><:///_// v^^^ ■^-' 
 
 •z/-^// 
 
 // 3 
 
 yy06^a/Z6n^'. 
 
 
 
 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 
 
 OF THE 
 
 - 
 
 
 Theological Seminary, 
 
 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 
 
 Crtse, >»J> ^-r-:C-^ Division „„ 
 
 Shelf, "^*^X..X-S action 
 
 ,' 
 
 
 Book, No.., 
 
 
 
 
 
^-^ ' / 
 
 1 '/ 
 
jb» />e^ a3/ 
 
 THE 
 
 CREDIBILITY 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 GOSPELHISTORY: 
 
 PART 11. 
 OR THE 
 
 PRINCIPAL FACTS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 Confirmed by Paffages of Ancient Authors, who were 
 contemporary with our saviour, or his apo- 
 stles, or lived near their Time, 
 
 VOL. III. 
 
 Containing the Hiflory of the Cbrijlian Writers of the 
 former Part of the Third Century, and their Teftimony 
 to the Books of the new testament. 
 
 By NATHANIEL LARDNER. D.D. 
 
 The Second Edition, 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Sold by J. Noo N in Cheapfide, J. Wau g H in Lombard 
 Street, and J. Buckland in Pater-nofter-Row. 
 
 M.DCC.L. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 THIRDVOLUME. 
 
 210. I. 
 
 FELIX. ^ 
 
 Chap. Book I. A.D. Page. 
 
 xxx-TiyriNucius 
 
 XXXI. APOLLONIUS. 211. 12. 
 
 XXXII. cAius and o--) ^^^ ,q 
 
 , (.212. 10. 
 
 thers. 5 
 
 XXXIIL ASTERIUS UR-p ^^' 
 
 S 232. 54. 
 
 BANUS. 5 
 
 XXXIV. S. ALEXANDER^ 
 
 Bp»ofJeru-> 21 2* 64. 
 falem. j 
 
 XXXV. S. HippoLYTUs. 220. yS. 
 
 XXXVI. AMMONIUS. 220. 114. 
 
 XXXVII. JULIUS AFRI-? 
 
 > 220. 15c. 
 CANUS. J "^'^ 
 
 XXXVIII. O RIG EN. 230. 180. 
 XXXIX. St. FIRMILIAN. 233. 411. 
 
 Adverr' 
 
Advertifement. 
 
 As the number of pages in this fecond 
 Edition of this Volume is the fame, 
 as in the firfl, the Alphabetical Table at the 
 end of the fourth Volume might ftill fuffice. 
 Neverthelefs I have now made a particular 
 Table for this third Volume. Various 
 Readings, and Texts explained, are alfo 
 placed at the end. 
 
 Dec. 12. 
 
 1749. 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 P. 56. 1. 4. from the bottom, for Ancrya. r. Ancyra, 
 404. 1. I. for Matt her. r. Matjheiv. 
 
 THE 
 
THE 
 PRINC I PAL FAC TS 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 CONFIRMED, ^c. 
 
 BOOK I. 
 
 CHAP. XXX. 
 
 MINUCIUS FELIX. 
 
 ^^^^,^^ A Reus Minucius Felix has left us A. D. 
 l^M. an excellent Defenfe of the Chriftian ^'°' 
 
 ^^)^KSi Religion, writ in the form of a di- Hu mjia-i 
 alogue or conference between Caecilius Nata- 
 lis a Heathen^ and 05lavius yaniiarius a Chri- 
 Jlian, in which Mimicius fits as judge. Caeci- 
 lius firft objects, and then O^avius anfwers. 
 When he has finiihed, after a fhort interval 
 of filence^ Caecilius owns himfelf convinced 
 B and 
 
IVflNUCIUS FELIX. Boofe t, 
 and overcome, and declares his readinelTe to 
 become a Chrijlian. 
 
 This piece had been long reckoned an eighth 
 book of Arnobe againjl the Gentih. But for 
 fome while has (a) been rcf^bred by the critics 
 to MinuciiiSy to whom it is afcribed by an- 
 cient Chrijlian authors, who have quoted it i 
 not to mention any other reafons, why it ought 
 not to be efteemed a part o^ Arnobe s work. 
 
 It is difficult to determine with exadiiefTe 
 the age of Minticiits. The generality of learn- 
 ed men have placed him between Tertullian 
 and»S/. Cvprian. CavefbJ'm particular, thinks 
 he flourifhed about the year 220 : but with- 
 out being pofitive, that he has hit his exadl- 
 age. David Blondell (c) thought Minnciiis 
 wrote under Marc Antonine the Philofopher, 
 about the year 170. The late moft ingeni- 
 ous fJy and critical Mr. Moyk too thought, 
 
 that 
 
 (a) Vid. ihprvnh Dijfsrta. Tr. Balduini in M. Minucil 
 Fell CIS OHa'vium. 
 
 ( b) De aetate ejus qua vixit, nil haben quod pro certo afilr- 
 mare aufim : fi tamen in re obfcura, dubiaque hariolaci licet i 
 conjiciam illuniy utpote Tertulliano fupparem, Cyprianoanti- 
 quiorem, CTcaan. zzo. clarujfie. Cave FJljl. L. P. i. p. 66. 
 
 (c) David' Biondellus in Apoloyia di Epifcop. et Presbyt. 
 Vid. Tejiitnonin praejixa Mimic. Felic. ex editione Jacob. Gro- 
 noif. Lu^d. Bat. 1709. 
 
 (d) U^arks of Walter M-cjk, Efq,iV. ii. p. 84. Sts aljo ^el 
 i. p. 3.89.- 
 
Ch. XXX. MINUCIUS FELIX. 
 
 that the age of Minucius^ though not certain^ 
 
 had been Jixed^ with great probability^ to the 
 
 later end of the reign of the fame Emperour 
 
 by Mr. Dodwell. And it is true, Mr. (<?) Dod- 
 
 well declared that to be his opinion in his Dif- 
 
 fertationei Cyprianicae , piibHfhed in 1684. But 
 
 in a book entitled A Difcoiirfe concerning the 
 
 ufe of incenfe in divine ojices, publifhed in 
 
 171 1, he brings Minucim down a good deal 
 
 later. " But, fays (/) he, what then (hall we 
 
 *' think of the arae niillae in Minucim Felix? 
 
 " He wrote a little after T^ertulUan, as mentio- 
 
 " iiing [g) the reprefentation of the God of the 
 
 " Chrijiiam with an alTe's head, which was a 
 
 " calumnie newly invented {h) when Tertiil- 
 
 " //^« wrote his Apologie : yet before aS^. Cy- 
 
 ** prian, who tranfcribes fome pafTages out of 
 
 *' him 'verbatim in his book De vanitate Ido^ 
 
 , " lorum" 
 
 It may be farther obferved, that the inter- 
 nal characters of time in this work are not 
 unfuitable to the later part of the fecond, or 
 the begining of the third centurie. The 
 
 B 2 Chrifians 
 
 (e) Dijf. iii. § \6.p. 35. 
 
 (f) See Difcourje l^c. §. 20. p. ^6. 
 
 (g) Audio eos turpiffimaepeciid is caput Afini confecratum 
 refcioquaperfuaflonevenerari. >//»:/rf'. FJ. Cap. ix./. 55. tt 
 cap. xxviii p. 143, £J. Davif. Cantabr. \-J\z, 
 
 (hj Fid. TertuJlian Apol. Cap. xd, p. \j. D, 
 
MINUCIUS FELIX. Book L 
 Chrijlians are in afflidive circumftances, with- 
 out altars and temples, and are loaded by 
 Caecilius in his part of the difpute with all 
 manner of reproaches. Laftly, St. 'Jerome m 
 his book of Illuftrious Men, where he has 
 feme regard to the order of time, has placed 
 Miniicim between TertuHian and St. Cyprian^ 
 and in the chapter oU'ertullian fays, that l^er- 
 iidlian vtas then generally reckoned the firfl 
 of the Latin writers of the church after Vic- 
 /^rand Appollonim. 
 
 I think upon the whole, that if this Di- 
 alogue was writ alter TertuUian's Apologie, 
 yet it may be allowed to have foon followed 
 it : and thefe two Chriftian Apologifts may be 
 reckoned contemporaries. I therefore place 
 Minucius at the year 2 1 o. near the end of 
 the reign oiSeptimiusSeverus: which is agree- 
 able to the opinion o^ (i) Barcm'us, and others. 
 It is thought probable by many learned (k) 
 men, that M'uiuchis was an African, Howe- 
 ver, I'rithcmiiis, in the fifteenth centurie, calls 
 (I) Minucius a Roman. To which we may add 
 
 like- 
 
 (i) Baron. Ann. z\\. §. 2. 3. Vid. et Tillemont Note fur 
 Minuce Felix. Mem. Ec. T.m. P. \ p. 513. EdJe Bruxelles. 
 
 (k) Cave E-iJl. Lit. Tillemont Minuce Ft/. Bafnag. A^ina, 
 Pol. Ec. zio.n. iii. Fr. Balduin. DiJJ . in Min. Fel. 0£i. Ri' 
 paitius'in not is. 
 
 (1) Minusius Felix, x;aufidic us, gatria Romanus, vir in kc\u 
 
 latibua 
 
Ch. XXX. MINUCIUS FELIX. 
 likewife, that he fays, Minucius flouriHied in 
 the reign of the Emperour Alexander^ at the 
 year 230. 
 
 LaSiantim has twice mentioned this writer. 
 In the /w) firft place he quotes a palTage from 
 him, and gives his book the title of 0£iaviiis, 
 In the other he fays, " that Minucius (n) was 
 " an eminent Pleader, and that his book, 
 " entitled OBavius^ (hews how able a de- 
 " fender of the truth he might have been, if 
 ** he had given up himfelf entirely to that 
 " vvork." Ladlantiiis here fpeaking of feye- 
 ral Chrijlian Apologifts firf]: mentions Minuci- 
 us^ then Tfr/W//^??, and lad of all St. Cyprian. 
 " Minucius Felix^ fays St. Jerome in his (0) 
 *^ hookof lllujlriousMen^ an eminent Pleader 
 of Rome, wrote a dialogue between a Chrijlian 
 B 3 *' and 
 
 laribus Uteris eruditiflimus, et indivinisIetE^ionibus ftudiofus, . . • 
 claruit Romae iub Aievandro [mperatoit Anno Domini ccxxx. 
 i'rithem. fie Script. EccL cap. 34. 
 
 (m) Minucius Felix in eo iibro, qui Oftavi'os infcribitur, 
 fic argumentatus elL . . . Laclant. de di-vin. Injl. h. i. cap. xi; 
 ^.67. Lugd,Bat. 1660. 
 
 (tj) Minucius Felix non ignobilis inter c£u£dicos loci fuit. 
 Huju') lib^r, cui Oiflavio titulas e(l, declarat, q.uam idoneus 
 veritatis ailertor t^a potuifTct, fi fe totum ad id iludii contu- 
 JiiTet. Id. I. V. cap. i. p. 459. 
 
 (0) Minucius Felix, Romae infignis caufidicus, fcripfit dla- 
 lo'j,um Chrilliani et Echnici difputantium, qtii Oclavius in- 
 fcribitur. Sed et alius fab nomine ejus fertur de Fato, vel coa- 
 tra Mathemadcos : qui cum fit et ipfediferti hominis, non mi- 
 hi videtur cum fupcriorislibri iiiloconvenire. Meminit hujus 
 Miaucij et Laftantiui in lipris fuis. De V. L cap. 58. 
 
MINUCIUS FEX.IX. Book L 
 
 and a Heathen^ which is entitled OBavius, 
 '* There Is another book, which goes under 
 " bis name, Of Fate, or againft Aftrologers: 
 " which though it be likewife the work of an 
 *' eloquent man, does not appear to me a- 
 *' greeable to the flile of the forementloned 
 " book. LdBajttitis \n his writings makes 
 " mention of this Miniicius'* 
 
 The book Of Fate, which is not now ex- 
 tant, is mentioned much after the fame man- 
 ner in another work by (p) St. yerome, who 
 upon feveral (q) occafions has commended the 
 learning of this author. Minuciui is alfo 
 reckoned with the moft eloquent Chrifiian 
 writers by (r) Eucherius, Billiop of Lyons in 
 the fifth centurie. I forbear to allege any 
 more teftimonies. 
 
 That 
 
 (f) Minucius Felix caufidicus Romani Fori, in libro, cui ti- 
 tulus Oflavius eft, et in akero contra Mathematicos (fi tame- n in- 
 fcriptio non mentitur audorem) quid Gentilium fcripturarum 
 ditnifit intaflum ? Id ad Magnum. Ep. 83. a/. 84. 
 
 (qj Taceo de Latinis fciptoribus, Tertulliano, Cypriano, 
 Miriucio, Viftorino, Ladilantio, Hilario. Hieron. Jpolegeticus 
 ad Pammachlum. Ep. 30. al. 50. Atque in hunc modum e- 
 ruditionis famam declinando err.ditiffimus habebatur : illud Cy- 
 prian! ; hocLaftantii; iliud Hiiarii eft. Sic Minucius Felix ; 
 jta Vi<3orinus ; in hunc modum locutus eft Arnobius. Ad He- 
 liodorum, Epitaph. Nepotianii, Ep. 35 a/. 3. 
 
 (fj Et quando claiffimos facundia Firmianum, Minucium, 
 Cyprianum, Hilarium, Joannem, Ambrofjum, ex illo volu- 
 mine numerofuatis evolvain. Eucher. in Ep. ad VaUiianuai. 
 
2IO, 
 
 Oh. XXX. MINUCIUS FEUX. 7 
 
 That Minucius pleaded at Rome^ appears ^- ^ 
 •from the Dialogue itfelf : in which the author 
 mentions (s) the vintage feafon, when there 
 was vacation at the Courts of Juftice. We 
 know hkewife from the l)ook itfelf, that both 
 Minucius and his friend OSfavius were orgi- 
 nally Heathens, It is al fo intimated, that 
 Minucius did not embrace Chriftianity before 
 (t) he was of mature age,^ and able to judge 
 for himfelf. As (u) for OBavius.^ he feems to 
 have pleaded againfl the Chriftians^ or to 
 have fat in judgement upon them in the for- 
 rmer part of his life : when he treated them 
 with the feverity and injufl:ice_, common with 
 other Heathen Judges at that time. 
 
 This work is a monument of the author's in- 
 genuity, learning and eloquence. And the con- 
 yeriion of a man of his great natural .and acqui- 
 B 4 red 
 
 (s) Sane et ad vindemiam feriae judiciarum curam relaxa- 
 •YCant. M. Minucii OSia'v. cap. 2. p. 24. 
 
 (t) Utpote cuin diligenter in utroque vivendi genere verfa- 
 itus repudiarisalterutn, alteram comprobaris. cap. -v. p. 31. 
 
 (r) Et nos idem-faimus et eadem vobifcum quondam ad- 
 huc caeci et hebetes fentiebamus . . . Nos tamen cum facrile- 
 gos aliquosetinceftos, parricidas etiam defendendoo et tuendos 
 iufcipiebimus, hos nee audiendos in totum putabamus : non- 
 nunquam etiam miferantes eorum crudelius faeviebamus, at 
 .torqueremus conHentes ad negandum, videlicet ne perirentj 
 rcxercentes in his perverfam quaeltionem, non quae verum eru- 
 eret, fed quae mendacium cogeret. Vid, et ^uae Jeiuuntur» 
 c^p. i2.p. 141. 
 
8 • MiNucius FELIX. Book L 
 
 A. D. j-gfj abilities to the Chrijlian religion, and his 
 I— -V — ' public and courageous defenfe of it, notwith- 
 ilanding the piany worldly temptations to the 
 contrarie, which he muft have met with at 
 that time, efpecially in his ftation, as they 
 give an advantageous idea of his virtue, fo 
 they likewife afford a very agreeable argu- 
 ment in favour of the truth of our religion. 
 H/j Tejii- Here are no exprefs quotations of the books 
 ^r% T °^ Scripture. But as it may be expedled, I 
 {hould not entirely omit the hints or allu- 
 fions to them, found in fo polite and elegant 
 a performance; I (hall take the following 
 notice of fuch as have appeared tO ine in 
 reading it. 
 
 mttb. I cc 1'i^e ^^j birds fubfifl without an eflate : 
 ** and the beafts are fed by the day." Per- 
 haps here is a reference to Matth. vi. 26. and 
 Luke xii. 24. if not alfo to the petition in 
 the Lord's prayer for daily bread, 
 
 Luke. II cc pjow Cy) can he be thought poor, 
 " who is rich toward God ?" Compare 
 Luke xii. 2 1. 
 
 III. Ca- 
 
 (x) Ave=; fine patrimonio vivunt, et in diem pecuapafcun- 
 tuF. cap. 36, p. 176. 
 
 (y) Et tamen quis potcH pauper cKz. . . , qui Deo divet 
 t&\ ibid. 
 
2IO. 
 
 dels. 
 
 Ch. XXX. MINUCIUS FELIX. 9 
 
 III. Caecilius fays: ^he (z) Romans ereB ^- ^ 
 altars to unkno'wn Gods. Though thefe are the 
 words of the Heathen difputant, it may be 
 thought probable, that Minuciiis^ the com- 
 pofer of the Dialogue, refers to ABs xvll. 23. 
 
 I found an altar with this infcription^ To the 
 unknown God, 
 
 IV. OBavius (a) fpeaks of the intimate ^<i7/. 
 prefence of God with us, or of our living as 
 
 it were with him, in terms fo refembling thofe 
 of ABs xvii. 27. 28. that fome may think 
 he refers to them. 
 
 V. " Seeds (b) do not fpring, till after » ^^r, 
 " they have putrified." This refembles 
 
 I Cor. XV. 36. That which thou fowejl is 
 not quickened, unlefs it dye. 
 
 VI. " Therefore, fays [c) OBavius, as i Cor. 
 ** gold is tryed by the fire, fo are we [C/3;7- , pet. 
 
 *' ftians"] 
 
 (z) Dum aras exftruunt etiam ignotis numinibus, et manl- 
 bus. cap. 6. p. 41 . 
 
 (a) Unde enim Deus longe eft, cum omnia doeleftia, ter- 
 renaque, et quae extra illam orbis provinciam funt, Deo cog- 
 hita, plena fint ? Ubique non tantum nobis proximus, fed infu- 
 fus eft. . . . Non tantum fub illo aglmus, fed cum illo, utpro- 
 pe dixerim, vivimus. cap. 32. p. 162. 163. 
 . (b) Semina nonnifi corruptarevirefcunt. c«/>. 34.^. lyr. 
 
 (c) Itaque ut aurum ign'.bus, fic nos difcriminibus argui- 
 in.ir. cap. 36./ 177. 
 
lO MINUCIUS FELIX. Book I. 
 
 A. D. cc iHansl by afflidions." See i Cor, iii. i-? 
 
 210. ' -> '' ^ 0« 
 
 t^^-v-^ ^J^d I Pf/. i. y. Bat this is too common a 
 coraparifon to prove a reference to any par- 
 ticular writing. 
 
 zCsr. VII. " Fortitude (^) is emproved by mif- 
 
 '' fortunes :" or, literally, isjlrengthened by in-' 
 firmities. See i Cor. xii. lo. 
 
 .1 lim. VIII. " Shall U) I bring offerings and 
 *' facrifices to God of things which he has 
 *' fet forth for my ufe, and fo fling him 
 " back again his gift ? This would be un- 
 " grateful." Which has a refemblance with 
 what is faid i ^im. iv. 3,4 to ahflain 
 
 Jrom tneats^ which God has created to be re- 
 ceived with thankfgiving .... for every crea- 
 ture of God is good, and nothijig to be re-^ 
 
 fiifedy if it be received with tha?ikfgiving, 
 
 IX. " No (/) man can be fo poor, as 
 " he was born." iSee i I'im. vi. 7. But 
 
 the 
 
 (J) Fortitudo enim infirmitatibus roboratur. ibid. 
 
 {e{ Holt as et viftimas D8mino ofteram, quas in ufum mel 
 protulit, ut rejiciam ei fuum munus ? Ingratura eft. cap. 32. 
 p. 160. 
 
 (/) Nemo tarn pupcreffe poteft, quam natus eft. cap. 36. 
 
Ch.XXX. MINQCIUS FELIX. II 
 
 the fame thing has been faid by Heathen a. d. 
 
 210. 
 authors. o'-^^ 
 
 X. " What foldier (g) is not more bold ^ ^'«»- 
 ** and courageous in the eye of his Gene- 
 " ral ? Nor is any man rewarded, till he 
 «' has been tryed . . . The foldier of God is 
 " not deferted in pain, nor does he perifli 
 ** when he dyes." The Reader, if he thinks 
 fit, may confider, whether here is an allu- 
 fion to St. Paul's comparifons, 2 Tim. ii, 3. 
 4. 5. 6. 8. 
 
 I do not judge it worth the while to al- 
 lege any more palTages of this fort from 
 Minucius, 
 
 (g) Quis non miles fub imperatoris oculi's audacius pericu- 
 lum provocet? Nemo enim praemium percipit ante experi- 
 mentum : et imperator tamen quod non habet, non dat : non 
 poteft propagare vitam, poteft honeftare militiam. At enim 
 Dei miles nee in dolore d.feritur, nee morte finitur. cap. 37. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
CHAP. XXXI. 
 
 APOLLONIUS. 
 
 A. D. A POLLONIUS flouria-ied accord- 
 ,^J^li^ JL\. ing to Cave (a) about the year of our 
 Mii Hijh-hovd 192. But (a) Etijebe (b) informs us, 
 that Apollonius himfelf fays, that when he 
 wrote, it was forty years, fince Montanus had 
 begun to recomrnend his falfe prophecie. 
 And St. 'Jerome {c) has obferved the fame 
 thing. Whence Tillemont (d) concludes, that 
 Apolhnhis wrote about the year 211, at the 
 conclufion of the reign of Severus^ or in the 
 firft year of Caracalla. Vakjius (e) Hkewife 
 is of much the fame opinion. 
 
 Eufebey w-ho has preferved feveral frag- 
 ments of the foiementioned treatife, calls 
 
 JpoHo' 
 
 (a) Hiji. Lit. P.\. p. ^3. z?i ApoUonio. 
 
 (a) Eufehe. So I chooie to write for the future, iiiftead of 
 Eufebius. I liave frequent occ^fion to mention this writer. 
 1 he £w^/7/b Genitive of names ending in us is extremely difa- 
 greeable: And Eufehe is as proper for Eufebius, as Arnhrofe 
 for Amhroftus. I may take a like Iberty with fome other 
 names, where there is no danger of ambiguity. 
 
 (h) Euf. H. E.l.'v.c 18. p. 186. B. 
 
 ( i ) Dicit in eodem libro quadragefimum effe annum ufque 
 ad tempus quoipfe fcribebat libnim, ex quo haerefis Cataphry- 
 garum h'bwerit exordium. DeVir.Ill. cap 40. 
 
 (d) Mem. Ec. T. ii. P. iii. Les Montanijles. Artick V. 
 p. 44. et Art. XI. p. 68. 
 
 [e) Fid. not. ad Euf. L.v. c. iS. p. lOO. 
 
Ch. XXXL APOLLoisrius. 
 
 j^pollonim an ecclefiaftical writer, beglning 
 his account of it in this manner. " Apollo- 
 *' niui (f) like wife, an ecclefiaftical writer, 
 *' compofed a confutation of the Cataphry- 
 *' gian herefie, as it is c;illed, which at that 
 ** time prevailed in Phrygia^ writing a book 
 " on purpofe upon that occafion." 
 
 St. Jerome calls Apollonim a (g) mofi eloquent 
 man : and fays, " he wrote a long and excellent 
 " work againft Monfamis^ Prifca and Maxi- 
 " milla: and that (h) the feventh book of Ter^ 
 " tullians treatife of Extajie was particularly 
 *' defigned as a confutation of this apiece of 
 *' ylpoUojiius :" which obfervation St. Je- 
 rome (i) has mentioned more than once. He 
 fays like wife, that Apollonius flourifhed in 
 the reigns of the Emperours Commodus and 
 Sevents. 
 
 Eufebe 
 
 (f) IviiS'l Koija Qfvyxi ya^tsiAvm cr.ififfsai ^ ATioXAcei'iof 
 
 <pptjy'ict\) ihiyxpv ti'^nactpsvoi, '"i(^iov koct uuluvTn'sroj^cna'vy- 
 yfa'iJiy.A. /• V. c. I 8. p. 884. B. 
 
 (g) Apollonius, vir diibrtiifimus, fcripfit adverfus Monta- 
 rum, Prifcam etMaximiliam infigne et longum volumen. De 
 Vir. IC. cap. 40. 
 
 (h) Tertullianus fex voluminibus adverfus ecclefiam editis, 
 quae rcripfit Tepj eKrrfVfAJ?reptimum propria adverfus Apollo- 
 nium elaboravit, in quo omnia quae arguit, conatur defendere. 
 Floruit autem fub Commodo, ,Severoque Principibus. ibid. 
 • (i) De Vir. Ill, cap. 24. Mdito.. eccap. '^o. Tertullianus. 
 
14 APOLLONIUS. Book I» 
 
 A. D. Eufebe fpcaks o£ Apollonitis under no othef 
 o-v-^ charader, than that of an Ecclefiaftical Wri- 
 ter. Nor has St. Jerome mentioned any 
 office he had in the church. For which rea- 
 fon, as (k) "Tillemont fays, it is not eafie to 
 relye upon Fraedeflinatus^ a later writer, 
 and otherwife full of miftakes, who calls him 
 Bifhop of Ephefus, He is plainly different 
 from ApoUoniuSj of whom (b) we fpoke for- 
 merly, whom St. Jerome (I) calls a Roman 
 Senator : who alfo fuffered under Commodus^ 
 whereas this perfon flourifhed partly in the 
 reign of Severus, and probably reached to 
 that of Caracalla. 
 Tejiimome \ proceed, without making any more ob- 
 N. T, fervations, to tranicnbe what relates to our 
 purpofe in the fragments of this work of A- 
 pOilonius writ again ft the Montani/ls^ which 
 are preferved in Eufebe's Eccleliaftical Hif- 
 torie. 
 
 T. After fome other paffages of this au- 
 thor Eufebe adds : " Then (m) he goes 
 ** on faying : Is it not apparent, that all 
 
 ** the 
 
 (k) TillemoKt, as before, p. 63. 
 (b) Chap. 28. §. 13. FoL ii. p. 687. or 681. 
 (I) De Vir. 111. cap. 42. 
 
 (m) 'E7t' £'3r/>p4p« KiyaV AoKti ffoi Tucrot, ypMipn yaXiiiV 
 np^o(fnTm Kt^y.Cuveiv ^(a^x y^ yji]ij.»>7A ; ap. EuJ. ib. p. 1 84.. D, 
 
Cfl. XXXI. APOLLONIUS. 15 
 
 ** the fcripture forbids a Prophet to take A. D. 
 
 , .2X1. 
 
 " gifts and money?" By fcnpture meaning v^^^-y^^ 
 undoubtedly the books of the Old and New 
 Teftament, in which laft, as well as in the 
 former, are divers things, to which he may 
 be fuppofed to refer, particularly to j^Bs viii. 
 18... 20. However, we (hall prefently fee 
 a text or two of the New Teflament to this 
 purpofe. 
 
 IT. Afterwards fpeaking bf Themifoji, a no- 
 ted Montanift, he fays : *' When (n)ht ought 
 '' to have been humbled [for the bad con- 
 " duti^whieh ApoUonius there charges him with 
 *' in time of perfecutiofi] he exalted himfelf 
 " as if he had been a Martyr : and had the 
 *^* alTurance, as if he had been an Apoftle, tO' 
 " write a catholic epiflle for the inftrudion 
 ** of men more faithful than himfelf. Yea 
 ^' and in the abundance of his zeal for his 
 " vain fentiments he proceeds fo far as to 
 *' fpeak difrefped:fally of Chrifi and the A- 
 *' pollles and the holie church/' 
 
 III. Again, 
 
 (n) Aeov ST/ TKTiy T^t-re^vj^povriv, kh fjiJ^rvf Kuvyicouivoi, 
 irh\uM(Ti u.iuy.usvoi rov rtToroAou, KxQoXtKiVJ riva. avvjetfciL/Avoi 
 
 p. 185. A. 
 
i6 APOLLONius. Book L 
 
 III. Again, reproving thefe men : " When 
 ((?) the Lord hath faid : Provide ?2either gold, 
 Matthew, (c nor Jiher, nor two coats \ \Matih. x. 9. 10.] 
 *' thefe on the contrarie have heinoufly of- 
 *' fended in the pofTeffion of things forbid- 
 " den." And foon afcer : " For we ff>) 
 *' ought to examine the fruits of a Pro- 
 ** phet : for the tree is known by it's fruits 
 Z^zMatth. vii. 15 — 20. & ch. xii. 33. 
 
 Re'veia- IV. " Moreover,y^ji (^) E^^^-, he rektcs 
 
 ** as from tradition, that our Saviour com- 
 
 *' manded his Apoftles not to depart from 
 
 *' yerufalem for the fpace of twelve years. 
 
 *' He alfo makes ufe of teflimonics out of the 
 
 " Revelation of John : and he relates that 
 
 " by the Divine power the fame John raifed 
 
 " up to life a dead man at Ephcjiis.'* 
 
 Sum of V. Here is then a reference or two to 
 moniV' the Gofpel of St. Matthew. We are aiTu- 
 
 red 
 
 yv^QV (j.nn S'voy^^irccvfxi, troi 'ttav 7ovi'x\)t'iov '7r£7r\nfy./,i.iXity.a.7t 
 •Trm rai r^^rav Tav ain^yo^iuiAvco)} v.r(;(T&ii. p. 185.5. 
 
 \p) Ah. yap Tx? ;capT« S'oKiiJ.c/.^i^u.t t» -rpopJiTa' utiq ycif 
 78 KapTK TO J^iVePftOV y>))uJ,"irxt. ibid. c. 
 
 'l^HcraXnix. Kkyj^nnJ J^l ^ fjt.a.°TVflcti airo ladna d-TroKA- 
 Au4-*'^" ^ t'supov cTs J'uvdy.c-i Siia. Trpof duiv luavn s-v- th 6»i- 
 ffi^ iyny'^p^^ii l^if^, />. 186, C. 
 
Ch. XXXI. APOLLONIUS. 17 
 
 red by Eiifehe, that Apolhnius quoted the ■''' ^* 
 book of the Revelation. It is very probable ^-^^vs/ 
 from the connexion of things in this account, 
 and from Eufebe's faying nothing to the con- 
 trarie, that Apollonius afcribed the Revela- 
 tion to 'John the Apoftlei It appears farther, 
 that the Apoflles of Chrift and their wri- 
 tings were in the higheft efleem : and that 
 the books, called fcripture in a flri(5t and pe- 
 culiar fenfe by Chrijiiam, were well known 
 among them, and were confidered as the 
 rule of their faith and pradife. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
CHAP. XXXIL 
 
 c A I u s and others. 
 
 I. CAIUS. II. y4n ANONYMOUS Au^ 
 
 thor againjl the Herejie of arte- 
 MON. III. ATreati/e of the "i^h-* 
 
 TURE OF THE UNIVERSE. 
 
 ^AIUS flourifiied, according to (^) 
 Cave^ about the year 210. We are 
 ^^^ ■f^i/?^- informed by {b) Photius, " That it was ; 
 " commonly faid, that Caius was a prefby- 
 ** ter of the church of Rome in the time of 
 " Vidior and Zephyrine^ and that he was or- 
 ** dained Bifhop of the nations." By which 
 fome learned {c) men underftand, that he 
 was ordained to preach the gofpel in in- 
 fidel countries, without having any particu- 
 lar people or diocefe afligned him. Fabri- 
 ciiis by a fmall alteration of the word in 
 Photius would read Atheiis^ inftead [d) of 
 
 natiom ; 
 
 («) Jiijl. Lit. in Caio, 
 
 vo&iivut cTe avrov 39 eQyeu i'TriffKO'^rov. Phot. Cod. 48. col. 36. 
 37. Rhotom. 1653. 
 (<-) Can}, utjupra. Tillemont Mem. Ec.^. 3. P. i.p. 295. Caiut. 
 {d} Prefbyter E.omanus, atque inde epifcopus Athenienfis ; 
 nam apud Photium pYokQvKivi.7ri<r)io-/Tov legendem videtur aSji- 
 l>u)/. Fabric. Bibi. Gr. I, v. cap. i. 'Z! v p. 267. 
 
Ch. XXXIL c A I u s. 
 nations : and fuppofes, that having been fir ft 
 a Preibyter in the church of Rome, he was 
 afterwards made Bifliop of Athens. 
 
 Photius fays like wife, that he had feen a 
 note of fome perfon, whom he does not name, 
 in a book Of the Nature of the Univerfe^ afcrib* 
 ed by fome to Jofephus'. " That [e) it was 
 *' writ by Caius, a Prefoyter, who dwelt at 
 '' Rome, who is alfo faid to be the author of 
 *' the Labyrinth." 
 
 We are wellalTured from Eufehe[f), and 
 fe) ^^' y^fo^i^i that Caius lived in the time 
 of Zephyrine, Bifliop of Rome, about whofe 
 time (a) learned men are not entirely agreed, 
 and of Antcntne Caracalla, who reigned from 
 211. to 217. 
 
 It is thought by many, that Caius was a 
 
 difciple of Irenaeus, This has been concluded 
 
 from fome vv^ords at the end of a manufcript 
 
 C 2 copie 
 
 [e] Ei/'pov ^i, iv 'Tra.pa.y^xip^ii cji ov:i snv Xoyof IcoixnTiS, 
 
 Ttf^a/ ^ Toe Aot^i/'p/vQov. Phot. ibid. 
 
 (/) Euf. H. E. I. 2. cap. 25. /. 67. D. et lib. 6. cap. 20. 
 
 {g) De Fir. III. cap. 59. 
 
 (a) Mr. Dodivell thought, that Zephyrtne, fucceffor of Vic- 
 tor, fat in the See of Rome from the year 195. to 214. Fid. 
 Dijf- Jlngular. de Bern. Pont if. Prim. SuccaJ/ione Cap. xv. §.2, 
 7. iffc. Tillemont{d.y^, Zf/>/^yrzw governed the Church of ^oots 
 from 20I. or 202. to 219. See 6"/ Z^phyrine. Mem. Ecc. T. 3. 
 P. 2. p. I. and Note p. 336. as Mo Caius. Mem. Ec. T. 3. 
 P. i. p. 294. But Pagi fays, from 197. to 2 1 7. Fid. Crit. 
 in Baron. 197. a, v. 219. «. it. 
 
20 c A I u s. Book I* 
 
 A. D. copie of the Epiftle of the Church of Smyrna t 
 J^J^ concerning the martyrdom of St. Polycarp, 
 where it is faid: " This [h) was tranfcribed- 
 " from the copie of /r^;M^»j, difciple of P(?- 
 ** lycarp, by Caius^ who alfo was acquainted 
 ** with Irenaeiis. I Socrates living in Cori?ith 
 *' tranfcribed it from the copie of Caius" But 
 it may be queftioned, whether this note may 
 be relied upon. If it may, here is no certain 
 proof, that this is our Caius. As this was a 
 common name, all that can be hence con- 
 cluded is, that the tranfcriber of that epiftle 
 lived about the fame time with our author. 
 Indeed CaiiiSt as we fliall fee by and by, does 
 not reckon the epiflle to the Hebrews a- 
 mong St. Paul's epiftles : which agrees well 
 enough to a difciple of Irenacus^ as Tillemont 
 has obferved. But this might be common at 
 that time to many in feveral parts of the 
 world. 
 
 It is alfo generally allowed, that Caius 
 was a Prefbyter of the church of Rojjtei 
 And Bifhop (?) Tearfon fays diredly, that 
 
 Eufebe^ 
 
 [h] Tavra, iJ.il sypa-icilo y.lv Td'iof \k tuv '^j^mh\i /uafijjj? 
 tS YioKvyJ.^TT^, Of it) (rvv£Z!cK':vad]o 7co E/pi!vaj&>. 'Eyeb cTe 
 Sft.v:P«?T>?f jv KopivSct) tK Ta Fai's avl.y^c'.ipcov 'iypoi'^d' x. A. Ep. 
 EccUf. Smvrn. §. 23. apud Patr. Apojl. et Valef. Annot, in 
 Evfeb. H^E.p. 'j'Jj.D. 
 
 (/) Hunc Caiiiin turn Eufebius turn Photius Romance ecclefiae 
 prefbyteruinfui(reafferua:./'*^?r/o«0/>.Po/?.Z)/^ i.§.3.^. 148. 
 
Ch. XXXII. CAT us. 
 
 EufebCy as well as Phothis^ gives him that 
 title. Du [k) Pin too fays, that Eiifebe and 
 St. Jerome call Cains Prefbyter, but without 
 faying of Rome. Thefe learned men do 
 not refer to any particular place, where this 
 is faid. And I am not aware, that Eufehe 
 or Jerome fay any thing more, than that 
 Caius was an ecclefiaftical m,an, and had a 
 difpute with Proculus at Rome, in the time 
 of Zephyrine. Though therefore it may be 
 allowed to have fome probability from Pbo^ 
 tiiiSy that Caius was a Prefbyter of Rome, it 
 can by no means be reckoned a certain 
 thing. 
 
 There are three or four books afcribed 
 to Caius : A Dialogue, or Difputation with 
 Proculus or Proclus, a follower of Montaniis : 
 another Of the U?2iverfe : a third, called the 
 Labyrinth, and the Little Labyrinth : a fourth, 
 writ againji the herefie of Artemon. Thefe 
 are all mentioned together by (/) Photius, 
 as diftind: works. But the tv70 laft are ge- 
 nerally thought to be only different titles cf 
 C 3 one 
 
 (yf) Eufebe, et faint Jerome difent blen, qu' il c'toit pretre, 
 et qu'il a vecu du terns du Zephirin : Mais ils ne diienc pas, 
 qu'jl full Romain. Du Fin. Bibl. Cains. 
 . (/] Csd. 48. 
 
2 2 c A I US. Book I. 
 
 one and the fame work. T^heodoret (ni) fays, 
 that Caius wrote againfl Cerinthus, But I ap- 
 prehend, he means the book againft the Moji-, 
 tanijis, in which Caius alfo oppofed Cerin- 
 fbus, as we fhall foon fee from a paffage 
 to be tranfcribed from Eiifebe. If Caius had 
 compofed a diilind work againft that here- 
 tic, it is hkely it would have been men- 
 tioned by Eufebe and jerome. 
 
 There are therefore three books faid to 
 be writ by CaiiiSy of which we have fome 
 fragments remaining. I (hall fpeak of each 
 diftindly : and, firft of all, of the Dialogue 
 with ProculuSy by which work Caius is heft 
 known : which is undoubtedly his, and which 
 I take to be the only piece rightly afcribed 
 to him. And, lince St. Jerome fays, that 
 the Difpute with the Montani/ls was held at 
 Rome in the reign of Caracalla^ we cannot 
 well place it before the year 212. It is pro- 
 bable from the confiderations mentioned by 
 {n) liUemont, that this Dialogue was writ in 
 Greeks which was alfo the opinion of (0) Va-' 
 lejius, 
 
 I. Eufebe 
 
 {m) Kald r^.ra J^l ov [xovov It 'Trpopfti^ivjii av])kypet'],m, aXKa, 
 9iiViyji.iMotiy.cuTa.ioi. Iheodoret. Haer. Fab. l. 2. cap. 3. 
 De Cerintho. 
 
 (») As before. 
 
 (c) Annot. in Euf. I. w. ca^. 20. ^. 125. 
 
Ch. XXXir. CAius. 
 
 I. Eufebe having fpoken of the martyr- 
 doms of St. Peter and St. Paul at Rofne^ and 
 he infcriptions on their tombs, fays: " And 
 
 * {p) Caius, an ecclefiaftical man, who lived 
 
 * in the time of Zephyrine Bifhop of the 
 
 * Romans, in his book writ againft Proculus, 
 ' a leader of the Cataphrygian fedl, confirms 
 ' this, fpeaking afier this manner of the 
 ' places, where the facred tabernacles of the 
 ' fore-mentiond Apoftles are depofited : / 
 ' am able to fiew the trophees of the Apoftles : 
 
 * for whether you go to the Vatican, or to 
 
 * the Oftian way, you will Jlnd the trophees 
 ' of thofe who founded this church'* 
 
 This paffage is now produced chiefly as 
 the teftimonie of Eufebe to our author's cha- 
 rader, and time, and the book againft the 
 Montanifts : which was particularly writ a- 
 gainft Proculus, who is fuppofed to be the 
 fame Proculus, whom Tertullian (q) has com- 
 mended. 
 
 C 4 2. In 
 
 if) 'OycTev <F rirrov xxt luKXiKTici^'ixoi dviip Touoiovoux, x-ctlat 
 Zi<pvplvov PayMieov ysyovai iTiCKOTov of cTw Flpo/./a TniZ(zlc^ 
 ,f>f'vy!ti -Trpoi^-oifAva yv^y.m iyy§A(pai J^iaAe;)^9e/f, x. A. Eu/e6. 
 H. E. l. 2. cap.'zz^.p. 67. D. 
 
 (^) Tertullian adv. Valent. cap. v. p. 291. 5. See alfo be- 
 fore in this work. y. 2. />. 564. or 567, 
 
24- CA 1 US. Book I. 
 
 2. In another place Eufebe fpeaking of 
 the writings of ancient ecclefiaftical men, who 
 Tepmome fiourifiied about the times of Sever us and 
 
 to the N J. 
 
 Antonine Caracalla^ fays: " There (r) is' 
 ** alfo come to oar hands a Dialogue [or 
 ** Difputation'] ofCaius, a moft eloquent man, 
 " held at Rome in the time of Zephyrine^ 
 ** with Proculus a patron of the Cataphry- 
 ** gian herefie : in which alfo reproving 
 ** the raflmefle and audacioufneffe of the 
 " adverfaries in compofing new writings, 
 ** [or fcriptw^cs] he makes mention of but 
 *' thirteen epiflles of the holy Apollle, not 
 *' reckoning that to the Hebrews with the 
 *' reft. And indeed to this very time by 
 ♦* fome of the Romans this epiftlc is not 
 *' thought to be the Apoftle's." 
 
 By the new writings, or fcriptures coni- 
 pofed by the Montantjis it is reafonable to 
 fuppofe.are intended fome of their prophe- 
 cies, which they had not only fpoken, but 
 
 writ 
 
 [r] HA6£ cfs \ii niJio.'; Kou Tata XoytcoTam arJ^poi J^iaXo- 
 
 yof, 't7l . . . . il> a TCCV cTt iVAVricLi TW 'TTSp} TO aVVJclT' 
 
 Tiiv KcciVAf ypcKpoti 'TrpoTTBretavTS Ko.) ToXfy-civ iTri^oixii^av, 
 
 ■rnv 'Tifoi iCpi^tisi (JLt) O"i/fap/0/>ti7(7«? Tate K(ji-na.\<;' g'zr« }i.xi e-;? 
 sTei^po nrupA paixoAuv riah, k voixi^iTeu t« d-^oToXov TfjyX*' 
 y^V' H. E. L 'vi. cap. 20. 
 
eh. XXXII. c A I u s. 
 
 writ and publlfhed with a defign, as it 
 feems, to have them received with the fame 
 or hke refpedl with that paid to the Icrip- 
 tures received and owned by Chrijlia?is as 
 facred. Upon this occafion Caius gave a 
 h'fl: or catalogue of the Apoftle PauPs epi- 
 ftles, received by himfelf and the church in 
 general. One may be apt to think, that 
 Caius reckoned up all the fcriptures in ge- 
 neral, received by Chriflians from ancient 
 time, in oppofition to thefe new fcriptures of 
 the Montanifts. But fuppofing that he put 
 down only the epiftles of St. Paul, we (hould 
 have been glad to have had this paflage at 
 length. It would have been a great plea- 
 fure to fee thirteen of St. Paul's epiftles 
 exprefsly named, with the churches or parti- 
 cular perfons to whom they were fent: or 
 however defcribed at left by their feveral 
 charaders, in the order then ufed, all toge- 
 ther, in one catalogue compofed by this in- 
 genious writer, at the begin ing of the third 
 centurie. And I cannot but think, that £«- 
 febe deferves to be cenfured for this omiffion. 
 
 The obfervation, which Eufebe makes at 
 the conclufion of this paftage concerning 
 fome of the Roma?is in his own time not 
 
 re- 
 
212. 
 
 26 c A I u s. Book I. 
 
 ^' ^- receiving the epiiile to the Hebrews as PauN^ 
 i is fomewhat remarkable. It may be confi- 
 dered, whether the occafion of it be, that 
 Caius had fome particular relation to the 
 church of Rome: or, whether it be only 
 owing to this difpute having been held in 
 that City, which was exprefsly mentioned be- 
 fore. If the former, this would afford fome 
 ground of fufpicion, that Caius was a pref- 
 byter of the church of Rome^ v^hich we are 
 informed by Photius was a cornmon opinion 
 in his time. 
 
 As this teftimonie to St. Paul's epiftles is 
 very confiderable, I fliall tranfcribe alfo the 
 paflages of St. 'Jerome and Photius^ relating 
 to the fame matter : though they add little 
 or nothing to the account given by Eufebe. 
 
 " Caius ^ fays St. [s) Jerome, in the time 
 ** of Zephyr ine Bifhop of Rotne^ that is, in 
 " the time o^ Antonine fon of Severus, had a 
 *' very notable difpute with Proculus, a fol- 
 
 " lower 
 
 [s] Caius fub Zephyrino Romanae urbis epifcopo, id eft, 
 fub Antonino Severi filio, difputationem adverfus Proculum 
 Montani feftatorem valde infignem habuit ; arguens eum te- 
 jneritatis, fuper nova prophetia defendenda : et in eodem vo- 
 lumine epiftolas quoque Pauli tredecim tantum enumerans de- 
 cimam quartam quae fertur ad Hebraeos dicit ejus non effe. 
 Sed et apud Romanos ufque hodie quafi Pauli Apolloli nqtt 
 tiabetur. DeV. I. ca^. 59. 
 
212. 
 
 Ch. XXXII. cAius. 27 
 
 *• lower of Montanus, charging him with A. D. 
 *' raflinefTe in defending the new prophecie. < 
 ** And in the fame book reckoning up only 
 *' thirteen epiftles of Faul^ he fays, the 
 *' fourteenth, which is infcribed to the He^ 
 '* brewSy is not his. And with the Romans 
 " to this day it is not looked upon as Paul's'* 
 This is St. Jeromes whole chapter concern- 
 ing Caius in his Book of lUuftrious Men. 
 
 St. 'Jerome in this laft fentence fays more 
 than Eufebe^ whofe account is only, that by 
 fome of the Romans that epijik was iwt thought 
 to be Paul's. And when St, Jerome writes, 
 that Caius fays, the fourteenth epifile, which 
 is infcribed to the Hebrews, is not Paul's; it 
 is likely, he ought to explained by Etifebe : 
 that when Caius mentioned thirteen epiftles 
 of Paul, he did not reckon that to the He- 
 brews with them, faying nothing about 
 
 Photius, at the conclufion of what he fays 
 of this writer, having mentioned the other 
 books afcribed to him, adds: ** That he 
 *' [u) is alfo faid to have compofed an elabo- 
 
 " rate 
 
 (a) . . . .'Eu iiTp<f 3<a/ Mkoc fJiovxi l7r/roAaVctp»9//e«TainsMi- 
 ^.B, «x iyKfivuy rilv Tr^oi Efpa/»f. Phot. Cod. 48. (ol. 37. 
 
28 c A I u s. Book I. 
 
 rate difputation againft Proculus^ a follov/er 
 oi Mont anus J m which he enumerates only 
 " thirteen epiftles of Paul, not reckoning 
 " th^t to the Hebrews y So Photius. And 
 I think, he has better reprefented Eufebe's 
 fenfe, than St. Jerome, 
 
 It has been fuppofed by -f- fome, that Cains 
 rejeded the epiftle to the Hebrews^ becaufe 
 the Montanijis^ with whom he was difputing, 
 made ufe of it in fupport of their peculiar fen- 
 timents. So Mr. Twells: whofe words I fhall 
 tranfcribe, that the reader may fee the force 
 of this argument. " Be fides, (i^) G?/Ws ad- 
 ** verfarie in that difpute was a Montanifi^ as 
 ** Eufebius tells us. Now there is a paffage 
 ** in thisepiftle, ch. vi. 4. 5. 6. which at fiift 
 *' fight favors Montanus^ opinion, againft 
 " reftoring Lapfers after Baptifm. This place 
 ** was appealed to by thefe heretics, in de- 
 " fence of that fingularity : ( thus Tertullian in 
 ** his book de Pudicitia^ c. 20. cites this very 
 *' paflage, to prove, that there is no room 
 ** for a fecond repentance : ) as it was after- 
 ^' wards by the NoifatiatiSy who maintained 
 
 " the 
 
 f Vid. Grot, in Ep. ad Htbr. cap. 'vi. nier. \. 5 6. 
 (w) A Critical Examination a/ the late ne^w text and verfim 
 of the N. T. in Greek and Englijh, Part it. /;. 50. London, 1 73 1 » 
 
Ch. XXXII. cAius. 
 ** the lame errour. It is not therefore to be 
 ** doubted, but Proculus made his advantage 
 ** of that fame pafTage : which eafily accounts 
 " for the other's leaving the Epiftle to the 
 " Hebrews oat of the number ot thofe writen 
 ** by St. Pattir 
 
 But I am of opinion, that this was not the 
 reafon of Cams omitting this Epiftle : or, 
 that this does not account for his leaving it out 
 ef the number oj thofe isoriten by St. Paul. For, 
 I. If this Epiflle had been till then univerfally 
 received by Chri/Iians^ Caius could not have 
 omitted it here. If a heretic's appealing to 
 a book of Scripture, in defenfe of any Angu- 
 lar opinion maintained by him, had been a 
 reafon for rcjed:ing fuch book ; the Catholics 
 would have been obliged to rejedl moft, if not 
 all the books of the New Tcftam:nt. But 
 this could not be done, with regard to any 
 book univerfally received. Therefore Caius's 
 omillion of this Epidle affords an argument, 
 that it was not then univerfally received as 
 an Epiftle of the Apoftle Paul. 2. We know 
 that at that time, or thereabout, this epiftle 
 was not univerfally received by Catholic Chri^ 
 fiiaus^ iroMi the exprefs teftimonie and (B)ac- 
 
 know- 
 
 (b) Seehefore, Ch, xxvii. §.22. 23. z^.pag. 605. . , . 6lZ> 
 or 606 ....613. 
 
e A I u s. Book I. 
 
 knowledgement of Terfullian himfelf, a Mon- 
 tani/i, 3. This way of arguing makes Cam 
 a mean and contemptible v/riter, which is not , 
 his charader in antiquity. Mr. Twelh is fen- 
 lible of this confequence. Therefore he adds 
 in the words immediatly following thofe al- 
 ready tranfcribed : " It was perhaps eafier to 
 " the eloquent Caius to cut this difficulty by 
 " rejeding the entire work, than to diffolve 
 " it by a critical difcuffion of the pafTage. 
 " We have fuch controvertifts in our own 
 " times, men who judge of ancient writings 
 " according to modern prejudices : allowing 
 ** no book or pafTage to be genuine, but what 
 " favors their own fingularities, and con- 
 " demning nothing for fpurious that tends to 
 " fupport them." 
 
 I fuppofe then, that Caius here gave a can- 
 did and unprejudiced enumeration of the 
 Epiftles of St. Paul: and that he did not think 
 the Epiftle to the Hebrews to have been writ- 
 en by that Apoftle. Whether he afcribed it to 
 Barnabas ^ as T^ertiillian did, and poffibly di- 
 vers others at that time, or to fome other per- 
 fon, we cannot be pofitive. It may be reckoned 
 very probable, that this epiftle was not un- 
 known to Caius. But it appears to me not 
 
 unlikely. 
 
Ch. XXXII. c A I u s. *5f 
 
 unlikely, that in all his reading and converfa- A- D. 
 tion he had never met with any who afcribed ,J^^^ 
 this epiftle to Paul: and that, when he had 
 enumerated his thirteen epifUes, he fuppofed, 
 he had mentioned all the writings of that 
 Apoftle. 
 
 3. In another place Ez/y^i^^ having cited part 
 of a letter of Polycrates Bifhop of Ephejus to 
 ViSlor Bifhop of Rome concerning the death of 
 *John^ and Philips alfo one of the twelve Apo- 
 flles, adds : " And in the Dialogue {x) of 
 ** Caius, which we mentioned juft now, Pro^ 
 ** culus^ with whom that difputation was held, 
 ** agreeing with what we have here put down 
 ** concerning the death of Philips and his 
 ** daughters, fays : After this the four prophe- 
 " te[fes daughters of Philip lived in Hierapolis 
 " if! Afia^ where is both their , and their father s 
 " fepukhre. Thus he. And, adds Eufebe^ 
 «* Luke in the Ads of the Apoftles makes ^^is, 
 '* mention of the daughters of Philips which 
 " had the gift of prophecie, who then 
 
 " lived 
 
 [x) Kxi h TO) Taia </*e % [JitKpa TfoffSsv \ixVY\(T^t\fjLiv S'lnXoya, 
 
 npo cAof , 7rpo< cv k-woieno rriv (^nrmiVy T«pi th? ^ihiTrTrx 1^ rcoi'Qu- 
 
 rou7o cTfe Ttpo^iiTiJ^ii 7ia<rcipiiai 4>/A<Vtk yiyiiWTeti sc 'l?,,o;,:7roA/ 
 TOiiiTA //ivaraj, H. E. L, 3. c. 31. /. 103. A. B. 
 
32 CAi tj s. Book I. 
 
 A. D. <( lived with their father In Cefarea of JuJeay 
 v^-V~ " faying thefe words : j^nd we came unto 
 " Cefarea, and entered into the houfe of Philip 
 " the Evangelijl. A5ls xxi. 8. 9. Whether 
 Procidus referred to the book of the A£is^ we 
 cannot fay. 
 
 4. Once more, Etifehe fpeaking ofCerinthus 
 fays : ** And (y) Cains, whom we quoted be- 
 " fore, in his difputation, writes thus of him* 
 '' And Cerinthus alfo, who by his revelations 
 I^ewla- " as if writ by fome great Apoftle, impofes 
 " upon us monftrous relations of things of his 
 *' own invention, as {hewn him by an Angel, 
 ** fays, that after the refurredion there fhall 
 «* be a terreftial Kingdom of Chrijli and that 
 ** men (hall live again in Jerufalem fubjedl to 
 *' fenfual defires and pleafures. And being an 
 *' enemy to the divine fcriptures, [literally, 
 " fcriptures of God'\ and defirous to feduce 
 ** mankind he fays, there will be a term of 
 
 tian. 
 
 " a 
 
 tfKTK lviTii<Ti: 10X170. 'TTipi dvTK ypoi(pir a.\Ka }y KripivQoi o cTi 
 d-sroKeihV'^'.eoy a; a.'^l y.zyaAis a.'^o?'oXiiy£yiix[X[Avcov, T«p«ToAo- 
 yia.i rifjiiv coi S'l ayyi^^tivroJS'iJ'ityiJLboii 'j.£iiJ^'o(^.im 'i-Ttiiaa- 
 yii Kiyuv, y.sra rnv dva^cto'iv i'rriystov i.tva.1 to Ccc^iXsiov 
 iZ XP^5"2' '9 'TTA'ktv i'TcnBufxicm }y riJ^ovAii h 'hpao-xhtifji. rritf 
 edfi.ia. 'TToKmuoy.ivm AAei/£/v. Kct/ exOpof v-Tsaf/jov^'rcCis 
 ypufpoCii TK 0SS «tf/6//ov -/jXiovrxiTiAi eu yaiJ.a iopjTii 64- 
 /MV rnKtcioM hAyei yivisQoit- //.£./. 3. f. 28. /. 100. a. 
 
2' 2 
 
 Ch. XXXII. CAius. 33 
 
 " a thoufand years fpent in nuptial entertain- A. d 
 " ments." 
 
 This paffige, together perhaps with other 
 things in this difpute, faid againfl CerinthuSy 
 and not any particular and diftind; book, I 
 fuppofe to be what Theodoret refers to, whea 
 he fays, that Caius wrote agalnft Cerinthus, 
 
 Whether G^m here intends our book of the 
 Reveladon, or fome other piece, is a difputed 
 point. Mr. T'leW/i (2;) thinks it *' probable 
 " that Caius's teftimonie relates to fome for- 
 ** gerie of Cerinthus ^ under the name of St, 
 " 'John^ and not to the prefent book of Reve- 
 *' lation." And Mr. ^ones [a) thought this a 
 clear cafe. But Dr. Gi'abe fays, *' that though 
 " {b) fome learned men have concluded from 
 " this paflage oi Cairn ^ that the hereliarch C^- 
 " rinthus publifhed an apocalypfe 5 yet it ap- 
 " pears to him plain and manifefl from the 
 D *< words 
 
 (z) See a Critical Examination of the late Neiv 'fext and- 
 Verfion of the N. T. Part Hi. p 99. &c. 
 
 {a) Ne^D and Full Method, &c. Fol. i. p. 224, &c. 
 
 (b) Caeterum Cerinthum haerefiarcham Apocalypfim quan- 
 dam ediJifTe, dodli aliqui viri collegcunt ex verbis Caii Prefby- 
 teri Romani in diilertatione adverfus Proclum apud Euf. 1. 3. 
 H. E. cap. 28. . . . Verum ex ipfis hifce verbis planum atque 
 apertum mihi videtur, Caium ipfam S. Joannis Apocalypfm 
 Cerintho adfcripfiffe, non veroaliam ab ilia diftindam, a Ce- 
 rintho fub Johannis nomine editaro, aditruxilTe, ^c. Grait 
 Spicil. T. i. p. 312. 
 
34 • c A I u &. Book L 
 
 A. D. t« words of this pafTage, that Caius afcribed 
 ^jr>^^^\j " the very Apocalypfe of St. John to Ce- 
 '* rijithus" And Dr. {c) Mill is of the fame 
 opinion, that there were at that time fome 
 Catholic ChriJliaiiSy who afcribed the Reve- 
 lation, which from the begining had been 
 owned for St. Johns, to Cerinthus, or fome 
 other impoftor. This they did out of an 
 abhorrence of thofe bad confequences, which 
 fome drew from this book, not rightly un- 
 der ftood. 
 
 And it muft be owned, that 'Dionyfim 
 of Alexandria {d) affirms, that fome before 
 him had afcribed the Revelation, called 
 St. 'Johns, to Cerinthus. And he may be 
 thought to refer to our Caius : Neverthelefs 
 k does not appear to me very plain, that 
 .Cains fpeaks of our book of the Revelation. 
 His defcription does not fuit it : unlefle he rs 
 to be fuppofcd to afcribe to that book itfelf 
 
 the 
 
 {c) Fuere jam in ecclefia Romana, aliifq-ue, qui Apocalyp- 
 feos dida de millenQrio in Chrilli regno, ejufq; gaudia paullo 
 crafiius inteipretati, mifla ferme fpe coeleftium, in terreUrium 
 horum, ceu propediem venturorum exfpeflationem toto ani- 
 mo ferebantur. Hoc cum lugerenc fanditatis Chrirtianae ftu- 
 diofi, et vero dogma, unde ex prava interpretatione, orta eflet 
 haec impietas, in Apocalypli tradiium viderent, co demum 
 lapfi funt, ut librum iilum, qui fub nomine Joliannis jam ab 
 initio ferebatur, Cerinthi, aut alicujus alterius impoHcris eflje 
 crederent. AJi/I. Prol. n. 654. 
 
 {d) Euf. H. E. L 3. ca^. 28. p, 100. B. C. 
 
Ch. XXXir. CAius. 
 
 the falfe and fenfual notions, which Tome had 
 of the expedted Millennium, Nor does St. 
 John^ or whoever is the author of this book, 
 here give himfelf exprefsly the title and 
 character of an Apoftle. However it mull: 
 be allowed to be very probable, that Caius 
 faid nothing in favour of the book we now 
 have with the title of the Revelation, If he 
 had, Eufebe would not have failed to give 
 us at left a hint of it. A bare lilence a- 
 bout St. yohns Revelation, even fuppofing 
 Caius to have faid nothing particularly againft 
 it, does not fuit a difciple of Irenaeus. 
 
 5. We have now obferved four paflages Bum of 
 of the Dialogue writ by Caius, And we ^mlnie. 
 have feen in them marks of a high refpedt 
 for the ancient fcriptures generally received 
 by Chrijlians : which he alfo calls divine fcrip- 
 tures, or fcriptures of God : and his detefta- 
 tion of all attempts to bring any other into 
 a like efteem with them, or to miflead men 
 from the true fcnfe and meaning of them. 
 Thirteen epiftles of Paul he reckoned up in 
 his difpute, but did not name that to the 
 Hebrews. It is highly probable, that in the 
 fame place he mentioned other books of 
 the New Teftament, and poffibly of the 
 D 2 Old 
 
An ANONYMOUS Author Book f. 
 
 Old llkewife. But it is very likely, that he 
 did not receive the book of the Revelation, 
 if he did not think it an impoflure of C^- 
 
 rinthis. 
 
 His Hip' II. Eufehe has {e) three paflages taken 
 "^' out of a book writ againfi: the herefie of 
 Artetnon. It is evidently the fame vi^ith 
 that v^hich is called by (/) Theodore^ The 
 Little Labyrinth ; vi^hat he takes thence 
 being for fubftance the fame with what Eu^' 
 Jebe quotes out of the book againft Arte-' 
 mon. This opinion is alfo confirmed by 
 NicephoriiSj as has been obferved by {g) Bp 
 Fearfon, and Cave. Photius indeed in his 
 article of Caius mentions didindlly tJoe Laby- 
 ri?2tb^ as he calls it, and the book againfl 
 the herefie of Artemon, But what he fays 
 can be of little weight againft fo much 
 good evidence, that one and the fame book 
 is to be underflood by thefe feveral titles. 
 
 This book is by fome reckoned the work 
 ©f an unknown writer. Others think it to have 
 
 been 
 
 {e) H. E. I. f. cap. 2^. 
 
 (/) Haer, Fab. I. 2. cap. 5. 
 
 Ig) Non tantum Niccphorus lib. 4. cap. 20. affirmat rlv 
 pLiKfioy hfiJiAvov KdCvfiv^ov redarguiffe abfurditatem Artemonis 
 et Theodod, qucm beatus viftor depugnavit; Sed etTheodo- 
 retus Haereticarum Fabularum, lib. 2. cap. 5. trium perico- 
 parum apud Eufebium fummam ex parvo Labyrintho deduci; 
 de Theodoto agens. Fearfon, Op. Poji. p. 14,8. 
 
Ch. XXXII. againjl artemon. 37 
 
 been writ by Caius, Among thefe lafl is (Ji) A. D. 
 'Pearfon^ who is even offended at Blondel for v.^^y^ 
 called the author anonymous. But Pearfon 
 is a great deal too pofitive in this matter. 
 Eufebes quotations of this book are intro- 
 duced in this manner: ** There are, fays 
 [i) hey befide thefe, treatifes of many o- 
 thers, whofe names we have not been abb 
 to learn ; orthodox and ecclefiaftical men 
 as the interpretations of the divine fcrip- 
 tures given by each of them manifeft : at 
 (k) the fame time they are unknown to us 
 becaufe the treatifes have not affixed to them 
 the names of the authors." He goes on : 
 In (/) a work of one of thefe perfons com^ 
 pofed againft the herelie oi Artemon^ which 
 Paul of Samofata has endeavored to revive 
 in our time, is a relation very much to 
 our purpofe." St. jerome in his chapter 
 of Caius in his book of llluftrious Men, or 
 Catalogue of Ecclefiadical Writers, as it is alfo 
 D 3 often 
 
 [h] Hunc aHonymum vocat Blondellus, cum conftet eura 
 Caium fuiffe. Pearfon, ibid. p. 147. 
 
 (/) ' Q.^ iS'i.Ta.i 'Tsrpotrnyopix'; Kstlahiyetv nixiv J^uvotliv. Eu/i 
 i. nj. c. 2J. p. 19;. B. 
 
 {k) ^AS'.'iXcov if ofjik'i i'i{xiv, oTt IJ.Y1 Tiiv 'Zrpo^HJ/opicCJ' ITToiyt' 
 loii 7CCV (yvyypu-^ituivov. ibid. 
 
 (/) lirav b Tivoi cr-jaS'aaixocli Y,a\a. T«J Aple^ft'VOJ aififfiuf 
 <F£7cVi')//fv&j. ft, f\, ib, cap, iS, in* 
 
An ANONYMOUS Author Book I. 
 
 often called, takes no notice of any other 
 work of his, but the difpute with Proculm, 
 Theodoret {jn) quotes this book thus : " Ar 
 *' gainfl their herefie, \that is^ the herejie of 
 ** jlrtemon and his followers'] was writ the 
 *• Little Labyrinth, which fome think to 
 ** be a work of Origen^ but the ftile is fuffi- 
 " cient to fliew their miflake. But whether 
 ** it was writen by him, or fome other, 
 ** there is in it the following relation :" with- 
 out fo much as making a conjedure at 
 the author. As for Pkotius^ on whorn 
 Pear/on chiefly relyes, he had feen a note up- 
 on the book, Of the Univofe, in which it 
 was obferved, *' That it was (;;) afcribed 
 ** to feveral, as alfo the Labyrinth was to 
 *' Origen : whereas really it was writ by 
 ** CaiuSy the fame who compofed the La- 
 ** byrinth." And Phctius may have been of 
 the fame opinion with the writer of this note, 
 though I think h? does not exprefsly fay 
 
 ^dLy\^ i^iy'/J^ "^^f X<i.yov]o(.i. Eijs J'i iKeiio^) itJi aKkoi 
 (fvviypci'^i, To.'ovj'i iv civ\co S'ti^y^rat J^t^yny.a.. Fab I. 2. 
 (Up. 5. De Theodoto. 
 
 («) "^(rTrSp ;^ 'rlv XccSvpt-.'Snv 7li'Z< v-n-iy^a iocv ^.p^yivnf^' 
 i'^ii TocU £r< 'zr'oivuA T); oJ'.iMtA duib ffv<^ftOij(y'f°i Toy fM,' 
 kyfil'^,' op. Phfyt.'Cod. 48. 
 
Ch. XXXIL agatnjl arte m on. 39 
 
 io. But fince the more early writers, Ku- a. d. 
 fibe^ Jet'ome, Theodoret, appear not to have 
 known the author of this work, it is befl to 
 confider him as anonymous : as I find fome 
 other learned (0) moderns befide Blondel have 
 done. 
 
 Though I do not reckon Caius the author 
 of this work, it is fitly enough conlidered 
 here, being mentioned by Eujebe in his 
 account of matters about the time of the 
 Emperours Commodm and Severus, Indeed, 
 as he did not know the name of the author 
 of this work, fo he might not exaflly per- 
 ceive the time of it. However, from the 
 things and perfons mentioned in the pafTages 
 quoted by Etifebe it is very probable, that it 
 was not compofed under ViBor, but under 
 Zephyrine^ or his fuccelTor, as has been wel[ 
 fhewn by {p) Pearfon. I may therefore well 
 enough place him in the fame year with 
 Caius. 
 
 D 4 I. The 
 
 {0) Eruditinimus vero illeanonymus &c. DaUacus De /crip- 
 tis Dior.yf. Jreop, i^ c. L. i. c. z. p. lo. Geneijae 1 666. 
 Vetus auclor apud Eufebium Libro v. Hill. Ec. cap. 28. J a- 
 (ob. Sirtjiond. not. ad Facundum Lib. 3. cap. 2, Nee aliter 
 fcriptor antiquus contra Artemonis haerefin ap. Eufeb. Hift. 
 Ec. Ca'v. Dijfertat. De libris et oficih euh/iajlkis Graccorufn. 
 f, 42. V. E«y9/v6f. ad Calum Part ii. Hijl. Lit. 
 
 {f) Pear/, ib. p. 148. 
 
4<^ A7t ANONYMOUS Author Book I 
 A. D. I. The defign of the firft pajGTage of this 
 
 , _l^work is to (hew the novelty of that heiefie. 
 
 His Tejii- ^j^^j Q^j. Saviour was a mere man ; whereas 
 
 won't r to 
 
 the N. T. the perfons againft whom the author writes, 
 afferted it's antiquity. " For (^-j they fay, 
 ** that all the ancients, and even the Apoftles 
 " themfelves, received and taught the fame 
 *' things which they now hold : and that the 
 *' truth of the gofpel was preferved, till the 
 *' time cf Vi5ior^ the thirteenth Biihop of 
 " Rme from Peter: but by his fuccefTor, 
 " [or, from the time of his fucceffor] Zephy- 
 " nne the truth has been corrupted. And 
 " poffibly what they fay might have been 
 *' creuiied, if, fiifl of all, the diviije fcripr 
 ** tures did not conttadidt them : and then 
 " alfo, fecondly, the writings of the brethren 
 *^ more ancient than ViBor^ which they 
 ** publifhed in defenfe of the truth againft 
 *' the Gentils, and againO: the herefies of 
 '' their times." The brethren mentioned 
 
 .,„,_, by 
 
 {q) ^txat yap t»? //iv 'wpojip'tii ccTr'-.rjjoii }y avl^f eLTroToXtsi 
 ■^ xpciK•l]lp^]lclt ra >t) S'-ij^iJ^ccyivcct rcivla, a, wv %v\oi yiyyck' 
 Kj 7£]jipi7cr9rf/ TttV aAiiQeiOcv T6 yjipvy^.c^ci P-^XP' "^^^ ^i'xlopof 
 
 Q&i'i.v' iw cA' (jfV ivyJiV ^iSocvi'.' TO Azyo/j-ivov, n yJ] 'zsfcoTov /jLiv 
 dvliTTiTrlov dujoti d.i d-ttxt ypcKpii- Ka/ itcTfApSc cTe rtvav sr/ 
 ypatjifxaiA 'z^^taCvTspx TfcU ^i %poi yj'ovcc'V, « intivoi 'mpoi ret 
 
 H. E.l, v. c. 28. p. 195. Z). 
 
Ch. XXXII. agatnjl artemon. 41 
 
 by name are ytijlin, Miltiades, ^atian, Cle- ^^^' 
 merit, Irenaeus, Melito^ with a general appeal — ^ — ■ 
 to many more not named, and to ancient 
 hymns compofed by the faithful in honour of 
 Chri/i. 
 
 This {hews plainly, that there v^txtfcrip^ 
 tures called divine^ which were efteemed to 
 be of higher authority than the writings of 
 the mod early Chrijiian writers, who lived fo 
 pear the time of the Apoftles. It likewife 
 flflures us, that the perfons againft whom this 
 author argues, did alfo appeal to the Apo- 
 ftles for the truth of their opinions, and did 
 not pretend to afTert any thing contrarie to 
 the dodrine of the Apoflles. 
 
 2. " Moreover, adds Eiifebe, the author 
 '* of the forementioned book relates ano- 
 ^* ther thing, which happened in the time of 
 ** Zephyrine^ writing thus in thefe very words; 
 ** 1 will therefore (r) remind many of the bre- 
 ^' thren of a thing which happened in our 
 ■' time, which if it had been done in Sodcm^ I 
 " think it might have reformed even them.'' 
 Perhaps here is a reference to Matth, xi. 23, 
 
 Well, 
 
 yivoy.ivsv o vo[A(^a on h Sf ffoc^'ouoii iyiyom 7vysv av ka- 
 X,'uvoi/i iva^ilWi. ibid. p. 196. C, 
 
An ANONYMOUS Author Book I. 
 
 Well, what is this fad thing ? The author pro- 
 ceeds : ** There (i) was one Natalis a confeffor 
 " [that is y who had fiiffcred from the Heathen 
 ** for the fake of Chrijiiamty\ not long agoe, 
 " but in our times. This perfon was deceived 
 *' by AJcIepiodotus, and another Theodotus a 
 " banker, both difciples of the firft 'Theodctus 
 *' the tanner, who had been excornmunica- 
 *^ ted by ViBor for this opinion, or rather 
 " madnelTe. This Natalh was perfuaded by 
 " them to accept of the office of a Bifliop of 
 ** this herefie upon the confideration of re- 
 *^ ceiving from them a falarie of one hundred 
 *' and fifty denarii (about five pounds') by the 
 " month. Having alTociated himfelf with 
 " them he was often admonifhed by the Lord 
 ** in vifions. For {t) the merciful God, (c) 
 ** and our Lord 'Jefus Chrifi, would not that 
 ** he {hould perifh out of the church, who 
 I Tei.v. \.u j^^f] been a witnefTe of his own fufferings.'* 
 The author proceeds to relate, ** that Natalis 
 
 *' for 
 
 (t) *0 yu^ luffiffXctyxyoi Qzoi -^ nvpioi k//«v Imm Xp/r2f 
 ivz iCiXi]o it.cc) IxKMsioci yev'ciuvov a-nroKiadai {xdfju^a. tSu 
 JJ^jfc'V TfltS&v. il>iJ. />. 197. A. 
 
 (c) Or, as fome may choofe it fhouH be tranflatedj our moji 
 merciful God and Lord Jefui ChrijL 
 
x 
 
 CLXXXII. againfl artemon. 43 
 
 ** for a {u\ while nedcdlino; thefe vifions, out ^- ^* 
 
 ^ 00 ^ 212. 
 
 ** of fondnelTe for the honour he enjoyed, and ^^y-^u 
 
 " the love of filthy lucre, was at length fcourg- ' ""' "^ 
 
 " ed and forely beaten by holy angels for a 
 
 " whole night. Whereupon in the morning, 
 
 ** being convinced of his fault, he put on 
 
 ** fackcloth, and humbled himfelf before Ze^ 
 
 ** phyrine and all the clergie and laity, and af- 
 
 ** ter many tears and entreaties was dlfficult- 
 
 " ly readmitted to the communion of the 
 
 « church." 
 
 In what is here faid of Natalis having been 
 awit?teffe of Chriji' sfufferi77gs^ it may bethought 
 there is a reference to i Pet. v. i. and in what is 
 faid of his love cf filthy lucre to i Tim, iii. 3. or 
 fome other place, where St. Faid condemns 
 that fault. 
 
 3. *' To thefe we {liall add, fays EufehCy 
 f* fome other words of the fame writer con- 
 ** cerning the fame men, which are to this 
 V purpofe : Moreover they ('z^) have without 
 
 " fear 
 
 (a) AfXsx^'oy.EVoi rTi n Tap' av\olc 'rpcSjoKxSic^plx. ^ rlf 
 
 ^ftiy e/^.ariT/foyJ!, cT} oAh? tTu vvK7oi a cr/ut .pcoi JiKiaQiif. ibid. 
 
 ipya.ta.'; y.clv'qvol ohtllrM.dV yj'sh J^i }]yvo)iKct)T^v « ri a./ d-ilat 
 My^<ri ypatpui ^iilcvjn, x. A. . . . xdv dvloti Ttpolim tU fnllv 
 
 ^pai?JK -^g./.jK, k^^dt^aai Kct\ccX<.'^ov\Bi J^i ra.i ayioci 
 
 T.-; 0£!J ypa,(pai, ysco/jLilpidl' k'nriJuJ^'iVKffiV ai av Iz tm? y)]( 
 ovjff , }y iK rnf ytii A«Aev]sf, }y Tov M'a^D ip^oiJV.'QV ayvoi^ii. 
 X. A. p. 197. B. C. ' 
 
 tf 
 

 ^/^ ANONYMOUS Author Book L 
 
 fear corrupted the divine fcriptures, and 
 have rcjedted the rule \Cai2on'\ of the an- 
 cient faith, and have been ignorant of 
 Chrifi : not enquiring, what the divine 
 fcriptures fay : but carefully ftudying, what 
 figure of fyllogifm may be found out to fup- 
 port their impious fyflem. And if any 
 one objed: to them a text of divine fcrip- 
 *' ture, they confider, whether a conjundtive, 
 " ordisjundiiveform of fyllogifm can be made 
 *' of it. And leaving the holy fcriptures of 
 ** God they fludy geometric, as being of the 
 jcbnm. ic earth, and fpeaking of the earth, and igno- 
 ** rantof him that Cometh from above." Her^ 
 is a manifefl: reference to John iii. 3 i. This 
 writer proceeds to fay, " that by fome of thefe 
 ** perfons Euclid's geometric is kborioufly ftu- 
 '* died : and they admire Arijlotk and Theo^ 
 ^' phrajius : and by (x) fome of them Galen 
 ** is even adored. They who abufe the fci* 
 *' ences of the infidels for the fupport of their 
 " heretical fentiment, and with an impious 
 *' fubtlety adulterate the fimple faith of the 
 
 ** divine 
 
 (x) Ta,Xilvc( yup)<T&)i C-za-'o rlvav >d'7rpo<r)ivi'iiTal. of c^e ra7s 
 
 y.ivoi.Hj 711 rcoi' uQ'icov 7rcx,i'i:py'ta. Ti'ii' a^Knu rclv ■Siu.v ypcKpcee -ttWiv 
 Ku--zviiXivoi/1ii- or/ [j.h S'i iyyvi '^i^ico? tVap^Bcr/, 71 <^ii ^ 
 ^iysiv ; Aia tZto rati ■S-'nccii ypa,(;)cf.ii uip'oCcrJi i'^iCocKov Td? 
 
Ch.XXXlI. againft artemon. 
 
 ** divine fcriptures : of fuch men what need I 
 ** fay, that they are far from the faith ? for 
 ** which reafon they have without fear laid 
 " their hands upon the divine fcriptures, fay- 
 " ing, that they have amended them. And 
 ** that I do not charge them falfly, any one 
 •' may knov/ that pleafeth. For if any one 
 *' will be at the pains to procure a number of 
 ** their copies, and compare them together, he 
 ** will find that they difagree very much. For 
 *' the copies of AJclepiades [or j4fclepiodotus'\ 
 " differ from thofe of Theodotus, And many 
 " of them may be met with, becaufe their 
 " difciples have diligently tranfcribed their 
 " feveral emendations, as they call them, but 
 " indeed corruptions. Again, the copies of 
 *' Hermophiliis agree not with thefe already 
 ** mentioned. And xkioi^ oi Apollontdes [ot 
 " Jlpollonius\ differ one from another. For 
 ** any one by comparing thofe firft put ou£ 
 ** with thefe which were afterwards again 
 " perverted by him, may perceive a diffe- 
 *' rence. How daring (y) a crime this is, 
 *' pofiibly they themfelves are not ignorant. 
 ** For either they do not believe the divine 
 *.' fcriptures to have been didated by the Holy 
 
 "Spirit, 
 
 iKims eiyviiiy. ibfli. A,. 
 
An ANONYMOUS Author Book I. 
 
 Spirit, and then they are infidels : or elfe 
 they think themfclves wifer than the Holy 
 " Spirit. And what are {z) they then but 
 " mad men ? For they cannot deny this their 
 " daring crime, fince the copies have been 
 ** v/rit out with their own hands : and they 
 " did not receive fuch [a) books from thofe 
 " by whom they were firft taught the Chri- 
 ** jiian dodrine: nor are they able to produce 
 *' the copies, from whence they tranfcribed 
 " thefe things. Nay fome of them have not 
 •' thought it worth the while to corrupt the 
 •* fcriptures, but plainly {b) rejed:ing the Lawe 
 ** and the Prophets, by means of a lawlefs 
 *' and impious do6lrine \taken up\ under pre- 
 *' tenfe of grace they have fallen into the 
 " loweil: pit of deflrudion." 
 
 This may be thought a moft terrible paf- 
 fage, weakening the credit of the fincerity, 
 or integrity of our prefent fcriptures : fince 
 even in thofe early times there were men, 
 who had the afTu ranee to corredt and alter their 
 copies according to their own fanfie, in order 
 to render them agreeable to their particular 
 
 fenti. 
 
 (2;) Ket/ Ti Itsoou « J^MixovZciv ; ib. B. 
 
 ypd.<pai- ibid. 
 
Ch.XXXII. agatnjl artemom.' 
 fentiments. But the concern may be abated 
 by a few remarks. 
 
 I.) Whatever alterations were made, or at- 
 tempted to be made by fome few, there were 
 others who greatly difliked their condudt, and 
 flridly guarded againfl: alterations and pre- 
 tended emendations of their copies. They 
 loudly exclaimed againft them, feverely cen- 
 fured the authors of them, and warned all 
 men againft them. 
 
 2.) It is probable, that all the alterations^ 
 or corruptions here complained of, concerned 
 only the copies of the Old Teftament. And, 
 if they relate to them, then to the copies only 
 of fome Greek Verfion of the Old Teftament, 
 probably that of the Seventy, For this is 
 what our author fays: That fome of thefe 
 men did not think it worth the while to alter 
 the fcriptures, hut they plainly rejeBed the Lawe 
 end the Prophets. They are therefore the 
 fcriptures of the Old Teftament, that he had 
 been fpeaking of all along, when he complain- 
 ed of the alterations of the divine fcriptures. 
 And fince thefe alterations were made, or at- 
 tempted to be made in a verfion only, the da- 
 mage is the lefs. This indeed does not excufe 
 
 thefe 
 
An ANONYMOUS Author Book fi 
 
 thefe men^ nor quite remove their crime, but 
 it leflens the mifchief of it. 
 
 3.) It feems reafonable to make fome abate- 
 ments in the charges of this writer. It is plain 
 he is credulous, and indulges his paflion, and 
 declaims. I have no occafion to add a comment 
 by way of proof of thefe particulars. They are 
 apparent from the paiTages here produced, fo 
 that everyone may perceive as much byrefledl- 
 ing upon what we have tranfcribcd. Befiiies, 
 he blames thefe perfons againft whom he writes 
 for things, in which there is no fault. He cen- 
 fures them for ftudying geometrie^ and for admi'* 
 ring Ariliotle and Tkeophraflus. Then it is like- 
 ly, he aggravates fome things: as, when he 
 fays, they left the Scriptures to ftudy Euclid^s 
 geometrie. Poffibly they only joined together 
 thefe two fludies. He infinuates too, that fome 
 of them adored Galen J which is very improbable^ 
 Conlidering all thefe things, it is reafonable to 
 fuppofe, that he has magnified the fault of thefe 
 men ; that is, in fome meafure mifreprefented 
 what they performed upon the fcriptures. A 
 writer of this character might cenfure a truly 
 critical performance, as fuch things (ince have 
 been often fufpected and condemned by others. 
 
 4.) Upon 
 
ttmonie 
 
 C\i. XXXlh againjl AY^TZMo^, ^9 
 
 4.) Upon the whole then we have feen In A. D. 
 » 212. 
 
 this writer a reference or two to the Gofpels w-v--— ' 
 
 of St. Matthew and St. John, and St. Peter's ^^rT-^^'' 
 
 J ' iejti 
 
 firft epiftle. There were fcriptures in the 
 hands of Chriflians^ which they refpedled as 
 facred and divine, dictated by the Holy 
 Spirit, and the rule of their faith, and parti- 
 cularly of fuperior authority to the writings 
 of the Chrijlian brethren next in fucceffion 
 after the Apoftles. And they efteemed it a 
 daring crime of a high nature, to make any 
 alterations in them. This writer alfo bears 
 witnefle to the followers of Artemon^ that 
 they made appeals to the writings of the 
 Apoftles and the brethren for the truth and 
 antiquity of their fentiments. He adds, and 
 loudly complains of it, that they had at- 
 tempted to corrcd: and alter, that is, cor- 
 rupt the copies of the divine fcriptures : but 
 he has not particularly informed us, what co- 
 pies. It appears to be moft probable, that he 
 means only the copies of a Greek Verfion of 
 the Old Teftament. And there is reafon to 
 think likewife, that in what he has faid re- 
 lating to this matter he has been guilty of 
 fome miftake, or mifreprefentation, and has 
 aggravated things beyond the truth. 
 
 E 5.1 
 
50 A Treatife Book I* 
 
 A. D. ^, I do not defpife any work, or fragment 
 
 ^y\/^ of this early antiquityj tending to illuftrate 
 
 Memark. jj^g fcfiptures, Of any pradifes of the Chri^ 
 
 jlian church. Thefe pafTages are ufeful \ti 
 
 feveral refpedls. But I could have fpared a 
 
 part of them for the fake of the paffage, 
 
 or paffages of Caius, concerning St. FauV^ 
 
 epiftles, and the other ancient fcriptures. And 
 
 I heartily wifh, that Eufebe had made room 
 
 in his Ecclefiaftical Hiftorie for more of that 
 
 eloquent man. 
 
