaining the Cause of Evil, and that of the Valentinians, who made Matter Eternal. Which a∣grees with what Eusebius says in his History, that Maximus composed several Volumes concerning that famous Question among the Hereticks; From whence comes Evil? And to prove that Matter is a created Substance, for though there are other things dis∣coursed of in this Dialogue, yet these are the two Principal Heads. Nevertheless, as the Passage which is related by Eusebius, and in the Philocalia, does not agree exactly with what is in this Dialogue, and that the Names of Origen, and the other Disputants are not there to be found, 'tis likely they were ad∣ded after the Death of Maximus and Origen. There are likewise in this Dialogue some Things which might give occasion to conjecture, that it is more Modern than any of these Authors. For it having been objected in the First Part, that the God of the Creation, who has the Hearts of Kings in his Power, must of necessity by a wicked God, since he suffered the Christians to be persecuted: He answers, These pitiful Shifts which you make, might have had some pro∣bability in former times, and there might have been some necessity then of returning an Answer to them, which might have been done very easily: But now we have a Religious Prince, what have you to say? Will you say that it is another God who rules his Heart, since this God∣ly Prince governs us much better then the others, and yet after a quite contrary manner; for he establishes what the others would have destroyed, he overthrows the Ima∣ges and Temples which the others honoured. Which shews that this Dialogue was composed in Constantine's time; for to say that this is to be understood of Philip, is to affirm a thing of which there is no like∣lihood; because supposing that he was a Christian, of which we are not assured, it was most certain that he did not make Profession thereof, and we can∣not say of any Emperor before Constantine, that he overthrew, Idolatry, and destroyed Temples and I∣dols. So the most probable Opinion is, That this Dialogue was composed in the beginning of the Fourth Age by one of Origen's Disciples, who has inserted Maximus's Dialogue into his Discourse. Be∣sides, there is another Reason not to attribute it to Origen, which is taken notice of by Hüetius; which is, that we find some Notions that are very Ortho∣dox, and quite different from Origen's Errors, con∣cerning the State of Innocence, Man's Body, the Soul, and the Resurrection.
• * 1.23.1

  [Whom our Author 〈◊〉〈◊〉... by▪ this En∣glish-man I know not. ••et••tenius, the Greek Professor at Basil, was the first that publish∣ed it at Basil, Gr. L••t. in 1674. 40.]
• cc 1.24

  Whether it was composed in Latin, or whether it was translated from the Greek.] Erasmus, Aubertin, and Cook are of Opinion that it was Latin, because the Phrase and Manner of Expression is Latin; but this might proceed from the Interpreter. That which makes it believed that the Author was rather a Greek, is the Prologue which is in the Interpre∣ters Name; which Erasmus rejects as Supposi∣titious.
• dd 1.25

  'Tis certain that it was not written by Origen.] He says some things contrary to what Origen af∣firms. For Example, in the Second Book, he says that Jesus Christ preached three years and a half; and Origen, in his Book De Principiis, Cap. 2. and Hom. 32. in Lucam, says that he preached but a Year and odd Months.
• ee 1.26

  But by some other Author, who lived since the time of Arius.] He calls the Church that believes the Trinity, a Sect and a Heresie. He rejects the Word Trinity and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: He commends the Martyr Lucian, who died a long time after Origen, and whom the Arians extolled as their Patron: Upon which Arius calls Eusebius of Nicomedia, Collusianita: And this sufficiently shews how grosly they are mistaken, who have attributed these Commentaries to S. Hilary.
• ff 1.27

  The other Commentary upon the whole Book of Job, is also by an Arian.] He condemns the Term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and calls the Catholicks Homousiasts; He commends Lucian the Martyr; and it is different from the First, because he makes Moses to be the Author of the Book of Job, and the First only makes him to be the Interpreter. Whereas Origen, in his Sixth Book a∣gainst Celsus, says, that Moses wrote nothing but, the Pentateuch. It is of a different Style from the Trea∣tises of Origen, and he confutes those, who believe the Stars to be animated, which is Origen's Opi∣nion.
• gg 1.28

  A Commentary upon S. Mark, ascribed likewise to Origen, which is none of his.] It is of a quite diffe∣rent Style, He says he will collect the Opinions of the Ancients. In some Manuscripts it is attributed to S. Cyril; in others to Victor of Antioch: It has been Translated, and Published under this Name by Pel∣tanus. He cites Origen, Eusebius, S. Chrysostom, A∣pollinarius, and Theodoret; and he mentions the Ni∣vatians.
• hh 1.29

  The Ten Homilies are all of other Authors than O∣rigen.] They have been collected in several Places, and put into order by Merlinus. They are all writ∣ten in a different Style from Origen's; and compos∣ed by a Latin Author: They have all Designs that are quite differing from those of Origen's Homilies; They are full of Quibbles upon Words, and of af∣fected Rhetorical Figures, which is not to be found in Origen's Works. In the First, he says, That Je∣sus Christ was born of the Virgin, without opening of her Womb; The contrary to which is taught by Origen, in his 54th Homily upon St. Luke. The Se∣cond discourses of the Arians and the Manichees; and therein the Term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is defended; therein like∣wise are cited the Books attributed to St. Dionysius. The 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 10th Books are all filled with vain Repetitions, Antitheses, Quibbles upon Words, Synonima's and Allusions, which prove that it is a Latin Author, they are of the same Style of the First. The 9th is composed of Three Parts (as Huetius has observed.) The First is Part of Origen's ••4th Discourse upon St. Matthew. The Se∣cond is taken from St. Hierom's 8th Book upon Isaiah; and the Last from the 17th Chapter of St. Gregory's Ninth Book of Morals.
• ii 1.30

  But the Bibliotheca Patrum, &c.] Michael Chi∣fleri tells us in the Preface to his Commentary upon Jeremiah, Printed in the Year 1623, that he found four and twenty of them, and that the Last was the Treatise of St. Clement, What Rich Man can be saved? He sets down Eight.
• kk 1.31

  Bears Origen's Name in a Manuscript of the King's Library.] By Vincentius Bellovacensis, and some others. Pamelius is of this Opinion. In other Ma∣nuscrps it is attributed to St. Hierom and St. Augustin. Some have believed that it was Translated from Greek, but it is, as we shall shew hereafter, written by a Latin.
• ll 1.32

  Lastly, They say that th••re are in Libraries other Treatises under this Author's Name.] There is a Book concerning the Astrolabe, which was said to be in the Vatican Library; the Breviary or Abridgment of Origen, a Book concerning Preaching or Catechiz∣ing, &c. And besides this, there are several of Ori∣gen's Fragments in the Catenae Graecorum Patrum: But it would be an endless Labour to collect them all. Hiietius, who neglected this Toil, thinking it to be too Great, by reason of the Multitude of the Ca∣tenae, and to be to no purpose, by reason of their little Authority; tells us that Father Combefis, a Man of indefatigable Pains, having undertaken it, he has referred us to the Collection which he has made of them. 'Tis probable he did not think them worth publishing.
• * 1.33

  Lib. 4. contra Celsum, & 6. Lib. 3. contra Celsum▪ T. 14. in Joan. & de Princip. c. 1. q. 20. in Exod. Lib. 4. contra Celsum.
• * 1.34

  Tom. 1. Comment. in Joan. p. 17. 19 p. 30. ibid. & Homil. 6. in jerem. p. 28. Tom. 2. 47, 48. ibid. lib. 2. cont. Cel∣sum. Lib. 6. cont. Celsum, & lib. 8.
• * 1.35

  Lib. de Decretis Concilii Nicaeni. Basil. de Sp. Sancto c. 29. lib. 8. cont. Ceisum, & Tom. 2. in Joannem p. 56. & p. 17, & 23. Tom. 2. in Je∣an. p. 49, 56, & 70. Item Tom. 13. p. 218. Item Tom. 32. lib. 8. cont. Celsum, & lib. 5.
• * 1.36

  Epist. ad Avitum.
• * 1.37

  Tom. 2. in Joan. p. 56. Tom. 6. p. 130. Lib. 5. contra Celsum. Tom. 15. in Mat.
• * 1.38