 220 
 
 A. D. III. The third piece, which by fome has 
 been reckoned the work of CaiuSt is entitled. 
 Of the Univerfe, as likewife Of the Caufe of 
 the Univerfe^ and Of the Nature of the Uni' 
 'uerfe : as we are informed by (^) Photius, in 
 whofe time it had infcribed in fome copies 
 the name of Jofephus, But he had feen a note 
 in it, wherein it was faid to be writen by 
 Cains a Prefbyter who dwelt at Rome, By 
 fome, he fays, it was afcribed io J uftin Martyr^ 
 and by others to Irenaeus. As for himfelf, 
 Fhotius argues, that it can hardly be efteemr- 
 ed a work of fofephus^ becaufe the author 
 gives Our Saviour the title of the Chrifti 
 
 and 
 
 [h) Cod. 48. 
 
Cll.XXXlI. <?//& UNIVERSE. 5t 
 
 and fpeaks rightly enough of his divinity, ^- o* 
 and alfo expreffes himfelf unexceptionably ^y^y^^ 
 of our Lord*s ineffable generation by the 
 Father. 
 
 As this work has been afcrlbed to fo 
 many, and neither Etifcbe nor yercme have 
 taken any notice of it in their accounts of 
 Caius ; I think, there is no fufficient reafon 
 to reckon it his. Confequently Bidiop Bull 
 has been too hafty in (r) placing Caius among 
 the Antenkene Fathers who held the Nicene 
 Faith upon the fole foundation of what is 
 faid in this book. And it is [d) now the 
 general opinion of learned men, that it is 
 Hippolytus who has the beft tide to this treatife. 
 
 It is not now extant entire. But we have 
 a large Fragment, which has been publiflied 
 by feveral learned men, and in particular 
 not long fince by Fabricius in his edition of 
 Hippolytus. 
 
 I fhall give a {hort account of the refe- 
 rences, which there are in this Fragment to 
 E 2 the 
 
 (f) Vid. Geo. Bull. Defenf. Fid Nic. cap. viil. Se<fl. ii. 
 
 {dj Utcunque autem de vero hujus operis audlore inter 
 antiquos non convenit, Neoteric! Indiculi hujiifce audoricnte, 
 ftylo et argumentationis genere, aliifque adhuc argumentis 
 freti, Hippolyto id adjudicant ; et in his noviflimus Sceph. 
 Le Moyne, qui Latina Verfione inftruftum Fragmentum ejus 
 ab Haefchelio olim editum recudi fecit inter Varia Sacra. Cave 
 H. L.P. i. in Hippolyta. 
 
A Treatife Book I. 
 
 the books of the New Teftament, which is 
 all that can be expelled in this place. I muft 
 take feme farther notice of it in the chapter of, 
 Hippolytus. 
 
 Here are then made ufe of in explain- 
 ing the Chrifiian dodrines feveral fcripture 
 phrafes, as {e) fire unquenchable^ (f) Abra- 
 Luke xvi. ham\ bofom. And it is faid, that between 
 the good and bad there (h) is a great and 
 deep gidph [or chaos] fixedy fo that no righte- 
 ous man, if he were in compajfion defirous Jo 
 to do^ could get thither : nor is there any un- 
 righteous man that can pafs^ though hefiould 
 attempt it. The author fays, that all men, 
 
 John, juji (i) and unjuft^ fiall be brought before God 
 the TFord, For to him has the Father give?t 
 all judgement. Here is at left a reference to 
 John V. 22. He has alfo the words {k) of 
 I Cor. ii. 9. and probably takes them thence 
 
 Re-vcla- though they are alfo in If. Ixiv. 4. He feems 
 to allude to feveral things in the Revela- 
 tion, 
 
 {A AjjWVJj 'JVpoi a.a'Ci>i:- apud Hippolyliim ex ed'itione Ta- 
 hricii p. 22 0. 
 
 {/) T«T« (Te "ovoiJ-et vjxXi\<j)to^.iV KoX'mov AC^uu/x ibid. p.zzi. 
 
 (/') Xc/'o? yu^ (id^v -Aoi y.kya. avci ykcm £rj7pi>i]««/, a>>i fj.ri 
 J'Ik.clicv avy-'maMa'avlct. Tr^rjoS'i^ia^ci.i, y.im aJ^iKov roXy-wocvjoi 
 ^n>M^v- ibid. 
 
 (i) n^ivjsi >«fj <^'fitdLtoi x«i k^iKoi, kvuzrtov T» 0i» Ao^-k 
 
 [i) Ibid. 
 
 ttan 
 
 J 
 
Ch.XXXII. of the universe. 
 
 tion, in a paffage too long to be inferted 
 here : where he fays, {I) That in the kingdom 
 of heaven, to which the righteous Jljall be 
 brought, there is no night, nor day meafiired by 
 time, . . nor fun, . . nor moon, and what fol- 
 lows. Compare Rev. xxi. 23. xxii. 5. This 
 does not fuit Caius, who is fuppofed to have 
 reje(5led the Revelation. 
 
 Aiiwf . . . ibid. 
 
 VC£» 
 
 E3 
 
 CHAP, 
 
CHAP. XXXIII. 
 
 ASTERIUS URBANUS. 
 
 US EBE has made large extrads out 
 of a treatife in thiee books againft the 
 2^' ^'-ft"' Mo?2ta?iiJis, compofed {a) by one of thofe ma- 
 ny eminent perfons, whom divine providence 
 raifed up at that time to defend the truth, 
 But our Hiftorian has here expreffed him- 
 felf fo oblcurelyj that it has been much [b) 
 doubted who is the author of this work ; 
 whether Ajlerius Urba?2USj or Apollinarii of 
 Hierapolis^ or Apollomus^ or Rhodon, or fome 
 other perfon, whofe name is unknown. How- 
 ever, Cave thinks it probable, from fome 
 words of {c) Eufebe among the citations of 
 (his work, that the author is Aflerius Urba- 
 
 nus, 
 
 {a) ^AKX^f 7i ffiiv AvrZ [A'^ro^/ytfpf(y] rrXilHi 7aJ TWiy^^^ 
 
 i. nj. cap. 1 6. in. 
 
 {b) Vid. Cav. H. L. in AJierio Urbanoy p 51. Fahf. ad 
 Euf.l.^. cap. 16. Tillemont Mem. Ecc. T, 2. P. 3, Le^ 
 ^lontanijles not. 7. 
 
 {c) K«/ fXY) Kzykra h tS at/ifc Koy^) ra xetTo. Arepjov Ofp- 
 ^^y^y ro 4'd Ma^//xiAA«f Trv|f/>?a, k. ^. £«/". i^. p. 1 82. ^. 
 
Ch.XXXIlI. ASTERIUS URBANUS. 
 nus. Valefius {d) too is of this opinion : 
 though It feems to be fomewhat doubtful, 
 whether thofe words are not interpolated. 
 
 Afterius Urbanus is placed by Cave at the 
 year 1 8 8. Tillemonf, who agrees with him 
 as to the author of the treatife, concludes {e) 
 that it was writ about the year of Chrijl 
 ^32. the eleventh of the Emperour Alexan^' 
 der^ becaufe Maximilla is here faid to have 
 been dead (f) between thirteen and fourteen 
 years : whom the fame learned man com- 
 putes (g) to have died in 218 or 219. It 
 is doubtful, whether this author was a Biihop 
 or a Prefbyter : and abfolutely unknown, of 
 what place. I ought to obferve, that (Jj) 
 Dodwell, vf\\o once took this writer to be 
 Aflerius Urbanus^ afterwards altered his 
 inind, not thinking the argument of Cave be-^ 
 E 4 fore 
 
 ( d) 'Ev ra oivla Koyo xctja A^ipiov OvpCavov-'] Haec verba 
 fcholion effe mihi videntur, quod vetus quidam fcholiaftes, feu 
 Eufebius ipfe, ad marginem libri fui annotaverat ad ea verba 
 quae pauIo ante praecefTerunt, avQn cTe kv tS dviM pixr; hoyci:* 
 Porro ex his verbis elicitur, Alterium Urbanum audorein. 
 €([c horum trium librorum adverfus Catayhrygas, non autem 
 Apollinarem, ut credidit Rufinus et Chriftophorfonus. f^a/ef. 
 in notis, />. 98. 
 
 (e) See Till, as before^ Montanifles Art. 12. p. 70. 
 
 (/) YlXiiu ya§ » 7pi<rAa.iJ^£/.A stm us ravlwv rw i'lApctv, i^ 
 h TsliXit/lmtv ii ywY). ap, Eufeb. ib- c. 16. j). i8i. C. md. et 
 cap. 17. p. 184. A. 
 
 (g-) Tillemont, Les Montanijles Art, v, p. 4J. 
 
 {h) Dodiv. J) if I'fft. i-v. §. 3.?. 
 
56 ASTEIRUS URBANUS. BooIc I. 
 
 A. D fore mentioned lufficient to determine the 
 
 ^v^-y-O point : and fuppofing, that Eufebes words 
 
 are capable of another fenfe. Fabricius (i) 
 
 agrees with Dodwell, and thinks, this treatife 
 
 was writ fome time after 212. 
 
 Neverthelefs I am not unwilling to agree 
 with thofe, who fuppofe Afterius Urbanus to 
 be the author of this treatife. And Tillemonf^ 
 argument for the time of it appears to me 
 probable. According to that computation 
 our extrads out of this work (hould be defer- 
 red fomewhat longer. But becaufe the fub- 
 jed: matter of it has an affinity with that of 
 fome foregoing chapters, as concerning the 
 Montanifts : and becaufe we would not be 
 too confident in our opinion about the author 
 or time of this performance, we choofe to 
 ipeak of it in this place. 
 
 It appears from the preface (k) to this 
 work, preferved in Eujebe's Ecclefiaftical 
 Hiftorie, that the author upon fome occafion 
 was at Ancrya in Galatia : and finding the 
 church there difturbed with the new pro- 
 phecie, as it was called, of Montanm^ he dif- 
 puted publicly upon that fubjedt for feve- 
 
 (») Blb.Gr.T.'V. p. 190. 
 
 (^) J^. Eu/. ih. cap. 16, p. 179. C. £>. 
 
Ch. XXXIII. ASTERIUS URBANUS. 57 
 
 ral days ; fo as to comfort and eftablifh the -A. D. 
 church, and confute the enemies of the truth* ^ 
 The Preibyters of that place entreated him 
 to draw up in writing the fubflance of what 
 he had faid upon that occafion : which he 
 declined to do for fome time, but at length 
 complied at the requeft oiAbercius Marcelliis, 
 to whom the work is infcribed. 
 
 I. The author then in his preface fays to Hh Tefiu 
 Abercius Marcellus : " I have hitherto defer- Xiv'?: 
 " red to perform your requeff , fearing (IJ leafl 
 " I {hould feem to fome to add to the doc- 
 " trine of the new covenant of the gofpel, 
 *' or to give new ordinances belide thofe there 
 " prefcribed. To which it is impoffible that 
 ** any thing (hould be added, as it is that any 
 ** thing {hould be taken away from it, by 
 *' one who has determined to govern himfeif 
 ^' according to the fame gofpel." 
 
 Poffibly it may' be quefiioned by fome, 
 whether the author here exprefsly fpeaks of 
 the writings of the New Teftament, or only of 
 
 the 
 
 y^a(peiv « i'^riS'iOilxajia-tloe.t tS> rni tk ivcx.yyt'X'u /.ctivvi S'la.d^- 
 k«< ?^oya' a fxKli 'UfotJ^eivcn fj.tW a.'pihih S'vvoclcv, la a\% 
 
ASTERIUS URBANUS. Book I^ 
 
 the Chriflian Do6lrine : for which reafon \ 
 have aimed at a literal tranfiation of this paf- 
 fage : though I am of opinion, that he intends 
 the Scriptures of the New Teftament : the 
 rather becaufe he was afraid of feeming by 
 writing to add any thing to the dodrine of 
 the gofpel. If the author be underftood to 
 fpeak of the fcriptures of the New Tefta- 
 inent, (which appears moft probable) this 
 paffage affords evidence of the high refped:, 
 which this Catholic Chrtftian had for them. 
 
 For the farther fatisfadion of fome of my 
 readers I {hall put down a part of this paffage, 
 as it has been tranflated by (m) Tillemont 
 in his Ecclefiaflical Memoirs. I have hitherto 
 deferred to comply with your requeft, ,., be-r 
 caufe I was apprehenfive^ that fome might aC" 
 (ufe me of a defign to add fome thing to the divine 
 fcriptures, and to the rules which are prefer ibed 
 fo us by the word of the New Te /lament and of 
 the Gofpel. Valefius tranflates thus : Leafl I 
 fhould feem to fome by writing to add any thing 
 to the evangelical do5lrine of the New Tefta^ 
 plenty and to make farther determinatio?2S of 
 piy own, 
 
 (») Aihefont Art. \Z. p. 704 
 
Ch. XXXIII. ASTERIUS URBANUS. 
 
 II. Afterwards In his accounts of the rife 
 of the pretended prophecies of Montanus he 
 fays, that at Ardaba, a village in Myfia near ^'«'^'«- 
 Phrygia, when Montanus uttered his prophe- 
 cies, fome difcouraged him, " being mindful 
 
 ** (n) of the premonition and caution of the 
 '* Lord to beware of falfe prophets when they 
 " appeared. But others, he fays, forgeting the 
 ^* premonition given by the Lord, encouraged 
 " that infatuating, deceitful and feducing 
 ** fpirit ;" It is likely, the author refers to 
 Matth. xxiv. 1 1 . And many falfe prophets Jhall 
 arife, and fhall deceive rnany^ See alfo chap, 
 vii. 15. 
 
 III. Eufebe informs us, that in the fecond ^attb. 
 ^0) book of his treatife the author writes to 
 thispurpofe : " Whereas then they call us alfo 
 
 " murderers of the Prophets, becaufe we did 
 ** not receive their prating Prophets; (for thefe 
 '* they fay arc thofe which the Lord promifed 
 ^* to fend to the people) let them tell us \n 
 " the name of God, who of their people, fince 
 '? the time that Montanus and his women be- 
 
 ** gun 
 
 (») ■E'3-.«7 <//«)« Hj haXeiv IkuWoV (j.?^miAm t»? t« yvptu 
 S'lac'-oXrii Ti ^ o.'TreiKni, <srpo{ ro (pu^.ttTJi^ai rfiv rZv -^wj^o- 
 (57p09Ml«v kypnyopoTcof n^cttv^ictv, k<}\.Eu/, C. i6./. 180. ^. C. 
 
 {0) Ibid.}. l%l.B.C. ' ■ 
 
6o ASTERIUS URBANUS. Book I, 
 
 " gun to prate, have been perfecuted by the 
 '* yews J or put to death by the wicked Gen- 
 " tils ? Not one. Nor have any of them 
 " been apprehended and crucified for the 
 ** name of yefus. Nor have any of their wo- 
 *' men been whipped in the Jewijh fynago- 
 '* gues, nor floned. No, no where, not one.'* 
 Here is a plain reference to Matt, xxiii. 34. 
 
 Matt^, IV. He goes on : ** Butfp) it is faid, that 
 
 i^^' ** MoJ2tamis and Maxitnilla had quite another 
 
 " kind of death. For it is reported, that at 
 
 *' the inftigation of that mad fpirit they hang- 
 
 '* ed themfelves: though not both together, 
 
 " or at the fame time And fo they ended 
 
 ** their days in the fame manner that the ' 
 '* traytor Judas did." Here is undoubtedly 
 a confirmation of the facft of Judas'^ making 
 away with himfelf : and probably a reference 
 to the hiftorie of it in Matt, xxvii. 5. A&s i. 
 18. However afterwards this good man fays 
 rnodeftly and charitably, that though this is 
 reported of Mont anus and the forementioned 
 woman ; yet it is not certain, nor does he know 
 
 it 
 
 if) "AXXa cTg ^amro nXivjfffcti Xiyovleti Movlotvof T8 
 % Mx^/[j.iKXet. TssIkj yap v'tto 'mvivu.aloi ^K<x,'\.'i<p^'iVoi Ik*- 
 ']£p»j v-TToniVMctvlqi X'oyoi avxflmott itzvl^i- • • )C) aT« TfAsti/a- 
 tf-o/ J9 Toy ^iov KcilxTfi-^oit l»'«r« 'prpocTel^ fifixnv. p.- iSi.C. 
 
Ch. XXXIIL ASTERIUS URBANUS. 
 
 it to be true. Perhaps they died in that man- 
 ner, perhaps in fome other, Neverthelefs this 
 fliews, that even in thofe days there were fome 
 oi:ihQdiOxChriJiians^ who gave out (lories vi'ith- 
 out ground againft fuch as were reputed here- 
 tics. The author likewife mentions one TheO' 
 doty another zealous Montanifi^ as he fays, 
 of whom there was a report, that giving 
 himfelf. up entirely to that fpirit of errour he 
 was by it taken up into the air and perifhed 
 miferably. But this writer does not own the 
 truth of this any more than of the other 
 ftories. 
 
 V. Afterwards 'Eujehe fays, that this author Aasi 
 reckons up all the Prophets of the New co- 
 venant or Teftament, fhewing, that they did 
 not prophefy in extafie : *' They (^) will not 
 ** be able to (hew, fays he, neither under the 
 " old nor the new covenant, [or difpenfation] 
 ** any infpired Prophet fpeaking after this 
 *' manner : neither Agabus^ nor Judas, nor 
 " SilaSy nor the daughters of Philip'' Here 
 are references to A^sxi, 27. 28. and xxi. 10, 
 
 II. where 
 
 [q] Tbtov (f'l rh rpo'TTCv, i ri riVct 7cov ko^-I 7riv -sTrtAa/ay, 
 «T£ 7M) Ktxld Ti7C K<x.mv [<//£i9«;t»^J 'zr;-£Vualof'jpyiQivla 'STpop/)- 
 1w J^ii^aci /"vvtK^ovTOir o\j]i^Aya.Coif, IvltliS'dv, oJje ^ilAav, 
 evjiTXi ^»A<T;yK ^uycclifUif. Ih, cap.. 17, />. 183. C 
 
ASTERIUS URBANtfS. fiook I. 
 
 ir. where Agahus is called a Prophet, and 
 his prophecies are related : and toch. xv. 32. 
 where yudas and Silas are called Prophets : 
 and to ch. xxi. 9. 10. where Philip is faid to 
 have four daughters^ 'Which did prcphefy. The 
 author does not confine himfelf here to Pro- 
 phets mentioned in the fcriptures of the New 
 Teftament. He inftances likewife in ^^- 
 dratus, and Ammias of Philadelphiai And 
 fays, he could mention others, whofe example 
 gave no encouragement to the way ofprophe- 
 fying ufed by the Montanifls, 
 
 VI. Once hiore he argues againll: the Mori' 
 ianifls^ that they had no fucceffion of Prophets 
 among them : and that though Ma^imilla had 
 been dead above thirteen years, no other had 
 appeared : " But yet, fays he, (r) the ApoOle 
 *' expected, [or, gives us ground to expert] 
 ** that the gift of prophecie fhould continue 
 " in every church till the laft advent of the 
 ** Lord." I cannot fay, what particular text 
 he here refers to. By the Apo/ile I fuppofe 
 him to mean Paul. And poffibly he refers to 
 I Cor, xiii. 8. Charity never failethj but whe^ 
 
 ther 
 
 (r) Abu ^ap 17m/ To tJrpoipHl'tof yjififf^tx, \v 'ts-aaw t*i t-a* 
 
Ch. XXXIII. ASTERIUS URBANUS. 
 
 ther there be prophecies y they Jhall fail Per- 
 haps fome concluded hence, that though pro- 
 phecies {hould fail in the end, yet they were 
 to continue in the church fo long as the world 
 lafts. 
 
 So far of this treatlfe againft the Montanifls^ 
 whether Writ by AJierius Vrbanus^ or by 
 fome other* 
 
 CHAP. 
 
CHAP. XXXIV. 
 
 A?/. ALEXANDER BiJIjop of ^Jerufalem^ 
 
 A LEX AND E R, whom (a) we have 
 already mentioned more than once, 
 at firft Bifhop of fome place in Cappadocia^ 
 afterwards of 'Jerufakm^ is placed by Cave 
 as flourifliing in the year of Chrifi 212, be- 
 caufe he was then chofen Bifliop of Jerufalem, 
 as [a) we learn from Eufebe\ Chronicle. 
 
 I choofe to give, as often as may be done 
 conveniently, the hiflorie of my authors in the 
 very words of other ancient writers, who were 
 their contemporaries, or lived near their time. 
 Eufebes account oi Alexander lying fcattered 
 in feveral chapters of his Ecclefiaftical Hiflorie, 
 it might be tedious to put down at length all his 
 pafTages relating to this perfon. I fhall there- 
 fore begin with tranfcribing St. 'Jerome\ ac- 
 count in his catalogue of Ecclefiaftical Wri- 
 ters, which when I have done, I {hall add 
 
 fome 
 
 (a) Vd. z.p. 460. 464. 694. or^. 464. 468. 687. 
 
 (a) Alexander triceiimus quintus lerofolymarum epifcopus 
 ordinatur adhuc vivente Narciffo, et cum eo pariter ecclefiani 
 regit. Euf.Chr. p.iji. 
 
CLXXXIV. Bipp of Jerufalem. 6$ 
 
 fome things out of Eufebe and others, con- ^' ^' 
 firming what St. jerome fays, or fupplying 'y/VNJ 
 his defeds. 
 
 *' Alexander^ fays {b) Jerome ^ Bifhop of 
 
 ** Cappadocia, going to 'Jemfalem to vifit 
 
 ** the facred places, when Narcijfus then 
 
 *' of a great age governed the church of 
 
 ** that city ; it was revealed both to Nar- 
 
 *' cijjus and to many of his clergie, that the 
 
 " next day in the morning would come into 
 
 " that church a Bifhop, who (hould be a 
 
 " helper of the facerdotal chair. This 
 
 ** coming to pafs as it had been foretold, in 
 
 *' an aiTemblie of all the Bifhops of Paleftine^ 
 
 " NarciJJus himfelf confenting, and even 
 
 " promoting it above any one elfe, Alexan- 
 
 " der took upon him the government of 
 
 " the church of Jerufahn. This per- 
 
 " fon at the conclufion of a letter to 
 
 " the Ant incites [the people of A?2tinopoIis in 
 
 " Egypt'\ fpeaks of the peace of the 
 
 " church in this manner: NarciJjus falutes 
 
 *' you J who before me filled the epijcopal feat 
 
 *' of this place ^ and now governs it toge^ 
 
 " ther with ?ne by his prayers ^ being an hun^ 
 
 '* dred and fixteen years oldj and with j?ie 
 
 F '* ear^ 
 
 [l) be rir. 111. cap.6z. 
 
ALEXANDER Boolc t. 
 earnejlly exhorts you to think the fame thwgs: 
 He wrote another letter to the Afitiochians, 
 " by Clement Prefbyter of Alexandria^ of 
 ** whom we fpoke before. He alfo wrote to 
 ** Origen, and for Origen again ft Demetrius ^ 
 *' pleading that in refped: to the teftimonie 
 " given him by De?netrius himfelf he had 
 " ordained him Prelbyter. There arc like- 
 ** wife extant other letters of his to divers 
 '^ perfons. In the feventh perfecution, under 
 *' Decius^ at which time Babylas fuffered at 
 " Antioch^ he was apprehended and carried 
 •' to Cefarea, and being put in prifon was 
 " crowned with martyrdom for his confeffion 
 " of the name ot Chrijl. 
 
 Eufebe in (c) his Ecclefiaflical Hiftorie 
 confirms what Jerome fays of Alexander's 
 having been firft Bi(hop in Cappadocia, and 
 his coming to Jeriifalem for the fake of 
 prayer^ and to vijit the [facredj places, or out 
 of devotion : and that there were feveral 
 revelations from God to encourage the 
 choofing him Bidiop in that city, and, as 
 k feems, one to Alexa?ider himfelf: and 
 
 like- 
 
 r'o'Tvcov U-oplxs i'jftv 7n'm'i{r)y.v,'iV. £"/• H. E> A "v/. cap. xL 
 
 /. 222. ^. 
 
Ch.XXXIV. BiJIjop of Jerufalem. 
 
 (d) likewife a 'voice heard diftinBly hyfome emi- 
 nent for piety , [or underftanding.] 216^ ^r^//jr^« 
 therefore of that church would by no means 
 confent to his return home, but detained him 
 with them, Befide thefe revelations and vi- 
 fions, Eufebe mentions another reafon of this 
 choice : which was the fortitude, with which 
 Alexander had fuffered in the late perfe- 
 cution, under Severus. For in ferome\ 
 Latin verfion of Eujebe's chronicle at the 
 twelfth year of that Emperour, of our Lord 
 204, it is faid : Alexander is (e) in e fie em for 
 the confefjion of the 7iame of the Lord. And 
 in his Ecclefiaflical Hiftorie, having men- 
 tioned the death of Severus, and the accef- 
 fion of his fon Antonine, called Caracalia, m 
 the year of Chrift 211. he adds : ^^ Ai (f) 
 *' that time Alexander , one of thofe who 
 *' had fignalized themfelves by their forti- 
 **^ tude in the perfecution, and by the favour 
 *' of divine providence furvived the combats 
 ** they had fuftained in their confeffions, . . . 
 F 2 " being 
 
 {e) Alexander ob confeffionem dominici nominis infignis ha- 
 betur. Eu/. Chr. p. 171. 
 
 {/) H. E, /. 1//. c. 8. p. z\Q, A, 
 
68 ALEXANDER Book I. 
 
 being famous for his confeffions of the 
 
 Cbripian faith in the time of the perfecu- 
 
 tion, was promoted to the forementioned 
 
 " Biflioprick of ^jerujalem^ Narcijfus^ his 
 
 *' predeceflbr, being yet alive." 
 
 Alexander was a great admirer of Origen. 
 There was, as Etifebe fays in his (^) Eccle- 
 fiaflical Hiftorie, " a great difturbance at 
 ** Alexandria \ fo that Origen^ not thinking 
 ** it fafe to ftay there, nor yet in any other 
 *' part of Egypt, went into Palejiine, and 
 *' took up his refidencc at Ctfarea, [about 
 *' the year of oar Lord 216.] where he was 
 *' defired by the Bifliops of that countrey to 
 *' difcourfc and expound the fcriptures pub- 
 " licly in the church, though he was not 
 " yet ordained Prelbyter. This may be 
 *' made evident from what Alexander Bifhop 
 *' of yenifakmy and Theodfi/lus Biihop of Ce- 
 *' /area write by way of apologie in their 
 ** letter to Demetrius-' Afterwards, about 
 the year 228. as Eitfebe expreffes it, " the 
 " {h) two mofs: approved and eminent Bi- 
 " fhops of Faleftine, I mean thofe of O- 
 " farea and Jerufakm^ judging Origen wor- 
 
 "thy 
 
 {o) H- E. I. t'l. c. 19. />■ 222. A. 
 {h) lb d, cap. S. p. z'og. G. 
 
Ch.XXXIV. BiJIjop ofjen/falem. 
 
 ^* thy of the highcfl dignity and office ordain- 
 *' ed him Prefbyter by impofition of their 
 ** hands." And fo writes (z) Jerome after 
 'Eiifebe, Phctius (k) fays, **. On^6';z was or- 
 *' dained by Theodhttis [or TheoSfiflus] Bi{hop 
 ** of Cefarea^ with the approbation oi Akii' 
 ** ander Bifliop of 'Jerufalem. 
 
 Eufebe having given an account of j^lex^ 
 cinders promotion to the Billioprick of ye- 
 rufalem^ and of the letter to the Antinoites^ 
 as before in Jerome ^ proceeds. *' Sera-^ 
 ** pion (/) being dead at Antioch [in the 
 *' year 211.] Afclepiades fncceeded him in 
 " the Bifhoprick of that place, who alfo was 
 *' famous for his confeffions in the lateperfe- 
 *' cution. Of this ordination Alexander makes 
 " mention in a letter to the Antlochiam in 
 ** this manner. Alexander {in) the fer^jant and 
 <^ prifoner of Jefiis Chriji fendeth greeting in 
 *^ the Lord to the blejjed church of the An- 
 *^ tiochians. The Lord made my bonds light and 
 * ' eafie in my imprifonmentj when I heard that 
 *' Afclepiades, fo Jit and worthy on account of 
 *5 the eminence of his faithy was by divine 
 F 3 ^^ pro- 
 
 {i) De Fir. Ill cap^ ^j^. 
 
 Cod. 1 18. col. 297. 'ver. 38. ^c, 
 
 II ■ Eufcb. ibid, p 212, i>. ?, 13. ^.' 
 {^i) Ibid. 
 
ALEXANDER Book I. 
 
 providence entrujied with the care of your 
 holy church of the Antiocbians, This let- 
 ter he fent by Clement^ as appears from 
 '* the conclufion of it, which is thus. T^his 
 ** epi/ile, my lords and brethren ^ I have fent you 
 *' by Clement J a hleffed Prefhyter, a virtuous. 
 " and approved maUy whom you know already 
 ** and will know better^ who whilji he was 
 " here confirmed and encreafed the church of 
 " the Lord.'* The conclufion of this letter 
 St. ferome likewife has inferted in his book 
 of llluftrious Men, in the chapter of Clement 
 of Alexandria. 
 
 Afclepiades was ordained Bi(hop oi Antioch, 
 in the year 2 1 r, in the begining of the reign of 
 Caracalla : at which time, as appears by this 
 letter, Alexander w2i%\n^n(ov\. If therefore 
 he was put in prifon fo foon as the 1 2th of Se- 
 veruSj of our Lord 204, as is intimated in 
 Eufebe*s Chronicle ; he muft have continued 
 there feven or eight years, or elfe have been 
 imprifoned more than once in the reign of aS'^- 
 verus. This is an obfervation [0) of Tillemont. 
 The church of the Lord, which Clement had con- 
 firmed and encreafed is the church in Cappa^ 
 dociay of which Alexander was then Billiop. 
 
 Eufebe 
 
 [c] Isikm. Mew. E(. T. 3. /*. 2. /. 314. St. Alexandre. 
 
Ch.XXXIV. BiJJjop of Jerufale?n. 71 
 
 Eufebe has left us a fragment of Alexan- ^' ^' 
 ders, letter to Origen. Moreover, ** fays (p) v — ^ 
 ** hey Alexander in a letter to Origen makes 
 ** mention both of Clement and Pantaenus 
 *' as his friends, in this manner: For this, 
 '* as you know, in'as the will of God, that 
 ** the friendflnp, which was begun between us 
 '' from our anceflors, fhould not only remain 
 ** inviolable, but alfo become more firm and 
 ** fervent. For we know thofe bleffed fathers ^ 
 ** which have gone before us^ with whom we 
 " Jhall fhortly be : I mean the truly bleffed 
 " Pa?2taenus my lord, and the holy Clement^ 
 *' who was my lord, [or mafter] and profitable 
 " to me : and if there be any others like thein, 
 " by whom I came to the knowledge of you, my 
 ^' mo ft excellent lord and brother'' 
 
 St. Jerome fays, there were extant other 
 letters oj Alexander writ to divers perfons. 
 But Eufebe has taken no particular notice of 
 any, befide thofe which I have now given an 
 account of. 
 
 In another place of his Ecclefiaflical Hi- 
 ftorie Fuufebe fpeaking of the perfecution un- 
 der Decitis, and the martyrdom of Fabian 
 Bi(hop of Rojiie, and of others at that time, 
 F 4 %s, 
 
 {p) Euf, ih, I. vi, c, 14. p.ziO. C. 
 
ALEXANDER Book I. 
 
 fays: " And (q) in PaJeftine Alexander Bifliop 
 ** of the church at yerufalem is again brought 
 *' before the Governour*s tribunal at Cefarea 
 *' for Chrtjl\ fake: And having made a fe- ' 
 " cond glorious confeflion is put into prifon, 
 ** being now venerable for his old age, and 
 ** grey hairs. Having dyed in prifon after 
 *' a noble and illuftrious confeffion before the 
 *' Governour's tribunal, he v^as fucceeded 
 " in the Biflioprick of yerufalem by Maza- 
 *' banes.'' 
 
 Epipha?iius like wife (r) fays, that Alexatt- 
 der fuffered martyrdom at Cefarea* 
 
 Dionyf.iis of Alexandria^ in a letter to Cor^ 
 nelius Bi(hop of Rome^ as we are informed 
 by Eufebe^ *' writes (;) thus of the BiQiop 
 " of yerufalem. As for blefjed Alexander^ he 
 ** was cafl into prifon^ and there nude a blefjed 
 *' endy 
 
 Thus we are fully affured of Alexander^ 
 martyrdom, and the manner of it : that he 
 did not dye by torments, or by the hand 
 of the executioner: but that he expired in 
 prifon, where he had been confined for the 
 name of Chrifl, The letter of Dionyfius 
 
 affords 
 
 (t]) Ihlil I. 6. cap. 39. /> 234.. 5. C. 
 (;•) De Men/ et Pond num. \%- 
 
 V.XfifOi c^MTMaula EuJ, ib, tap. <i6. /. 24.8. A^ 
 
Ch. XXXIV. Bi/Ijop of Jerufalem. 73 
 
 affords help likewife for fettling the time of ^- D. 
 
 ^ 2 1 z. 
 
 his death. That letter was writ, as Tille- o'-v^ 
 mont (/) fays, in the reign of Gallus, in the 
 year 252. It is reafonable therefore, as he 
 farther argues, to place the death of AleX" 
 ander in the year 251. at the end of the 
 reign of Deciiis: and not at the beginingof it 
 in 249. or 250. For it is not likely, that 
 Dio?tyJiiis (hould fend Cornelius a piece of 
 news that was two or three years old. Baf- 
 nage (u) likewife, and {w) Ruinart, think, 
 that Alexander dyed in 251. and at the lat- 
 er end of that year. So that this Bidiop 
 governed the church of 'Jerufalem for th9 
 fpace of 39 years. 
 
 We are farther informed both by {x) EU' 
 
 febe^ and (y) St. Jerome^ that Ckjnent oi A- 
 
 lexandria dedicated to this Alexander a book 
 
 entitled Tihe Ecckfiajiical Canon ^ or Againjl 
 
 thofe that yudaifed. 
 
 There is yet one thing more to be taken 
 notice of, which is omitted by Jerome : 
 that Alexander ereded a librarie at Jerufa- 
 lem, 
 
 [t] Tillemoni, as he/ore, p. 321. 
 [u) Bafn. 251. w. xiii. 
 
 (lu) De fanho Alexandra §. xil. Apud Acia Mart.Jincera 
 it feleila. p. 1 37. 
 
 (at) Euf. ib. cap. I 3. />. 214. C. 
 (y) De'/ir. III. cap. 38. 
 
74 ALEXANDER Book I, 
 
 A. D. Jem, Eufebe {z) fpeaks of it in this manner 
 ^^^i^^ in his Eccleliaftical Hiftorie : " At that 
 ** time flouriflied many learned and ecclefi- 
 ** aftical men, whofe Epiftles which they writ 
 *' to each other are ealie to be found : for 
 " they are preferved to our time in the librarie 
 ** at MHa [Jerufalem'] ereded by Jlexan- 
 " der Bifliop of the church in that city, 
 " from which alfo we have colledled ma- 
 *' terials for our prefent work." Which (liews 
 alfo, that this librarie had not been defiroycd 
 in any of the perfecutions between AlexaU" 
 4ers and Eufebe s time. 
 
 The meek and gentle fpirit of Alexander 
 is commended by Origen at the begining of 
 a homjlie delivered at 'Jerufalem. *' You {a) 
 ** are not therefore, to expe6l in us, fay% 
 ^' he^ what you have in your Bifliop Alex- 
 ?* ander. For we acknowledge, that he ex- 
 *' cells us all in the gift of gentlenefle. 
 ?* Nor do I only commend him for this 
 
 " qua- 
 
 (z) Ih. cap. 20. 
 
 {a) Nolite ergo in nobis illud requirere, quod in papa Alex- 
 andro habetis. Fatemur enim, qqod omnes nos fuperat in gra- 
 tia lenitatis. Cujus gratiae non Tolus ego praedicator exifto, 
 ied vos omnes experti cognofcitis et probatis. . . Haec idcirco 
 diximus in praefatione, quia fcio vos confueviffc ieniffimi pa- 
 tris dulces Temper audire Termones. Noibae vero plantationis 
 arbufcula habet aliquid aulteritatis in guilu ; quod tamen 
 orantibus vobis fiet medicamentum falutare, &c. In libr. R?g, 
 Ham. I, in, T. 2. 48:., J. Bcnsd, 
 
Ch. XXXIV. Bijhop of Jerufakm. 75 
 
 " quality : You have all full experience A. D. 
 
 " of it, and admire him on that account. [y-s/\\ 
 
 " ... I have mentioned thefe things at the 
 
 ** begining, becaufe I know, you are ever 
 
 ** vi^ont to hear the mild difcourfes of your 
 
 " mod gentle father : whereas the fruit of 
 
 " our plantation has fomewhat of roughnefie 
 
 " in it's tafte. Neverthelefs by the help of 
 
 ** your prayers it may become medicinal 
 
 ** and falutarie." 
 
 From this paflage v/e may conclude, that 
 Alexander was a frequent, and an agreeable 
 preacher : though, as Eufebe fays (b) in a- 
 nother place, he and TheoBiJius attended 
 on Origeji as their mafter. The mild dif- 
 courfes^ which his people were always wont 
 to hear, cannot be underftood of private ad- 
 monitions : but mud mean public difcourfes, 
 or homilies, fuch as that which Origen was 
 now engaged in. 
 
 Origen commends Alexander for the mild- 
 neffe of his temper. He himfelf polTelTed 
 the fame excellent property to a great de- 
 gree. It is very confpicuous in his homilie?, 
 and other works, though he feems not to 
 have known it. 
 
 We 
 
 \)i) H. E. /. w. cap. 274 
 
^6 ALEXANDER Book I. 
 
 A. D. We cannot but now refled: with pleafiire 
 v,rf^^J^-0 and fatisfadion upon the merit of this Bifliop 
 of yernfale?n. His piety, particularly that 
 amiable virtue of humility, is confpicuous in 
 the fragments I have tranfcribed. And his 
 meeknefTe is celebrated by Origen. If he was 
 not learned, he was however a patron of 
 learning. Nor have we any reafon to think 
 him deftitute of a competent meafure of ufe- 
 ful knowledge :. He feems to have been a dif- 
 ciple of Pantaenus and Clemait, under whofe 
 inftrudions he could not fail of making fome 
 confiderable emprovements. He had an in^ 
 timate friendfhip with Clement and OrigeUy 
 two of the moft learned men that ever lived. 
 And we cannot but reckon ourfelves ftill in- 
 debted to him for his generous protecilion of 
 Origen^ and for his librarie, and the materials 
 thereby afforded to Eufebey and, in all likeli- 
 hood, to others alfo. Above all are we obliged 
 to him for his glorious teftimonie to the truth 
 of the Chriftian religion, and his remarkable 
 example of fleadineffe in the faith o( Chriji : 
 of which he made two confeflions before 
 Heathen magiftrates, at above forty years dif- 
 tance from each other : for the laft of which 
 he fuffered an imprifonmentj where he made 
 
 a hap^y 
 
Ch. XXXIV. Bijhop of Jerufaleni, 77 
 a happy end. And certainly the fucceffion of A. D. 
 Bifliops and Churches in the land of Judea^ cAv-^^ 
 where the preaching, miracles and fufFerings 
 oi Chriji and his firfl Apoftles are placed by 
 the Evangelifts, under fo many difficulties and 
 troubles, affords a flrong argument for the 
 truth of thofe great and extraordinarie fadls, 
 upon which the Chrifiian religion is founded. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
His Hip. 
 
 CHAP. XXXV. 
 
 St. HIPPOLY TUS. 
 
 IPPOLTTUS flourifhed, as Cave 
 computes, about the year 220. He is 
 generally called Hippolytus Portuenfis^ it being 
 rie, and now a common opinion, that he was Bifliop of 
 Port us in It all e^ or elfe of Partus Roma?ms^ o- 
 therwife called Adan^ or Aden in Arabia. As 
 I am far from having room for all that might 
 be faid upon this article, I {hall only produce 
 fome authentic teftimonies to Hippolytus in 
 ancient authors, and the judgements of fome 
 learned moderns, referring fuch as are defirous 
 of farther information to thofe {a) who have 
 treated largely of this writer and his works. 
 
 Eiifebe in his Ecclefiaftical Hidorie in his 
 account of writers, who lived not fir from the 
 begining of the third centurie, fays : " At 
 *' that time flouriflied many eminent eccle- 
 *' liaftical men, whofe cpiilles which they 
 " writ to each other are ftill eafie to be found. 
 *' Among thefe w&veBeryllus Bifliop of Bo/Ira 
 
 '' in 
 
 [a) Steph. Le Movie Varia Sacra. C.av. Hiji Lit. P. i. et 
 n. Du Pin. Bibl. Vllanont. Mem. Ec. T. Hi. P.z. Fabric. Eibl. 
 Gr. '7". 'u. p.zo'^y&c. etHippoljt.Ol>p.Ha?nhurg.ljl6.0udin.De 
 Script. Ec. T. i. Bafnag. Ann. Pali I. E.c. Hz. n. vii x. 
 
Ch. XXXV. HIPPOLYTUS. 
 
 in Arabia^ and {b) Hippolytus, alfo 
 
 Bi(hop of fome other church." Soon after 
 in another chapter of the fame work. " At 
 (c) that time Hippolytus, befide many other 
 pieces, compofed his book about Eafler, 
 containing a chronological hiflorie of affairs 
 to the firft year oi Alexander: [yearofCbrl/l 
 222] to which he added a canon of fixteen 
 years for regulating the feafl of Eafter. 
 The reft of his works which have come to 
 our knowledge are fuch as thefe : Upon the 
 fix days work : Upon thofe things which 
 followed the fix days work : Againft Marcion: 
 Upon the Canticles : Upon fome parts oiEze^ 
 kiel: Concerning Eafter : Againfl all herefies, 
 and many other, which are ftill extant, and 
 in the hands of many people." So far Eufebe, 
 St. Jerome in [d) his Catalogue of Ecclefi- 
 aftical writers : " Hippolytus, Bilhop of fome 
 ** church (for I have not been able to learn 
 ** the name of the city) wrote a computation 
 •' of Eafter, and Chronicle of the times, to 
 
 « the 
 
 iAKKmieti. H. E. L. vi.cap. zO. p. 2ZZ. D. 
 
 {c) lb. cap. 22. 
 
 [d] Hippolytus cujufdam ecclefiae epifcopus (nomen quippe 
 urbis fcire non potui) temporumq; canones fcripfit, ufque ad 
 prirtium annum Alexandri Jmperatoris, et fedecim annorum 
 circuluin, quem Graeci IxK^/Zexafljip*^* vocant, reperit, 
 Hieron, dc V. I, cap. 61. 
 
HIPPOLYTUS* Book I,^ 
 
 the fiifl year of the Emperour Akkander i 
 
 and invented a cycle of 16 years, which the 
 
 " Greeks call k^taicTfmiJ^ipj?, and gave occafi- 
 
 " on to {e) Etifebe's canon of 19 years of the 
 
 ** fame kind. He wrote fome commentaries 
 
 ** upon the fcriptures, of which I have feen 
 
 *' thefe : Upon the fix days work, and upoii 
 
 " ExOiiuSj upon the Canticles, upon GeneJtSy 
 
 •* and upon Zacharie : Of the PJaims, and 
 
 Vl^v " upon i/^/^/ji Of Z)(JwV/, Of the Revelation, 
 
 ^ " Of the Proverbs, Of Ecclefiaftes, Of Saul 
 
 >i . " and the Pythonejfe, Of Antichrift, Of the 
 
 Refurre6tion, Of Eafler, Againfl: all here- 
 
 fies, and (f) a Difcourfe [or Conference] in 
 
 thepraife of our Lord and Saviour: in. which 
 
 he intimates his delivering it in the church, 
 
 *' when Orig"^« was prefent. In imitation of 
 
 " him, Ambrofe^ who, as we before faid, was 
 
 " converted from the herefie of Marcion to 
 
 ■*' the true faith, perfuaded Origen to write 
 
 *^ commentaries upon the fcriptures." 
 
 Fabriciiis in his notes upon this chapter ob- 
 ferves, that St. "Jerome is the only perfon who 
 
 fays, 
 
 (f) Vld. Eufch. de Fit. Conjl. 1. /i;. cap. ^^j.. 3-. 
 
 (f) Et <u^o<ro[MXiav de laude Domini falvatoris : in qua, 
 praefente Origene, fe loqui in ccclefia fi^nificat. In hujils 
 aemulationem Ambrofius, quern de Marcioiiishaerefi ad veram 
 fidem corredum diximus, cohortatus ell Originem in fcriptU' 
 ras commentarios faibcre. Hicion. ibid 
 
Ch. XXXV. H I p F o L Y T u s. 8 r 
 
 fays, that Ambroje was moved by the ex- A. D. 
 ample of Hippolytus to excite Origen to write ;,/-v-^^ 
 fo many commentaries upon the fcriptures : 
 and thinks, that (g) Eufebes words, from whom 
 St. yerome feems to have taken this, ought to 
 be underftood of the time, rather than the 
 example of Hippolytus. I would not be pofi^ 
 live, becaufe Eufebe'^ expreffion is ambiguous; 
 But I think, that St. Jerome'^ is one good 
 fenfe, and not an improbable meaning; That 
 from him, (not from that time) was the ,'<? 
 rife of Or i gen's commentaries upon the divine ■ " 
 fcriptures* And from divers places of Origen's - 'J 
 works it appears^ that fome had writ com- .'■'- 
 mentaries upon the fcriptures before himfelf. 
 But fuppofe we tranflate Eufcbe\ expreffion, 
 e| keii'tf, from that time j yet the connediori 
 feems to afford ground to conclude, that the 
 writings of Hippolytus (of which he had fpo- 
 ken jufl before) were partly an occafion of 
 Orige?is> commentaries upon the fcriptures. 
 
 St. Jerome has mentioned this writer in di- 
 vers other of his works. In his commentaries 
 upon DanielhQ takes notice of an opinion of 
 
 G Hippo^ 
 
 VTrofJMViiicLruv \yivi\o apx**'* A//Cfo<7ia ii to. {jAkito. -arapajj- 
 [xMlm tf'yjov, x,' K Eu/, H. E. L vi. cap. 23. init. 
 
220. 
 
 8i M I p ? o L Y T u s. Book L 
 
 A. D. ^/) Hippolytus concerning the feventy weeks. 
 In his preface to his commentarie upon Zacha- 
 77V he intimates, that {k) Hippolytus had writ 
 commentaries upon that Prophet. In the 
 preface to his Commentaries upon ^t. Matthew 
 he fays, that (I) he had read the Commenta- 
 ries of the martyr Hippolytus. In one of his 
 Epiflles he {i7t) again calls Hippolytus martyr. 
 In other places {n) he mentions Hippolytus to- 
 gether with Clement and Origen and other ec- 
 cleiiaftical writers of note. He fays likewife, 
 that he had (0) writ upon the Sabbath^ whether 
 we ought to fafl on that day : and upo?2 the que- 
 Jiion^ whether the Euchariji ought to be received 
 
 daily^ 
 
 (:) Haec Enfebius. Hippolytus atrtem de elfdem hebdomadi' 
 bus opinatus eft ita. Hieron. in Dan. cap.ix. col. 1114 Ed.Bened. 
 
 {k) Scripfit in hunc Prophetam Origenes duo volumina. . . 
 Hippolytus quoque edidit cointncntarios, Hier. Pr. inZachar. 
 
 (/) Legiffe me fateor. . . Theophili Antiochenae urbisepif- 
 copi commentaries, Hippolyti quoque martyris. Prolog, in 
 Comm. fuper Matth. 
 
 [m) Hippolyti martyris verba ponamus. Jd Da7nafum Ep, 
 125. ^. 3. 
 
 {71) Scilicet mmc enumerandum mrhi eft, qui ecclefiaftico- 
 rum de impari numero difputarunt, Clemens, Hippolytus, Ori- 
 genes . , . ; noftrorumque Tertullianus, Cyprlanus, Ladlantius. 
 Ep. 30. al. 50. Nuper Sanftus Ambrofius fic Hexaeraeron il- 
 lius compilavit, ut magis Hippolyti fententias, Bafiliique fe- 
 queretur. £■/>. 4 1 . «/. 65 . 
 
 [o] De fabbato quod quaeris, utrum jejunandum fit : etdc- 
 cucliariftia, an accipienda quotidie, quod Romana ecclefia eJ 
 Hifpaniae obfervare perhibentur, fcripru quidem et Hippoly- 
 fHS vir difertifliraus. Ef. 52. al. 28, 
 
Z2d. 
 
 ell. XXXV. H I p p o L V t tj s. 8 J 
 
 daily y as they are fat d to do in the churches of A. D 
 Rome and Spain, And gives Hippolytiis the 
 character of an eloquent man. Nor has he 
 failed to mention him in his letter to (p) Mag- 
 nus among other learned Chriliian authors : 
 where he is placed with the Greek writers of 
 the church, as he is alfo {q) elfewhere. In the 
 account oiDionyfius o^i Alexandria^ St. Jerome 
 mentions a letter of his if) fent to Rome hy 
 Hippolytus^ as does (5) Eufibe alfo. If Dio- 
 nyfius was then Bifliop, and this be our 
 Hippolytiis 'j he could not die before 247, or 
 248. when 'Dionyfus was made Bi{hop of 
 Alexandria. 
 
 I {hall juft obferve here, that Epiphaniiis {i) 
 mentions Hippolytus among other eminent ec- 
 clefiaflical writers, ii'ho had admirably confuted 
 the Valentinians. Epiphanius is fuppofed by 
 fome [u) to have often borrowed from Hippo^ 
 lytus^ without naming him. 
 
 G 2 ^heodo* 
 
 (p) F.p. 83. al. 84. [q) See before note (n) 
 
 (r) Et ad Romanes per Hippolytum alteram. DeVir. Ill, 
 cap.Gcf. ^^ ^ , , ^ , , . , . n 
 
 (i) Ktfi ZTtpx rii ST/foAi) roli h Pc'jy.^ t« :i,!0VU(3"iK i^tp'ilctt 
 cT/cKofUfn, S'tx I'TTTroXuTa. Euf. L vi. cap. 46. p- 248. a. 
 
 (/) 'I'HM/ J^e KAijwJt? it) Hi^moaoi i^ I'TrrroXvloiy ^ a'KXm 
 rshkiii?, 01 Kxi ■d-ocvfji.a.'rZi rtiv kuI" avluvz^iTToti'ivlxi ecvatlpoTtiV. 
 JEpiph. Haer. 30. c.^. p. 205. B. 
 
 {u) Vid. Tillemont Mm. Ec. T. %, P. 2. p. 1 7. St. HippoI)te, 
 
223. 
 
 HIPPOLYTUS. Book L 
 A. D, ^heodoret has quoted Hippolyttis feveral 
 times. He continually (w) calls him Bifiop 
 mid Martyr. It is worth the while to obferve 
 the works of Hippolytiis, v/hich ^heodoret has 
 quoted, for the fake of the valuable fragments 
 preferved by him. They are fuch as thefe : 
 A Difcourfe, or Homilie upon thofe words : 
 The Lord is my Shepherd. Pf. xxiii. i. A dif- 
 courfe on Elkaiia and Hannah ': Another dif- 
 courfe upon the begining of Ifaiah : all three 
 quoted together by fx) Theodoret in one of 
 his Dialogues. And though they are cited as 
 Difcourfes, yet perhaps thefe are only fome 
 parts of the Commentaries of Hippolyttis. In 
 another place are (y) fragments out of Com- 
 mentaries upon the fecond, and upon the 
 twenty fourth Pfalm • and out of a Homilie 
 {z) concerning the Diftributbn of the Ta- 
 lents : where alfo is quoted again the Difcourfe 
 upon Elkana and Hannah : A Difcourfe upon 
 the Canticles, or the great Hymn, as it is there 
 called : an Epillle to a certain Queen, which 
 is quoted (^) again in another place : where 
 
 is 
 
 (."•^v) Tk Ayia iTTTo^VTy. h-TriiTKoTrK ^ fjJflu^oi- DiAl. L 
 *r. iv. p. 36. B. Vid. ei Dial. ii. p. 88. a. Dial. Hi. p. 155. 
 Haerit. Fab. L. "t^.tap. i.p. 227. A. 
 
 ix) Dial. i. p. 36. (y) Dial. ii. p. 88. 89. 
 
 (-) It-KT^ h'oyn, t^iii 7)1 i) 7ZvTx7^i{\(ovS'ia.iiolJ-W- i^' /.SS.A, 
 
 [a] Dial. Hi. /. 1 5 5 . Z). 
 
Ch.XXXV. HIPPOLYTUS. 
 
 is the title of another work, called A Dif- 
 courfe upon {b) the two thieves. [See Matth, 
 xxvli. 38. Luke xxiii. 39. . . 43.] Who that 
 Queen was, whether fome Arabian PrincelTe, 
 or one of the Roman Empreffes, is not certain. 
 Hippoiytus is mentioned again by Theodcret (r) 
 among many other authors, who had writ 
 againft Marcion and his followers : and in ano- 
 ther place {d) among thofe who had writen 
 againft the Nicohitans. 
 
 Photius has two articles relating to Hippo- 
 iytus. In the firft he fpeaks of his book 
 Againft Herefies, which he calls a little book. 
 He fays exprefsly, that Hippoiytus was a dif- 
 ciple of Irenaeiis^ and feems to have- learnt 
 this from Hippoiytus himfelf. " In this book 
 " was [e) a confutation of thirty- two herefies, 
 ** from Dofitheus to Noetus and the Noetians^ 
 " Hippoiytus fays, that the fame herciies had 
 G 3 " been 
 
 (i) 'E>i Ta >^jyM lii T«f cTy'a Attraj. iL 156. 4. 
 [c) Haer. Fab. Li. cap. 25. 
 \d) Ibid. I. 3 . cap. i. 
 
 {e) Aviyvu^Qn li'C^tS'a.fiov I-^ttoXCth. Mst9HT«f jTe E/p}iyai» 
 iTToAJlcf. 'Rv <^i To ffCflAyiJ.oc. Kara. aipiiTicoi' /^C. 'k^yjiV 
 'B!QiA[j.zvoi Ao(Ti^toiv\i;, xai f^.kyji Noii% Kai No^j/avZv J^tctXa/Jt.' 
 Cctvoysvov. Tc/vja.? S'l 'pm^v iKkyXpn (nroCXnbwa.i o[/.iXhioi 
 Ipmdii>i' cov KAi avvo'^iu IttpoAJJoj 'TS'oiiy.iVoi t'oJ^e ro (iiCh'iov 
 f^niTi (rvvlilccyjivxi, ThS'i (ppa<rtv<ycf.'pni en Kai VTr'oasiM'oi kclI 
 aTTifiiJoi, it Kni -STpof Tou a.r\iKcv iK i'7tt'rpi(pijcci Tov Aoyov. 
 Aiysi <^i etXXa, r'i nva, iTn uKpiCiSoif Xw!r'o[j.zv(x, kou ori j| 
 <9-poj zCpdiHi eT/roAi) »^ i^i rl a.7T0T'j?^v n««yA». PrM. BibL 
 tod. 12.1. />. 301, 
 
86 HippoLYTus. Book I. 
 
 A. D. «f been confuted by Irenams^ and that he in- 
 
 'Ki^r^f^ " tended his fmali trad: as an abrigement of 
 
 ^drerj^s. cc y^i^^i Irenaeui had faid. His flile, fays 
 
 " Phcthis, Is clear, grave, and concile, with- 
 
 " cat aiming however at the Attic puri- 
 
 " ty and elegance. Neverthelefs he ad- 
 
 ** vances fome things which are not right. 
 
 '' Particularly, he lays, that the epiftle to 
 
 " the Hebrews is not the Apoille Pmihy 
 
 Thotius adds, that Hippohtiis is faid to have 
 
 writ many other pieces. This very much 
 
 confirms the fuppofition, that Jremieus did 
 
 not receive the Epiftle to the Hebrews as St. 
 
 Patih (a). 
 
 In the other place Photlus gives an ac- 
 count of his Commentarie upon P)aniel^ and 
 the Dilcourfe of Chrifl and Antichrifl : and 
 calls Hippolytits (f) Bifhop and Martyr, 
 With regard to the ftile of the former of 
 thefe, Photius fays, ** it is clear, and fuch 
 " as is fuitable to a Commentarie, though 
 " it is far from the Attic purity.'* The cba- 
 radier, which this great Critic gives of our 
 author, though he diflikes and cenfures fome 
 things in him, is enough to m.ake us regret 
 
 . the 
 
 (a) 5^^ as he/ore, ch 17. § xxiii. Vol. l. p. 368. If^c. 
 (/) Aviyvaadi) Itt'TTO^vth st/ctxots kAi //rtflffOf ipy.wifcl U,} 
 7oV ^xvinA. X. ?\.. Cod. 102. /. 5^5. 
 
Ch.XXXV. HippoLYTus. 
 
 the lofle of (o many, indeed almofl all his A. D. 
 
 •^ 220. 
 
 works. V — /— 
 
 The whole of what Phcthn fays of this 
 Commentarie upon Dmiel is fo mafcerly, 
 and fo fine a model of criticifm, that I cannot 
 forbear inferting it here : though for the main 
 it has been tranfcribed already by Du Pin^ 
 and Mr. Tillemont. *' It is not, Photim 
 " fays, a continued explication of the Pro- 
 '' phet, neverthelefs he omits nothing ma- 
 *' terial. Many things are here expreffed 
 " after the manner of the ancients, not with 
 " the exaftnefle of later ages. But there is 
 " no reafon to blame him on that account. 
 ** For it would be unjuft to find fault with 
 " thofe who have laid the foundations of 
 ** any fcience, that they have not brought 
 ** it to perfedion. We ought rather to 
 " think ourfelves obliged to them for their 
 *' good endeavours, and leaving us fuch helps 
 " for farther emprovement. But that he 
 " determines the appearance of Antichrifl 
 *' (at which time he alfo fixes the end of 
 " this vifible world) to the year 500 fiom 
 ** Chriji, and the completion of 6000 years 
 " from the creation of the world j this is 
 *' rather a mark of a warm fanfie than of 
 G 4 *^dif- 
 
HIPPOLYTUS. Book I. 
 
 dircretion : fince Chriji himfelf would not 
 fatisfy the difciples about fuch matters, 
 though they defired him. This determi- 
 *' nation (^) therefore is to be imputed to' 
 *' human ignorance, not to illumination from 
 *' above." 
 
 It may not be improper to take fome no- 
 tice in this place of the extracts which Pho- 
 iius made out of Stephen Gobars work, 
 in which Hippolytus is mentioned feveral 
 Ms. times. *' Stephen then, as Phot ins ajfures 
 *' (h) lis, obferves, what opinion Hippolytus 
 ** and Epiphanius had oi Nicolas, one of the 
 " feven deacons, and that they fiiongly con- 
 ** demned him : whilft Ignatius^ Clement, J^u- 
 ** febey and 'Theodorcty though they condemn- 
 ** ed the herefie of the Nicolaitans, fay that 
 ■' Nicolas was not fuch an one." Stephen 
 informs us farther, (i) " That Hippolytus and 
 " Irenaeus lay, the Epiftle of Paul to the 
 Hehrenjos. *' HebrewSy is not his." Finally, '* he (k) 
 
 ** obferves 
 
 (g) Krt/ Yi «'?ro(»«cr/? «y9piJj'7r<('H? obyvoioii, uKTC Ik l-ufarvoiai 
 rrii avicQiiv S"n>^i.y/jH. Ph. Cod. 202, C>/. 525, 
 
 VTift Isiy^cXuK, Taeuij rau (^ JixKovav, Kcci oil 'la^vfai dvTo^ 
 KC/c]c(,y\VKCiyj<.aiv. x. A. Phof. Bihl. Cod. 232. Col. 901. n. 7.8. 
 
 [i) Ct/ r-zr-'woAi/7o? y.od Yifuwctioi rm Trfci E^pw/a? l-ssr/roAwv 
 UefvXH, ix r/AmihdA (^a.o'.v- ib. Col. 904. n. 10. 
 
 (k) 'X'lvac U'T^oAi'j-vi?'? '-'/(p ° etyitLrocToi I'ZF'n^Qhvloi "TTlfl Tiii 
 7fe7Mo!7«v/cfcVi4/pWK;ij- 26;V. C?/. 904. ». 13. 
 
Gh XXXV. HIPPOLYTUS. 
 
 «' obferves what opinion the blefled Hippoly- 
 
 *' tits had of the herefie of the Mcnfaniftsy 
 
 We have now had a large teftimonie to 
 the works of Hippolyius, and have feen him 
 ililed more than once Bifliop and Martyr: 
 but hitherto no difcoverie is made of the 
 place, either of his Bifhoprick or Martyr- . 
 dom. However there are writers of the 
 fifth and following centuries, who mention 
 the place of his Biihoprick : whether upon 
 good ground, or not, is not altogether cer- 
 tain. GelafiuSy Biihop of Rome in the later 
 end of the fifth centurie, calls Hippolytus (/) 
 Metropolitan of the Arabians : if (m) that paf- 
 fage be his, and not interpolated. Anajla/ius^ 
 Prefbyter of Ro?7te in the feventh centurie, 
 calls him («) BI(hop of Portus Romanus. In 
 (o) the Pafchai Chronicle, compofed about 
 the fame time, Hippolytus is fliled Martyr 
 and Bifhop of Portus near Rome, By others 
 
 he 
 
 (/) Hippolyt! epifcopi et Martyris Arabum Metropolis in 
 jne.noria haerefium. Gelaf. in Teflimon. de duabus naturis in 
 Chriflo Bib Pair. T. 2. p. 704. Lugd. 
 
 [m) See TilUmoni'i remarks upon this teftimonie, Mem.Ecd. 
 1. 3. P. z. p. 339. Bruxelhs. Note it. Sur S. Hip/oyu, 
 
 (h) . . . teflimonia ex diflis (anfti Hippolyti epifcopi Portus 
 Romani ac martyris Chrifti Dei noftri. Ana^afius Prefbyter et 
 Apocrijiarius Romae in epijiola ad Theodof. Prejbylcrum Gangrefi" 
 /ens, laudat. a Fabric. Op. S Hippolyti. p. 225. 
 
 (0) l'W'Z!-'o\vlo( r'oivov rnf ivtriSiia.? ij.c/fTvp, \m<TKO'moi tJ 
 xa^8//iv« nifls 'U/^wiov Tij; J^ti'iMli- Chr. Pafch. p, 6. 
 
$a H I p p o L Y T u s. Book r. 
 
 A. O. he IS called Bipop [p) of Rome, and (q) a 
 '^L^Y%^ Roman iiriter, and the like, whofe paflages 
 may be feen in the teftimonies colleded by 
 Fabricius in his edition of (r) Hippolytus. 
 
 Modern authors are divided in their opi- 
 nions. Some have thought, that he was 
 Bilhop o^ Porto near the mouth of the Tiber, 
 Le Moyne [s) thinks he was Bifhop of Por- 
 tus Romanus, otherwife called Adan or Ade?2, 
 in Arabia Felix. Cave [t) and [ti) Bafnage 
 and many others go readily into this it'ci- 
 timent. According to thefe learned men 
 Hippolytus was an Arabian, and Bifhop of 
 Fortus Romamis in that countrey : but af- 
 terwards (at what time, and upon what oc- 
 cafion is unknown) he came to Rome, and 
 refided there for fome time : where he be- 
 came famous for his zeal and labours in 
 preaching the gofpel, and defending the Chri- 
 
 Jlian 
 
 (/) KX>t//>K ^(U I'Tff'Tff'oKvlo? iTeiaKOTZoi Veo(Mi(, Leont. Bjz. 
 
 {^) Kcti I^'sroAvjoi peofjiOiioi c^V'ffpit(p^Vi. Niceph. C. Pol. 
 
 (;•) 5. Hippolyti op. pp. y. . . 1 1. Hamb. iyi6. 
 
 [s) Vid. Steph. Le Moyne in Prolegomenis ad Varia facra ; 
 tt Hi^pilyt. Fabric, p. xii. 
 
 {t) V^erum inter omnes hac de re fententias verifimillima 
 videtur nupera CI. Le Moyne conjeftura, Hippolycum fuifl'e 
 Cpifcopum Portus Romani in Arabia, i[/.'7z-opU th? ApocCix? a 
 Ptolomaeo vocati, ac poftea Adanae, five Adenae nomen, quod 
 et hodie retinet, adepti, Romanis mercatoribus perquam noti, 
 et ab iis tunc temporis admodum frequentati. Ca'v. H, L. P. i, 
 p.66. Fid. et P. a. />. 42. 43. 
 
 (a) Be/n, Ann. Pol. Ec, zzz, n. vit\ 
 
CLXXXV. H I P P O L Y T U S. ^t 
 
 ftian Religion : where likewife, or near it, ^- ^• 
 
 J ^ ' ' 220. 
 
 he might have the honour of fufFering mar- v^^n^-nJi 
 
 tyrdom. 
 
 Tillemont is more cautious in this refpedl : 
 and thinks, that fmce Enfebe^ Jerome^ and 
 Thcodoret^ were either plainly ignorant of 
 the place where HippoJytus was BiOiop, or 
 make no mention of it j it is not likely, that 
 later authors (hould teach us any thing cer- 
 tain, and that can be relied upon in this mat- 
 ter. Ttllemont difcourfes largely upon this 
 queftion in his fecond note upon Hippolytus, 
 His own conjedure is, that Hippolytus might 
 be Bilhop of fome fmall city, the name 
 of which was little known in the world: 
 and that he has been fuppofed to have been 
 Bifhop of Porto in Italie for no other reafon, 
 but that fome perfon of the fame name was 
 martyred there : who pei-haps came from the 
 Eaft, and in a long courfe of time was 
 confounded with the great Hippolytus Bifliop 
 and Martyr. 
 
 Prudent im has celebrated a Martyr of this 
 name, who fufFered either at Portiis or 
 Oftia^ near the mouth of the Tiber, whom 
 %'heodoric Ruinart {w) thinks to be our Hip- 
 polytus* 
 
 (ivj Fid. A£ia Mariyrumjtncera. f. 168. 
 
92 HiPPOLYTus. Book L 
 
 h- D. polytus. But there are (a:) arguments againft 
 {jTY^ ^^^^^ opinion, which to me appear unanfwerr 
 able. 
 
 Dr. Heumann publiftied fome time ago a 
 (^) curious difTertation, wherein he argues, 
 that Hippolyttis was not an ecclefiaftical, but 
 a civil Bifliop : probably, Warden, or In- 
 fpedor of Partus Romanus or OJlia, an office 
 of no fmall truft and honour. And he thinks, 
 that HippolyfuSj though not a Senator, was 
 a Roman of quality, and an illuftrious con- 
 vert to the Chriflian Religion. He allows 
 him to have writ moft of the works generally 
 afcribed to him. But he does not think, 
 that Hippolytus died a Martyr. 
 
 How long Hippolytus lived, is unknown. 
 As he is faid to have been a Martyr, fome 
 are difpofed {z) to place his death in the 
 perfecution under Maximin, about the year 
 235, or elfe in the Dccian perfecution, about 
 the year 250. 
 flhWorb. Though we are not able to determine 
 with certainty the place of his Bilhoprick; 
 nor the place or time of his fuppofed martyr- 
 dom, 
 
 {x) Vid. 'Bafn. Ann. 2 2 2. n.inli. 
 
 \y) Differtatio, in qua docetur, ubi, et qualis epifcopus 
 fuerit Hippolytus. Vid. Primitiae Gottingenfes.p. 239. , .253. 
 Hano'verl 1738. 4/0. 
 
 (x) See Tillemont Mem. Ec. f.^. P, 2. p. iz. 
 
ChXXXV. HIPPbLYTUS. 
 
 dom, and have fcarce any hiflorie of his 
 life ; we have feen fufficient proof of his 
 fame, and great eminence for learning, and 
 for the number of his works upon a variety 
 of fubjeds. His having Origen for his hearer, 
 is reckoned an argument, that he was of the 
 Eaftern part of the world. His being a dif- 
 ciple of Irenaeiis might make us fufpedt, that 
 he was rather born and educated in the 
 Weft. He certainly wrote in Greek. His 
 works niuft have been well known in the 
 Eaft. This is evident from Eufebe's being 
 acquainted with fo many of them. He 
 feems likewife to fay, that [a) they were 
 lodged in the librarie at yerufalem, eredled 
 by Alexander Blfliop of that city. But I do 
 not perceive, that this will enable us to de- 
 termine the age of Hippolytus. If indeed his 
 works were placed there by Alexander him- 
 felf, who died in the year 251. it might be 
 argued by fome, that Hippolytus had dyed 
 fome time before. But their being there in 
 Eujebe's time is no proof, that they were 
 placed there by Alexander, For fome might 
 be fo generous, as to make additions to the 
 librarie begun by that good Biihop of "Jeru- 
 
 faletn, 
 
 {a) II, E. I 'vi, cap. 20, 
 
54 HippoLYTus. Book L 
 
 ^'^' fakm. Nor is it impoffible, that fome of j 
 vSr^ thefe works might be lodged there by ^kx- 
 ander in the life time of Hippolytus. 
 
 As this writer's works were evidently well 
 known in the Eaft, fo a noble monument 
 ere<5ted to his honour near Rome feems to 
 Jdc a proof of his fame in Europe. Of this 
 I muft now give a fliort account. In the 
 year 1551, was dug up in the neighborhood 
 of that City a marble monument, with the 
 image of a venerable perfon fitiug in a 
 chair. Here likewife are engraved in Greek 
 letters Cycles of 16 years. Though there 
 is no name remaining upon this monument, 
 it is generally allowed to belong to our Hip- 
 folytus. 'Tillemont (;^) fays, no body doubts, 
 but this Canon is his. 
 
 Upon this monument there is likewife a 
 table of tides of divers works. Some of them 
 are the fame with thofe mentioned by Eiifebe^ 
 and yerojiie : others are titles of works, which 
 they have taken no notice of. Beiide others, 
 all which are not equally legible, here are 
 »thefe: Of the Pythonejje: Of the Gofpel of 
 yohn^ and the {c) Revelation : ^gainji (d) the 
 
 Greeks, 
 
 (h) As before p. i o 
 
Cli.XXXV. HippoLYTus. gg 
 
 Greeks, and a gain ji Plato, and alfo of the Uni- ^- ^' 
 verfe : an exhortation to Severina : which may u^v'sji 
 be the Epiftle to a certain Queen mentioned 
 by Theodoret : Hymns upon all the fcriptures. 
 
 The late learned John Albert Fabricius has 
 given us a very valuable edition of the re- 
 maining Works and Fragments of Hippolyfus» 
 But as there are feveral things afcribed to him 
 without ground, and the pieces which are 
 thought by ibme to be his, are fuppofed to 
 have been flrangely interpolated j I fliall now 
 obferve, as I promifed at the begining of 
 this chapter, the judgements of divers learned 
 men upon them. 
 
 Dodwell fays: ** The {e) name of that 
 ** BlelTed Martyr has been fo abufed by im- 
 ** poRors, that it is not eafie to diflinguifh 
 *' what is his. Nor can I fee how that mo- 
 ** nument, wherein fo many of his matters 
 ** are recounted, could be erected in the age 
 ** wherein he fuffered." That is very right : 
 it could not be ereded immediatly after his 
 fuffering?. But I fuppofe it cannot be que- 
 ilioned, that this monument is of great anti- 
 quity. However, if there were any reafon to 
 think, that this monument was not eredtedj 
 
 till 
 
 {e) See Mr. Dod'well in his diJcQurfe concerning the ufe <^ 
 Zncenfe in Diiiine Offices, p. 107, 
 
H I p p o L Y T u s. Book L 
 till fome centuries, (though a few only,) after 
 the death of Hippolytus j this would much 
 weaken the authority of the catalogue of his 
 works engraved upon it: And it might alfo 
 help us to account for the differences between 
 that Catalogue and thofe in Eufcbe and Jerome, 
 Poffibly the compofer of the Catalogue upon 
 the Monument confounded two perfons of the 
 fame name, and afcribed feveral of the works 
 of both to one. 
 
 Mili^ who muft be allowed a good judge 
 in this matter, having (/) defigned to publifh 
 this author's works, and (g) having made large 
 preparations for it, exprelTes himfelf to this 
 purpofe in his Prolegomena to the New Tefta- 
 ment : " That (h) Hippolytus left behind him 
 *' many works. But the pieces extant under 
 ** his name are in a manner all fpurious, ex- 
 " cept perhaps the treatife of Antichrift^ which 
 " Combefis will have to be genuine." 
 
 Grabe in his notes upon Bifliop Bull'^ 
 
 Defenfio Fidei Nicenae fcruples to infifl upon 
 
 any 
 
 (/) Hanc [A/cTijo-xaAjatv IttoAiJtk] ex codice MSS. eruit, 
 et cum reliquis Hippol) ti operibus propcdiem editurus eft Joan- 
 nes Mill. . . a quo certiora de Hippolyto ejufq; fcriptis ex-- 
 peftamus. Ca-o. H. L. P. i. p. 69. 
 
 (o-) l^id Fabric. Hippolyt. in Praef. init. 
 
 (Jj) Scripfit alia baud pauca Hippolytus. Quae autem fub no- 
 mine ejus feruntur, fpuria fere funt, excepto forfan tradlatu de 
 Antichrillo, quern pro genuino venditat Combefifius. Mill, 
 froleg. n, 655. 
 
Ch. XXXV. H I p p o L Y T u s. 97 
 
 any pafTages in the trcatife Of the End of the A- ^' 
 world, and Antichrijl, and the fecond com- [y\^\i 
 ing cf our Lord J ejus Chrifi : or in the other 
 treatife, entitled A Dcmonfiration concerning 
 Chrifi and Antichrifi : affirming, that (/) both 
 thefe pieces are interpolated, efpecially the 
 former : and that he has good reafons for this 
 affertion, which he promifes to fhew more 
 fully in another place. 
 
 The BencdiBin Editors of St. Amhrofe% 
 Works exprefs them fclves, as ifthey(,(') thought 
 all the works oi Hippolytus entirely loft. 
 
 Du Pin (/) fays, the treatife of Chri/l and 
 Aniichrifl is more ancient than the other, of 
 the end of the ivofdd, &c. But he thinks, that 
 even that is not worthie of Hippolytus. Of the 
 book againfl: Noetiis, Du Pin fays, that though 
 it is not really the v/ork of Hippolytus, it con- 
 tains the principles of the ancients concerning 
 the dodurine of the Trinity. TiHemont (m) 
 H thinks 
 
 (/) Rellqua certiora qiiidem funt, attamen non omni pror- 
 fas dubio carent ; quod utrumque Hippolyti fcripcum, maxi- 
 me prius, interpolatum effe videatur, ut in dido fpicilegio plu- 
 rib'is demonftrabo. Grabe ap. Bull. Def. Fid.hiic. Cap.%. p 95. 
 
 {k) Duobus memoratis Patribus infbper alios duos additJHie- 
 ronymus, Didymum . . . ., et Hippolytum M irtyrem. Sed 
 cum hujus opera Wmporum iniquitate perierint, quod Hiero- 
 nymi adjiciamus teftimonio, nihil habemus, Praefat, ad S, 
 Ambrof. op. p. penult. 
 
 \l) Du Pifi. Bibl. WppoUfe. 
 
 (/?.') 7}//. Mem. £, 'L 3. P. it, /. 16. 17. 
 
220 
 
 58" H I P P O L Y T U S. Book L 
 
 A. D. thinks it probable, that the forementioned 
 book again ft Noetus, which we now have, is 
 a fragment of Hippohtiis's work againft Here- 
 Jies^ and the conclulion of it. And it appears 
 to him undoubted, that it was writ bv fome 
 author of the third centurie, the fentimentg 
 concerning the Trinity being (o agreeable to 
 thofe times. 
 
 Cajimire [n) On Jin thinks, the Fragment 
 of the work concerning the Univerfe, with 
 the Fragments in T^hcodorefs Dialogues, all 
 we have remaining of this Martyr's-works. 
 
 Mr. Whifton fpeaking of Hippolyfus fays r 
 ** We {0) have, I believe, one fmall genuine 
 " treatife of his flill extant, De Antichrifio^ 
 *' publifiied by the very learned Combefa : 
 *' to which is added a very fmall piece De 
 " Siifan?ia^ which, with his Pafchal Cyck, 
 " feems to be ail that is really his." 
 
 The treatife of Chrifi and Antichrijl was 
 iiril: publiihed by Gudiin in Greek^ and af- 
 terwards by Coinbefis with a Laii?2 tranlla- 
 . tion. 
 
 Bafnage 
 
 (») Opinatus, hoc ferrne unicum e\' omnibu? Inijus martyris 
 operibus fupereiTe, cam fragmentis a!iis, quae Theodoretus in 
 Dialogis refert. Oudin de Script or. Ecc. F. i. Col. 228. 
 
 (0) SteEjfay on the JpoflolicalConjl. chap, it/, or, Piiviitiv^ 
 Chrijlianity revived, Fol. 3. /. 402-. 
 
220. 
 
 Cll. XXXV. HIPPOLYTUS, 99 
 
 Bafnage is not unwilling to allow this ^- D. 
 laft (p) mentioned pi.ce to be the real and 
 genuine work of Hippolytus mentioned by 
 Phofius. 
 
 For a more particular critique upon the 
 feveral works of Hippolytus I would willingly 
 refer my readers to T)u Fin and Tlllernont. 
 
 And if I may at laft deliver my own opini- 
 on, I would fliy : though fcarce any of them 
 are altogether fincere and uncorrupted, there 
 are few, of which fome good ufe may not be 
 made by a man of candour and judgement. 
 
 Pear [on ( q ) being of opinion, that the 
 Apoftolical Conflitutions were compofed in 
 the fourth or fifth centurie out of divers 
 fmall pieces called DoSfrines^ or InJiitutionSy 
 faid to be writ by Clement^ Jgnattus, Hippo- 
 lytiis and others, fuppofes that a large part 
 of the eighth book of the Conftitutions con- 
 fills of a like piece afcribed to WppoJytuSt 
 What ground there is for this fentiment, 
 may be feen in Pearfon himfelf and others 
 H 2 who 
 
 {f\ Extant hodie dune de Antichrifto homiliac fub nomine 
 Hippolyti. Prior titulum habet De Conjummatione Mundi, et 
 
 Antichrijlo : Poftc-ior De Antichrijlo Ac pofterior qui- 
 
 dem elt Hippolyto longe dignior : nobifq; ea infidet fentcntia, 
 quod ilia ipla eil, de qua mentionem movit Photius. Bajnag, 
 Ann. 2 2 2» «. X, 
 
 (f) ^^^^' Psar/on, Vind, Jgnat, Part i, cap. iv. 
 
100 tl t t' P O L Y T U S. Book I. 
 
 (r) who efpoufe it, or have examined it, I 
 apprehend, that if the compofer of the Con- 
 flitutioqs did borrow from Hippolytus^ it is 
 neverthelefs impoffible for us now to deter- 
 mine with certainty, what is his. And 
 therefore I think I may defer the farther con- 
 lideration of this opinion, till I come to fpeak 
 diftinclly of the Conftitutions, which I fee 
 no reafon to do as yet. If my memoric 
 does not fail me, there is no notice taken 
 of this matter by Du Pin, of Tillemonfy 
 or Oudin, in their hiftorie of Hippolytus and 
 his works. Either therefore they were en- 
 tirely ignorant of it, or they did not think it 
 worthy of their regard. One of the Titles 
 upon the forementioned Monument is (s) 
 The Apofiolical T^rad'ttion concerning gifts of 
 the Spirit. And it has h^^n argued, that 
 this means Hippolytus'^ Didafcalia or Inftitu- 
 tion, fuppofed to be now inferred in the 
 eighth book of the Conftitutions. But all 
 that Mr. T^ilkmont fays of that 'Title is, that 
 
 probably 
 
 (r) Vid. Grahe Spic. Pair. T. i. p. ^'i^. ct p. 2B4. 285. Fa- 
 hric. Bib. Gr. T. f. p. 208. Hippoht, ex ed. Fabric, p. 248. 
 &c. Ca-v. Hiji. Lit. in Hippolyto. Mr, Robert Turner s Dif- 
 coi'.yfe of the pretended Apofiolical Co'/iftitutions, ch, 24. 
 p. 287. ^c. 
 
Ch.XXXV. HIPPOLYTUS. IQI 
 
 (fj probably It is fome book writ againfl the ^- ^• 
 Mo?2tani[ls. C/V^ 
 
 Mill in his edition of the New Tefta- 
 ment, a work of prodigious labour, and ex- 
 tenfive ufe, and above all my commenda- 
 tions, prefixes to each book of that facred 
 Volume Teftimonies of ancient Chrijlia}% 
 Writers. And before the four Gofpels are 
 fo many Teftimonies under the name of 
 Hippolytus. Two of thofe teftimonies or 
 palTages, thofe pie fixed to St. Matthew's 
 and St. yckns Gofpels, are taken out of a 
 little book entitled, Of the xii Apoftles ; 
 The other two, prefixed to St. Mark's and 
 St. Ltikes Gofpels, are taken out of another 
 little piece, (though undoubtedly fomewhat 
 longer than the former) entitled. Of ih? 
 Ixx or Ixxii Difeipks. And among the te- 
 ftimonies prefixed to St. Johns Gofpel, that 
 called Hippolytus' s is placed between Ck??ie?it . 
 of Alexandria and Origen : which might 
 well difpofc fome perfons to think, that the 
 Hippolytus hereby intended is our Hippclyttis 
 of the third centurie: though it is now well 
 H 3 known 
 
 [t) Outre ces ouvrnges cette table marque encore un ecri^ 
 De dons [da Saint E!prit ;] De la Tradition Apoftolique ; 
 c?'4 de la Tradition Apollolique fur les dous ; apparcniment pout 
 refuter les Montauiitcs. tiliemorit, M. E.T. 3, P. z. p. 15,- 
 Saint m^polyti. 
 
I02 H I P P O L Y T U S. Book I. 
 
 A. D. known to the learned, and univeifally agreed, 
 that our HippoJytus is not the author of 
 thofe two pieces, but that they were compo- 
 fed by Hippohtus Thebajius in the tenth or 
 eleventh centurie. or by feme other late 
 writer. So that I thought I had no reafon 
 to take any notice of either of thefe pieces j 
 in my account of Hippoly tits'?, works. Nor 
 (hould I have done it now, if I had not 
 accidentally caft my eye upon one of 
 thofe Teftimonies in M/'./'s New Teftament : 
 which I think are very improperly placed, 
 and might miflead fome perfons. They are 
 indeed of little or no value. In the book 
 or catalogue of the feventy Difciples it is 
 faid of the Evangelifls Mark and Luke^ 
 " That they two were of Chriji's feventy 
 *' Difciples, and that they were difperfed by 
 " the word Vvhich Chrift fpoke : {u) TJnlcfs a 
 ** man eat my fiejio and drink viy blood he is 
 ** 77ot worthy of me. But the one being 
 *' brought back again to Chrifl by Petcr^ 
 *' and the other by Paul, they both had the 
 *' honour to write a Gofpel, [or to preach the 
 *' Gofpel] for which they iuffc;red martyr- 
 " dom J one bi;ir!g burnt to death, the 
 
 *' other 
 
 {ti) See John vi . 5 3 aud 66. 
 
Ch.XXXV. H I p p o L Y T u s. 103 
 
 ** other crucified upon an olive tree." But A. D. 
 fuch flories as thefe deferve no regard, unlefs 
 they were to be found in fome writings un- 
 queflionably ancient. 
 
 That every one who needs it may have full 
 fatisflidion concerning thefe pieces, I f!;:iall 
 ■place in the margin the judgements of two or 
 three learned men upon them, particularly 
 (w)Ca-ve and {x) JDu Fin: which laft learn- 
 ed writer fays, thefe pieces contain divers fidii- 
 ons of the modern Greeks. Fahriciui in his 
 account of our Hippolytus, called Fortuenjis^ 
 gives (y) a large catalogue of his works, with- 
 out mentioning either of thefe : and after- 
 wards in his article of the later Hippolytiis^ 
 H 4 ' cllled 
 
 (iy) De xii Jpnjiolis, uh'inam qui/que praciUcarll, et confum- 
 matus fit, Indiculus. Hlppolyto'J iiniori -potius trihuendus . Ca--ue 
 de Hippolyto Portuenfi. Hifi. Lit. P.i. p. 70. Hippolytus, pa- 
 tria Thebanus, quern cum Hippolyto Portuenfi male confim- 
 dunt nonnulli, claruit circa Ann. 93 V • • . Huncetiam, ut vi- 
 detur, audorem habet Indiculus de xii Jpojhlisy iub Hippolyti 
 fenioris nomine Gr. L. a Combefifio edittjs. id. ibid. 
 <p. 580. . 
 