  Tom. 20. in Joh. p. 292.
• a 1.39

  Lib. 1, cont. Celsum, lib. 2. lib. 3. & lib. 4 Com. in Joan. & in Mat. passim lib. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Apol. Pamphili. Vide Tom. 1. in Joan. p. 3. Tom. 20. p. 307. lib. 6. Lib. 1. cont. Celsum. Lib. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theophil. Ep. 2. Paschal. Hier. Ep. ad Ruffinum. lib. 1. cap. 5. & Ep. 61. ad Avitum. c. 4. Sulpit. Severus Dial. 1. c. 3. Bern. Serm. 44. Albert. in Ep. 8 Dion. Hom. 40. in Lucam. Hom. 1. in Levit. L••b. 5. in Ep. ad Rom. T. 1. in Joh. p. 32, 38. T. 2. p 69. t. 1. in Mat. p. 313. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 15. in Mat. 313, L. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 c. 3. Lib. 5. in Ep. ad Rom. Justin. Ep. ad Mennam. Hier. Ep. ad Avitum. Vide, Hom. 1. in Levit. in Luc. c. 2. Hom. 12. in Lev. & 8. Hom. 20. in Luc. lib. 2. de Princip. c. 3. Tom. 1. Com. in Johan. Tom. 2. p. 320.
• b 1.40

  This is the Principle of the Pla∣tonists. Theophilus, Justinian, S. Epi∣phanius, Methodius, and an anonymous Author in Photius, ascribed it to Ori∣gen. He plainly asserts it in his first Book of Principles, C. 6. Tom. 15. & 13. in Matt.
• c 1.41

  Hom. 23. in J. S. lib. 2. Per. c. 11. Tom. 13. in Mat. & p. 310, 311. Tom. 14. p. seq. lib. 1. in Ep. ad. Rom. Hom. 23. in Jos. lib. 8. cont. Celsum, Hom. 4. in Num. Hom. 2. in Jos. lib. 1. Per. cap. 10. lib. 8. cont. Celsum, Hom. 4. in Psal. 36. Hom. 20. Hom. 35. in Lu••. lib. 5. cont. Celsum, lib. 8. Hom. in Ezek. Hom. 23. in Lucam.
• d 1.42

  Lib. 2. Per. cap. 2.
• e 1.43

  Hom. 1. in Genes in Exhort at. ad Mart. lib. 6. contra Celsum. In Luc. cap. 41.
• f 1.44

  Lib. 2. Per. c. 3. & lib. 3. cap. 1. & 3. Lib. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, c. 1, & 2. & in Ep. ad Rom. passim. Tom. 11. in Matt. Item 16, & 13. in Joan. lib. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, c. 7. lib. 3. c. 1. Rhi••oc••l. cap. 20. in Ep. ad Rom. lib. 7, & 9. & lib. 2. de Princip. cap. 9. Hom. 10. in Levit. 1. in Ezek. lib. 1. Per. c. 5. Hom. 35. in Luc. c. 1. Lib. 3. Per. Tract. 33. in Mat. Lib. 4. & 9. in Ep. ad Rom. Supra, & lib. in Ep. ad Rom. lib. 3. P••r. c. 2. lib. 1. P••r. c. 8. lib. 3. cap. 2. in Psal. 4. Hom. in Psal. 36. Hom. in Matt. p. 210. Tract. 15. in Matt.
• g 1.45

  Lib. 5. in Ep. ad Rom. Tom. 13. in Matt. p. 328. T. 15. p. 385. Tract. 35. in Matt. ibid. & Lib. 1. in Ep. ad Rom.
• h 1.46

  Lib. 1. in Ep. ad Rom. & Lib. 7. ejusdem operis.
• i 1.47

  Tom. 1. in Joan. p. 17. Lib. 1. Per•…•…o. 7. & lib. 2. Tom. 13. in Mat. Lib. 5. con. C••lsum & in Ep. ad Rom. Cap. 8. & Lib. 8. Justin. Ep. ad Me•…•….
• k 1.48

  Lib. 5. Con. Cels. lib. 2. Per. c. 3. Lib. 2. c. 10. See Methodius in Epi∣phanius, and St. Jerom in his Epistle John of Jerusalem. Tom. 17. in Matt. pag. 494, & 495. lib. 2. Per. c. 3. & 10. & Lib. 3. Cap. 6.
• l 1.49