 [x) Le petit Opufcule de la vie de douze Apotres, et de 
 leurs aflions, que le Pete Combefis a fait imprimer . . . n' ell 
 point d' Hippoiite, et conticnt plufieurs fiftions des nouveaux 
 Grecs, touchant la mcrt des Apotres. On doit porter le meme 
 jugement d'un livre ecrit a peu pres fur un meme lujet, attri- 
 bue au meme auteur, touchant les Soixante et douzc Difciples 
 de Jefus Clirift. Du Pin, Bib. Hippoiite. 
 
 [y] Vid. Fab, Bib. Cr. L. <v. Cap i. § 25. T.'v.p, 203. . . 
 2U. 
 
I04 HippoLYTUs. Book I. 
 
 A O. called Thebardis. he fays, that (z) both thefe 
 220. 11. 
 
 O'-v-N^ books are to be accounted his. 
 
 In what is here faid it is not intended to 
 
 caft any refledion upon Mill^ for whom I 
 
 . have a profound refpe6t. The greateft men 
 
 upon earth are liable to fome overfights amidft 
 
 the labours of fuch a work as his New Tefta- 
 
 ment. 
 
 His Tejit- I. Having now at lengtli, I hope, cleared 
 S/iy. T.^^^ way, I proceed to reprefent this author's 
 tefiimonie to the books of the New Tefta- 
 ment. And I iliall make my extracts chiefly 
 out of the Fragments of Hippohtus^ preferved 
 in Theodoret^ yvhich are unquedionably ge- 
 nuine. Thefe alone, bear tefiimonie to the 
 Gofpels, and to many particular and principal 
 fads recorded in them, and to divers other 
 books of fcripture. Befide thofe fragments I 
 may alfo make fome ufe of the Demonftration 
 concerning Chrijl and Aniichrifl, the fragment 
 of the treatife of the uni'verje^ and the book 
 
 again ft Noetus. 
 
 II. Jheo- 
 
 {%] Sed et opufculum, quod de xii ApofloHs fub Hipj-olyti 
 nomine . . laudat Cotelerius. . . . atnue integrum vulgavic cum 
 verfione fua Combefifuis . . . et quae de Ixxii Difcipulis ha- 
 bet BarGiiiiis . , • • ex Hiopolvti 'Ihebani vhronico petita vi- 
 dentur, Fabr. ib.p. ziz. 
 
Ch XXXV. H I ? p o L y T u s. 105 
 
 II. Tkeodoret then exprefsly quotes Hippo- ^- D. 
 lytus Biiliop and Martyr, as faying in his ^X-^ 
 Epiftle to a certain Qiieen : " Therefore hei C'lr.xv. 
 " (a) calls him the firjt fruits of them that q^i -^ ,g^ 
 *' flept, and the fir/i born from the dead: who £^'^- ^ 5- 
 
 - 1 Ml' /I John XX. 
 
 *' being rilen, and wilhng to Uiew, that what 22. 
 
 *' had rifen was the fame that had dyed, his f"^' '''''''• 
 
 39* 
 *' difciples doubting, he called Thomas to him, 
 
 *' and faid : Handle me, and fee ^ jor a fpirit 
 
 *' has not JlefJ:) and bones ^ as ye fee me have^ 
 
 Hippolytus here cites the Gofpels inaccuratly, 
 
 and, as is probable, by memorie only. But 
 
 that we here have his words right, we are 
 
 farther afTurcd by another place of Theodoret : 
 
 where he has quoted again [b) this fame paf- 
 
 fage, juft as it is here. 
 
 III. Prefently after the forecited pafiages 
 Theodoret quotes another from the Difcourfe 
 oi Hippolytus upon Elkana and Hanfiah^whcvQ 
 the firft epiille to the Corinthiajis is quoted 
 
 again 
 
 ^jv kv 7liTo'j Aiyet rcaV ; ertofy.iiy.-.vc-ji', ATi '■u^p(^jli7oy.oi' rZv vi- 
 
 ap. "theodoret. Dial. z. p. 88. B. T. iv. 
 [b) Dial. 3 p.iSS' D. 
 
5 o6 H I p p o L Y T u s. Book L 
 
 A. D. again in this manner : *' As (c) the Apoftle 
 
 ^_^^>,.-x^ " fays: For Chriji, God, our pajfover is facri- 
 
 ^^'"'''-7''' feed for mr 
 
 The Four jy^ jf is worth the while to take fome 
 more palTages of Hippolytus^ cited prefently 
 after bv Theodoret^ out of the Difcourfe upon 
 the great Hymn, as he calls it, and other pieces. 
 *' They [d) who ^o not acknowledge the Son 
 " of God incarnate, fliall acknowledge him, 
 '* when he comes as judge in glorie, even 
 ** him who now is abufed in an inglorious 
 " body. I'he fame author in the fame Dif 
 
 Luh " courfe : For the Apoftles coming to tlie 
 " fepulchre on the third day, foimd not the 
 " body of fefus : as the children of Jfael^ 
 " when they went up to the mountain to 
 <' feek the grave of Mofcs^ found it not. 
 '* T^he fame author in his Comment arie upon 
 ** the fecond PJalm : He coming into the 
 ^^ world appeared to be God and man. His 
 " Humanity is eafily perceived, when (e) 
 *' he hungers, and {/) is wearie, and (g) be- 
 ing 
 
 (c) Sli AToroAof hiyet' to <f e ■nrAiT'/^a, )i//.»y VTTSp vi^ecy ixi^V 
 VPi5"o< Qi'oi- ibid. Dial. 2. p. 88. C. 
 
 (d) Oj ^-ctf rh viov 7s ©s» h(ya.fiKov ij-vi I'rriyivcotrKovli?, 
 
 eiJ'o^cpacviJ.ccli. CCfi^'oiJ-H'ov. ib. p.Sg. A. B. 
 
 (e) Matth. iv. 2. (f) John iv. 6. 
 {g) Job?: iv. 7. or ch. xix. 28. 
 
 XXIV. 3. 
 
Ch.XXXV. H I p p o L Y T u s. 107 
 
 «* ing wearie thirfts, and (b) fearing flees, A. D. 
 ** and (/) praying is lorrowful, and [k) fleeps 
 " upon a pillow, and (/) deprecates the cup 
 ** of his pafiion, and [m) being in an agonie 
 " fweats^ and is Jirengthened by an angel^ and 
 *' {ji) is betrayed by Judas, and (0) infuhed 
 *' by CaiaphaSj and fet at nought (pj by 
 " Herod, and (qj fcourged by Pilate, and 
 " {rj derided by the foldiers, and fsj is falt- 
 " ened to the crofle by the yews, and cryi^ig 
 " 'wiih a loud voice (t) commends his fpirit 
 *' to the Father, and (ii) bowing his head 
 *' giveth lib the ghojl, and (w) his fide is 
 *' pierced with a [pear, and (x) being wrapped 
 " if! fine linen he is laid in a fepulchre, and 
 " (y) ori the third day is raifed by the Father. 
 " His Divinity alfo is clearly perceived, whea 
 " (z) he is worshiped by angels, and (a) vi- 
 
 " fited 
 
 [h) Matlh. ii. 13.14. xii.14. {>■) Matlh. xxvii. 27. 
 
 I ^. yohnlv.T), and other places. Mark'nv. 16. Luke xx^{\\. 36. 
 
 (/) Matth.xwi. IJ. yohnx\x.z. 
 
 (/■) il/rtr/;-iv. 38. [s) Mrt///^. xxvii. 35. 
 
 (/) Mattb.xxvi. Markx'w. {t) U;kex\n. /^6. 
 Luke xxn. (u) yo^/xix. 30. 
 
 {m) LukexxW. 43. 44. [av] . . . ver. 34. 
 
 («) Matth. xxvi. and other [x) Matth xxvii. 59. 60. 
 
 Go/pels. Mark XV. 46. Luke xxiii. 53, 
 
 {0) Maith xxvi. 61^.. .; 'Johnx\x. A.O. 
 
 (/)) ir//(f xxiii. 1 1. {y) Jtlsx.j^o. 
 
 iq) Mailh. xxvii. 26* (2) Z-w/f^ii. 1 3. 14. 
 
 yjtn xix. I. [a] vcr. 15.16. 17. 
 
io8 HiPPOLYTus. Book r, 
 
 fited by the {hepherds, and (h) expected 
 by Simeo?2j and (c) receives teilimonie from 
 Au?ia, and {d) is enquired for by the Wife 
 *« Men, and (e) is fliewn by a ftar, and (f) 
 " when he turns water into wine at a wed- 
 *' ing, and (g) rebukes the fea violently agi- 
 " tated by the winds, and {h) walks upon 
 " the fea, and (i) gives fight to a man blind 
 " from his birth, and (k) raifes Lazarus 
 *' who had been dead four days, and performs 
 " various works of power, and forgives (/) 
 ** fins, and (m) gives power to his difciples." 
 
 Much the fame things are found again in 
 the lad chapter of the book againft Noetus, 
 And, if I miftake not, this pafTage mightily 
 anfwers the charadier, which Photius gave of 
 this writer's ftile j that {ji) it is concife, or 
 free from fuperfluities. Here are references 
 to all the four Gofpels. And many things are 
 mentioned, which are recorded in each of 
 them. • 
 
 V: In 
 
 {h) Luke ii. 25. (0 John ix. i. . . 7. 
 
 (f) ver. 36. 37. 38. {k) Johnx\.^r\6.\\\.i-j. 
 
 {(i) Matih.ii. 12. (/) Mattbix. 2.6. 
 
 {e) ... .ver. 2.9. Mark ii. 10. LtckewW. 48. 49. 
 
 (f) John ii, 1. . . . I C. (w) Matih. X. I . 
 
 (g) Matth. viii. 26. Markm. 15. vi. 7. Luke'iX. 1. 
 Markiv. Luke vni. X. 19. xxiv. 49. 
 
 (h^ Matt/y. xiv. 21;. z6. Johnxx. zz. zy 
 
 Marks'i. 48. 49. Johnv\. 1 9. 
 
 (»; KjX/ d-Trifirloi. Phot. Cad. 121. Col. 301, 
 
Ch XXXV. HippoLYTus. 109 
 
 V. In other pafTages oi Hippolyfus, cited by A. D. 
 Theodoret, is notice taken of the birth of yefus uA^ — > 
 at (0) Betbkhemy of a Virgin and the Holy Spi- lulliC' 
 rit : where he mufl refer to the firfl chapter 
 
 of St. Matthews or St. Luke's Gofpel. 
 
 VI. He may be fuppofed to refer to ABsAas, 
 X. 40. in thofe words before cited : On the 
 third day is raifed by the Father. He may be 
 reckoned hkewife to have an eye to the firft ' 
 chapter of the ABs^ and to chapter xxvi. 23. 
 when in a palTage, preferved in T^heodoret (p) 
 
 he fpeaks of Chrijl's afcending at PentecoH:, 
 and of his being the firft that afcended into the 
 heavens. I fiippofe, it cannot be doubted, but 
 Hippolytiis received the A5ls of the Apofiks. 
 Befide what is alleged here, this may be alfo 
 argued from what was before cited from Fho- 
 tins : That Stephen (b) Gohar obferves, what 
 
 opinion 
 
 (0) O cTe ;tt,'/).'oj di'oii/.ctf}ii]oi riv, \y. rxv aa-iWleov ^v\cjv To 
 xetT^- avSpco'TTOv, tbt' iTtv Ik tTh <^(x.fbkv^ kc/.I t» a.yi>i -T^viv y.oi!oi 
 , . . Ayt J'ii fv.oi, CO Sa^ou«A, Si? Eh9a5£jW khKoyivm t>)v eTiz- 
 IjlaK.v, b'cc iTTicf'it^yii Tov kii AoiCsS" (iao'tKix tikIoimvov. . . EiTre 
 {Mi, a y-Oi^cap'ta, Mupiu, 71 iiv to l'tto ctb «v tm Kothia, (XvveiXtiu- 
 
 (y-ivoV, KOU 71 W 70 VTTO (tZ iV 'T^-apSil'iX.ii [mW^A ^ClTOi^'oiASVOV i dp 
 
 neodoret. Dial. i. p. 36. B. C. D. ' 
 
 (/') 'Ev J^« T>f -z^ei/lnvos-M, ha, 'srpo(ytiiJi.imi7tiv tuv ipa.vZv^a.o'i- 
 XUetv, «UTof 'TTfuTOi bii ipoivii dvciCaf, Kxi 70V AvSpa'TTOV S'upov 
 70) 0ia 'zr^otriviyy.a.i. ap. Tbeodoret, Dial, ii. /. 88. C, 
 
 (b) Sie be/ore, /. 88. 
 
no HippoLYTus. Book L 
 
 opinion HJppolytus had of Nicolas one of the 
 feven Deacons. 
 
 PauPs VII. It may be alfo reckoned undoubted, 
 
 Ep'.ftles. .... . , 
 
 Hebrews, that he received thirteen epiltles of St. Taul, 
 and mofl; other books of the New Teftament : 
 but the epiftle to the Hebrews he did not allow 
 to be St. Pauh, as (c) wasobferved foraierly. 
 But we (hould have b en glad to have (een 
 his arguments and rea(onings upon that mat- 
 ter, if he made ufe of any. 
 
 Catholic VIII. His opinion of the difputed catholic 
 Epiftles, that of James^ the fecond of Peter^ 
 the fecond and third oi Joh?2^ and the EpiHle 
 of 'jiide^ doss not appear very manifeft from 
 his remaining works or fragments : where 
 fcarce any of thefe are quoted, except that 
 there is (^) a reference to 2 Pet, i. 21. in the 
 book of Cbrijl and Antichrijl, 
 
 Revela- JX. The book of the Revelation was re- 
 ceived by Hippoljtiis^ as the Apoftle yohris. 
 About this there can be no queftion made. 
 yerotne in the catalogue of his works mentions 
 one entitled^ Of the Rei'dcition. One of the 
 
 titles 
 
 (C) See p. 86. and 8g. 
 Iq) Hifpolyt. ^/.. /. 5. 
 
Ch.XXXV. HIPPOLYTUS. Ill 
 
 titles upon the monument before mentioned 
 is. Of the Gofpel according to John, and the 
 Revelation. Mill thinks, {r) that this was 
 a defenfe of both thefe books of fciipture : 
 which is perfedly agreeable to the defcription, 
 which (rr) Ebedjefu gives of one of the works 
 of Hippolytus^ and undoubtedly meaning this. 
 We faw formerly (d) a reference to the Reve- 
 lation in the fragment of the treatife of th 
 JJniverfe. It is largely quoted in the Demon- 
 Jlration concerning Chrifi and Antichrift. Here 
 it is fiid, " That (s) John faw the revelation 
 " of tremendous myfteries in the ifle of Pat^ 
 ** mos^ which he alfo made known to others." 
 He is here called blejfcd Jchn, Apo(ile and 
 Dijciple of the Lord : and again, Prophet [t) 
 and Apofile : Prophet, no doubt, with regard 
 to this book. Andrew of Cefarea^ about the 
 year 500, in his Commentarie upon the Keve- 
 
 lation 
 
 (/•) Cum hoc, inqnam, vidifiet Martyr, necelTarium duxit, 
 S, Joannis operuni vindicias agere. Mill Proleg. n, 654. 
 
 (rr) Sanftus Hippolytus martyr et epifcopus compofuit li- 
 brum de dirpenratioiie : . . et Apologiam pro Apocalypfi et 
 Evangelic Joannis Apoftoli et Evangeliftae. Ebedjef. Catalog, 
 Lib. 'Syr. cap. 'vii. ap. JJJem. Bib. Or. 7". 3. p. 15. 
 
 (d) Ch. xxxii. at the end. 
 
 ficov 
 
 Akyz //(/{ y.AKcip.i lativw, d'x'o^oKi xui //tf9«]aTK xvp'm, it kiS'a 
 xai mioTcci '?3-ipi BoiCvXZ'.'oi. De Chr. et Ant. § 36. p 18. 
 (0 hiyeiyv^Q 'rsfo<f{w]iY.xiA'!r(i7oKoi< ib, § 50. p. 25. 
 
112 H I p ? o L y T u s. Bdok L 
 
 A- D- lation feveral times mentions our author's in- 
 220. • 
 
 ^^<Y>J lerpretations oF things recorded in that book. 
 
 Andrew "6 paiTiges are colleded by {11) Fabric - 
 
 cius, and may be feen in his edition of Hip- 
 
 polyfus. 
 
 Hefpea, X. The refped' for the facred fcriptures 
 Tots^ni- ^PP^^^S) ^" ^'"*^ Demonfiration concerning Chrijl 
 Scriptures, and Autichriji. At the begining of that work 
 the author tells Theophilus^ to whom he writes, 
 *' That [iv) in order to give him inllrudion in 
 *' the things, about which he enquires, he 
 " will draw out of the facred fountain, and fet 
 *' before him from the lacred fcriptures them- 
 " felves what may afford him fatisfl^.dion." 
 He then quotes immediaily boihPjz^/'sEpiflles 
 to Timottie^ and afterwards niany books of the 
 New Teflament. And near the conclufion of 
 the fame work, he fays: *' Two different (x) 
 ** advents therefore of our Lord and Saviour 
 " have been flievvn out of the fcriptures : the 
 " firfb inglorious in the flefh, the other glori- 
 
 " ous." 
 [u] P. 34. 3=:- 
 
 [I'j) BaAu9i-J]of era Kaj-''diy.(i[Cea^iK[JL<x.^eivra.'mfcolS'<i{\(x, doi 
 VTT 5//« >Li.2)'jKct,a, dyny.-TTi'iJi //K otS'shQi Qi'opiAB, ivXoyov iiyn- 
 ffa.[j.i]v a(pS'ovai d^vaaiJ-ivot or, £^ ayia.i 'T^nyTn, i^ dyic-jv yfo,- 
 (fa>v 'zsrixpoi^'iiffu.i aol xar' op'^a.Kuov rd ^yiTt[xivx. De Chr. et 
 Ant. § I. 
 
 (:ir ) ''^i.'j-TT'i^yu.'^S'vo T^xp^itJioii tZ y.vpia xa,} ac-jltipii mm«!v J'm 
 
Ch. XXXV. HIPPOLYTUS. tl^ 
 
 «* ous." He mentions this divifion of all the ^ ^* 
 
 220 
 books of facred fcripture ; (y) the Law^ PrO- >w— y->^ 
 
 phets. Go/pels J ajid Apofiles, 
 
 XI. Dr. Mill has oblerved (2;) fotiie read- ^'"7''' 
 ings in this book different from our prefent 
 copies. I {hall take notice of but one, i Tim. 
 ii. 2. the [a) things which thou haft heard of 
 me in many difcoiirfes : inftead of among many 
 witnejjes. Mill thinks this to be an explica- 
 tion only, and not a true reading. 
 
 I have no occafion to fum up this Tefli- 
 monie. It is eafie to fee in thefe numbers^ 
 what it is. 
 
 (y) Ea-tpiXwitv Xv kocJcc tsravlot., \y ixnS'm aCix^avoi tm stAw- 
 64/ot ivp^aKouivoi, y.im Kocla rov v'oy.cv ■ ■ , [xh-n K<xla tkj 
 •zirpopnAi . . . /t/tj^E Y.oi]a. t>iv tcov Ivcx.yyO'^ieov ipuvtiu . . . /y.nrs 
 Toii aTTo^'cKoli '7s-et%f/Avot. lb. § 58. 
 
 (z) Prol. n. 655. 656. 
 
 ih. § ?'. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
*Si,i 
 
 xsm^^m^^^MM^ 
 
 CHAP. XXXVI. 
 
 AMMONIUS. 
 
 I. AMMONIUS: His Hijlorie^ and 
 7eJiimonie to the Books of the New 
 Teflameni, II. Qu. Whether t a- 
 T I A N 's and A M M o N I u s'j Har- 
 monies are now extant f III. Rx- 
 traEis out of a Latin Harmonie^ 
 afcribed to i kiih.'t^, IV. ExtraBs 
 cut of a Liatin Harmonie^ afcribed 
 
 to AMMONIUS. 
 
 ORPHTRIE in his work which 
 he wrote againft ihtChriftianSj as cited 
 jmmomus:\^y Eufebe^ fays of Ammonius^ the celebrated 
 rie, &c. philoropher of Alexandria^ mafter of Ploti- 
 7ms ^ and other eminent men, " That (a) 
 *' having been educated a Chnfiian by 
 ** Chriftian parents, as foon as he came to 
 *' years of underftanding^ and had a tafte of 
 
 « phi- 
 
 (a) AfJ-iJ-icntiOt [xh yup P(^f/r/ai'&< ev Xfi^ietvoit tfCalfapf/V 
 
 -rc/j yonvaiv, on t« pfovSc jy r^i <piXoao(p'i(Xi m-^'olo, fcfot/f 
 
 £. I. vi, cap. 19. p. 220. B, 
 
Ch. XXXVI. AMMONius. iij; 
 
 *' philofophie, he prefently betook himfclf a. d. 
 
 ** to a life agreeable to the laws." To (^'VNJ 
 
 which Enfehe fays, " That [b) it is a noto- 
 
 " rious fahliood, to fay he exchanged Chrifti- 
 
 ** anity for Gentilifm : for Ammonius main- 
 
 " tained fincere and uncorrupted the doc- 
 
 " trine of the divine philofophie to the end 
 
 ** of his lifcj as his works which he left 
 
 *' behind hira ftill teflify, and for which he 
 
 ** is in great repute : as the treatife entitled, 
 
 " Of the confent of Mofes and Jefus, and 
 
 *' divers others, which may be found with 
 
 " the curious." 
 
 After Eufehe, St. 'Jerome in his book of 
 Illuftrious Men writes to this purpofe \ *' At 
 *' that time [the perfon laft fpoken of is 
 *' Origen'\ Ammonius an eloquent and very 
 ** learned man was famous at Alexandria : 
 " who among many excellent monuments of 
 ^* his wit compofed alfo an elegant work of 
 I 2 " the 
 
 Ka\oi T«v GfofTiC'eiatv, «Ti 70^ s^WiJcsu TpiTot/ kK-Trsaew .... 
 
 lot, )y MXf'^ i^imi Ta /3j8 cT/i/^tniif TzXivlni' coi t-< «J 
 01 r avS'poi eitmt vvv (/.gcfjup^ai tir'ovo/, cTi uv K0i['iK\,7r% 
 
 }y oaot oAXot 'S-x^a loii '^:f^oy.i>^oii iv^Viflxi. lb. p. 330. 
 
 jD. 221. ^. 
 
1 1 6 A M M o N I u s. Book L 
 
 the Confent of Mojes and Jefus^ and [c) 
 invented the Evangelical Canons, which 
 Eufebe of Caefarea afterwards followed. 
 " This perfon is fallly reproached by Por- 
 *' phyrie^ that of a Chriflian he became a 
 " Heathen : when it is certain, he continued 
 *' a Chrijiian to the end of his life.'* 
 
 And to this day it has been the general 
 opinion of learned men, \\\2.\. Ammonius SaC' 
 cas, the celebrated Alexandrian philofophef, 
 and the author of thefe two Chrijiian works, 
 as well as of other pieces upon the fame 
 principles, are one and the fime perfon. 
 *Tillemont (d) fays, he does not fee that any 
 one doubts of it. But that manner of expref- 
 lion feems to (hew, that he himfelt had 
 fome fufpicion to the contrarie. And (e) 
 Fabricius has openly called into queftion 
 this fuppofition, and I think, demonftrated 
 beyond difpute, that they are two different 
 perfons. I fliall only obferve, that Porphy- 
 
 rie 
 
 \c) ... et evangelicos canones excogitavit, quos poflea 
 fecutus eft Eufebius Caefarienfis. Hunc falfo accufat Por- 
 phyrius, quod ex Chriftianis Ethnicus fuerit, cum conftet 
 cum ufque ad extfemam vitam Chriftianum perfeveraffe. De 
 V. I. cap 55. 
 
 {d) Nous ne voyons point que perfonne doute qu'Ammone 
 auteur de la Concorde ne foit le meme que le philofophc 
 Mem. !r. 3. P. 2. Animone. Note z. p. 390. 
 
 {e) Fabric. Bib. Gr. T, iv. p. 160. l6l. 172. et /eq 
 
Ch. XXXVI. AMMONius. 117 
 
 rie w^s nearer Ammonius Saccas than Eufebe : 
 that he could not but be well informed by 
 his mailer PhtinuSy who fpent (f) eleven 
 years with Ammonius, And befidcs we are 
 alTured by Longinus^ another difciple of Am- 
 monius Saccas, that he never wrote any thing. 
 This may be fufficient to fatisfy us, that the 
 writings, of which F^ufebe and St. yerome 
 fpeak, are not to be afcribed to Ammonius 
 Saccas, I have no occafion therefore to add 
 any thing farther relating to the hiftorie of 
 that Heathen philofopher, as one would think 
 every one mufl allow him to be, who reads 
 Porphyrie's life of Plotinus, 
 
 Who Ammofiius was who compofed thefe 
 Chriftian books, and continued a Chrijlian 
 all his days, cannot be now certainly known. 
 Eufebe has mentioned one of the fame name, 
 a Prcfbyter (g) of Alexandria, who fufFcred 
 martyrdom in the Dioclefian perfecution. 
 And one might be apt to think, that this 
 was the man, if Eufebe had not been of a 
 different mind. However, it may be argued, 
 that St. Jerome had fome reafon to thiiik his 
 I 3 Am-r 
 
 (f) Porphyr. ds Fit. Plotin. cap. %. Confer atur ConfpeBus 
 Chronologicus vitae Flatini apud Fabric. Bib. Gr, lib. i-v. 
 fup. i6. itiit. 
 
 (g) Euf. i.'viii. cap. 13. /. 308. C, 
 
AMMONIUS. Book I. 
 
 Ammonlnsjoxx^^^x. than Origen^ fince in the 
 Catalogue he is placed after him : which 
 would be improperly done, if he was fatisfi^ 
 ed, that he was tr>e fame Ammonlui {h) who 
 was Origens mailer in philolbphie ; and 
 who was plainly fomewhat, though not a 
 great deal older than his fcholar. Accord- 
 ingly Origen is placed by Cave at the year 
 ^30. and Ammoniiis at 220. It might be ad- 
 ded for fupporting this conje(fture, that in the 
 titles of the chapters of St. yerome\ Cata- 
 logue, Ammoiiim is called Prefbyter : and 
 by Eufebe, and 'Jerome^ and every body, the 
 author of this Harmonic is called an Alex-^ 
 mdrian. All which confiderations might lead 
 us to the Alexandrian Prefbyter and Mar- 
 tyr of this name, if Eufebe's opinion upon 
 the point did not lye as a bar in our 
 way. For it may be reckoned fomewhat 
 probable, that if the author of the Harmo- 
 nic had been his contemporarie, or had lived 
 very near his own time, he muft have known 
 it. I therefore fpeak of Ammonius^ the au- 
 thor of the Harmonie, at the year 220, 
 where he is placed by Cave^ without pre- 
 
 fum- 
 
 {h) Vid. Eufeh. ih. L 'Vt. c. \^. p. Z20. B. zz\. B. C, 
 
Ch. XXXVI. AMMONIUS. iig 
 
 fuming to determine his time : though I A. D, 
 differ from him, and moft other learned men, , ^^^" 
 in thinking, that he is not the fame with 
 Ammonius Saccas, 
 
 We have feen two writings afcribed to 
 u^mmoniuSy The Confent of Mofes and Jefus^ 
 and Evangelical Canons, as St. Jerome calls 
 them. The former is quite loft. Of the 
 later we have this farther account in anti- 
 quity. Eufebe himfelf in his letter to Gzr- 
 pian fays, " That Ammonius (/) of Alexa?!- 
 " dria had left us a Gofpel compofed out of 
 ** the four with great pains and labour, fub- 
 ** joining (a) to Matthews Gofpel the con- 
 I 4 *^ fonant 
 
 Vixv K) <r'3ra«r«v eVa;3/H0%cyf, To S'la. Ttaaa[>iio]i n'MV KOcla.\iXoi' 
 Tsv iuoiy),iX.cv, t5 kclIo. M«t9^/oi/ Toii oiJ.o^clvni tZv KoittZv 
 ioocyyeXt^uv 'T^spiKoTrdi 'mocfafyui . . . iK tb 'zs-ovriy.oilof ra 
 
 ya J^kxoc Tov £Jp/9//ov J'li'xafx^cl. (toi tbj C-jojilAyiu-iVni' Eufeb, 
 Ep. ad Carp. 
 
 (a) Subjoining Sic."} According to Mr. U^etjleiti's interpre- 
 tation of the original words, I fhould have tranflateJ after 
 this manner : Setting o'ver againji Mattherv's Gofpel the pa- 
 rallel SeSlions, &c. For he fays : Codex Latinus exhibet qua- 
 tuor Evangeliflas in unum conflatos : Ammonius autem qua- 
 ternis columnis quatuor Evangeliflas dillindte defcripferat j 
 haec enim ell vis verbi 'sra.fziiiU, i. e. juxta Matthacum re- 
 liquos appofuit. Frokgom. cap mi. p. 67. But Eujehe ufes 
 that verb barely for alleging^ fuhjoining, putting dvzvn, and 
 the like : Thus : refi'of, « (^uvki nS'ii •uyfojspov <7?-a.pocliQeifix,t, 
 jt. A. H. E. I. 3. cap. z8. init. So likewife Origen: YloKu 
 ^i. \rt vvv -arapajifleaflstj tS inpOiKXiccfos lot f»1i/', k- A. Com. lit 
 Job. Totn, \\. p. 2\i. D. Huet. 
 
I 20 A M M O N I U S. Book I. 
 
 !>• A. <f fonant paiTages [or fedions] of the other 
 ^r^'^^ *' Evangehils . . . and that taking occafion 
 ** fioiu the work of the forementioned wri- 
 *' ter, he had compofed in another method 
 " ten canous in numberj, which are there 
 «* fubjoircd." 
 
 St. Jerome in his preface to the four Gof- 
 pels exprefTith himfelf thus of this author. 
 <* I have alfo put {k^ down the Canons, 
 " which Rujebe Biiliop of Ccfarea difpofed 
 *' into ten numbers, following y^mmonm of 
 " Alexandria." 
 
 Cajjiodorius {!) afcribes the canons to Eufe5e, 
 without mentioning Ammoiiius, 
 
 ViSioroi Capua fays : " I have {in) under- 
 *' flood, that Ammonius of Alexandria, who 
 *' is alfo faid to bs the inventor of the Evan- 
 ^? gelic Canons, joiqed the pafTages of the 
 
 " three 
 
 (/J) Canones quoque, quos Eufeblus Caefarienfis epifcopus 
 Alexandiinum lequucus Airimonium, in decern nunieros cr- 
 dint.vi% ficut in Graeco habentur, expreffimus. Hieronym. 
 Fraef. in iv. Ei'a!:gelia. 
 
 (/) Eufebius quoqae Caefarienfis canones evangelicos com- 
 pendiofa brevitate collegit. CaJJlador. de injlii. Divin. Lit, 
 cap. vii. 
 
 {f») Reperi Ammonium quendam .Alexandrinum, qui ca- 
 sionum quoque Evangel ii fercur inventor, Matthaei Evange-; 
 lio reliquorum trium excerpta junxifFe, ac in unam feriem 
 cvangelium nexuifle. Sicut Eufebius epircopus Carpiano cui- 
 dam fcribens, . . . fupradifti viri imitatus Itudium, refert in 
 iiunc modum. FifL Cap. Fraef. Sec. apud Biblioth. MaXo 
 h'.igdun. Tom. 3. p. 265. 
 
Ch. XXXVL A M M O N I U S. 121 
 
 " three [other] Evangelifts with Matthew, 
 " and compofed a Gofpel in a continued 
 " feries of narration. Eufebe in his epiftle 
 ** to one Carpian in the preface to his edition 
 ** of the forementioned canons profeffes to 
 *' have imitated the defign of that per- 
 «* fon/' 
 
 Zacharie of Chryfopolis in the 12th cen- 
 turle, who wrote a Commentarie upon the 
 Gofpel of the four, fuppofed to have been 
 compofed by Ammonius^ expreffes (n) him- 
 felf much after the fame manner. But I 
 do not think it needful to tranflate his words. 
 
 Upon the whole, though St. 'Jerome fays, 
 that "Eufebe followed Ammonius^ and even 
 reckons the Evangelic canons among the 
 works of Atnmcnius', they may have been 
 properly Eufebe'% invention, whilft yet the 
 Harmonic of Ammonius had been the occaiion 
 of that thought : which, I think, is all that 
 Eujebe\ words import. And his account of 
 his own work may be juflly reckoned the 
 mofl: authentic and exadl. 
 
 All 
 
 (») Unum ex quatuor Evangeliftarum c3i£lis Evangelium 
 clarq ftudio com pofuic Ammonius Alexandrinus, qui canonum 
 quaque Evangelii fertur inventor. . . Zachar. Cbryfop. Praef, 
 ijp. Bib I. Patr. Max, Tom, 19. /i. 741. H. 
 
122 Of tatian'j and Book I» 
 
 A. D. AH that I have faid of Ammonins is only 
 
 2 20. 
 
 Ky^r^j to {hew, that there was fuch a work, called 
 HtsTejii- ^ Qofp^i of the four, or a Harnionie of the 
 
 piome to ^ 
 
 thN.T. four Gofpels, compofed before Eufebe^ time 
 by fome learned Alexandrian^ named Ammo- 
 7iius. The teftimonies here alleged afford full 
 proof of this matter, and leave no room to 
 doubt of it : though we do not know exadtly, 
 who this Ammonim was. This is fatisfad:o- 
 rie evidence, that there were four authentic 
 Gofpels,, and no more, in ufe in the church. 
 And this work is likewife a proof of the zeal 
 of the Chriftiam for thofe writings, and of 
 their care about them. 
 
 Whether JJ. But bcforc I conclude this chapter I 
 ctJ'^Jm- ^^^1 proceed a little farther. For this may 
 monius's j^g rtckoncd a fit opportunity for examininsj 
 uies are two Harmonies of the Golpels, which we now 
 ianiT ^^^ ^^ Latin J the one afcribed to T^atian ia 
 the fecond, the other to Ammonius in the 
 third centurie. What the mod ancient wri- 
 ters have faid of Tatian^ Harmonic, has been 
 obferved (b) formerly : as now, what they 
 have faid of that compofed by Ammonius, 
 Whether either of thefe is now extant, is 
 
 IlQt 
 
 (b) /W. /. chap. 13. p. 307. < .309. 
 
220. 
 
 Ch.XXXVI. A M MO N I u s V Hannonks. 123 
 
 not abfolutly certain. However, I iliall A- D 
 take notice of the judgements of feveral 
 learned moderns upon thofe we have, and 
 then make fome remarks upon each of 
 them. 
 
 Cave is not unwilling (6) to allow, both 
 the harmonies of thefe two learned ancients 
 to be flill extant : only he thinks, that 
 fometimes called Ammoniui^^ ought to be 
 reckoned Tatian's'. as on the contrarie, that 
 the other fometimes called ^atians, ought 
 to be given to Ammonius. 
 
 Mill (p) thinks, the (hort one, which is 
 the fame Cave fuppofes to be Tatians^ 
 cannot be really his : but is rather an epitome 
 of the Gofpels compofed by fome learned 
 Catholic writer long after Tatian^ in the 
 fifth centurie. But the Harmonic of Am- 
 monius he {q) fuppofes to be flill extant, 
 which is the larger of thefe tvi^o we now 
 have in Latin, And here he and Cave a- 
 gree. 
 
 Mr. Jo, James Wetjlein (r) thinks, there 
 is now no where one copie extant of Ti/- 
 
 tiariz 
 
 [0) Cav. HiJ}. Lit. P. 2. in Ammonio. 
 {p] Prolr^om. in N. T. num. 353. -vid. ct «. 35 I. 352- 
 (y) Id. ibid. n. 660. . . 666. 
 
 (r) Prolegom, ad Njv. Teji. Graeci edit. AccuratiJJlmam'. 
 f. 65. 
 
220. 
 
 124 0/" tatianV and Book I. 
 
 A. D- iian\ Harmonic, of which Theodoret faw fo 
 many. Nor will he (j) allow the other to 
 have been ccmpofed by AmmGnius, but 
 thinks it the work of fome writer fince 
 EuJebCy for which he offers divers reafons, 
 Valefius {t) is of opinion, that the fliorter 
 Harmonie, called Tatians, is the work of 
 fome Catholic Chrifiian^ and therefore not 
 his. I fliall confider his arguments prefently. 
 Thefe are the judgements of moderns. 
 
 VtBor of Capua, when he had found that 
 which is the fame with our larger Harmonic, 
 took it for {u) Tatian^^ though indeed [w) 
 he was not pofitive. However it is very 
 probable, he was miftaken, fince it has 
 the genei^logies. Zacharie beforementioned 
 commented upon the lame Harmonic, as 
 Jhnmoniui^^ and took it for granted, that 
 'Xatians (x) was quite Iqft. But herein he 
 
 might 
 
 (j) Ibid. p. 66. 6j. 
 
 [t) Valef. Not. ad Eufeb. I. iv. cap. 29. 
 
 {u) Tatianus quoque . . hoc evangelium (ut mihi vlde- 
 turl folerti compagimtione difpofuit . . . Aibitror enim 
 propterea non Ammonii, fed hujus [Tatiani] efle editionem 
 memorati volutninis . . . Viflor. Praefat.ap. Bib. Pair, T 3. 
 p. 266. J. 
 
 (<Lu) Utjure ambigi poffit, utrum Ammonii an Tatjanj in- 
 ventlo ejufdem opens debeat aeftimari. Ibid. B. 
 
 [x] Sane hujus haerefiarchae [Tatiani] fi fupereflet opus 
 evangelicum, quodfandi J uftini lateri adhaerens fortaflis expli- 
 
 cuit^ 
 
Ch.XXXYl. AMMOi^ lu s' s Harmomes. 1 25 
 miffht be miftaken : it might be extant, A. d. 
 though he did not know it. And we v^y^^ 
 have been lately aflured by Dr. j^ffeman, 
 that [y) T^atians Diateffaroit, or Gofpel of 
 the four, is now in the Vatican Librarie, 
 in the Arabic Language. It is one of the 
 books, which he brought out of the Eafl. 
 I wiih vve had a more particular account of 
 that Arabic Diatejfaron: though the Greeks if 
 it could be found, would be a much greater 
 curiofity. 
 
 Valejius (z) has three arguments to prove, 
 that the (hotter of our two Harmonies is not 
 Tatia7is : That Tatiaii^ Harmonie was com- 
 pofed in the very words of the Evangelifts, 
 leaving out only our Lord's genealogie from 
 David, which plainly is not the method of 
 our Harmonie : That in the work we have, 
 Chriji is more than once called the/on of Da- 
 vid ^ 
 
 cult, in eo Domini Jefu verba diiigenter amplefli, fecure le- 
 gere ovibus vocem cognofcentibus, nil prohiberet. Zachar. 
 ap Bib. Patr. T. 19. p. 742. J. 
 
 {y) Tatiani Diaieffarou, len, Quataor Evangelia in unum 
 redada : infol. Bemhyc. 123. AJfeman Bib Or. T.i.p. 619. 
 
 (z) At Ev'.ngelium Tatiani ii^fifmet Evangeliftarum verbis 
 contextum fuit, refedis duntaxat iis quae ad jDavidicam Chri- 
 fti genealogiam fpedant. Praeterea in opere illo quod editum 
 eft, Chriltus filius David dicitur non femel. Deniqae tres an- 
 ni pr:.edicationis Chrifti in illo opere diltinguuntur : cum vete- 
 res annum dumtaxat unum praedicationi Chrifti UJbuerint* 
 Falejiui in notis ad Euf, H. E, I. iv. cap. 29. 
 
126 Of TAT J Aii^s and Book ti 
 
 A- O- njid, which Tatian had nothing of in his £)/- 
 220. 
 \a^^\/>^ ate[jaron: Laftly, that here our Saviour*s 
 
 miniftrie confifts of three years, whereas the 
 ancients allowed it no more than the fpacc 
 of one yean 
 
 As for the firft difficulty ; I know of no 
 good authority we have for thinking, that 
 Tatians Harmonic was compofed in the very 
 Words of the Evangelifls. The third ob- 
 jedlon I hope to anfwer in my remarks up- 
 on this work and extrad:s out of it by and 
 by. But the fecond argument infifled on 
 by Valefim is of confiderable weight. For 
 ^heodoret's words are, that (a) latian m his 
 Dicitejfaron left out the genealogies, and every 
 thing elfey that Jhews our Lord to have been 
 born oj the feed of David according to the 
 fefh. And if Theodore fs words are to be 
 underflood ftridly, that Rattan not only 
 omitted the genealogies which (hewed our 
 Lord's defcent from David, but alfo all 
 thofe places of the Gofpels where 'Jefus is 
 fpoken of occafionally as the Son of David^ 
 I fee no way of anfwering this difficulty. 
 
 Other- 
 
 [a] '^Ovloc x«? </^/a Ti(T(Tc'f>eoV KctX'^yAvoV (TvyliQetyiv Ivayyi' 
 Aid', rati ysviSiXoyict'; 'srifuKo^a.f, Kui to. sjAAot oo'Oc. tK CTrt^- 
 
 ^heodoreU Haer. Fab. L. i. caj>. 20. 
 
Ch.XXXVL AUMOt^ws' s Harmonies, 
 Otherwife, there are feveral things very 
 favorable to the fuppofuion, that this is 
 ^atians Harmonie. It has an air of polite- 
 nefle in the ftile and method of it> even in 
 the Latin tranflation: which fuits Tatian 
 Well enough, who, as Eufebe fays, kad (b) 
 the affurance to alter fome words of the 
 Apofile Paid^ and correSi the compofition and 
 order of his file. It anfv/ers the defcrip- 
 tion which T^heodoret gives of Tatiatis per- 
 formance, in two refpeds : It wants the ge- 
 nealogies, and is very compendious. There 
 are here alfo fome marks of antiquity, as 
 may appear hereafter. And from Dr. Afe- 
 man I learn, that DionyfMS Bar-Salibi, Bifhop 
 of Amida in Mefopotamia^ in (b) the 12 th 
 centurie, who v/as well acquainted with [c) 
 Ephrem% writings upon the Gofpels, writes 
 (cc) in his preface to St. Mark's Gofpel^ 
 
 ipeaking 
 
 (b) See before Vol. i. p. 507. 
 
 {b) Vid. JJfeman. Bill. Or. T. 2. p. zro." 
 
 (c) Dionyfius Barfalibaeus, c Jacobitarum fefla, Amidae in 
 Mefopotamia epifcopus in i'uis commentariis in Evangelia faepe 
 laudat Ephraemi commentaria in textum Evangeliorum; d<; 
 quibus in Praefatione in Marcum fie loquitur. Jjfem. 7.i. cap. 
 vi.p.^j. 
 
 (cc) AHud ab Ammonii et Tatiani DiatefTaron agnofcit 
 [Bar-Salibaeusi fol. i^o, Eliae nimirum Salamenjli Syri, de 
 quo in praefatione in Marcum cap. 9. Tatianus Jufiini mar' 
 tyrii ac ph'tlofophi difcipulus, ex quatuor Enjangeiiis unum digejjiti 
 Httnc librum S.Ephrafm commfmariis i}luJira'vit,cuJHS initiiimf 
 
 In 
 
128 Of ThTik-iiCs and Booklk 
 
 fpeaking of Tafian'^ Diatejjaron^ " that St^ 
 " Ephrem wrote commentaries upon that 
 " work, the begining of which is : In the 
 " begining'was the word: " which are the firft 
 words of our (horter hatin Harmonic. 
 
 This muft be of confiderable importance 
 to Tatiatty if it may be relyed on. I fay, if 
 it may be relyed upon. For, as we in this 
 part of the world have been puzzled about 
 thefe two Harmonies, and each by turns has 
 been afcribed to Tatian and Ammoniiis-y fo 
 it is very poffible, that Eaftern writers like- 
 wife of late times may have made miftakes 
 in this matter. Ebcdjefu Bifliop of Soba, who 
 flourifhed (d) at the later end of the 13th 
 centurie, in (e) his Catalogue, confounds Ta- 
 tian and Ammoniui^ making both one. How- 
 ever this teftimonie of Bar-Salibi is of the 
 more weight, in that he appears to have 
 known both thefe authors and their works. 
 
 For 
 
 In principio erat Verbum. TJias Salafnetijis, ^ui et Aphtonius, 
 E'vangelium confecit injiar m'i Dialtjjfaron Amtnonii, cujus jne- 
 ininit Eufebius in Prologo ad Canones E'vahgelii. Nam quum 
 Elias illttd Dtatejjfaron quaefiijfet, nee in'venijjety aliud ipji 
 jimile e labor a'vit. AJfem. T. z. p. 159. 160. 
 
 (d) Fid. AJem. Bihl. r, i p. 538. 539. et T. 3. /. 3. 
 {e) Evangelium, quod compilavit vir Alexandrinus Ammo* 
 nius, qui et Tatianus, illudque Biateflaron appellavit. Ebeit- 
 Je/u in Catalog. Libr. Eccl. cap 3. apud J£em. Bib. Qr.T.^, 
 
 /. 12. 
 
22d. 
 
 Cli,XXXVL AMMo:<i lu s' s Harf^^onles. i 29 
 For Dr. JlJJema?! has obferved, that (f) Bar^ A. d. 
 i\////^/ in his Commentaries upon the Gof- «. 
 pels quotes the Harmonies of Tatian and Arn- 
 inoniiis. This then may be reckoned very 
 honorable to 'Tatians Harmonic. For if 
 Ephrem wrote Commentaries upon it, it may 
 be argued that it was not fo contemptible, or 
 fo heretical, as fome have thou2;ht. 
 
 This will be of fome ufe to lefTen the 
 force 'of an objcdlion of Dr. Mill : who fays, 
 that fg) Tatian vyas a Valentlnian^ and there- 
 ibre fuppofed our Lord's miniftrie to have 
 been but of one year's duration, whereas 
 this Karmonie has three years. So difFerent 
 are mens ways of arguing I It feems it was 
 a herefie in the Valentlniam to allow but 
 one year to Chrijl\ miniftrie. And yet Vale^ 
 J/us fays, all the ancients computed no more. 
 But to anfwer Mill only at prefent. Fir/ty 
 it is not certain, that Tatlan was a Valenii- 
 nian^ when he compofed his Dlatiffaron, 
 Secondly., fuppofmg him to have been then 
 
 K aF^- 
 
 (f) Praeter Ephraemiim vero . . . auflores hi ab ipfo citan- 
 tur : videlicet, . .. Ammonii, et Tatiani Diateflaron, Fol. 30. 
 JjJ'iman. ib. Ion. 2. cap. 3i. ^. 5 18. vid. quae lupra not. (rr), 
 
 (g) Accedit, quod tres annos praedicadonis Chrilti diftin- 
 guu; cum Valentiniani, e quorum numero erat Tatianus, 
 annum unum duiitixat Chrilti praedicationi tnbuerint. Mill, 
 ProL n 352, Conf. B a/nag. A. 29. 11. xxvi. 
 
Of TAT I anV and Book L 
 
 a Valentlnian^ he might not have embraced 
 every notion of theirs : or, they may not 
 have been all of the lame opinion. It is - 
 now thought by many, tliat the ancient Ca- 
 tholics allowed but one year to Chrifl*^ mi- 
 niftrie. But yet fome plainly computed- 
 three palTovers in it, and reckoned it an er- 
 rour, or a herefie in the Valentiniam to fay, 
 it laded only one year. At left this was 
 Iraeiieus^s opinion. 'Jlnrdl\\ Rphrem's Com- 
 mentaries afford a conGderable argument^ 
 that Tatiaiis Harmonie was not compofed 
 upon the Fdlentmian Scheme. So far in an- 
 fwer to MilL 
 
 And I do not know, whether thefe Com- 
 mentaries may not alio afford us fome help 
 with regard to the difficulty, which I have 
 before acknowledged to be fo confiderable. If 
 it were true, in the ftric^left ienfe of 'Theodorefs 
 words, that 'Tatian had left out every thing 
 that fliewed ^ejin to be the fon of Davids 
 k his hard to conceive, that Ephrem fhould 
 have taken fo much notice of him. More- 
 over, 'Thcodoret owns, that this book was 
 made ufe of by a large number of Catho- 
 lic Chrijliam^ as a compendious work. As 
 for his laying afide the copies he met with,^ 
 
 and 
 
Cli. XXXVI. AMMONiusV Harmonies. 
 
 and putting the four Gofpels in their room: 
 let Tatia?i\ Harmonie be ever fo good, he was 
 in the right to take care that it did not fupply 
 the place of the four Gofpels. 
 
 There may be then fome room to fup- 
 pofe, that ^atian\ Harmonie was not fo de- 
 fedive or fraudulent as feme have thought. 
 If it had been compofed throughout upon 
 the Valentlnian^ or any other heretical fcheme, 
 one would think that Barfalibi (hould not 
 have faid, that Rphrem wrote Commentaries 
 upon it : but rather, that he had writen a 
 Confutation of it. And poffibly the bare 
 name of the author made fome people 
 think worfe of the work than it defcrved. 
 But Ephrem, as it feem?, was not entirely 
 governed by prejudice. 
 
 However, it ought to be owned, that 
 Gregorie Bar-Hcbraeiis, otherwife called A^ 
 biilpharagius, who fiouriflied in the 13th 
 centurie, fpcaking of the Harmonie nfed by 
 Ephrem, calls it -I- ^mmonhiss of AIexa?i^ 
 K 2 dria. 
 
 ■J Idem teftatur Gregorius Bar-hebraeus, vulgo Abulpliara- 
 gius, epifcopus Tagritenfis, in libro qi;cm hon-cum vtxjlcriorum 
 infcriplit, quo totam facram iciipturarn bieviiTirnis iiotis dilu- 
 cidat : ubi Praefatione in Matthaeum fic de F.phraemo fcribit : 
 Eufehius auteffi Caefareenjii indens conu^tclaa, quas Ammonius 
 j^lexandrinus, in Evangelium Diatefi'aron tiuncupatum^ indux- 
 
 eratg 
 
1312 Of T atia-r'' s and Book 1 
 
 A. D. (Iria. But then he plainly means the fame 
 ^S^^J^ Harmonic, that Bar-Jalibi does : for he fays, 
 it began with thofe words : 7;z the begining ■ 
 ivds the IVord : which agrees with our lefTer 
 Harmonie. And I think, it may be faid, 
 that Bar-falibi's tefiimonie is the more va- 
 luable of the two, becaufe he appears to 
 have been acquainted with both thefe Har- 
 monies, and fpeaks more like a man of un- 
 derftanding in this matter, than Bar-hebraeus. 
 And, if we are not enabled hereby to de- 
 termine, whofe Harmonie this is i v/hether 
 Tatian?,^ or Ammoniusi \ yet we gain a ma- 
 terial point, the antiquity of oar lelTer Har- 
 monie, which feem.s now to be rendered un- 
 quedionable from thefe teflimonies to E- 
 phrems Commentaries upon it in the fourth 
 centurie. Thus Milh opinion, that it was 
 not compofed before the fifth centurie, is 
 quite overthrov^n. 
 
 With regard to Ammcnlui^ Harmonie, I 
 would obferve two things: F/r/?, tha6 I 
 queftion, whether we fully underfland Rii- 
 febe\ defcription of that work. We read him 
 
 with 
 
 erat,cujus imfliim, InPrincijrio erat Verbam, quodSandus £- 
 plnactn dilucida'vit ; quatiior midem cvangelia, ut intextu, per- 
 feBa integraque reliqui! : I'erba 'uero, quae in ipjts cotifentiunf, 
 cofnmuni ca7:o7:e notaxit. Aficman; Bib. Or. T. i. cap. vi» 
 P- ^7- 58- 
 
Ch.XXXVI. AMMonw s^s Harmomes. 
 with preconceived notions taken from Har- 
 monies and Evangelical Canons fince com- 
 pofed, with v/hich we are bed: acquainted : 
 "Which may caufe fome to miilake 'Eufebe^ 
 jiieaning, whofe words I do not well under- 
 ftand. At leil; I am not fully fatisfied a- 
 bout his meaning. And I had rather fiif- 
 pend my judgement, than determine poli- 
 tively in a doubtful point. Secondly^ It is 
 very probable, that this work has been in- 
 terpolated, fince it was firft compofed. Nay, 
 the very form of it may have been in fome 
 meafure altered. If I miilake not, thefe two 
 obfervaticns may v/eaken feme of the ar- 
 guments made ufe of by Mr. Wetjlein, and 
 other learned men, to prove, that our larger 
 Harmonie is not the work of Ammonius. 
 
 After all, i am not politive of the genij- 
 inneiTe of either of thefe Harmonies. I am. 
 neverthelefs fomevvhat inclined to think, that 
 the lefler may be Tatiafi?,^ for the main 
 part : and the larger, in like m^umer, Am- 
 inofiiuss. But I do not think, that either of 
 them is fmcere and uncorrupt. And conli- 
 dering, that v^e have no certain account of any 
 other ancient Harmonies, befide thofe two, 
 of Tatian and Ammonius : and that both thefe 
 K 3 appear 
 
134 ExtraHs oui of Book I. 
 
 ^' ^- appear to have been famous in every part of 
 i — ^^ the world, in the Eaft and Wcfl, and made 
 ufe of in many languages : I apprehend, that 
 every flight objedion ought not to be regard- 
 ed : and that they had need to be very good 
 reafons indeed, vi^hich fhall induce us to con- 
 clude, that the two Harmonies we now have, 
 which are plainly of great antiquity, are not 
 the Harmonies of Tatian and Ammonius^ or 
 at left remains of them. 
 
 Extraas III, I fhall now make fome remarks upon 
 ^aiian. t)oth thefe Harmonies, and in the firfi: place 
 upon the ihiorter of the two, which at prefcnr 
 is more generally called Tatiaii's than the other. 
 And I may likcwife call it fo fometirpes, for 
 avoiding circumlocutions, flill leaving every 
 one to judge as he fees fit of the real author. 
 
 I. Tatian's Harmonie then is a compen- 
 dious hiflorie of our Lord and Saviour ye- 
 fiis Ckrift^ taken out of the four Gofpels. It 
 confifts of four parts. Ths firll: is a kind of 
 introdudion, containing the hiftorie of our 
 Lord's nativity, and the former part of his 
 ,life: The three other parts are the three years 
 of our Lord's n:iiniRrie. 
 
 2. The 
 
Ch.XXXVI. tatian'j Ha7yno?iie, 
 
 2. The introduction is formed out of the 
 begining of St. yohns Gofpel, and the firft 
 chapters of St. Matthew and St. Lttkcy and 
 the begining of St. Mark's Gofpel. The 
 genealogies do not appear here. But he 
 plainly 'has the hiftorie in the firft chapter 
 of St. Matthew's Gofpel from ver. 21. to the 
 end : as well as that in Lzike chap. i. Our 
 Lord is conceived in the womb of a (b) 
 virgin. "jojeph is admonidied of it : is 
 brought to Bethlehem by means of the af- 
 feffment ordered by an edid: of Augufius^ 
 yofeph being of the familie of David. Here 
 yefus is born. Then follows the hiftorie of the 
 Shepherds, the Wife inen, the flight into Egypt 9 
 the flaughter of the infants, and other things 
 about that time recorded in the Evangelifts. 
 
 3, The author fays, that [i) the child Jefus 
 abode /even years in Egypt. This is a iingu- 
 larity. 
 
 K 4 4. In 
 
 [h) Cenli capltc funt turn forte 06lavi Augufli edi6to, om- 
 nes qui Romano parebant imperio : quum Jofeph Betlorum, 
 quae civitas erat David, ad quern genus referebat, fimul cum 
 virgine proficifcitur, ubi ilia partu foluta, enixa eft Jefum. 
 Euangeliorum iv. Harmonia Tatiano Syro auilore. Jp. Bib. 
 Pat. T. z. P. z.p. 204. B. 
 
 {i\ Crefcebat interea puer, et confortabatur fpiritu, conti- 
 nuum feptennium agens in .^Egypto ufque poll Herodis into.' 
 ritum. ib.C. 
 
ExlraSh out of Book I. 
 
 4. In the fame introdudion the author 
 mentions our Lord's journey to yerujalem2ii 
 the age of twelve years, his baptifm, fail 
 and temptation in the wilderntife, and other 
 things, which need not be infifted upon. 
 
 5. The remaining parts of this work con- 
 fift of the three years of our Lord's mini- 
 flrie. But though his miniftrie is here di- 
 vided into three years, I apprehend, that ac- 
 cording to this Harmonic, it confiils only 
 of tv/o years and a part. For the third {k) 
 year, in which our Lord die?, is not com- 
 pleat. The author therefore computed 
 three Palibvers in the Go'pels, at the lafc 
 of which Jefus fuffered. And that he rec- 
 koned no more, is farther evident hence, that 
 he does not fuppofe the fca/l of the Jews 
 mentioned John v. i. to have been Paflb- 
 ver, but Peniecoft, as he (I) aifo plainly 
 calls it. This is a mark of antiquity, mo- 
 dern harmonifcrs, who prolong our Lord's 
 
 miniftrie 
 
 (k) Et bae quiclcm re.^ g^rtae, finem fccimJo dominicne 
 pvaedicdtionis snno iinpoluei-e. Exuemiis annus dominicae 
 praedicationis idem iiii plane qui et vitae iifiis fuit. ihid. p. 
 207. H. 208. J. 
 
 [/) Contulit autena fc eo itinere Ilierofolymam ad folenv^ia 
 Pentecoi^es, iibi ad Probaticain pikinam expofuum duodeqiia- 
 draginca annoram languid'-ii-n, labbatho (aiiruia in modum (a&- 
 vientibus Pharifaeis) ianum fecit. /. 2o5. D. 
 
Ch. XXXVI. tatian'j Harmo72ie, 137 
 
 ininillrie beyond the fpace of three years, ■^- D. 
 generally reckoning this feaft, though with- 
 out any good reafon, a Pailbver. So Ire- 
 naciis [m) likewife computed thj'-ee Pajjbvers 
 in our Saviour's minlftrie. Orige?i too [?{) 
 fays, That 'Judas was not three years with 
 Jefus. It is true, he fpeaks in another place 
 of our Lord's having (0) preached only . a 
 year and fome 7nonths. B-it he may be re- 
 conciled by fuppofing only, that he thought 
 our Saviour's whole miniflrie w^as above tw^o, 
 but not quite three years, whilfl: the moil 
 public part of it did not confift of more 
 than a year and fome months. Which in- 
 deed I have long taken to be the truth, fo 
 far as I am able to learn it from a careful 
 reading the Gofpels. In St, yohn^ Gofpel 
 are three PaiTovers, and our Saviour's mini- 
 flrie has two years and a part : but the for- 
 mer part of his miniflrie there related was 
 . not fo public, as that after Johns imprifon-^ 
 pient. In the other three Evangelifts, who 
 
 relate 
 
 [i)i) Quoniam autem trin haec Pufchae tempora non funt 
 unus annus, quilibct confitebitur. hen. I. 2. cap.iz. p. 147. 
 ed. Mnjfuet. 
 
 [n) 'O S'i iKcToi? 'TTx^a. r(o iHiirK sJ^e Tpia. J^ii.T()i''\.iv '^rtf. 
 Contr. Celf. I 2.;>. 67. Ca7it. T. i.p. ^gj. F. Bened. 
 
 {p) 'Fi/zai/Toi/ ^tf'p Ta y^ [jy.vxi dhiyaf iS'U'cf.^i, De Prin^ip. 
 L iv, p. 160. Bencd. p. 4. Philoc. Cant. 
 
138 ExtraSis out of Book 1, 
 
 A. D. relate chiefly our Lord's mofi: public preach-» 
 .y^N^ ing (p) after yohn the Baptifl's imprifonment 
 is the hiflorie of only fomewhat more than 
 the fpace of one year ; how much more, is 
 not very ealie to fay. All which is much 
 confirmed by comparing them with St, 
 yohn. 
 
 • Since therefore the author of this Harmo- 
 nic does not compute three years compleat, 
 or more, in our Lord's miniftrie, the ob- 
 jedtion oi Valefms before mentioned is invalid 
 dated. And here is one mark of the anti- 
 quity of this Harmonie: it having been in 
 the fourth centurie, and afterwards, a com- 
 mon opinion, that our Lord's miniftrie con- 
 fifted of three years and a half: though indeed 
 even then that opinion did not obtain uni- 
 verfally. 
 
 6. But notwithftanding this author's jufl 
 notion of the duration of our Lord's miniftrie, • 
 it muft be owned he makes many miftakes, 
 and places divers adions and difcourfes of our 
 Lord at a wrong time. However, it be- 
 comes us not to be too fevere in our cen- 
 fures of this kind. There is a refped: 
 
 due 
 
 (p) See Maith, iv. 12. 13. Mark i. 14. Lu^e ni. 19. 
 
Ch.XXXVI. tatianV Harmo?2ie. 139 
 
 due to the firHs attempts in any part of A. D 
 knowledge. Nor are modern Harmonifts ^/VNJ 
 free from prejudged opinions. And I am 
 apprehenfive, that moft of their Harmonics 
 likewife had need to be read with indul- 
 gence and caution, as well as thofe of the 
 ancients. 
 
 7. Poffibly fame may be fo curious as to 
 enquire, at what time of the year did tl;is 
 author be^in our Lord's miniflrie ? and how 
 much longer than two years did he fuppofe 
 it to laft ? In anfwer to fuch enquiries I 
 would obferve, that [q) the firft thing men- 
 tioned by him in his account of the third 
 year of Chrlfl's miniflrie is his prefence at 
 yerufalem at the feaft of the Dedication 
 yohn X. 22. 23. . . . which feaft was kept 
 in the Jewifi month Cijleu or Cajleu, and 
 ufually happens fomc time in our month of 
 December^ and may fall out in November^ 
 Which affords fome ground for thinking, that 
 this author reckoned our Lord's miniflrie 
 comm-enced about that time of the year, and 
 
 lafted 
 
 [q) Extremus annus dominicae praedicationis, Idem illi plana 
 qui et vitae finis fuic. Deambulabat turn forte Jefus in por- 
 ticu templi Salomonis, in Judaeorum encaeniis, et cingebant 
 ilium Judaei, imnrobis conatibus ferme urgentes, ut palaiu 
 Chriftum fe effe iateretur. p. zo2. A. 
 
I4P Extra&s out of Book L 
 
 lailed therefore about two years and a half, 
 he having been crucified at the feaft of the 
 Paflbver. 
 
 And according to this notion of things, 
 we may digefl the hiftorie of John the Bap- 
 tiji's and our Lord's miniftrie in this man- 
 ner. Near the end of the fummer feafon, 
 harveft and vintage being over, or near 
 over, which was a time of general Icifure 
 yoh?2 began to preach and baptife. There 
 was foon a great refort to him, and multi- 
 tudes of people were baptifed by him 
 Lukenu in 'Jordan. And^ as St. hiike fays, Now 
 'when all the people were baptifed^ it came to 
 pafs, that yefus alfo being baptijed, and pray- 
 ing^ the heaven was opened^ and the Holy Ghofi 
 dcfc ended in a bodily fiape like a dove upon him : 
 That is, at the conclufion of that feafon of 
 baptifing, in November^ or fome time in the 
 month of December^ or perhaps in the be- 
 gining of yanuarie, yefus came and was 
 baptifed of yoh?i in y or dan : after which he 
 was led of the Spirit into the wildernefTe, 
 where he fafted forty days and forty nights, 
 and was temptecf of the Devil : enduring at 
 the fame time, befide other inconveniences, all 
 that extremity of cold which is ufual in that 
 
 feafon 
 
 ?I. 22. 
 
Ch.XXXVi. tatian'j Harmonie. 141 
 feafon of the year. The temptation being A. D. 
 
 ended, ^efm returned in the power of the Spi- 1 J-^^ 
 
 rit into Galilee : where he foon found An- {°/" ^^' 
 drew and his brother Simon, and Philip and 7°^^" i- 
 NathanaeL who all, uDon the teftimonie of 5 •••5^- 
 John the Baptift, and fonie converfation 
 with "J ejus, believed in him as the Chrijl': 
 and were the difciples, who had the honour 
 of the mod: early perfonal Jicquaintance with 
 jefus after the defcent of the Spirit upon 
 him. A few days after was a marriage feafl 
 at Ciina in Galilee, where yefns made the \N^-Johnn. i. 
 
 ■ ter wine. This was the begining of his 
 7niracles, and he thereby maiiifefled forth his 
 glorie. It follows: And the Jews pajjovcr ver. i^. 
 was at hand, and 'Jefus went up to yerifa- 
 lefn. This is the firft Pafibver in our Lord's 
 miniftrie. John the Baptifi flill continued 
 
 • preaching and baptifing. [See John iii. 23. 
 ... 36.] Before the end of this year John 
 was imprifoned, and Jefus had chofen the 
 twelve Apoftles out of the number of his dif- 
 eiples (d) that believed on him, and his moft 
 
 public 
 
 (d) ^>id it came to ^afs in thofe days, that he nvent out in- 
 to a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to 
 God. And 'ivhen it nvas day, he called unto him his difciples : 
 and of them he chofe fwelve, ivham alfo he named Apofiki, 
 Luke vi. 13. 14. 
 
142 ExtraBs out of Book I, 
 
 ^' ^- public minillrie was commenced. The fe- 
 cond Paffover of oar Lord's miniftrie is that 
 mentioned John vi. 4. And at the third 
 Paffover, mentioned by ail the Evangehfts, 
 he was crucified. 
 
 Thus had I been wont to digefl the hifto- 
 rie of the public life of JoJon the Baptijl 
 and our Saviour, as I colled:ed it out of 
 xh&GoJiyehy (agreeably, as I apprehend, to the 
 fentiments of the moft ancient Chrtjiian wri- 
 ters:) a good while before I had particularly 
 obfcrved the method of this Harmonie, 
 called Tatiaiis, 
 
 8. I would now obferve fome difputed 
 paffages of our Golpels. The author ap- 
 pears to have had in (r) his copies the 
 later part of the xvith chapter of St. Mark'^ 
 Gofpcl. 
 
 9. He has likewife the hiflorie [5) of our 
 Lord's agonie, as we now have it in Luke 
 xxii. 43. 44. which was w^anting in fome 
 ancient copies, as "we leara from (t) Hila- 
 
 rie^ 
 
 (r) P. 2 12. A. B. 
 
 (j) P. 2 10. D. • 
 
 (/) Nee fane ignoranduni a nobis eft, et in Graecis et Latlnis 
 codicibus complurimis, vcl de advenicnte angelo, vel de fudore 
 fanguinis nihil Icriptum lepciiri. Hilar. De Tiin. lib. x. cfip. 41 . 
 
220. 
 
 CIi. XXXVI. "VkTik^^s Harmonle. 143 
 
 rte, and (u) Jerome^ and {w) Photius : which ^- ^ 
 lafl intimates, that the omiflion of this text 
 was owing to fome Syrians. Mill {x) thinks, 
 they muft have been of the fedt of the Ja- 
 cohites. And Dr. Ajfeman (y) has particularly 
 obferved, that this text Is quoted by Ephrem 
 the Syrian. Epiphaiiius {z) likewife fays, that 
 thefe two verfes were in the ancient copies, 
 before they were corredled and altered by fome 
 over nice Catholics, who did not well under- 
 fland them. 
 
 ID. yohn V. 4. where is mention made 
 of the defcent of an angel, who troubled the 
 water at the Fool of Bethefda^ is another dif- 
 puted text, v/anting in fome copies. The 
 
 angel 
 
 {u) In quibufdam exemplaribas tarn Graeeis quam Latinis 
 invenitur, fcnbente Luca : Apparuit illi angelus de coelo con- 
 fbrtans eum, &^c. Hieron.adv. Pelag. I. 2. col. ^zi.m. Bened. 
 
 Kj 'Ts-cifXTrhmin; iis/y.alof Qp'ouCoii iJ'pcoTo.i i^iJ^fcoaii'. MtDtirt 
 tiv aoi T« iva.~j'}-BXiii rocTe to %«<'piov '7^ipiKiK'o(pQoii, vJ.v rial 
 
 TUV "S^VpcoV, &J £!^Hf, cToHeV iuTpSTS?, VOfXl^S. Phot.Ep. 138. 
 
 Ed. Montacnt. p. 194. Lond. 165 I. 
 
 (at) Mill. Proleg. n. 1036. 
 
 (y) In hoc hymno meminit Tanftus Doflor ianguinel fudo- 
 yis Chrilli in horto: Locus in quo fuda'vit^ coronam ipfi neSiat. 
 'Rx quo planum fit, verficulum ilium Lucae Cap, xxii. 44. 
 tamqaim genuinam evangelici textus partem a S. Ephraem 
 agnitum, ec in Syriaca Verfione dim expreffum fuiffe. -^ff^' 
 mmi. Bibl. Orient. T. i. p. 97. a. m. njid. et ib. h. infr. m, 
 
 (z) Epiphan, in Ancoratit §31. Confer. Mill, Prol. n,']()J^ 
 798. 
 
14.4- ExtraEis out of Book I. 
 
 A- D. angel is not mentioned (a) in this Harmo- 
 220. . . 
 
 %.y^^r^^ i^i^. But confidering the compendious me- 
 thod of it, I fuppofe it cannot be hence con- 
 cluded, that it v^ras wanting in the author's 
 copie. Kuflers obfervations relating to the 
 genuinnefTe of this text in his Preface to his 
 Edition of Milh New Tcftament deferve 
 to be coniidered. 
 
 J I. Here [b] alfo is the hiflorle of the 
 woman taken in adulterie. yohn \\\i. i. d . 
 II, The author does not take anv notice cf 
 cur Lord's Jiooping do'iv?!^ and writing with 
 bis finger on the ground, v. 6. 8. But it can- 
 not be hence concluded, that this was 
 wanting in his copies, for the reafon juft 
 mentioned. 
 
 12. This author often paraphrafes and ex- 
 plains. It is worth the while to obferve 
 fome examples. 
 
 S^iix. ^^^ ^°''^ %'' Matth.xv'u 28. Verily I 
 
 »• fay unto you^ There be fome fianding herc^ 
 
 27. ' which fiall not taft of death, till they fee the 
 
 Son of man coming in his kingdom. Our 
 
 author 
 
 {n) p. 206. D. See the words before, p. 136. note {/). 
 [b) P. 208. H. 
 
Ch. XXXVI. tatianV Harmonie. 145 
 
 author underftands this of Chrijl^s {c) ap- A. D. 
 pearing in glorie on the mount foon after ^/VXJ 
 in the prefence of three of his difciples. 
 And that appearance may be confidered as 
 an emblem of our Lord's future glorie, when 
 he lliall come with the angels to reward every 
 ojte according to his works : which is fpoken 
 of in the preceding verfe, and is not omit- 
 ted in (d) this Harmonic. But Grotius un- 
 derftands thofe words, of Chriji's refurrec- 
 tion, afcenfion to heaven, the miflion of the 
 Holy Spirit, and the propagation of the Gof- 
 pel by mighty figns and wonders, by which 
 as by mod certain and undoubted evidences 
 Chriji's advancement to his kingdom was 
 made known. However this writer is coun- 
 tenanced in his method of interpretation by 
 the fpeedie fulfilment of fome things fpoken 
 of by our Lord in the Gofpels. For ex- 
 ample : Our Saviour having faid to his dif- 
 ciples in the two lad verfes of the ixth 
 L chapter 
 
 [c) Sed quid ego, Inquit, vos moror ; quando ex hoc prae- 
 fenti coetu quidam funt, quibus majellas mea etiamnum vivis 
 palam reddetur confpicua ? Et interjedis fex ferme diebus, 
 plane contigit haec promiffio, praefcntibus in monte quodam 
 excelfo, Pecro, Johanne, Jacobo, difcipulis. p. 206. F. 
 
 {d) ContemptLim autem fe in humana fpecie, aliquando in 
 gloria Patris, inter angelorum agmina vifendum ait, quando 
 jus fit redditurus, et praemia cuique pro meritis, Sed quid 
 ego, jnquitj vos longius moror? &c. ^. zo6, F. 
 
146 ExtraSts out of Book J. 
 
 A. D. chapter of Matthew, T^he harTeJl truly is 
 
 2 2.0. 
 
 ,.^-v-w plenteous, but the labourers are few, Fray ye 
 therefore the Lord of the harveji, that he wilt 
 fend forth labourers into his harveft , it fol- 
 lows immediatly at the begining of the 
 next chapter x. i. ji?id when he had called 
 unto him his twehe dfciples, he gave them 
 poiver againft unclean fpirits, to cafl them oufy 
 and to heal all manner of fichieffe, and all man- 
 ner of difeafe. And after the names of the 
 twelve Apoftles it is faid v. 5. 6. Thejk 
 twelve fefusfent forth, and commanded them^ 
 faying. Go not i?jto the way of the Gentils, 
 and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye' 
 not : But go ye to the Isft Jheep of the hottfe 
 §f Ifrael, 
 
 13. In Lulie xix". 3. Zacchaeus is faid to 
 have been little of Jiature, This author calls- 
 •f* him a dwarf, 
 
 i;4. I faid jufi: now, that in this Harmo* 
 nie appears the hiftorie of our Lord's agonie 
 in the garden, as related in Luke xxii. 43; 
 
 44. The 
 
 \ Refta autem H'erofoTymam petens, delatus Hiericho, in- 
 ter eundum nano illo Zacchaeo, utfehofpitio reciperety acce^r 
 fito. cap. 12. /. 208. D. 
 
Ch.XXXVI. TATIA^IV Hannonie. 147 
 44. The author calls it {e) a bloodie fweaf^ A. D. 
 and explains the anger s comforting him^ fay- (/v\j 
 ing, it was an angelic wice from heaven, 
 which gave him firength and courage. This 
 is an honeft Chriflian, whoever he be : He is 
 not afhamed of what he thinks to be the 
 truth. 
 
 15. He reprefents the fubftance of our 
 Lord's difcourfe in John vi. And then fays : 
 ** Difcourfing (f) of the word of eternal 
 " life, and fometimes mentioning bread, 
 ** and fometimes flefli and blood, many, out 
 '* of a horrour of the thing not rightly un- 
 " derflood, forfook Chrijt. But Peter on the 
 *' other hand exhorted them [or, the difci* 
 " pies] to perfevere, forafmuch as thefe were 
 " words of eternal life.'* It does not appear 
 therefore, that he underftood thofe words of 
 Chriji in the fenfe of tranfubftantiation, nor 
 yet as relating to the ordinance of the Lord's 
 fupper. 
 
 L 2 16. He 
 
 (e) Laborabat autem angore tanto Dominus, ut fudoreejus 
 fanguinolento tellus etiam maderet ; quum protinus e coelo vox 
 angelica auditur, quae animum ac robur addidit- p. 210. B. 
 
 (/) Proinde quum de verbo vitae aeternae loquens jam pa- 
 fiem nominaret, modo carnem et fanguinem, multi horrore rei 
 perperr.m intelledlae concepto, a Chrillo defcivere. At Petrue 
 contra, quod verba hacc fmt vitae aeternae, perdurandum fua- 
 debat, ^, 206. B. 
 
ExfraBs out of Book I^ 
 
 1 6. He reprefents the inftitution of the 
 Lord's Supper, and the defign of it, as a me- 
 morial, in this manner : " And (g) having 
 ^' taken bread, [or, a loaf'\ and then a cup 
 ** of wine, and having faid that they were 
 ** his body and blood, he commanded them 
 ** to eat and drink: for it was [or, they 
 *' were] a memorial of his future fuffering 
 " and death." 
 
 I J. He places our Lord's difcoiirfes, as al*- 
 fo his prayer for the difciples, which are in 
 John xiii. xiv. xv. xvi. xvii. after the juft 
 mentioned inftitution, and (/?) immediatly 
 before the hymn mentioned Matth, xxvi. 30-. 
 Mark xix. 26; 
 
 18. Si man the Cyrenians bearing the crojfe^ 
 or bearing the crojje after Chrid, mentioned 
 Mattk xxvii. 32. Mark xv. 21. Luke xxiii. 
 26. he underftands not of taking off the 
 
 croffe, 
 
 (g) Et mox accepto panej deinde vini calice, corpus effe 
 fuum ac fanguinem tellatus, manducare illos et bibere juf- 
 fit, quod ea fit futurae calamitatis faae mortifque memoria; 
 p. zio.J. 
 
 {h) Fixis deinde in coelum oculis, Patrem orat, ut fe cla- 
 rum miindo reddat, difcipulos, et eos quoque qui illorunir 
 \erbo credituri fint, a malo fervet. . . Et e veftigio quum 
 hymnum abfolviflet cum difcipulis Jefus, urbem egreflus, &c 
 />. 210. C 
 
Ch. XXXVI. TATiAN'y Harmonie. 14.9 
 crofTe from Jefus, and laying it upon Sh?ioji A. D. 
 to carry it after him : (i) but of his helping (,/vN^ 
 U bear it, as he exprefTes it ; that is, I fup- 
 pofe, bearing the hinder part of the crolTe 
 after Jefus. And this too is to be under- 
 ftood as being done, after that our Lord 
 had bore it all himfelf fome way. Compare 
 John xix. 17. which is plainly alfo our 
 author's meaning. So that in a few words 
 he has finely harmonifed all the four Evan- 
 gelifts. 
 
 19. He thus reprefents the Penitent 
 Thief's petition and our Lord's gracious 
 anfwer : " And afterwards, when the [k) 
 *^ thief prayed, that he would not difdain at 
 " left to remember him in his heavenly 
 . " kingdom : he promifed, what he was not 
 " aiked, that he would take care he ftiould 
 *' be that day in paradife.'* 
 
 So far of Tatian's Diaiejfaron, or Gofpel 
 of the four. 
 
 L 3 IV. Am- 
 
 (i) Itique lata hac fententia, eduflus inter duos latrones, 
 crucem ipfe fibi geftare cogitur. Sed et Simonem quendam 
 Cyrenenfem adigunt ad opem in ea re ferendum. p. zii. B. 
 
 (X-) Latroni moxoranti, ut in regno coelelli non gravaretur 
 fui vel meminiffe, paradifum eo die fe praeftiturum, quein 
 non fuerat rogatus poUicetur, p. 211. B, 
 
iS^ B.xtraBs out of Book I. 
 
 IV. Am?72072iuss Harmonic is very different. 
 ouZ/Jm-^^ is compofed out of the four Gofpels in 
 mnius. the very words of the Evangelids. 
 
 I, Here (J) are both the genealogies : that 
 is, after St. Matthew* s genealogie from A- 
 braham, the author adds that part of St. 
 Lukes genealogie, which afeends from Abra- 
 ham to Adam and God, This Harmonic 
 {m) takes in the later part of Mark xvi. 
 Here appears («) our Lord's agonie, as de- 
 feribed in Luke xxii. 43. 44. and the difpu- 
 ted {0) text of John v. 4. concerning the 
 angel's coming down into the pool of Bethef- 
 da, or Bethjaida, as it is here called, and 
 troubling the water : as alfo the hiftorie (/>) 
 of the woman taken in adulterie, related "John 
 viii. I. ... 1 1, with ouvluovd's Jio oping down, 
 and writing with his finger on the ground. 
 This is one of Mill's arguments for (^) 
 the genuinnefTe of this paragraph ; that it is 
 found in Ammonius\ Harmonic, who, he 
 
 fays, 
 
 (/; Bihl. Pair. Tom. 3. p. 267. G. U. p. 268. A. 
 (mj P. 299.^. C. ' -^^ ' -'— ^;'- 
 
 («) P.zgg.J. ■•■ ■• 
 
 to) P. 297. £. 
 
 (p) P. 28?. E.K 
 
 (j-) Fid- Mill, ad Job. cap. -vil. %\ 53; 
 
2:0. 
 
 Ch. XXXVI. A M M o N I u s^j Harmoine, 151 
 
 fays, lived fo early as the year 220. and A. D. 
 therefore within a hundred and twenty years 
 after St. Johns death. On the other hand 
 this is one reafon, why (r) Mr. Wetjlein 
 thinks this Harmonic fpurious : for he fays, 
 this ftorie was not in the copies ufed by Am- 
 monius or Eufebe. For my own part, I am 
 unwilling to argue hence, that this Harmo- 
 nie is not genuine in the main ; becaufe it 
 may have been interpolated, and very pro- 
 bably has been fo in many places. And for 
 the lame reafon I (hould not choofe to ar- 
 gue from this Latin Harmonie, that the pa- 
 ragraph of the woman taken In adulterie was 
 originally in St. Johfi'?, Gofpel. They who 
 are dedrous to fee more of the difpute con- 
 cerning this paragraph may do well to con- 
 fult (J) Mill, and others. 
 
 2. In this Harmonie many of our Lord's 
 difcourfes and actions are much out of place: 
 as the hiftorie of the miracle of turning [t) 
 water into wine at Cana in Galilee^ Our 
 
 L 4 Lord's 
 
 (r) Prolegomena ad N. T. ed. accural, cap. •»?". p. 66. Gi. 
 
 {i) Mid, ad Johan. cap. 'vn. v. 53. et Prolcg. v. 251. 
 fq. 891. Fid. et Bez. et Hammond, et Cleric, ad y oh. cap. i>ii, 
 'z;. 53. Grot, ad cap. 'viii. 1'. I. B a/nag. Ann. 3;. num. L. 
 
 (/J P. 273. c. 
 
152 ExtraBs out of Book I. 
 
 A- D. Lord's (u) converfation with the woman of 
 220. 
 \^y^u Samaria^ Nicodemus (iv) coming to yefus by 
 
 night : and many other things, which may 
 
 be eafily perceived to be fo by any man of 
 
 judgement. 
 
 3. The author feems to have fuppofed, 
 that the Lord's prayer was delivered but 
 once. I infer this, becaufe heinferts the oc- 
 cafion of the prayer mentioned Luke xi. i. 
 into Matth. vi. and joins it with our Lord's 
 directions concerning almfgivlng^ fafl^^g ^'^^ 
 prayer^ recorded in the laft mentioned place, 
 after this manner : " But when ye pray^ uje 
 ** not vain repetitions, as the Heathen do : for 
 " they think, they fiall be heard for their much 
 ** fpeaking. Be fxj itot ye therefore like unto 
 them : For your Father knoips what things 
 ye have need cfo before ye a/k him. Then 
 one of his dijciples faid unto him : Lord, 
 teach us to pray, as yohn aJfo taught his 
 ** dijciples. And he faid unto them : When ye 
 ** pray, fay : Our Father^ , . .',' 
 
 Herein 
 {u) p. 279. A. B. 
 M p. 285. C. D. 
 
 {x) Nolite ergo affimulari eis, fcit enim Pater vefter quid 
 opus fit vobis, antequam petatis eiim. Tunc dixit unus ex 
 difcipuHs ejus ad eum : Domine, doce nos orare, ficut et Jo- 
 annes docuit difcipulos fuos. Et nit illis : Cum outi?, dicite : 
 Pater noUer qui es in coelis, &c. p. 271. G, 
 
 (( 
 
 « 
 
220. 
 
 Ch.XXXVI. AMMOi^ IV s^ s Harmome, 153 
 
 Herein I take him to have been partly A^l). 
 
 in the right ; The prayer, which Cbn/I taught 
 
 his difciples, was not delivered more than 
 
 once. For I do not fuppofe, that our Lord 
 
 eyer fpoke at one time all thofe difcourfes, 
 
 the fubftance of which is recorded Matth. 
 
 V. vi. vii. But St. Matthew thought fit to 
 
 place near the begining of his Gofpel a fum- 
 
 marie of our Lord's dodrine delivered by 
 
 him at divers times, and in divers places. 
 
 The particular occafions, times, and places 
 
 of many things recorded in thofe three 
 
 chapters of St. Matthew may be found in 
 
 St. Lukes Gofpel. A large part of our 
 
 Lord's fermon on the mount, as it is called, 
 
 recorded by St. Matthew^ is the fame with 
 
 that in Ltike vi. ver. 20. . . 49. The occa- 
 
 fion of the Lord's prayer is given in Luke 
 
 xi. I. . . The time and occafion of our Lord's 
 
 delivering thofe arguments againft the love 
 
 of riches, and againft follicitude, which 
 
 are recorded in Matth. vi. 19. ,'. 34. are to 
 
 be fought in Luke xii. 13. . . 34. where are 
 
 the fame precepts and arguments, and the 
 
 occafion of them. The like may be faid of 
 
 fome othet' matters in thofe three chapters 
 
 of Matthw, And the finding fo many parts 
 
 of 
 
220 
 
 154 ExtraSis out of ^ Sec. Book I, 
 
 A. D. of the difcourfe, which we have in that E- 
 j vangelift, recorded again in St. Luke's Gofpel 
 at feveral places, greatly confirms the fuppo- 
 fition, that all that long difcourfe, called our 
 Saviour's fermon on the mount, was not de- 
 livered at one and the fame time. I may 
 not ftay to confider every little objection and 
 difficulty attending this obfervation. It is 
 fufficient for the prefent to have propofed it 
 to the confideration of the judicious. 
 
 4. In this Harmonic is no Doxologie. It 
 is likely, it was wanting in the author's co- 
 pies both of St. Matthew and St. Luke. The 
 prayer concludes here with that petition ; 
 ^fid lead us not into temptation^ but deliver 
 us from evih 
 
 5. The words of John xi. 7. 8. are thus 
 put (y) in this Harmonie : " Then ajter ihaf^ 
 ** faith he to his difciples : Let us go into Ju- 
 " dea again. His difciples fay unto him : 
 *' Rabbi, [or mafter\ into Judea I The Jews 
 ** of late fought to flone thee, and goeji thou 
 ^' thither again V* 
 
 (y) Deinde, poll: haec dicit difdpulis fuis : Eamus in Judae- 
 am iterum. Dicunt ei dircipuli: Rabbi, in Judaeam ! nunc 
 quaerebant te lapidare Judaei, et iterum vadis illuc ? p. 288. G. 
 
 CHAP. 
 
J 
 
 CHAP. XXXVIL 
 
 JULIUS AFRICANUS. 
 
 ULIVS AFRICJNUS is placed by A. a 
 Cave at the year 220. who likev/ife fup- 
 
 220. 
 
 pofes, that (a) he died in an advanced age -^'-f -^{Z?"- 
 about the year 232. But I know of no vcvy i^orh, 
 good reafon for thinking, that Africanus 
 was then in an advanced age, or that he 
 died fo ' foon. Tillemont however (h) thinks 
 it undoubted, that he was older than Ori^ 
 gen: (who was born, as he fays, in 185.) 
 fince in a letter to him he calls him (c) his 
 Jon. Eufebe in his Ecclefiaflical Hiftorie (ha- 
 ving in the preceding chapter fpoken of O- 
 rigen, particularly of his teaching at Cefarea^ 
 and feme of his moft celebrated fcholars, 
 who had come from diftant parts to be in- 
 flrudled by him) writes of Africanm to this 
 purpofe : "At (d) that time flourilhed A- 
 ** frkanus^ author of the work, entitled 
 
 " Cefti. 
 
 (a) Provcfta jam aetate mortuus eft circa 232. Cav. 
 
 H. Lit. P.i. p 72. 
 
 (b) Tillem. Mem. Ec. T. 3. P z. p. 32. 
 
 (c) Xafjpz Kvpii fAx jy Vii. African. Ep. ad Or^. in. 
 (dj Euf. I. vi. cap. 31. 
 
JULIUS AFRICANUS. Book L 
 
 Cejii, There is extant a letter of his to 
 Origen^ in which he fufpeds the hiftorie 
 of Sufanna iri the book of Daniel to be 
 *' fpurious and a forgerie, whom Origen an- 
 ** fwers at large. There (e) are come down 
 *' to us alfo thefe other pieces of the fame 
 ** Africdnm : A chronological work in five 
 ** books accuratly writen, in which he 
 ** fpeaks of his having taken a journey to 
 ** Alexandria^ excited by the fame of Hera^ 
 * ' das : whom we have before related to 
 ** have excelled in the knowledge of philo- 
 *^ fophie, and other parts of Greek learning, 
 *' and appointed BiQiop of that church. 
 " There is alfo another epiftle of Africanus 
 *< to AriJiideSy concerning the fuppofed dif- 
 ** ferences in the Genealogies of Chriji^ which 
 ** are in Matthew and Luke^ where he evi- 
 " dently demonftrates the harmonic of the 
 •' Evangelifts out of a hiftorie he had re- 
 <* ceived." When Ajricajius took this jour- 
 ney to Alexandria^ Heraclas was only Preiby- 
 ter and Catechift, He was not Bifliop of 
 that city before the year 231. 
 
 There 
 
 '(e) Tk «r' eAj\Z A^p/^fitVK HdLi aWet 7qV rtpiO/y-oC 'Sret'lf 
 ^a<7 iJ.diia.. Ibid. 
 
 1 
 
Gh XXXVII. JULIUS AFRICANUS. 
 
 There is another fhort account of this 
 great man in St. "Jeromes Catalogue of Ec- 
 elefiaftical Writers. " Julius (f) Africanusj 
 " whofe five books of Chronologic are ex- 
 " tant, in the time of the Emperour M. 
 " Aurelius Antoninus^ fucceflbr of Macrmus^ 
 " undertook (g) an ambaffie for the refto- 
 *^ ration of the city oi Emmaus, which was 
 ** afterwards called Nicopolis. There (h) is an 
 " epiflle of his to Origejt concerning the hi*- 
 '* ftorie of Sufanna, wherein he fays, that 
 " hillorie is not to be found in Hebrew^ nor 
 ** is it agreeable to the Hebrew etymologic 
 ** which is there writen «Vo tk ^m %i<ract, v.cx.'i 
 " ctTTo Ta 'Tff^'m ^pi(xai : in anfwer to whom OH' 
 *' gen wrote a learned epiftle. There is ancn 
 ** ther letter of his to Ari/iides, in which he 
 " copioufly treats of the difference, which 
 " there feems to be in the Genealogie of 
 *« our Saviour in Matthew and Luke." 
 
 This fettles the time of AfricanuSy the 
 Emperour whom St. Jerome means being 
 Heliogabaius^ whofe reign began in 218, and 
 
 ended 
 
 (f) DeVir. III. cap. 63. 
 
 (g) Legationem pro inftauratione urbis Emmaus fufcepit, 
 quae poltea Nicopolis appellata eft. Ibid. 
 
 {h) Hujas eft epiftola ad Originem fiiper quaeftione Su- 
 fannae : eo quod dicat in Hebraeo hanc fabulam non haberi, 
 nee convenire cum Hebraica etymologia v.tio &c. Ibid, 
 
158 juLitJS AFRicANtrs Book ii 
 
 ■^' O- ended at 222. The ambaffie for that city 
 \^V"^^ fhews the countrey where he chiefly refided, 
 and affords an argument, that he was a man 
 of repute in the world. But whether he 
 was a native of Pakjiine, or of jifricay is 
 not certain. Suidai fays : " Afrkanm (i) 
 " called SextuSy a philofopher of Libya [or 
 •* Africd\ wrote the Cefii in 24 books." He 
 alfo gives an account of the defign of that 
 work: and lays, that Ortgen anfwered the 
 fame author's objections againft the hiflorle 
 of Sufanna, But it may be queftioned, whe~ 
 ther the author of the Cejli was not a dif- 
 ferent perfon from our yulius Afrkanm, 
 However, fince the more ancient writers 
 have not particularly informed us, that he 
 was of Africa^ I think it befl:, not to relye 
 too much on Suidas. 
 
 In Ejufebe% Chronicle (I mean 'Jerome's 
 Latin veriion of that work) at the fourth 
 year of the forementioned Emperour, of 
 Chrifl 221. the fame matter is thus expref- 
 fcd : " In {k) Palejiine the city Nicopolis, 
 
 " which 
 
 (/) Suid. in V. Atpp'.iCcr.vU- 
 
 {i) In Palaeftina NicopolJf, quae prius Emmaus vocabatur, 
 urbs condita eft, legationis inclultriam pro ea fufcipiente Afri- 
 cano fcriptore temporum. Euf.Chr. p. 173. 
 
2ZO. 
 
 Ch.XXXVlI. JULIUS AFRICANUS. I^^ 
 
 " which before was called Emmaus, was A. i>. 
 ** founded, Julius Africajjus^ author of the 
 ** Chronologic, undertaking an ambaffie for 
 *' that purpofe/' This Emmaus has been 
 generally fuppofed by learned men to be 
 the fame with that mentioned by St. LukCy 
 ch. xxiv. 13. But Reland [I) argues, that 
 EmmauSy afterwards called Nicopolis, was a- 
 nother place, fituated at a greater diftance 
 from yerufakm. 
 
 Eujebe mentions four pieces of Africanus > 
 the Cefti, the Chronologic ^ and two letters ; 
 one to Origejiy the other to Arijlides, St. 
 Jerome has omitted the firft of thefe. Tho" 
 tius mentions them all four. He calls the 
 Chronological work a Hiftorie, and gives a 
 great commendation of it, when he fays, 
 " That [m) though Africanus is concife, he 
 *' omits nothing that is neceffarie to be rela- 
 ** ted." Photius adds, " That he begins al 
 " the Mofaic creation, and from thence 
 " reaches down to the nativity of Chriji, 
 *' He likewife fuccindlly relates things from 
 " Chrill to the Roman Emperour Macrinus" 
 So Photius, Neverthelefs it has been ob- 
 
 ferved 
 
 (i) Vid. Adr. Reland, Plaepn. lllujirat. lib, 2. cap^ 26. 
 
 /. 4i6. 427. 
 {m) Cod. J4, 
 
t6o JULIUS A^-RICANU?. Book I. 
 
 ftrvcd by feveral (?i) learned men from a 
 fragment oi Africanus himfclf, that this work 
 was brought down by him to the year of 
 Chrifi^ 2 21. the third, or fourth y6ar of 
 Heliogabalus^ fucceffor of Macnnus, 
 
 From the paffages already tranfcribed we 
 are in a good meafure able to form a judgement 
 concerning the genuinnelTc: of any other books, 
 which may be afcribed to Af'ricanus. And 
 whether the Cefti were writen by him, is 
 difputed. Valejiiis (nn), Jofeph (o) Scaliger 
 and (p) Du Pin, think the author of that 
 work to have been a different perfon. They 
 fuppofe, there were two of this name : our 
 yulius of Pakfiine, author of the Chronolo- 
 gie, and a Chrifiian : the other an African, 
 called Sextus, author of the Cefiiy and a 
 Gentil Philofopher. Tillemont fays (q), that 
 if this work was compofed by Afrkanus^ and 
 the accounts left us of it be right, it was 
 writ by him whilft he was a Heathen, and 
 before his converfion to Chriftianity. Cave 
 
 fpeaks 
 
 (71) Vid. Zcallgert Animadv. in Euf. Chron. p. 232. 
 Pagi Crit. in Bar. 220. § 2. Tillemont. J tile. Ajricain^ 
 Note z. 
 
 (nn) Valef. Annot. in Euf. I. iji. cap. 31. 
 
 (0) Seal. Animud'v. in Euf.Chr. p. Z'^z. 
 
 (p) Pin. hlowv. Bib. 'Juliui Afiicanus. 
 (q) Till. Mem. Ec. Jule Africain. inil. 
 
Ch.XXXVII. JULIUS AFRICANUS. l6l 
 
 fpeaks in the fame manner in the firfl: part ^- ^ 
 .... 220. 
 
 of his Hijioria Literaria, But he mentions (^/^VNJ 
 
 it only as a conjedure. And I think it is 
 mere conjedure. Africanus was a Chriftiaft. 
 This vvc know. Bat we have no ground to 
 fay, he was originally a Heathen^ no ancient 
 author having faid any fuch thing. And 
 Cave in the fecond part of that work [r) de- 
 livers it as his judgement, that this piece was 
 not writ by Africanus. From the fame 
 learned writer I learn, that the Cejii were 
 publiilied, though not very corredlly, at 
 Faris in 1693. But I have not been fo hap- 
 py as to fee them. I think it obfervable, 
 that 'Jerome does not mention this among 
 the other works of Africanus, And for that 
 reafon, and becaufe the fcrecited words of 
 Eufebes Eccleiiaftical Hidoriej mentioning 
 the Ce/li among the works of Ajricania^ are 
 wanting in Ruffliis verlion, Valejim (^) 
 thinks they are an interpolation, and that 
 they ought to be blotted out. However {u) 
 M Joh, 
 
 (r) Interim Africani hbftlri opus effe rion videtur ; etf: aliter 
 vifum veteribus, et recentiorum plurimis. Ca-v, H. L. P. 2; 
 
 (/} Falef. ibid. p. 127. 
 
 (.^) DeHift.Gr.Lz. cap.z. 
 
l62 JULIUS AFRICANUS. Book 1. 
 
 A' D. Job. Ger. Voffius, and J. Rodolph [w) Wet^ 
 y-^j^^-s, Jlcin, are of opinion, that this piece is right- 
 ly afcribed to Africanus : to whom I would 
 refer thofe who are defirous to know more 
 of this matter. For I do not think fit to 
 fwell this article with a particular account 
 of their arguments upon a point, which is of 
 no great importance. 
 
 There is plainly no regard due to Trithe- 
 
 piius^ who [x) reckons among the works of 
 Africanus fuch as thefe -, Of the Trinity, Of 
 circwncifion^ and others ; which are books 
 afcribed by (y) ferome, and by (z) Tri- 
 themiiis himfelf in another place, to Nova- 
 tus. It may deferve a little more confider- 
 ation, whether he wrote any Commentaries 
 upon the New Tefl:ament. It has been ob- 
 ferved by (a} Cave, and (^b) FabriciuSy that 
 Ebedjefu; who flourifhed (c) at the end of the 
 thirteenth, and died in the begining of th© 
 following centurie, in the year 1318. affirms, 
 
 there 
 
 (it?) Wetjl. ast. in Ep. Jfr. ad Grig. Col. 15?. . . . 1 54. 
 JiaJtL 1674. 
 
 {x) Trithem, de Script. Ecc. cap. 38, 
 
 (y) De Fir. III. cap. 70. 
 
 (z) Trith. ibid. cap. 44. 
 
 (a) Vid. Cam. i/, L. P. i. p. 74; 
 
 (h) Fab. Bib Or. T. "J. p. 270. 
 
 (cj Vid. JJemcui. Bibl. Orient. T. i. p.$.l^ 
 
Ch.XXXVlI. JULIUS AFRICANUS. - 163 
 there were then extant (dj Commejttaries of A. d, 
 Africanus BiJJjop of Emmaiis upon the New ^ 
 ^ eft anient, mid his Chronicle. One ynhus 
 likewife is alleged [e) in the Greek Chains, 
 and fometimes called Billiop. 'D^.^ljeman fays^ 
 that Mofes Bar-Cepha, who fiouriflied in the 
 later end of the ninth centurie, quotes the 
 Commentarie of one yulius (f) upon Si.yohn's 
 Gofpel, which has been obferved likewife by 
 (g) Fabriciiis. And Dioiiiftus Bar- Salibi, Bifhop 
 of Arnida in Mefopotamia, at the end of the 
 twelfth centurie, in his Commentaries upon 
 the Gofpels, quotes Africaniis Bifhop (J:) of 
 Emmaiis. But after all, I apprehend here 
 is no fufficient ground to believe, that our 
 yuUus Africanm wrote upon the New Tef- 
 tament. It is much better to reft fatisfied 
 with the accounts left us by Eufebe, and 
 M 2 Jerome^ 
 
 [d\ Beatus Africanus Epifcopus Emmaus habet Commentaria 
 in Novum Tellamentum, et Chronicon. Ebei^jefu Catalog.libr, 
 Syror. ap. Affem. Bib. Or. T. 3. p. 14. 
 
 (e) Et Julius quidam fubinde in Catenis allegatur, et in 
 Catena Corderiaaa in Johannem vocatur Julius Epifcopus, 
 Fubr, ibid. 
 
 (f) ^«- ^^' '^- 2- /• 129. 
 
 (g) Fabric, ib. 
 (h) Auftores hi ab ipfo citantur . . . Africanus Epifcopus 
 
 .Kramaiis Comment, in Evangel, fol. 33. 37. ^Jfeman. ib^ 
 '/. 2. cap. 32. p. J 5 8. a. 
 
1G4 JULIUS AFRICANUS. Book I. 
 
 A. D. yerome. and Photiiis. who take no notice of 
 220. '^ 
 
 fuch a work. 
 
 Africans is reckoned by yerome in his 
 letter to Magnus among other eminent an- 
 cient (/) Ckrijlian writers. His Chronologic 
 is the work, which ^Jerome particularly 
 mentions*, which is an argument, that this 
 was our author's principal performance. 
 And Socrates has jollied him with Clement 
 and Origen^ calling them {Ji) men Jkilful in 
 every part of knowledge. 'Tillemont (/) fays, 
 it appears that Africamis underftood Hebrew. 
 He concludes this from an obfervation (w) 
 in Africanus^ letter concerning the hiftorie 
 of Sufamta. Poffibly this would be more 
 apparent, if his Ghronologie were Hill ex- 
 tant. 
 
 That work is all loft, except fome frag- 
 ments. But it is fuppofed, that Eufebe infert- 
 ed a large part of it into his own Chronicle : 
 though it is not now eafie to fay, what be- 
 longs 
 
 (r) Extant et Julii African! libri, qui temporum fcripfu hi- 
 ftorias. Hier. Ep. 83. 
 
 ffOipiui k'Trt^-illxoVeti. Socrat. Hfjl. I. 2. cap. 35-/'. 130 B. 
 (/) Till. Jule Ajricain. />. 3 ( . 
 {m) 'Eu ^kv «u sAAHVwa/? (^crMtii<; rcf. ro avja oy.ofii'vCiv cvfj.- 
 
 ad Oriz- § i« 
 
ChXXXVIL JULIUS AFRFCANUS. 165 
 longs to Africaniis, And other hiftorlans A. D. 
 have m de good ufe of it. There is a large ^-~v-n^ 
 fragment of his letter to ArijUdes in Enfebe's 
 Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, and his letter to Ori- 
 gen is ftiU extant entire. 
 
 I fhall now put down what I have ob- 
 ferved to our purpofe in the remains of this 
 great man. 
 
 I. Eufebe in his Evangelical Preparation His Tefli- 
 («) las a long paflage out of the third book^"'j^/^^ 
 of the Chronologie of AJricanus. But I have 
 
 no occfion to tranfcribe any thing out of it 
 ^t prefent. 
 
 II. In Eufebe's Evangelical Demonftratlon 
 {0) is another paffagc taken out of the fifth 
 book of the fame work. This paflage is 
 quoted likewife by St. 'Jerome in his Com- ■ 
 mentaries upon the book of Daniel: where 
 Africanus fpeaking of the 70 weeks, after 
 which Chr'iji was to appear, ufes this expref- 
 fion } That Vifiom (p) and prophecies were un- 
 
 M 3 til 
 
 {71) Pr. Ev. lib. X. p. 4.87. . . 493.] 
 {0) D. E'V. I. 8. p. 389. ... 391.' 
 
 (p) 'Opus-eti T£ KOii -rrpoaJiTSjei;/ //^X.P'f W/'Vtf. ap. Euf^ 
 Dem. Ev. ib.p. 389. C. 
 
l66 JULIUS AFRICANUS. Book I. 
 
 A- D' /// Jobriy as the words are in Eufebes Greek : 
 
 2 20. ' 
 
 \^V%^ //^6' Lawe {q) and the Prophets were until 
 yohn^ as in 'Jerome's Latin : which are our 
 Lord's words Ltikexwi. i6. Compare Matth. 
 xi. 13. Here it appears, that Africa?itis placed 
 the death of Chrifl in the (r) 1 6th year of the 
 reign of Tiberius^ as the paflTage is in Eufebe : 
 in the [s) 15th year of the fame reign, a5 it 
 is in Jerome. 
 
 III. In George Syncellus is a fragment of 
 Jlfricmus^ faid to be taken out of the fifth 
 book of his ChroRologie : where fpeaking of 
 our Lord's (t) paffion and refurredion, he 
 fays, " That all his works of healing both 
 " of the bodies and fouls of men and the 
 
 " myfteries 
 
 [q] Et impleta ed vifio, et prorhetia, quia lex et prophetae 
 nfque at Baptiftam Johatinem. Hieron. Com. in Dun. cap. ix. 
 Col. I I 10. BenediSI. 
 
 {■>•) Md.K^^iy «T/ To TlCifliS KrfVrtfo? ixKdLi<^i,y.alcv iTCi, hi 
 ItJ) i^iDCoVTct. op. Euf. lb. p. 390. B. 
 
 [s] Arque cxinde ufquead annum quintum decimum [i/.Kut' 
 J^irajoi] Tiberii Caefaris, quando pallas eft Chriftus numeran- 
 tur anni Texaginta. ap. H/eroti. ibid 
 
 {t) A;;p/;tava '^ifi'rcov Kctj). to a-ijji'ipov 'vrd.^oi y.ai rm ^co' 
 'frotov rti/ar«<T/v, kit tk 'ari/z'^rls h'uy\i. To J^i y.cx.^' IxtZTov 
 
 KaS' oA«78KoV//« (TAlioi iTny'ivilo <poCipco7 cclov' ce!ay.a J'i «// 
 '32Tp'Xi J'nppi'.y^vilo, rai re ■vcXXu JaJ^atcf.i xai r'tli Mi'7r7i'; yii<; 
 xoclsppi';,-,!. Jp. (jco. Syvcell. Cb>07!0o^. p. 'i^zz. Pari/. 1652. tt 
 T.iOiC y^poy.h'oyoi'TxpiirQi^ P-77- Ed. ScaJig. Jfnjf. 1658. 
 
Ch.XXXVII. JULIUS AFRICANUS. 167 
 
 ** myftenes of his birth and refurredion ^''- ^' 
 ^* from the dead were fufficiently madct^-v-N-^ 
 ** known to his Apoflles and difciples before 
 ■** us. There was a dreadful darknelTe over 
 " the whole world, and the rocks were rent 
 " by an earthquake, and many buildings 
 ** were overturned in judcn^ and other parts 
 " of the earth." Then he makes remarks 
 upon what Thalhis had writ concerning an 
 eclipfe or darkndT- about the fame time. 
 There can be no queftion, but Africanu^ 
 here refers to our Gofpels, particularly to 
 Mafth. xxvii. 51. 52. Luke xxiii. 44. 45. I 
 wi(h, we had what preceded thefe words; 
 and that we had what follows them more 
 exadly, than we feem to have at preient. 
 
 IV. I proceed to the letter to Arijlides^ con- Matth, !; 
 arning the difagreement fuppofed to be between "^^ "'* 
 the Gofpels in the gencalogie of Chrifi. It is 
 thus introduced by Etifebe : " But [u) foraf- 
 ** much as Matthew and Luke have difFerent- 
 *' ly delivered to us in their Gofpels the ge- 
 " nealogie of Chrifi^ fo that great numbers 
 *' of the faithful through ignorance of the 
 [^ truth have been mightily concerned to 
 M 4 [\ contrive 
 
 (u) Euf. H. E. L i. cap. 7. /?/. 
 
l68 JULIUS AFRICANUS. Book I, jl 
 
 contrive folutions of that difficulty j let us ^ 
 take the account, which Africaniu gives im 
 *' his epiftle toy^r//?/V£'5 concerning the harmo- , 
 " nie of the genealogies in the Gofpel : vi^here 
 " ('Z£;)rejeding the opinions ofothers, as forced, 
 ** and even filfe, he delivers the account he 
 *' had received in thefe words : For whereas 
 *' the dej cents ofjamllies in Ifrael are reckoned- 
 " either according to ?iatiire^ or according to. 
 *' law : according to the order of jiaturCy when 
 *' it is by the face ejjion of a natural feed : accord" 
 " ing.to law^ when another beget ieih a Jon tofnc- 
 ** ceed in the name oj a brother deceafed without 
 " ijjue : . . . And whereas, accordingly, of them 
 " who are reckoned in thisgenealogie, [of Chrift] 
 *' jome fucc ceded in a proper and natural order, 
 *' as fins to their jathers : but Jcme, begotten by 
 " one, received the name of another ', therefore 
 " mention is made of both : of thofc who were 
 " truly fathers, and of thofe that were legal on- 
 *' h, and as fathers. ThnsneitheroftheGof- 
 ** pelsisfalfe, one containing the line of nature, 
 " the other of lawe. For the families both of 
 *' Solomon and Nathan were mixed together, 
 " partly by fecond 'marriages, partly by raifng 
 
 " Kp 
 
 i/ij.ijilj.Bvoi 7oti friy.c;.<n]J. ibid. /, 20. D. 
 
Ch. XXXVII. JULIUS AFRICANUS. 
 
 Up feed to thcfe who died without ijfue. So 
 that the fame pei-fons had divers fathers, 
 whereof fome were reputed fathers, others 
 realh jo. 'Thus both the accounts are true, and 
 exadlly meet and agree in Jojeph. That what 
 has been f aid, may be made plain, I will cb- 
 
 ferve the order of the defcents. Reckoning the 
 defcent from David by Solomon, [according 
 to Matthew] Matthan is found to be the third 
 
 from the end, who begat Jacob the father of 
 fofeph. Reckoni?jg from "Nathan the fon of 
 David, according to Luke, in like manner 
 the third from the end is Melchi, whofefon was 
 Eli the father of Jofeph. jofeph therefore 
 being the per fon we are concerned about, it 
 mu/i be fiewn, how each of thefe can be call- 
 ed his father ; both Jacob, who defended 
 
 from Solomon, and Eli who comes from Na- 
 than. A?id in the firjl place it mifi be 
 
 fiewn, how thefe two, facob and Ell were 
 brothers ; and then how their fathers, Mat- 
 than and Melchi, can be grandfathers of 
 Jofeph. This will be cleared up thus. Mat- 
 than and Melchi having married fuccejfive- 
 ly one and the fame woman, begat children^ 
 which were brothers by the fame mother, 
 . , . The frfl therefore, Matthan^ dfcended 
 
 ^'^ from 
 
170 JULIUS AFRICANUS. Book L 
 
 A. D. c« jT^Qj^ SolornGJi, begat "Jacob of Eftha : for 
 
 u— V— " that was the womaris name. After the 
 
 " death of Matthan, Mclchi, idho defcended 
 
 " from Nathan, taking the widow to be his 
 
 ** wife, had bj her E^lt, Thus we have 
 
 " found Jacob and Eli, though of diferent 
 
 " families, brothers by the fame mother. One 
 
 ** of whom, Jacobs his brother EH having 
 
 *^ died without ifiie, took his wife^ and begat 
 
 " of her the third, fofeph, according to nature 
 
 *' and reafon his own fon : wherefore alfo it is 
 
 " written: And Jacob begat Jofeph: But 
 
 l>iatth. i. " according to lawe he was the fon of Eli, 
 
 ' * ** For Jacob being his brother raifed up feed 
 
 ** unto him. For which reafon (x) neither is 
 
 •* that geneahgie dejlitute of authority, which 
 
 " the Evangelifl Matthew rehcarfes thus : 
 
 MatthA. t' And Jacob begat J of ph. On the other 
 
 liikeui " hand Luke : beiiig as was fuppofed (for he 
 
 23.24. <t adds this withal) the fon of Jofeph, which 
 
 " was the fon of £//", which was the fon of 
 
 '* Melchi, He could ?iot more (y) plainly and 
 
 ** properly 
 
 {x) ^lo'TTEp «>c ei>ivpo^ri!Tila.t xa,} h Ketr dvllv yznaXoyicc, wir 
 
 iy'ii'vwi rciV IcotTiicp- Ibid. p. 22. B. 
 
 (y) T«u yaf Ka\a v'oy.ov yivztrtv iTriany.'oripQV zK i]v I^H'TTUP. 
 Keti TO iyimmiVi'j'i roidi <Pz 'z^uiJ'oTroicL'; a.')(jfi'i'iK^iZ(Xiar7r\)ai, 
 rh a.vAzofoiV 'rz-ot>i<Tei[j.svos 'iai Ts AsTrt// K&i Ta 0ea y.OiT dvAhu^ 
 ctM- Ibid, p. 22. B, 
 
Ch.XXXVII. JULIUS AFRICANUS. 
 
 *' properly exprefs that kind of defcent which 
 *' is according to lanjoc. And jo exaB is he, 
 ** that reciting the genea logic of this fort, he 
 *' entirely omits the ijcord begetting to the very 
 *' la fly though he carries up the line ft ep byjlep 
 •' to Adam, who was the fon of God." 
 
 We are farther aflured by Africanus, that 
 this {z) account was given by fome who 
 were kinfmen of our Lord according to the 
 flefli. However, he fays, (a) ** though it were 
 ** unfupported by any fuch teftimonie, yet this 
 *' account of the matter ought to be reckoned 
 *' the beft and the truejl. But, be it fo or not^ 
 ^* the Gofpel is certainly true,'* 
 
 Once more (b) Eufebe fays : " And at the 
 ** end of the fame epiftle he [Africanusi 
 " adds : Matthan, who defcended from So- 
 ** lomon, begat Jacob. Matthan being dead, 
 ** Melchi, who defcended from Nathan, begat 
 " of the fame woman Eli. EH therefore and 
 ** Jacob were brothers by the fame mother » 
 ** Eli dfing without iffue, Jacob raifed up 
 
 ''■feed 
 
 xyJ rex-vToi. p- 22. C 'Civ krvyKuvov oi ^foifYiiAvcn S^iU'Troav- 
 
 VOl KOCA'^y.iVOt p. 7.1,. B. 
 
 (a) Koci mh avin fxsXira, lixai [jtrilfAUaflvpoii^-i, ra y-n 
 yfinlova. h a\nQis-ipa.\) gp^«/y IittsIv, I'i ixivjot ivxyyiktov 
 Kffdi'Jc'Ji d\i]&i.v£i. p. 23. C. 
 
 (ij P. 23.. D, 
 
172 JULIUS AFRICANUS. Book I» 
 
 ■A. D. « J'ced to him ; having begotten Jofeph, ac^ 
 
 u-v-^ " cording to nature indeed to him f elf ^ but ac^ 
 
 *' cording to laisic to EH. ^0 Joffph ivas 
 
 ** the Jon of both. Thus far Africanus,'' 
 
 It ou^ht to be obferved, that whereas we 
 read in our copies of St. Luke ili. v. 24. 
 *ishich was the fon of Matthat, ivhich was 
 the fon c/'Levi, which was the fon <?/' Melchi : 
 j4frica?2us om'ns the two former defcents, and 
 reads only the Liil. I hope this whole pallage 
 is now intelligible. 
 
 And that we have here the true reading of 
 \4fricaf2USj is confirmed by a paflage of Bar-^i 
 f alibi tranfcribed (c) by Dr. Jljjeman. 
 
 St. Auguftin in his (d) Retradations entire-' 
 ly approves of this method of reconciling the 
 genealogies in St. Matthew and St. Luke^ 
 And Dr. JVall (ej fays : " The beft hypo- 
 *' thefis that has been given for reconciling 
 *' the two catalogues is the old one of Afri-- 
 
 " canus^^, 
 
 [c) Quos Lucas refert Chrifti progenitores, eos ex Afrlcano, 
 Eufebio, Nazianzeno, Sarugenfi, Graecifque et Syriacis codi- 
 cibus fic enumerat [Diofiy/. Ba7-falibi^ fol. 37. Africanus ei 
 Eufebius tertium niimerant Melchi, fuut etiam Mathan tertia 
 loco collocant aJite Jofeph hoc modo. Jofeph filius Heli, filil 
 Melchi. In codicibus <vero Syriacis, qui apud nos exjlant fan- 
 £li Liicae, qiiinto loco numeratur : Jofeph filius Heli, filii 
 Matath, filii Levi, filii Melchi. Jjfeman. Bib. Or. Tom. 2, 
 cap. 32. /). 161. 162. 
 
 {d) Retva£l. I. 2. cap. njii. 
 
 [c] Brief Critical Notes upon the N. T. p.. 65, 
 
Ch. XXXVII. JULIUS AFRICANUS. I73 
 
 " canusr I perfuade my felf therefore, that ^- ^- 
 it will not be difapproved by any, that I 
 have fet it fo much at large before my readers. 
 I would add, that Mr. Richardfon (f) has a 
 Diflertation upon this fubjedt, which well de- 
 ferves to be read by the curious. 
 
 But, whatever becomes of this method of 
 reconciling the two Evangelifts, here is a 
 very valuable teftimonie to their Gofpels, 
 and in particular a cogent argument for the 
 genuinnefTe of the begining of St. Matthew's. 
 It does not plainly appear, that any, whom 
 ylfricanm difputed with, rejeded it : though 
 fome may be ready to fufpedl this from thofe 
 words : For which reafon neither is that ge- 
 nealogie dejiitute of authority^ which the JS- 
 *Da?7geli/i Matthew rehearjes : Which words 
 poffibly may be thought to imply, that St. 
 Matthew's genealogie was not altogether un- 
 queftioned, or reputed of equal authority 
 with St. Luke's. But I do not take that to be 
 the deiign of thofe words, Jlfrica?2us after- 
 wards expreffing himfelf in a like manner 
 (g) alfo of St. Luke's genealogie. His in*. 
 tention therefore is only to affert the truth 
 
 and 
 
 (f) Joan, KicharJfon. Praeled. Ecclejlaji. i. de Chrifii 
 Genealogia. 
 
174 JULIUS AFRICANUS. -Book L 
 
 A. D. and propriety of both. But, if there were 
 any, whom Ajricanus argued againfl, who 
 took this method of foiving, or evading the 
 difficulty 5 it mufl be one of thofe opinions, ' 
 which, as Etifebe fays, Afrtcanm rejeBed as 
 JaJfe : fince it is evident, that he maintains 
 the truth, authority and ufefulnefTe of both 
 the genealogies. 
 
 Confidering then the learning, and the 
 age of Africanus^ and the countrey in v/hich 
 he refided, and the hiftorie he had received 
 from fome of the kinfmen of yejiis accord- 
 ing to the flellj, and that he made a parti- 
 cular cnquirie into this matter, and appears 
 to have been fully fatisfied about it; it 
 mud be reckoned, that we have here all the 
 evidence for the genuinneffe of this part of 
 St. Matthews Gofpel, that can be well de- 
 lired. 
 
 V. The letter to Qrlgen concerning the 
 Hiilorie of Siifanna is generally fuppofed to 
 have been writen about the (h) year 228. 
 though there are fome learned men who 
 
 are 
 
 (h) Vid. Fabric. Bib- Gr. T. <tr. />. 236. Tilhtmnt Mem'i 
 Bcc. T. 3. P. z.p. 38. Jule Jfricain. ^ T. 3. P. 3. p. 263^ 
 
220, 
 
 ChXXXVII. JULIUS AFRICANUS. ly^ 
 are rather inclined to fi) the year 240. ^-p- 
 twelve years after. The occalion of it was "<-. 
 this : Origen in a conference with one Bajfus, 
 where Ajrkanm was prefent, made ufe of 
 that hiftorie. Afrkanm, thinking it fpuri- 
 ous and forged, took an opportunity fome 
 while after to write to Origen upon that 
 point. It is a fine letter, learned and criti- 
 cal : and, though fhort, does a great deal of 
 honour to it's author. 
 
 As the queftion in difpute relates only to 
 a part of a book of the Old Teftament, and 
 the letter is very fhort^ here are no quota- 
 tions of the New Teuament. However, 
 Africanus here obferves, *' that [k) all the 
 " boolis of the Old Teftament were writ iri 
 *' HebreWj and from thence were tranflated 
 *■* into Greek :" which ihews, that there was 
 a colledion of books, called the New Te- 
 ftament : for v/hich he had the like refpe^ 
 with that paid to the books of the Old Te- 
 itament writ in Hebrew, 
 
 VI. But it will be worth the while to ob- 
 ferve what books Origen quotes to Ajriccnus 
 
 m 
 
 (/) Vid. Huet. Origer.ian. L. 3. cap.iv. §1. et Admon. in 
 Jfrican. Ep. Ed. Bened. T. i. p. 8. 
 
JULIUS AFRICANUS BooIc 1. 
 in his anfwer, which is long. Here then are 
 feveral quotations of the Gofpels of (I) St* 
 
 ^fd%s. Matthew and St. Luke. The ABs of the 
 
 Apoftles {m) are exprefly quoted. Here are ' 
 
 words of the epiftle to (n) the Romam and 
 
 firfl to the Corinthiam : and (o) St. Paul's 
 
 firfl epijlle to the The[falomans is exprefly 
 
 Jlehrew^ quoted at length. The epiflle to the He- 
 brews is cited in this manner. " Origen 
 " fays, that the florie of Sufanna being dif^ 
 " honorable to the Jewijh Elders, it was 
 ** fupprefTvd by their great men. And that 
 '' there were many things kept as much as 
 " might be from the knowledge of the 
 " people, fome of which neverthelefs were 
 " preferved in fome apocryphal books. Of 
 " this, fays he, I fliall give an in (lance in 
 *' fome things related of Jfaiah, and men- 
 " tioned in the epiftle to the Hebrews^ 
 *' though not writen in any of their open 
 " bocks. For the writer of the epiftlc 
 " to the HehreiLs difcourfing of the Pro- 
 
 *' phets 
 
 (/) Vid. Orig. Ep. ad Af. § 7. p. 18. D. E. Tom. i. Bened. 
 § 9. p. 20. B. CD. 
 
 in^oKKoii aoci raiTcn Kiyei. z. A. il>. § 9. /. ■lz. A. 
 (n) lb. § 4. p. 16. C. 
 
 (0) Kit/ HoivXOi \v 7>1 'SrfOTipa. THf t^poi G£7<rAMVtlCUi i'TTt' 
 
Ch. XXXVII. JULIUS AFRICANUS. I77 
 
 " phets and their fufferlngs, fays : They were ^•^^• 
 
 " ftmed^ they were fawn a/under^ they were"- — ^-y 
 
 ^' Jlain by the fword. To what perfon, 1 37. 
 
 ** pray, does that relate, they were fawn 
 
 " aju?2der? according to an ancient cuftom 
 
 ** not only of the Jews, but alfo of the 
 
 *' Greeks, exprefTed indeed in the plural 
 
 " number, but meant of one. It is certain, 
 
 " that traditions fay, Ifaiah the Prophet was 
 
 ** fawn afunder: and it is mentioned in an 
 
 " apocryphal [ or fecret ] book, which per- 
 
 " haps fome of the Jews have defignedly 
 
 " corrupted, inferting in that piece l^ome 
 
 ** unbecoming things, that the whole might 
 
 ** be difcredited. But pofTibly fome (p) 
 
 ** one prdTed with this argument will take 
 
 ** refuge in the opinion of thofe, wdio rejedl 
 
 *< this epiftle as not writen by Paul. In an- 
 
 " fwer to fuch an one we defign, [or, had 
 
 '* Jieed] to write a diftin(5l difcourfe to fliew 
 
 ** that epiftle to be Paur^y 
 
 Hence it appears, that there were fome in 
 
 the Eaftern part of the world, as well as in 
 
 the Weft, who rejeded the epiftle to the 
 
 N Plebrc%vs^ 
 
 (p) kxyC hy.Qi Tivx ^XiC(jfj.mv ATTo rTnlti T^v'Jcc a-TcI'it^'af, 
 
 HdvAu yiy^a.[xy.ivm. Rpof Sv a.XXuv X'oym xut ]J^ia]) yj"^^' 
 f/.eyiffa7ro<Piir,n'UvxiUcivXt7>]vi'7ri'roxm- ibid.^g.^. 19.20. 
 
178 JULIUS AFRICANUS. Book I. 
 
 A. D. Hebrews. And it may be fufpeded at left, 
 ^^^^^A^ that Origen did not know that Africanus re- 
 ceived it as the Apoftle Paul's. 
 
 Sum of VII. However, we have feen in AJricanm 
 
 ^monie. ' ^" uncommon atteftation to the two Gofpels 
 of St. Matthew and St. Luke^ and efpecially 
 to their genealogies. Several books of the 
 New Teftament are alleged and quoted to 
 hiai by OrigeUy as of authority. He plainly 
 had a volume, or colledlion of books, with 
 the title and denomination of the New Te- 
 jiament, of equal authority with the Jewifi 
 facred and canonical fcriptures writ original- 
 ly in Hebrew. There is therefore no ground 
 to doubt, but fufficient reafon to believe, 
 that this great and learned man received as 
 fcripture the books generally received by 
 Chrijiians in his time, and particularly by 
 Origen^ with whom he was well acquainted. 
 Whether he received the epiftle to the He- 
 brews as the Apoftle Paul's, wt cannot certain- 
 ly fay : nor have we any good ground to 
 fuppofe he rejedied it. The fame may be 
 faid with regard to the other books of the 
 New Teftament, which were doubted of by 
 feme at that time : We do not know his opi- 
 nion 
 
Ch.XXXVII. JULIUS AFRICANUS. 
 nion concerning them. In thefe, and fome 
 other matters, we fliould have had fuller fatif- 
 faftion, if more of his learned and elaborate 
 performances had come down to us. 
 
 As it is, we may glory in Africanus as a 
 Chriftian. For it cannot but be a pleafure to 
 obferve, that in thofe early days there were 
 fome within the enclofure of the church o^ 
 Chriji, whofe fliining abilities rendered them 
 the ornament of the age in which they lived : 
 when they appear alfo to have been men of 
 unfpoted charaders, and give evident proofs 
 of honefty and integrity. 
 
 179 
 
 N 2 
 
 CHAP. 
 
CHAP. XXXVill. 
 
 O R I G E N. 
 
 I. His WJlorie and CharnBer. II. III. .S*^- 
 m Pajages of Or i gen. IV. V. VI. Ihre^ 
 Catalogues of the Books of the N. T. VII. 
 0/ the four Gofpcls. VIII. A&s of the 
 Jpo/iks. IX. St. Paul's Epiftles. X. The 
 Epiftle to the Hcbreivs. XI. The Epiftle of 
 St. James. XII. Fir ft a?2d Second of St. Pe- 
 ter. Xm. St.joh?u three Epifles. XIV. Sf. 
 JudesEpiJlle. XY ,The Revelatiofi. XVI. 
 Whether Origenfays^ thatjrom the Begining 
 Chrijlians 'where divided about the Books of 
 Scripture f XVII. A Pajfage containing a 
 general Ennumeration of the Books of the N, 
 Tefiament. XVIII. General Titles and Divi- 
 fions of the Books of Scripture. XIX. RefpeB 
 for them. XX. Readi?2g them recommended, 
 XXI. Publicly read. XXII. The Enquiry, 
 ivhether Origen received as Scripture any books 
 not in the pre fent Canon, propofed. XXIII. Of 
 Ecclefaftical Writings cited by Origen : Sf, 
 Barnabas' s Epiftle j St. Clement's ; The Re- 
 cognitions-, the Shepherd of Hennas -, St, Ig- 
 natius, 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. OR I GE N. l8l 
 
 natius. XXIV. Spiiriotn and Apocryphal 
 Writings : Apocryphal Gofpeh in general-^ the 
 Go/pel according to the Hebrews ; the Gofpel 
 according to Peter \ the DoSirine and Preach- 
 ing of Peter ; A5is of Paul ; an Anonymous 
 Book. XXV. Jewifi Apocryphal Books : To- 
 bit y fudith^ Ecclefiajlicus^ Sufannay Macca- 
 bees J The Books of Enoch y the xii Patriarchs^ 
 the AfcenJifM of Mofes^ Anonymous Pieces, 
 Apocryphal IVritifigs fdid to be referred to in 
 the N,T. XXVI. Remarks upon the forego- 
 ing Citations. XXVII. SeleB Various Read- 
 ings. XXVWl.Explicatiojis of Texts. XXIX. 
 General Obfervations upon the Scriptures of 
 the New Tejl anient. XXX. Whether Or i gen 
 thought^ that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, 
 XXXI. Swn of his Tfiimonie. 
 
 l,/^^RIGEN was born in Egypt in the year A. D. 
 V_y of our Lord (a) 1 84, or (3) 1855 that .,1^^ 
 is, the fifth, or the fixth of the Emperour ^" ^'^*' 
 CommoduSy and died in the fixty-ninth (c\ 
 or feventieth {4) year of his age, in the year 
 N 3 of 
 
 (a) Pagi Grit, in Baron. 202. n. vt. 
 
 ( b) Bafnag. Ann. 203. n. xii. Tillemont. Origene. Art. it. 
 (f ) Vixit ufque ad Galium et Volufiinum. id eft, ufque ad 
 
 LXIX. aetatis fuae annum, et mortuus eft Tyri, in qua urbe 
 et fepultus eft. Hieron. de V. I. cap. 54. 'vici. et Phot. cod. 1 1 8. 
 col. 297. 
 
 [d) Qciyii'tii \y riru [yAKKa] hoi S^kovla. 7«f l^mi 'iCS'o[Ai\» 
 xo;'JittfVo/rA/i5'i>jf jT>) TsAet/7a. £u/. H, E. I. 7. cap. i. 
 
1 82 o R I G E N. Book L 
 
 A. D. of ChriJ} (e) 253. Porphyrie (f) affirms, 
 f^^^>^ that Origen was born of Gentil parents, and 
 educated in the Gentil religion : but that 
 afterwards, when he was grown up, he em- 
 braced the Chriftian rehgion. This is flatly 
 contradicted by (g) Etifebej who was a great 
 admirer of Origeny and wrote his hiftorie at 
 large, which (h) he colleded partly from 
 Origeris own epiftles, and partly from the 
 relations of his fcholars, who lived to his 
 time. And I fuppofe, that none have ob- 
 ferved in Origen\ remaining works any evi- 
 dences of his having been a Heathen : which 
 certainly would have appeared, if Porphyrie 
 had fpoken truth in this matter. 
 
 Eufebe informs us, that Leojiides^ Origen*s 
 father, took great care of his education: and 
 that in his childhood he raifed the greateft 
 exped:ations from his quick emprovement in 
 feveral parts of knowledge, efpecially of the 
 holy fcriptures : fo that (/) he often gave his 
 father fome trouble by his enquiries into the 
 
 profounder 
 
 (e) Pagi 2§3. n. 23. Bafn. 203. n. xii. lillem. Mem* 
 Origene Art. 25. 
 
 (f) Qpiy'imi <^l IXXm h 'iXhinai '^eti<^iv^$U Xoyoti, <srpof to 
 (iufCufcfv <|«^«hA£ TOA//i})//.«. ap. Euf. <vi. c. \g. p. 120. B. 
 
 (g) "^ivaoifjiim cTe (^capZ?. Euf. ib. p. 220. D, 
 [/}) L. <vi. c. 2. p. 201. C. 
 
 Fid. Euf, ih. c. z.p. 202. CD. 203. ^, 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. o R I G E N. 183 
 
 profounder meaning of them. His father ^- d. 
 feemingly reproved him before his face, bid- iyy/\j 
 ding him to content himfelf with the plain 
 obvious fenfe of the words, and not to afpire 
 to things above his age. But at the fame 
 time he was exceedingly pleafed. And it 
 is reported, that Leonides has flood by his 
 fon as he flept, and uncovering his bread 
 kifled it with reverence, as honored with 
 the indwelling of the divine fpirit, account- 
 ing himfelf extremely happy in a child of 
 fuch attainments. 
 
 We have no very particular information, 
 who were Ongen% mailers. It is undoubted 
 however, that Clement -f- then Catcchift at 
 jUexandria was one. He like wife heard for 
 feme time, occafionally at left, the celebra- 
 ted philofopher Ammonius Saccas, as Porphy- 
 rie II relates exprefly, and owns that Origen 
 made good proficience in the knowledge of 
 philofophie under that mafter. l^heodoret 
 mentions '\^ the fame thing as a common re- 
 N 4 port. 
 
 Euf. I. vi. cap. 6. 
 
 II AapoxjiH yu^ KTo? Afx[jt.6)vi>i t» -zrAfj'rHy h rolf k«9' «//«? 
 yjovoti iTl<Po(Tiv iv (pi'Ao(Tc:pia. k^An'oroi yzyovcoi' 11^ lAv thv rciv 
 ^'oycov iy-iTttpiav, ^oXhhv Tso.'^a. 7k J^iJ^ctaxaA^i rtiv a^iXeiuv iK' 
 InactlQ. Porphyr. ap. Euf. I. 6. c. 19. p. 2 20. A. 
 
 f^j Theodoret, Gr. Aff. I. vi. p'Sll' ^' 
 
O R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 port. But it muft have been long after this 
 time, when Origen himfelf had been Cate- 
 chift fome while : as may be concluded from 
 what he fays in a fragment of a letter pre- 
 ferved ^4- ^"^ Eiifebe^ where he defends hira- 
 felf again ft thofe who accufed him of too 
 great affection for fecular literature. Bafnage 
 ** thinks, Origen might be then about 30 
 years of age. 
 
 There was another of this name among 
 the difciples of Aminoniiis, and one of the 
 moft eminent of them. It is certain, that he 
 *'^* ought to be diilinguiflied from our 
 Origen : He publiQied but two ||* pieces, and 
 the later of them in the reign of Gallien^ after 
 the death of him whofe hjftorie we are now 
 writing. 
 
 Leonides fuffered martyrdom (k) in the 
 year 2Q2. the tenth of Sever us ^ leaving be- 
 hind 
 
 -{■-I- E/j/. I. 6. c. \g. p.ZZl. B. conf. cap. \Z. fin. 
 
 ** Ann. 203. n. 15. 
 
 *^* Vid. Vale/. Annot. p. iio. in Euf. I. 6. c. 19 Huet. 
 Origenian. I. i. cap. i. num. 7. et Fabric. Bibl. Gr. T. i>.p.2 I 3. 
 et T. iv. p. 97. in not. ad Porphyr. cap. Hi. de Vit. Plotini. et 
 ^iUemont.Mentk PfC. T. j. P. 2. p. 86. Ammone Saccas. 
 Vid. et Pagi Crit. Ann. 246. n. H. 
 
 (I* Vid. Porphyr. de Vit. Plotin. tap. 3. et 20. 
 
 {k) Q.!; /e ijcTj) a.VTUO'T^oijrip y.O(.flvp'io> 7i\i\ucc\o,)^^foc,yv\ip(>if 
 ^cTeApoTf 70V ciftBfJiou 6^ i'TilocKOiiJ^'ix.oilQi'w '2S ki^ii ctycov ijoixufa- 
 MiTTiloii. Euf. I. 'ui. cap. 2. /. 203. B. 'vid. et cap. i. Origines 
 qui et Adamantiu^ decixno Seveji Pertinacis anno adverfum Cliri- 
 *' . - • . . 'iftianos 
 
Ch.XXXVIIL O RI G E N. 185 
 
 hind him a wife and feven children, of which a. d. 
 Origen was the oldeft, but not quite feventeen {y>i/^\^ 
 years of age. In the very begining of this 
 perfecution Origen {hewed great zeal for 
 Chriftianity, and was ready to offer himfelf 
 to martyrdom. Being detained at home by 
 the prudent care of his mother, he fent (1) 
 a letter to his father in prifon, earneftly en- 
 treating him to be conftant. Eufebe has pre- 
 ferved but one line of it : but, as TiJlemont 
 juftly obferves, it is worth many Volumes: 
 ^ake heed J Father^ that you do not change your 
 mind for our fake. 
 
 Upon the death of Leonides the familie 
 was reduced to great ftraits, the eftate being 
 confifcated. Origen however was (m) taken 
 care of by a rich and honorable Lady of 
 Alexandria, But in a fhort time he was able 
 to provide for himfelf by teaching grammar. 
 
 At this time (;?) the chair of the cateche- 
 tical fchool was empty. Nor was there any- 
 one 
 
 ftjanos perfecutlonecommota, a Leonide patre Chriftl martyrio 
 coronato, cum fex fratribus et matre vidua, pauper relinquitur, 
 annos iiatus circiter decern et feptem. Rem enim familiarem 
 ob confeirionem Chriili fifcus occupaverat. Hieron. de V. I. 
 cap. 54. in. 
 
 (I) AictTTiixTrtjui ra 'srolf* 'Upojpi-TrJmcoTa.Tm 'T^ifi oict^lupiz 
 
 ^«, (xn cTi «//«< fiAAo Ti (ppovwtii- Euf. ib, c. 2. /. loz. B.C. 
 (m) Euf. ib. p. 203. B. C. 
 (n) Euf, ib. f. 3. p. 204. ^, 
 
i86 oRiGEN. Book I. 
 
 one at Alexandria to teach the principles of 
 the Chri/lian religion : the terror of the per- 
 fecution had caufed fo many to abfcond, or 
 flee out of the city. There canie (o) then 
 fome Heathens to Origen defiring to be taught 
 by him the Chrtjlian do6lrine. The firft of 
 thefe, as he writes himfelf, was Plutarch^ 
 v/ho after having lived well obtained tlie ho- 
 nour of martyrdom. The fecond was 
 Heraclas^ Plutarch's brother, who was Bifliop 
 of Alexandria after the death of Demetrius. 
 Origen was (/>) not above eighteen years of 
 age, when he was fet over the catechetical 
 fchool by appointment of Der,ietrius, In 
 which office he was eminently ufeful, and 
 befides gained the univerfal eftsem of the 
 faithful by his frequent vifits, and other kind 
 offices to the confeiTors in prifon; whether 
 flrangers, or of his particular acquaintance. 
 
 Having (q) alone the whole care of the 
 fchool, and the number of his difciples en- 
 
 creafing, 
 
 [o) ihid. A.B. 
 
 (p) ''Eto? J^' nyiv o.ijcox.cuJ'i.xctlov, xciO' o tZ rTji Kalii'Xna'scj; 
 tsrpokw J'iJ'it.(TKa.kitii- a. A Euf. ib. 204. B. D. Hie Alex- 
 andriae difperfa ecclefia decimo odlavo aetatis fuae anno xaT*)- 
 "XncfZav opus aggrefius, pofcea a Demetrio ejus 'urbis epifcopo, 
 in locum Clcmentis prefbyteri confirmatus, per mukog annQS 
 floruit. Hieron. de V. 1. Ibid. 
 
 r«7oj i7rnilfict(xijt.ivyii, k. K. Id. cap. 3. p. 205. B. 
 
230. 
 
 Ch.XXXVIir. O R I G E N. 187 
 
 creafing, he left off teaching grammar, and A. D. 
 confined himfelf entirely to religious inftruc- v 
 tions : in which he continued to be (o fuc- 
 cefsful, that there were no lefs than (r) (even 
 of his fcholars, who fuffered martyrdom, one 
 of which was a woman. 
 
 There muft have been at that time no 
 ftated falarie for the Prefident of that fchool 
 at Alexandria. And Origen was unwilling to 
 receive a gratuity from thofe whom he in- 
 flructed in the rudiments of the Chriftian re- 
 ligion, " For, as Eufebe {sj lays, prudently 
 **^ confidering with himfelf, how he might be 
 '* able to {land in no need of alliftance from 
 ** others, he fold all his volumes of ancient 
 " authors, which he had colleded with great 
 *' care, and contented himfeh with four 
 *' okhj [or five pence] to be paid him daily 
 *' by the purchafer." 
 
 Not long after this, or however whilft he 
 was but young, in the 21 ft year of his age, 
 as is fuppofed {tj^ of Chn/i 205, or 206. he 
 was guilty of that {u) rafii and indifcreet ac- 
 tion, fo well known. For being in his early 
 
 youth 
 
 (r) IbiJ. cap. I'D. ij. 
 
 (j) Cap. 3. p. 205. C. 
 
 (?) Vid. Bafnag. 203. ». .xiii. P^^t. 2o6. k. it. 
 
 [zi) Vid. Euf I. 6. cap. 8. 
 
i88 ORIGEN. Book I. 
 
 youth obliged to teach women, as well as 
 men : and being defirous to put himfelf out 
 of the reach of fcandal, and to deliver him- 
 felf from temptations, he was induced to 
 fulfil upon himfelf in a literal fenfe the fay- 
 ing of our Saviour, where he fpeaks of thofe 
 MaitL^ who make themfehes, eunuchs for the kingdomc 
 ' of heaven. It might bp faid by way of apo- 
 logia for him, that thofe words have been 
 fo underftood alfo by others : but, as the 
 adtion is in itfelf unjuftifiable, fo Origen was 
 afterwards convinced of his errour, and pub- 
 licly confuted in his writings the literal in- 
 terpretation of that text, in fuch a manner 
 as to fhew that he condemned himfelf: fay- 
 ing, befide other things : " But (x) we who 
 *^ once underftood Chrijl according to the 
 " flefh, and according to the letter, but now 
 *' knowing him no more in that manner, 
 " approve not of that interpretation," which 
 he there mentions. 
 
 Notwithftanding his important employ- 
 ment in the fchool, Origen went (y) to Ro?n3 
 in the time of Zephyrine^ Bifhop of that city^ 
 [^ haying (z) a defire, as he fomewhere 
 
 " writes, 
 
 [x] In Matth. Tom. xv. p. 368. 369. Huet. 
 (y) Euf. I. 'vi. c. 14. p. 216. /). 
 
 Jbid. 
 
Ch.XXXVUL o R 1 G E N. 189 
 
 ^* v/rites, to fee the moft ancient church of ^- ^' 
 " the Rommisy Having made there a fhort v^^V^ 
 ftay he returned to Alexandria^ and applied 
 himfelf again with the greatefl: diligence to 
 his ordinarie work of teaching the principles 
 of religion ; Demetrius ft ill favoring his en- 
 deavours, and even quickening his zeal by 
 earneft exhortations to promote the edifica- 
 tion of the church. The exadt time of this 
 (a) journey cannot be determined : Only it 
 mud: have been performed before 217. Some 
 think [b) about the year 213. 
 
 Origen finding that he v^'as not able to ap- 
 ply himfslf to the ftudie of the fcriptures, 
 and the interpretation of them, as he defired, 
 and to fatisfy all thofe who from morning 
 till evening came flocking to the fchool» 
 took in Heraclas beforementioned to be his 
 partner in that work : committing to him 
 the inftrudion of the younger fcholars, and 
 referving to his own care thofe who had made 
 fome proficience. 
 
 The next thing mentioned by (rj Eufebe 
 is Origen % learning the Hebrew tongue. Up- 
 on 
 
 [a] Fid. Pagi Crlf. 2 1 5. «. 3. Ti/lemoftt^ Mem^ Ec, T. 3. 
 P. 3 . Origene Art. 'viii. 
 
 (b) Fid. Bafnag. 203. § 1 4. 
 \c) L. vi. cap. 16. 
 
190 O R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 A. D. on which occafion he alfo fpeaks of his edi- 
 
 2 JO. 
 
 \.^.-V-«o tions of the Old Teftament, in one of which 
 he placed in feveral columns the Original , 
 Hebrew text, and the Greek verfions of the 
 Seventy, Aquila, Symmachus, 'Theodotion, and 
 feme others, the names of which are not 
 known. St. Jerome (d) like wife fays, that 
 fuch was Origeiis deiire to underftand, and 
 promote the knowledge of the fcriptures, 
 that contraric to the cuftom of his time and 
 countrey he learned the Hebrew language. 
 Nay, he fliys, he was -f- admired by all 
 Greece upon that account. However divers 
 (e) learned moderns have obferved, that 0/7- 
 gen'^ fl^-iii in Hebrew was not exa6l. 
 
 Amh-ofe. Eufebe (f) adds : " About this time Am- 
 " brofe, who followed the Valentinian here- 
 " fie, was brought over to the orthodox doc- 
 '* trine of the church by the preaching of 
 *' Origeny St. Jerome in his Catalogue of 
 . Ecclefiaftical writers gives (g) this account 
 
 of 
 
 [d) Quis ignorat et quod tantum in fcripturis divinis habue- 
 rit ftudii, ut eciam Hebraeam linguam contra aetatis gentifque 
 luae naturam edifceret ? de F.I c. 54. 
 
 -|- Fid. Hiero?!. 3. Ep. 12. «/. 25. inif. . 
 
 (f) HiiCt.Origenian. /. 3 . r. I . § //. p. 26. Tillemont. Mem. Ece^ 
 in Origetie Art. it. et Note 3. Fid. et Fabric. Bib.Gr. '/'.1/./1.224. 
 
 (f) lb. f. 18. in. 
 
 (g) Axnbrofius primum Marcionites, deinde ab Origine cor- 
 redtus, ecclefiae diaconus, et confeffionis Dominicae gloria in- 
 
 iignis 
 
Ch.XXXVIIT. O R I G E N. 
 
 of Ambrofe : " That be was at firft a Mar- 
 
 ** cionite^ afcer wards having been convinced 
 
 " of his errour by Origen^ he became a Dea- 
 
 ** con of the church, and had the honour of 
 
 " fuffering for Cbrijl as a confefTor : to whom 
 
 " and to ProtoBetus Origen infcribed his 
 
 " book of Martyrdom : and that Origen 
 
 *' dedicated to Ambrofe many of his volumes, 
 
 *' which were pabliflied at his defire, care 
 
 * ' and charge. Ambrofe was a man of a good 
 
 " familie, and of no fmall wit, as his let- 
 
 *' ters to Origen ihew. He died before Ori- 
 
 " gerij and is blamed by many, that though 
 
 " he was rich, he did not at his death re- 
 
 *' member his friend: who was not only 
 
 ** poor, but likewife in his old age.'' 
 
 So writes 'Jerome. Epiphanius informs us, 
 
 that ijj) in his time it was faid by fome, that 
 
 Ambrofe was at firft a Marcionite, by others, 
 
 that he was a Sabellia?h But I fuppofe Eti- 
 
 Jebe% account is the moil: credible, who calls 
 
 him 
 
 fignis fulr, cui et Piotecleto prcfbytero liber Ongenis deMarty- 
 rio fcribitur. Hujus mdultria, et fumptu et inltantia, ad hunc 
 infinita Origenes dklavit vohimina. Sed et ipfe, quippe ut vIf 
 nobili?, non inele^^antis ingenii fuit : ficut ejus ad Originem 
 cpiftolae indicio funt. Obiit ante mortem Origenis, et in hoc 
 a plerifquereprehenditur,quodvirlocuplesamici fui feniset pau- 
 peris moriens non recordatus fit. Hieron. De F. I. cap. 56. 
 
 (A) T/ueiT J'i TsTou T5V Ay.Cfitjio)) ftpaiTM' oj fxiv M^-pxtwv/rwv, 
 it sTe XaCiA^Jxvoy. Epiph, llaer. 64= />. 526. 4. 
 
ig2 o R I G E N. Book L 
 
 him a Valentinia?!. His converfion might be 
 made (/) about the year 212. ProtoBetus 
 was a Preibyter of the Church of Cefarea in 
 Falejline. His and AmbroJe\ confeffion for 
 Chrift was in the perfecution under Maxi- 
 mine about the year 236. Eufebe in his Ec- 
 clefiaftical Hiftorie {k) fpeaks of their fufFer- 
 ings, as does Origen hkewife in feveral places 
 of his Exhortation to Martyrdom, infcribed 
 to both of them, which is ftill extant. And 
 there are befides remaining feveral other 
 works of Origen dedicated to Ambrofe ; as 
 his Commentaries upon St. Johns Gofpel, 
 the treatife of Prayer, and the eight books 
 again ft Celfus : which laft (hews, though Am- 
 brofe died before Origen^ yet he Hved to the 
 year 250, or near it. St. 'Jerome fays, that 
 Ambrofe was a Deacon of the Church j at 
 Alexandria^ as is generally fuppofed. But 
 Eufebe fays nothing of this. And fome {I) 
 are rather inclined to think, he was a Deacon 
 of the church of Cefarea^ where Proto5fetus 
 
 was 
 
 (;•) See Tillemont. 7". 3. P. 2. p. 59. 
 
 [k) Ibid. cap. 28. 
 
 (/) Ambrofium ecckfiae diaconum fuifle fcimus ex Hieronymo, 
 Cujus vero ignoramus. Eo tamen inclinat conjeflura, ut in 
 Caefarienfi diaconum egerit. Origeni comes erat, qui plurimum 
 Caefareae verfatus eft. Protofteto quoque Caefarienfi conjungit 
 Ambrofium, dum ambobus librum de martyrio fuum nuncupat, 
 Bafnag. Ann, 205. «. xxii. 
 
Cll.XXXVIII. O RI G E N. 193 
 
 was prefbyter. Origen in a letter, of which A D. 
 we have now only a fragment, calls Ambrofe \J,^^^ 
 (m) a man indeed devoted to God: and fpe.ks of 
 his earneft defire to undeiftand the fcriptures, 
 and his great application in the Audie of 
 them. Ambrofe had a wife named Marcella, 
 by whom he had feveral children. She is 
 commended by Origen, (n) as a true Chrijiia?i 
 and faithful wife. 
 
 Etifebe {p) informs us, that Ambrofe was 
 the perfon, who excited Origen to write com- 
 mentaries upon the fcriptures, and that not 
 only by words and entreaties, but by fupplies 
 of all things neceiTarie. For there were itvtu. 
 notaries or more procured by him to attend 
 Origen when he did:ated, who relieved each 
 other by turns. And befides there was a like 
 number of young women or others, ikilful in 
 the art of fair writing, all which were hand- 
 fomly miaintained by * Ambrofe. 
 
 "Jerome faid juft now, that Ambrofe was 
 
 blamed by many for leaving nothing at his 
 
 O death 
 
 (vi) Vld. Orig. 0/>. T. i. p. 3. edit. Bened. 
 
 {n) Aa'^ra^ilcLi J^i ffe )y ri -ar/rolc/'TH <rCy.C{oi emrti MapJceAAx 
 fiu-A 7oli 7<i,yMii. Orig. Ep. ad African, fub.jin. 
 
 (c) L. 'ui. cap. 23. 
 
 * Ambrofias, quo chartas, fumtus, notaries miniftrantey 
 tarn innumerabiles libros vere Adamantius et Chalcenterus no* 
 fter explicavit. Hieron. ad. Marcel, ep. 45. al. 1 8. /. 55a. 
 Conf. eund, dt y. 1. cap. ^6. et 6i, 
 
2 30. 
 
 1 94- R I G E N. Bookie 
 
 A. p. death to Origen. But lUllemont thinks, that 
 Amhrofe knew his. friend's mind, and that 
 Origen chofe to be poor, and to live in a de- • 
 pendence on providence. 
 
 Finally, St, 'Jerome fpeaks of Amhrofe^ 
 Epiftles. But there is nothing of them re- 
 maining. It was lit however, that we (hould 
 give the account we have here done of this 
 intimate friend and great admirer of Origen. 
 
 In the vt2iV oi Chrifi 228 Ori^ren was fent 
 upon fome affair of the church by Demetrius 
 into Achaia. When he came to Cefarea m 
 Faleftine, he (p) was ordained Prefbyter by 
 1'heo£li(ius and Alexander^ Bifhops in that 
 eountrey, being then about 43 or 44 years of 
 age. Demetrius J who had before envied Or/- 
 gens reputation, was now greatly [q) ofFended 
 at him. So that Ori^ren, after his return from 
 Athens being very unealie at Alexandrina^ left 
 that city^ and v/ent to refide Tit.' Cefarea, re- 
 iigning the chair cf the catechetical fchooi 
 
 ta 
 
 (p) Et cum jam mediae efTet aet?.tls, et propter ecelefias A- 
 ehaiae, quae pluribus haercfibus vexabanrur, Tub teltimonio eccle- 
 <fiallicae epiftolae Athenas per Paleftinam pergerct, aTh oftillo- 
 et Alexandre, Caefareae et Hierofolymorum epifcopis, preil)yte?r 
 ordinatus, Bemetrii offendic animum, qui tanta in cum debac- 
 ehatus eft infania, ut per totum mundum fupernomen ejus fcri- 
 beret. Hieron. de V. I. c. 54. 
 
 (q) Vid. Eiif. ib. c. 8. />. 209. C, Z>. et cap. zip, 224. C. I>> 
 
 (/J EitJ, ib. cap. 26. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. o R I G E N. 195 
 
 to Heraclas^ who had been already his part- ^- ^• 
 ner for near twenty years. This happened 
 in the year [s) 23 1. 
 
 Upon this occafion Demetrius held two 
 councils at Alexandria : in the firft of which 
 Origen was expelled that city, and forbid to 
 teach in it: or, if he was retired before, the 
 decree of the council mufl be underQood to 
 deprive him of the office he had enjoyed, and 
 to forbid his return to Alexandria, This was 
 all, which that council would confent to, as 
 Phot iris (t) relates from Pamphilus. In the 
 fecond he was depofed from being Prefby- 
 ter : and Jerome feems to fay, that he {u) 
 was excommunicated. Demetrius like wife 
 fent letters to the Bifhops of the feveral 
 parts of the world again ft Origen^ who, as 
 Jerome fays, was thereupon condemned by 
 the(i£;) Bifhop of i^i?;;?^, and generally by all 
 O 2 others. 
 
 [s) See Tillemont Mem. Origene Art. 19. and note 21. 
 
 {t) Phot. Cod. I I 8. n. 297. 
 
 (h) Contra facerdotes ergo ecclefiae generaliter difputans, a 
 quib.13 indignus communione ejus fuerat judicatus. tiieion. 
 /tpol. adv. Ruf. I. c. col. 411. T. 4. P. 2. Bened. 
 
 [vj] Porro hoc fadore qaid accepit precii ? Damnatus a De- 
 metrio epifcopo, exceptis Paleitinae, et Arabiae et Phoenicis, 
 atqae Achaiac facerdotibus In damnationem ejus confentit urbs 
 Roitiana: Ipfa contra hunc cogit fenatum, non propter dogma- 
 turn novitatem ; non propter haerefim ; . . fed quia gloriam 
 eloquentiae ejus et fcientiae terre non poterant; et illo dicente 
 omiKs muti patobantur, Hieron. Ep. 29. 
 
230. 
 
 196 o R I G E N. BookL 
 
 A. D. others, except the Bifhops of Fahfllne^ Ara- 
 bia^ Pheniciay and Achat a ^ by whom he was 
 ilill honored. 
 
 Soon after this, in the very [x) fame year, 
 as is fuppoTed, Demetrius died : who was fnc- 
 ceded by HeracJaSj and he by Dionyjius^ in the 
 catechetical fchool : who (y) v»^as alfo one 
 of Origens fcholars, and fucceded Heraclas m 
 the Bilhoprick of y^/d';c"j;z^/7^. Which, as Til- 
 lemont [z) argues, may afford reafon to con- 
 clude, that the animoiity againfl Origen aba- 
 ted after the death of Demetrius, 
 
 Origen was well received at Cefarea^ where 
 IheoSlijius the Bifliop of that city, and Alex- 
 ander Bifhop oi'Jeritfakm^ heard him as if he 
 had been their mafier, and [a) committed to 
 him alone the interpretation of the fcrip- 
 tures, and other ecclefiaftical infl:rud:ions. 
 Here there was a great refort to Origen^ not 
 only of the people of that countrey, but alfo 
 of diftant parts : the mofl noted of which 
 were Gregorie^ afterwards called Thaumatur- 
 gus, Bifhop of Ncocefarca in Pontus, and his 
 
 brother 
 
 c. 26. 
 
 (y) Ibid. c. 29. p. 229. D, 
 
 (z) Mem. Ec. Origene Art. 20. near the efid. 
 
 [a) llovtoTc/.TYii tZv d-eicj yfci^&v if/jwuca >i) 7a Ao/ta t* 
 
ch.xxxvm. OR I GEN. 197 
 
 brother Athenodorus, afterwards alfo Bifhop in ^' ^• 
 
 230. 
 
 Pontus. Thefe [b) refided with Origen under ^ — ,^~, 
 his tuition for the fpace of five years. Fir- 
 milian, at this time Bifliop of Cejarea in 
 Cappadocia^ invited Origen into his owncoun- 
 trey, and (r) likewife made him feveral vifits 
 at Cefarea in Pale/line, and made a ftay with 
 him for the fake of farther emprovement in 
 divine knowledge. St. Jerome fays [d) more- 
 over, that Firmilian and all Cappadocia pref- 
 fed Origen to come to them, and that he ad:u- 
 ally accepted the invitation, and refided with 
 them a good while. Tillemont [e) thinks it 
 probable, that he lived there privatly during 
 the time of the perfecution under Maximine * 
 where alfo, as he fuppofes, he wrote his 
 Exhortation to Martyrdom. Ajricanus was 
 another of Origen\ friends, with whom he 
 had at left an epiftolarie correfpondence. He 
 wrote letters likewife to Fabian^ Bifliop of 
 Pome^ and to divers other eminent Bi(hops of 
 
 the Chrifiian church : as Enfebe aflures us, who 
 O 3 made 
 
 IJ,) Ih.c.io. 
 
 \c) lb. c. 26. 27. 
 
 [d) Quantae autem gloriae fuen't, hinc apparet, quod Firmi- 
 lianus Caefareae epifcopus, cum omni Cappadocia eum invitavit, 
 et diu tenuit, et poftea fab occafione fandtorum locorum Palaefti- 
 nam veniens, dm Caefareae in fanftis fcripturis ab eo eruditus 
 eft. Deyir.m.c.^j^. 
 
 [e) Mem, Ec. T. 3. P. 3 Qrigene Art. 22. etNofe 24, * 
 
19^ o R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 ^' ^ (f) ^^^"ds a colledion of Origens eplftles to 
 V-V^*-/ tlje number of a hundred and more. 
 
 We may obferve here, as proofs of the 
 uncommon abiHties and fuit.ible reputa- 
 tion of Origen, without concerning ourfelves 
 about the exact time of thofe events, which 
 cannot be eafily fctded, if at all ; that (g) Ma- 
 maea^ mother of the Em.perour Akxaiider^ 
 fent for Origen to come to her at Antioch^ 
 that Hie might have difcourfe v^'iih him upon 
 things of religion ; at the fame time for his 
 grea er fafety appointing him a militarie guard 
 to attend him in his journey : and {h) that 
 he had the honour to write a letter to the 
 Emperour Philips and another to his wife 6*^- 
 'uera. Thefe thinfrs are mentioned to the 
 
 o 
 
 advantage of Origen by (i) Jerome and 
 others, as we'll as by Ri'fehe. But 'Jerome^ 
 inftead of Philip's wife, fays his mother. 
 
 And whilfl: Grigen yet dwelled at Alex- 
 andria, as Eiifebe -f* fays, there came a fol- 
 dier who delivered letiers to Demetrius Bifhop 
 
 cf 
 
 (f) H.E I. I'i. cap. 36. 
 
 (g) Ibid. cap. 21. 
 (h) Ibid. e. 0. 
 
 (/) Sed et illud, q'lod ad Mammaeam, matrem Alexandri 
 im eratoris, religiofam feminam, rogitus venit Antiochiam, et 
 fummo honorehabitaseil: : quodqucad Philippam imperatorem, 
 .... et ad mitr,m ejus literas fecit. D: Fir. Hi. cap. 54.. 
 
 •J- L. vi. cap. 19 p. zci. D. 
 
Ch. XXXVIII. o R I G E N. 199 
 
 of that city and to the Prefed of Es,\pt ^- ^* 
 
 . '. 230. 
 
 from the Goveinour of Arabia^ defiring \ — , — 
 
 them to fend Origen to him with all fpeed, 
 that he might have foms difcourfe with him. 
 Being therefore fent by them, he went into 
 Arabia^ and having in a fliort time finifhed 
 the affair for which he was fent, he return- 
 ed io' Alexandria. Tiliemont * thinks this 
 niuft have been before the year 217, when 
 Qrigen was not more than 31 or 32 years of 
 age. r> 
 
 Origen made another journey to Athens ^ 
 befide that beforementioned by order of De- 
 metrius, Eufebe^ though he mentions this / 
 journey, does not inform us of the time of it. 
 It is fuppofed however to have been about 
 the year 240. Origen muft have made fome 
 ftay at Athens at this time. For he there 
 (k) finifhed his Commentaries upon Eze^ 
 kiel, and began his Expofition of the Ca?2^ 
 tides. 
 
 At this time lived Beryllus, Bifliop of Bo- Beryl/us. 
 jlra in Arabia. He (/) was accufed of faying, 
 O 4 that 
 
 * Till. Or'igene. Art. l^. af the hegining. 
 [k] Euf. cab. 3 2 . /I. i 3 I . J. 
 
 y.ioii' fj.il di (xnv ^i'ornix i<i\a,v i'/Jiv, «AA.' ewTcA/TSi/fl/xiVJiw 
 ayjo) (/.'mv rh vcilpr/Jiv, /i^. c. 33. /. 231. C. 
 
200 O R I G E N. Book L 
 
 A- D, that cur Lord and Saviour before his coming 
 to dwell among men had 720 proper diJlinSi fub- 
 Jijience I and that he had no Godhead of his 
 €wn, but only that of the Father refding in 
 him. There was a fynod of Bifliops convened 
 upon this occafion, at which Origen was 
 prefent. And it is to his arguments chiefly 
 that Eujebe afcribes the convid:ion of Be^ 
 ryllus. In another place our ecclefiaftical 
 hiftorian fays, that (w) Beryllus left behind 
 him divers epiftles snd other writings of 
 an elegant compofiiion. Beryllus is fuppo- 
 fed by Cave to have flourifhed about the 
 year 230. 
 
 fcrome\ account of this Bifhop is, *' That 
 " (n) after he had for a confiderable time 
 ** prefided in the church with great repu- 
 *' tation, at length falling into that herefie, 
 ** which denies Chrift to have fuhlifted be- 
 ** fore his incarnation, he was convinced by 
 '* Origen. He wrote feveral pieces, particu- 
 
 " larly 
 
 ^'ofovi (piXoKSihicti Ka]a.KiKoi7riv ■ lb. c. 20. 
 
 («) Beryllus, Arabiae Bollrorum epifcopus, cum aliquanto 
 tempore gloriofe rexifl'et ecclefiam, ad extremum lapfus in 
 haercfim, quae Chrillum ante incarnationem negat j ab Qrigene 
 corredus, Icripfit varia opufcula ; et maxime epifiolas, in qui- 
 bus Origeni gratias agit. Sed et Origenis ad eum litterae funt. 
 Exilat dialogLis Origenis et Berylii, in quo Imtrefeos cpargui* 
 tur, &c. De Fir. Jil.fap^.bo. 
 
Ch.XXXVIIL o Ri G E N. 20 1 
 
 " larly epiftles, in which he thanks Origen. 
 *' There are alfo letters of Origen to him. 
 ** There is belides a conference ai Origen and 
 *' BerylluSy in which his herefis is confuted 
 ** He flouri(hed in the time oi Alexander^ fon 
 ** oi Mamaea, and Maximine^ and Gordian 
 ** who fucceded him." Of thefe writings 
 there is now nothing extant. They mud 
 have been very curious. 
 
 Eufebe (0) informs us, that after this ano- ^f *^'^ 
 ther difpute arofe in ^r^^/^; fome there af-^v^r, '^ ' 
 ferting, that the human foul died with the body^ 
 and turned to corruption^ but at the time of the 
 refurreSfion it fiould be revived together with 
 it. For this reafon a numerous fynod was 
 called, and Origen was defired to be prefent • 
 where he difcourfed publicly upon this que- 
 ftion with fuch ftrength of reafon, that they 
 who had afferted the forementioned dodtrine 
 were convinced and altered their minds. 
 
 Eujebe adds (p), that at this time a new zt-HeUe/aUei 
 rour arofe, called the herefie of the Helcefaites^ 
 which was foon extindl. He tranfcribes there 
 a paffage of Origen concerning them, which 
 we have no reafon to infift upon at preftnt. 
 
 When 
 
 (0) L. 6. c. 37. 
 (p) Cap. 38, 
 
20 2 O R I G E N. Book L 
 
 When Origcn was fixty years of age, and 
 not before, as Riijebe {g) informs us, about the 
 f'%Vs y^^^ ^4^> ^^^ permitted his difcourfes which 
 he made to the people to be taken down by 
 {hort-hand writers ; having by long ufe and 
 exercife gained a perfect habit of fpeaking. 
 Of thcfe homilies there were (r) above a thou« 
 fand, for he preached then almofl every (s) 
 day. And about this time, as Eufebe pro- 
 ceeds to obferve, Origen wrote, his eight books 
 againfl Ccljus^ and five and twenty Tomes up- 
 on St. MaUheiv J and expofitions of the twelve 
 Prophets. 
 Jlisfuffer- In the Decian perfecution, in 250, Origm 
 '"■^ " (t) was a great faifjrer. He was imprifoned 
 and chained with an iron chain. He was 
 put in the flocks, and for feveral days had 
 his feet ftretched to the diftance of four 
 holes, and fuffcred the threatenings of fire, 
 and many other torments, the judge at the 
 fame time taking a great deal of care not to 
 
 kill 
 
 (^q) Ta? \'7r) T» Ko.vz Kiyoi/iVOii avja S'lahk^eti, ra'Xyypa.- 
 
 Tt.zyaii(\x'oia. cap. 36. 
 
 (;■) Mille et eo ampliiis traflatus, quos in ecclefn loquutus 
 cfi, edidit. Hisron. Ep.\\. al. 65. 
 
 (j) Praecipue vero per eos tradlatus, quos pene quotidie in 
 ecclefn habebat ex tempore: quos ct defcribentes notarii ad 
 monimentum polteritatis tradebant. Apologia Fa?nph. pro Orig. 
 col. 221. ap. Hisrsn. T. v. Bencdid^ 
 
 (■') C. 39. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. O R I G E N. 
 
 kill him outright. Of all thefe things^ as 
 Eufebe fays, Origen had writ en hi his own epi- 
 Jlles^ full of piety and thoughts proper to confort 
 the afiiuled. It is a great pity, thefe epillles 
 are all loft. They would have been very 
 edifying, as all may perceive from the ftiort 
 palTage already mentioned in Origens letter 
 to his father, and from fome other thing? 
 we (hdU take notice of by and by. 
 
 Eufebe has nothing more of Origen after 
 this, except that (ii) he fays, he died in the 
 time of Gallus in the 70th year of his age. 
 And we know from Jerome and Photius^ that 
 he died and was buried at Tyre^ as was before- 
 uientioned. 
 
 Origen s works were extremely volumi- ■^'^''^^«''*'^^' 
 nous. But though fome catalogues of them 
 were compofed, none of them are remaining. 
 Eufebe fays, he had infer ted {w) an exad: ca- 
 talogue of them in his life of Pamphilus, 
 But that life is not come down to us. St., Je^ 
 rw/zd" fays in his book of Illuftrioas Men, that 
 he forbore to give there a {x) particular ac- 
 count of Origen^ works, becaufe he had al- 
 ready 
 
 , [u] L. 7. cap. i. 
 
 (at') L. I'i. cap. 32. 
 
 {x) Et quia indicem operum ejus in voluminibus epiftolarum, 
 jquas ad Paulam fcripfimus, in quadam epiftola contra Varro- 
 nis opera, conferens pofai, nunc omiuo. DeV.J. cap 54. 
 
204- O R I G E N. BookL 
 
 A. D. ready done it In one of his letters to Paula. 
 
 1^^^^ But of that letter we have only a fmall frag- 
 ment remaining. 
 
 It was long ago fald of Or'igen^ that (y) 
 he had writ fix thoufand volumes. Je- 
 rome {%) however is pleafed to fay, that from 
 the catalogue compofed by Eufehe^ it appears, 
 they did not amount to one third part of that 
 number. But Eiijebes catalogue might not 
 be compleat, and according to different ways 
 of computing books or volumes the number 
 may be very different. Plinie (a) calls the 
 feveral books of his Natural Hirtorie vo- 
 lumes. St. yerome fays, Origen (b) wrote three 
 volumes upon the Epiftle to the Ephejiam, 
 and five volumes {aa) upon the Epiftle to 
 the Galatians. According to that way of 
 reckoning, what a vail number of volumes 
 
 muft 
 
 ^ICXm avviyfci-^u, K. A. Epiph. Haer.6j.. § 63./?. 591. i>, 
 
 (k) Numera indices librorum ejus, qui in tertio volumine 
 Eufebii, in quo fcripfit vitam Pamphili, continentur: et non 
 dico fex millia, fed tertiam partem non reperies. Hieron. Jpoh 
 adv. Riif.l. i. T. i'v.col. 419. Bened. 
 
 {a) Viginta millia rerum dignarum cura . . . inclufimua 
 triginta fex volun^inibus. Plin. Praef. 
 
 {b) In Epiftolam Pauli ad Ephefios, tria Origenes fcripfit 
 volumina. Hiero?:. adv. Ruf. ibid. col. 373. in. vid. i^ ejufdem 
 Pro!, in Ep. ad Ephef. 
 
 [aa) . . . Origenis commentaries fum fequutus. Scripfit 
 enim ille vir in epiftolam Pauli ad Galatas quinque propria, 
 volumina. Id, in ProL in Cvmm. in Ep. adGalai, 
 
Ch.XXXVIIl. O R I G E N. 
 
 muft Origen have writ upon the fcrlptures! 
 efpecially, if he wrote, as [bb) Epiphanius fays, 
 upon all the books of fcrlpture : and, as [cc) 
 Jerome informs us, three forts of works ; Scho- 
 lia^ or brief notes ; ^Tomes, or commentaries ; 
 and TraBs, or homilies to the people. Ori^ 
 gen wrote, as "Jerome fays, thirty {dd) vo- 
 lumes upon only a part of Ifaiah : and upon 
 (^ee) St. Matthew's Gofpel five and tv^'enty 
 volumes^ befide as many homilies, and notes 
 or fcholia. His epiftles (Jfj made feveral 
 books or volumes. St. Jerome fpeaks (gg) of 
 the volumes of his own letters to Faula only, 
 
 and 
 
 i^hh) Vid. Epiph. Haer. 64. n. 3.^.526. D. et n. 5. p.s^i<^.A. 
 