  Tract. 30, & 34. in Matt. lib. 2. in Ep. ad Rom. & lib. 9. Hom. 6. in Exod. Hom. 3. in Psal. 36. Hom. 14 in Luc. lib. 5. cont. Cels. & lib. 8. ad Rom.
• n 1.50

  Lib. 4. Per, cap. 2. & lib. 1. cap. 6. Philocal. cap. 1.
• n 1.51

  Lib. 2. de Prin, & lib. 5. con. Cels. Tract. 34. in Joan. Hom. 26. in Num. & 27, 28. & Passim. Tract. 30. in Matt. Lib. 1. de Prin. c. 6. lib. 2. c. 3. & 12. lib. 3. cap. 6. l••b. 3. de Prin. c. 3. & lib. 2. Hom. 7. in Levit. Hom. 6. in Num. & in Reg. in Ezech. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. lib. 1. Per. c. 6. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 15. & Tract. 33. in Matt. Hom. 8. in L••∣vit. 14. in Luc.
• o 1.52

  Lib. 2. cap. 1. & 8. & Tom. 19. in Joan. Justin. Ep. ad Mennam. and two Passages from Lib. 1. & 4. Hieront. Ep. 59. ad A••itu••.
• p 1.53

  Lib. 1. Per. c. 2. Method. apud P••••∣tiam. c. 3. on Genes•• c. 1. This was objected against him by Methodius in Epipha∣nius, by Photius, by Eustathius, by John of Jerusalem, by St. Jerome; and it may be found in Lib. 4. de Prin. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 2.
• q 1.54

  Tom. 12. in Matthaeum.
• r 1.55

  Tom. 11. in Matt.
• s 1.56

  Hom. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. in Num. & Tract. 35. in Matt. Hom. 7. in Levit. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Tom. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. in Joan.
• t 1.57

  Hom. 2. & 6. in Gen. Hom. 3. & 5. in Levit. Hom. 2, & 3. in Exod. item 7, & 11. in Levit. lib. 1. Per. c. 2. Hom. 9, & 2. in J••s.
• u 1.58

  H'm. 10 13. & 9 in Num. Hom. 6 in L••vit. Hom. 4. in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Hom. 6 in Jerem. Hom. 8. ibid. Hom 10. in Levit. Hom. 21. in Jos. Hom. 9, & 11. in Jerem. Tract. 35. in Matt. H••m. 2. in. Jud. & Hom. 2. in Ps. 37. Hom. 15. in Levit. Hom. 10. in Ezech. Tract. 6. in Matt. Hom. 14. in Le∣v•••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉. in cap. 4. Matt. Hom 2. in Levit. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Hom. 14. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• x 1.59

  Tract. 11. in Matt. Tract. 32. in 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. s. lib. 8. Hom. 17. in Levit.
• y 1.60

  Hom. 5. in Exod. & 23. Hom. 3. in Gen. & ibidem. Hom. 5. Hom. 2. in J••r••m. Hom. 8. Hom. 2. Hom. 3. & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Exod. Hom. 14. in 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Item Hom. 15. Tract. 6. in Matt. Hom. 2. in Levit.
• z 1.61

  Hom. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• a 1.62

  Hom. 10. in Levit.
• b 1.63

  In. Genes. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• c 1.64

  Hom. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. in N•…•…. & 25. in J••s. in Frag. in Ep. ad H••b. in Apol. Pamphili. lib. 3. con. Cels H••m. in. E••cod. 8. lib. 2. Per. & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Matt. & Hom. 18. in Num.
• d 1.65

  He always cites it under S. Paul's Name. Hom. 8. in Exod. 7. in Levit. in Jerem. Hom. 1. lib. 1. Per. Lib. 2. in Matt. c. 13. ap. Euseb. lib. 6. c. 25. lib. 2. Per. c. 5. & lib. 2. Per. in Matt. c. 13. Hom. in Jesum. 3. & 10. in cap. ••8. Matt. Hom. in Jer. 14. in Ez. in Luc. Hom. 8. in Exod. Hom. 10. in Jos. lib. 1. Per. lib. 2. lib. 3. in Luc. Hom. 35. Luc. 3. per.