 [cc] Et illud breviter admonens, ut fcias Origenis opufcula 
 in omnem {cri|:turam effe triplicia. Primum ejus opus excerp- 
 ta, quae Graece (^/qKio, nuncupantur, in quibus ea quae fibi 
 videbantur obfcura, atque habere aliquid difficultatis, fumma- 
 tim breviterque perftrinxit. Secundum oy.iXiriv.cv genus, ds 
 quo et praefens ejus interpretatio ell:. Tertium, quod ipfe in- 
 fcripfit To//a<, nosvolumina poffumus nuncupare, in quoopere 
 tota ingenii fui vela fpirantibus ventis dedit, et recedens a. 
 terra in medium pelagus aufugit. Mieron. in Proleg. in In- 
 terpret. Ezech. 
 
 {dd) Scripfit enim in hunc Prophetam, juxta editiones qua- 
 tuor, ad vifionem quadrupedum in deferto Origenes triginta 
 volumina, &c. Prol. in If. T. 3. 
 
 [ee] Legifle me fateor ante annos plurimos in Matthaeum 
 Origenis viginti quinque volumina, et totidem ejus homilias, 
 commat'uimque interpretationis genus, Prol. in Matt. T. 4. 
 
 (ff) Ne quis vero cenfeat, fex ilia librorum volumina, il 
 modo totidem ab Origene fcripti funt, ingentia quaedam vo- 
 lumina fuiffe. . . Epiltolae fingulae, fmguli tomi, fingulae ho- 
 miliae, fuo quaeque titulo et nomine in hunccenfum venerunt, 
 Uuet. Origenian. L. 3. cap. I. n.v.p. 235. 
 
 (gg) See before rots [x). 
 
206 O R I G E N. Book!. 
 
 and (hh) calls the feveral books of Eiifebe'^ 
 life 0^ Pamphilus fo many volames. Origen's 
 homilies, all compofcd and publi("hed after he, 
 was fixty years of age, amounted to above a 
 thoufand. Accounting each one of thtTe, and 
 each book, or tome, or diviiion of his other 
 works, for a volume j and there might be fix 
 thoufand Volumes, fomc larger, fome fmall- 
 er; which perhaps was the method, by 
 v/hich fome computed. Montjauco7i [d) thinks, 
 that Ori^en's Hexapla alone made at left fif- 
 ty Volumes of a very large fize. "Jerome 
 himfelf owns in another place, that {e) O- 
 rigen had writ more than any other man 
 could read. And in the fragment of the 
 letter to Paula, where he gave a catalogue 
 of Ortgen\ works, he (f) fets him againfb 
 Varro and all the Greek and Latin authors 
 that ever were, as having exceeded the mod 
 laborious of them all. And it is from his 
 unwearied p:iins in reading and writing, that 
 fome think (g) he had the name Adamantius : 
 
 though 
 
 {hh) See before note [z). 
 
 (ci) Vid. Praelirninaria in Hexajila Orige-nh. cap. xi. § /. 
 
 [e] Quisnollrumtanta porell legere, quanta ille cQfcripfit ? 
 Ep. 41. al 65. 
 
 ^fj Videtifne et Graecos pariter et Latinos, unius labore 
 fuperatoi? Quis enim umquam tanta legere potuit, quanta 
 ipfe confcripfu ? Ep. 29. col. 68. f^. Befied. 
 
 {g) Quorfum Varronis et Chalcenterii mentio fafta fit. 
 
 Quae- 
 
Ch XXXVIII. o R I G E N. 207 
 
 though others fay, it was given him [h) be- A. D. 
 caufe of the ftrength of his reafons and the v.^-i-^ 
 firm connexion of his arguments. Eufebe, 
 who (/) fays this was a common name of 
 Origen, aillgns no reafon for it. 
 
 Bat tliO'jgh thofe two large and particular 
 "catalogues above mentioned are not now ex- 
 tant, there are accounts to be found of ^ 
 good number of Origen^ works in ancient 
 writers, particularly in Eufebe's Ecclefiaftica! 
 Hiftorie : who has (Jz) feveral chapters con- 
 cerning them, and obferves of divers of them, 
 that they v/ere writ before Origen left Alex- 
 andria, 
 
 I have no occasion to give here a dlftindt HisWorh 
 account of Origens works now extant. This extant! 
 has been already done fo fully (/) by divers 
 learned men, that it is altogether fuperfluous 
 
 in 
 
 Quaeritis? Videlicet, ut at Adamrintium noflrumque Chal- 
 -centerum veniamus : qui tanto ftucio in fanftarum fcriptura- 
 rum labore fuciavlt, ut julte Adamantii nomen accepeiit, &.'C. 
 id. ibid. 
 
 ynf. Phot. Cod. 1 18. f. 297. m- 
 
 {i) 'O y'iToi AXcLiAAvltoi, }y tZto yap vv 7a ^^lyiVH ovo- 
 fA». Euf. L njt. c. i^.p. 216. D. 
 
 {^•) Fid. I. mi. cap. 16. 24. ZJ. 31. 32. 33. 36. 
 
 (/) Fid. Huet. Origenian. I. 3. cap. Hi. i'v. Ca'v. Hiji. Lit, 
 I. A. Fabric. Bibl. Gr. L. v. cap. i. § 26. Bajnag. Ann. 203. 
 n.xxii, xxiii.Du Pin. Bibl. Tilkviont Mem, Ec. OrigeneArt, 
 27, et /eqq. St NotN 29 ■ -■■-41, 
 
20 8 O R I G E N. Book h 
 
 In this phce. It will be fufficient for the 
 readers of this work, after the eeneral hifto- 
 rie juft given of this great man, to obfervCj 
 that a large part of his works are entirely 
 loft : and that of thofe which remain the 
 greateft part confift only of Laii?! Tranfla- 
 tions, made by 'Jerome or Riiffin^ chiefly by 
 ?,he later : bat that nevertheleffe we dill have 
 in the original Greek Origens treatife of 
 Prayer, his Exhortation to martyrdom ad- 
 drefled to AmbroJ'e and Proto^etus^ writen in 
 the perfecution under Maxifmn in the year 
 235, or 236. his Apologie for the Chriftian 
 Religion in eight books againfl Celfus the jE- 
 picurean^ compofed, as fome think, in the 
 year 246, or, as others, not before 249. an ex- 
 cellent performance, greatly efleemed and ce- 
 lebrated not only by (;«) Eiifebe^ and {n) Je- 
 rome^ but likewife by many judicious men of 
 late times, particularly by Dii Phi : who 
 fays, («) " that it is polite, jufl: and methodical: 
 " not only the bed work of Orige?2^ but the 
 " compleated and bell wriren Apologie for 
 ** the Chri/iian Religion, which the ancients 
 
 " have 
 
 [til) Euf. contr. Hlerocl. />. 5 1 1 . 
 
 («) Scripferunt contra nos Celfus atque Porphyrius : priori 
 Origenes, alter! Methodius, Eafebius et ApoUinaris fortiffime 
 j-efponderunt. Hieron. Ep. 83. al. 84. 
 
 {0) Du Pin Bibl. Origenes, p. 1 42. Jtnji^ 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. O R I G E N. 20^ 
 
 ** have left us." Bedde this, we ftill have in A. D, 
 Greek an Epiftle of Origen to AJricanus ; by kJ^y^ 
 feme fuppofed to have been writ in 228, by 
 others in 240, another to Gregorie Thaiima^ 
 turguSj and fragments of a few other Epiftles : 
 a part of his Commentaries upon divers books 
 of the Old and New Teftament, publillicd by 
 Hiiet. And we have reafon to hope^ that the 
 Bened'iSlm Editors o^ Origen s works will make 
 fome new additions from Manufcripts of Com- 
 mentaries, which have not yet feen the light 
 efpecially upon the New Teftament: Fhilo- 
 calia^ containing extra<ftsout of Or/^^'/j's works, 
 made by Gregorie Nazianzen and Bafil the 
 Grtat» Thefe exrrads are taken out of Or/- 
 gen\ Tomes and Homilies upon divers books 
 of the Old and New Teflamenr, and out of 
 his books of Principles, and thofe again ft CeU 
 fus. And here is eiuire the epiftle to Gregorie 
 Thaumatiirgus before mentioned. There are 
 likewife m the coUedtions out of the Fathers 
 upon books of fcripture, called Chains, many 
 notes or Scholia, fuppofed to be Origejis : 
 fome of which are undoubtedly his, others 
 (0) are admitted by learned men not without 
 hefitation. 
 
 P The 
 
 (5) Vid, Monitum in Pfaimos, Ed. BcncdiSl. T.z.p.^ii> 
 
2 1 O R I G E N. Book h 
 
 The Laiin tranilations of Origens works, 
 efpecially thofe made by Ruffin, have been 
 often complained of, as not faithful. And 
 fome learned (/>) men fufped, that the pieces 
 ftill extant in Greek have been interpolated, 
 or otherwife altered, to make this great man 
 fpeak more agreeably to the modern ortho-* 
 doxie upon Original Sin, and fome other con- 
 troverted points, than he really thought, or 
 wrote. 
 
 There are fome writings which have beent 
 afcribed to Origen without ground, as two dif- 
 ferent works upon the book of 'Job^ a Dia- 
 logue againft the Marcionites, Philqjbphumena 
 and fome other pieces, which I fhall not cite 
 as Origen s ; but, if I make ufe of them at 
 all, I fhall fpeak of them diftindly about the 
 time when they are fuppofed by the beft cri- 
 tics to have been writ. 
 Ills Opt. jj- would be too tedious for me to enter in- 
 to the particular confideration of Origen's 
 
 fen- 
 
 (p) Verum in hodiernis Origenis fcriptis nihil non fanum et 
 orthodoxum de Peccato Originali traditur — unde forte dicatur 
 quae in hodiernis ejus fcriptis pro peccato originali comparent, 
 aliena manu inveda fuifTe. Nam opera Origenis in fcripturam, 
 variis in locis interpolata, aut vitiata vel truncata fuere : neque 
 in promptu eft dicere, quaenam in fcriptis ejus corrupta, quae- 
 nam germana, et Graeculorum aufibus intada funt. Rufini quo- 
 que verfio vulgofufpefiahabetur. Bern. Montfaucon. Fraelitn. 
 inEu/eb. Comm. in Pfaimoseap. I'ii. § 2. ^;V. et Hiiet. Origeii, 
 L 2 , cap. i. § 3 . 
 
 nions. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. O RIG E N. 21 f 
 
 fentiments, about which the world fometimes ^' ^* 
 
 230. 
 has been divided. And this argument has j^^VN^ 
 
 been treated at large by Hue( and others, to 
 whom the curious may have recouricj when 
 they think fit. 
 
 On account of the different opinions of men 
 concerning him it has been often faid, that 
 he is a remarkable example of one who has 
 pafied through good and through ill report. 
 It is probable, that fome of his fentiments 
 were difliked by fome in his life time; fince 
 Eiifebey fpeaking of his letters writ to Fabian 
 and other Bifhops, fays, that therein [q) he 
 wrote of his own orthodoxie. The Apologie 
 writ for him jointly by Pamphilus and Eii- 
 febe at the begining of the fourth centurie is 
 a proof of the charges brought again (l him 
 and his writings before that time. And in- 
 deed it muffc be owned, that Origen in his 
 books of Principles and fome other works 
 gives a vaft fcope to his fanfie. It is how- , 
 ever obfervable, that the treatife of the Refur- 
 recftion, the books of Principles and the Sfro^ 
 mata^ the works which afterwards gave 
 the moft offenfe, were writ before Origen 
 
 P 2 \th 
 
 Euf, I. 6. cap. 36. p. 233. B. 
 
212 O R I G E N. Book L 
 
 A- D. left Alexandria, as Eufebe (r) particularly ob- 
 u— V— ' ferves : which Teems to {hew, that there was 
 nothing in them that was reputed heretical at 
 that time. They gave no ofFenfe till after- 
 wards. For Origen was not expelled Alex- 
 andria for herefie, biit for eftvie. It is pro- 
 bable therefore, that he began to be cenfured 
 as heterodox foon after his removal from 
 Alexandria, For he mentions this in his (r) 
 letter to his friends in that city. But he treats 
 it as a malicious calumnie. 
 fejimo- g,jj though 1 forbear enlarging upon that 
 //«. matter, it is fit I Qiould take notice of fome 
 of the teftimonies of the ancient writers to 
 his great merit, and uncommon fame. Eu^ 
 febe [t) aflures us, that there was honorable 
 mention made of Origen in the works of di- 
 vers Gentil philofophers of that time, fome 
 of which dedicated books to him: Others fcnt 
 their books to be revifed and examined by 
 him. Eufebe alfo tranfcribes a [u) paffage of 
 Porpbyrie in his books again ft the Chrijiian 
 religion, where he certainly bears witneiTe to 
 
 his 
 
 (r) lb. cap. 24. 
 
 (s) Quidam eorum qui libenter contentiones reperiunt, ad- 
 fcribunt nobis et noftrae dodlrinaeblafphemiam, fuper qua ipft 
 Aiderint, quomodo illud audiant ; Neque ebrioji, neque mah- 
 dii. i regnmn Del pajftdebiint. Orig. T, i, p. ^. B. ed. Bened, 
 
 f/) Eufeb.^L. 6. cap. 1 9. in. 
 
 («) Eu/eb. lb. p. 220. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. O R I G E N. 
 
 his learning, how much foever he may affe6l 
 to depreciate his judgement. For he fays, that 
 Origcft not only read Plato^ but likewife di- 
 vers 5/o/V and Pythagorean philofophers, whom 
 he mentions by name. 
 
 St. yeromes, charaders of Origen dcfcrve 
 fome efpecial notice. " In {yd) his book of 
 " Ilhiftrious Men he calls him a man of im^ 
 ** mortal wit, and afcribes to him the know- 
 " ledge of Logic, Geometric, Arithmetic, 
 ** Mufic, Grammar and Rhetoric, and of the 
 " opinions of all feds of philofophers : fo that 
 *' there was a great refort of perfons to him 
 " for the fake of inflrudion in thefe parts of 
 " polite literature : whom likewife Origen re- 
 *' ceived chiefly with this view, that he might 
 " thereby the better lead them to the Chri- 
 ■ ^ [lian Faith." The account which "Jerome 
 {x) gives of the Stromata is another proof of 
 P 3 Origen s 
 
 (cy) Illud de immortali ejus ingenio non tacens, quod dia- 
 3;fticam quoqueetgeometriara, arithmeticam, mujicam,gram- 
 rnaticam et rhetoricam, omniumque philofophcrum fedtas ita 
 didicit, ut ftndiofos quoque faecularium literarum feclatores 
 haberet, et interpretaretur quotidie; coricurrufque ad eum mi- 
 rifici fierent, quos ille propterea recipiebat, ut fub occafione 
 faecularis lit^raturae in fide Chrifti eos inftitueret. De V. /, 
 cap. 54. Vid et Eufeb. H. E. 1.6. cap. 18. 
 
 (at) Hunc [Clement. Alex.'] imitatus Origenes decern fcripiit 
 ftromateas, Chriftianorum et Philofophormn inter Te fententia? 
 
 com- 
 
;30. 
 
 214 o R I G E N. Book L 
 
 A. D. Origen*s acquaintance with the Greek philo- 
 fophers and their writings, and confirnis what 
 Porphyrie fays of the fame matter, 
 
 St. yerome fometimes (y) ftiles Origen the 
 greateft Dodor of the churches fince the 
 Apoftles. The fame thing had been faid be- 
 fore by (z) DidymuSy Jeromes mafter, who 
 was a favorer of our Origen. In another 
 place Jerome [a) fays, he would willingly 
 undergo all the hatred Origen had met with, 
 if he had but alfo his knowledge of the fcrip- 
 tures. In a letter writ, when he was not in 
 the humour to beflow exceffive commendati- 
 ons upon Origen^ he fays, " That (l^) he was 
 
 " a great 
 
 comparans : et omnia noftrae religionis dogmata de Piatone et 
 Ahltotele, Numenio, Cornutoq; confirmans. Hier. Ep, 83. 
 al. 84. ^ 
 
 (y) Imitari volens Origenem, quern pofl: apoftolos, ecclefia- 
 rum magiftrum, nemo nifi iraperitus negabit. Hieron. Praef. in 
 libr. de Nom.Hebr. Non mihi nocebit, fi dixero : Origenes quum 
 in ceteris libris omnes vicerit, in Cantico Canticorum ipfe ie vi- 
 cit. Nee formidabo Tententiam, qua ilium Dodorem ecclefia- 
 lum quondam adolefcentulus nominavi. Id. in Ep /^\. al. 65. 
 
 (k) Magnum eft quidem, amice, quod poftulas, ut Origenem 
 faciam Latinum, et hominem juxta Didymi videntis fententiam, 
 alteram poft apoftolum ecclefiarum magiftrum etiam Romanis 
 auribus donem. Hier. Praef. in tranjlationem Hojniliarum 
 Orig. in Jerem. et Ezek. 
 
 (a) Hoc unum dico, quod vellem cum invidia nominis ejus 
 babere etiam fcientiam fcripturarum, flocci pendens imagines 
 umbrafqj larvarum. Sec. Praef. in libr. Heb. ^aefl. in 
 Genefim. 
 
 [b) Vult aliquis laudare Originem ? Laudet ut laudo. Mag- 
 5JUS vir ab infantia, et yere martyris filius . . . Voluptates in 
 
 tantuin 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. o R I G E n; 215 
 
 " a great man from his childhood, and the ^- ^• 
 ° 230. 
 
 *' true fon of a martyr: That he trampled ;/vV7 
 
 *' the world under foot, vanquidiing both the 
 
 " love of pleafure and of riches ; and that he 
 
 " had the fcriptures by heart, and labored 
 
 ** day and night in ftudying and explaining 
 
 *' them." To conclude, in another place he 
 
 fays : *' He thinks (r) Origen ought to be 
 
 *' read fometimes, becaufe of his learning:; 
 
 ^* juft as we read TertuUian^ NovatuSy Ar- 
 
 " nobiuSy Apollinarius y and fome other eccle- 
 
 ** fiaftical Writers both Greek and Latin ^ 
 
 *^ taking what is good in them, and leaving 
 
 *' what is otherwife, according to the rule 
 
 " of the Apoftle, who fays : Frove all things^ 
 
 ** hold jafi that which is good.** This may 
 
 be reckoned a good rule to be obferved not 
 
 only in reading thefe writers here mentioned, 
 
 but all the reft of the F^-^thers, and all books 
 
 in general, except the holy fcriptures. 
 
 P 4 SuJpi- 
 
 tantum fugit, ut zelo Dei, fed tamen non fecundum fclentlam, ' 
 ferro truncaret genitalia : calcavit avaritiam : fcripturas memo- 
 riter tenuit : et in ftudio explanationis earum diebus defudavit 
 et nodlibus. Ep. 41. al. 65, 
 
 (c) Et quia meae parvitatis quaeris fententiam : utrum fe- 
 cundum fratrem Fauftinum penitus refpuendus fit ; an fecundum 
 quofdam legendus ex parte : ego Origencm propter eruditionem. 
 fic interdiim legendum arbitror, quomodo Tertullianum, Nova- 
 turn, Arnobium, Apollinarium, et nonnullos ecclefiafticos 
 fcriptores Graecos pariter et Latinos : utbonaeorum eligamus, 
 vijemufque contraria : Scz. Ep. 56. al. 76. 
 
2l6 O R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 ■^- -D- Sidpicius Severus, befide other things con- 
 l^/'Y^^ccvning Or igen J fays: *' He (dj wonders 
 '' how one and the fame man could be (o 
 " different from himfelf : that where he is 
 *^ in the right he had not an equal fmce the 
 ** Apoflles : and where he is in the wrong, 
 " no man ever erred more (hiimefuily." Fin- 
 centius hirimnjis^ who was far from being fa- 
 vorable to Origens fentiments, celebrates 
 his virtue, fine [e) genius, vaft learning, elo- 
 quence, fame, and many other advantages, 
 in a chara(Ser fo long, that I can only refer 
 to it. 
 His Cha- f Q fufj^ yp Origen\ charader : He had a 
 capacious mind, and a large compalTe of 
 knowledge : and throughout his whole life 
 was a man of unwearied application in ftudy- 
 ino', and compofing works of various forts, 
 fome of them extremely tedious and labori- 
 ous and in teaching by word of mouth, in 
 the way of catechetical inftruction, public 
 difcourfe to the people, and conference. He 
 
 had 
 
 . {d) Ego miror unum eundemque hominem tarn diverfum a 
 fe efle potuifle, ut in ea parte, qua probatnr, neminem poft apo- 
 ilolos h?.beat aequalem : in ea vero, quae jure rcprehenditur, 
 nemo deformius doceatur erralTe. Sulp-Se-v. Dial. i. cap. ■vi. 
 {e) ... fed tanti etiam vis ingenii, tarn profundi, tarn acris, 
 tarn elegantis, ut omnes pene multum longeque fuperaret. 
 Vincent. Lir. Couiif.onii^ 
 
 ra£ier. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. O R I G E N. 
 
 had the happineffe of uniting different accon:i- 
 plifhments, being at once the greateft preach- 
 er, and the mod learned and vohiminous 
 writer of the age. Nor is it eafie to fay, 
 which is moft admirable ; his learning, or his 
 virtue. In a word, it muft be owned that 
 Origen^ though not perfecft nor infallible, was 
 a bright light in the church of Chrift^ and one 
 of thofe rare perfonages that have done ho- 
 nour to the human nature. 
 
 II. As Origen\ virtue is one of thofe things, ^eha faf- 
 by which he is moft diftinguifhed, and one-^"'^^"^' 
 defign of this work is to promote true piety 
 by giving my readers fome idea of the fpirit of 
 the ChriJiiarU of the firft ages; I hope it- will 
 be allowed me to tranlcribe fome pafTtiges con- 
 ducive to that end from a writer whofe works 
 were fo numerous, befoi-e 1 proceed to his te- 
 ilimonie to the fcriptures. 
 
 I. There are in Origen many marks of un- 
 affe(fled modeftie and true humility. In a 
 homilie which we now have only in Latin 
 he has a thought, that angels may offer firft- 
 fruits to God, which they collect out of the 
 fields of this world : " The (f) fields of the 
 
 *' angels, 
 
 (f) In Num. Hem. xi. T". 2. ^. 308. B.C. Benedia. 
 
2l8 ORIGEN. Book I. 
 
 A. D. <« angels, fays he, are our hearts. Each one 
 \,,^^Y^^ " ^^ them therefore out of the field which 
 " he cultivates offers firft-fruits to God. If 
 " I fliould be able to produce to day fome 
 *' choice interpretation, worthie tobeprefent- 
 «' ed to the fupreme High-priefti fo that 
 '' out of all thofe things which we fpeak and 
 " teach, there (hould be fomewhat confider- 
 *' able, which may pleafe the great High- 
 *' prieft ; it might poffibly happen, that the 
 *' angel who prefides over the church, out 
 ** of all our words might choofe fomething, 
 *' and offer it as a kind of firft-fruits to the 
 " Lord out of the fmall field of my heart. 
 *' But I know, I do not defer ve it: nor am 
 *' I confcious to myfelf, that any interpreta- 
 ** tion is difcovered by me, which the angel 
 *' who cultivates us (hould judge worthie to 
 ** offer to the Lord as firft-fruits, or firfl- 
 " born. And I (g) wi{h, that what we 
 *' fpeak and teach may be fuch, that we may 
 ** not deferve to be condemned for our 
 " words. That will be favour enough for 
 " us." 
 
 2, In 
 
 (g) Atque utimm tale fit quod joquimur et docemus, ut 
 non pro verbis noftris condemnari mercamur, fufficeret nobis 
 haec gratia. Ibid. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. O R I G E N. 
 
 2. In a homllie upon Ezekiel he fays, 
 ** The {h) devil has many fnares. He often 
 *' lays fnares for me, who preach in the 
 *' church, that he may (liake the whole 
 " church by my converfation. And there- 
 ** fore they who are in public ftations are 
 " attacked by the enemie, that by the fall 
 ** of one man, which cannot be hid, all may 
 *^ be offended, and the faith be obftrudled by 
 " the wicked life of a few clergimen." How 
 modcft, fays a commentator upon this place, 
 is Origeti ! of whom neverthelefs Eufebe (i) 
 fays, that he was fuch in his converfation, as 
 he was in his dodrine : and that he did not 
 fo much recommend the taith by his preach- 
 ing, as by his life. 
 
 3. In another (k) homille recommending 
 the hearing of the word of God with an ho- 
 nefl: heart and good difpofition of the mind, 
 
 and 
 
 {h) Mihi ipfi qui in ecclefia praedico, laqueos faepe tendit, 
 ut totam ecclefiam ex mea converfatione confundat. Et ideo 
 plus hi, qui funt in medio, oppugnantur ab inimico, ut per rui- 
 nam unius hominis, quae celari non poteft, omnibus fcandalum 
 fiat, et impediatur fides per peifimam converfationem clerico- 
 rum. In Ezech. Horn. 'vii. T. 2. p. 642. Ba^/. 1571. 
 
 (i) OHov y^v Tov X'oyov, loi'ovJ^i tpocai tov rp'oTrov ty oiov top 
 
 vAipoiAw? eiviu Swufxicoi ^i'lai, fj.vp'iHi hnytv i'Tri 7ov dui'^ 
 ^wAof. Euf. l.vi. cap. 3. p. Z05. J. 
 
 (i) In Num, Horn, Hi. T. 2. p. 380. A. B. C. Bened. 
 
2 20 O R I G E N. . Book I. 
 
 A- D. and cenfuring fome faults oi hearers, which 
 o^-^^ he fears are in fome of the catechumens, 
 and perhaps alfo in fome that have received 
 Mopi.ix 6. baptifm, he fays : " For all are not Jfrael, who 
 ** arc of Ifrael. Nor (/) are all vi^ho have 
 *' been baptif d with water, baptifed alfo with 
 *' the Holy Spirit: as on the contrarie, not all 
 " who are catechumens are ftrans^ers, or de- 
 •* flitute of the Holy Spirit. For I find in the 
 " divine fcriptures fome catechumens account- 
 " ed worthie of the Holy Spirit, and others 
 *' after baptifm unworthie of the gifts of the 
 ** Spirit. Cornelius was a catechumen, and 
 ** befoie be came to the water deferved to 
 " receive the Holy Spirit. Simon had been 
 " baptifed, but becaufe he afked hypocritical- 
 *' ly, he was refufed the gift of the Holy Spi- 
 •' rit. And 1 would not that you fhould doubt 
 *' that there are now fome Comeliufes among 
 ^* the catechumens, to whom it may be 
 JSF/X.4. " faid : Thy alms and thy prayers are come up 
 *' to heaven. And again among the people 
 ** of the faithful there are fome Simojis^ to 
 Jasxnx, " whom it may be faid: O fullof all fubtiltyy 
 *°' *' thou child of the devil, thou encmie of all 
 
 M right e- 
 
 {I) Neque omnes qui loti funt aqua, cominuo etiam Samfta 
 Spiritu loti funt. lb. A, 
 
A. D. 
 
 2 CIO. 
 
 Ch.XXXVIIL O R I G E N. 22 1 
 
 " righteoiifneffe. Thefc things I fpeak by way 
 " of reproof of my felf, and not of the heaF- 
 *' ers only : for I alfo am one of them that 
 " hear the word of God." 
 
 4i Origen in his books of Principles, where 
 he gives himfelf a Uberty to difcourfe of ab- 
 ftrufe and difficult points, and advances propo- 
 fitions juftly difputable, often ufes expreffions 
 [m) of caution and diffidence. And in his 
 homilies likewife to the people it is very com- 
 mon with him to defire his hearers {n) to 
 judge, and examine what he fays, whether it 
 bejuft or not, and not to take things upon 
 truft. This is polite, as well as modeft. 
 
 5. He tells Ambrofe (o) in one of his pre- 
 faces, that to write commentaries upon the 
 
 fcrip- 
 
 [m) Quae quidem a nobis edam cum magno metu et cautela 
 dicuntur, difcutientibus magis et pertradantibus quam pro certo 
 acdefinito Itatuentibus . , . Nunc autem difputandi fpecie maois 
 quamdefiniendi, prout poffumus, exercemur. Dc Princip. L.L 
 c. 6. 'T.!. p.6g. B. C. Bened. 
 
 («) Et vos facite quod fcriptum eft, ut uno dicente omnes 
 examinent. [i Cor. xiv. 29.] Me ergo dicente quod fentio, vos 
 difcernite et examinate, fi quid redum eft, ai;t minus redtum* 
 In libr, J efu. Horn. xxi. 1. 2. p. 448. Ed. Bene did, 
 
 (0) TeiUTA S'i Vyjv iv Ts-pooii/id) KiKiiilif.i, iti [JAyfov ayZvcc, 
 ^ oiJ-oKoyaiAiui vvrii ny.ai, . . . ai'AyKOc^ou'ivoti V7ro7rii'7!roXK\)<; 
 (7K (piKQUcSi'icii;, >C) <PvJi!i)-;ni/jt,ivoii vtto T^iyjiiT'oTr^o<, J^ tTi? y.£- 
 IfiQTtiloi an, «eP5 AiJ.Cfiod-n xo^iACilf > . . M«f]f j 'i<ro [/.oi -^po? 
 
 Qeht 
 
222 ORIGEN. Book L 
 
 A. I). fcriptufeSj and publi(h them to the world, 
 ^^„Z^^^ was a thing above his ftrength : but out of 
 his goodnelTe he was pleafed to think him fit 
 for fuch a work. Since he had been one great 
 means of his writing (o much, he tells him, 
 that he muft bear witnefie to God for him, 
 when he (hall be called to account for his life 
 and writings, with what purpofe and difpo- 
 fition of mind he had adted. And earneftly 
 entreats him to pray to God for him, that he 
 may feek the truth in a right manner, and 
 may be able to difcover it. 
 
 6. Pamphilus in his apologie for Origeiiy 
 mentioning feveral of his virtues fays, that 
 his ioo) humility was the mod amiable of 
 them all. Indeed I do not remember to have 
 obferved one proud or conceited thought or 
 expreffion in all his writings. It (hould be 
 owned however, that after his removal from 
 jilexandria he wrote a letter to his friends in 
 that city, in which he complains of injuftice 
 done him on feveral accounts. But as we 
 
 have 
 
 'So'lA 7£ •TofO^'iatl TKTO yiykviljlXl . . . dct^lJLlV TOtVVV, . OTTaf 
 
 .... aiTmiti J'oQkvo.i. v/mv 'srpaTov xaXuc ^tftiiv- k. A. Orig. 
 in Pf. i.7. 2. /-. 526 C. D. E. 
 
 {00) . . . non humilitatis, quae fupra ceteras omnes virtutes 
 ejus maximam gratiam continet. Pamph. pro Or. Apal.p. "jf^j. 
 BafiL 
 
CLXXXVIIT. o R I G E N. 
 
 have not that letter in Greeks nor entire in La- 
 tin, it is not very eafie to form a judgement 
 upon it : an/d even here he leaves his enemies 
 to the mercie of God, and (p) profeffes his 
 obligation rather to pity than hate them : 
 and to pray for them, rather than wifh them 
 ill. Moreover in his Commentaries upon 
 St. Johns Gofpel {q) he fpeaks of the Alex- 
 nndrian ftorm, and compares his efcape to 
 God's deliverance of the children of Ifrael out 
 of Egypt, But I do not know, that thefe 
 things cafl: any reflection upon Origens good 
 temper, v^hich is confpicuous in fo many 
 places. There is a remarkable pafTage taken 
 notice (r) of by Tillemont, where Origen fpeaks 
 of the exceffcs and dangers of love, as well as 
 hatred : which may ferve to fhew, that he 
 knew how to defend himfelf without pride 
 or paflion. Origen fpeaks of the different 
 fentiments, which men form of others, as [s) 
 
 a com- 
 
 (p) Quoram magis mifereri quam eos odiffe debemus ; e£ 
 orare pro illis, quam els maledicere. Ep. ad Amicos Alex. 1. i. 
 p. ^. A. Bened. 
 
 (q) 'E/ x) 9 KOtla. T«v A>Lf|tf'ucrp«/jcc yjniAuv avliTr^Arle^kS'a' 
 jiet. K. A. Comm. in Job. Huet. T.2.. p. 94. A. B. C. 
 
 (r) 'fillemont Mem. Ec. 7". 3, P. l- p. 266. Origene Art.ij. 
 
 {s) Qnod qaidem in ecclefia patimur : plerique enim dum 
 plus diligunt quam meremur, haec jadant et loquuntur, iermo- 
 Ji€s noftros dodrinamque laudantes, quae confcicntia noftranon 
 
 recipit. 
 
2 24 O R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 A. D a common cafe, relating to thofe who have 
 c^^^l. any eminent Nation in the church : but it is 
 likely, there is a particular reference to his 
 own cafe : though out of his prevailing mo- 
 deftie he brings in others to fhare with him^ 
 and fpeaks in the plural number. " Some 
 " there are, fays he^ who love us more than 
 " we deferve, and fpeak more advantageoufly 
 " of us and our performances than we ap- 
 *' prove of. On the other hand fome defame 
 '* our difcourfes, by accufing us of fentiments 
 *' we never held. Neither the one nor the 
 *' other of thefe keep to the rule of juflice : 
 *' but they both deviate from the truth, one 
 *'' through hatred, the other through exceffive 
 " love." I fuppofe, Tillemcnfz remark upon 
 this paffage will be allowed to be well found- 
 ed; that thefe complaints are made with as 
 much humility, as juflice. 
 
 J. In the next place I would take a few 
 puflages out of Origen\ Exhortation to Mar- 
 tyrdom: Having quoted Matth.ii.\x.2j.2?-.2^, 
 
 he 
 
 recipit. Alii vero tfaf^atus noftros calumniantes, ea fentire nos 
 criminantur, quaenunquam fenfifle nos noviinus. Sed neqae hi 
 qui plus diligunt, neque illi qui odcrunt, veritatis legulam 
 tenent : et alii per dileflionem, alii per odium mentiuntur. Un- 
 de oportet charitati trena imponere, &c. In Lucam. Horn 25* 
 ^. 235. Bafil. 
 
Ch.XXXVIIL o R r G E N. 225 
 
 he fays to Ambrofe : " For (t) the fake of A. D. 
 
 230- 
 ** thefe fayings I could wi(h to be as rich as^^^-v-N-/ 
 
 ** you, or richer, and then to be a Martyt 
 
 " for Cbri/i ; that I may receive manifold, or, 
 
 ** as in Mark, an hundred foldy Afterwards, Mark x. 
 
 having qaoted Luke xiv. 26. ** But {u) do^°" 
 
 " you fo hate your Hfe, as that by hating it 
 
 *' you may keep it to life eternal: being 75;^« xii. 
 
 ** perfwaded, thu it is a good and profitable ^5* 
 
 *' hatred, which jefus teaches. And as life 
 
 *' muft be hated, that it may be kept to 
 
 ** eternal life, fo do you, who have them, 
 
 *' hate alfo v/ife and children, and brethren 
 
 <• and fifters, that you may be profitable to 
 
 ** thofe you hate. . . And {w) as it was faid 
 
 ** to thofe who were of the feed of Jbra- 
 
 ** ham: I know that ye are Abraham' i feed^JohnvWu 
 
 •* Ao-ain, Jf y^ '^^^^ Abraham's children^ ye 
 
 *' woidd do his works : So it will be faid to 
 
 *' your children: I know that ye are the 
 
 *' children of Ambrofe t and, if ye were the 
 
 " feed of Ambrofe ^ ye would do his works. 
 
 Q^ " And 
 
 vp/r« TU> QsM, "ivx tsoXhcL'nXoi.ij'io'JX XaCa, n, a<; h Mstpxof 
 (pmh, iy.(x\o^a.'TsKA(;Um- Exh. ad Mart. § 14. 2". ;. /. 283. 
 D. Betted. 
 
 («) Ibid. § 37. ^. 299. c. 
 
 (•xv) Ibid. § 38. p. 299. E. 
 
2 26 G R I G E N. Book t^ 
 
 A. D. " And perhaps they will do fo, you helping 
 
 *' them more after your departure than it you 
 
 " had ccntinucd with them." 
 
 8. Still in the fame work : " Cbri/i (x) has 
 " laid down his life for us. Let us therefore 
 *^ alfb lay down our life, I will not fay for 
 *' him, but for ourfelves, and for thofe who 
 " may be edified by our Martyrdom. Once 
 *' more : And fy) perhaps, as we are redeem- 
 ** ed by the blood of Chnjl^ y^fi^^ having re- 
 " ceived a name above every name ; fo fome 
 ** will be redeemed by the blood of martyrs." 
 
 9. It is glorious to write in this manner to 
 a beloved and excellent friend, upon whom 
 too a man has his chief dependence, as On- 
 gc?i had upon Ambrofe. This is true friend- 
 {liip. This is to elieem heaven above the 
 world, and to prefer religion to our own pri- 
 vate interefl:. Such exhortations as thefe may be 
 reckoned, next to fufFering for Chriji ourfelves, 
 fome of the bed proofs of our integrity, and 
 of our true love both oiChrift and our friends, 
 
 10. The 
 
 VTTip I'uv IV 70) y.C'.flv/ta viaZv oix.oJ'i.'lJ.nQriaoiJ.ivtav. § 41. 
 p. loi D. 
 
 ( ') T-'/C* ^^ "9 iJUTTip Tiy.UO Uiyclll 7« I«(7K i!ycpA^il[J.iV, 
 
 li)(jK XoiCii'Joi TO ovoiMx, TO VTri^ 'Ts-av ovoy-ct' traf 'fa)riiM<ti 
 &.iiJ.(y^t Tfjy y.xfjv^c-jv c/yoi'di^iiffoflai Tivjf, § 50. />. 309. c. 
 
Ch. XXXVIII. o R I G E No 227 
 
 10. The conclafion of that work is ad- ^- ^• 
 
 230. 
 
 miruble. Says Origen : *' Thele ^ things I 
 '* have writen unto you according to my 
 *' ability, praying hkewife, that they may 
 ** be of Tome ufe to you in the prefent com- 
 " bat. But if the abundant knowledge of 
 *' the myfleries of religion, with which you 
 " are favored, efpecially in your prefent 
 *' honorable condition, affords you better 
 " counfel, and more efFedual to the pur- 
 " pofe, infomuch that you cannot but look 
 *' upon what I have offered, as childilTi and 
 " contemptible, it is no more than I could 
 " wifh. My aim is not, that you fhould 
 ** obtain the crown by my afTiflance, but by 
 *^ any means whatever. And may it be ob- 
 *' tained by what is mod divine and excel- 
 ** lent, and furpafling all human capacity, 
 " the words and wifdom of God.'* 
 
 1 1. Origen impartially teaches the duties of 
 
 the paflors, as well as of the people of Chrijl\ 
 
 church. He (2.) mightily recommends hu- 
 
 0^2 mility 
 
 •|- Exh. ad Martyr, p. 310. 
 
 (z) Qui vocatur ergo ad epifcopatum, non ad prinapatum 
 vocatur, fed acl fervitutem totius ecclefiae. In Efaiam Horn 1;/. 
 p. 563. init.Tom. i. Bafil. Quanti prefbyteri conftituti obliti 
 iunt humilitatis ! quafi idcirco fuerinc ordinati, ut humiles effe 
 
 defifte- 
 
2 28 o R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 •A- ^' mility and condefcenfion to Bifliops and Pref- 
 ^^•V^w byters. He complains (a) of the pride and 
 haughtinefTe of fome Buhops in bis time, 
 efpecially in great cities. He fays, it is not 
 to be thought, that {/?) the citrgie will be 
 univerfally faved. For m^iny Piefbyrers will 
 peri{h, and many of the Laity will be found 
 among the blelled. He (c) earneilly dif- 
 fwades from committing the care of churches 
 to covetous, tyrannical, ignorant and irreligi- 
 ous Bi(hops, or Prefbyters, or Deacons, which 
 he compares to felling doves in the temple. 
 
 And 
 
 defiflerent. Quia potius humllitatem fequi debuerant, quia 
 d'gnif;itera fuerant confccuti. /« Ezccb. Ho;;:, ix. p (a^y. fin. 
 iiae:autem diximus, volentes oftendtie, quod ecclefiarum prin- 
 cipes, principum mundialiuin imitatores ell'e non debent, fed 
 imitan debent Chriitum acceflibilem, et mulieribus loquentem, 
 & P'jeris manus iraponentem, &c. In Matth. Tr. xi. p. 87. 
 fTom. a. BafiL 
 
 [a) Nos autem tales fumus, ut etiam malorum principum 
 mundi excedere fuperbiam vidcaniur: ct non iolum quaeiimus 
 ficut regcs acies jrraecedentes, et terribiles nos, et accefTu diffi- 
 ciles maxime paupenbus exhibemus. . . . Et ell videre in qui- 
 bufdam ccclefiis praecipne civitatum maximarum, principes po- 
 pu!i Chrilliani nullum affabiiitatem halentes, vel habere ad fs 
 permittentes. In Matth. Tr. xi. p. 86. Jin. 
 
 [b] 'Irs sTe on « W;7<yf kM^6<; <xa^ei' TuoKXot yuf }y 'TfffS7- 
 CCnpoi avroh^y]cti' tsoT^Koi iy KaJKoi y.oiKd()'.oi a.71 oS'zf)(_^haa'v\<x,t , 
 Injerem. Horn. xi. p. 113. £. Tom.i. Huei. 
 
 (r) Krtt voy-iC^cj apyo^eiV rov 'srep* rci,v ■r^coX^^jm to.? 'srjp/rspesf 
 ^'vyov Toii 'z^a.pa.J iif'bffi lai iyKX>i(ria.i diq^poKBpS'if/i, iCjTVf-unn- 
 v.oi';. id, uv£■Jl?^{)fJ(.oa^^, :y d.viuhcx.C'i.aiv iTiay.oToii, ij ■u^piff^ifjifoif, 
 3 <tl»KiVOii. Com. in Matth. /. 442. B, Huet. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. O R I G E N. 
 
 And elfewhere id) declares, that for the moft 
 part the government of the churches was be- 
 ilowed upon men quahfied to teach, and of 
 a good hfe : not upon fuch as were ambiiious 
 of authority, but upon thofe who out of mo- 
 deftie were unwilling to accept fo great a 
 charge. And he fays : More [e) will be ex- 
 pected of him, as a Prcfbyter, than of a Dea- 
 con : more of a Deacon than of a Layman : 
 but from a Bifhop, mod of all. Whence it 
 appears, that Origen preached to himfeif, as 
 well as to others. 
 
 III. To thefe pafTages fhewing the ^xons^ore/eka 
 difpolition of Or/g^/z's mind, and, as I appre- ■^^^^^' 
 hend, ftrongly recommending the like to 
 others, I would add a few mifcellaneous ob- 
 fervations worthie of our notice. 
 
 I. On'gen was of opinion, that the light of 
 
 nature duly cultivated is of ufe to bring men 
 
 0^3 to 
 
 liCiLXmtcov 'WApccy.a.'A'^iy.iv. k. A. Contr. Celj. I. 8. /. 79S. C. 
 Tom. i. Bened. 
 
 {e) riAe/ou iyco a.7ra.t\ZiJ.cti -srapc* tov S'io.y.ovov, T^Keav cf/at- 
 KoWi 'zsa^A tIv Kctr/ov S'i rriv T^dvicev riuZv kyx.z'xjupia'y-ivoi 
 af/J)v dvrm t«u iKKkmiATiKm iTri 'arXs/ov KTrsiHnTxt. In 
 jeretn. et Horn. xi. p. 114. A. Huet, 
 
2^0 
 
 230 ORIGEN. Book I. 
 
 ■A- O- to embrace the Chrijlian Religion. For hav- 
 ing quoted Rom, ii. 15. he (j ) fays : " That 
 *' God gave the law of nature to mankind, 
 *' and wrote it in the minds of all. This af^ 
 " fords feeds and principles of truth. And if 
 " we rightly culiivate thofe feeds, they will 
 " bring forth the fruit of life through J^fuSi 
 " C/3;7y/ our Lord." 
 
 2. Cr'gen affirms, ** That (a) they are the 
 ** wifrfl ChriJlianSj who have moft carefully 
 *' examined the feveral fedts of Judaifm and 
 *' Chridianity." 
 
 3. Origen was a man of generous fenti- 
 ments, and he rcprefents the moderation of 
 Chrijiiam toward men of different opinions as 
 very remarkable. Celjus had faid, that the 
 feveral feds of Ckrljlians were very rigid, and 
 
 full 
 
 (f) Q!?'5 autem fcripilt in cordibus eorum, nifi Deus digito 
 fuo ? Legem utique naiuralem, quam dedit Deus humano ge- 
 neri, et in cunclorum mentibus fcripilt : unde et initia riimimus, 
 ac feminaquaedani ad periciiUandam capimus vericatem : quae 
 femina fi bene excolamus, frudum vitae afferent in nobis in 
 Chrillo Jefa domino noitro. LiNu?neros Hon:, x. T. 2. p. 303. 
 C. Bened 
 
 Lelf. /. 3- /. 119. Cant, p, ^^l. C. Utned. 
 
Ch.XXXVIir. O RI G E N. 2-1 
 
 full of enmity toward each other. Origcjz an- ^'^- D. 
 fwers: *' Such (^) of us as follow the doc-u-Ii-^ 
 ' trine of 'Jefm^ and endeavor to be con- 
 
 * formed to his precepts, in our thoughts, 
 
 * words and adions J being revile d^ we blefs : ^ C'ir.W • 
 ' bei?jg pef'fictitcdy ive fuff'cr it : being de- 
 
 * famed, ive entreat. Nor do (c) we fay 
 '■ injurious things of thofe who think differ- 
 ' ently from us. We labor indeed all that 
 
 * is in our power to convert men to the fer- 
 ' vice of the only true God the creator of the 
 ' world, and to engage them to a<5l in all re- 
 ' fpecls, as they that fliall be judged 
 
 * But they who conlider the words of our 
 
 * Lord, Blejfed are the peaceable, and ^/^^^^^'''^'•v. 
 ' are the meek, will not hate ihofe {d) who 
 
 ^ corrupt tiie Chrifi ian rtWgion, nor give 
 ' opprobrious names to thofe w^ho are in 
 ' errour." 
 
 4. Origen believes, there will be different 
 
 degrees of glorie and happinefle in the future 
 
 0^4 ftate, 
 
 [h] Contr. Celf. I <u. p. zj-s^Xant. p. 627. B. C. D. Bened. 
 
 [c) K«/ iK av fudu Kj ul'pnra. Aiyoiy.iv 7aj otAAa J'o^a^ovlaLi. 
 Ibid. 
 
 {d) 'Ovjt kva.'irti'^vynfTot.Vi tk; '7SA'^ot.yjx.pia\o»[a.i ra. yjUix* 
 viffij^, iJ^i Ki^KOii }^ >cv«n9p« ai[JLV\» hiyoivi rk 'Ui-jhAW^k^ 
 V4S' Ibidt 
 
230. 
 
 232 ORIGEN. BookL 
 
 ^- D. flate, according to mens works in the prefent 
 world. Having quoted i ThelJ. iv. 15. 16. 
 17. he fays: " A (^j diverfity of tranflation, 
 f* and a different glorie undoubtedly will be 
 ^' given to every one according to the merits 
 *' of his adions, and every one will be in 
 f' that order, which the merits of his works 
 f* have procured for him.** 
 
 5. He has a fine obfervation In his books 
 againft Ccljus : " That when God defigned 
 ^' true religion (liould obtain among the 
 If* Gentils, he had fo ordered things by his 
 ** providence, that they (hould be under the 
 " one empire of the Romans: leafl: if there 
 *' had been many kingdoms and nations, the 
 *' Apoftlesofy^y/zifhould have been, obftruft- 
 ^' ed in fulfilling the command he gave them, 
 *' faying : Go^and teach all nations : . . It would, 
 '* fays (c) ke, have been a great impediment 
 
 *^ to 
 
 {.h) Dlverfitas autem tranflationis et g^orbe ex mentis fine 
 dubio et aflibus uniuicujurque praeftabitur, et erit unufquifque 
 in eo ordine quem fjbi gdlorum merita contulerint. //; Nutn. 
 Horn t. T.z. />■ 277. Bentd. 
 
 Hi isSaccv TiiV oi- ay.ivm to, 's^oAAa? hvxi [ixffiXiiscC \ [Avov 
 tf'la, T« -rrpct^pniAvK,. rtAAtf 'jy Siu to avayxdH^iSscct ^fajivs<^cct 
 
 ). 2. t. i. p./^\z. D. E. Bentd. 
 
^33 
 
 Ch.XXXVIIL O R I G E N. 
 
 " to the fpreading of the dodirine of Cbri/i A. D. 
 
 " all over the world, if there had been many .^..^A 
 
 *^ kingdoms. For, not to mention other 
 
 " things, thefe might have been at war with 
 
 " each other : and then men would have 
 
 *' been obliged to be every where in arms, 
 
 '' and fight for the defenfe of their coun- 
 
 " trey." 
 
 6. I fl^iall add here but one pafla^e more, 
 concerning the fuccede of the Ckrijiian doc- 
 trine : which, confidering the age of our au- 
 thor, is very valuable. When Origen wrote 
 bis books againft Celjus, the church had peace. 
 *' By the good providence of God, fays he, 
 <* the Chrifiian religion has fo fiouriflied and 
 ** continually encreafed, that it is now preach- 
 *' ed freely without moleftation, although 
 ** there were a thoufand obftacles to the 
 " fpreading the dodrine of Jefus in the 
 " world. But, as it was the will of God, 
 *' that the Gentils fliould have the benefit of 
 ** it, all the counfels of men againft the ChrU 
 ** Jllam were defeated. And by {d) how much 
 
 " the 
 
 {d) ''0(Tw ya.(y exn^i Ircfn-'uvav (ioiffiKu?, )y IQvZv ryi[Aivot, 
 itj ^Yii/M •Tsrocvlocyy., roairfo -zrhiiHi kyivov\o, >u kutI^vov (Kp'a- 
 Spoi . . CoKt. Cclf. I. 'vii, p. 349. Cant. />• 71 3. ^. Beiied, 
 
234 o R I G E N. Book I, 
 
 A. D. " tlie more Emperours, and Governonrs of 
 
 ufi-lj *' provinces, and the People every where 
 
 ** ftrove to deprefs them ; fo much the more 
 
 *' have they encreafed, and prevailed exceeds 
 
 " ingly." 
 
 J cata- IV. I now proceed to Origeifs teftimonle 
 hfohifths^^ the books of the New Tedament. 
 ^- ^' In Eujebes Eccleiiaftical Hiflorie is a chap- 
 
 ter with this title : How (e) Origen mention^ 
 the fcriptiires of both Tefiameitts. The former 
 part of that chapter contains a catalogue of 
 the books of the Old Teflament in a palllige 
 of Origen taken from his Expofition of the 
 . firft PJalm. The later part of the chapter 
 concerns the books of the New Teftament. 
 I {hall tranfcribe this part now at length, though 
 it relates to feveral parts of the New Tefta- 
 ment, and is taken from feveral pieces of 
 Origen j that fo we may have the benefit of 
 Eujebe^ connexion, if indeed there is any be- 
 nefit in it. 
 
 Having then recited Origens catalogue of 
 the fcriptures of the Old Teflament Eufebe 
 
 proceeds : 
 
 lib, in, cap. 25. 
 
CkXXXVIIT. o R I G E N. 235 
 
 proceeds: '' But in the (f) firil book of his ^^- i^- 
 * 230. 
 
 " Commentaries upon the Gofpcl 0^ Matthew u^v— ' 
 
 " [Oiigenj obferving the ecclefiaftical canon> 
 
 *' declares that he knew only four Gofpels, 
 
 " expreffing himfelf thus : yis I have learned 
 
 " b^ tradition conce'^ning the four Gofpels^ ivhicb 
 
 " alone are received ^without dijpute by ths 
 
 * ' whole church of God under heaven. 'The firjl 
 
 " ivas writ en by Matthew^ once a publican ^ af- 
 
 " terwards an apo/lle of f ejus Chrijl : who deli- 
 
 *' vered it to thefewijl:i believers compojedin the 
 
 " Hebrew language, ''The fecond is that accord- 
 
 *' ing to Marli^ who wrote it as Peter dilated it 
 
 " to him. Who therefore aljo calls him his f on in 
 
 ** his catholic epijlh\ faying : The church i Pet. 
 
 *' which is at Babylon, eleded together with^' ^^* 
 
 " you, faluteih you, and (o doth Mark my 
 
 ** fon. The third is that according to Luh^ Rom, xv 
 
 " the Gof pel commended by Paul, publifI:edfor^'^' 
 
 " the 
 
 (f) Fu S'l tS "SrpwTfM Tciv hi To KATO. McijijoUOV IvxjfiXiov, 
 
 rh iK/.Kiiiaioc?'i>:ov (pvXaTJcov xavova, {a'ovo. riaaccpa iiJ'ivxi 
 
 6fciu 'wepi Tfcu Tiiraupcov ivayyiKicrj, a 'iOj y.dva, ciVTjppnIa srzu ki/ 
 TH VTTo rov oupai'av iKKXiiaicc T6 Qii' art 'za-pcoTov //ev yiypccrr- 
 "JdLi 70 xalc) rov 'zs-oll rzKumv, vfspof J'i cscroroAo;' Ina^. XpjS"« 
 M«t70o:/ijy, iy.J'gScox.QToc dvTo loli a^o hS'aio'/jZ 'Tsi^ivdcf.ct, 
 ypaiJ.[j.ciaiv iCpu/y.oii avtIsTccyy.ii'oy S'kvlzpov Si to KoCji/. Mc'p- 
 yov, cdi ViiTfCi vpnyiiaccjo aviti •voiiio'cx.yloi' ov )t) vtoy kv t^' ko.- 
 QoXiKf i'TTt^oXi] Sia tJtwv My.o?/oyiiai odo')tcov- • ■ • }y rp'nov to 
 KocTo, AiiKav, TO VTTs TJavAh kTTUtv^y.VJou iva.y]A\iov, rot? aTo 
 ruv i&fxv -srSTToowoTsf i-7ri ts-ci^i To Kocra luaivm. Ibid. 
 /. 226. B. C. 
 
O R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 the fake of the gentil converts. Laftl)\ that 
 according to 'John. And in the firft book of 
 his expoiitions upon the Gofpel according to 
 John the lame author fpeaks thus of the 
 Epiftles of the Apoftles : Paul [g) who ivas 
 " fnade an able minifler of the New Tefta- 
 *' ment, not of the letter, but of the fpirit; 
 ** who fully preached the Gofpel from Jeru- 
 Fom. XV. <t f^iem round about unto Illyricum, did not 
 " write to all the churches he had taught : and 
 ** to thofey to which he did write ^ hefent only 
 Matth. « a few lines. Peter, on whom the church of 
 ** Chrijl is built, againft which the gates of 
 *' hell (liall not prevail, has left one epijlle 
 " [univerfally] acknowledged. But let it be 
 *' granted likewife^ that he wrote afecond: for 
 JohnxyX. « // /j doubted of. But what need T fpeak of 
 ** John, who leaned upon the hreafl of JefuSy 
 " who has left us one Gofpel, prof effing at the 
 John XXI. *' fame time, that he was able to write more 
 5- «' than even the wojid itfelf could contain. He 
 
 " wrote alfo the Revelation, in which he is 
 Rev. X.4. " commanded to be filent, and not to write the 
 <* voices of the f even thunders. He has alfo left an 
 " epifile oj a very few li?2es» Grant alfo a fe- 
 «* condy and a third : for all do not allow thefe 
 
 'J to 
 
 (g) Ibid. p.zzS. D. 227, 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. O R I G E N. 
 
 " to be ge7mine. However they do not both to- 
 " gether make a hundred lifies. Finally of the 
 *' epiftle to the Hebrews^ in his Homilies up- 
 " on it he gives his opinion in this manner : 
 " That the ftile of the eplfile to the Hebrews 
 ** has not the Af^ofile's rudenejje of fpeech, who 
 *' has onfcffed himCeJf rude in fpeech^ that is, 
 ** in lan^ruage. But this epifile^ as to the tex- 2 Cor. xi. 
 " tare of the ftile ^ is elegant Greek : as every 
 " one will allow ^ who is able to judge of the dif- 
 ^* ferences of fiiles. Again, he fays, the fenti^ 
 '^ ments of the epijile are admirable^ and not 
 *' inferior to the acknowledged writings of the 
 " Apofile, This will be ajjentedto by every one^ 
 " who reads the writings of the Apojile with 
 *' attention. Afterwards he adds : If I was to 
 ** fpeak my opinion^ I fl:)Oiildfay^ that the fen- 
 *^ ti ments are the Apofiles^ but the language and 
 ** compofition of fome one^ who committed to wri^ 
 " ti72g the Apoflles fenfe^ and as it were reduced 
 ** into commentaries the things fpoken by his ma^ 
 ** fler. If therefore any church receives this 
 " epiflle as Paul's^ it is to he commended even 
 *' upon that account. For it is not without rea- 
 " fon^ that the a?icients fjave handed it down as 
 " Paul's. But who wrote this epiflle y God only 
 " knows certainly. But the account come down to 
 
 ** us 
 
o R I G E N. Book L 
 
 *' us is 'various, fome faying, that Clement , who 
 " was Bijljop of Rome, wrote this epifile : others, 
 *' that it was Luke, who wrote the Go/pel, aiid' 
 '' theABsr 
 
 Thus writes Eiifehe. Upon this chapter of 
 his we may make two remarks : Firjl, that 
 it is defective. Eufebe has taken here no no- 
 tice at all of Origens opinion about the epiftles 
 of James and Jude. But perhaps he (uppofed, 
 his readers would underfland this omiffion, as 
 an intimation, that thefe epiftles were not re- 
 ceived by this writer. However, I widi he 
 had been more exprefs, that we might have 
 been in no fafpenfe about his meaning. Se- 
 condly, it feeras, that Eufebe is to be blamed 
 for curtailing the Lift palllige of Origen taken 
 out of his Homilies upon the epidle to the 
 Hebrews. We (hould have been plea fed to 
 fee Origens whole argument relating to that 
 epiftle, and the author of it : wh^T cas Eu/ebe 
 makes a break, and when he had tranfcribed a 
 part, he fiys : And afterwards Origen adds : 
 or, after fome other intervening words he adds. 
 
 Thefe two general remarks upon this long 
 paffage fl-om Eufehe may fuffice for the prefent. 
 We (liall have occalion hereafter to add divers 
 other particular obfervations upon fome parts 
 
 of 
 
CLXXXVIII. ORIGEN. 239 
 
 of it, concerning feveral books of the New a. d. 
 Teltament. u— v-*-i 
 
 V. In the next place I Hiall take fome other 
 paffiges of Ongen, which feem to contain 
 compleat catalogues of the books of the New 
 Teftament. 
 
 One of them is in the 17 th Homille upon^A''^'^ 
 
 /^ - 1 r^ • '11 catalogue. 
 
 Gencjis^ where Ortgen defcanting particularly 
 upon Gen. xxvi. 18. . : . 22. fays: *' Thus(Z') 
 " Ifaac digged again the wells of water, which 
 *' the fervantsof his father had digged. One 
 *' fervant of his father was MoJeSy who dug 
 ** the well of the La we. Other fervants of 
 " his father were David and Solomon^ and 
 " the Prophets, and all they who wrote the 
 
 ** books of the Old Teftament Ifaac 
 
 " therefore again digged new wells : yea the 
 " fervants of IJaac digged. The fervants of 
 " Ifaac are Matthew, Mark, Luke^ and John, 
 * ' His fer van ts alfo are Peter, JameSj and Jude : 
 
 '' as 
 
 {/p) Hoc ergo modo fodit ruteos Ifaac, quos foderant pueri 
 ^atris fui. Puer patris Tui erat Moyfes, qui foderat puteuin 
 legis. Pueri patris fui erar.t David et Salomon, et prophetae, 
 et fi qui alii funt, qui libros fcripierunt veteris tellamenti . . . 
 Fodit ergo Ifaac et novos puteos, imo pueri Ifaac fodiunt. 
 Pueri funt Ifaac, Matthaeus, Marcus, Lucas, et Joannes. Pu- 
 eri ejus funt Petrus, Jacobus, et Judas : puerejusell et Apofto- 
 lus Pau'us, qui omnes novi tellamenti puteos fodiunt, Or>^. 
 Horn, in Gen, xiii, /. 95. J. Tom. 2, ed. Bensd, 
 
240 o R I G E T>J. Book L 
 
 AD. " as likewlfe the Apoftle PW, who all dig 
 " the wells of the New Teftament." 
 
 230 
 
 ikird ca- VI. In his feventh Homilie upon the book 
 ■^ ' of JoJJjua, Origen fpeaks to this purpofe : 
 *' But (/) when our Lord Jefus Chrifi came, 
 *' of whom JoJJma the fon of Nim was but a 
 *' type, he lent forth the priells his Apoftles 
 ** (a) bearing well beaten trumpets, founding 
 
 " the 
 
 (/) Veniens ergo Dominns nofter fefus Chriftus, cujus ille 
 prior filius N 've defignabac adventum, niittit iacerdoces apcy- 
 ftoios fuos portantes tubas duttiies, prifdicationis magnificam, 
 coeleliemq; doctrinam, Sacerdocah tuba prima in Evangelio 
 fuo Matthaeus increpuit. Marcus quoque, Lucas et Joannes, 
 fuis fmgulis tiibis facerdctalibus cecinerunt, Petras etiam dua- 
 bus epiltolarum fuarum perionat tubis. Jacobus quoque e'£ 
 Judas. Addit nihilominus adhuc et Joannes tuba canere per 
 epillolas fuis et Apocalypfim, et Lucas apoftolorum gefta de- 
 fcribsns, NovifTuTie autenri il e veniens, qui dixit: Puto autera 
 nos Deus n^viffimos apoftolos oltcndit, et in quatuordecim epi- 
 fto'arum fuarum fu'minans tubis, muros Jericho, et omnesido- 
 lolatriae machinns, et philofophorum dogmata ufque ad funda- 
 ir.enta dejecit. Orig. Horn, inlibr. Jef. 'vii. ih. p. 412. ^i.B. 
 
 [a] Bearing 'v^ell beaten tru?!Jpets~^ Portantes tubas duiiilei. 
 I luppofe 0/-?V(?;7 mayallude to A«;.'.'i^. ;>:. 2. 3. And, as fome 
 argument of this, I iliall tranfcribea part of another paflage of 
 Origen, to which the learned reader is referred. Ne forte ergo 
 argenteae tubae, q. oniam argcntum in multis locis pro verbo 
 fufcipitur, magna vox verbi intelligitur tuba argentea congre- 
 gans unumquemq; in ordine. . . . Voces autem argentearum 
 et produ(itilium tubarum in diebus lactitiae lirael, quae afiu- 
 muntur in neomeniis ipforum, erant umbrae futurarum neome- 
 nlarum, de quibus d cit apoRolus . &c. in Matth. Trail. 30. 
 ■p. 151. Tom. 2. Bafil 
 
 I may alfo add a paffage o^ Jerome, confirming this inter- 
 pretation. De hac tuba et ApoRolus loquitur: [i Cor.xv. 
 I ThefT iv.] et in Apocalypfi Johannis legimus : [viii.] et in 
 
 Yeteri 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. o R I G E N. 241 
 
 " the glorious heavenly dod:rine. Matthew 
 
 *' founds firft with his pricftly trumpet in his 
 
 *' Gofpel : Mark alfo, and Luke and Johny 
 
 " founded with their prieflly trumpets. Pe- 
 
 *' ter likewife founds aloud with the two 
 
 " trumpets of his epiftles : James alfo and 
 
 *' Jude. And John founds again with his 
 
 ** trumpet in his epiftles and the Revela- 
 
 ** tion : and Luke alfo once more relating 
 
 " the actions of the Apoftles. Laft of all 
 
 " comes he, who faid: For I think^ that God^ <^<"*' Jv, 
 
 ** hath fet forth us the Apoftles lafi : and found- 
 
 " ing with the trumpets of his fourteen Epi- 
 
 ** files he threw down to the foundations 
 
 *' the walls oi Jericho^ and all the engines of 
 
 ** idolatrie, and the Ichemes of the philofo- 
 
 ** phers." 
 
 Thefe two pafTages are taken out of the 
 
 remaining Latin verfions of thofe works of 
 OrigeUy made by [k) Ruffin, I am of opinion 
 therefore, that thefe catalogues are not to be 
 relyed upon. Thefe pafTages run well enough 
 in the flile of Origen. But it was very eafie for 
 a tranflator to thrufi: in a name or two, or al- 
 ter a few words, and thereby render the whole 
 R agee- 
 
 Veteri Tellamento tubae duftiles ex auro, et acre, argentoque, 
 fieri praecipiuntur. , . . In Matt. xxiv. 31.7'. ii\ -p. 117. 
 ■ [k) Vid. Hiut Origenian. L. 3. cap. 2. § 3. «. i.et'V. Td' 
 km. Mem. Ec, T. 3. f . 3. Origene Art. 29. 30. 
 
242 o R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 ^- O- aj^reeable to the fentiments of the times in 
 
 230. , 
 
 Wv>»^ which he wrote, without making any very re- 
 markable alteration in the ftile of his author. 
 This laft is one of the catalogues given by 
 (IJ Hody. And indeed Riiffin profeffes to have 
 inade an exa6l trandation of Origens Homi- 
 lies upon the book of Jo/hua. But his word 
 is hardly to be taken in that matter. Nor is 
 it impoffible, that fome alterations may have 
 been made in the copies of Riiffins verfion 
 fince his time. It is fome what remarkable, 
 that in the forecited palTage there is a various 
 reading, where (;;z) Peter's twoepiftlesare men- 
 tioned. And foon after in the fame Homilie, 
 when Orige?! quotes St. 'John?, firfl epiflle, 
 it is in this manner : *' This {n) is what yohn 
 founds in the trumpet of his epiftle, faying, 
 
 s Job, n.j^Qoj^ f2of the world, nor the things that are in 
 the worUiy. 
 
 It is very f^t, we fhould be at the pains of 
 examining things more particularly. I (hall 
 endeavor therefore to fet Origeiis opinion 
 of the feveral books of the New Teftaaient 
 
 ia 
 
 \J) Hody deBihlior. ^ext. Origin, p. 646. Col. 29. 
 
 {jti) duabus.j Gemeticenfis : ex tribus. -vid. T. 2. p. 41 z. 
 S^ened. 
 
 (h) Hoc eft quod et Joannes epiflolae fuae perfonat tuba dl- 
 <;ens : Nolite diligere tiiundMn, r.eque ea quae in mimdo funU 
 ibid. /. 413. I>. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. O R I G E N. 
 
 in a full light. Some prolixity in confider- 
 ing the works of (o great a man in the third 
 centurie will not be difagreeable. 
 
 VII. We tranfcribed (b) jud now a p^ff^gQ^o/^e/s. 
 from Eufebe concerning the four Gofpels ta- 
 ken out of the firft book or Tome of 0- 
 rigen^ commentaries upon St. Matthew''^ 
 Gofpel. 
 
 1. Again, in the i6th Tome of his com- 
 mentaries upon the fame Gofpel he exprefsly 
 mentions (p) four Evangelijls, 
 
 2. In his Commentaries upon St. John he 
 fays, *' That (f) as he is one, whom many 
 *' preach, fo it is one Gofpel in virtue which 
 " is writ by feveral. For indeed what is 
 *' writ by four is one Gofpel.'.' I put down 
 in the margin a few more {q) pafTages, 
 
 R 2 where 
 
 (b) See Numb. iv. 
 
 (o) la </'£ xaid 7ov t'ottov i^ hi Ko'.'no) rpsif IvayyiKi^Ai sf e- 
 
 iS'iYtyitaciSjixi, ■ . T»c 7i(T(Tapuv ivctyyihi^K,]) ixva.y^cf.'\A.v]cov to. 
 Kola. Tof TOTtov. X- A. Comm. in Matth. T. i.p. 459. D. E. 
 Huet. ed. 
 
 (p) 'Oy (Twtivjii, oribiiiif sr/v ou ivocyyiXi jovial 'trhiiovi^, 
 ■ «Tiyf eu er/ tJii J^vvAfjiet to vtto txv 'ztoXXZv kvocyyi^iov avxys- 
 ypx^fyAi'oV }y ToaA«9«? J^ta, 7£cr(}'upctiv'iv srif zvnyykXm- Com. 
 in Job. p. gi. C.D. Huet. T. 2. 
 
 [q) rijtpali'f iliov (Te St/ tuv Tscr7s«p»v. u^moim to, \v vS'aIi 
 
 ofjioXti' 
 
244 o R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 A. D. where Ori^^;z expref sly mentions yoi/r Evan- 
 gelijis or Go/pels. Perhaps this may be of ufe 
 to us hereafter. 
 
 230, 
 
 3. In his Commentaries upon fome of the 
 
 four Gofpels he often compares the feveral 
 
 accounts of the oiher Evangehfls. Thus, 
 
 fpeaking of John the Baptift's imprifonment 
 
 and death he fays : *' Therefore (r) Mat- 
 
 " thew now gave this account, and Mark 
 
 ** much after the fame manner with him. 
 
 *' But Luke has omitted a good part of the 
 
 " hiftorie which is in them." A Httle after : 
 
 Maft. xiv. ** It is (j)obfervable, fays he, that in Matthew, 
 
 Marin " Mark and Luke, the difciples fay, they 
 
 38. _ *' h?iVQ five loaves aftd two fifies, without fig- 
 
 j!/ ^ * ** nifying whether they were wheaten or bar- 
 
 of^o^oyeiv laavvm' £Ai)Af 9»va/ ^cf7r]l{eiV, ylvoi MaJQitJO? tkt&) 
 «zrpoS"e6«>t£ TO, hi iJ.i\d.voiO(.v Comm. in Jo. p. 1 24. C D. 
 Huet. fvid. et p. i 27. E. AzyirctX! av yap ii[MV 0/ ^ocpa.t^z'xp- 
 [xivot TO. jiaceipx kvayyiXia. ib. p. 150. E. 'vii^. et p. it^i. £. 
 
 ■p. 156. A. »Tft) votijiov }^ iTTi Tav riasdpcov kyeiv ZMAyyiKi'^uv. 
 ■p. 153. A. iny'iif/.a.i J'tXit'&i (!!l\'cTi[y.ov, ^ 'nrpkTrov ra SfXpiTw 
 ^tho[JiaSbi (xvvatyeiv d'yro rav litaapcov iva,yyi\iav '^avjcr. to. 'Uipi 
 itii K(X(pocpva>l f/. AvxyiypotiJ-ixiva,- p. 159. D. 
 
 (r) A/« TbTO vvi) }y T«7o aMiypa,'\.iV MaT0.i'/of, it) Mcip- 
 yoi J^i dvjaj <7s a^ocTrXwicoi' J^i AnKAi 7oi. ■moXha rni isoipai 
 ^iroii 'ura.pe(nu-7rmiv\^opicti . Com. in Matth. T. i. p. 439. I>. E. 
 
 
 T(^ A«kS, k9' ot/ 'mv^ivoi, a9' otj Kp/'flij'ot mocv C-TroaniJ.e.coaaiy-S- 
 vof S'ilua.vyiii [/.'om Hp>6iv»j ti7T£i/biVC6t7^iafl>i(. Ibid. p. 235. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. o R I G E N. 245 
 
 " ley loaves. "John only has faid, they were ^.^ D. 
 " barley loaves^ So with relation to the hi- ^-i-^ 
 ftorie of Chrijr^ bearing his crolTe, and it's^'^"^*' 
 being born alfo by Simon the Cyrenian^ he com- 
 pares {t) our four Evangelifts by name. 
 
 4. In another place fays he : " There (u) 
 
 *' being then thefe like expreffions in all four,' 
 
 " let us, as we are able, explain the meaning, 
 
 " and obferve the lelTer differences between 
 
 " them : begining with MattheWy who like- 
 
 " wife, as tradition fays, wrote iirft, and de- 
 
 " livered his Gofpel to the Hebreivs^ that is, 
 
 " the believers who were of the circumcilion." 
 
 VIII. The ABs of the Jpoftles are often tx-Jsis. 
 
 prefsly quoted by Origen^ and afcribed io Luke ^ 
 
 as (c) we have feen already. However I put 
 
 down in the margin ('Z£7) a paflage or two more. 
 
 R 3 Origen 
 
 (/) AAA' //iu, iv' «T«? hy.ij.aTco, ya]a tov \ii>am;v lm-<ii, 
 IxvjZ ^X'Pui^ei Toy r«cfpov, 59 lixral^av dvioy^i^nXBn', cTs Ka]se 
 TiV MiZT&^iou, )y Mc/.pxov, ^ hy.vMv, ^'x^zavIm avlov a^pei, Sf/^av 
 yap KypjiuSio? au]ov /3«rrt^t-<. \_Conf. Job. xix. 17. Matth. 
 xxvii. 32. Marc. xv. 21. Luc. xxiii. 26. j Conim. in Matth. 
 T. i. p. 287. E. 288. J. 
 
 (a) ''Ep^ofls:; Toivuf Tat; o(j.'oi(x,<; hk^ea rcoi^ Tiasdfuv (^iee y.cc\a. 
 TO jTuvolcy \S'aij.iv 'iJ^'iO, rov vZv sKc'riK J^ T^^f cTtaspopctf, rtp|ac' 
 //«i'o/ rtTO T» Ma70(i/8, Of }y 'zyapstcTeJ^oJixi ttrpftiTo? A.atT&y to/j 
 E^iiio/f IjccTjJ^&jJiei'a/ TO su«>;^iA/ov, To/f iK 'Z!ri^ilo{/.iii 'ar;ret/8- 
 0-/(/. z» yob. p. IZ3.C. 
 
 (c) 5^^ wa»;. iv. 
 
 (iv) Km iv 7(t7? Tfffa^ii^d' A\smi, Comm. in foh. T. 2.- 
 
 t- 23- 
 
O R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 Origen wrote Commentaries upon this book : 
 or, at left publithed Homilies upon it. A 
 (x) fragment of his fourth Homilie upon the , 
 ^Bs is ftill extant in Greek, Origen fpeaks of 
 the Ads of the Apoftles as an uncontefted 
 book : " But, fays (y) be, fuppofe fome one 
 *' would rejed: the Epiftle to the Hebrews as 
 ** not being Paul's : what will he fay to Ste- 
 " pben's difcourfes concerning the Prophets 
 " flain by the 'Jeimjl: people ? or to what 
 *^ Paul writes to the 'Tbejjakmam^ or to 
 " words of our Lord himfelf to the like pur- 
 ** pofe ? " I have tranfcrlbed this from a 
 piece in Lafifi, But there is exadlly the 
 fame argument in Origen's (z) Greek epiftle 
 to j^fricanus : where having quoted the epi- 
 ftle to the Hebrews, and obferved that fome 
 might difpute the authority of that epiftle, 
 he proceeds to quote, as undoubted books of 
 fcripture, the Gofpel of St. Matthew, the A5is, 
 and Paul's firft epiftle to the 'Thejfaloniaits. 
 
 IX. It 
 
 Contr. Celf. I. 6. p. 282. Cant. p. 638. C. Benedi^. 
 
 {x) Kct; <s^(iXiv ZK Tijj hi TAi tsfd^ei? oixthicci <^. Philoca. 
 cap. 'vii. p. 32. Cant. «t apucl. Huet. T. 2. p. 422. 
 
 fy) Sed pone aliquem abdicare epiftolam ad Hebraeos, quafi 
 nonPauli, nee non etfecretumabjicere Efaiae: fed quid faciat 
 in fermones Stephani, vel Fauli ad Theffalonicenfes de prophetis 
 interfeflis prolatos, velipfius Domini noftri ? i?iMatth, traii, 
 26. Tom. z.p. \2'i,f.n.Baftl. 1571. 
 
 (s) Ad. Jfric, $ ix. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. o R I G E N. 247 
 
 IX. It is needlefs to refer to particular places ^- ^' 
 of Origens works for St. Paul's epiftles, they ^^ 
 having been moft of them fo often quoted ^^^f'/ 
 by him. Befides, it is well known, that St. 
 Paul's epiftles were all along generally receiv- 
 ed in the church, except that to the Hebrews<. 
 However, I (hall obferve a few things relating 
 to fome of them. 
 
 1. In his books againftO^^, in anfwer to 
 fome things objeded by that Epicurean ^ 0- 
 rigen fays : " Do (a) you firft: of all explain 
 " the epiftles of him who fays thefe things : 
 " and having diligently read and attended to 
 '' the fenfe of the words there ufed, particu- 
 *' larly in thofe to the Ephefians, the ColoJJians* 
 *' the ^hejj'aloniam^ the Philippians, the Ro- 
 ** manSy demonilrate thefe two things, both 
 *' that you have underftood the words of 
 *' Paul J and that you have obferved fome of 
 " them to be abfurd and filly. For if any 
 " man reads him with attention, I am pofi- 
 
 R 4 " tive, 
 
 kvixlsvlaoii ra ^aKrtiJiixJt 4>c£cr«f kv dvjocii Xi^zui (ipip (HTriy tJ? 
 
 (^iXiTTTrmiac, >^ '^foi psoy.tx,iiii) (U[j.(p'oTipat<S'tl^ov, K) on vev'jiiKa.4 
 T«f IlAvK<i Xay6i, J9 ■srapaciiiij-a/ kvt]Seii Ttvdi « j;A/9<ar E«v 
 yap e-sTjJ^w lavlov t»i yM^- tb 'T^rposiXeiV a.vctyV(kXTei, \v oiS'* oit 
 }] ■"jciuuacda.i rh mZv tb afJ^poi, IvlJ^isoltKyi X(^&i y.syuXct -zirs- 
 ptvoZvlof, \) ^n d^ocvy.d(ra.i, dvjoi KCila.ykhoc90i (^xViirxt. Contr* 
 Celf. I. 3./). 122. Cant. p. 458. 7. i. Bened, 
 
24^ O R I G E N. BookL 
 
 A. D. <' tlve, that he will admire his ability in ex- 
 
 •c>^-^ " preffing great things in vulgar words : or, 
 
 *' if he does not admire him, he himfelf will 
 
 ** appear ridiculous." 
 
 2. The epiftle to the Epheftam is quoted 
 elfewhere [b) by Origen with that title. 
 
 3. In his books againfl Celfus having quo- 
 ted I T^heff, iv. 13. he fays, *' He [c) had 
 " explained that palTage in his commenta- 
 ** ries upon the fir ft epiftle to the Tkeffh' 
 " loniam" 
 
 Philemon 4" ^^^^ epiflle to Phikmon is but once 
 quoted in Origen ^ Greek works publifhed by 
 Huet^ but it is very exprefsly, in this manner ; 
 " Which [d) Paul knowing, in his epiftle to 
 " Philemon he fays to Philemon^ concerning 
 
 Ver. 14. ** Onefimm : That thy benefit JJmild not be of 
 " mcejjity, but willingly T 
 
 X. I have 
 
 (^) 'El' tTi -srpof £(p4<r.'«f avxyiypxTrlxi. De Orat. p. 205. 
 C. T. i. Bened. ^vid. ibid, p 2 50. E. 
 
 (c) Ti\v S'i. 6)0!.veiaa.v v/jHv m xb? r'oTrug J'lijym.v e^efls/us- 
 6a kv on C'^roycpkvaccy.sv kEi^yiiJiKoii tyu 'Ts-fii ©iajocKovixeli 
 'srfclipi? \7r17cy\Yii. Contr. Ce/f. I. 2. p. 437. J. B. Bened. 
 
 (d) "O'TTifi )y niti/Aof I'^iTU/xiVoi, iXzyzv iv tji 'Ts^oi $.A«- 
 ixova S'77/coAm 7(0 (^iAiiy.ovi 'ms^^i OmaiiAH' ha, yji xut dvdyKHV 
 TouyoMva^ i), aAA« xcclas/.^cr/sv. In Jerem, Horn. i^-p. i 85. 
 C, 2. /. Huef. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. o R I G E N. 249 
 
 X. I have already tranfcribed a long pafTage a. d. 
 from Origen^ letter to Aj'ricamu (d), where vJl^ 
 having quoted the epiftle to the Hebrews ^^'^''^'^'' 
 and argued from it, he fays: But pojibly fome 
 one preffed with this argument will take refuge 
 in the opinion of thofe^ who rejedf this epijile as 
 not writen by Paul. In anfwer to fiich an one 
 we intend to write a diJiinB difcourfe to Jhew 
 that epijile to be Paul's. Which pafTage, as 
 we obferved, (hews, that Origen knew very 
 well, that there were fome who did not re- 
 ceive the epiftle to the Hebrews as Paul's. It 
 may be fufpeded likewife, that he had fome 
 doubts, whether it was received by Africanus, 
 as of authority. He elfewhere alfo makes a 
 fuppofal of this epiflle's being rejeded by fome. 
 We cited the paflage juft now, fpeaking of 
 the Ads of the Apoftles. Origen himfelf how- 
 ever (hews his good will to it, and expreifes 
 his readineife to write a didind difcourfe to 
 prove it to be an epiftle of the Apoftle Paul. 
 
 1. Accordingly we find frequent quota- 
 tions of this epiflle in Origen\ works, befide 
 thofe already referred to. " To the {e) fame 
 
 " pur- 
 
 (d) 5ee Chap, xxxvii. Num. <vL 
 
 (e) KaTtf T»To (pnc/v aTTo^oKoi' on opitXofjsi itvxi S'i^e.j'M.- 
 Aw K. A. Comm, in Job, T. 2, p. 18. B, Huef. 
 
p.^o o R I G E n: Bodk I. 
 
 A.D. «f purpofe fays the Apoftle: whe?! for the 
 «^.^s^ '' time ye ought to be teachers of others. In 
 Heb.^.iz.,, ^.j^g Q^ gpi^lg ^Q ^j^g Hebrews, the fame 
 
 " Paul fays." Again, " Faul [g) in the epi- 
 " ftle to the Hebrews^ Thefe citations are 
 taken out of Origeri^ remaining Greek com- 
 mentaries upon St. Johns Gofpel. In his 
 books agalnfl Celfus he quotes it exprefsly as 
 {h) Paul's, the fame who wrote to the Corm- 
 thlans. In his treatife (/) of prayer he quotes 
 - it as the Apoflle's, the fame who wrote the 
 epirtle to the Ephefians. In a Latin Homilie, 
 *' Paul {k) himfelf the greateft of the Apo- 
 Heh. xii. <« f];les writing to the Hebrews fays : For ye 
 are not come unto the mount that might be 
 ** touched, and what follows." He (/) alfo 
 
 proves 
 
 (f) Ka; £U T>i 'Jtrpof Itfprf.'a?, o avjli YVL\j>!(ii (pWiV- Ibid. 
 
 h 56- 
 
 iS.22.23. 
 
 ^o>'](. . . . cT' dvyoi • ■ -(pmi- Kai y^yovoc^i yJiioM V/j. 
 yd\a,.!]o{- l^Ht'br. v. ii.J Contr. Celf. I, 3. p. 143. Cant. 
 p. /^Zz. D. Bsned. 
 
 (z) De Oratione p. 2 50. £.7". /. Bitud. 
 
 [k] Ipfe ergo apoftolorum maximus . . . Paulus . . dicit ad 
 Hebraeos fcribens. In Nutn. Horn. 3. j5. 231. C. D. T. 2. 
 Bened. 
 
 (/) F,/ (/*£ £y T«T«y 'TS-paXKOTflsi to hkyeiv iiKarl^-'Sfai '?rapa to 
 a>'oy 'T^ilvi/.of, rov (TsJ'lijpa, iVci.vQpc-j'Trnaa.iilci, Trpoociiliov avrdv «to 
 
 70V iHffS;'' (?«(r/ ^ci'f. IHebr. ii. 9-] ComK. i/i Job, T. 2. /». 57. 
 £.58. ^. i/av-/. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. o Ri G E N. 251 
 
 proves things from this epiftle, as a writing A. D» 
 of authority. ^^ry^ 
 
 2. But the mofl confiderable pafTage of 
 Origen relating to this epiftle is that preferved 
 (e) by Eufebe^ upon which we may make 
 feveral obfervations. 
 
 I.) This pafllige is taken out of Homilies 
 upon the epiftle to the Hebrews, which is an 
 argument of the authority of this epiftle in 
 the place where Origen then refided. It was 
 publicly read in the aflemblies of the church, 
 and then expounded and preached upon. 
 
 2.) As OrigeiH homilies that were publifti- 
 ed were preached in the later part of his life, 
 after he was fixty years of age, this paftage muft 
 be reckoned to contain his laft judgement con- 
 cerning this epiftle. 
 
 3.J What Origen (lnys here was delivered in 
 a homilie to the people. It may be hence in- 
 ferred, that what he (ays in this place, though 
 with great freedom, as it may feem to us, 
 could be faid at that time without danger of 
 often fe* 
 
 4.) There were different opinions concern- 
 ing the writer, and probably alfo concerning 
 
 the 
 
 (e) $ce before Numb, iv. 
 
252 O R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 ^- ^ the authority of this epiflle. This difrerence 
 230. . * 
 
 {y^\^\j of fentiment was well known : Ifa?2y church, 
 he fays, [or whatever church] receives it as 
 Paul's^ it is to be commended even upon that 
 account. Origen would not have expreffed 
 hiinfelf after this manner in a homillc, if it 
 had not been generally known, that there were 
 doubts about the author of this epiflle. How- 
 ever, it may be argued from thefe expreflions, 
 that it was more popular in Origen s audience 
 to call it Paul's, than to deny it. And it is 
 very probable, it was received as the Apoflle's 
 in the place where Origen then redded. 
 
 5.) Origen allures us, that there were an- 
 cient writers before him who had fpoken of 
 this epiftle as Paul's. His words, which fol- 
 low thofejaft tranfcribed, are thefe; For it 
 is not without reafon, 'that the ancients have 
 handed it down as Pauls. This argument for 
 the genuinnclTe of this epiflle is reprcfented to 
 great advantage by Mr. Hailet. For which 
 reafon I here put down his words : " The 
 " (m) traditions which Origen mentions are 
 *' more to be regarded, dian his own private 
 «* opinion and reafonings. And, as he pofi- 
 
 " tively 
 
 (m) See Mr. Hallett's Introdu^ion to his Paraphrafe and 
 Notes on the three lajl chapters of the Ep. to the Hebrs'ws.p. 8. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. O R 1 G K N. 
 
 " lively fays, the aJKtenti did in fad: hand it 
 *' down as Pains epiftle : So it is plain, he 
 " laid vaft ftrefle upon this tradition, fince 
 " he would not give it up, though he had 
 ** ftrong temptations fo to do. For he was 
 " very hard put to it, to reconcile this tradi- 
 " tion with the ftyle of the epiftle, and with 
 *' other traditions which named Clement or 
 " Luke as the writers of it. But rather than 
 " give up the former tradition, that it was 
 " Paulas epljile^ he would form fuch an odd 
 " hypothefis, as that juft now mentioned : 
 " {that the thoughts only are PauTs^ while 
 " fome other per [on by memorie committed them 
 " to writing.) It is very certain then, that 
 " the churches and writers, who were anci- 
 " ent with refpedt to Or i gen, had one com- 
 " mon tradition, that St, Paul was the author 
 " of the epiflle to the Hebrews. And their 
 *' teftimonie cannot but be of great weight : 
 " fince thofe Chriftiafis^ who were ancients 
 " with refped: to Origen, muft have con- 
 ** verfed with the Apoftles, or at left with 
 *' their immediate fucceffors." 
 
 Thus far Mr. Halleft. But my good friend 
 cannot fuppofe the tradition, that this was one 
 of Paur^ epiftles, to have been conftant and 
 
 univerfal 
 
254 o R I G E N. Bookr, 
 
 A. D. unlverfal till Origens •f'4- time : or that he 
 {^/^Y'\^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^"^ perfon in the Chr'i(lian world, 
 who made a queftion, whether this epiftle 
 was writ by Faul. This homilie gives ground 
 to think, that doubts about the author of this 
 epiftle were very common even in the Eaft. 
 It may be fupecTied from what Origen fays 
 here, that not only particular perfons, but 
 fome whole churches rejed:ed this epiftle j 
 that is, did not receive it as FanV^. When 
 - Origen wrote his letter to AfricanuSf he ar- 
 gued from the epiftle to the Hebrews. But 
 then he ftarts an objedion, that fome would 
 
 fay, 
 
 •|-4- After tlie firft edition of this volume I received a letter 
 from Mr. Hallett, in which he affures me, that I have mi- 
 ftaken his meaning. He does not intend by ancients, fuch as, 
 rwere before Origen : but he fpuke of fach as were ancients 
 ivith re/peSi to Origen, that h, at left fuch as were Jead be- 
 fore the year 184.. in which he was born: who therefore 
 inuft have converfed with the Apoftles, or at left with their 
 immediate fucceflbrs. What Origen fays, feems to him to 
 be this : " There are traditions, that afcribe the Epiftle to 
 " the Hebrews to Clement or Luke. But the ancients, who 
 *' lived before the faid traditions, fpeak of the Epiftle as 
 *' PauH. Thofe ancients, as Mr. Hallett argues, fhould 
 «' be believed, before modern traditions. As Origen fpeaks 
 *' in general oi the ancients, he feems to mean, that they had 
 *' one common univerfal tradition, that it was PauTs epiftle. 
 •' The other traditions began among thofe that were mo- 
 *' dern, with refpeft to Origen. And then the ancient tradi- 
 *' tion ceafed to be univerfal : " So Mr. Hallett. And cer- 
 tainly he has a right to explain his own terms. For my own 
 part, I am ftill of opinion, that by ancients Origen means 
 fome only, or many of the ancients, not all. And 1 relye 
 upon what I have faid alre.idy, without adding more. 
 
CLXXXVIII. ORIGEN. 255 
 
 fay, it was not Paul's. It is not reafonable a. d. 
 to think, that Origen would weaken his own (^<^/^J 
 argument by a fuppofition of his own inventi- 
 on, and entirely without foundation. There 
 were therefore, a good while before Origen 
 delivered this homiiie upon the epiille to the 
 Hebrews^ Cbriftiam who did not allow it to 
 be Paul's. 
 
 Though Origen fays, that the ancients had 
 handed it down as one of Paul's epiftles ; he 
 cannot be underflood to mean all ancient 
 Chri/lians before his time, but only fome. 
 Undoubtedly Origen fpeaks truth, according 
 to his knowledge : There were ancients, who 
 had fpoken of this epiflle as Paul's. In par- 
 ticuliir Clement oi Alexandria ^ Origen's mailer, 
 and predecelTor in the catechetical fchool of 
 that place, received this epiflle as Paul's^ and 
 was acquainted (f) with a Prefbyter, who 
 gave him a reafon, why the Apoftle did not 
 put his name to that epiflle. But to fappofe 
 Origen to mean all ancients in general is to 
 charge him with great ignorance. We know 
 very well, that there were Chrijliam before 
 Origen^ as well as others about his time> 
 who did riot confider this as one of Paul's 
 
 epiitles. 
 
 |f) Ste before Vol, z- ch,zz, n. Hi. and xx^i. 
 
256 O R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 A. D. epiftles. It is not eafie to prove, that any 
 ^yrs^l\) Chrijiians of the firft two centuries, or fome- 
 what lower, who lived in that part of the 
 Roman Empire, where the Latin tongue was 
 chiefly ufed, received this as an epiftle of Paul. 
 Mr. Hallet {n) is one of thofe who do not 
 think it a clear point, that Clement of Rome 
 alluded to the epiftle to the Hebrews, or bor- 
 rowed any thing from it. I apprehend it to 
 be very probable, that Irenaeus (g) did not re- 
 ceive this epiftle as Paul's. And his opinion 
 is very confiderable in this cafe. Though he 
 lived in Gaul, he wrote in Greek, and came 
 from j^fia. Cat us alfo wrote in Greek, and 
 yet when he enumerated thirteen epiftles of 
 Paul, he omitted that to the Hebrews, faying 
 nothing about it. It appears to me probable, 
 that Caius had never heard that epiftle called 
 Paul's : which I am apt to think was Irettaeus^s 
 cafe, as well as his. And, to add nothing 
 more at prefent, ^ertullian, though an Afri- 
 can, was a man of extenfive knowledge, a 
 great mafter of Greek as well as Latin, and 
 had no prejudices againft this epiftle : but 
 with all his heart would have quoted it as 
 Pauh, if he had had any ground for fo do- 
 ing. 
 
 [n) See his Introduftion, as before, p. 2. 3. 
 (g) See before Ch. 17. Numb.xxiii. 
 
Gh.XXXVIIL O R I G E N. 
 
 ing. Neverthelefs with a great deal of for-^ 
 mality he quotes it as writ by (h) Barnabas, 
 2L companion of Apojlks^ ajit perfon, as he fays, 
 to fhew at the next remove, what was the fen- 
 tlment of the mafters. It is therefore highly 
 probable, that in all the information^ which 
 Tertullian had received concerning this epiftle, 
 he had never once heard it afcribed to the 
 Apoftle Paul, Thefe things, if I miftake 
 not, are fufficient to make us think, that the 
 tradition, that the epiftlc to the Hebrews is 
 Paul's, is not of the utmoft antiquity : or 
 that, it it is, it muft have lain for fome time 
 in a very few hands. Dr. Mill [o) remarking 
 upon this palTage of Origen fays, among all 
 the Fathers of the firft and feeond centuries, 
 whofe writings are come down to us, he hard- 
 ly knows any one who has exprefsly cited 
 this epiftle, except Clement of Alexandria : 
 who certainly has done fo in a very ample 
 manner* But to proceed in our obfervations. 
 6. There is an ambiguity in fome of Ori- 
 S geii's 
 
 (h) See Ch. 27. n.xxii. 
 
 (0) Quamqaam autem ex diflis conflet, plurimis in ecclefiis, 
 et quidem a viris magni nominis, epiftolam banc Paulo haud 
 fuiffe adfcriptam ; certum tamen effe, quod ipfi up-xaioi, feu 
 primi apoftolorum fucceflbres, earn tanquam Pauli receperint, 
 telle ipfo Origene Honi. in Ep. ad Hebraeos, apud Eufebium. 
 Utinam vero dp^'^im iftos nominaffet ; fi quidem ex patribus 
 primi et fecundi I'ecali, quorum fcripw ad nos pervenere, haud 
 quempiam norim qui hanc epiltolam expreffe citaverit, praeter 
 Clementem Akxaridrinum. Mil/, ?/-»/.«. 218. 
 
6 R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 gens expreflions in this paffage. His words 
 are : If therefore any church receives this epijlle 
 as Paul's J it is to be commended even upon that 
 account. For it is not without reafon^ that the 
 ancients have handed it down as Pauls. But 
 nvho wrote this epijlle^ God only knows. The ac- 
 count come down to us is various, fome faying^ 
 that Clement, who was Bijhop of Rome, wrote 
 this epijlle : others, that it was Luke, who wrote 
 the Go/pel and the ASis. It is difficult to fay, 
 what is meant by the word write, when ufed 
 of this epiftle : whether Origen intends writing 
 as an author, or only penning or writing 
 down the fenfe of another. When Origen 
 fays : But who wrote this epiftle, God only knows • 
 one is difpofed to underfland him of writing 
 as an author, for the fake of the oppofition 
 to what precedes. Moreover he plainly ufes 
 the word in that fenfe, when he fays, Luke 
 nvrote the Gofpel and the A£is. On the other 
 hand, it is argued, that when Origen fays, God 
 only knows, who wrote this epiftle ; he means on- 
 ly, who penned it, or to whom the language and 
 compofition are owing. Otherwife Origen is in- 
 conliftent with himfelf. For to fay, firft, that 
 the ancients have ha?ided it down as Paul's : and 
 prefently after, that the account come down to 
 us is various 'y fomc afcribing the epiftle to 
 
 Clement^ 
 
ch.xxxVlri. o R I G E ^, 
 
 Clement y others to Luke, as authors -, would 
 be a contradidlion. Therefore, when he fays, 
 thit God only knows who wrote the epiftle, and 
 that fome fay, Cle7nent wrote it^ others Luke 5 
 he muft be fuppofed to fpeak only oi penning 
 what had been heard from Paul And in 
 this later fenfe the words are underflood by 
 two learned writers in our own language, (p) 
 Mr. Hallett, and (q) Mr. Twells, who have 
 both lately examined this matter with care 
 and exadnefle. 
 
 7. Origen did not fuppofe, this epiftle to 
 have been writen originally in Hebrew, or .Sy- 
 riac, but in Greek. For he fays, it has not 
 the Apoftles rudenejfe offpeech, or homely flile; 
 but, as to the texture of the words, has a good 
 deal of the elegance of the Greek language* 
 This, he fays, is very plain : and will be ov/n- 
 ed by every one, who is able to judge of ftiles : 
 Whence he concludes, that the fenfe being ad* 
 mirable, and worthie of the Apoftle, but the 
 ftile very different from that of all his other 
 writings j the fentiments are, and muft be 
 Paul's ; but the compofition is that of fome 
 other perfon^ whofe he cannot fay : God only 
 knows. But fome fay, it was writ by Clement^ 
 S 2 others, 
 
 (/.) See Mr. Jiallett, as before, p. f. 
 {q) Mr. Tivel/i^i Critiiai Examinatm, i^c. P. 2, />. 5S, 
 ... 61. 
 
26o ORIGIN. BookL 
 
 •^- ^- others, by huke. Here is not one word of a 
 tranflatlon, nor any thing founded upon that 
 fuppofition. On the contraricj the whole, or 
 a main part of the argument at left, is found- 
 ed upon a fuppofition, that the epifile was 
 writ in Greek. It is true, Eufcbe has omitted 
 a part of Origens argument relating to this 
 epiftle, which I heartily wi(h he had rather 
 inferted at length. But I think we may be 
 well fatisfied, there could be nothing here 
 faid of this epiftle having been writ in HebreWi 
 at left in Origed^ opinion. 
 
 Indeed Eiijebe does fay, in a paffage (i) 
 which we formerly cited, that whereas Paul 
 wrote to the Hebrews in their owjt tongue^ fome 
 think the Eva?igelift Luke : others^ that Clement 
 iranjlatedit into Greek : which lafiy Eufebe fays, 
 is the mojl likely ^ fmce there is a great refem- 
 blance between the Jiile of Clemen fs epijlle, and 
 that to the Hebrews^ as well as between the fen- 
 timents of thefe writings. But it feems, that 
 Origen was not able to form any notion of 
 this epiftle having been writ in Hebrew. 
 Therefore he does not fay, that fome thought 
 it was tranilated by Clement ^ others by Luke : 
 but fome faid, that Clement^ others that Luke 
 wrote it. And, to fpeak freely, all prefent ap- 
 pearances 
 
 (i) See before Ch. ii. Vol. i. p'S7* 
 
Ch.XXXVm. OR I GE N. 26 r 
 
 pearances are in favour of its having been writ A. D. 
 in Greeks the language in which we now have v-^-y^ 
 it, and in v/hich it was read by the moft anci- 
 ent Chrijiians^ fo far as we know. As for 
 Eujebeh opinion, that Clement tranflated it out 
 of Hebrew j certainly it muft be without all 
 good ground, there being no reafon to fuppofe, 
 that Clement underilood Hebrew^ or Syriac^ 
 though perhaps Luke might. 
 
 8. We ought to confider, on what account, 
 or in what refpecfl Origen quotes this epiflle 
 fo often in his works, as Paul's, It muft be, 
 I think, either out of deference to the com- 
 monly received, and more generally prevail- 
 ing opinion of the Chriftians with whom he 
 lived : or perhaps rather, on account of what 
 he fays in his homilies upon this epiftle, he 
 quotes it as delivering and containing the real 
 fentiments of the Apofile Paul: which he 
 fuppofed to be here truly reprefentcd, though 
 the phrafe and compofition were not Paul's^ 
 but of fome one elfe ; probably one of his 
 moft intimate friends and conftant compa- 
 nions, but which of them he did not cer- 
 tainly know. However, as there was a tra- 
 dition in the church, that the epiftle was 
 Paul's^ fo likewife there were accounts hand- 
 ed down to his time concerning the writer of 
 
 S 3 iti 
 
O R I G E N. Book I, 
 
 it ; fome faying, that it was writen by Cle^ 
 ment, others, by Luke. This then was Ori- 
 gen's opinion of this epiftle, in which (r) Dr, 
 Mill fuppofes hiai to have been fingular. 
 And thus we may reckon Origen to have per- 
 formed at laft in this homilie what he had in- 
 timated in his letter to AJricanns he intended 
 to do, and there was occafion for, confideripg 
 the different fentiments about this epiftle. 
 
 ^ames' XI. The epiftle oi James we find thus cited 
 by Origen in one of his tomes upon St. Johnh 
 Gofpel: " For {$) though it be called y^/Vi?, 
 ** if it be without works , it is ^ead^ as we read in 
 " the epiftle afcribed to yames'* This feems to 
 (hew, that there were doubts about this epiftle: 
 if there is not likewife an intimation of fome 
 doubt about it in his own mind. Nor do I 
 know of any other place, where this epiftle 
 is quoted in Origen's Greek works publiflied by 
 Huei, excepting only one more in another 
 tome of his commentaries upon yohn, where 
 
 the 
 
 (r) Denique Origenis fententia hac in re peculiaris fuifTe 
 videtur. Adjudicat epiftolam banc Paulo quoad ipla vo«^aJc« 
 quibus conltat ; abjudicat autem ei, quoad llylum, ac verborum 
 compofuionem, eo quod majorem Graeci fermonis elegantiam 
 praeferre ipfi videtur haec, quajn reliquae Paulinae. Mill. 
 J^rol. n. ziy. 
 
 (i) Eav <fs Kiy\nau [j.h <uUii, Pc«t'pK ^i ipyav rvyxeivtig 
 ^iKpu i.7tv it roictvlii, Ki iv TH (pipofAipn lcL<aC^ AViyvwiAiv. Cotrit 
 ^it Jo^an.Tom. i^. (T. 2. /. 284. D. 
 
ch.xxxvnr. o R I G E N. 263 
 
 (t) the fame words are mentioned zgzm^ faith ^' ^' 
 without works is dead: without faying whence 
 they are taken : intimating however, that the 
 fentiment itfeh'', or the writing where it is 
 found, was not admitted by all, as of autho- 
 rity. Mill (11) therefore fays, that Origen 
 cites this epiftle as of doubtful authority with 
 fome : though in his works tranflated into 
 Lati?i by Ruji?i it is alleged, as the epiflle of 
 James^ apoftle and brother of the Lordy and 
 divi?2e fcripture. 
 
 In the books againfl Celfiis Origen fays, 
 *^ It is {w) very ufual for the divine fcrip- 
 ** tures to call the evils that befall men in 
 " this life, temptations, by which, as gold in 
 *' the fire, the foul of man is tried." And in 
 the Benedidfin edition over againft thefe words 
 are placed 'James i. 2. i Fet. i. 7. And to the 
 text in Feter there does appear to be a refer- 
 S 4 ence. 
 
 {t) . . . « Gvyyu^'Sh av vto r2v '7ff-etpa.S'£)(_oy.iv6)V to' IlfrJtf 
 p^wpK ipyeov vzxfd srtv. In J oh. T.zi. p. 294. E. 
 
 [u) Imo vero ut in ipfius Origenis operibus, a Rufino Latl- 
 nis faftis, allegetur haec epiftola tanquam Jacobi ApojioU fra- 
 tris Domini, tX. fcriptura Di'vina. [Horn. 13. in Gen. 3.et8. 
 inExod. etHom. 2. in Levit. etComm. in cap. Ep.j.ad Rom.] 
 in Commentariis tamen in Joannem Graecis, ab omni inter- 
 polatione liberis, ceu dubiae apud quofdam audloritatis citatur. 
 [p. 284. et 294. edit. Huetianae,] Mill. Prol. 203. 
 
 {tv) . ,. ui 'zs^iifxx.cy.fcv rTu siu^Jjf* »T«^ ya§ eQ^ Tolfd-itolf 
 cvo/zcf^av Koyoii to. <jv[j.Qaivw[o(. ev AvSpaTron' h oti, a; ypvffoi 
 iv -TTt/pi, ri ra «V0p«T« (i(x.<xci.vii^oyAvn 4'^X''' ^''^*' iMyxjlo^^* W 
 ^ocvixoc^i] iivM otMOiipuiViioit' Contf. CslJ. I. 8. /.415. Cani. 
 /. 735. F.Totn.i. Bined. 
 
26^ O R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 A. D. ence. But I perceive no fign of a reference 
 to James, fince afflidions are very often fpo- 
 ken of in fcripture as temptations. 
 
 230 
 
 Peter's XII. In Origens palTages before cited from 
 
 Enfebe we faw a fufficient atteftation to St. 
 'Peter\ two epiftles ; That one is without all 
 queftion genuine, and the other doubted of. 
 However I fhall here obferve farther, that 
 the fi -ft epiftle of this Apoflle is often quoted 
 by Origen exprefsly. Thus in his well known 
 books againft Celfus : *' As (x) it is faid by 
 
 i Pet. ii.5. <« Peter : Te as lively jhnes^ are built tip afpiri- 
 ** tital hcufe ....•' And ia his Gnek commen- 
 taries upon St, John's Gofpel : Peter (y) in his 
 
 1 Pet. iii. catholic epiftle : Being put to death, fays he, 
 
 ^8- »9' in thefcflo, but quickened in the fpirit. 
 
 I do not remember any quotation of the le- 
 cond epiftle of Peter in the books againft 
 Celfus, nor in any of Origens Greek works 
 publiftied by Huef. Nor has Huet any refer- 
 ence to this epiftle in his Index of fcriptures. 
 There ia however a paffage in Origens Greek 
 commentaries upon St. Matthew, that may 
 
 not 
 
 {x) Ka9o iiTo /ueu tk neTp« K<iyi\a.f 'T/we/f ePe oixo<Po/jLit£ie 
 Xl9o/ (c^^lii- K. A. Conir. Celf. I. 8. p, 393. Cant. T. i. p-JST- 
 
 iy] Koci -srjpi 7nf 6V (puKocKn Tirofitoc^ (/.tra 'z^vivfjictloi 'sratps? 
 
 ^ao'7roii]iitii H 'svivy.ccjt. h. A. Ifi Jo}>an.p. 1 26. J.B.T.z. Huei,» 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. O R I G E N. 
 
 not be overlooked. *' But, fays (2:) Origen^ 
 *' when I have alleged words to this pur- 
 ** pofe out of the firft epiftle of Feter^ and 
 " the former of Faul to the Corinthians ^ yoii 
 *^ will afTent to what has been faid. For 
 ** Peter fays: In whom, though now ye fee i PetX 
 ** kim not, namely, Jefus Chrifi, yet believing ^- • • ^^^ 
 ** ye rejoice, and what follows, to thofe word?, 
 " which things the angels defire to look into, 
 " And Paul: Know ye not, that we jhalliCor.yl 
 *' judge angels ? How much more things that ^' 
 ** pertain to this lifeV* So Huet would give 
 us this paflage. But from his Notes upon 
 this place, if I underftand them, it appears, 
 that he had not in his manufcript copie the 
 woxd Jirft: but {a) only four letters, which 
 I think we may be pofitive mean Peter, writ 
 in an abbreviated manner. And then this 
 pafTage will (land thus : When I have alleged 
 fome words to this purpofe out of the epijile of 
 
 Peter^ 
 
 («) TJotfctXaCciv il hi Tare amortiYii 'tirfeuTHi I'zt^oXrii, ^ 
 a'TTo Til J Tla.vKii 'zifoi Kop<vSu? 'Tspolipa.i fn^d -wpa^QHo-H <iii vyicoi 
 
 hpZvlii, S'v)Kov'oii Iho-bv Xp/s-&u, x^ ta n|Hf , 'iui t». 'E/? S, Jt/- 
 {iv(/t(Tiv a-YysXoi 'uce.pxKV'^xl- 'O </s I^fAof. k A. Comm, 
 j-n Matth. p. 396. D. 
 
 [a) UsipxXxCuv /e he tkto rtTo ri r^( 'TsrpcoTtii «7r/r<'A«f.] 
 Legend' m videtur, r'iii '^irpa 'wpaiiK £T/roAr< J^cripferat 
 librarius Tppa, quod cum fvllaoi priorc ilquciitii voc.ibul! prop- 
 ter kni'i fimilitad'nem facile co.luit. Huet. notis p. 70 Sed 
 tneojudicio kgendum rTspy., itt fcripferat librarius, id ejl, isriTpni 
 iic, aiffo T{ Tffj 'srirpv e-zsrjf sAJjj. 
 
266 o R I G E N, Book I, 
 
 ■A. D. Peter J and out of the former of Paul to the 
 i Corinthians^ you will affent to what has been 
 [aid. So then here is no mention made of 
 two epiftles of Peter ^ or of a firil epiftle of 
 Peter, but only Peters epifile is exprefsly 
 quoted by name for what Origen there takes 
 out of it. I fuppofe this Oiay be reckoned a 
 clear and certain emendation. I wonder, Huet 
 did not perceive the right reading. This obfer- 
 vation Is fo eafie, that there is no merit in it. , 
 Nor have I obferved the iiril: epiftle oi Peter 
 any where quoted in Origen s Greek works in 
 that manner. But the ufual forms of quota- 
 tion are fuch as thofe already mentioned, (b) 
 Peter fays, Peter teaches, (^) Peter in his ca- 
 tholic epiftle : which forms (d) appear alfo ia 
 the hatin tranllations, though indeed we do 
 iind alfo In them exprefsly, in (e) the frfl 
 epifile of Peter: but in the original it may have 
 been only, and Peter in his epifile. 
 
 The 
 
 (^) T]!^T^tiv\yM.i S'lS'kay.ei >Ayav. lnJere?n.Ilom.<v.p.%'j. 
 D. 1, i. Huet. a; o Y[irf<^ avoiJ.ctffi. Com. in Matth. p. 292. 
 j^. 'zsot.^a. <f'i ru>Il<e.7fa hfujloci. ib. p. ^22. C, iVs oV/, xclta 
 TcV Tlirpov. Exh. ai. Martyr, p. 300. B, T. i. Bened. 
 
 (f) Kola Kiy'<iy.vi!n. \v tm KC^oKm) i-sr/roXii isol^o. to TUlfO). in 
 Pfa/m i'ii. /'•553. D. Bened. 
 
 [d] Quomodo dick Petrus, Ce Pr. I. 2. p. 95. A. 71 /. Ben, 
 ficut ait Petrus apo^olus. ib. /. 3. />. 145. F. 
 
 {e) De qua fpe Petrus ipfe in prima epiilola fua ita ait. De 
 frittcip. L. 2. C. Hj. p. 88. D. T, i. Bsned. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. oRiGEN. 267 
 
 The fecond epiftle is not often quoted in A. D. 
 Origens Latin works. In a homilie upon the ,„1I^L.^ 
 book o( Numbers J fpeaking oi Balaam : " And 
 " (f) ^s the fcripture fays in a certain place : 2 Pet. i;. 
 *^ The dumb affe fpeaking with human 'voice ^ 
 ** forbad the mad?2ejje of the prophet." And 
 in another Latin homilie : " For (g) I know 
 *' it is writen, that of whom a man is over- 
 ** cojize^ of the fame is he brought in bondage'' '""'• '9' 
 Thus this epiftle is quoted in a general way, 
 without giving it any authority, fo far as 
 appears. In a Latin tranflation of a Homilie: 
 *' And (h) again Feter fays; Te are made zTetX^i 
 ** partakers^ fays he, of the divitie nature** 
 In that place are feveral texts to the like pur- 
 pofe quoted from St. Paul^ and St. John, 
 Perhaps the tranflator thought fit to add this 
 alfo from St. Peter's fecond epiftle. And I 
 think it looks fomewhat fufpicious, as if it 
 were an addition. It is certain, that Ruffin took 
 a great liberty (/) of adding in his tranflations of 
 
 fome 
 
 (f) Et ut ait quodam in loco fcriptura : mutum animal 
 huraana voce refpondens, arguit prophetae dementiam. In 
 Num.ho?n. 13. T^i.p. 321. C. Bened. 
 
 (g) Scio enim fcripcum effe, quia unufquifq; a quo vincilur, 
 huic et fervus addicitur. In Exod. horn. iz. p. ij^ D. 
 
 (h) Et iterum Petrus dicit : Conjortes, inquit, facii ejlis 
 divifiae naturae, in Le^oit. Horn. Iv. p. 200. B- Bened. 
 
 (i) . . dum fupplere cjpimus ea quae ab Origene in auditorio 
 pcclefiae ex tempore, non tarn explicationisquam ae Jficationis 
 intentione perorata funt : ficut in homiliis, five in oratiunculis 
 
 in 
 
268 o R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 A. D. fome of Or/^f «'s homilies, particularly thofe 
 \^^^^ upon Leviticus^ (whence this quotation is ta- 
 ken) according to his own acknowledgement. 
 
 St. John's XIII. In Origen\ pafTages cited from Eufebe^ 
 when we firil entered upon the confideration 
 of this writer's teflimonie to the books of the 
 New Teftament, St. John's firft epiftle is ex- 
 prefsly owned to be his. And it is frequently 
 cited elfewhere. In his Greek commentaries 
 upon St. Matthew : '' As (k) in the epiftle of 
 lyohnil *' John: It is the hfi time." He quotes it 
 *^' often by the title of John's catholic epiftle in 
 his (I) Greek commentaries ftill extant, and 
 [jn) in the treatife of Prayer. He quotes it 
 likewife {n) as the epiftle of the fame John 
 \vho wrote the Gofpel. A like form of quo- 
 tation, 
 
 in Genefim et in Exodum fecimus, et praecipue in his quae 
 in librum Levitici ab illo quidem perorandi ftilo diftata, a nobis 
 vero explanandi fpecie tranflata funt, &c. Ruffin. laudat. 
 Huet. Ortgenian. I. 3. Se3. iii. p. 245. C. 
 
 {k) K«9' ov \^tv iv>caifcoi h'Treiv to' k^drn ecpx sr/v, iv rif 
 JcoMVn \'7n^oh'^ Kiip.ivov- Comm. in Matth. p. 234. B. Huet. 
 
 {/fOiip '!S-ixpa.r))<xoy.£y jyayro rni l«rfuCbX.a9oA/xHf. injerem, 
 Horn. IX, T. i. f. 1 06, B, tluet awo rni Iwavvs xa9oA./'C«f «T/ro- 
 Awj- Comm. in Matth. p. 476. E. ib. Ev fin KaQoXinifi g^troAH 
 Ift)tfVWf. Ji. A. Com. in. Joan. p. 22. C o^.ey; xetjtxvonjiov l^ 
 TO iv Til >{a9oA/;iii STiroA^i v-tto Icodvva 5/pM/aevou "srep/ vtm ©gs. 
 X.A. Com. in Jo. p. 299. E. 
 
 {m) AtiMv oTi •uoiKv eiy.afileiv, ai (pwiv iv 7h xaSoAikwo 
 JeoivvYii, iK TK S'iaC'oM Wiv. De Or at. /». 233. B. Bened. 'Ew 
 It) xaOoAwH T« laupva jt/?"oAm. 16. p. 232. .J. 
 
 (n) 'Ev cTe 71, jfaOoA/^h TK rtt/TB lacii'vn W/roA^f Xiyffai. 
 Com, in Jo. />. 70. -^. wV. f/ />. 261. C /^. 
 
Gh.XXXVIIL O R I G E N. 
 
 tation, fuch as (o) jfobn the Apofik in his epi- 
 Jiky appears not feldom in the homilies which 
 we now have in Latin only. 
 
 In the paflage cited from Eufebe^ Origen 
 informed us, there were doubts about the fe- 
 cond and third epiftles of Jobiy for all did not 
 allow them to be genuine. But^ fays he, let 
 them alfo be granted to be his. However, I 
 do not know of any one quotation of either of 
 thefe in Origeri^ remaining works. 
 
 XIV. We muft be fomewhat particular in 5/. Judt, 
 our obfervations upon St. yude'^ epiftle. In 
 the Greek commentaries upon St. Matthew^ 
 immediatly after what was cited juft now, 
 relating to St. Peter's fecond epiftle, Origen 
 goes on : " Confider (p) therefore, whether 
 " they were not more excellent and fuperior 
 " to men, [or perhaps rather Governours orwr.G; 
 " Lords of men'] (o long as they kept their fir fi 
 ** ejiate^ and left not their own habitation : " 
 which are words ofjude, ver. 6. and prefently 
 
 after 
 
 (o) Unde credo et Joannes apoftolus in epiflola fua dicit, 
 quaedara eflb peccata ad mortem, quaedam non effe ad mortem. 
 in Exod. horn. x. p. 176. B. Tom. 2. Bened. Annon et apo- 
 ftolus Joannes in epiftola fua eadem fentit ? In Num. horn. ix. 
 ■p. 297. E. Quas apoltolus Joannes in epillola fua diftindicne 
 comprehendit, ait enim : Scribo 'vobis pueri, et /cribo vobis 
 adalefcentes, et, Jcribo njobit patres. ib. p. 300. F. 
 
 (p) ''Opct ay. £/ fxn %Tbi y.iv "oao)) irnfuv thu iavjuv otf J^wc, i^ 
 iKciTri.hi'Trov ro'iS'iov oiKiijnplov, 'nroXX'^avQpuTruvJ^iitpifov, lymoar 
 scfTfcV -arfwTw. Com. in Matth. p. 396. £. vid, (tp. 397. J. 
 
270 O R I G E N. fiookti 
 
 A. D. after he has likewife the following words of th^ 
 ^^-v-^ fame verfe ; ref€rved{q) in everlafting chains un- . 
 der darkneffe unto the judgement of the great day. 
 In the fame commentaries having taken no- 
 tice of thefe words, Matth. xiii. ^^, 56. Is not 
 this the Carpenter s fin f Is not his mother called 
 Marie ? and his brethren J antes ^ andjofes^ and 
 . Simon, and Judas f befide other remarks he 
 fays, that James is the fame, whom Paul m 
 his epiftle to the Galatians fpeaks of, as having 
 been feen by him. GaL i. 19. He alfo ob- 
 ferves a paflage in the Antiquities of Jofephus 
 relating to the fame James. And then addsi 
 *' And (r) Jude wrote an epiftle, of a few 
 *^ lines indeed, but full of powerful words of 
 ** the ■ heavenly grace, who at the begining 
 ** fays i JudethefervantofJefusChriJi, and 
 " brother of Jamesl^ This palTage is of ufe 
 to fliew us, whom Or i gen took to be the 
 author of this epiftle. And I would farther 
 obferve, that it is fomewhat ftrange, that in 
 this place nothing (hould be faid by Origen 
 concerning the epiftle oi James, if he fuppofed 
 it to be writen by the James before mentioned. 
 
 Again, 
 
 ^.e«oi. p. 397. B. 
 
 {r) Kcti lis'/af iypct-^iv i'TTiToXw, oAi^or/p^ov //si', t^zTP^ripw 
 fjLkvm Si rci)V 7«)f ifMiv "Xff^^ kppry.it'av Aoywv, oV/j sr t5 
 
 Ibid. /.'2i3. D. E. 
 
 ffjer. 1. 
 
Ch.XXXVIil, O R I G EN. 
 
 Again, in the fame commentaries : " And 
 ** (ij in the epiftle of y tide : To tbem that are 
 ** beloved in God the Father, and preferred in 
 *' yefus Chrijl and called^ Hence it appears, 
 that inftead oi JanBtjied^ in our prefent copies, 
 Origen read beloved. 
 
 Once more in the fame Greek commentaries 
 upon St. Matthews Gofpel, having cited i Fet. 
 i. 12. he fays: " But {t) if any one receives 
 *' alfo the epiftle of ^ude^ let him confider 
 " what will follow from what is there faid : 
 *' And the angels ivhich kept not their fir Ji ejiatet 'ver. 6, 
 " but left their own habitation^ he hath referv- 
 *' ed in everlajling chaim under darkne^e unto 
 ** the judgement of the great day r Thisdiews, 
 that there were fome at that time, who doubted 
 of, or denied the authority of this epiille. 
 
 Thefe are quotations of this epiftle in 0/7- 
 gen\ remaining Greek works. We find it alfo 
 quoted in his hatin works, particularly in his- 
 books of Principles in Rujfin^ tranflation ; 
 *' Of vi^hich {ii) in the Afcenfion of Mojes^ 
 
 '* which 
 
 [s) Ka/ \v T>r Xk^a. \'7n<:okA, toTV ii* ©fw ■arolp' w>-a7r«/xevo/f, 
 1^ IwcTB XP'^*? ril»ptiuivoti H^ AKnTaic- Ibid. p. 332. A. 
 
 T6> Koyc^ J^/ci TO. AyykXvi ts //« T«pi7e"«v]j«; rm kxv\scv ctpp^m', 
 xi T. A. lb. p. 488. E. 
 
 («) De quo in Afcenfione Moyfi, cujus libelli memiriit in 
 epiftola fua apoftolus Judas, Michael archangelus cum diabolo 
 difputans de corpore Moyfi, ait, a diabolo infpiratum Terpen ■ 
 tern caufam extitiffe praevaricationis Adae et Evae, De Prin^ 
 lib, 3. <•«/. 2. in T.i, /, 138, J, 
 
272 o R I G E ^f. Book li 
 
 A. D. << which book the Apollle Jude quotes in his 
 s^^y^ " epiftle, Michael the archangel difputing 
 ** with the devil about the bodie of Mofes^ 
 " faySj the ferpent moved by the devil W2S 
 ^* the caufe of the fin of Adam and Eve^ 
 This epiftle is {w) quoted feveral times in a 
 Jjatin epiftle of Origen. We likewife faw 
 Jude mentioned in the Latin Catalogues (k) 
 tranfcribed above* 
 
 Revela' XV. The Revektion is mentioned, as we 
 faw before, in Origen s Greek palTages tran- 
 fcribed from Eufebe among the other writings 
 of St. John the Apoflle of Chrift^ and allowed 
 to be his. Origen feems to have had no doubt 
 about it. And it is often cited by him. He 
 fpeaks of it in this manner in his commenta- 
 ries upon St. John's Gofpel : " Therefore (x\ 
 
 ttev. xiv. ** John the fon of Zebedee fays in the Revela- 
 '^' *' tion : I faw an angel fi^ in the midji of hea^ 
 *« 'venV 
 
 In another (f) place he fays ; " The fons of 
 *' Zebedee drunk of that cup, and were bap- 
 
 ^jxii.z. <t tifed with that baptifm : forafmuch as iiZ^- 
 " rod hilled James the brother of John with the 
 
 fwordy 
 
 (cv) Vid. Orig. ^•5.7'- i- Sened. 
 (k) See Numb. nj. vi, 
 
 {x) $«or/v B(/ Iv 7H d'^oKcuKV'iei T« ^iCiif'uiv luclmi' Com. in 
 Joh. p 14.. E. 
 (y) Cm, in Maf^h. p. /i^i-j. B, C. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. o R I G E N. 273 
 
 fword^ and {z) a Roman Emperour, as tradi- A. D. 
 tion informs us, banillied yckn to the ifland l^-v-^ 
 of Patmos^ for the teftimonie of the word 
 of truth. Of his te(l:in?.onie yohn himfelf 
 fpeaks, though he does not inform us by 
 whom that fentence was pafTcd upon him, 
 faying thus in the Revelation : I yolm your Re'v.'i.^: 
 brother^ and companion in tribulation^ and 
 in the kingdom and patience of "Jefus Chrift, 
 was in the ijle 'which is called Patmos^ for 
 the word of God, and what follows. And 
 (a) it feems that he faw the Revelation in 
 that ifland." Perhaps it will be thought 
 remarkable by fome, that Origen does not 
 name the Emperour, who pronounced this fen- 
 tence againft St. yohn. 
 
 Again, he calls the writer of the {b) Revela- 
 tion, Apojlle and Evangelijly and on account of 
 the Revelation, Prophet, 
 
 In his books againft Celfus he mentions 
 yohfis {c) Revelation, and divers other books 
 of fcripture, particularly of the Old Tefta- 
 
 T ment, 
 
 (2) 'O S'l ^coyMuv jidiai^ivi. Ih. B. 
 
 {a) Ksti £o/)i£ T17V v.7ro-/AXV'\.iv iv T>i vfiffa TiQewpwevaj/ Ibid.C. 
 
 [b) KsiAfeJf fj.ivloiyB J^/ocypdycov ra 'Z^Bfl tk Koy^ ri 0fy zv ta 
 
 X'J-'AV'^icoi )y 'jrpopi'iTHf, (pmi, x.. A. Com. in Jo. />. 5 i. D. 
 
 [c) A'jxyvoyra cTs y^ky. rtii IccAvv^i a.TOKctKV'^tui t* -arfpi t^j 
 '^IhiWi, y.. A. Contr, Celf. I. 6. T, i. /•,.647. E, Bened. 
 
cc 
 
 274. O R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 A- D. ment, and foon after adds : *' But (d) let 
 Cf^^i and they that read his book know, 
 that no where in any of the fcriptures that 
 *' are genuine, ana believed to be divine, is 
 " there any mention of feven heavens. Nor 
 " have any of our Prophets, or the Apoftles 
 *' of JefuSj or he himfclf the fon of God, 
 *' borrowed any thing from the Ferftam^ or 
 *' the Cabirians" The Relfelation therefore 
 was anaong thofe books, which were reputed 
 genuine and divine fcriptures. 
 
 And finally [e) Origen intended to write a 
 coniinentarie upon the Revelation, though 
 v/e do not certainly know that he did fo. 
 
 Whether - XVI. There is a place in Origen, where he 
 cttf;Wzw.has been fuppofed to fay, that from the be- 
 i!ed ahcut ^^^^^^„ ChrtftiaTis had been divided about the 
 
 theBooksofo iD J 
 
 jcriptuic. books that ought to be received as fcripture. 
 It is in his books againft Cclfus, who had faid 
 of the ChriftlanSy that ai firO, and fo long as 
 they vvere few, they were all of one mind : 
 
 but 
 
 lu'jivhi. 'Out' aTroTlifVcoi'h liaCkifav kct€ivii( iiy.&v 01 /z^poQiiTOit 
 hkyzd'i TiVXf »/''■ oi T» IJi7a aTrorcXoi, aJ^' dCloi vtoi ra 0£a. 
 Uid. /. 648. £. 
 
 (e) Omnia hacc exponere fingiil; tirn de capltibus fcptem 
 Dnicoiiis . . [Rev. xii. ^ ] non eit teaiporis Imjiis : exponentur 
 autem tempore kio in Revelatsone Joannis. In Malth. Tr. 30, 
 p. \^j.in. lam. z. BiiJIl, 
 
Gh.XXXVIII. o R I G E N, 275 
 
 but afcerwards, when they were encreafed in- ^- ^• 
 
 .... 130. 
 tvO a great number, they were miferabiy divi- ^y-sf^ 
 
 ded. In anfwer to what is faid in the firft 
 part of this cbjcdiion Origen oblerves, " That 
 " Celfiis (f) was fo ignorant as not to know, 
 *' that from the very bcgining there were 
 *' differences among the believers about the 
 " books that fliould be received as divine 
 " fcripture." Sb Origin has been underfcood 
 to fay. And fo Spencer (g) had tranflated 
 this pafHige. But the BenediBin editor of 
 Origen has tranfjated it thus; 'that [h) Celfus 
 was fo ignorant ai not to knovb\ that from the 
 bcgining there were differences amcng the he- 
 lievers about the fenfe [interpretation, or mean- 
 ing] of the books believed to be divine. And 
 that this is what Origen means, appears very 
 evident from what lie fays prcfently after- 
 wards in fupport of his affertion: That f/^ 
 T 2 there 
 
 (f) im] S'i )^ oTi £f e^psCKV 'Tsdvlii' i<f Iv rata opsj', ori 
 
 yjiv yzyo'^aat J'ixzco'/io'a rZv ■sr.Teuoi^i)!. Com. Celf. I. 3. /i. 1 1 7. 
 Cant. p. 453. t'. Tom. i. Bened. 
 
 (gj Ne tiic quidem videns, quod mox ab inicio non conve- 
 niibat inter credences de deledtu diviaorum facrae fcvipturas 
 voluminuin. Frr/. Spencer. 
 
 (h) Neque hie novit jam turn ab initio fuiffe de fenfu li- 
 brorum, qui divini efle ciedebaiitur, inter fideles diiudia. Verf. 
 Bened. 
 
 (i) Er/ yZv rav aTTo^dhav yjip'joi'o'^cz^v (^ifiWii 2k oXiyn 
 
 'Trpo? aAAj'jAKf ytykv;]\a.i, 'ma^a. roli cfVa laJ^Mcov isi^^iViOl 'zsrifi 
 TuiM i^ «6«fcv £-Tfp;)^o,u5VS)y tw Aojiw, s'jiiOiV j'ii Td. It/';/,*;!* 
 
276 O R I G E N. Boole L 
 
 A. D. there were In the times of the Apoflles dif- 
 4^,,A^putes ainong ih^ yewi/Jj believers, whether 
 the converts from among theGentils flbould ob- 
 {^\-\'G the rites of the Mqfaic law, or not. Fie 
 jnfifis r.lfo npon the queftion about the refur- 
 re6tion, iCor.xv. 12. and fome other matters 
 mentioned in the New Teflament. And, as 
 he proceeds, he feveral times fpeaks of mif- 
 miderftand'ings cf dcBrines (k) end of the (!) 
 writings (md words of Mofes and the Fi'Ophcts, 
 And fays, that [in) from different interpretations 
 of -voordis believed by all to be divine arofe 'uarious 
 fcBs : ufmg all along phrafes, that confirm 
 De la Ri/c'i verfion of the foregoing pafTage. 
 
 J general XVII. Origcn has a long argument concern- 
 tion7r%e'^^?> ^'^^ books of the New Teftament in the 
 Books of fiiftTome of lus commentaries upon St. Johns 
 
 the N.T. i J 
 
 Gofpel. It may be of ufe to us to take a large 
 part of it. " We {72) may then be bold to 
 *' fay, the Gofpel is the firiVfrurt of all the 
 
 '* fcrip- 
 
 ',!{) "Ox/ d'TT ^PX^V yzyovxai Tna '^a.pzKJ'oxci}, ^S'I'ttso ■ ^ 
 
 Xoyccv- ib- £• 
 
 r^^ai 'z^i'TiV^i'jlaiUva.i deiaf Ao^/Kj, to, yivkSiiyA a^ficin, k A. 
 
 (v; K.xi y^o roAjt/JiJio:- t-mniv, 'rracdv Tccvypif^^av iivai cisaf' 
 y\,v -rl ivccy/iXictV. ■ Ccm. in J oh an. p. 3. R. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. o R r G E N. 277 
 
 *^ fcriptures It may be therefore not A. d. 
 
 *' unfitly faid, that (c) of all the fcriptures t/v\^ 
 " commonly received, and believed to be di- 
 " vine in all the churches of God, the Laue 
 " oi Mo/es is the firfb begotten, theGofpel, the 
 " firft-fruit .... If (p) any objedl to this, 
 ** that befide the Gofpels there are the Ads 
 '' and the Epillles of the Apoftles, . . . v/e 
 " (q) need not fcruple to fay, that the wri- 
 *' tings alfo of the Apoftles are in fome fenfe 
 " Gofpel, forafmuch as it belongs to the 
 " office of an Evangelift by exhortations to 
 *' recommend a belief of the things concern- 
 " ing Jefus. And whereas it may be fliil 
 '' objedled, that we do not rightly call the 
 *' whole New Teftament gofpel, becaufe 
 " the Epiflles do not bear the infcription of 
 " gofpel J it may be allowed, that, fince it is 
 " not uncommon for feveral fcriptures to 
 T 3 "have 
 
 {0) TciV Toivuv ipipouivcou ypocxicov sCj iv 'rsa.stx.ii \y.M\m\oi.\i 0«k 
 '?!r£T;r«u//4f(5;v i/v«i fle/av. «;c ob d/xafloi 7ii\iycov 'Ts-fc^^joyivi'rty.x 
 y.iv TOP Mccvaico^ v'oij.ov, oLTToc^'xi^v J^iro ivc'.'^yixiov. Ih.p.^. A. 
 
 (p) 'E«u cTe T/f a.uSuTro(pipti J^id t/Iw rn'oiav tTh at'oc-jjC^iMi 
 tZv A-Trocf/Jcv (pi(xy.cov (j.f,ai to. iva,y}-iXioi ruf -urpai^eii >y ruf st/- 
 roAstf ipifB^xi rco:' dL'TToruKciM, /f^ -Aixla. t^to fMi aiv Iti (Tk/^SoJon ri 
 'wpoATToS'eJ'cfxiVQU 'isript aTap'/Jii, 70 dyroipyjiv 'mao'ili ypdipiii 
 ZlVAi To kvccy}ihiov. Ibid. B. 
 
 [q) 'Oy '. oAvmoiMiv 'X^ocp'.i'xJiipi^oiAvii TB ivayyiXfr^, KJ Iv ■wps- 
 "IpzTrli'.ot Koycora'm nsi'roTioimtv tcov -Ts^ipi hiff^ 'iuocyyihiov ts-t^if 
 UTTtiv TO. V7T0 Tftiv UTToTohuv yeypy.uuivci- K. K. ibid. p. 4. 
 E.^. A. 
 
2jS O R I G E N, Book I. 
 
 A- D- " have two or more names, one name may 
 l/^^/-\j " be, flridly fpeaking, more proper than the 
 *' other. So the fcripture called by the name 
 '* of Epiflles is not gofpel, when compared 
 '' wi:h the hiflorie of the adions and fuffer- 
 *' ings and words of jf^/i^^. Neverthelefle 
 '' the Gofpel is the fir ft- fruit of the whole 
 *' fcripture. .... And (rj I think, that there 
 *' being four Gofpels, which are as it were 
 *' the elements of the fijiih of the church, of" 
 *' which elements the whole world reconciled 
 *? to God by Cbrif. confifts, ... the Gofpel 
 *' of jofm, which you have defired me to 
 " explain, is the firft-fruit of the Gofpels. 
 " This I fay with regard to him who writes 
 *' the gcnealogic, and him who begins with 
 " him who had no genealop^ie. For Maitbeio 
 • ' writing for the Hebrews, who expected him 
 
 *• who 
 
 iv Xp:^cti K.alocA?.C!(,yih r^ SsS, .... ci-yrapyJiV tcov Xv^Y; sXif-.y 
 k\vd.i TO 'urpo^cliyy.zvcv vylv vtt'o ch y.cija SCvaimv \ ivvy,(7(/J to 
 y.ctju icceimw rhv yEVio:Xcyi{JiZVcV ti-.Tk.'V, ic^ &-^l a.ymxKzyr,r<i 
 aayciJ.iVQV. MsiTOaj @- [j.vj yclo ro'n'Ts-fo^jJ'iJit.'soa'i tov j| ACfctau 
 'idj AccCiS^ "ECpc-ioii ypi'.^coi, jalChoi, (pmi, yifio'icii ha^ Xp/ra 
 v/« Ay^jcT, Via ACpctiu' £ Mu-tp-.©-- . . . o:?.Kd yz Trcfi Tfyl-Trl 
 
 ?^.'oy<i?^ iSeic yelp «xe vtov ffKpcf^co^ \<pM''ipcz-(xzv a.vi^. tw ^iiiTYil'j., 
 to; Icfic/.vvAi, T^upAg^i'icai evToV hkyti-^ci' Yycohui .... 7oA/y.>}- 
 •iov ri,:vvt' e--:r{iv c'.tt apyjv.' u.lv tsasM' ypapZv bIicci tu ivxy^-i- 
 y.ia-i tSi' Si '{va.Y,'.}.'ii:v i'Vapvivt to '/.clt'I li-ylwwj. Ibid. v. c. 
 p. D. E. /.. 6. ^. ^ • • 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. o R I G E N. 279 
 
 " who w?.s to defcend from Abraham and A. D. 
 
 " Davidj fays : The book oj the generation of v.^-v^ 
 
 " Jefus Chri/i the [on of David, the fait of^^""^^^- •• 
 
 ** Abraham. Mark writes, [Here foine things 
 
 " are wanting, and it feems very plain, that 
 
 " Luke alfo was mentioned in this place.'] But 
 
 *' he referves the greater and more perfedl dif- 
 
 ** courfes concerning yefus for l:)im who lay 
 
 *' in the bofom of yefus. For none of them 
 
 " have fo diftinclly declared his Deity zs.'John, 
 
 *' who introduces him faying : lam the light 
 
 " of the world : 1 am the way, and the truths 
 
 " and the life : I am the refurreBion : I am 
 
 " the door, I am the good fiepherd. And in 
 
 *' the Revelation, I am alpha and omega, the 
 
 " hegining and the end, the fir fi and the la ft, 
 
 ** We may be bold to fay then, that the Go- 
 
 " fpels are the firfl-fruits of all the fcriptures, 
 
 ** and the Gofpel according to John the firll- 
 
 " fruit of the Gofpels." 
 
 This paflage is cbfervable upon divers ac- 
 counts: particularly, we fee that Origen re- 
 ceived four Gofpels, and no more. He owns 
 without fcruple the genealogie in St. Matthew : 
 and we perceive, what were the feveral fcrip- 
 tures of the New Teftament generally receiv- 
 T 4 ed 
 
28o o R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 A. D. ed by Chrijlians : The Gcfpels, Ads, Epiftles 
 ^^„^i^, of Apoftles, and St. Johns Revelation. 
 
 Titles and XVIII. This Icads us to what comes next 
 
 Di--vifions. rill 
 
 in order to be conndered, the feveral titles and 
 divifions of the books of facred fcripture. 
 
 1. The mod general divllion is that of (j) 
 the Old and the New Teftament, between 
 both which Origen fays there is a perfed: har- 
 monie. There are other places, where Ori- 
 gen fpcaks (?) of the ancient and the new fcrip- 
 tures. In the former part he reckons the 
 Law and the Prophets, in the later the Gofpels 
 and Apofiles, and alTerts their compleat har- 
 monie throughoiu. 
 
 2. Accordingly fuch titles and divifions as 
 thefe are very frequent: T^he Law (u) and the 
 
 Prophets, the Gojpeh and Apojiks : Prophets, 
 
 Go/pels 
 
 (i) IliirXvpauiVd trvi'^/Ccma? J'oyua.rav Kotlcov i;^ xctXay.'n'n 
 
 Job. /. ^%. A. Huet. 
 
 ;jj rriv t^p/juiii' rircov, mot ^ocKccUu^ nz^oi y.a.vati, h vo[j.lKciy -arpo? 
 '^POtpiPiUtii, H lvA''f}S\iKMi wpaj a-TT'ScKiyJi. k. A. E fecundo 
 Tomo in Matth. tbiloc. cap. 'vi. p 50. 31. Ca^if. p. 204. 
 I'luef. ' , ^ 
 
 fu) Quae recltr.ta fbnt ncbif, puteus eft, et omnis fimu! 
 fcnpura Legi'^ et Prophetariini : Evaiigr:iica quoque et Apollo- 
 lica fciipta fjnm! omnia unus cii piUsu:, <S.c. In Num. Ham. 
 
 12. T.2. p. 514- C. BiiJid. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. o R I G E N. 281 
 
 (w) Gojpels and Apojik^ : 'Tbe (x) feriptures A. D. 
 of the Prophets of God j and of the Apojiks oj ^^°' 
 Jefm. 
 
 3. " They (y) who mind earthly things 
 "... fuffer a famine of the word of God. 
 " They hear not the command of the Lavve> 
 " they know not the reproofs of rhe Prophets, 
 ** they are ignorant of the confolations of the 
 " Apoftles, they receive not the medicine of 
 " the Gofpel." 
 
 4. '' That we may be able to bring forth 
 " out of our treafure things new and old, 
 " and may be fcribes inflruded unto the 
 '* kingdom of heaven, he Jays^ we (z) mufl 
 ** give diligent attendance to reading . . . 
 " and meditate in the Liwe of the Lord day 
 
 *' and 
 
 )t) J'tcL rco'j 'srpopijck' ijvftai oaai '^poffnyopieti ffuvayaytiv. k- a. 
 la yob. /). 22. .4. 
 
 [x\ Krt/ 'oaot aKXa. Xkyaai '^vspi axirr. c(i tZv 'Ttrpoipiilcov t« 0«» 
 yd tZh dLTTo^'oXicii I'i Ino^ yfoc'px:. Contr. Celf. I. hj. T. 1. f.'^%o. 
 C. Bened. 
 
 (y) Qui enim de terra funt, et terrena fnpiunt . . famcm 
 verbi Dei patiuntur, ie^is mandata ron audiunt, correptiones 
 Prophetarum neiciunt, apoRolicas confolationcs ignorant, iiori 
 fentiunt Evangelii medicinam. In Gen. Horn. 16. T. 2. p 104, 
 D. 
 
 {%) Kit/ iv rcc vly.^ xvpix y.^Mruv riuipai K) vuy.rci, k /y.ci'cw 
 
 Avl&v A'oyix, s'A/cc ;^ -srctAiiici. K. A. Ccm. in Maith. ^. 220. 
 
 c. o. 
 
O R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 and night: not only the new oracles of the 
 ' Gofpels, and the Apodles, and their Re- 
 ** velation, but liPiewife the ancient oracles 
 " of the Lawe and the Prophets." 
 
 5. Ongen profefTeth his own refolution [a) 
 to emprove the tak?it he had received, whe- 
 ther oj the Gofpel, or the j^pojlle^ or the Pro- 
 phett or the Law. 
 
 6. Thefe feveral titles and divifions of fcrlp- 
 ture, I think, muft be of ufe to fatisfy us, that 
 Origen received no books as facred fcripture, 
 and of authority, belide thofe which we fo re- 
 ceive at this time. More in fiances of thefe, 
 or the like divifions, will appear in the article 
 of the refpe6l fliewed to the fcriptures, to 
 which we now proceed. 
 
 T.efpcafor XIX. There are in Origefi many evidences 
 the fcrip. j^Q^ Qj^iy Qf jjjg own ereat refped: for the 
 
 fcriptures, but alfo of the high efteem they 
 were in with Chrifiians in general. 
 
 I. Dlfcourfing of a feeming difference be- 
 tween the Evangelifts he fpeaks of it as the 
 
 com- 
 
 [a] '''EyjiJ.ai 7W ixvAV em hjA'^^zhla, «t? ctToroAs, ens 'srpo- 
 (p^T», ein v'ou'<i 'rffoi>ja!X,t ^oA?'.ci!.7rhOi>7iovii. In J e rem. Horn, 19. 
 p. 1S6. £>. 'huct. 
 
 tures. 
 
Cll.XXXVm. O R I G E N. 283 
 
 common opinion o'iCbriJlians, **That(^) the A. D. 
 *' Gofpels were writcn exadly according to ,.,^--^A. 
 *' truth with the afildance of the Holy Spi- 
 *' rit, and that the writers had made no mi- 
 *' flake?." And afterwards in the fime dif- 
 courfe : " After this Mark fays: Andhe caJi-Markx. 
 " ing aijoay bis garment leaped and came to'^ 
 " Jefits. Shall we fay, that {c) the Evange- 
 *' lift wrote without thought, when he re- 
 *' lated the man's cafling away his garment, 
 " and leaping, and coming to Jefus f and 
 *' (hall we dare to fay, that thefe things were 
 ** inferted in the Gofpels in vain ? For my 
 ** part, I believe, that not one jot or tittle of 
 *' the divine infliudions is in vain." 
 
 2. In another place he argues : '' We (^d) 
 ^' are never to fay, that there is any thing 
 
 " imper- 
 
 [.'Wv.ov'iveiV 01. yfci'^uiUi xi'li)., x. A- Com. in Matth. p. 22,7. 
 B 'liuet. 
 
 (r) 'Af, \v K/'iV Ji'uoi'jraf a/iypa-ls ■T^soi r7, A7roCci.Kly\a. aujov 
 TO i}A.aTicv uia.-js-^nJ'iu'oTct i/uiAvdvjcti laoU tov InaZv, >y ToA/y.ij- 
 ffoy.sv (pHCTtf-t uarm rctvla, ■Trp-.ff-ippi'pQa.i tZ ivocY/iAia ; tysi- uiv 
 \c-jTci ££■■ ;; [J.icfj >i£Citio.\) a -ziri^ivco Kii/iiJ uvea '^iuv y.cid'.wATcov. 
 I'j Ma.'tk. p. 4-Z 8. E. 
 
 (^) Sed non pofTumus hoc dicere de Sanfli Spiritus literi«, 
 qnod aliquid in eisotiofum fit aut rupeifluuni, etiamfialiquibus 
 videntur obicura. Sed hcc potius facere debemus, ut oculos 
 jnentis noftrae coiu'crtamus a;! cum, qui haec fcribi juflit, etab 
 
 ip(b 
 
230. 
 
 284 O R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 A.D. *' impertinent or fuperfiaous in the fcriptures 
 " of the Holy Spirit, though to fome they 
 " may feem obfcure. Bat we are to turn 
 " the eyes of our mind to him, Vv'ho com- 
 " manded thefe things to be writen, and feek 
 " of him the interpretation of them : that if 
 " our foul is diftempered, he may heal us 
 ** who healeth all it's fickneffes: or if we 
 " be yet children in underftanding, the Lord 
 *' that receiveth little children may train 
 *' us up, and bring us to the perfedion of 
 " mature age." 
 
 3. Again, he fpeaks of it as a common 
 opinion, " That [dj the ficred books are not 
 " the writings of men, hut have been writen 
 " and delivered to us from the infpiration of 
 *' the Holy Spirit by the will of the Father of 
 «^ all through Jefus Chrijir 
 
 4. In 
 
 ipfo horum intelligentiam poftu'emus : ut five infirmitas eft in 
 anima noftra, fanet nos i!le, qui fanat omnes languores ejus : 
 five paryi fenfus fumus, aufic nobis cuftodiens parvulos Domi- 
 nus, et enutriat nos, atque in menfuram aetatis adducat. In 
 Num. Horn. 27. T. 2. p. 375. B. B£7ied. 
 
 7' T« 'vjcc\poi its> oXeov S'lu, Ii)a"K Xp/^a Tavjxi avxy'iyf>a(p^ui }y 
 c.i. p. 7. Ca.':i. De P?in. I. iv. T.i. p. i65. in. Bcned, 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. o R I G E N. 285 
 
 4. In anfwer to lome objedions of Celfus. ^- ^• 
 
 . . . 230. 
 
 Origen (e) fays, *^ with his good leave he vvill 
 
 *' venture to affirm, that the Difciples of y^- 
 
 ** fm, af[er iheir underftandings were enlight- 
 
 ** ened by the grace of God, knew better than 
 
 *' Flato what to write, and how to write, 
 
 *' and what things were fit to be pubhlhed to 
 
 " the world, either by writing, or difcourfe, 
 
 *' and what not." 
 
 t^. In a Latin hon:iille upon 'Jeremiah : 
 " The ([) facred fcriptures come from the 
 *' fulnefie of the Spirit. So that there is 
 '' nothing in the Prophets, or the Law, or 
 " the Gofpel, or the Apoflle, which defcends 
 *' not from the falnefle of the divine ma- 
 "jefty." 
 
 6. In a homilie upon the fame Prophet 
 ftill extant in Greek: " ^^ {^) the oracles of 
 
 " God 
 
 (e) Kai, e. [/.n (foflizov ^-ttuv 'nnpt rZv T'r;A/K«TWj' avS'pZv ra 
 
 Cocvov yap/|.'0£« vvii[j.a.TMV,T'ivo!, y.iv Ta ypctTrlicc, iy'T^rZiyfocTr- 
 rkn, TUX S'i iiS'ocuQJi ypcuTrlioi &,<; TcV wJoAAsf, )L^ rh'ec [j.iv pi)7cf, 
 t'lVdi, cTi « Toiuvju.- Contr. Cslf. I. 6. p. 634. A. Bened. 
 
 (f) Et idcirco facra volumina Spiritus plenitudine fpirant, 
 rihilqne eft, five in prophetis, five in lege, five in evangelio, 
 five in apoilolo, quod non a plenitudine divinae majcuatis de- 
 fcendat. In yerem. L. Horn. 2. />• 577- Baftl. 1571 
 
 (g) E/ 0JK KoytA sr/v \v v'oua, iy 'T^rpoipina.if, zvctyy-AioK rs 
 • it) a./TQ^'ohoi';, Jii](rei rov y.cx.^liv'oy.'.i'oi' 0j2 Xoyioii S'lJ^as'-ca.Xov 
 
 \7nyfi(piu^xt QiQW in Jite?n. Horn, ?c. p, 107, A, Huet. 
 
286 ORIGEN. BookL 
 
 A. D. « God are contained in the Law and the 
 
 2 •; o. 
 
 Vi^-V>*/ *' Prophets, and in the Gofpcls and the 
 
 *' Aooftlcs, it becomes him who is inftruded 
 
 *' in the divine oracles to own God for his 
 
 *' teacher." 
 
 7. In bis commentaries upon St. lAatthew, 
 " Thefe things, fays [b) he, we mi: ft under- 
 " (land in a manner worthie of the wifdom 
 *' of God, by which the Gofpels were wri« 
 « ten." 
 
 8. Speaking of fome dodrincs he fays, 
 *' That (i) one and the fame Spirit proceed- 
 ** ing from the one God teaclits the hke 
 *' things in the fcriptures writen before the 
 " comiiig of Cbrijij and in the Gofpels and 
 " Apoftles." 
 
 Voannes g. All thefc obfcrvations afford abundant 
 
 edfrom proofs of the peculiar authority and efteem 
 
 them, Qf j}-jg j;jQ]y fcriptures. It will be eafie to 
 
 add a fewpafTag^s, where it is afferted, that 
 
 the 
 
 aB'Oi cc(^''.(x,''j QiZ, £i(p i)i TO. kvct'f'^iXtx yiyfei-Zjctt. Low. ia 
 Matth. p. 447. E. iiuet.^ 
 
 (/) 'Of [Ava cTs '^5p< liov '7!fpo fui 'T^ctpaaloc.c TXVTa. to '^rvev- 
 fj.x oyxvoynaiv, uAa' 0.11 to o^vtI Tvy)(^c'vou tydTro «v,V On:, to- 
 
 ■p. 12. Jill. De Pi in. A i'v. p. 174. «. 16. Bened,. 
 
Ch.XXXVIIT. oRiGEN. 287 
 
 the proofs of dod:rines ought to be taken from a.d 
 them. 
 
 10. " We mufl: (k) (ctk^fays Origen^ for a 
 " good proof of this truth. This muft be 
 " fetched from the fcriptures. For our af- 
 ** fertions and difcourfes are unworthie of 
 ** credit. In the mouth of two or three 
 " witneffes fhall every word be eflabliflied. 
 *' ... In order to eftablidi this interpretation, 
 *' I fliall bring two witnelTcs out of the New 
 " and the Old Tefiament. Yea I (hall bring 
 " three witnelTcs, from the Gofpel, from the 
 " Prophet, from the Apoflle." 
 
 IT. In another place and work he fpeaks 
 (/) of the fcriptures believed to be divine^ both 
 thofe of the Old and New Teflameiit^ which 
 were generally ufed for confirming any doc- 
 trine. 
 
 12. DIf- 
 
 7»i 
 
 fiSTToroAif, 8T»f Tavnaslxi 'isulv pniy.si' in jerem. tiom. i. ^^$. 
 H. Huet. 
 
 (I) Vid. Pbihc. p. i. Cant, Di Prin. I. iv. § i, /, 156, 
 
 Bened. 
 
 230. 
 
z;o 
 
 288 O R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 A.D. 12. DlfcouiTing of the duty of prayer: 
 '^ But [m) what we have faid may be proved 
 " from the divine fcriptures in this manner." 
 
 13. " It would (n) be tedious, fays he^ to 
 " infid upon all the texts of the Gofpels, 
 *' wherein it is taught, that one and the fame 
 *' God is the God of the lawe and the 
 *' gofpel. I fliall nevertheklTe touch upon 
 " a place cr two of the A6is of the Apofllcs, 
 *' where Stephen and the Apoflles direct their 
 *' prayers to that God, who is the maker of 
 " the heaven and the earth, and who fpoke 
 " by the mouth of the holy Prophets." 
 
 14. *' He {0) fays, Chrtfiio.m believe ^efus 
 " to be the fon ot God in a fenfe not to be 
 " explained and made known to men by any, 
 " but by that fcripture alone, which is in- 
 
 •* fpired 
 
 TtiTOV lov Tp'ovov. De Orat. p. 210. F Leaed. 
 
 (n) Longum erit, fi ex omnibus evangelioram locis teftlmo- 
 nia congrfgemus. . . , Con.iagemus tamen bieviter eciam de 
 Attibus Apo!to!o'.nm, ubi Stephanas et A;, oltoii preces luas 
 cirigunt ad eum Deum, qui fecit coelam et cerram, &c. De 
 Pfiii.l 2. cap. 4. />. 85. C. Bened. 
 
 [0) ... eminentiorem divinioremque rationem de filio Dei, 
 rullius alteiius polRbiiititis effe credimus expcnere, atque in 
 hoiviinuni cogiiitionem proFeire, nid ejus folius fcripturae, 
 <]uae .1 Spirita San£to infpirati eft, id eft, evangelicae et apo- 
 ilolicae, recnon legis et prophetarum, ficut ipfe Ciiriftus alTe- 
 rit. Df Pr//!. I. i. cap. 3, p. 60. J. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. O R I G E N. 289 
 
 <« fplred by the Holy Ghofl: ; that is, the A D. 
 '* Evangelic and Apoftolic fcripture, as aUb vry^ 
 " that of the Lawe and the Prophets. 
 
 15. In his books agalnft Ccifus : " But (f) 
 " that our religion teaches us to feek aftel* 
 '' wifdom, (hall be (hewn both out of the 
 " ancient Jewijh fcriptures, which we alfo 
 " ufe, and out of thofe writen fince Jefus^ 
 ** and which are believed in the churches to 
 ** be divine^" 
 
 XX. The refpedt for the fcriptures appears J^eaM^z 
 farther in frequent and earneft exhortations to commend' 
 read and fludy them, taken from the confi-^^* 
 deration of the benefit of fuch a pradifei 
 
 I . Or/^c^;2 does mightily recommend the read^ 
 
 ing of the fcriptures. " He [q] faySj that if the 
 
 " Lord Jefus find us employed in fuch flu dies, 
 
 " he will come and partake with us : yea if 
 
 U "he 
 
 (p) 'Oti S'l ^6}\f\dii ri^ai Xivui cop^?, S^etKTtov >y a'TTo ttiV 
 
 )5tIov eTs «^ 06T0 Tccv /xeja Im'^v y^oct^ivlcov, >^ SU Txli iKKKn- 
 <riotti -d-'iicov eivati 'T^iTTi^eviJ.i'.st)!' Co». Celf. I. 3. p. 133. Ca7it, 
 1. i. p. 476. C Bened. 
 
 [q] Ipfe Dominus noller Jefus Chriftus, fi nos inveniat his 
 vacantes, et hujufcemodi ftudiis Sc exercitiis operam dantes, 
 non folum pafci et refic^i dignatur in nobis, verum etiam fi has 
 epulas apud nos viderit apparatas, patrem fecum dignatur ad- 
 tiucere. In Uhr. Jefu, Horn. xx. p. 44. J. Bened. 
 
2 go o R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 A. D. <« he fees fuch a feaft prepared by us, he will 
 ,^<A^ " bring his Father with him." 
 
 2. He faysllkewife, "that (r) the greateft 
 '* torment of Demons, and above all the other 
 *' pains they endure, is, to fee men reading 
 <* the word of God, and fludying and la- 
 " boring to underfland the divine lawe and 
 " the myfteries of the fcriptures: and that 
 *' for this reafon, becaufe hereby men are de- 
 ** livered from that darkneffe and ignorance of 
 " God and religion, which they had brought 
 *' into the world, and on which all the inte- 
 J' refls of their kingdom depend/* 
 
 3. Origen is for ftudying carefully all the 
 fcriptures, and every part of them. In a 
 Greek fragment of a homilie upon Ezekiel^ 
 particularly upon chap, xxxiv. 17. 18. 19* 
 ** he (5) fays, there are fome who receive the 
 
 <« New 
 
 (r) Super omnia vero eis tormentorum genera, ct fnper 
 omries poenas, fi quern videant verbo Dei operam dare, fcien- 
 tiam divinae legis et myftcria fcripturarum jntcntis ftudiis per- 
 quirentem : in hoc eorum omnis flamma eft, in ilto uruntur 
 incendio, quoniam quidem ignorantiae tenebris humanas ob- 
 fcuraverant nientes, et haec obtinuerant, ut Deus quidem ig- 
 noraretur, ad ipfos vero divini cukus lludia tranferrentur. In 
 J^um. Horn. 27. /. 378. D. E. 
 
 {s) Toi?.Toi cTh itcTiV oirs- Tw fj.iP xamv lyHpivovjity rm </« 'jca- 
 7.a/av a7rQJ^oKlijia^o^>ji{ '(Picf.^K/.nv. ?cx, Tm. Cam. in Ex. f. ZOO. 
 C. Hiiet. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. o R I G E n; 291 
 
 <« New and reje6t the Old Teftament. .... A. D. 
 
 ** But, fays he, never let us tread down the ^/vV 
 
 " Prophetical Pafture, nor foul the water 
 
 " of the Lawe. And whereas there are feme 
 
 *' likewife who offend againft the Evangelical 
 
 " pafturcj and the Apoflolical water ; info- 
 
 " much that they tread down fome parts of 
 
 " the Gofpels, [or fome of the Gofpels] and 
 
 " feed on other parts as good pafture, and 
 
 " fome either rejed: the Apoftles entirely, or 
 
 *' take only a part of them : let {t) us feed 011 
 
 " all the Gofpels entire, and tread down no 
 
 *' part of them : and drinking of all the 
 
 *' writings of the Apoftles, as much as in us 
 
 " lyes, let us preferve the water pure that is 
 
 ** fet before us, and not foul any part thereof 
 
 " with unbelief, which difturbs thofe who 
 
 " are not able to underftand them." 
 
 4. To the like purpofe in another place: 
 
 " Let (u) us read the fcriptures of the Old 
 
 " Teftament,and imitate the virtues for which 
 
 " any are commended, and carefully avoid 
 
 U 2 *' the 
 
 Tik^/zEC. ^ -sravjoi rx ATro^o^KO. 'sr'mvJEi, to oVou js ^«^.J^ «ct- 
 
 7afK<aiff» T»5 iK kiJ'oTcts ffWiivxi Ttov Kiyoijkwv TKfa^wuiv. 
 Ibid. p. 20 1. C. 
 
 (a) In Jirem. Hm. iv. p. 74. B. Huet. 
 
230 
 
 'gga o R I G E N. Bookl. 
 
 A. D. a the things for which any are blamed. Let 
 " us {w) alfo read the books of the New 
 " Tefiament, the words of the Apoflles. And 
 ** having read them, let it be our care, that 
 " they be writen in the table of our hearts, 
 " that a bill of divorce may not be given un- 
 " to us, but we may enter into the holie in- 
 '^ heritance." 
 
 5. He Is for reading the fcrlptures, though 
 we there find fome things which we do not 
 underftand: "Food, be (x) fiys, is eaten, 
 *' phyfic is taken : though the good effedt is 
 ** not prelently perceived, a benefit is expected 
 " in time, and may be obtained. So, he fays, 
 ** it is with the holy fcriptures : Though 
 " at the very time of reading them there be 
 
 " no 
 
 ^'oAuy rii ?^'oyisi. k. /. Ibid, 
 
 {x) Solent medici praebere interdum ciburn aliquem, inter- 
 dum etiam potum dare, verbi gratia ad difcutiendam caliginem 
 vifas : nee tamen in edendo ipfocibo, vel in potando fentJmus, 
 
 quia utilis eft, et prodeft ocuHs Hoc ergo modo ere- 
 
 dendum eft etiam de fcriptura fandla, quia utilis eft, et animae 
 prodeft, etiam fi fenfus nofter ad praefens intelligentiam non 
 capit; quoniam, utdiximu?, etbonae virtutes, quae nobis adfunt, 
 reficiuntur in his fermonibus et pafcuntur, et contrariae torpef- 
 cunt his meditationibus et efFugftntur. . . . Non ifta de caafa 
 haec diximus, nee excufantes nos ifta protulimus, fed ut often- 
 deremus in fcripturis fandtis effe vim quandam, quae iegenti 
 etiam fme explicatione fufficiat. //; libr. Jeju Horn, xx, 
 p. 455. A. B. C. Baieci. 
 
Cll.XXXVIII. O R I G E N. 
 
 *' no fenfible advantage, yet in the end they 
 " will be found profitable for flrengthening 
 " virtuous difpofitions, and weakening the ha- 
 *' bits of vice." This feems to be faid particu- 
 larly for the encouragement of meaner perfonsj 
 that, though they (hould not underftand eve- 
 ry thing, and there be no interpreter at hand, 
 to explain a difficulty ; neverthelefle they 
 fhould read the fcriptures with good hopes of 
 more advantage in the end, than is perceived 
 at firfl, and that by continual reading they 
 may emprove. 
 
 6. Mr. Lowth in a book (y) defigned for 
 the ufe of meaner people fays : " The pri- 
 *' mitive church cannot be accufed of en- 
 ** couraging ignorance in the people, and yet 
 *' Origen {z) informs us, that there was a di- 
 *' ftindiion made then between books of fcrip- 
 ** ture which lay open to every body's ufe, 
 *' and fuch as were read only by perfons of 
 *' better underftandings : a diftinftion, which, 
 •* if it had been obferved in thefe later days, 
 " would have not a little contributed to the 
 " peace of the church." 
 
 U ^ But 
 
 (y) Direnions for the profitaoh reading of the holy fcrit' 
 iures. Ch. i. p.q. lo. 'Third ed. iJzG. 
 ( z) Cont. Celf, l.suii, p.^e^^. Cant. 
 
O R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 Bat I am apt to think, that learned writer 
 miftook the meaning of Ongen's pafTage, to 
 wh;ch he refers. Cel/us had put into the 
 mouth of Chrijiians fome words, which 
 Origen fays, were never fpoken by any Chri- 
 piariy learned or unlearned. *' However, as 
 " Origen (a) adds, it is not in any private 
 *' books, or fuch as are read by a few only, 
 " and thofe ftudious perfons, but in books 
 i?cw.i.2o. *< read by every body, that it is writen: The 
 " invijible things of God frofn the creation of 
 " the world are clearly fee?!^ being under ficod 
 *' by things that are made." So that the 
 eplftle to the Romans was a writing open to 
 all forts of people. And yet from thence dif- 
 putes have been raifed, which have fometimes 
 given no fmall difturbance to the church. 
 And Chrijiians of [aa) ancient, as well as la- 
 ter times, have been fenfible it is a part of 
 fcripture, in which are many things not eafie 
 
 to 
 
 ifi) Kct/ Ivv. iv avcfii'i'xt*>^m^(Ti ^ eivciytvao-/.eiJiimi vtto Ihiycov 
 fi'oiov y^ (piXcuocQuiy, ct\A' £v cTw/x&'cTjripo/f ykyfccTrlui, on fit 
 i^'ofclja. Ta GbZ a/rrl Kiiaim Koaixv Toii 'zsroiiiy.a.fft voif/.iux xctOofct- 
 *lcLi. Ibid, p 'J 20. C. Bened. 
 
 {^aa) Omnis quidem ad Romanos epiftola interpretations 
 indiget, et tantis obfcuritatibus involuta ell ; ut ad intelligen- 
 dam earn, Spiritus Sanfti indlgeamus auxilio, qui per Apofto- 
 lum haec ipfa diflavit, Hieron. Hedlbiae. § x. Totus hie 
 Apoiloli locus, et in fuperioribus et in confequentibus, imo 
 omnis epirtola ejus ad Romanos, nimiis obfcuritatibus invol«- 
 1^ eft. Id. Jlgajhe ^. niiii. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. o R 1 G E N. 295 
 
 to be underflood. But I apprehend, that there ^- ^• 
 is no ground to conclude from this pairage, 
 that there were any books of fcripture that 
 were not read by all. The private books, 
 thofe read by a few only, and thofe ftudious 
 men, do not appear to be books of fcripture, 
 facred fcripture. So far as I am able to per- 
 ceive, it would be reafonable to look for all 
 the books of fcripture, where we find the 
 epiftle to the Roma?ts^ among writings ufed 
 by all mankind. 
 
 It is true, Origen allows, that there are 
 difficulties in the fcriptures. But he does not 
 therefore diflwade any from reading them, 
 but advifes them to labor the more to un- 
 derftand their meaning. And if this were 
 a reafbn againft reading any part of fcripture, 
 it would hold againft all. For Origen was of 
 opinion, that there were difficulties in all the 
 books of the NewTeftament, even the plaineft 
 of them, the Gofpeis themfeives, as we may fee 
 hereafter. 
 
 Origen often {b) fpeaks of a threefold fenfe 
 
 of fcripture, hiftorical, moral, and myftical : 
 
 U 4 and 
 
 {h) Prima enim quae praeceffit, hiftorica eft, veluti funda- 
 raentum quoddam in inferioribus pofita. Secunda haec myftica, 
 fuperior et excelfior fuit. Tertiam ii poffumus moralem tente- 
 
 mus 
 
O R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 and he (c) fays, that if any fenfe Ig difficult to 
 be attained, he will never ceafe reading, ftudy- 
 ing, enquiring and praying, till he has found 
 it. And he exhorts others to do the like, and 
 blames thofe, who never read the fcriptures 
 at home, and feldom come to church, except 
 on feftival days j becaufe in this way they 
 are never likely to attain all thefe fenfes, 
 fcarce any one of them. Thus argues Ori- 
 gen in his homilies, to excite the diligence of 
 all forts of people 
 
 In his Prologue, as it is called, to the Can- 
 ticles, if [d) it be his, Qrige-n {e) informs us, 
 
 that 
 
 ynus adjjcere, /;/ Gcnejim, Horn. z. p. 65. B. C. Be>ied. Tri- 
 plicem namque in fcripturis divinis intelligentiae inveniri faepe 
 diximus modum, hiltoricum, moralem, et mylHcum. Unde 
 et corpus inefle ei, et animam, ac fpiritum intelleximus. In 
 Le-vit. horn. 'V. p. 209. C. 
 
 (f) Si vero non folum fecundum literam, fed aliquid et 
 fecundum fpiritum attingere, biduum videbor feciife spud 
 puteum vifionis. Quod et fi moralem locum coiuigero, fece- 
 rim triduum ; vel certe etiam fi non potuero omnia intellige- 
 re, affideo tamen fcripturis divinis, et in lege Dei meditor 
 die ac node, et omniiiO nunquam define, inquirendo, difcuti- 
 endo, tradando, et cerce, (quod maximum eft) orando Dcum. 
 . . . Sin vero negligam, neque domi exercear in verbo Dei, 
 neque ecclefiam ad audiendum frequenter ingrediar, ficut nou- 
 nullos in vobis video, qui diebus tantummcdo folemnibus ad 
 fcckliam veniunt, qui hujufcerapui funt, non habitant apud 
 putCL^m vifionis, &c In Gen. Horn. xi. p. gi. D. E. 
 
 (d) See Tillemont, Origcne, Art. 31. Huet. Or. Lib. 3. 
 ^^. 3. n. 'uii. 
 
 {s) Ob hoc ergo moneo, et confilium do cmni qui nondum 
 <p4(|4^s ^t fanguim§ lyoleftii^ c^ret^ neque ab affedu naturae 
 
 ma- 
 
Ch. XXX VIII. ORIGEN. 297 
 
 that the wife men among the Jews put all the A. D. 
 books of fcripture into the hands of young 
 people ; except the begining of Genejis^ the 
 begining and end of Ezekiel^ and the book of 
 Canticles. And he himfelf there diflwades 
 fome people, who are, what they (hould not 
 be, carnal and fenfual, from reading that 
 book. Neverthelefs it does not appear, that 
 any part of fcripture, efteemed by Chrijiians 
 to be divine, was with -held from perfons of 
 any rank or age. I think, Origens writings 
 alone are a fufficient proof, that none of the 
 fcriptures were concealed in privacie. For, 
 not to mention now any other things, he wrote 
 (f) upon the begining of Genefis^ and upon 
 the prophecies oiEzekiel : and upon the book 
 
 of 
 
 materialis abfcedit, ut a leftione libelli hujus eorumque quae 
 in eo dicuntur, penitus temperet. Aiunt enim obfervari eciam 
 apud Hebraeos, quod nifi quis ad aetatem perfedlam mitu- 
 ramque pervenerit, libellum hanc nequidem in manibiis tenere 
 permittatur. Sed et illud ab eis accepimus cuftodiri, quando- 
 quidem moris eit apud eos, omnes icripturas a dodoribus et 
 fapientibus tradi pueris, fimul et easquas Sivlipaa-e-n ;ippellant, 
 ad ultimum quatuor ifta oblervari, id ell, principium Genefis, 
 in quo iDundi creaturadefcribitur, et Lzechielis Propiietae prin- 
 cipiun; et finem ... . et hunc CantJci canticorum librum. 
 /. 49i, T. i. Baf. 
 
 (f) El cTe rii ^'^Xbtxi . . Xc^C^7^ ra '<:;rfix.yfJLa]iv^'y!]o(.»fXi]) 
 i\i 7i)v Tkvzcriv,anrQ r7ii ^'pPC*'^ ^^A^B y^XP^ '^^ Au'th » pi'CAos 
 yixio'ieoi dv^fcoTTcov. Cont. Qelf. I. 6. /. 309. Cant, p 670. 
 ^. Bened. 
 
23° 
 
 298 O R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 A. D. of Canfichs he wrote [g) two works in the 
 way of Tomes, or Commentaries, befide his 
 homilies upon the fame book. 'Jerome (h) 
 fpeaks particularly of one of thofe Commen- 
 taries, which was a large work, confiding of 
 ten volumes. And he admires and commends 
 it, as if it were the bed book that Origen ever 
 wrote. He likewife tranflated, and, as he fays, 
 faithfully, two homilies of Origen upon the 
 Caiiticles, compofed by him in a familiar flile 
 for the benefit of people of fmall proficience* 
 But to proceed, 
 
 J. " Every thing, fays (/) Origen^ needs a 
 *• fuitable food for it's nourifhment. The 
 ** true food of the rational nature is the 
 ** word of God." And foon {k) after he 
 
 prefies 
 
 (g) See 7: Hem. Oflgeae Art. 31 . T. 3. P, 3. />. 234. 
 
 {h) Origenes, cum in caeteris libris omnes vicerit, in Can- 
 tico canticorum ipfe fe vicit. Nam decern voluminibus expli- 
 citis, quae ad viginti ufque verfuum millia pene perveniunt : 
 . . . Itaque illo opere praetermlffo, quia ingentis eft ocii, labo- 
 ris et furaptuum, tantas res, tamque dignum opus in Latinuni 
 transferre fermonem, quos in morem quotidiani eloquii parvu- 
 lis adliuc laftantibus compofuit, fideliter m:-.g;s quam ornate 
 interpretatus fum. Uier. Trol. ad Dam. ^.481. Tom.it 
 Baf. 
 
 \i) Omnis natura rationabilis propriis et fibi competentibus 
 nutriri indiget cibis. Cibus autem verus naturae rationabilis 
 eft ferrrio Dei. In Num. Ho?h, 27. p. 374. a. E. Bened. 
 
 [k) Ita ergo et in cibis rationalibus, divinorum dico volumi- 
 num, non continue aut culpanda aut refutanda eft fcriptura, quae 
 
 dif- 
 
230. 
 
 Ch.XXXVIII. O R I G E N. 299 
 
 prelTes the reading of the fcriptures, even A. D. 
 thofe books or parts of fcripture that appear ^ 
 obfcure and difficuh. Otherwife, he fays, 
 we mufi lay afide all. For there are difficul- 
 ties in the plained books, in the Gofpels, and 
 the epiitles of the Apoftles. 
 
 8. Having argued, that (/) there were fome 
 things in the fcriptures myflerious and diffi- 
 cult, others eafie and obvious, and underftood 
 of themfelves without any farther help, he 
 infers: '' If {m) then we fludy the whole 
 " fcripture, we Ihall become fkilful money- 
 ** changers." 
 
 9. Be- 
 
 difficilior aut obfcurlor ad In'ielligenduin videtur .... Quam- 
 vis, et ft diligentius requiramus (verbi caufa) in Evangelii 
 leftione, vel Apoftolica dodrina, in quibus deleftari, et in 
 quibus tibi aptiffimum et fuaviffimum deputas cibum ; quanta 
 funt quae te latent, fi difcutias et peifcruteris mandata Do- 
 mini. Quod fi ea quae obfcura videntur et difficilia, refugi- 
 enda funt, protinus et vitanda, invenies etiam in illis, in qui- 
 bus valde confidis, tam multa obfcura et difficilia, ut fi banc 
 
 fententiam teneas, fit tibi etiam inde recedendum Haeg 
 
 aurem in praefatione praemifimus, ut fufcitemus animos vcftros, 
 quoniam quidem hujufraodi leftio habetur in mnnibus quae 
 difficiliis ad inteJligendum, et fuperflaa videatur ad legendum. 
 Sed non polfumus hoc dicere de SandU Spiritus Uteris, quod 
 aliquid in eis fit otiofum aut fuperfluum, etiamfi aliquibus vi- 
 dentur obfcura. Ihid. p. 37.^. C. D. E. F. ^y^. J. 
 
 (/) Keti iTi rZv ?\Byof^ivcov h Toui yfccipoui, a y.iv sru* axof- 
 
 Jerem. Horn. xii. ^.123. ( , 
 
 (m) ' Oaw;' b Tiw yftocfh ioiu £|gT£<V<y//i£(', Ipw^su i'my^oi ytvo- 
 ^ivo: ifOi'^s^iTM. K. A. Jl>iii. D. 
 
7 00 O R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 g. Becaufe the fcriptures are the proper 
 food of our fouls, he is for reading them 
 daily : " Let us, fays (n) he^ come daily to 
 *' the wells of the fcriptures, the waters of 
 ** the Holy Spirit, and there draw, and carry 
 " home a full veffel." 
 
 lo. He concludes a homilie upon J ere- 
 miahy which we have in Greek ^ in this man- 
 ner : " Thefe {o) things being fo, let us re- 
 " colledl the words of fcripture, and lay them 
 ** up in our heart, and endeavor to live ac- 
 ** cording to them j that being purified from 
 " fin before our departure out of this world, 
 ** v/e may be faved through Jefus Chriji, 
 '* to whom be glorie and power for ever and 
 *' ever. Amen/' 
 
 Puhliciy XXI. Another proof of a peculiar refpe^t 
 ^^^ ' for the holie fcriptures, and of the great au- 
 thority they were in with Chrifiians^ is, that 
 they were read and explained in their affem- 
 blies of public worfliip. This was common 
 
 to 
 
 (k) Rebecca quotidle veniebat ad puteos, qyotidie hauriebat 
 aquam . . . animarum eft ilia eruditio, et fpiritalis dodlrina, 
 quae te inftituit, et docet quotidie venire ad puteos fcripturarum, 
 ad aquas S; iiitus Sandti, ethaurire iemper, et plenura vas do- 
 mum referre. In Gen. Hovi.x, p. 87. F. 
 
 [o) In Jerem. horn. 2. /. 67. A, B. Huet^ 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. o R I G B N. 301 
 
 to the books both of the Old and the New a- d. 
 Teftament. 
 
 1. In a Latin homilie upon Exodus : " Let 
 " (/>) us therefore take heed, leaft not only 
 " when Mofes is read, but alfo v/hen Paul is 
 ** read, the vail be upon our heart. And 
 *' certainly, if we hear carelefsly , if we take no 
 *' pains to obtain inftru(ftion and underfland- 
 ** ing; not only the fcriptures of the Lawe and 
 ** the Prophets, but alfo of the Apoftles and 
 ** Gofpels, will as to us be covered with a 
 [' thick vail." 
 
 2. When he (hews, how a Chrifiian Sab- 
 bath ought to be kept, befide meditation up- 
 on heavenly and invilible things, he mentions 
 coming (q) to church, and hearing the divine 
 readings and difcourfes, or fermons. And fays 
 like wife, '* That on that day the reader of the 
 
 *' divine 
 
 [p) Videaraiis ergo, ne non folum cum Moyfes legitur, fed 
 et cum Paulus legitur, velamen fit pofuum fuper cor noftrum. 
 Et manifefte, fi negligenter audimus, fi nihil ftudii ad erudi- 
 tionem et intelligentiam conferimus, non folum Legis et Pro- 
 phetarum fcriptura, fed et Apoftolorum et Evangeliorum grandi 
 nobis vehmine tegitur. In Exod. horn, 12. p. 174. A. 
 
 (q) Si ergo definas ab omnibus faeculan'bus operibas, et 
 nihil mundanum cures, fed fpiritualibus curis vaces, ad eccle- 
 iiam convenias, leiflionibus divinis et tradatibus aurem prae- 
 beas, et de coeleftibus cogites . , haec eft obfcrvatio Sabbati 
 Chriftiani . . Letter autem divinae legis vel doftor non definit 
 ab opere fuo, et tamen fabbatHm non contaminat. In Num. 
 Hm, 23. /. 358. Z>. £. 
 
30 2 o R I G E n; Book I. 
 
 A. D <i divine lawe and the preacher does not ceafe 
 {y^\^>^ '* from his labour, and yet the Sabbath is 
 '' not polluted." 
 
 3. In another homilie : " And (r) this we 
 ** do, when the fcriptures are read in the 
 ** church, and when the difcourfe for expli^ 
 " cation is pronounced to the people." 
 
 4. In one of his homilies he reprefents 
 flrange negligence of fome in hearing the 
 readings and the expolitions of the fcriptures. 
 " Some [s) went away as foon as the readings 
 ** in the public affemblies were over : Some 
 " hardly flayed fo long. Others there were, 
 " who fcarce knew whether the fcriptures 
 " were read or not, but entertained them- 
 *' felves with fecular difcourfe In the remoter 
 ** parts of the Lord's houfe. Of fuch, he 
 
 ''fays. 
 
 (r) Hoc ergo etiam nunc, vel cum fcripturae in ecclefia 
 leguntur, vel cum fermo explanationis profertur ad populum, 
 fcripturae auftoritatem fequentes, dicimus, &c. /« iil>r. Jefu. 
 Hom.ix. ^.421. D. 
 
 (i) Aliqui veftrum ut recitari audierint quae leguntur, flatim 
 difcedunt . . . Alii ne hoc ipfum quidem exfpeftant, ufquequo 
 lefliones in ecclefia recitentur. Alii vero nee fi recitantur fci- 
 unt, fed in remotioribus dominicae domus locis, faecularibus 
 fabulis occupantur. De quibus ego aufus fum dicere, quia cum 
 legitnr Moyfes, jam non velamen fuper cor eorura, fed paries 
 quidam et murus eft pofitus. Li Exod, Jh^n, 12. T. z. 173. 
 
CLXXXVIIT. O R I G E N. 
 
 " fiy^i ^^ "^^y ^ffii'""*} that when Mofe^ is 
 ** read, not 2. vail^ bat Ibme partition or even 
 '^ wall is upon their heart." This compari- 
 fon, and the foregoing words, the remote parts 
 of the Lord's houfe, may afford fome reafon 
 for thinking, that the Chrijiian churches at 
 that time had very feldom any magnificence. 
 It may be fufped:ed, that they were only 
 private houfes, or buildings very like them, 
 confiiiing of feveral rooms, feparated from 
 each other by walls and partitions. 
 
 5. " Take [t) heed, leaft by a love of earth- 
 " ly things, or by any other means, you be a 
 " ftranger to that food of wifdom, which 
 " is conftantly difpenfed in the churches of 
 ** God. For, if you turn away your ear from 
 ** hearing thofe things v/hich are read or dif- 
 " courfed in the church, doubtlefs you will 
 ** fuffer a famine of the word of God." 
 
 6. I might enlarge very much upon this 
 point out of On'gef2j but it is not neceffarie at 
 prefent. I fhall add therefore only a fine pa(^ 
 fage in the books againfl Ce/fus, which I 
 
 think 
 
 (/) Vide ne, ... alienus efficiaris a fapientiae cibis, qui 
 femper in Dei ecclefiis exhibencur Si enim avertas auditum 
 ab his, quae vel leguntur in ecclefiis, vel difputantur, fine dubio 
 famem verbi Dei patieris. in Gsn. Htm, 16. T, z.p. 104, i\ 
 
3C4 o R I G E N. Book L 
 
 think relates to this matter. Celfus had com- 
 pared the Chriftians to juglers and mounte" 
 banks, that gathered weak and filly people 
 together to hear their tales. " But, fays {u) 
 " OrigeUj how unjuft is this reproach ! where- 
 " in do we refemble thofe perfons? we who 
 " by readings, and by difcourfes upon them 
 ** excite men to piety toward the God of the 
 " univerfe, and to other virtues of a like ex» 
 *' cellence : and diffwade men from a con*- 
 " tempt of the Deity, and from all things 
 " contrarie to right reafon ? The Philofo- 
 " phers would have been glad, if they could 
 *' have gathered together fuch \jnean\ peo- 
 " pie to hear difcourfes recommending the 
 '* pradife of virtue." 
 
 Whether XXII. In the next place we are to confider, 
 cliiTd ' whether there were any other books, be fide 
 oiher/crip- (i-^q(q jj^ Qy^ prefent Canon, for which On- 
 
 tures, be- i r 
 
 fide thofe gen had the fame refpecfl, which he appears to 
 Vn/ca- ^^^^^ ^"^^ ^°^ \^dQ> And in order to judge 
 non ? Qf tJ^is, we fliall fiift of all obferve his quo- 
 tations 
 
 (MTCOV, ^ J'la. T6V 2»5 ivTA J'.HyWSC'JV, 'Z3-po7peVof7ij /Av ZTl TW kli 
 
 TuV Qih Tcov oXcov '.vaiCetaVy )t) toa ffw^p'opm rdvrri apsjai aTro- 
 
 opSci/ Ao-^/ov '?irpa/Io//4V(i)U ; Kaj hi tpi^'offopoi y'av fu^ocivlooiyeip&iy 
 roaiTui a.-poujui X'oyeov k-TTi To >C«AtfV 'arfoff'/JrtAbf7wi'- Cort, Cdfs 
 Ly /.480. ES. Bened, 
 
Ch.XXXVIIL o R I G E N. 305 
 
 tations of thofe which we new generally a. d. 
 
 . . 230. 
 
 efteem only ancient ecclefiaftical writings ; (,/v>J 
 
 fuch as Barnabas^ Clement, Hennas, Igna^ 
 
 this ; then thofe, which we ufually call Ipu- 
 
 rious, or apocryphal. 
 
 It is to be obferved, that we are now 
 
 chiefly concerned about books, that may be 
 
 thought to have fome claim to be inferted in 
 
 the canon of the New Teftament : for which 
 
 reafon we need not be fo particular in our 
 
 obfervations upon his quotations of ancient 
 
 writings, which rather belong to the Old Te- 
 
 ftament, though we may take fome notice of 
 
 thefe likewife. 
 
 XXIII. I begin then with obferving On'^^'^'s 'Ecchfiuftii, 
 citations of Chriftian ecclefiaftical writings. %^^^^ ^^' 
 
 I. The epiftle afcribed to St. Barnabas is St. Ban 
 twice or thrice quoted by Origen in his re-"'^ ^'' 
 maining works, either Greek or Latin. In 
 the books of Principles it is quoted in this 
 manner: " The {w) fame things teaches Bar^ 
 " nabas likewife in his epiflle, when he fays, 
 X " there 
 
 (w) Eadem quoque Barnabas in epiftola fua declarat, cum 
 duas effe vias dicit, unam lucis, alteram tenebrarum, quibus 
 et praeeffe certos quofque ange'.os dicit : viae quidem lucis, 
 angelos Dei : tenebrarum autem viae, angelos Satanae. Ue 
 Prhic, lib. 3. cap. 2. T. i. p. 140. £. Bened, 
 
it 
 
 g66 o n I G E fT. fiook f. 
 
 A. D. « there 'are two ways, one of light, the other 
 of darkneffe, over which alfo he fays fome 
 ** certain angels prefide : over the way of 
 " light the angels of God : over the way of 
 *' darkneffe, the angels of Sata72" We may 
 obferve here, that Origen had juft before 
 quoted Tcbit and Hcrmas, after feveral quo- 
 tations of the commonly received books of the 
 Old and New Teftament. 
 
 Celfus had reviled the Apoftles of Chrifly as 
 infamous men. Orige?t anfwers : " It is 
 " {x) indeed wrtten in the catholic epiftle of 
 " Barnabas^ (from whence perhaps Celfiis took 
 " occafion to call the Apoftles infamous and 
 *' wicked men) that J^fus chofe for his own 
 " apoftles men who were very great flnners.'* 
 
 Origen is thought by fome to refer alfo to 
 this (y) epiftle in his commentaries upon the 
 
 epiftle 
 
 [x] TiypctTrjoct cTw Iv tm BufVaCa, ;c«floXtJ{*i i'Trt^oXH (s6sv » 
 yJiKcci Xu.Ciov To-Xpi. ii'TTiv Iii'cci £7T/pp;jT8; >y ^ovyifoldm? rii 
 
 'jsTrtcrctu dvoy.ixv «M//ft5]4pKj- Contr. Celf. 1. i. p. 49. Spenc. T.i. 
 p. 378. B. Bened. 
 
 (y) Sunt praeterea (ficut in multis fcripturae locis invenimus) 
 etiain ucriufq; partis vel iitriurq;viae fautores quidemet adjutores 
 angeli. Nam carnisconcupifcentiaeadveifusfpiritnmfavetdiabo- 
 ]us et ..ngeli ejus, et omnes fpirituales nequitiae in coeleftibus, 
 CLmflique adverfus quos hominibus luflamen eft principatus et 
 
 potsftates. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. o R I G E n: 307 
 
 epiftle to the Romans. But that is not plain : -A- D* 
 the books he quotes or refers to particularly for {y^^f\) 
 what he there advances are fuch as are univer- 
 fally received as canonical. 
 
 2. Si.Clemenfs epiftle to the Corinthians is 5/. cie\ 
 twice quoted by Origen. In the books of'"''* ' 
 Principles {z) Origen cites him, calling him 
 Clement^ a difcipk of the Apojlles, In the 
 Commentaries {a) upon fohn^ this epillle is 
 again cited, and the writer is called faitbjul 
 Clement^ to whom Paul bears teftimonie, fay^'^Si P'^'^^h i^i 
 with Clement J and other my jellow-laborers^^' 
 whofe names are in the book of life, 
 
 I (hall here take the liberty to mention 
 
 an obfervation, which I have met with, fince 
 
 I wrote the chapter of Clement of Rome. Mr. 
 
 X 2 Wolff 
 
 poteftates, et mundi hujus reflores tenebrarum. {Eph.^i. 12. 
 Rom. 'viii. 38.] in Ep. ad Rom. Lib. i. cap i. p. 468. Baji/. 
 
 (z) Meminit fane Clemens Apoltolorum diicipulus eciam eo- 
 Tumquosrtm;)/6ouajGraecinominarunt. . . cum ait: Oceanus 
 intranfmeabilis ejl hominibus, et hi qui trans ipfum funi mundi. 
 qui his eifdem dominatoris Dei difpofitionibus gubernantur. \jvid, 
 Clem. Ep. ad Cor. c. 20 ]] Orig. de Princ. I. 2. f. 3. p. 82. D. 
 Bened. Paulo poft. Ex his tamen quae Clemens vifus elV 
 jndicare cum dicit : Oceanus intranfmeabilis efl hominibus , ei 
 hi mundi qui poji ipfum fun t. Orig. ibid. p. 83. B.C. 
 
 {a) Kst/ 'TffOCftx.J'i'/ijoct rc/v^' 'iico; ysyovivat m ahoyaf •ar/^ey- 
 ecti Toiii^oficUi ■Tjr/rof KAi';//«f, Ctto FlayAK {ji.:f.fl'j(>i.y.£'/^, Ai- 
 yovJoiiMiru Khuuivloi, k- A. [fvid.Cle'm. Ep. cap. 55.] Ori^-: 
 Comm. in Joan. p. 143. J. Huet. 
 
^dh O R I C £ N. Sookli 
 
 A. D. JVoIff o{ Hamhiirgh thinks ib) him to be dif- 
 W-O ferent from Clement^ whom St. Faul mentions 
 in the epiftle to the Philippians. So likewife 
 Dr. Wall. They think this lad: not to have 
 been a Roman, but a Philippian. Says [c) Dr. 
 Wall: " This Clement feems to be a Phi^ 
 " lippian. Yet many ancients take him to be 
 " Clemens Romanus^ without any ground but 
 ** the name, which was a very common name. 
 ** Clemens Romanus muft have been but a 
 ** young man at this time. The moft that Ire- 
 * ** naeus fays of him is, that he had fcen and 
 
 ** heard, and converCed with Paul and Pe- 
 ** ter^ before their death : and that many in 
 " Clement's time were living, who could re- 
 ** member the Apoflles. But this Clement 
 " had been St. Paul's fellow- laborer, (at 
 ** Philippic I fuppofe) ten or tv/elve years 
 •* before this timej" that is, before Paul's 
 writing the epiftle to the Philippians in his 
 imprifonm-ent at Rome. 
 
 Upon which 1 would obferve, that thefe 
 learned men, I think, would not difpute, 
 
 what 
 
 [b) De Clemente, qui Romanae ecclefiae poflea praefuerat, 
 accipit Eufebius H. E. 1. 3. cap. iv. xv. Veri autem fimi- 
 lius e t, talem hie Clementem intellig', qui Philippis verbi 
 evangelici praeconem egerit, quod de aitero illo nufquam me- 
 mini doceri. Jo. Chrift. U'^'olf. Curae in N. T. ad Philip iv. 3. 
 
 [c] Brief Critical Notes upon the N. T. p, 279. 280. 
 
Ch.XXXVIlI. o R I G E N. 309 
 
 what hgs been (o often faid by the ancients, ^- D. 
 that Clement Bifhop of Ro?7ie, who wrote the. v,,,-:I^-vj)^ 
 epiflle from thence to the Corintkiam^ was 
 well acquainted with fome of the Apoftles of 
 Cbrifi : whether he be the perfon mentioned 
 by St. Paul in his epiftle to the PhiUppians^ or 
 not. But I fee no proof, that Clement there 
 mentioned by the Apoflle was a Philippian^ 
 If fo, St. Paul's falutations of Aquila and Prif- 
 cilia would prove them to be of feveral places, 
 that is, natives of them. [See Rom. xvi. 3. 
 2 Tim/iv. 19. See like wife y^^s xviii. 2. 18. 26, 
 1 Cor.xw'u ig.] And if Pant's calling Cle- 
 ment his helper or fellow- laborer^ in his 
 epiftle to the Philippians, is a proof that Cle- 
 vient had labored with him at Philippic his 
 fciliitation of Aquila and Prifcilla, in the 
 epiftle to the Romans^ would prove, that they 
 had been the Apoftles helpers at Rome, before 
 he had been there. Nor is there any weight 
 at all in Dr. WaWs argument from the age of 
 Clement, There is no great diftance between 
 the fuppofed times of his and St. John's death. 
 And yet St. John had been an Apoftle oiChrifi 
 fome while before Paul was converted. Cle^ 
 ment therefore, Bifhop of Rome, without any 
 inconfiftence may be fuppofed to have been 
 X 3 a comi. 
 
3 ! O O R I G E N. Book I, 
 
 ■A. D. a companion and fellow-laborer of Paul at 
 
 feveral places, and yet live to the end of the 
 
 lirft' centurie, or thereabout. 
 
 'Hecognl' I {hall place here alfo Origen\ quotations 
 of the Recognitions, though they are not fa 
 generally allowed to be writ by Clement of 
 Ro?jie, as the epiftle to the Corinthians. 
 
 In his Commentaries [d) upon GeneJisOrigen 
 has a long paiTage out of the Recognitions, 
 which he quotes by the title of Circuits, or 
 Travels writen by Clement the Roman, difciple 
 of the Apoftle Peter, In another work hq 
 quotes .(f) fome words of Peter in Clement^ 
 meaning the Recognitions afcribed to him. 
 
 'B^rmas. ^. The Shepherd, or Pailor of Plermas i$ 
 often quoted by Origen. The places are too 
 numerous to be all inferted here, and a large 
 part of them may be feen by the learned reader 
 
 among 
 
 AaoSiikiA, eiTTciv h raii 's^ipi'oJ'oii, avxyxoiioTalov 7i Wi rihet 
 rx^ TO '(iTuv X'oyeov (^imi, K-T- i. [Vid. .Recogn. L. x. n. lo. et 
 feq.] Orig. Comm. in Gen. 7". z. p. 20. E. Bened. Vid. et 
 Phi local, cap. ^3. p. 8 1. 82. Spencer. 
 
 (f) Tale aliquid dicit et Petrus apud Clementem, quoniam. 
 opera bona quae fiunt ab infidelibus in hoc feculo profunt, 
 4ion et in illo ad confequendam vitam aeternam. [vid. Recogn. 
 J. vii. n. 38.] Orig. in Matth. Tra^atus 35. p. 172, 
 
Ch.XXXVIir. O RI G E N. 31 i 
 
 among: the teilimonies to Hermas in Le Clercs a. d. 
 
 . . 2''0. 
 
 Patres Apojiolici. I {hall however prodace Vv^ 
 the moft remarkable of them. 
 
 I.) It is quoted, as I faid juft now, with 
 Barnabas (f) and Tobit. Again, (g) in the 
 books of Principles it is quoted by Origen as 
 fcripture, together with the book of Enoch, 
 In [h) the fame work it is quoted as fcripture 
 together with the Maccabees, It is mentioned 
 by him likewife with the Maccabees in (/') his 
 Commentaries upon St. Johns Gofpel. 
 
 X 4 2.) la 
 
 (/) Sed et Paftoris liber haec eadem declarat dicens, quod 
 bini angeli fingiilos quofque hominum comitentur : et fi quando 
 bonae cogitationes cor noftrurn afcenderint, a bono angelo 
 fuggeri dicit : fi vero contrariae, mali angeli dicit efle inltin- 
 iilum. [vid. 1. 2. Mand. 6. cap. 2.] Orig. de Princip. l. 3. c.z. 
 f. 140. D. Bened. 
 
 (g) Quod autem a Deo univerfa creata Tint ... ex multi* 
 
 fcripturae aflertionibus comprobatur Nam et in libelJo 
 
 qui Paftoris dicitur Angeli poenitentiae, qucm Hermas con- 
 Icripiit, ita refertur : Prima omnium crede, quia unus eji Deus 
 qui omnia crewvit et compofuit, .... Sed et in Enoch, libro 
 his fimilia defcribuntur. Verum tamen ufque ad praefens tem- 
 pus nullum fermonem in fcriptis (andis invenire potuimus, per 
 quem Spintus Sandtus faftura efle vel creatura diceretur. De 
 Princip. I. i. r. 3. |). 61 C D. Bened. 
 
 {i?) Ut autem etiam ex fcripturarum audoritate haec ita fe 
 habere credamus, audi quoque in Macchabaeorum libris .... 
 fed et in bbro Palloris in primo I\'Iandato ita ait: Prima om- 
 nium credc quia unus eft Deus qui omnia crea-vit atqtie compofuit ^ 
 et fecit ex eo quod nihil erat, ut ejjint univerfa. De Prin, 
 I. 2. cap i. ^.79." A.B. Bened. 
 
 (/) 'Aaa' b ^a.^ ntfit roii ■■^tnQo/Avo.i on l^ m ovI^jvt:^' ovlx 
 
 iTTOtmiV oQEOi, Ui » UiWtjp rcOV i-fix UOC.fjup:-JV iU UOi-OiCxiitoliy 
 
 y^ 1'iU [Jit\o(,/otc(,i a-)ysho; kv tm "srciuil'i iS'ifa^i. Comm. in Jo* 
 tan. p. 17. E.T. 2. Huet. 
 
O R I G E N. Book I, 
 
 2.) In the Commentaries upon the epiftle 
 to the Romans at chap. xvi. ver. 14. Salute 
 JlfwcrituSy Pbkgon^ Hermes ^ Patrobas^ Her- 
 nias, and the Brethren which are with them, 
 Origen obferves: " To (k) thefe there is only 
 *' fent a fimple falutation, nor is there added 
 '* any high commendation. Neverthelefs I 
 " think, that this Hennas is the author of 
 ** the book called the Shepherd : which fcrip. 
 ^' tore [or writing] appears to me very ufc- 
 •* ful, and, as I think, divinely infpired. And 
 »' that he gave them [perhaps it {hould be 
 ** him] no commendation, the reafon may be 
 *' this, that he feems, as that book itfelf (hevirs, 
 ** to have been converted and brought to re- 
 ^* pentance after the commiffion of many 
 ?' fms." 
 
 3.) In other places this book is quoted af- 
 ter this manner. In a homilie upon the book 
 pf Numbers he (/) fays : " Thus vi^e are 
 
 " taught 
 
 (k) De iflis eft fimplex falulatio, nee aliquid eis infigne 
 laudis adjungitur, Puto tamen, qucd Hermas ifte fit fcriptcf 
 libelli illius qui Paftor appellatur, quae fcriptura valde mihi 
 utilis videtur, et ut puto divinitus infpirata. Quod vero nihil 
 eis [forte ei] laudi afcripfit, ilia opinor eft caufa, quia vide- 
 iur, ficut fcriptuta ilia declarat, poft multa peccata ad poeni- 
 ?entiam fuiffe converfum, et ideo nee opprobrium ei aliquod 
 &fcripfit. 7« Efiji' ad Rom. cap. x'vi. T. 2. p. 630. Bafil. 
 
 (/) Quod autem dies peccati in annum poenae reputetur, 
 |J9U folum in 1190 libro, in quo nihil omnino eft quod dubitari 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. O R I G E N. 
 
 ** taught in this book, in which there is no- 
 *' thing at all that can be queftioned. The 
 «' Hke things are alfo to be found in the book 
 ** of the Shepherd, if indeed any one thinks 
 " that fcripture [or writing] ought to be re- 
 ** ceived." 
 
 4.) In his Commentaries upon St. MaU 
 thew : " If (m) I may dare quote a certain 
 ** fcripture, ufed indeed in the churches, but 
 ** not accounted of all to be divine, let us 
 " take a palTage out of the Shepherd." 
 
 5.) Once more. " In [n) the httle book 
 " of the Shepherd defpifed by fome." 
 
 6.) Thefe, I think, are the moft remark- 
 able quotations of this book in Origen^ and 
 fufficient to enable the reader to judge for 
 himfelf in this point. It appears hence, that 
 this book was not univerfally received as di- 
 vine, that by fome it was much defpifed : 
 that there were in it fome things which were 
 not approved by all : and fometimes it is fpoken 
 
 of 
 
 poiTit, oftenditur, fed et in libello Paftoris, fi cui tamen fcriptura 
 ilia recipienda videtur, fimilia dehgiiantur. In Num. Hem, 
 'viii. T. 2. p- 294. B. Bened. 
 
 {ni) E/ cTs ^f w ro?^iJLi)(Tavloi. 39 oi-Tro rtv'^' (pzpof^.ivii{ {j.h Iv iin 
 
 ixivni uvoit d-iioii, TO ToitTov 'ziTctpafAvSiW'iiQa.i, Atj^Q^iM ffv ri 
 d'wo Tb 'wotixit'oi- ' omrn in Matth T. i. p. 361. E Huet. 
 
 (») Aia. TBTo ni-^iii iC) TO kv TO) v-jt'o Tivuv xoijct^fopnixkva ClC^ 
 ^ia 7«u lamiJ.ivi, 'mip} tb 'wpo'^daji^M tqv 'Epij,civ J^vo ypa^Ai 
 
^li. ORIGEN. Book r. 
 
 A. D, of as if it was received by very few, hardly by 
 i^-J^-j ^'^y ^"c- Neverthelefs Origeji quotes it as an 
 ukfal book, and as fcripture, and thinks \% 
 divinely infpired. However upon the whole 
 he feems to quote it only as fcripture in a 
 fecondarie fenfe, or lower rank. This may 
 be co!xluded from his quoting it fo often 
 With ihti books of ihe. Maccabees^ and Tobit, 
 and Enoch: which Origen knew very well, 
 and lometio'^es exprefsly obferves were not 
 in thej^f^'i^^//^) canon. That Origen ought to 
 be io underftood, is the more probable, be- 
 ^aufe Eufebe^ Jeromey and {o) others, who 
 we.e well acquainted with Origens writings 
 and opinions, give no higher authority to 
 this book, as we fhall fee more fully hereaf- 
 ter. In the mean time 1 fliall jufl obferve 
 Ru§iii?, account of this matter, who after he 
 had put down the canonical books of fcrip- 
 ture adds : " But (p) it ought to be taken 
 <-* notice ot, that there are other books, which 
 
 " are 
 
 ^iChiA. K. X. De Princip. I. iv. cap. i. T. i. /. i68. Viii, 
 Phiiucal cap. i. p. g. ex. ed. Spencer, 
 
 (o) Vid. Pear Ion. Vinci. Igjiat. P. i. cap.inj p. 274.275. 
 
 (p) Sciendum autem eft, quod et alii libri funt qui non ca- 
 Jionici, ied ecclefiaftici a majoribus appellati funt : ut eft Sapi- 
 entia Salomonis, ei alia Sapientia qu;.e dicitur filii Syrach . . . 
 Ejufd'rm ordinis eft Libellus Tobiae, et juditii, et Macchabae- 
 orou. libri. In Novo vero Teftamento libelius, qui dicitur 
 Pailori.s, five Hermatis , . . Ruffn, Expo/, in Symholum Apofi. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. o R I G E N. 315 
 
 ** are not canonical, but were called by the a. d. 
 
 " ancients ecclefiaflical, as the Wifdom of\^^,fsjf 
 
 ** SolomoUy and another Wifdom of the Jon of 
 
 " Sirach. In the fame rank are the book of 
 
 " Tobit, Judith and the Maccabees. And 
 
 *' in Hke manner in the New Tcftament the 
 
 J* book of the Shepherd, or of HermaiJ' — 
 
 4. Origens two quotations of ^«(^//V/^ have^A ig^ta^ 
 been fufiiciendy taken notice of (l) formerly, '"■'' 
 He calls him one of the faint s^ a fnartyr^ and 
 the fecond Bifiop of Antioch after Peter : but 
 without any intimation, that his epiftiss were 
 part of facred fcripture. 
 
 XXIV. We now proceed to writings gene- j^pocry 
 rally called fpurious, or apocryphal. And ^^-^ j^*^'' 
 here I (hall begin with placing at length 
 the preface to Origen's firfl Homilie upon St, 
 Luke's Gofpel, as it is called, or his obferva- 
 tions upon St. Luke% introduction, or pretace 
 to his Gofpel. 
 
 I. "As {q) of old among the J ewijh ^pocry- 
 f* people many pretended to the gift of pro-^^/^. 
 
 " phecie, 
 
 (l) See Chap. <z;. Vol.i. p. 149. 
 
 (y) Sicut olim in populo Judaeorum mult: prophetiam pol- 
 |icebantiir, et quidam erant pfeudo prophetas. e quibas imus 
 
O R I G E N. Book L 
 
 " phecie, and there were fome falfe prophets, 
 " one of whom was Ananias fon of Agor^ 
 " but others were prophets: and there was 
 *' among the people the gift of difcerning 
 " fpirits, by which fome were owned as 
 " prophets, others were rejeded as it were by 
 *^ fkilful money-changers: fo alfo now under 
 " the New Teftament, many took in hand to 
 *^ write Gofpels, but all have not been receiv- 
 ** ed. And that not four Gofpels only, but 
 
 *« very 
 
 fuit Ananias filius Agor: alii vero prophetae: et erat gratia in 
 popjlo difcernendorum fpirituum, per quam alii inter prophetas 
 recipiebantur, nonnulli quafi ab exercitatiffimis trapezicis re- 
 probabantur : ita et in Novo TeOamtnto multi conati funt 
 Icribere evangelia, fed nonomnes recepti. Et utfciatis non folum 
 <quatuor evangelia, fed plurima efl'e confcripta, ex quihus haec 
 quae habemus eledlafunt, et tradita ecclefiis, ex ipfo prooemio 
 liUcae quod ita contexltur, cognofcamus : Quoniam quidem 
 multi conati funt ordinare narrationem. Hoc quod ait, conati 
 funt, latentem habet accufationem eorum qui abfque gratia 
 Spiritus Sancli ad fcvibenda evangelia profilierunt. Matthaeus 
 quippe et Marcus, et Joannes et Lucas non funt conati fcribere, 
 fed Spiritu Sanfto pleni fcripferunt evangelia. Multi igitur 
 conati iunt ordinare narrationem de his rebus quae manifelliffi- 
 me cognitae funt in nobis. Ecclefia quatuor habet evangelia, 
 haerefes plurima : e quibus quoddam fcribitur fecundum Aegyp- 
 tics, aliud juxta duodecim Apoilolos. Aufus fuit et Bafilides 
 fcribere evangelium, et fuo illud nomine titulare. Multi 
 conati funt fcribere, fpd et multi conati funt ordinare. Qua- 
 tuor tantum funt evangelia, ex quibus fub perfona domini et 
 falvatoris noftri proferenda funt dogmata. Scio quoddam evan- 
 gelium, quod fecundum Thomam, et juxta Matthiam ; et alia 
 plura legimus, ne quid ignorare videremur, propter eos qui 
 fe putant aliquid fcire, fi ifta cognoverint. Sed in his omni- 
 bus nihil aliud probamus, nifi quod ecclefia ; id eft, quatuor 
 tantum evajigelia recipienda. Jk Prooem. Liicce Horn. i. T.it^ 
 
Gh.XXXVIIL O R I G E N. 
 
 ** very many were writen j out of winch thofe 
 " we have were chofcn, and deUvered to the 
 ** churche 3 we may perceive even from Luke's 
 ** preface, which i thus : Forafmuch as many Luke i. j, 
 ** han^e taken in hand to fH forth in order a 
 ** declaration. His expreffion of their taking 
 " in hand contains a tacit accufation of thofe, 
 " who without the gift of the Holy Spirit 
 ** took upon them to write Gofpei . For 
 " Matthew and Mark, and John and Luke 
 ** did not take in hand to write, but being 
 " full of the Holy Ghofl: wrote Gofpels. 
 ** Many therefore took in hand to fet forth in 
 " order a narration of thofe things which are 
 ** moft fur ely known amongfl us. The churches 
 '* have four Gofpels, hereiies have very many. 
 ** Of which one is entitled according to the 
 *' Egyptians^ another according to the twelve 
 *' Apodles. Bafilides likewife had the afTu- 
 ** ranee to write a Gofpel, and call it by his 
 " own name. Many took in hand to write, 
 *' many alfo took in hand to kt forth in or- 
 ** der. Four Gofpels only have been aprov- 
 " ed, out of which the dodlrines of our 
 ** Lord and Saviour are to be learned. I 
 *' know a certain Gofpel, which i called ac- 
 [[ cording to Thomas ^ and according to Mat- 
 
 " thiai : 
 
b R I G E N. Bookt. 
 
 thias : and many other we read, that we 
 may not feem to be ignorant of any thing, 
 for the fake of thofe who think they know 
 ** fomething, if they are acquainted with 
 " thefe. \Gofpeh.'\ But among all thefe we 
 " approve of none, but the four Gofpels re- 
 *' ceived in the church." 
 
 I have hitherto tranilated only the begin- 
 ingofthisHomilie, as we have it in Origens 
 Latin works. Mr. Simoji has publifhed the 
 fame thing in Greek from Manufcripts at 
 Paris, As there is fome fmall difference be- 
 tween thefe, I {hall now tranilate the Greek 
 of Mr. Simon. 
 
 " As (r) among the people of old there 
 *' were many who pretended to prophecie, but 
 
 " fome 
 
 /■kOvJo' «AAa T6Tci)VjTiVi( y.lv mav '^-^-jS'o-TrpotptiTOii, rivzi <^i ecXn- 
 Qcoi -srpoji^Tcti, )^ m 'xJ.^KyiJ.n S'lciK^'icncoi 'mv$vixat.7KV, d(^'%iKpi- 
 Vilo oi?^nQt}{ 'Ztif)0(pn7>H ^ o '■IsutToTrfo^'tTm' "Ztu x^ rtv £v tm /.«/('« 
 Sic^hlm) jd 'ivcf.yyi.Kix tsoXaoi k^iXmxv ypd'^cti' «aA' 0/ <f'om[j.ot 
 TpocTTB^^'nAi » 'ura-Jja \;:^ivav , olXX^t iva. avrZiV i^iAi^avjo. Ta'XjA 
 cTe >y ri iTrz'Xfj-ifmccv AiknQvlav i'/jri xali^yopiav tc^v yjofU X°^' 
 ptcTjWccJr^, iX^'jvlc^'i) i'Tr] rr,)) dLicLyfOi^w ricv Ivocy^^tKicov. Mai' 
 Qcci'^yaf «x. eTTiXetpniTiJ', aXX^ lypix^sv 20 dyia 'aviv^.a]^ 
 y.ivtu.ivoi' o/y.oicoi ;{j Mcfpx.®^ }y Icodvj)^, -^r^pti 'ze-ado-jov J^i jy A»- 
 xrff- ■ To y.iv 701 iTiyiyfx/y.y.ivov tZ'P S'^S'iy.oi kvayyiXiov, 01 
 ffvyypd'^c.tlei I'myju^imciv . ^kf-ilcti tTs ^ to xard Quuuv 
 iva,''^'ykX'OV. ''H/« J^i zr'oKixnsi y^ Ba<7/Ae<cr«? ypd'loci Kara 
 BuffiXi'iS^iW ivo-.yy'iX.ov YloXXli iJ.iv «v iTri'x^iifiyiaoii', }^ to yena 
 MarGlai' iO) ci.?^Ad ^hkicva.' ra eTs Tiajupoc [/ova /upoy-fUei « ts 
 ©£« i xA«(7ja Orig. Prooem. in Luc. ex Cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. 
 n 2330. et ex duobus Codi. Bibl Colb. nn 2259. €14112. 
 See SiiTton. Hift. Crit. des Comment, du. N. T. chap. <v. />. 8 1 . 
 82, a Rotterdam 1693. 
 
230. 
 
 CLXXXVIIT. o R I G E N. 3i§ 
 
 " fome of them were falfe Prophets, and A. d. 
 *' others truly Prophets, and there was the 
 ** gift of difcerning fpiritr, by which a true 
 " and falfe Prophet were difliuguiihed: 
 ** So alfo now in the New Teftan^ent, ma- 
 *' ny would write Gofpels; but fkiiful mo- 
 " ney- changers did not approve of all, but 
 ** chofe fome of them: poffibly, the ex- 
 ** preffion, they took in hand, contains a tacit 
 " accufation of thofe who fet themfelves to 
 ** write gofpels without the gift of the Spirit. 
 " For Matthew did not take in hand, but 
 " wrote being moved by the Holy Ghoft : in 
 ** like manner Mark and Johjz^ as alfo Luke» 
 ** But they who compofed the Gofpel enti- 
 " tied the Gofpel of the twelve took in hand^ 
 " There is alfo a Gofpel according to Tho^ 
 " mas. Moreover Bafilides had the alTurance 
 " to write a Gofpel [entitled] according to 
 " Bafilides. Many therefore took in hand,- 
 " as the writers of the Gofpel according to 
 " Matthias, and many more : but the church 
 " of God approves four only." 
 
 I have thus tranflated the Greek, as it is 
 in SimoTi^ Critical Hijiorie of the Commenta- 
 tors of the New 1efiam<mt, The reader will 
 obferve the differences between this and the 
 
 Latin 
 
o R I G E N. Book L 
 
 Latm Preface : partlcalarly, here is no men'W 
 tion of the Gofpel according to the Egyptians^ 
 But I fufped this to be the fault only of 
 Simor/c impreflion : For he puts that Gofpel 
 there in his French tranflation together with 
 the Gofpel according to the Twelve. How- 
 ever, I have thought myfelf obliged to fol- 
 low his Greek, I hope, Father De la Rue, 
 of whofe edition of Origen's works I have as 
 yet feen only the firft two volumes, will give 
 us this more exadly. For, where the miftake 
 lyes, I cannot fay. It is neverthelefs obfervable, 
 that St. Ambrofe, who in his expofition of 
 St. Lukes Gofpel feems to have copied this 
 preface of Origejiy though without naming 
 him, or giving any hint that he copied any 
 author at all, omits [s) the Gofpel according 
 (m) to the Egyptia?is, whilft he mentions 
 thofe of the Twelve, and Bafilides, Thomas^ 
 and Matthias, 
 
 If 
 
 (i) Et allud quidem fertur Evangellum, quod duodecim fcrip- 
 fifie dicuntur. Aufus eft etiam Bafilldes ei'angelium fcribere, 
 quod dicitur fecundum Bafilidem. &c, Amhrof. Exp. Evan, 
 fecund. Luc. init. 
 
 (m) Mr. Jones fays, that the Gofpel according to the Egyp- 
 tians is mentioned by St. Ambrofe in the fame manner as by 
 Origin. iV>au and Full Method, iffc. Vol. i. p. 246. But it 
 is plainly a flip of mepiorie. See there p. 193. 194. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. O RI G E N. 3^t 
 
 If this pad'ige be really Origens, fas I think ^- 1^- 
 there can be no reafon to doubt, but that ^^..-y-Lj 
 for the main it is (o :) it lliews us very much, 
 wliat was his opinion concerning the fpu- 
 rious apocryphal books of the New Tefta- 
 ment, and particularly the Gofpel of the 
 Twelve, or according to the Twelve: wliicli 
 is generally fuppofed to bs the fame, which 
 is alfo called the Gofpel according to the 
 Hcbreivs, If the Gofpel according to the 
 Egyptians was not mentioned by Origen in this 
 place, he has (ii) no where taken any notice 
 of it, that I remember, in his now remaining 
 works. But allowing him to have inentioned 
 it here, ftill this affords full proof of the ob- 
 fcurity of this Gofpel, and the vafl negied: 
 of (n) it by Ccitholic Chrijliam: tliat fo little 
 notice is taken of it by Origen^ who lived fo 
 long at Alexandria in Egypt^ and the reft of 
 his days in Pakjline^ or near it, 
 
 2. Orige?i in his Commentaries upon St.Gofpelac, 
 Matthews Gofpel difcourfing on the hiftorie /^'/i?' 
 of the rich man that came to Chrift^ and ^^^''^'"'^i 
 having compared the feveral accounts given 
 Y- by 
 
 (a) Vid. Grahe Spicil. T.i. /. 31. and Joness, as before y 
 
 ( N ) Compare luhat is /aid of Clement of Alexandria . Vol. ii^ 
 ^ 528. 529. 530. 
 
230. 
 
 322 O R I G E N. Book L 
 
 A- D- by the Evangellfts Matthew^ Mark and Luke^ 
 adds : " But let us confider this place other- 
 " wife. It is writen in {w) a certain Gofpel, 
 " which is called according to the Hebrews : 
 *' if indeed any one is pleafed to receive it, 
 *' not as of authority, but for illuftration of 
 " the prefent queftion : A certain rich many 
 " fays that Gofpel, faid to him : Majler^ what 
 *' good thing JImU 1 dOy that I may live f He 
 " faid unto him : Man, keep the Law and the 
 *' Prophets. He anfwe?ed him : 'That I have 
 *' done. He faid to him : Go Jell all that thou 
 " hafly and dijlrihute among the poor ^ and come, 
 *' follow me. But the rich man hcgan to jcratch 
 *' his head, and it did not pleaje him. And 
 *' the Lord faid to him : How fayejl thou, I 
 
 " have 
 
 {iv) Scriptum eft in evangelio qnodam, quod dicitur fecun- 
 diim Hebraeos : fi tamen placet alicui recipere illud, non ad 
 audio) itatcm, fed ad manifellationcm propofitae quaeftionis. 
 Dixit, inquit, ad euni alter civitum : Magiller, quid bonum 
 faciens vivani ? Dixit ei : Homo, leges et prophetas fac. Re- 
 fpondit ad eum : Feci. Dixit ei : Vade, vende omnia quae 
 pofiidcs, et divide pauperibi.s, et vcni fequere ire. Coepit au- 
 tcra dives fcalpere caput fuum, et non placuit ei. Et dixit ad 
 cum dcniinus : Quomodo dicis, legem feci et prophetas ? quo- 
 riiim fcrlptum eit in lege, Diliges proximum tuum ficut teip- 
 fum : et ecce multi fiaties tui filii Abrahae amidi funt llercorc 
 jnorientes prae fame ; et domus tua plena ell multis bonis, et 
 non egieditur omnino aliquid ad eos. Et converfus dixit Si- 
 moni difcipulo fuo fedenti apud fe : Simon, fdi Joannae, facilius 
 elt xamelum intrare per foramen acias, quam divitem in reg- 
 Bum ooelorum. Traci, i-iii, in Matih. T, t. p. 73. Ba/^ 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. O RIGE N, 323 
 
 " have kept the Law and the Prophets ? feeing ^- ^• 
 " it is writ en in the Law, Thoiifialt love thy w--^.~- 
 " neighbour as thyfelf: and behold , many cf 
 " thy brethren^ fins of Abraham^ are clothed 
 ** with rags^ ready to perififor himger^ whilfl 
 ** thy hoiij'e is filled with all forts of good things, 
 " aitd mthing goes out of it to them. And 
 ** turning about he faid to his difciple Simon, 
 " who was fitting by him: Simon, fon offo- 
 " anna, it is eafierfor a camel to pafs through 
 ** the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to 
 ** enter into the kingdom of heaven^* 
 
 This parage is not in the Greek Commen- 
 taries upon St. Matthew, but only in the La- 
 tin tranflation of them. And {x) Huct there- 
 fore thinks it an addition of the tranflaton 
 But perhaps fome late Greek copier thought 
 fit to omit it. It might be in the more ancient 
 copie ufed by the tranflator. 
 
 In the Greek Commentaries upon St- 
 
 ^ohn : *' But (y) if any one admits the Gof- 
 
 Y 2 *'pel 
 
 (x) Ad haec Vetus il!e interpres Tra£t vili. infignem locum 
 profert ex evangelio fecundum Hebraeos. Atqui id de fuoad- 
 didit ; quippe quod in exemplaribus Graccis nufquam appa- 
 reat. Ac proindc temporum illorum, quibus hoc fupereraC 
 Evangelium, aequalis fuit. On'genian, I. 3. Se£i. 3. «. iz^. 
 
 /• 252- ^ ^ 
 
 (y) Etfv /*£ "ts-pociels/'/ t/? To y,a9 kCfamiivx-y'yiXiov, ivQa, dv 
 
 ^U (Tcaliip (pH(7iV ''Ap]/ iKxCi (J.i W [Mlilf fM Ta oiyiOV 'TSViviJ.A \v 
 
 y.iS. Tuv TpiX"^" y-^i -9 ctTinyxi ui hi to cfof to [/.iya, QxCiif. 
 Qmrrts :» jQari. p. 58. D. £. 
 
321 Or R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 A. D. <t pel accoroinp; to the Hebrews^ where our 
 v^V^ " Saviour hlmfelf fays : Jufi 7iow my tnother, 
 " the Holy Ghofl, took me by one of my hairs , 
 *' c?2d carried me to the great mcimtain Tha- 
 *' hor^ This pafliige we have alfo in Ori- 
 geji's Greek Homihes (z) upon Jeremiah pub- 
 lifiied by Iluet. 
 
 Thefe two are the only paffages of this 
 Gofpel found in Origciis remaining w'orks, 
 as has been obferved by [a) Dr. Grabe^ and 
 (^) Mr. Jones, However, {c) Jerome fpeak- 
 ing of the Gofpel according to the Hebrews, 
 fays that Origen made frequent ufe of it. If 
 ihat be true, he niufb refer to works of Ori- 
 gen now lofl:. But perhaps Jerome fpeaks in 
 a carelefs hyperbolical manner : And, if all 
 Origeii's works were now extant, we might 
 not fee this Gofpel very often quoted in them. 
 I apprehend, that thefe remaining quotations 
 are fufficient to flievv, not only that this Gof- 
 pel was not generally received hy Chrijiiajis^hni 
 likewife that Origen himfclf had no great re- 
 gard to it. If he had, this Gofpel would 
 
 have 
 
 {x) In Jeran. Hom.xv. T. i. p. 148. J. Huet. 
 . [a] Spun. 7. L p.zj. 
 {b) Vol i. ^ 33)- 
 
 (f) Evangelium quoque, quod arpellatur fcundum He- 
 braeos, . . . quo et Origenes laepc utitur. Dg V. I. cap^ H\ 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. ORIGEN. 325 
 
 have appeared much oftener in his works. It ^- ^• 
 
 ^^ , 230. 
 
 may therefore be concluded, that he did not ^.^-v-^o 
 
 take thisGofpel according to the Hdrews to be 
 St. Matthew's Gofpel : or, if he did, he mufb 
 have fuppofed it to have been fo altered and 
 interpolated, as to be no longer of any autho- 
 rity, and of but little ufe. 
 
 'I, In the Greek Commentaries upon St,^'-^'^^^' 
 
 ■J * cordnig t9 
 
 Matthew J fays Origen: *' Suppofing him ioht Peter. 
 *' the fon oi'Jofeph, they fay : h not this the Car- ^.^^''^; 
 *' penter' s fon ? ^nd defpifing all who feemed to 
 *' be his neareft kindred, they exprefs them- 
 *' felves in this manner: Is not his mother "^^f- SS> 
 ** called Marie? and his brethren yames, and 
 " y^f^P^i ^^'^^ Simon, and Jude ? a?id his 
 ^^ Jijlers, are they not all with us? They 
 " thought him therefore to be the fon of 
 " J'^fiP^ ^^^ Mzr/V. And fome (.7j induced 
 ** thereto by a tradition in the Gofpel accord- 
 " ing to Peter, or the book of James, fay, 
 " that thefe brethren of j^^w are fons of yo- 
 " feph by a former wife, that had cohabited 
 ** with him before Marled 
 
 y 3 This 
 
 (^) Tk? cTs aJ^ih<ii^i liia^, (pa.<Ji rivii %(vxi, ix. rsrapocJ^'oinui 
 ofy.coy.svof m iTnyiypa.y.y.iva KXioL YiiT^ov 'iiia.yyi?UK, » th^ 
 (iiCh>i layJjCii, viii I«(7H(p iy. 'srporipefs yvvaiKoi (XwaKmv'ioti 
 avja 'srpi tiJj hlctfixf. Comm, in Matt. T. i. p. 2Z^. A. B. 
 iluet. 
 
O R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 This is the only place, in which this 
 piece, (or thefe pieces, if they are two) is 
 quoted in Origcns remaining works : which 
 alone may be reckoned a good argument, that 
 it was not much efteemed by him. The 
 manner likewife in which this Gofpel is 
 quoted feems to flievv, that he did not reck- 
 on it to have been writen by Peter^ or yames, 
 or by any companion or difciple of either of 
 them : but that he fuppofed it to be rather 
 a work compofed after their time, containing 
 traditions relating to Chrifi, of things report- 
 ed to have been faid or done by him. It is 
 not unlikely, that here were fome difcourfes 
 afcribed to Peter, others to James, which 
 occafioned different titles of this work. 
 
 jyoBrim 4. In the preface to the books of Princi- 
 
 ' Preaching ^^^i which wc have in Latin: " But [e) if 
 
 qf Pcier. n ^^y Qj-jg {l;iould bring au objedion out of 
 
 *^ that little book which is called the Dodrine 
 
 " of Peter, where our Saviour feems to fay 
 
 *' to 
 
 {() Si quis vdit nobis proferre ex illo libelloqui Petri Doc- 
 trina appcUatur, iibi Salvator videtur ad diiciputosdicere, Non 
 ium daemontum incorporeum : primo rerpondendum ell ei, 
 quoniam ille liber inter bbros ecclefiafticos non habetur ; et 
 pflendendum eft, qviia ncque Petri ell fcriptura, neque alterius 
 Ciijufquam qui fpiritu Dei tuerit infpiratus. De Princip. in 
 Ptaif, p. 49. jB. T. i. Be.'icd. 
 
230. 
 
 Ch.XXXVIIL o Ri G E N. 327 
 
 " to his dlfciples, / am not an incorporeal a.d. 
 ** "Demon: I would anfwer in the firft place, ^ 
 *^ that that book is not accounted an ecclefi- 
 " aftical book : and then make it appear, 
 " that it is neither a v/riting of Peter, nor 
 " of any other perfon that was infpired by 
 *' the Spirit of God." This book then is 
 entirely rejected by Origen, 
 
 In his Commentaries upon St. jfohnj which 
 we have in Greek, fays Origen : " But it (f) 
 " would be tedious to tranfcribe now the 
 " words of Heracleon, taken out of the book 
 *' entitled the Preaching of Peter, and to flay 
 " to enquire concerning the book itfelf, 
 *' wliether it be genuine, or fpurious, or 
 '* mixed." 
 
 We are to obferve here, that (g) it is fup- 
 pofed by divers learned men, that the Dodtrine 
 of Peter and the Preaching of Peter are one 
 and the fame book under different titles.. If 
 this be fo, (as is very probable) then in the 
 former place Origen abfolmly rejects it, and 
 Y 4 ia 
 
 (f) TloKv S'i i-rtvuv Tffn^a.r'i^i^a.i t« IIpsexA?6)V^Tap»)T^, 
 
 yv/lfft'ov «5"/, n v'oQoV, « y.i}il'ov. Comm. in Joan, T. 2. p. 21 1, 
 D. E. Huet. 
 
 (g) Ca'v. Hijl. Lit. P.i. in Petro p. 5. Grab. Spic. T. /. 
 /. 56. Jer, Jones, Ne-vj and Full Methodise, Ti;/. ?,/>. 449. 
 
328 P R I G E N. Book I, 
 
 A. D. iji this expreffes himfelf in a modeft manner, 
 ^^,.,«y-i^ as a fair and candid antagonift, becaule it was 
 not a proper place to prove at large the cha- 
 rader of that book. And thefe quotations 
 afFord a good argument, that the Preaching 
 of Peter was not efteemed a book of cano- 
 nical fcripture by Clement, Origens mafter, 
 though ( o ) he has made frequent ufe 
 of it. 
 
 Ms of 5. In the books of Principles Ongen {h) 
 fays: " Wherefore that faying feems to me 
 " to be right, which is writen in the Ads of 
 *^ Pnnl: That this is the IVcrdj a Iivi?2g ani- 
 «' maiy 
 
 Thefe Ads of Paul are allowed by learned 
 men (/") to be different from the Aois of 
 Paul and ^hecla. So particularly Father De 
 la Rue upon tliis place of Origen, who likq- 
 wife makes no doubt, but this notion is cor- 
 ruptly borrowed from Hebr.xw. 12. which is 
 alfo the opinion of [k) Dr. Grahe. If fo, it 
 would be a proof, that the author of this 
 
 book 
 
 (0) Hee before Chap. 12. § 43. p. ^iq.. . 556. 
 
 ih) Unde et reftemihididus videtur fernio iile, qui in A6li- 
 bus Pauli fcriptus e.t, quia hic eft veibum animal vivens. De 
 Prmc. L i. c. 2. 7". /. p. 54. E. Bcned. 
 
 (/) Vid Grab. Spii. T. L p. 128. Jer. Jozies. V. i. /.jgz. 
 
 [k) lb. t. \l%. ■ 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. o Ri G E N. 329 
 
 book had a refpeifl for the epiflle to the Tic- A. D. 
 brews. Befides, we have here only a Latin yj-^^r^ 
 verfion, whicli perhaps is not exadt: If we 
 had the Greeli^ the reference to that eplfde 
 might be plainer. 
 
 Again, in Orlgefi^ Greek Commentaries up- 
 on St. John: " But (I) if any one pleafe to 
 ** admit" what is writen in the Ads of Paul^ 
 *' as fpoken by our Saviour : I am about to 
 !='' be crucified ugainy 
 
 Perionius conjedured, that for Paul in this 
 place {hould be read Peter. And (m) Grabe 
 profclTes himfelf to be of the fame opinion. He 
 therefore in his colledion of thefe things has 
 placed this fragment not among thofe of the 
 Ads of Paul^ but of Peter, But (n) Huet 
 choofes to follow his Greek copies, and writes 
 PauL It may be added, that {0) in the an- 
 cient Latin verfion of thefe Commentaries 
 upon John we have Paul. However, thefe 
 Ads may have been fometimes called Paul's, 
 
 and 
 
 {/) F./ Tfd cTi (plXov 'T^-apctcPi^a^oii to h rctiiUxvXit 'Tzpa^iffiv 
 dva.ftypaiy.uzvcv, a; vtto (jeo\rifo<; t^fHiAvoV AveoQzv [AXKco S"*u- 
 p?c&a/. In John. T. 2. p. 298. E. Htiet. 
 
 (w) lb. p. 80. 
 
 («) Sed tamen nihil muto, nnjn Aflorum Pauli mentio fit 
 apud noflrum Originem, lib.i. 'wsft e'p%,&v> cap. 2. Huet. 
 Not. p. 118. 
 
 [0) Quod fi cui placet admittere quod in Adlibus Paul; 
 fcripcum ell, tanquam a fervatoredidum. T. z. p. 373. Bajil. 
 
330 o R I G E N. Book r. 
 
 A. r>. and at other times Peter s, as contain- 
 ^^^i^io ing iotne matters relating to both thefe 
 Apoftles. 
 
 If the Ads cited here be the fame 
 with thofe in the foregoing paffage j then, 
 though Origen fuppofed that fiiying taken 
 from them to be right j yet it appears from 
 this fecond paiTage, that the book was of no 
 authority. 
 
 I have now fet down, I think, all the par- 
 ticular quotations of apocryphal books of 
 the Nev/ Teftament found in Origen's re- 
 maining works. Befide the general notice 
 taken of thefe things in the obfervations up- 
 on the introdudion to St. Luke's Gofpel, 
 the pieces of this kind cited by him are 
 the Golpel according to the Hebrews, the 
 Gofpel according to Peter, or book of James, 
 the Dodrine or Preaching of Peter, and the 
 Ads of Paul, 
 
 4?t Anony (^ \ (ball add here a general citation of 
 fome book without a name. In the Latin 
 Homilies upon Leviticus Origen (p) fays: 
 
 " There 
 
 (f) Haec ergo Chriftianis jejunandi ratio eft. Sed eft et 
 alia adhuc religiofa, cujus laus quorundatn Apoftolorum Uteris 
 praedicatur. Invenimus eniiu in qi-iodam libello ab Apoftolis 
 
 diftiipi ; 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. O R I G E N. 
 
 *♦ There is alfo another fort of religious fail, 
 ** which is commended in the writings of 
 " fome Apoftles. For I find in a certain 
 '' book a faying of the Apoftles: Blepd is 
 *' hfthat fajtsj that he may feed the poor. The 
 " faft of fuch a one muft be very acceptable 
 " in the fight of God." Certainly this man- 
 ner of quoting affords no ground to think, 
 that Origen efteemed this piece of any autho- 
 rity, though he approved the faying. 
 
 Thus at length I have given a full and 
 particular reprefentation of the paiTages of 
 Origen concerning both ecclefiaftical and apo- 
 cryphal writings. And yet I flatter myfelf, the 
 reader will not complain of prolixity in this 
 article. 
 
 XXV. I (hould now proceed to make re- jerj^ijh 
 marks upon thefe citations. But I fuppofe J^'^^^^''^ 
 this work will be more compleat, and the 
 fentlments of Chrijlians at that time concern- 
 ing the fcriptures be more diftlndly under- 
 ilood, if I firft take fome brief notice like- 
 wife of Origen's citations of apocryphal books 
 of the Old Tellament. 
 
 I. On'geri 
 
 dliStum : Beatus efi qui et'iam jejunat pro eo ut alat pauperem. 
 Hujusjejunium valde acceptum elt apud Deum, et reveradigne 
 fatis. In Le'vit.Hom,x. T. 2, p. zi^b.A. Bemd, 
 
3 
 
 2 O R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 ■A. D. I. Orlgen in his explication of the firft 
 ^^.-^^^^-vj Pfalm^ or preface to his Commentaries upon 
 the PJalmSy in a paffage preferved by [q] Eiifcbe, 
 and (r) others, gives a catalogue of the books 
 of the Old Teftament, received by the yews. 
 He fays, they are in number 22. They are 
 much the fame (j) with thofe commonly re- 
 ceived by Proteftants, 
 
 Tohit and 2. Having quoted a text from Tobit, Ori- 
 
 '^^ S^^ ^^^2 • *' ^^^ becaufe the yews rejed: the 
 
 *' book of Tobit as not canonical, [or, no part 
 
 " of the 'Tejiament'\ I (liall take a paiTage out 
 
 " of the firft book of the Kings," 
 
 In another place he fays : *' The (//) yews 
 ** do not ufe Tobit^ nor yudith. Nor have 
 *' they them at all in Hebrew among their 
 *' apocryphal books : but the churches make 
 
 ** ufe of Woitr 
 
 He 
 
 {q\ H. E. I. n.n. cap. 25. 
 
 [r) Origenis Philocal. Suid. V. np/^4vMf. NicepJp. Hijl. 
 ^ Lib. 'U. cap. 16. 
 
 (j) See CoJi-TS Scholaflical Hif.oyh of the Canon of Scripture, 
 Chap. 'V. 
 
 [t) Til S'l TK HcjCyiT py.CXu av\:hiy6(Tiv 01 k:i'7^£p!]oyTH, «?//:) 
 
 Ora.p 220. v. \.Bened. 
 
 . (a) n69iu J^e Aa(?av iAiyB^ to . . h, ccov ztt'' l//^ ■yv<i,7ei, utto 
 
 Ta Tc-iCia ; -Tj-ep/ i ii/Mi 5%p'w ^yV0K^vc!,l, on r CpS/o/ ra TciCia » 
 
 ^Cpy.s'i ■ fc-; cLTt' avTiiV /yaGciils? iyvi^j-.c.iJ.iv- 'AAA' i^e. yjiy^ai im 
 T(-jCifi ai i'/.K^MtiX^i hioi'i K- A' £p- ^i'* ■'ifriC' ■§ I 3 . />. 26, p. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. oRiGEN. 223 
 
 He likewife fpeaks of *' E/iber, (iv) "Tobif, a. d. 
 
 2 ^ O. 
 
 " Judiih^ the book of IVifdom^ as books of ;_/^^r>j 
 *' fcripture, which pleafcd the common peo- 
 *' pie, bccaufe they were eafie, or free from 
 *' obfcurity." But I thmk it reafbnable to 
 fuppofe neverthelefs, that an equal refpe(ft 
 was not (liewn to thofe fcriptures, which the 
 Jews rejected, as to thofe they received. 
 
 3. In a Latin Homilie he quotes EcckJIa- Ecchf^a- 
 fiicus cautioufly: " In [x] ^ book, which ""* 
 *' among us ufes to be joined with the writings 
 " of Solomon, and to be called EccIefiaJlicuSy 
 '* but by the Greeks is called the Wij'dom of 
 ^^ yefus the fen of Sirach, it is writen, ylll 
 *' wifdom Cometh from the hordr Though 
 therefore this v/as placed, fometimes at left, 
 with the other books of Solomon^ it was not 
 Reckoned to be his. 
 
 And 
 
 (<i',') Apsrtior fcilicet fimpliciorque dcdrina, ut de moralibus 
 eKc foleC, quae praeberi confuevlt iis, qui initia habent in di- 
 ^finis iludii% et prima eruditionis rationabilis elementa fufcipi- 
 unt. His ergo cum recitatur talis aliquadivinorum voluminum 
 led^io, in qua non vidcatur ah'quld obfcurum, libenter accipi- 
 unt: verbi caufa, ut e!l libellus Hcfter, aut Judith, vel etiam 
 Tobiae, aut mandata Sapientiae. Si vero legatur ei liber Le- 
 vitici, oft'eiiditur continuo animus, &c. i't Num. Horn. 27. 
 /. 374. E. A. 7. 2. Bcncd. 
 
 (.y) In libroqui apud nos qudem inter Saiomonis volumina 
 haberi folct, el. Ecclefiafticus dici, apad Graecos vero fapienr.ia 
 Jefu filii Sirach appellaiur, fcriptum ell: Omnis fapientia a 
 i)co ell. In Num.^ Horn, iH. p. 340, E, 
 
o R I G E N. BookL 
 
 And in the Prologue to the Canticles, Ori- 
 gen (y) fays, that neither the 'Jeiioi nor the 
 Chriftiam reckoned any more than three books 
 of Solomon in the Canon : meanine the Fro- 
 'oerh, Ecclefidjies, and the Canticles. It is here 
 laid likewife, that the Oracles of God in the 
 Old Teftament were derived to the Chriftiam 
 from the Jews, 
 
 Zufanna. ^^ ^g £^3^ ^^ hiiloric of Siifiinna, added to 
 the book of Daniel, Ajricanus in his letter 
 to i^z) Origcn tells him, he wondered he 
 jfhould not know it was fpurious, and fays 
 it was a piece lately forged. He obferves (a^ 
 likewife, that all the fcriptures of the Old 
 ■ Teftament generally received were tranflated 
 from Hebrew. I think this is enough to fa- 
 tisfy us, that this florie could not be a part 
 of the Chriflian canonical fcriptures. And 
 
 though 
 
 (y) Sed nos quomodo recipiemus hujufmodi intelligentiam, 
 cnm neque ecclefia Dei uUa extrinfecus Salomonis cantica le- 
 genda fulceperit : neque apud Hebraeos, a quibus eloquia Dei ad 
 nos videntur effe tranflata, aliquid pra> ter hos tres libellos Sa- 
 lomonis, qui et apud nos iunt, amplius habent in canone ? 
 Prolog, in Cant. Cant. p. 591. T. i. Bafil. 
 
 fzj Qav^a^c) <^\, 'wcia fXyM <r^ ro //ep(^ tb 0/S'aj« t«to 
 xiCJ'nXcv ov : t] ya^ loi 'zsrtpuoTrti av\n X'^'f'^'^ ^'^^ aAhcoi ijvy- 
 ypcx,iJ.iJ.(t, Vicolipuou <^i }C) 'WiTiKocaiAvov (f'iiKVvjaH x. A. J/r. 
 ad Orig. p. 10, J. 
 
 fa) 't^ ICfiiiav J^l roii 'ihXmi iJ.[\iCKn^v\ -waf 9' oca tSJj ':sa.- 
 }^cjncii J'laOhKnf fifilxi. Ibid. p. \i. J. 
 
CLXXXVIIT. o R I G E N. 335 
 
 thouo^h Origen fays all he can think of to a. d. 
 prove this hiftorie true and genuine, and [h) i^/^vNJ 
 affirms that it was made ufe of in Greek by 
 all the churches of Chriji among the Gentih ; 
 yet he owns that it was not received by the 
 Jews J nor to be found in their copies of the 
 book of Daniel, They who defire to know 
 more of this matter may confult {c) Du 
 Fin. 
 
 5. The books of the Maccabees are exprefs- Macca- 
 ly faid by Origen not to be a part of the 
 yewiJJj canonical fcriptures {d) in the pafH^ge 
 cited at length by Eufebe in his Ecclefiaftical 
 Hiftorie. 
 
 6. I think it clear, that none of thefe A Re- 
 books were canonical among the Chrijiiafis.""^'^ ' 
 It was well known among them, that they 
 were not extant in Hebrew^ nor owned by 
 
 the Jews^ from whom the Chrijlia?is received 
 the fcriptures of the Old Teftament. Nor 
 does it appear, that Origai wrote commenta- 
 ries, 
 
 fj.lv Tco KOiH l\hmei.i iXXimy.a (^i^afAvuv iv 'e3-«V>t iKKkmiO' XP'^^> 
 'wa.fxx Ji iCpaioii //tj) Kei{AvuV- Orig. ad Afr, p. 13. A. 
 
 {c) See Di/Jertation Preliminaire fur la Bible liv. i. 
 eh. i. § <!>. p. 15. tiofe [e). 
 
 €ap^ 25.^.226, ^. 
 
33^ o R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 ■A- D. lies, or preached homilies upon any of thefc 
 \yA/"^^ books. 
 
 Oi^er 7. BeHde thefe Origcfi has cited divers 
 
 Books ^^^'^^^ books in ufe among the Je'ivs^ as he 
 fiiys, and called fecret or apocryphal ; fuch as 
 the book of Enoch, the Teftament of the 
 xii PatriachSj the AiTumption and Afcenfion 
 of Mojes. 
 
 Books of 8. In the Commentaries upon St. ^ohn: 
 
 Enoch. . . . , 
 
 " As (<?) it is writen in the book of E/ioct^ 
 " if any think fit to receive that as a facred 
 " book." 
 
 Origcn remarks upon a pafTage of Celfus, in 
 which were fome things, which he fuppofes 
 might be taken from the book of Enoch. 
 *' But (J) he queflions, whedier Cclfus had 
 *' read the book itfelf : and he adds, that 
 ** Celfus fecmed not to know, that thofe 
 " books called Enoch's were not looked upon 
 *' by the churches as divine." 
 
 Again 
 
 ayiov TO /3 CXiov. Lorn, in yob. p. 132. C. Huet. 
 
 (f) "a -ziVDL iJ"^ civici (pciitijoct c/vxyvi{, iS'l yv:t>pi(Xxif ort ew 
 taii iKy.'Km'ia.ti hvrsivv ^ifilcti l>i -d-dx to. i'^iysypa.y.i/ivc/^ t» 
 l-vioX ^■^^•'^- Cofitr. CciJ\ L "v. /). 619. C. Boied. 
 
Ch.XXXVIIL o R I G E n; 337 
 
 Again foon after : " Celfus (g) jurnbling A. D.' 
 
 * together and confounding every thing which (^o/NA 
 ' he has heard or read, not caring whether 
 
 * the books he quotes are efteemed by Chri- 
 ' /lians divine or not, fays, that Jixty or fe- 
 ' I'enty of thofe fons of God, when they had de- 
 ' fcended^ were bound under the earth to be pu- 
 
 * nifoedfor their Jim : and adds, as if taken 
 ' out of the book of Enochs though without 
 
 * naming it, that from their tears arofe hot 
 
 * fprings : a thing neither faid nor heard in 
 ' the churches of God." 
 
 In a homilie upon the book of Numbers 
 
 Origen having quoted Pfal. cxlvii. 4. He 
 
 telleth the number of the fiars : he calleth them 
 
 all by their names ^ adds: *' Of (h) which 
 
 Z *' names 
 
 Tsur 
 voif 
 
 fg)J' F/7a, (pipuv jy avy/ieov a. 07r«f 'arore «kk5'S, kj ra otth 
 'T y yiypiXfj-y-ivoi, iijz S'ii'QyiAvd. Qiia. iivoci tsapA Xpj<"/*- 
 »-«.>■, ii]l >^ iJ.y\, <pm^ . . . . ■)t^ (p'ip&i {a; d'Tro ra Ec*/^ i'/t ol'ouu- 
 ^6)V a.vT:v] TO, o&i\j iy rdi Jsp/xrff 'Tirnyui livxi 7« i>iiivav S'cik- 
 ft/fit' iffpayixoc, '■Lrs Kiy'oy.iVQV W AK.\ihiJLiVQ)) iv Tdii iKy-Kmi:t.ii 
 TB ©sS. Ibid. p. 620. B. C. 
 
 [h] De quibus quidem nomlnibus plurlma in libellis, qui 
 appellantur Enoch, fecreta continentur ec areana : fed quia 
 libelli ipfi non videntur apud Hebraeos in audoritate haberi, 
 interim nunc ea quae ibi nominantiir, ad exemplum vocare 
 differamus, fed ex his quae habemus in manibus, de quibas 
 dubitari non potell, rerum profequaniur indagineni. In Nun:, 
 Hom.zS. p. 384. E. T. 2. Bgned. 
 
33^ o R 1 G E N. Book I, 
 
 A. D. <c nai^eg there are many fecret and my- 
 230. ... 
 
 Kj'-srsj " fterious things faid in the books called 
 
 ** E?2och's : But fince thofe books are not in 
 
 " authority with the Jews, I forbear to al- 
 
 " lege any thing from them at this time." 
 
 Which (hews, that the opinion of the 
 
 yews concerning ancient books, fuppofed to 
 
 have been derived from their anceflors, vt^as 
 
 not defpifed. 
 
 The books of Enoch are quoted (/) by 
 Origen in fome other places. But I have 
 put down already more than enough 
 to fliev7 that they were a canonical fcrip- 
 tures. 
 
 7he xH g. How he quotes the Teftaments of 
 archs. the xii Patriarchs, was (p) fhewn for- 
 merly. 
 
 'Afcenfion 10. Orlgeti has quoted a piece called the 
 Afcenfion of Mofes. We faw an inftance, 
 when we confidered his citations of St.yude's 
 epiftle. He is fuppofed to mean this book 
 
 in 
 
 " (/) De Prin. I. i. cap. ^. p.6i.C. D. T. i. Befied. et Hid, 
 lib. i'u. p. ig^. D. ef E. 
 (?) See Vol. ii. p. 742. 743. 
 
Ch.XXXVIIL oRiGEN. 339 
 
 in another place, though he does not name A. D. 
 it. He calls [k) it a certain little book not in u-^i^ 
 the canon, 
 
 II. To proceed. Says (/) Origen : " \\[QAnAnony- 
 '' read, (if indeed any one pleaies to receive 
 " fuch a kind of writing) that the angels of 
 *' righteoufnefle and unrighteoufnefs difputed 
 ** about the falvation and damnation of 
 ** Abraham^ each fide claiming him to them- 
 " felves." Aflrangedifpute! The title (z;?) of 
 this piece is not certainly known. It is plain, 
 it was not canonical, nor much valued. 
 
 1 2. " As {n) for the change of names, the Anotherl 
 Jews, I know not well upon what ground, 
 but upon the authority, it is likely, of feme 
 fecret books or traditions, have a tradition 
 among them, that Phineas the fon of Elea^ 
 zar^ who undoubtedly lived out the time of 
 many judges, as we learn from the book of 
 Judges, is the fame as Elias^ and that im- 
 Z 2 " mortality 
 
 [k) Denique et in libello quodam, licet in canone non h.i- 
 betur, mylterii tamen hujus forma defcribitur. In libr. Jefu. 
 Horn. 2. p. 400. E. Tom. 2. Bened. 
 
 (/) Legimus (li tamen cui placet hujucefmodi fcripturam 
 recipere) juftitiac et iniquitatis angelos fuper Abrahac falnte et 
 interitu difceptantes, dum utraequc turmae fuo eum volunt 
 coetui vcndicare. In Lucam Ho?n. 35. in. 
 
 (m) Vid. Fabric. Cod. P/eud. N. 7". /•. 401. 402. 
 
 \>i) Injohan.p. 108. A.Ecut. 
 
 <c 
 
o R I G E ]sf. Book t 
 
 ** mortality was promifed him in the book of 
 " Numbers^ by the covenant of peace, as it 
 " is called, as a reward of his zeal for God." 
 Origen therefore v/as not acquainted with the 
 yewifl 2.^ocxy^hi\ book, whence this tradition 
 was taken, if indeed it was recorded at all. 
 
 JliMryphai 1 3. I formerly (q^) cited a paflage from 
 f erred to Origefis, Icttcr to Africanus^ where he fup_ 
 in the N. pQ^gg ^j^^j. jj^g author of the epiftle to the 
 
 Hebrews refers to fome apocryphal book or 
 books of the yews. There are fome other 
 places in Orige?is, works where he fpeaks in 
 the like manner, and fuppofes that our Savi- 
 our and his Apoflles did refer to apocryphal 
 writings, 
 
 14. Upon Matth. xxvii. 9. I'heJi was fid- 
 
 Jilled that which was fpoken by "Jeremiah the 
 
 prophet, fayijtg.'] Says Origen : *' This {0) pro- 
 
 *' phecie is no where found in the books of 
 
 " the 
 
 {qji See Chap, xxxvii. p. 176. 177. 
 
 (0) Tuf.'C impletum ejl quod dicium fuerat per Hieremiam pro- 
 fhetamdicentem, ^f.] Inter ea quae fcripta funt, non inveni- 
 tur hoc Hieremias alicubi prophetafie in libris fuis, qui vel in 
 ecclefiis leguntur, vel apud Judaeos referuntur. Siquisautem 
 poteft fcire, ollendat ubi fit fcriptum. Sufpicor autem errorem 
 efle fcripturae, et pro Zacharia pofitum Hieremiam, aut elTe 
 aliquam fecretatn Hieremiae fcripturam in qua fcribitur. Ta- 
 lis eft autem textus apud Zachariam: Et dicam ad eos, &€. 
 [Zach. cap. xi. 12. 13.3 Si autem haec dicens aliquis exi- 
 
 Aimat 
 
ti 
 
 Ch.XXXVIJL o R I G E N. 341 
 
 '' the prophecies of ^cremlah^ read in the ^- ^• 
 " churches and received by the yeivs. How- v,/--\'-«s 
 " ever, if any one knows where it is writen, 
 *' let him fliew it. But I fuppofe that here 
 *' has been made a miftake in writing this 
 " text, and that Jeremiah has been put for 
 «^ Zdchariah: or eife that there is fome apo- 
 cryphal book of Jeremiah J where this is 
 writen. But there is fuch a text in the 
 prophet Z-^(:/7jr/>. [ch. xi. 12. 13.] If any 
 one does not like this fuppofition, [of a?2 er- 
 roiir in tranfcribing] let him fee whether 
 this prophecie be in any fecret book of 
 Jeremie : for as much as the Apoftle alfo 
 alleges fome texts of apocryphal books^ 
 faying fomewhere, that eye hath iiotfeen^nOf * ^'^r. il. 
 " ear heard. For this is not found in any ca- 
 ** nonical book, but only in a fecret book of 
 Z 3 "the 
 
 flimat fe ciF;ndere, videat ne alicubi in fecfctis Hieremiae hoc 
 prophetatur ; Iciens quoniam et apoitoius fcripturas quafdam 
 fecretorum profert, ficuc dicicalic .hi, quod ccidus non'vidit, nee 
 auris audi-vit : in nu!!o enim regulari Un Graeco procul duhio 
 fait y.cti'ovtKa. Grabe Spir, T. i. p. 136.] libro hoc poiitum 
 invenitur, nili in fecretis Heliae prophc'.ae. Item quod ait,y?a.-^ 
 Jamnes et Mambres reji'iterunt Mojt, non invenitur in publicis 
 fcripturis, fed in libro iecreco, qai fuprafcribitur, Jamnes et 
 Mambres. Unde aufi funt quid^im epiPcolam ad Timotheum 
 repeilere, quafi habentem in le textum alicujus fecreti, fed noij 
 potuerunt. Primam autem cpillolam ad Corinthios j-ropter 
 hoc aliquem refutaiTe quafi adulterinam, ad aures meas nup- 
 ^yam .pervenit. In Mattb. Traa. 55- /"• 193. '/w/;, 2. Bafih 
 
 <c 
 
34-2 
 
 A. D. 
 
 230. 
 
 3 Tim. iii. 
 8. 
 
 o R I G E N. Book L 
 
 ' the Prophet Elias. Again, the Apoftle 
 ' fays : As 'Jannei and yambres withflood 
 
 * Mofes. This is not found in the pubHc 
 
 * fcriptures, but in a fecret book, entitled 
 
 * yannes and yamhres. For which reafon 
 ' fome have been fo daring, as to argue 
 
 * againft that epiftle to Timothie^ though 
 ' in vain. But I never heard of any who 
 ' pretended to fay, the firft epiftle to the Co- 
 
 * rlnthiam is fpurious, becaufe of the fore- 
 ' mentioned citation." 
 
 This may be efteemed by fome a curious 
 pafTage, for which reafon I have made no 
 fcruple to tranfcribe it fo much at length : I 
 would likewife make the following remarks 
 upon it. 
 
 I.) It (hev/s, that Chrijliam read and flu- 
 dyed the books of the New Teftament with 
 a great deal of care. 
 
 2.) It fliews the averflon oi Chriftians for 
 apocryphal books. 
 
 3.) Neverthelefs Origen knew of none, who 
 had rejeded the firft epiftle to the Corin- 
 thians : And poffibly few or none ever fu- 
 fpeded that citation to be taken from any 
 apocryphal book, as Origen dido The gene-? 
 
 rality 
 
Ch.XXXVlII. o R I G E N. 343 
 
 rality of people might fuppofe thofe words ^- O- 
 to be taken from If. Ixiv. 4. St. Jerome in his' — ^— 
 Commentarie (p) upon this text of Jfaiab de- 
 clares that to be his opinion. As for the cita- 
 tion in St. Matthew y Jerome (q) was of the 
 fame opinion with Origen ; that thofe words 
 were not taken from fome apocryphal piece 
 of Jeremiahy but from the genuine prophe- 
 cies of Zachariah, 
 
 4.) It deferves to be confidered, whether 
 the quoting, or referring to fome apocryphal 
 book, or the fuppoiition of fuch quotation 
 or reference, was not one reafon of fufpedt- 
 ing, or doubting of the genuinnefTe and au- 
 thority of feveral books of the New Tefla- 
 Z 4 mentj 
 
 (p) Paraphrafim hujus teftimonii, quafi Hebraeus ex He« 
 fcraeis, afiumit apoftolus Paulus de authenticis libris in epifto- 
 la quam Icribit ad Corinthios ; non verbum ex verbo reddens, 
 quod facere omnino contemnit ; fed fenfuum exprimens veri- 
 tatem, quibus utitur ad id quod voluerit roborandum. Unde 
 apocryphonim dcliramenta conticeant, quae ex occalione hujus 
 teftimonii ingeruntur ecclefus Chrifli. Hiercn. lib. ij. Comm. 
 in I/a, cap. Ixiv. 
 
 {q) Hoc tefumonium in Jeremia non invenitur. In Za- 
 charia vero, qui pene ultimus eft duodecim Prophetarum, quae- 
 -dam fimilitudo fcrtur. . . . Legi nuper in quodatn Hebraico 
 volumine, quod Nazarenae fedtae mihi Hebraeus obtub't, Jere- 
 miae apocryphum, in quo liaec ad verbum fcripta rcperi. Sed 
 tamen xnihi videtur magis de Zacharia fumptum teftimo- 
 nium : Evangeliltaruni et Apoiiolorum more vulgato, quiver- 
 borum ordine praetermiflb, fenfus tantum de Veteri Tefta- 
 mento proferunt in Exemplum. Ceww. lib. i-v. in Matth» 
 €ap. xxvii. 
 
O R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 ment j particularly the fecond Epiille of Pe- 
 ter^ the epiftle of Jude^ and likewife that to 
 the Hebrews. St, Jerome (pp) adually fay?, 
 that this was one reafon, why many in his 
 time rejed:ed the epiftle of Jude. 
 
 •15. In the long paffage formerly cited out 
 of On'gens letter to ylfricanus concerning the 
 hiflorie of Sufajina, Origen argues, that hi- 
 ftorie might have been dropped out of the 
 book of Daniel by fome of the Jews, as be- 
 ing diflionorable to their great Men : and 
 affirms (as was juft mentioned) that in the 
 New Teftament are references to fome 
 yewiJJj apocryphal book . He writes again 
 much to the fame purpofe in his Greek 
 Commentarjej upon St. Matthew. And it is 
 *^ related, fays (r) be^ that IJ'aiah was fawn 
 ^' afunder by the people. But if any one receive 
 
 " not 
 
 (pf) Judas, . . . parvam . . . epiftolam rejiquit. Et quia de 
 libro Enoch, qui apocryphus eft, in ea affumit teftimonium, a 
 plerifque rejicitur. De V. I. cap. iv. 
 
 ra i 'Ts^o'j'iilccnh isopiuv J'ia. ib sc to a.-7roxpv(pco HcraiA avrm 
 
 voti' kXiMSyi(Tav, i-7rpi<Srn(ruv, iTnipu^SrmAV to ydf* k'TTfiSimoiv, 
 k-Ti rlv UdoCicLv a\a'p^£\oi,f ccffTnp to, sv (p'ovro ixayai^d-i UTrk- 
 Bx.vov, ZTTi rev Zayccpiav aovevQivlct ustaP^ tS va.^ ;^ ■d^vo'icfsn-' 
 piK, «; fffeiTiip 'id Id y,i^i, lACCflvpcev, coi otiJ.oci, T'patpitj (/.m oifo- 
 
 fV ^Tfoupvaoii (pzfoiAv^. In Matth. p. 225. B. C, Huet. 
 
Heb. xi, 
 
 3; 
 
 Ch.XXXVIII. o R I G E N. 345 
 
 *' not this hiftorie, becaufe it is in the apo- A. D. 
 
 . 230. 
 ** cryphal Ifaiab, let him believe what is \«^-v>^ 
 
 " writen in the epiftle to the Hebrews^ They 
 
 *' isoere Jioned^ were fawn afimder^ were tempt- 
 
 *' ed. For that particular, they were fawn 
 
 *' afunder^ relates to Ifaiah: as that, they were 
 
 *' flain with the fword^ to Zacharias^ who 
 
 " . was flain between the temple and the altar : 
 
 *' as our Saviour has taught, referring;, as I 
 
 *' Ibppofe, to fome fcripture, not received in- 
 
 ** deed in the common and public books, but 
 
 " it is likely to be found among the apocry- 
 
 " phal." 
 
 Here i- no authority given to this book of 
 
 Ifatahy for he calls it apocryphal. Nor is he 
 
 certain, that our Saviour referred to fuch a 
 
 book. Nor does it appear, that Origen knew 
 
 of any apocryphal book, where that particular 
 
 concerning the placTe of Zachariai^ death was 
 
 Jo be found. 
 
 16. In the books againft Celfus. : *« And (s) 
 " in the Ads of the Apoftles Stephen makes 
 f' mention of the learning of Mo/^j, which he 
 
 "had 
 
 {.f) Mctflufii iPi T» hU>v!Tiai •zroKvf/.x.Siia. Iv rati 'Tff^a^iiji 
 
 <7so}\Xi,i i<p^ovii'o7uv y^!i(/.[jAruv KccQaV. x. A. Con. Celf. I. 3, 
 p. 139. Cant. p. 478. A. Bencd. 
 
tuie xiii, 
 
 34- 
 
 j^i??j ^'ii. 
 
 51.52. 
 
 346 O R I G E N. Book r. 
 
 ^- '^' " had learned from ancient writings, and 
 230. ° 
 
 'i>-v"\J " not generally known : And Mofes, fays he, 
 ^s vii. cc ^^^ learned in all the learning of the Egyp- 
 *« tiamr 
 
 17. In a homille upon St. Matthew^ which 
 we have in Latin^ Qrigen mentions again all 
 thefe things together : Our Saviour's iaying, 
 • that Jerufaletn had killed the prophets^ and 
 jioned them that 'were fent unto her^ though 
 (t) the hiftorie of thefe things is not con- 
 tained in the ancient fcriptures read in the 
 y^'Z£-'//Z) Synagogues: What Stephen {^.yz; Te 
 Jliff-neckedy and uncircumcifed in heart and 
 earSy ye do always refifi the Holy Ghoft : as 
 your fathers did^ fo do ye. Which of the pro- 
 phets have not your fathers perfecuted? and they 
 have /lain them^ whichjhewed be j ore of the coming 
 ofthejufi One ; What St. Taul writes, i ^heJJ'Xi. 
 14. 15. and again, 2 T/>;?. iii. 8. oi Jannes and 
 yambres withflanding Mofes : and the quota- 
 tion I Cor, ii. 9. And then adds : *' («) We 
 
 " have 
 
 {t) . . cum not! fatis talis prophetetur hifloria in fcripturis 
 veteribus, quae legebantur in fynagogis eorum. In Matth. 
 Tr. 26. 
 
 (a) Haec omnia diximus difcutientes fermonem : non igno- 
 rantes, quoniam multa fecretorum fafta funt a quibufdam impiis 
 ct iniquitatem in excelfum loquentibus : et utuntur quibufdam 
 
 iidi^ 
 
Ch.XXXVIIL o R I G E N. 347 
 
 *' have mentioned all thefe things by way A. D. 
 '* of argument. Neverthelefs we are not ig- ^ ^ 
 " norant, that many of the fecret [or, apocry^ 
 ** phal'\ books have been compofed by impi- 
 ** ous men. And the Hypythians ufe fome 
 *' forged writings, the followers of Bafdides 
 " others. We ought therefore to ufe caution, 
 " that we neither receive all the apocryphal 
 " books, which there are in the world ; be- 
 *' caufe of the Je^vs^ who perhaps have 
 " forged fome v/ritings, in order to over- 
 *' throw the credit of our fcriptures, and to 
 *' fupport errour ; nor rejedt all, which may 
 " tend to confirm our fcriptures. It is there- 
 ** fore becoming a great man to attend to and 
 ** fulfil that diredtion : Prove all things^ hold 
 ** fafi that which is good, Neverthelefs for 
 f' the fake of thofe who are not able, like 
 
 '' fkilful 
 
 ££lis Hypythiani, aliis autem qui funt Bafilidis. Oportet ergo 
 caute confiderare ut r.ec omnia fecreta quae feruntur in nomine 
 fanftorum fufcipiamus propter Judaeos, qui forte ad deftruftio- 
 nem veritatis fcripturarum noltrarum quaedam finxerunt con- 
 firmantes dogmata falfa, nee omnia abjiciamus quae pertinent 
 ad demonftrationem fcripturarum noltrarum. Magni ergo viri 
 ell audire, et adimplere quod difcum eft : Omnia probate, 
 quod bonum eft tenete. Tamen propter eos qui non poffunt 
 <juafi trapezitae inter verba difcernere, vera habeantur an 
 falfa, et non poflunt femetipfos caute fervare, ut verum quidem 
 teneant apud fe, ab omni autem fpecie mali abftineant, nemo 
 .debet uti ad confirmationem dogmatum libris qui funt extra 
 canonizatas fcripturas. In Matth. Traii, 26. p. 128. izg. 
 ^pm. z. Bafil. 
 
O R I G E N. Book I, 
 
 " ikllful money-changerSjtodidinguiihword?, 
 
 " whether they be true or falfe, nor to fe- 
 
 " cure themfelves from all impofition, fo as 
 
 " to hold flifl that which is good, and avoid 
 
 " every kind of evil, no man ought to allege 
 
 *• any books which are not in the cano- 
 
 " nical fcriptures for the confirmation of 
 
 <* dodrines." 
 
 1 8. In his Prologue to the Canticles, (if it 
 be On'gens, as (w) divers critics of no fmall 
 note fuppofe) tranflated by Ritfin^ Orige?i 
 writes to this purpofe : " This {x) however 
 *' is manifeft, that many paffages are cited 
 «' either by the Apoftles or the Evangelifts, and 
 " inferted in the New Teilament, which we 
 '* do not read in thcfe fcriptureg, [of the Jews] 
 *' which we account canonical, but are ne- 
 
 " verthelefs 
 
 (ac) Vid. Huet. Origenian. lib. 3, Sedl 3. n.vii. Fearfon. 
 Vind. Epiit. Ignat. P. i. cap. vii. p. 300. &c. ap. Cleric. Patr. 
 Apoft. 1698. Tillemont Mem. Ec. T. 3. P. 3. p. 234. 235. 
 
 {x) Illud t;.men palam eft, multa vel ab apoitolis, vel ab 
 evangelillis exempla effe prolata, et Novo Teftamento inferta, 
 quae in his fcripturis quas canonicas habemus, nunquam legi- 
 mus, in apocryphis tamen inveniunter, et evidenter ex illis 
 oftendunt'.ir affumpta. Sed nee iic quidem locus apocryphis 
 dandus eft : non enim tranfeundi funt limites, quos ixatuerunt 
 patres noftri. Potuit enim fieri, ut apoftoli vel evangeiiftae 
 ianfto fpiritu repleti fciverint quid aflumendum ex illis eflet 
 fcripturis, quidve refutandum : nobis autcm non eft abfque pe- 
 riculo aliquid tale praefumere, quibus non eft tanta fpiritus 
 abundantia. Prolog, infant. Cant, /. 501. Tom.i, Bajil. 
 
Ch.XXXVIIL o R I G E N. 349 
 
 " verthelefs found in apocryphal books, and A. D. 
 
 *' are evidently taken from thence. But nei- \^^^-i-Lj 
 
 " ther will this give authority to apocryphal 
 
 " writings : for the bounds, which our fa- 
 
 " thers have fixed, are not to be removed. 
 
 " And, poffibly the Apoftles and Evangelifts 
 
 '^ full of the Holy Gholl: might know, 
 
 " what fhould be taken out of thofe fcrip- 
 
 " tures, and what not. But we cannot with- 
 
 " out great danger prefume to ad: in that 
 
 '' manner, who have not fuch a meafure of 
 
 " the Spirit." 
 
 19. In the Greek commentaries upon St, 
 Matthew'^ Gofpel Origen has an argument 
 upon thofe words, Te do err, not knowing the ^^'-'^t*^- 
 fcriptiires, nor the power of God : where he ''''^""^°' 
 fays, " That perhaps (y) fome having recourfe 
 " to apocryphal books, in v/hich the happi- 
 " nefle of the future life is more clearly de- 
 " fcribed, will fay, that there is a reference 
 '' to them in thefe words, Te do err, not 
 
 " knowing 
 
 (y)^ Kxi Tf'n'^ cT' av tu Itti t«< aToxpi/jsj; y.xlapivyav Ao- 
 ynii fv^cx. S'oKii ff«9«s-fpoy ra T^tpi f/.Aita.fixi yiyfa^Qa.; ^Wf, 
 (fi'iijei, 2t' iKiiVovi 7nv a.vx(popol,v iivxi Tis<v kvravdx yiypAfj.yAvav 
 51/ r(o' -ZB-Aauac&s uii s/J^ot*? rati yoa-ZAC . . . s/Js i-'^i rii Airn' 
 Kpv(p\i{ Ka.\xpi\j^i\a.t, an stt/ oiJ.cXoyiifj.svo]) Tff^u.yiJ.x 'tsx^a to/ 5 
 'SFB-^iTiVKQfiv iKivffelsii. Comm. in Matth, p,/\()^. C. D. T.i. 
 Huet. 
 
25^ o R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 A. D. « k7i07vi?7g the fcriptures. But, fays he, they 
 yy-w^^ " who have recourfe to apocryphal books 
 " will take a method not approved by the 
 ** faithful." This therefore was not a me- 
 thod approved by the faithful, or catholic 
 ChriJiianSj but only, or chiefly at left by he- 
 retics. 
 
 'ARemarh. gQ. From thefe feveral palTages it appears, 
 that there was in Origens time a large num- 
 ber of yewiJJj fecret books, or apocryphal 
 books of the Old Teftament. Some of thefe 
 might be compofed by the Jews. Others of 
 them probably had been compofed, or rather 
 forged by Chrifiia?is : fome by catholics, fome 
 by heretics. The Nazarene Chrifiians might 
 be the authors of fome of them, but not of 
 all. It feems not unlikely, that one view 
 of the Chrifliam in forging thefe books was 
 to verify by clear pafl^iges fome things faid 
 in the New Teftament, which were not fo 
 found in the ancient fcriptures generally re- 
 ceived by the 'Jewi as canonical. Thefe paf- 
 fages juft cited from Origen give ground for 
 fuch a fufpicion. We adualiy faw formerly 
 one forgerie of this fort. For the Teftaments 
 of the xii Fatriarch may be reckoned a work 
 
 of 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. o Ri G E N. 351 
 
 of this kind, as appears from the extracts out A. D. 
 of it, and the remarks then made upon it^ '^•'^v^ 
 The colledion of Sibylline Oracles is another 
 like work. But I think it evident, that though 
 fome confiderable number of Chrijiiam v/ere 
 deceived about the age of thofe writings, none 
 efteemed them canonical, or of authority. And 
 in many of the paffages alleged above are 
 traces of the peculiar refpedt, which the C6r/- 
 fiiam had for thofe ancient Jewijh books, 
 which the Jews themfelves moft refpedied, 
 and efteemed canonical, and were writ in 
 the Hebrew tongue, 
 
 XXVI. I am now to make fome remarks. Remxrh 
 But they will chiefly concern the citations ofj^f^^yf^^ 
 ecclefiaftical and apocryphal writings of the cuaiiom, 
 Chriftians. And I apprehend, that it will ap- 
 pear from feveral confiderations, and from a 
 brief review of the whole which has been 
 here fet before the reader, that Origen did 
 not receive as facred fcripture, in the ftriifteft 
 and higheft fenfe of that charader, any books, 
 befide thofe we now receive under that cha- 
 rader and denomination. 
 
 ii. And 
 
352 o R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 1. And firft of all, this may be argued from 
 the catalogues of the books of fcripture foand 
 in Origeris works. One of thefe ought to 
 be reckoned that which we have in Eufebes 
 EcclefiafticalHiflorie, though colledted by him 
 cut of feveral of Origens works, Eufebe 
 there mentions not any books, befidc thofe in 
 our prefent Canon. Indeed he does not put 
 down all thefe, becaufe, probably, Origen did 
 not look upon every one of them as of un- 
 doubted authority. But if he had received 
 a great number of ecclefiaftical and apocry- 
 phal books as divine fcripture, Eufebe would 
 have been obliged to take fome notice of it. 
 The two other catalogues, tranfcribed above 
 from Origefi's Latin works, deferve likewife 
 fome confideration. For though we cannot 
 relye upon them, as exadly conformable to 
 the Greek originals : yet it is likely, that there 
 v/ould have been particular mention made of 
 feveral ecclefiaftical and apocryphal books, if 
 fuch had been accounted by him divine fcrip- 
 tures. 
 
 2. We have no knowledge or information, 
 that Origcfz wrote commentaries upon any 
 books now out of the canon : though it is cer- 
 tain 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. o R I G E n: 353 
 
 tain, he publKhed commentaries or homilies ^' ^• 
 * * 230. 
 
 upon all, or mod of thofe which are now ^^^v^-\ 
 efteemed canonical. 
 
 3. The many paflages we have alleged, 
 containing On'gen^s general divifions of the 
 books of Scripture, allure us, he received no 
 other as divine and facred in the highefl: fenfe, 
 but thofe we do. His expreffions fuit thefe, 
 and no other. I need not recoiled: them here. 
 The reader cannot but remember that com- 
 mon divifion, of Gofpeh and Apofiles : Some- 
 times he is more particular, and mentions, 
 Gofpeis, A5ts, Epiflles of Apojiks : Go/pels, 
 ApoJlleSy and their Revelation. The ecclelia- 
 flical and apocryphal books, fometimes cited 
 by him for the fake of illuftration, cannot be 
 comprehended in thefe divifions of facred 
 fcripiure which were of authority. 
 
 Mr. Richardfon fpeaking of this matter, 
 and particularly of the Shepherd of Hermas, 
 the piece cited by Ortgen more frequently, 
 and fometimes with greater marks of refped: 
 than any other ecclefiaftical writing, fays: {z) 
 " We find Origen feveral times diftinguifhing 
 " the books of the New Teftament into the 
 A a *' wrinngs 
 
 (2) Mr. Richard/on : Canon of the Ngvj lejl-ament 'vindi- 
 cated, f.^o. 
 
Matth. 
 xiii. 47. 
 
 O R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 " writings of the Evangelifti and Jpojlks. 
 " Now it is certain, that the Pallor of Her- 
 " mas can be reduced to neither of thefe 
 " heads, and therefore in the judgment of 
 *' Origen was not canonical.** This obferva- 
 tion is eafily, and rightly applied to all the 
 writings of this kind. 
 
 I fliall add here another palTige, not yet 
 tranfcribed, which likewife may be reckon- 
 ed full to our purpofe. It is in Origen^ 
 Greek commentaries upon St. Mattbeiv^ Gof- 
 pel, particularly thefe words: Again^ the 
 kingdom of heaven is like to a net that was 
 caft into the fea, and gathered of every kind. 
 Befide other things Origen here fays, " That 
 ** [a) the kingdom of heaven is compared 
 *' to a net of various texture, on account of 
 *' the feveral parts of the ancient and new 
 " fcripture : that the fea into which the net 
 
 *' is 
 
 h^,a T^v ^boci'uiv, Kala. Till' 'iZi'i^Aiyu.kvm s;c 'rra.vjoS'oiTiMV tti 
 /wo.xiAtjy vciiif/.ci.Tcou 'va?\U{e.i' x>j KciAvnv y^aow • • • aXiyj ji/poi< 
 ftV }^ £'?rz rSr vttc ry.v axyiivnv 7&v ypci(p^-f «A«At/6iT&)!'. Tm.i f/.ip 
 
 YMTcJL riJi ro pwlov, n h^sy.in, h AAt'idh' aXhui kxto. iuayyi- 
 hiKiiV, J^ T{v«? Kara aTio';o7 >.k{)v . . . Av7Y\ cfi ti <Ta.yiivt\ 'zs:po ts 
 «r»7?!p^ lifj-av JrcZ [XP'5"«] oAjj [xlv '?!r£:3-A»p<a//b!) in M, ''iKe.i- 
 <r« yc!^ Til vcyjy.i} ^d^ 'Ss^cq.'SiiKVi -utAok.?! ilTTuiV . . . . Kj 'srgTrXH- 
 
 J'tdL TfeC e<'3"or6At>y Aoyi'ti- Comm. in Matth. /•215. E. z\t>. 
 A. B. C. Huct. 
 
Ch.XXXVlIL O R I G E N. 
 
 ** is cafl: is the whole world, and that fome 
 ** men are taken by one part of the net, fome 
 *' by another : fome by the words of IJaiah^ 
 ** or Jeremiah^ or Daniel: fome by the La we, 
 *' others by the Gofpels, others by the Apo- 
 ** ftles : and that this net was not compleatly 
 ** finiflied before the coming of oar Saviour 
 *' "Jefiis Chrijl. For he was wanting to the 
 " texture of the Lawe and the Prophets who 
 " faid : Think not^ that I am come to deftroy Matth.vi 
 *' the Lawe or the Prophets : I am not come to '^' 
 *' dejiroy^ but to fulfill. And the texture of the 
 ** net was compleated in the Gofpels and the 
 " wordsof C/'r//? [fpoken] by the Apoftles." 
 4. There is a pafTage of Origen^ which I 
 fliall put [b) in the margin, though fomewhat 
 obfcure : where he makes a great difference 
 between Apoflles and their Difciples, allow- 
 ing the Apoftles only to be the light of the 
 worlds after Chrijl^ and capable of enlighten- 
 ing others^ though their difciples ajfo had been 
 A a 2 enlight- 
 
 (fxoi Cy.uv f jU Tpoc&ju TftI;' auBpcoTTcov. To </*' avAAoycv aihwn }y u?-poti 
 V'7^o\a,y.Ccivoy.^v iivcLi -rsipi ruv vv/jL(pm iKKhtKrioiV,}^ t«< fjLctQttlaf 
 
 'i'/_Ov\a,i Of.ilOV (^Zi, h UTTO TK S£AJj9u'K KA/'s i'TTlillnjoV, 'iVO, CpuTl- 
 
 Cio(xi fy.t\ S'iJ^vmu'ii'iii 'TS'H^/HV h avjoii KajxtrKivatyctt <pcSj'oi' otov 
 TiuvAov [j.i.v }ij Ylkxpov ipui Ipvy-iv T« ko^im' tb? cTe rvyiv\a.i -vrcip^ 
 difjoli y.aQrilivoiJi.ivcev <pu\i^ouiv\ii fxh', « y.m (puTt^&ip erspK? S'u- 
 vaiAivai, 7ov n'o(TuoVi « Koffy.n 'pit'i gi aTor«A5/ ii<70iy- Comm. in 
 Job. f.z^. CD. 
 
O R I G E N- Book L 
 
 e}ilightened. I think it may be hence argued, 
 that Origen would fcarce receive any dod:rinal 
 and preceptive work as of authority, unlefs 
 it were dictated or writen by an Apoftle : 
 though he might well receive the hiftorical 
 writings of a companion of Apoftles, contain- 
 ing an account of their preaching : as he un- 
 doubtedly received the Gofpels of Mark and 
 Luke^ and the A(5ls of the /ipoflks, writ alfo 
 by the later of theie two. 
 
 Here it will be objeded, that Origen xt* 
 ceived the cpiille to the Hebrews^ though not 
 writ by an Apoille, which is inconuflent 
 with the jufl mentioned obfervation.. But I 
 do not perceive it to be fo. For Or;^f« always 
 quotes the epifile to the Hebrews as Paul's. 
 And in the paiTage preferved in Eufebe^ he 
 fays it had been handed down to his time by 
 the ancients, as PaiiPs : and though he fays, 
 the phrafe and compolition are not the Apo- 
 file's, he affirms, that the thoughts, or kn- 
 timents, are admirable^ afid Jiot inferior to the 
 acknowledged writings of the Apojile. Which 
 is enough to fliew, that he thought the Apo- 
 file's fentiments had been eXc;d:}y reprefented 
 by the writer or compofer of this epiftie, 
 whoever he was. OJurwife, it was impof- 
 
 fible. 
 
Ch.XXXVIir. O R I G E N. 
 
 fible, that the thoughts of this epiflle fliould 
 be equal tp thofe of the acknowledged wri- 
 tings of the Apoftle Paul According to this 
 opinion of Origen, the epiftle to the Hebrews 
 will be of the like authority with the Gofpels 
 Oi Mark and Luki\ who record the difcourfes 
 o^ChriJi, which they had heard and received 
 from Apoftles : or with the book of the A6ts 
 of the Apofllcs, where are difcourfes of Apo- 
 files in the ftile of the hiflorian St. Ltikc. 
 Juft fo Luke or Clement^ or whoever was the 
 writer of the epiftle to the Hebrews^ has there 
 recorded in his own phrafe and ftile the fenfe 
 or thoughts of the Apoftle PauL 
 
 However, there can be no ground to con- 
 clude from Orige?2S quotations of the Epi- 
 ftle to the Hebrews, that he would receive as 
 of authority the epiftle, or any other dodrinal 
 work of an apoftolical man : fince, whenever 
 he quotes that epiftle to prove any thing, he 
 always calls it Paul's. 
 
 ^. Origeji^ quotations of eccleftaftical and 
 apocryphal books, which I have tranfcribed 
 fo largely, ftiew he did not receive thofe, 
 books as fcripture. The citations of them 
 are few, in comparifon of the numerous paf- 
 fages taken out of the commonly received 
 -A a 3 bogks 
 
230 
 
 358 pRiGEN. BookL 
 
 A D. books of the New Tcftament. And ufually 
 thofe citations are accompanied with fome 
 expreffions, that (hew the books fiom whence 
 they are taken were not received by himfelf 
 or others as of authority. 
 
 6. The diftindion, which we lately (r) 
 obferved to be made by Origen of feveral forts 
 of books, fome ^^7?^//;;^', others Jprnious, others 
 c{ a /nixed naiuvej is of great ufe to fatisfy ii?, 
 that he did not efteem all books cited by him- 
 felf, or ufed and read by Chrijiians^ as of equal 
 authority: and that there were diffeient degrees 
 of refpedt due to fuch writings, according to 
 their feveral kinds. Nor can it be doubted, 
 that Origen paid a juft regard to writings fuit- 
 ably to their real charader. Another thing 
 which fliews the dillindiion made between 
 writings, and that there were fome of fuperior 
 authority to all others, fiom whence the 
 fbri/Ihrn doctrines were to be learned, is that 
 charader frequently ufed by him, of fcrip- 
 tures received ifi the churches as divine. 
 
 7. It is manifefl: from the whole flrain and 
 tenour of Origen s numerous works, and from 
 
 his 
 
 (r) See before in this chapter, numb. xxiv. 4. p. 3270 
 
Ch.XXXVm. ORIGEN. 359 
 
 his arguments upon any points that come be- ^ ^■ 
 fore him, and particularly from his defenfe of ^^/-^/vJ 
 the Chrifiian Reh'gion againft Celfiis^ that our 
 Gofpels, and the other books of our canon, 
 are the books, which Origen^ and all catho- 
 lic ChriftianSy relied upon. To give here one 
 proof: In anfwer to fome reflections of Ceifus 
 upon Chrijl\ difciples, whom he calls failors 
 and publicans, Origen having obf:rved, that 
 Matthew was a publican, and that yames and 
 yohriy the fons of Tjcbedee^ and Feter and 
 Andrew^ were fifhermen, adds:. " As (t) for 
 *' the reft of them, we have not learned what 
 " were the employments, by which they fub- 
 " fifted, before they became difciples of y^- 
 ** jmy Which (liews, that our Gofpels were 
 the only hiftories of Chrijl and his difciples 
 that were reckoned authentic : and that either 
 there were no other, pretending to give in- 
 formation about them : or, if there were any 
 fuch, they were quite difregarded, or at left 
 efteemed of no authority. 
 
 8. There is nothing extraordinarie or un- 
 
 reafonable in Origen s citations of books not 
 
 A a 4 in 
 
 (f) Tau /e Koi'TTOV » iJ.£[yMM}<.a.iJ.zv to. 'ipyx,, ohv -^rpo ti;; 
 L, i, p. 376. D. Tom. /. Bened. 
 
360 O R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 A. D- in the canon. If thofe books were ftill ex- 
 ^^^^^tant, we fhould flill now and then occafion- 
 ally make life of them. Sometimes we 
 fhould remark a tradition preferved in them, 
 without giving it more weight than it de- 
 ferved. Sometimes we fhould quote a pious, 
 or a beautiful faying in them. Sometimes 
 we might think proper to take notice of an 
 objcdtion, that might be formed from fome 
 things contained in them : And yet all the 
 while preferve that high and peculiar vene- 
 ration, which we now have for the books of 
 the prefent canon. The great number of 
 books publiflied in thofe early ages concern- 
 ing Chrift and his Apoftles, though they were 
 many of them mean and trifling, are an argu- 
 ment of the vaft extent and reputation of the 
 Chriftiafi dodrine. And fo long as there 
 were men of judgement in the world to di- 
 ftinguifh the real merit of books, and Chriji 
 tians were extremely cautious of receiving any 
 book or epiftle, as writ by an Apoflle, or an 
 a'poftolical man, without good evidence of it's 
 genuinefle j fuch compofitions were of fmall 
 confequence, and could do no great harm. 
 However being in themfelves of little value, 
 and not being much efleemed, mofl of them 
 
 have 
 
Ch.XXXVlII. ORIGIN, 
 have been entirely loft, except a few frag- 
 ments : whilft all the books of the New 
 Teftament, received from the begining, have 
 been carefully preferved, and irequt.rly co- 
 pied, becaufe of their real worth, raid the 
 great refpeft paid them by all Chriftians in 
 generah 
 
 XXVII. On'gen's works afford 2iffursLnce^e^^^'va' 
 of the integrity of our prefent copies of ihc^Readings. 
 New Teftament. And, as (d) Dr. M7/ fays, 
 if we had all his works remaining, who pub- 
 liftied Scholia, or Commentaries, or Homilies 
 upon almoft all the books of the Old and New 
 Teftament ; we ftiould have before us almoft 
 the whole text of the Bible, as it was read in 
 his time. Mr. Wetjtein {e) has (ince expref- 
 fed himfelf much after the fame manner, and 
 fays, if we now had Or'igen\ copie, or all 
 his works entire; we might exptd thence 
 better help for an exa(ft edition of the New 
 Teftament, than from all the Fathers befides. 
 
 There are in Origen feveral paftages, relating 
 particularly to the integrity or corruption of 
 the text of the New Teftament. And there 
 are in him divers readings different from ours. 
 
 It 
 
 {d) Mill. Proleg. »f. 672. 
 
 (e) Wetfiein. Froleg. cap. vi, p 66. 
 
362 b R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 ■A. D. It is fit my readers {hould have fome account 
 .^-v-^ of ^^^^^ matters. 
 
 I. Celfi^s charges the Cbriftiam with hav- 
 ing often defignedly ahered the text of the 
 Gofpels. Origen anfwers, " That (f) he did 
 " not know of any that had altered the text 
 ** of the Gofpel, except the followers of 
 ** Marciorii and ValentirmSy and perhaps oiLu- 
 *' canity Therefore the Catholics were in- 
 nocent of this charge. Nor were all here- 
 tics guilty in this refped:, lo far as Origen 
 knew. And I think, that from the ingenuity 
 of this anfwer it may be concluded, he fpoke 
 the truth according to the beft of his know- 
 ledge. 
 
 2. Matth. xix. 19. And thou Jhalt love thy 
 neighbour as thyfelf. Origen argues, that thefe 
 words were not originally here, becaufe this 
 precept is not found in the parallel places 
 of St. Mark's or St. Luke's Gofpels, [See 
 Mark X. ig. Lz^/t"^ xviii. 20.] and for fome 
 other reafons, which he there infifts upon. 
 But he does not feem able to fupport his 
 
 con- 
 
 AukcIm. Qon Celf. I, z. p. 77. Cant. p. 411. B. Bened, 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. O R I G E M. 
 
 .conjedure and reafonings by the authority 
 of any copie. He lias however tliefe words, 
 which it is proper for us to put down here 
 at length. " It (g) would be impious, /^ys 
 " /j^, to lufpedt this commandment, tboufi^Jt 
 " love thy neighbour as thyfclf^ to have beea 
 ** inferted, though not fpoken by ourfaviour 
 " to the rich man : if there were not many 
 ** differences in the copies q^ Matthew's and 
 ?' the other Gofpels. But indeed it is manifefl:, 
 ^* that there is a difference between copies, 
 " whatever it is owing to, whether to the 
 ?* neghgence of tranfcribers, or to the wicked 
 *' ralhneffe of ibmc in altering what is writen, 
 5' or to a hberty taken by fome of adding or 
 ^' leaving out fome things by the way of cor- 
 ?* region and emendation, as they apprehend." 
 Here feem to be hinted three feveral caufes 
 of various readings, or differences in the copies 
 of the Gofpels : The fir ft is the negligence 
 of tranfcribers, which is very likely to happen, 
 
 or 
 
 (g) Ka/ u yAv iJ.rt )0j Trsft e/.KKcov -TiroXKeyV J^/ocpancc hv -Tirpof aX- 
 hy)KO(. Tcoy ikv\iyfa.(puii, tb7s ■uavloc ra Kotra. MccrBaiov [j.h jvmS^eiy 
 
 TiX^cm r^iv, AycfTTWeii 7ov Tshnaiov ans »> tnxvTov, ivloAnv' 
 vvvi {Te J^iiAovWi 'zroXXti yiyovev « reov ci'v\ty^A(puv J^/cc-^opsi, hre 
 a^o paQu/JActf rivav ypctipkcov, hn oiTro ToA;WWf Tfocov fxo)(Siwa.i 
 rTii if'icpdacricoi tccv ypot,<poiJ.ivuv, An )y d-Tro tuv rd iocvioti 
 J^oKylx kv TH J^iopQcitret TsrpouQii^av »'; dipa.ip^i'ulav. Comm, in 
 Matth, /. 381. CD. T. i. Huet. 
 
o 
 
 64. O R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 ^- ^' or rather Is Impoffible to be entirely prevented. 
 
 230. * , •^ * 
 
 Vi^'V^^ The fecond is the wicked rafhntlTe of feme 
 men, who defignedly altered the Gofpels to 
 make them agreeable to their own particular 
 fentiments. This, we may luppole, was the 
 fault of a few only. For in the foregoing 
 pafTage Origeji afTured us, that he did not 
 know of any who had fo altered the Gofpels, 
 except fome of the heretics. In the third 
 place fome differences in the copies of the 
 fcriptures mighi be owing to the critics, who 
 took a liberty of leaving out fome things, 
 or adding others, and thus to correct or 
 amend fome readings in their copies, which 
 they thought to be wrong. And I think, that 
 Origen himfelf here a6ts the part of a critic, 
 though perhaps he did not eafily take the li- 
 berty to alter his copies. 
 
 We cannot deny the truth of what Origen 
 fays here fo poiitively, that there were then 
 many various readings in the copies of the 
 New Teftament. But perhaps he aggravates 
 a little, to carry a point, and fupport a bold 
 conjecture. However we may hence infer, 
 that thefe books were much efteemed, and 
 had been often tranfcribed before Origen^ 
 time : Otherwife there had not been fo many 
 
 dif- 
 
GkXXXVIIL o R I G E N. 365 
 
 differences in the copies of them. And as it A. D. 
 is a thing in itfclf highly probable, that dif- [y^^^ 
 ferences fliould happen in the copies of books 
 frequently tranfcribed ; fo it is no fmall fatif- 
 fadiion to find, that fuch differences were ta- 
 ken notice of. This would encreafe the care 
 and concern for the exa(5tneffe of the copies 
 of books fo much valued and reverenced as 
 thofe of the New Teftament. 
 
 3, We may place here as a general obfer- 
 vation of Origen relating to this matter what 
 he fays of the names of places: That (/j) 
 there were frequent errours of that fort in 
 the copies of the Gofpels, which were owing 
 to the ignorance of the Gentils in the geo- 
 graphic of the land of Judea. He gives two 
 inOances. John i. 28. ^hefe things ivere done 
 in Bethabara beyond Jordan, In (/) mod co- 
 pies in his time here was Bethanie. He ob- 
 ferves likewife, that this was an ancient read- 
 ing. Neverthelefs he prefers Bethabara for 
 divers reafons, which he there mentions. 
 
 4. He 
 
 {h) To f^ivloiyB ^(/.xflii^xi h rati kXhiWixoii dvliyfeLpoii ra 
 
 T0/5 iuatyyiKiof. Com. in Job. p. 131. B, Huet. 
 
 (. ' ^ 07* fj-iv ^iS'ov iv 'Tsra.ai roii uvjiypci^oti nslrcti' roLvrxlv 
 fbxna. kyki'ilo, 
 
 p. "30. D. E. 
 
3^6 o R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 ^' ^' 4. He fays likewife, that of the fwine (k) 
 v^-v-N^ which ran violently down a fleep place and 
 were choked in the Sea, it was writen 
 in fomes copies, that this was done in the 
 countrey of the Gerafens, in a few copies, in 
 the countrey of the Gadarens: but (/) Origen 
 is perfwaded, that the right name is Ger- 
 gefenes. He adds, that there were like errours 
 in the Greek copies of the Old Teftament. 
 But notwithftanding what Origen fays, there 
 does not appear fufiicient reafon for rejedling 
 Gadarens^ whatever becomes of Gerajhis, as 
 has-been fliewn by ** divers critics. There- 
 fore the readings in our prefent copies may be 
 all right J Gergefencs in Matthew^ and Gada-^ 
 rem in Mark and jMke. 
 
 Matth. 5. Matth.m.'^i, But feek ye firji the king-^ 
 
 *' ^^' dome of God and his right eoiifnejje^ and ah thefe 
 
 things pall be added unto ycu. Origen in his 
 
 treatife of Prayer, dlfcourling of the proper 
 
 matter 
 
 {k) See Matth. viii. 28. Mark v. i. Luke viii. 26. 
 
 (/) ' Avccy'iypxTilcci yiyovkvou \v tm P(^&pcfc rciv Tifct-ffWuH • . 
 Its/ S'i iv oXiyofi ivpoy.tv sk 7tiv ^ftjpav t«c Ta.i^apwav, )y 
 *!spoi r^To Xi-ATiov • . . AAAa Yif-ysaa., a(^^ i\c o( Vipyiautott 
 fa'oXti a^')(j>uot, 'uript rhv mv ;taA«//i«HV TiCifidS'a XifJivm, 'zirsfi 
 «v Kpufy.voi '^ocfocr/.ktuzvo'; tZ Xifj-vn, ap 'a (f'axvvlui T»f Kojpni 
 ik'TTo T<ac S'ottiJ.'ovuv KclotCiChJi^Oii. Ibid. />. 131. C.Di 
 
 ** Fid. Adr. Reland. Palaeft. III. p. 774. 8od. 807. 
 Wolf. Cur. Whitb, Wall, in Marc, v, I. 
 
CLXXXVIII. O R I G E N. 
 
 iratter of our petitjons, fsys : " Thefe (m) 
 *' are things we ought to pray for : j^Jk 
 " great things J andjmall things Jhall be added 
 " lifito you. And, Ajk hca^cciily things^ ajid 
 " earthly things jhall ke added unto yon. And, -^^^-^'^'^-v. 
 ** Fray for thofe that defpitefully ufeyou. And, ix. 38. 
 " Pray ye the Lord of the barvefty that he will 
 " fend jcrth laborers into his harveflT The 
 fame diredion concerning great and fmall 
 things, heavenly and earthly things, is al- 
 luded to again in the (n) treatife of Prayer, 
 and called an evangelical word : as alfo in the 
 (0) books again ft Celjiis, It is exprefsly put 
 again in the fragments of (p) Origen\ com- 
 mentaries upon the Pfalms : " It is a fmall 
 " matter to afk of God earthly things. Such 
 " a petition our Saviour forbids to be offered 
 
 ''to 
 
 [tn] To [i\v <^ri aiWiTi. 'vdi yayiXa,, XjTtz^/xpay^TvTrpors- 
 B!i<relxi' Zj. uilhrt to. iir^^iiviA, )d to. i-Triyeiet vyHv '::yfOiZ%r 
 oeloii. Kfiti •wpaeu^Ec&g Cyrip tuv im^fEA^ovluv vy.a.i. k. A. De 
 Orat. p. If)"]- jf. 198. yi. Tom. i. Bened. 
 
 T* i'riyb^a TerporiSsc&ai ^ fjuxfo.. p. 224. B. C. ibid. 
 
 io] E1J.C1M ycif tfVo 78 Ime y.t}J^i.u {j.ufov, TKTir/y a:e&«7aC. 
 ^j)]5v, uXXa i^'ovx ra (jciyuhoi ^ ctAnflftij -d-eSa. k. A. Con. Celf, 
 I. -vii. p. J z6. F. ibid. 
 
 (p)^fAyJi(x, <^i tsrAO-a ipavri « ^zpi_TaVi7riyiJejv J^ [/iKpav, )U 
 TA'TreiVuv J^.s^ocTv^, ^ culmti a.TTo Qta w'v UTToyopivcvv s^uTit^ 
 'srpoo'fspav to -arolpj !*,miv A/]rtTE 7a ixzyaXa., k] to. (xixpet 
 {/jiiv 'T^po^i^wilocf atliiTi TO. k'Trapavia,, )y to. iTriyax -trporfStj- 
 fftjoii vi/iv. Seled. in P/almos. p. 560. B. Tom. 2. Bened. 
 
O R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 to u'c Father, faying : AJk great things^ 
 and fmall things floall be added unto you t 
 A[k heavenly things^ and earthly things fiall 
 " be added unto you!' 
 
 Thefe vvOids are found eked in part by Cle~ 
 ment of Alexandria^ as was (s) obferved for- 
 merly : Ajk^ fays he, great things^ andfmaH 
 things fi all be added unto you, 
 
 Grabe (q) fuppofed, this citation might be 
 made out of the Gofpei according to the 
 Hebrews, Mill (r) thinks, thefe words were 
 in Origefi's copies, added to Matih.v'u 33. and 
 taken pofllbly from the Gofpei according to 
 the Hebrews^ or fome other apocryphal Gof- 
 pei. Fabricius is unwilling (s) to allow, that 
 Ori'ren made this citation out of the Gofpei 
 according to the Hebrews. He is rather in- 
 clined to think, that thefe words were in 
 Origens copies, having beep inferted there by 
 interpolation. Dr. H^all fays : that paflage (t) 
 feems to have been in lome old copies, though 
 it is in none now. Mr. Jones [u) fays, that 
 
 Cletnent 
 
 (s) Chap. 22. § xhii. Fol.z. p. 540. or 542. 
 {q) Spicileg. T. i. p. 44. 
 
 (r) Mtll. in he. Mattb. et Piolegom. «. 695. 
 [s) Cod. Jpocr. N. T. Tom.i. p.^z^. De Di£lli Chrlp, 
 nj'tii. 
 
 {t) Wall's Critical Notes upon the N. 1. p 8. 
 («) Jones, Vol.i. p-SSi' 
 
CLXXXVIII. o R I G £ n; 369 
 
 Clement, in the pallliffe under confideratioti, a. d. 
 refpe<5led the fenfe of Chrijfs, words, with- w^v^s/ 
 out precifely tranfcribing them ; that is, he 
 rather chofe to exooand the words, than 
 literally cite them. Hence alfo Origen^ fays 
 he, who was one of Ckmenfs fcholars, 
 does more than once in his works paraphrafe 
 thefe words of Chriji in the fame manner. 
 Such are the fentiments of thefe learned wri- 
 ters. It is not fit to be pofitive in a thing of 
 this nature. But I do not fee, but Mr. yones^ 
 opinion may be reckoned as probable, and as 
 near the truth, as any. Then this palTage 
 is no various reading : however I thought fit 
 to take notice of it in this place, and give 
 fuch an account of the ufe Origen has 
 made of it, that every one may judge for 
 himfelf. 
 
 6. Matth. X. 29. j^?7d me of them fi:allMatth.-^\ 
 not fall to the ground. Origen read : Falf^^ 
 (w) into the fare. So likewife (x) Chry- 
 fojiom : and, as Dr. (y) Mill fays, the Clemen- 
 tin Homilies : but I cannot find the place. 
 That learned man however thinks, that the 
 B b ground^ 
 
 [nv] YlOU ya.^ cTl/O ^^M^'lM' • . £V \li iTHOLyi^CX, i 'Z?lVJ(ri rf'fU TS 
 
 iv ifocvoii T^ccl/oi. Con. Celf. I. 8. p. 794. F. "lom, i. Betted, 
 [^x) In Matth. X. Horn. 35. 
 (y) Mill. Prol. num. 670. 
 
^jO d R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 A. D. ground^ or the earth, is the true reading, and 
 ^^•sr^fii^r^ an interpretation. I take this to be a 
 kind of proverbial expreffion. It might be 
 fometimes faid to the ground^ at other times 
 into thefnare, Poflibly the true reading is as 
 Mill fuppofes. Ncverthelefs it was very na- 
 tural for fome in citing this text to exprefs it 
 after the other form, into the fnare. There 
 are frequent comparifons in fcripture to this 
 ordinarie event, of catching a bird in a fnare : 
 as Ff, cxxiv. 7. Frov. vii. 23. Eccl. ix. 12. 
 I put down one place, where both the fnare 
 and the earth are mentioned, ^moi iii. 5. 
 Can a bird Jail into a fnare on the earthy where 
 no gin is for him ? 
 Matth. rj^ Matth. xix, 24. It is eafier for a camel 
 to go through the eye of a needle , than for a 
 rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. 
 See alfo Mark x. 25. Luke xviii. 26. Some 
 have thought, that inftead of camel ^^^ (hould 
 read cable. Origen (zj plainly read camel, 
 fpeaking of the animal fo called, and defcrib- 
 
 ing it. 
 
 8. Matth. 
 
 Ai) fjiiv 'ziXicioe 'uu^a.Ca.XKild.! KetiMiX^, « tf'su to aaddocflotf 
 Ts ([oiH ix'opov, uc v'Q[xoi kJ'iJ^et^sv, oixXa xj rw oXtiy aurZ jko' 
 A/6T»i]a. Comm. in Matth. p. 387. E. 388. A. Huet. vid. it 
 con, Celf. I. 6. /. 642. A. B. Bexed. 
 
 XIX. 24. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. o R I G E N. 371 
 
 8. Matth.xxv,2'i. l^hou hajl been faithful a. D. 
 over a few things, I will make thee ruler over ^^r^ 
 many thitigs. Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord. ^"^'^^ 
 Compare Luke xix. 17. Origen in his books 
 again ft Celfus {a) has thefe words : ** To 
 
 *' whom it may be faid : 'Thou haft been faith- 
 " ful in a fmall city^ enter thou into a great 
 " oner I apprehend here is no proof, that 
 {V) this was in any Gofpel. It may be only an 
 expreffion, reprefenting the fenfe of feveral 
 places in the Gofpels. 
 
 9. Markvu^, h not this the carpenter ^yiarl\ 
 the fon of Marie . . . ? Celfus (c) had refledl- 
 
 ed upon our Saviour, calling him a carpenter 
 by trade. Origen fays, *' That (d) never thelefs 
 ** fefus himfelf is never called a carpenter in 
 ** any of the Gofpels ufed in the churches." 
 It is not ealie to determine, what [e) was the 
 reafon of Origen^ faying this: whether his 
 memorie failed him, or whether in his copies 
 B b 2 of 
 
 (a) rifo? ?f kiyotto h' h i\it)(l?'V 'ttoKu Tsi^oi lyiva, ma^ 
 i^} rriv fJisyaXm' Con. Celf. /. 8. f. 798. B. 
 
 {h) Utcunque njzd. Mill. Froleg. n. 695. 696. 
 
 (c) '^H £T£? riiQuv r!v rriv Tiyvm' Con. Celf. I. 6. /. 299,' 
 Cant. ^.659. D. Bened. 
 
 {a) 'A\ha )^ » ^XiTrav, on it^oifxa rccv Iv Txii InxKimai^ 
 ^epoiAvav Ivccyyihiav 7iKluvivroi Itxiag dva.yiypA'/joii. Ibid. 
 
 {e) Vid. Grot. Annot. ad Matth. xiii. 5 5 , Spencer, in locum 
 Origenisy. Mill. Pre I. 698. 
 
372 o R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 A. D. of St. Mark's Gofpel this place was, Is not this 
 
 yy^sr^^the carpenter s fo?2? as in Matth. xiii. ^^, 
 
 which poflibly might be only an alteration 
 
 made in St. Mark's Gofpel by foine perfon 
 
 out of refpedt to Chri/l. 
 
 Lukexi. 10. The moft confiderable variation from 
 our copies of the New Teftament which I 
 have obferved in Origen is in the Lord's 
 prayer, as recorded in St. Luke's Gofpel. In 
 his treatife of prayer he has given us diftindl- 
 ly this prayer from Matthew and Luke. The 
 prayer in Matthew is very litde different frcm 
 our prefent copies. Therefore I need not 
 put it down. That in Luke being very differ- 
 ent, I fl^iall tranfcribe it here at length. Says 
 Origen: *' The (f) words in Luke are thus: 
 " Father^ hallowed be thy name: thy kingdom 
 *' come : give us day by day our daily bread : 
 " and for give us our fins ^ for we ourfelves alfo 
 ** j or give every one that is indebted unto us : 
 " and lead us not into tefnptation!' 
 
 Here Origen omits Our^ and who art in 
 heaven. And from his particular explication 
 
 of 
 
 (f) T^ (/'i Ax-jia. trcoi : TlaTip, ayioi^nrco ro %wifj.a ch, sA- 
 ^(Apav, }y k(pii ri/^jv rdi aixafl'i'X.i ri[j.Zv, )y ya.p avrU a(piifMV 
 Orig. de Or at. p. 22 j. A. Tom, i, Be»ed. 
 
230. 
 
 Ch.XXXVJir. O R I G E N. l,Jl 
 
 of that part of the prayer afterwards it ap- A- ^' 
 pears (g) again, that Father only was In Luke : 
 Neverthelefs (hj Mill fuppofed, that thofe 
 words, oury and u-ho art in heaven, were in 
 Origen\ copies of St. Luke\ Gofpel. This 
 mirtake has been already obfcrved by (/) the 
 learned author of the Notes upon Origen's 
 treatife of Prayer publiihed by Mr. Readings 
 which ought to be confulted. 
 
 Origen afterwards fays exprefsly, that St. 
 Luke [k) omits thefe words, Thy will be done^ 
 as in heaven fo on earth. He obferves the dif- 
 ference (/) between the two Evangelifts in that 
 which is generally called the fourth petition : 
 and fays likewife, that (rn) Deliver in from 
 evil is omitted by St. Luke. So that we have 
 from Origen a moft diflindl account how this 
 prayer was read in his time in both Evan^ 
 gelifts. 
 
 B b 3 The 
 
 (g) El fJ.ivTOl Von(TaifJii\i 71 ^5"/ 7 0, 0TXl"apQaiv)(i1,^i, Xiyzjtt 
 
 'jsraTfp, oTTip 'srcn.pai 7Z A>iX.^ yiypctTrloci. Ilf.p.z^i. A. 
 
 (h) Vid. Mill, in Lucae locum, et Proleg. n. 419. 
 
 (/) Vid. Ori'g. de Oratione, p. 95. not. 4. p. 108. not. 4. ex 
 edit. Gul. Reading, et p. gig. D. E. gzo. C. Tom. i. Bened. 
 
 (^) Tzm^iWa To -S-eAn/zct (Xs, cyj h npocvoii }y iTti yiii. o Ahko.^ 
 fj.ila. TO. 'E?\(ji7av ^cL<ri\itA(rH, ravjoc 'actpa.o'la'Trriira.i, iTOi^i 
 TQV ciplov- K. A. p. 240. C. Bened. 
 
 (/) P.z^i. C. ^^^ . ^ , „, 
 
 {m) To cTs, ahXa. pvaxi Yi^JMiu/rrh tb 'sr^raps, -sr^^pa tw Asxct 
 ffi<rKk)7ni}cn p. 256. Ci'id. et p. 265. J. 
 
374- o R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 A. D. The text of St. Luke in the Latin vuleat 
 230. 
 \^^ (agrees with Origen throughout, And (n) 
 
 St. Augujlin has informed us, that in his co- 
 pies of St, huUe were wanting thefe words ; 
 'Thy will be done^ as in heaven^ fo in earth 5 
 and, But deliver us from evil. He likewife 
 makes judicious remarks upon the various 
 readings, as in St. ljuke. However {0) Whitby 
 defends our prefent reading in that Gofpel. 
 
 Matth. Origen has taken no notice at all of the 
 doxologie, which we now have in our copies 
 of St. Matthew's Gofpel. Whether it was 
 originally there, or a part of the prayer deli- 
 vered by our Lord, is difputed (p) by learned 
 men. But no one that I know of has con- 
 fidered this matter more fully and accuratly 
 than {q) Mr. Hallett, 
 
 ■Isik xxiii. 1 1 . Luke xxiii.43 . And y ejus /aid unto him : 
 Verily J fay unto thee^ ^0 day thou fhalt be 
 
 with 
 
 \n) Evangelifta vero Lucas in Oratione Dominica petitiones 
 jnon fepten}, fed quinque complexus eft. . . . Oilendens ergo 
 Lucas tertiam petitionem duarum fuperiorum effe quodammodp 
 yepetitionern, magis earn praetermittendo fecit intelligi. De- 
 inde tres alias adjungit, de pane quotidiano, dc remiffione pec- 
 catorum, de tentatione vitanda. At vero quod ille in ultimo po- 
 fuit, fed libera nos a ma!o, ifte non pofuit, ut intelligeremug 
 ad illud fuperius quod de tentatione didum pit, pertinere, 
 Jivguft. Ench, ad Laur. cap. u6. 
 
 \p) U hitb. Exam. 'var. le£l. Mill. p. 51. 
 
 (/)) Vid. Mill ad Matth. cap. 'vi. 13 et in Prolegomenis, 
 
 (f) 5"^^ Mr, Halleti''i Notes and Di/cour/es, Vol. i. p. 1 3 Jo, 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. o R I G E N, 375 
 
 with me in paradife. Origen obferves, *' That A- ^• 
 ** (r) this faying has fo difturbed fome people, o^vXJ 
 " as appearing to them abfurd, that they have 
 " ventured to fufpeil that it has been added 
 " by fome that corrupt the Gofpels : To day 
 " jhalt thou be with me in the paradife of 
 " God.'* Here we may obferve two things; 
 firft, that On^^« read, in the paradife of God, 
 for fo he writes this text feveral times. Se- 
 condly, it may be concluded from whatOn- 
 gen fays, that thefe words were in all copies : 
 and that they who objeded againfl them, had 
 no copie to allege in fupport of their fufpicion, 
 but only the abfurdity of the thing itfelf in 
 their opinion. For that is all that Origen 
 mentions. 
 
 12. John vii. 39. For the Holy Ghoft was not John y\\; 
 yet [given] becaufe that Jefus was not yet gio~ 
 rifled. Origen reads : For [s) the Spirit was 
 
 not yet, 
 
 13. I Cor. ix. 10. That he that ploweth^ 
 fhouldplow in hope : and that he that threfheth in 
 
 B b 4 hope^ 
 
 hT(t) J^ikrapoc^i, rivoti cci iavutpavov ro npny.kwv, u;iro\iJ.ii(T«n 
 
 dvTo TO" <rri[y.ifov [J.ir i^JZ ka-i) h tZ <7za.pj.S'<iiaoi r^ Qia. Comnt, 
 in Johan. p. /^Zl. D Huet. 
 
 jfoh. /.4ii. B. 
 
I Cor. ix 
 
 *9- 
 
 376 O R I G E N. Eookl. 
 
 A. D. hope, Jhotild be partaker of his hope. Origen reads 
 the later part of the verfe thus : And (t) that 
 he that threjheth [fhould threfh] in hope of par- 
 taking : or, and he that thre/I^eth, i?2 hope of par- 
 taking : which is alfo the reading (z/) of the A- 
 kxa?2drian-j^nd feveral other Manuicripts. "And 
 {oCoIinaeiis had puUiihed this text in his edition 
 of the New Teftament. And I do not fee, but 
 this may be the true reading. I am fatisfied our 
 prefent common reading is wrong, which we 
 have from Robert Stephe?is, I fhould think, 
 jt muft appear ftrange and abfurd to every one 
 that looks upon the Greek, 
 
 % 'thejj.v, J 4. I 'T^hefj'. V. 21. Praw all things-^ hold 
 '^* fafi that which is good. 22. Abftain from all 
 appearance of eviL Here I propofe to tran- 
 fcribe feveral paflagcs of Origen^ in order to 
 judge, whether he read this place of the Apo- 
 llle differently from us. 
 
 I.) In the Greek commentaries upon St: 
 JAatthew^ Qofpel (72;) Origen has thefe words : 
 ^^ Put whether we perceive the fitnefTe and 
 
 *' excel- 
 
 (t) %.eti tfAo«y, £t' iX'TTiJ'! TB lAB7^Xi'V^ Con- Cel/. 1. 4, 
 /). 197. Cant. p. 54.1. D. Bened. 
 iu) fid. Mill, in he. 
 
 
 ^i'ffC.VToiii'f'iii tsroJ'Wps. Com, in Matth. f. ^85. C. liui{^ 
 
(C 
 
 Ch.XXXVIII. O R I G E N. 
 
 *' excellence of this law, or not; in the firft 
 " place God will fee it, and his Chriji, and 
 *' then he who according to the fcripture is 
 " called a fkilful money-changer, who knows 
 " how to prove all things, and to hold fajl 
 ** that which is good, and to abjlain from all 
 * * appearance of evil!* 
 
 2.) I'd the Greek commentaries upon St. 
 fohri'^ (x) Gofpel: ** and obferving the com- 
 mand ot fefus, which fays : Be ye fkilful 
 ** money- changers-, and the dodrine of P^z//, 
 " who fays : Prove all things, holdfaji that 
 *^ which is good, abjiainjrom all appearance of 
 '' eviir 
 
 3.) In a Latin homilie upon Exodus: " But 
 *^ (jy) as the Apoflle fays, proving all things ^ 
 ** holding J^f that which is good. 
 
 4.) Again, in -Ci Latin homilie upon Leviticus, 
 ** Hear (2;) the Prophet faying : Tour fiver 
 
 is 
 
 (x) . . }^ r\/\^y.v\cov T«f \v7oXm I()(Tk XiywoiV Aoki/mi rpcfTrs- 
 
 In jo. p. 268. E. 
 
 (y) Nee . . convenit nos tumere fuperbia, et fpernere verba 
 prudentium, fed ficut Apoftoius dicit: Omnia probantes, quod 
 bonum ejl tenentes . .. in Exod. Horn. xi. Tom. 2. p.iji. B. 
 Bened. 
 
 (z) Audi Prophetam dicentem : Argentum vejirum reprohum. 
 Quia ergo eft qu-edam proba, quaedam vero reproba, propte* 
 rea Aportolus, velut adprobabiles trapezltas, probanfes, inquit, 
 tmnia, quod bonum eji obtinentes . In Levit. Horn. 3. p. 199^ 
 
O R I G E N. Bookt. 
 
 " is reprobate, [referring io If A. 22, ov Jer. vi. 
 <* 30.] And becaufe fome money is good, 
 *' other bad, therefore the Apoftle fays as to 
 '* ikiltul money-changers : proving allthingSt 
 ** Jjolding fa ft that which is good." 
 
 5.) Origen refers, or alludes to this faying 
 in leveral other places. But I think I need 
 not put down any more here at length. It may 
 be proper however to obferve, before we pro- 
 ceed any farther, that this fame thing is men- 
 tioned by Clement of Alexandria {a) as fcrip- 
 ture. In the Clementin Homilies it {b) is called 
 a faying of Chriji, By St. Jerome likewife (c) 
 it is afcribed to our Saviour. And by the he- 
 retic yipelks (d) in Epiphanius it is cited as 
 from the Gofpel. And in a like manner fome 
 (e) other ancient writers, particularly Chry^ 
 
 foftom, 
 
 (a) V.iKoT»i oftL ^ M ypxiph ret'TVi riveti «//S< J'la.XiKliKHf 
 $Ta( kQiXwoc yiviiidn 'nrocpctivit' Tivii^i cTe J^'okiiaoi rpaTri^lirar 
 ra fj.iv dLTToS'Q i(xal9)l\ii, ro <S"i kaKoV Ko.rkxoi'l'ii- Clem.Str. l. i. 
 f. J54. A Conf. Str. it. p. 365. B.l. vi. p. 655. B. et vii. 
 
 t 754- ^-^' , , _, , . .^ 
 
 (b) ^vX'oyeoi oAt^atXKdi^oi tiixtcv i\iyiv' Tivb^£ TpetTrtC^trM 
 i'oH.it/.ot. Clem.Hom.it §51. njid.et Hom.iii. § 50. xxviii. \ 20. 
 
 (f) ... Sciat me illud Apoiloli libenter audire : Omnia pro- 
 hate, quod honum eji terete : et Salvatoris verba, dicentis : Ejlote 
 frobati nuMKiularii. Hieron. Ep. 152. ad Miner 'vium et Alex. 
 Conf. eund. in Ep. ad Ephef. v. 10. 
 
 Tpx-^i^Hiat Epiph. Haer. 42. § //. 
 
 [e] Kelt ya.§ J^ta. TtTo, <pn7t, yivi^s ifATri^irxi <foi(.t{jLOt, «>£ 
 W STX i7]i dyofAi i^mii Tu dfyVftA ««pj0/xnTS, «AAs« "tva Ttff 
 
Ch.XXXVIIL O R I G E N. 
 
 foftom. But (f) Dionyjtus of Alexandria, 
 and (g) other writers cite this, as an apofto- 
 lical faying, and feem to have read it toge- 
 ther with thofe other diredions of St. Paul 
 in his firft epiftle to the Theffaloniam, So- 
 crates, the ecclefiaflical hiftorian, mentions it 
 (b) as the precept both of Cbrifi and his 
 Apoflle, according as fome underftand him. 
 But I think he ought to be reckoned with 
 thofe who feem to afcribe it to Chrift, as does 
 (i) Fabricius. I fhall add no more authors 
 at prefent. Cotelerius (k) and (/j Fabricius 
 have large colled:ions of places of the 
 
 ancients, 
 
 TlZvXof (pmf 'nrcivloc J^oKi{y.oi.(^eje, to xaXov S'i xaTep^sJi ij-'ovom. 
 Chryfofi. in Sermone, cur in Pentecojie Aila Apoji legantur, 
 p. 942. D, 'Tom. <v, Ut efficiamur fecundum praecepti'm Do- 
 mini probabiles trapezitae, CaJJian. Collat.i. 20. 
 
 (f) A'TToJ^i^aum ro opct//«, <yf a,7roTo\'.KT^ (pavA a-vvj pi-)^ov tm 
 7i.iyi(Xif -arpof 7"»? J^vvctlcoTipni Tivs^iJ^oKiixoi rpxTiQTai. ap, 
 Eufeb. I. 7. cap. 'vii. p. 253. C. 
 
 (g) Tot^Tov T/ 3^ y.otx.ei.piQ'; UauXoi (pmt Tm&e /ppw/fy.ai 
 rpATsCjiTOii, 'sruujct J^oKi/xaC^di, TO KizXov yccri^ils^ utto ■rsavjof 
 liAf -Jsrorapa d'TTiX''^-' Cyrill. Alex, ad if Hi. 3 ~Qm z.p.t^S, 
 E. Fid. eund. Lib. 4. ad Job. 'vii. 12. Tom. 4 ^,497, A. 
 tt adv Nejior. I. i. 'Tom. 6. p. 2. C Ab his vero qui Ori- 
 genis libros legunt, iftud penitus exclufum putant efl> manda- 
 tum, quo probabiles jubentur effe trapezit-.^e, i'cientes quod bo- 
 num eit retinere, ab omni fpecie mala fe abftinere. Pc.mphil. 
 Apolog. pro Origene init. 
 
 {h) AAAsJt 7e 'srapzyyvuiTiv rif/tv 0, re Xpt^o( k^ t«t» aTro' 
 ToKoi, yii'tiSrxi 'ziFpa.TrQ'roct J^o- ///o.s firs ret T^avloi. J'o ifjia^t.v. To 
 Kethov y.a.rk-)^ou\a.i k. A. Socrat Ec H. Z..3. cap. 16. p. 189. 5, 
 
 (?) Cod. Apocr. N. T. Tom. i. p 331. 
 
 (k) Coteler. ad Ap. Cotiji lib. ii. cap. 36. 
 
 [D Fabric. Cod, Apocr. Nov, Teji. Tom. i. p. 300. 6*^* 
 
O R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 ancients, where this faying is quoted, or al- 
 luded to. 
 
 6.) The judgements of learned men concern-, 
 ing this precept are different. Abp. JJJher 
 thought it {m) was taken out of the Gofpel 
 according to the Hebrews : whofe opinion is 
 approved by (;z) Valefius^ and ((?) Huet. Cote- 
 lerius delivers his judgement in this manner: 
 That (p) this faying v^^as received by oral tra- 
 dition,or from fome apocryphal writing of good 
 note, as a divine oracle of the New Tefta- 
 ment : Be ye Jkilful money-changers. Where- 
 upon fome one put It in the margin of his 
 copie at Matth. xxv. 27. and Lukexxx, 23. 
 Another thought proper to place it as a mar- 
 ginal note at the fide of a like text of the 
 Apoftle. I'TleJI. V. 2 1. And perhaps a third put 
 it down in the margin of all rhefe three places. 
 He fufpe(5ts likewife, that it might be writ by 
 fome one over againft i yohn'iv. 1. From 
 thence in time thefe fpurious words were in- 
 ferted in the facred context : and afterwards 
 were quoted as words of fcripture, of ChriJI, 
 and the Gofpel: or of the Apoftle^ and Faul, 
 So Cote lerius, 
 
 Croim 
 
 (m) UJfer. Prolegom. in Ignat. Ep. cap. 8. § 'vii. 
 («) Valef. Annot. in Euf. l.njii. p. 142. B. 
 {0) Huet. Not. in Otig. /». 114. 1 15, 
 (/>} Coteler. ut fupra. 
 
CLXXXVIIL o R I G E N. 381 
 
 Croius (q) and (r) Suicer think, we ought A. d. 
 not to fuppofe, that this precept or faying r/v^ 
 was read any where exadly in thefe word : 
 but that it was formed, or colleded out of 
 the parable of the talents Matth. xxv. or 
 Luke xix, 
 
 7.) I would now deliver my own opinion, 
 if it may be of any value. In the firft pbce, 
 I think it plain, that Origen had not this fay- 
 ing in his copies of the firfb epiftle to the Tkef-- 
 fdlonians. For, he calls it ChrijV^, and cites th^ 
 two verfe in that epiftle as we have thenu I 
 take this alfo to be very clear concerning St. 
 Chryfojlom, and feveral other authors, that they 
 had not this faying in any of Paul's epiftlcs. 
 Secondly J I am not fatisfied, that this diredti- 
 on was read as text in any part of the Nev/ 
 Teftament, either the G^fpels or the Epiftles, 
 Or, if indeed it was inferted in any copies, 
 I think they were very few. My reafons are 
 thefe. (i.) It appears from divers paflages 
 
 (^) Exiftimat Croius [Obferv. in N. T. cap. 2S.] verba 
 haec non a.vjohi^ii a Patribus Chrilto tribui, fed e parabola de 
 talentis, quae nabecur Matth. cap. xxv. et Luc. cap. xix. 
 Sententiam fuiffe colJeftam a Patribus et conflatam, Huef Not. 
 ad Origen. p. 114. Vid. ioc. Crgii citatum a Suicgro, T/jejaur, 
 Ec. V, TfctTn^hnf. 
 
 .(r) Fid. Suicer. Mid. 
 
382 ORIGEN. Book L 
 
 A. D. of Origen (s) and other ancient Chrijiian wri- 
 v^v>^ ^^^s, that it was very common to compare 
 truth and falfhood to good and bad coins : , 
 and accordingly in recommending enquirie 
 and examination, the trying or difcerning of 
 fpirits, the (/) ftudie of the fcriptures, a love 
 of truth, and a care not to be deceived by 
 the fpecious appearances of erroneous opi- 
 nions and their abettors, it was very natural 
 to advife men to adl like good money-chan- 
 gers or bankers. Sometimes the advantages, 
 or talents vouchfafed men by providence are 
 compared {u) to good coin, and the right em- 
 
 provement 
 
 [/.alx rhijiy^vlct) '^soia, ^iv atto 0£k, '5ro7* cTg rt^rM>i6Ta eaiTK. 
 Orig.in Matth. Tom. 1 2. p. 265. De Huet. Multi enim venient in 
 nomine meo dicentes. Ego Aim Chriftus, et multos feducent. Ve- 
 re enim qui implet illud mandatum quod ait : Eftote prudentes 
 cummularii : et illud quod ait : Omnia probate, quod bonum 
 eft tenete : ab omni fpecie mala abftinete vos : multos videbit 
 feduci a multis intelleftibus et verbis profitentibus effe fe Chriilum 
 Dei Verbum. Id. TraSI. 27. in Matth. p. 132. in. Bajil. 
 
 (/) Unde cmnis ftudio kgendae nobis fcripturae funt, et in 
 lege Domini meditandum die ac nofte : ut probati trapezitae, 
 fcicimus quis nummus probus fit, quis adulter. Hieron. in 
 Ep. ad Ephef. cap. iv. njer. 3 i . 
 
 (a) Siclus pecuniae dominicae nomen eft, et in multis fcrip- 
 turarum locis, diverfis appellationum nominibus pecuniadomini- 
 ca memoratur. Sed quaedam bona, quaedam vero reproba 
 dicitur. Proba erat ilia pecunia, quam paterfamilias peregre 
 profedurus, vocatis fervis fuis dedit unicuique fecundum virtu- 
 tem fuam. Proba erat et iHa pecunia, quae denarius nomina' 
 tur, qui cum mercenariis pa6lus eft, et a novifiimis datus eft 
 ufque ad primos. [V^id. Matth. xxv. 14. ... 30. et Matth.xx. 
 1. . . 16.3 Orig. in Levit. Horn. 3.^. 198. f. Tom, 2. Btntd. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. O R I G E N. 
 
 provement of them called adllng {w) the part 
 of a good banker. The fcripture lead them 
 to thefe fmiilitudes, and they appear to have 
 borrowed or emproved them thence, Moror 
 over Origen fays, that God (x) may be called 
 a banker, on account of his difcerning be- 
 tween good and bad, and trying the reins and 
 the heart. St. Jerome (y) fays, it is difficult 
 for us to fulfil the part of a good money- 
 changer in judging of the virtues of men. 
 It is poffible, that this comparifon might be 
 in ufe before the writing of the books of the 
 New Teftament, and before the preaching of 
 Chriji and his Apoftles, Fabricius (z) has 
 
 adually 
 
 {"ju) Verbi gratia, cum docet Paulus, et afiiftunt ei auditores, 
 Paulus eft qui pecuniam foenerat dominicam, auditores auiem 
 funt qui ex ore ejus pecuniam verbi fufcipiunt foeneratam Et 
 11 quidem juftus fit qui fufcipiat ab eo pecuniam, reddet inte- 
 grum foenus etdicet: Quinque minas mibidedifti, ecceacquifivi 
 alias quinque , . . Ecce et nunc vos omnes quibus haec loquor, 
 pecuniam accipitis foeneratam verba mea ; haec j,ecunia Do- 
 mini eft. Aut fi dubitas, audi prophetam dicentem, quia e/o» 
 quia Domini eioquia cajia^ argent utn i^ne probatum terrae pur- 
 gatum feptuplum , Pf. xii. 6. Si ergo ma'e doceo, pecunia mea re- 
 proLa eft, . . Si autem bene doceo, pecunia vcl aroeotum ncn eft 
 meum, ita Domini eft, et prcbatum eft. 0,ig, Select, in 
 Ffalm. p. 669 h. C. Tom. 2, Bencd. vid. et.quae fequuntur. 
 
 ^^^■IV, IvAirui i)VO[JLA(TU, TfOiTTBQrm J^iKJ-t;]) jy uS'lKSOV. In 
 
 jerem. Hom.xix. p. 197. E. Hunt 
 
 (y) QH's putas e nobis probandis numifmatibus ca!l:dus 
 trapezita, non errabit in difcretione faaftorum ? Hieron. in Ep, 
 ad Philem. ver. 5. 
 
 (2:) Eodem fimili utitur Philo Judjeus Jibro de judice, pi 
 557. 'O (f^im^av iififiv Kei^JiTTifafyvfoyAiCo^^yotQif, S'txifi.^a 
 
 X(t| 
 
384 O R I G E N. BookL 
 
 A. D. adlually alleged two examples from ancient 
 J^l°-'.j writings. It is an excellent precept, and ap- 
 plicable on many occafions: Be ye Jkilful 
 moneychangers. Whenever the comparifon 
 was put into this form, it would be much 
 ufed, efpecially by Chrifiians \ it being fo 
 faitable to the nature of the Chrifitan religion : 
 and fo becoming Chrifiimu of all ranks to put 
 the precept in pradife ; it being alfo of fo 
 great importance to them to diflinguifli be- 
 tween truth and errour 3 finally, it being not 
 only fo agreeable to divers parables in the 
 Gofpels, but likewife to numerous cautions 
 and diredions of (t) Chri/i^ as well as to that 
 of Paul to the Thejfalonians, and in other 
 epiftles. (2.) If this diredion was any where 
 in the text of the New Teliament, it was as 
 likely to be in the firft epiftle to the Thejfalo- 
 
 niam 
 
 y.xi Jtocy^fiviTa rai (pvaet? rav <7!rfcx,yp.a.reov. Cehes in Tabula : 
 /^la. 7«To TO J'a.i/j.oviov Kihivn [xri d-uvfia^iiV o, rt av -^rp^V?*) ivln), 
 (juiS'i yiyviiSroci o/zoiK? to7? xukoH rfo.'Tn^'iTcHi- Kai ya.§ ixeiuot 
 orav /j.iv hiCccai to apyiptov 'mupa. rcov dvQpaTrcov, yajfuffi, Jtj 
 icT/oc vo//.J^BO-/v iivocl. Fabric. Cod. Jp. N.T. /. 331. 
 
 (t) To this purpofe may be reckoned the following things : 
 Be'vjare of falfe prophets, Matth. vii. 15. . . 20. See lil-c-wife 
 chap.xxiv. 23.. .26. and the parallel places in other Gofpels. 
 Of difcerning the times. Matth. xvi. begining, and in other 
 Gofpels. Search the Scriptures. John v. 39. If 1 do not the 
 njcorks offny Father, belie^je me not- But if I do, though ye 
 believe not me, belie-ve the rxjorks, ch. x. 36. 37. and the faying : 
 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear : and many other 
 things, 'befide the parables, Matth. xx. xxv. Luke xix. 
 
ch.xxxviir. o Ri G E N. 385 
 
 nians^ as any where. But that it was not there, a. d. 
 I think to be very plain from Origen, St. Je^ , 
 rome, and St. ChryfoJIom : not to mention now 
 Socrates^ or others, who call this a command 
 of Chri/i^ Therefore they who mention this 
 as a precept of the Apoftle, or of Paul, do 
 not intend to quote it as a text of Pauly but 
 only reprefent in thefe words the fenfe of that 
 text, prove all things , or other directions in the 
 Apoftle's epiftles. Confequently, it is likewife 
 probable, that the other writers, who call this 
 a command of Chriji^ Or of the Gofpel^ only 
 intend in thefe words to reprefent the fenfe 
 of divers things taught by Chrijl in the Go- 
 fpels. We have a plain inftance of this me- 
 thod in one of the paflages before cited from 
 Origen. For though, this command^ be ye 
 Jkilful money-changers^ was not in his copies 
 of the epiftle to the Thejfaiomans, as is moft 
 evid&nt ; yet he obferves, that the Apoftlefays^ 
 as to Jkilful money-changer Sy proviitg all things y 
 holding fafl that which is good. And I think, 
 that John Cajfian, who fpeaks of it as a pre- 
 cept of the Lord and of the Gofpel, does iq 
 one (a) place reprefent it as a leffon taught 
 C c us 
 
 (a) Quomodo ergo acquiri debeat, cupimus nobis exponi, 
 aat quemadmodum utrum vera et ex Deo, anfalfa etdiabolica 
 
 fit. 
 
386 6 R I G E N. BookL 
 
 ^' ^- us by the fenfe and defign of the parable of 
 v^ij^the talents. So Fi^or of Capua faaj fuppofcs 
 Patil to have direded us to be good money- 
 changers, when he faid ; Prove all things, 
 holdfaji that which is good; plainly afcribing 
 thefe laft words only to St. Paul, and putting 
 the fenfe and defign of them into that precept ; 
 Be ye good money-changers^ as did Origen in 
 the place juft cited from him. (3.) This di- 
 rection is not now in any Greek cople of the 
 New Teftament, nor in any verfion, that I 
 know of. Therefore it never was a part of the 
 text of the New Teftament. For if it had, it 
 could not have been loft. If this command had 
 been mentioned but once or twice in all anti- 
 quity, this argument perhaps might be of 
 little weight. But fince it is found very fre- 
 quently in the writings of ancient Chrijiian 
 authors, in feveral centuries, I think this ar- 
 gument unanfwerable. A faying fo often* men- 
 tioned, and by fo many writers, could not 
 
 have 
 
 fit, pofiit agnofci, ut fecundum illam evangelicam, quam fupe» 
 riore tradtatu differuifti parabolam, qua jubemur fieri probabiles 
 trapezitae, numifmati impreffam veri regis imaginem pervi- 
 dentes, deprehendere valeamusy &c. CaJJian. Collat. ii. cap. 9. 
 
 {^aa) — precantes, ut nos in veritate fcripturarum fuarum 
 
 erudire dignetur, et difcretionis gratiam tribuat, quatenus, ut 
 
 optimi trapezitae, omnia probemus, fecundum Paulum, et quae 
 
 • fmt bona fedtemur. ViB. Praef, in Tatian, al. Ammon, Harm, 
 
 Bib. Patr. T. 3. /, 266. E. 
 
Ch.XXXVIIi. OR I GEN. 387 
 
 have been loft out of all the copies of the ^- ^' 
 New Teftament, if ever it had been there. I < — -^-^ 
 fuppofe, thefeconfiderations may be of ufe to 
 confirm the fentiment of Croius and Suicer, 
 
 I c. I ^im. iii. 16. j^nd without conf rover fie ^ 'TVw.Hi. 
 
 16 
 great is the myjlerie of godlinejfe : God was 
 
 manijeft in the fleJJoy .... received up into glo. 
 
 rie. It has been difputed, whether the true 
 
 reading of this text is, God was manifefi^ or 
 
 ■which, or wioo was manifeft. In Origen are 
 
 thefe words : " But [b) if my fefus be faid to 
 
 " be received up into glorie, I perceive the 
 
 " reafon of it ; that God, Avho wrought this, 
 
 " appointed him mafter to thofe who faw it.'* 
 
 When one reads this place, there arifes feme 
 
 fufpicion, that Origen read "Jefus, or Chriji^ 
 
 where we now have God. I cannot tell, 
 
 whether it will not be allowed me therefore to 
 
 put the queftion, whether iwovi, jf^fa^i or 
 
 xp/r(^, Chrijl, writ in a contracted manner, 
 
 has not been read ©2<^, God : which * might 
 
 occalion this laft to be fo common a reading 
 
 in our prefent manufcript copies. This re- 
 
 C c 2 markable 
 
 tkt' mpyrKTOLi yzvk^ai Qt'ot, Con. Celf. I. 3. p. 467. C, 
 
 * See before, Vol. i. p. 291c or 293. a <^otatior) fron» 
 the Epiftle to Dtognaui. 
 
388 ORIGEN. Book L 
 
 ■A. D. rnarkable quotation, or reference to i Tim. iii. 
 '\J'Y\3 ^^' ^^ "°^ placed in the Lidex of texts of 
 fcriptures by the Benedidfin Editor of Origen» 
 I think it (hould not have been omitted, efpe- 
 cially confidering how rarely this text has 
 been quoted by the ancient Chrijiian writers : 
 which is particularly taken notice of by [c] 
 Mill, though I do not fee that he himfelf 
 had obferved this citation of it in Origen, 
 
 1 John V. 16. We do not find in Origen the difputed 
 '^' ' text of St. John*^ firft epiftle concerning the 
 heavenly witnefTes. It feems probable, that he 
 did not know of it. Having quoted Matth. iii. 
 1 1, yohn vi. 53. Luke xii. 50. he adds : '* And 
 *< [d) agreeably hereto his difciple John writes 
 *' in his epiftle, of the Spirit , the water, and the 
 " blood: ihefe three are made one.'* 
 
 ARemark. jy. It ought to be obferved, that every dif- 
 ference of Origen's citations from our copies 
 ought not to be reckoned a various reading ; 
 becaufe, as Huet (e) fays, Origen often trufts 
 his memorie, and writes in hafte, without con- 
 
 fulting 
 
 (c) ViJ. Milt. In notts ad i Tim. iii. 1 6. 
 
 {d) Tira S'i avfJLtpKveo? \v th STiro^w [ActQuTtif Jaoivvm 7a 
 trsvivixa., >y ro liS'eo^, xj to «///« aviypA-^ey rei Tfia, iish ym~ 
 tAiva,. Com. in Job. p. 133. D. Huet. 
 
 (*) Huet. in notts p. 61, 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. O R I G E N. 
 
 fulting the text, and for that reafon quotes 
 differently from himfelf. I {hall give an in- 
 flance, which perhaps will be allowed to be to 
 thepurpofe. Our prefent reading of G^/. iv. 
 2 1 . is : Te that dejire to be under the lawe^ do 
 ye not hear the lawef In the books againft 
 CfJ CelfiiSj Origen twice cites this place thus : 
 Te that read the lawe, do ye not hear the lawe ? 
 But in a Greek fragment of the books of (^^^ 
 Principles he ufes, and argues upon the com- 
 mon reading. Either therefore Origen\ copies 
 differed, and he ufed at different times differ- 
 ent readings: or, in one place he quoted by 
 memorie, and in the other exadly : which I 
 take to be the cafe here, and that his reading 
 was the fame as ours : and that when he faid, 
 Te that read the lawe, he depended upon his 
 memorie, and quoted wrong. 
 
 XXVIII. I muft now put down fome ofExpiUa- 
 Origen s explications of fcripture. JcrLtLe, 
 
 C c 3 1. He 
 
 (f) Aiyili f^ot 0/ rh vo/jlov auccfiVuiTKovlei toZ' vo{aov hi dn^EJe. 
 Con. Celf. I. z. p. 388. D. et lib. 4. ^ 537. D. Bened, 
 
 (^ hkyil'i l/.Oi, ©J-OiV, It Ctto v'ofjLOV ■^'i^ovjii ilVOil, ToV v'oiJiOV 
 
 xK, uicisli ; yiypATrlini ya^ . . . TlcLpOijiipiiTiou yaf ixtxTou rau 
 eipilfJ-ivuv Ctt' etu/B" OTt (fmtv, 01 Ctto v'o/j.ov 'd-'iAovlsi XtVCCl, oVVf 
 of Ctto tov v'oi/ov ovjti- x. 7- A. De Pri/i. I. iv. p. 171. Tom, 2, 
 Bened. et Philoc.p. lo. Cantabr. 
 
390 o R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 ^'^' I. He treats thofe as heretics {h) who al-. 
 
 v^'V^ legorife the hiftorie of Chri/i's miracles of 
 MatthAv. healing difeafes, as if nothing elfe was meant 
 ^?* but healing the foul, when it is faid, that ye^ 
 fus healed all manner of Jicknejfey and all man- 
 ner of difeafe, 
 
 2. Origen himfelf believes, that the ^£"^0- 
 Tiiacs mentioned in the Gofpcls were difturbed 
 by an evil fpirit. But (/) he fays, that Phy- 
 ficians endeavored to account for thofe cafes 
 in a natural way j not allowing the agence of 
 any impure fpirit, but calling them bodily di- 
 ftempers. 
 
 3. He fays, many unhappy people are calU 
 ed (k) lunatics ; but he (/) thinks, that their 
 
 diftem- 
 
 (Jp) Kos* [MKi^ot, ravlx 'srpo(r«;tT£oi' to/? IrspoJ^o^o/f, X^'?^^^ 
 Toiii rtAAiifspja/j, ^ avsiyy.at tuv 'srfpi 7mv ]cifficov l^'ofiuv stt/ 7a,( 
 
 //otAa>cja<. Comm. in Job. p. 308. A. Huet. 
 
 (z) IcLT^oi ij.h (fv<xiGhoyki\oj<xa.v, o.ri /j.nS'icix.aOa.flov 'Tffpivy.x 
 %vo(.i voi/i^oi^B'; Kara lov roTrov, a.KKd acofJ-oliV-ov <7U(y.'7rjci)iJ.at 
 iLj (fva^oKoyv^ii ra. vyfa Ksyi,7a(Xtx,v y.tve.aia.1. ra iv KefpasAji, 
 xctTct 71VCI cv ly.'TTci.Qeiiu.v T«v 'zrpci to (Ti.KmiOix.ov (fcoi, Cyfav kyttV 
 q,vfftl'' iiiJiiii cP^i K. A Cofft- in Matth. p. ^w . A. 
 
 {k) Zitrnac'jfji.iv 'srpoTspov tstZ; aiXwii^i^Ai \iyna.i Ctto 
 T.voi <77))iv[J.di\Qi dxoiQdflii, J9 K60(pi, )^ dkoAa <xxoTiy.ii>0{, :^ 
 ^ctlciCccK?,Qy.ivoi, X. X. Ibtd. p. ^11. J. 
 
 (/) To ditdQoif.OV T«TO 'TSF'JiVjJ.CC iTS-ilyifil TlVcti ^fJLCclK/y.y.iTni 
 
 'I'ov THf aiXimi ^iiixa,lifffjLov tso'^h^ t«< avapcoTTHi, rm airia.it 
 sf'o^)) TB thA/;cbtb Kif'tii, fyJi To aAaXov >Cj Kccipov XxixCaueiv J'lXl'^ 
 f^'^vsti's ctAAa y-^-yoci Iv ifam (pus'h' k. A- /. 3 1 1. C. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. o R I G E N. 391 
 
 diftempers are not owing to the moon, but ^- ^* 
 that evil fpirits having obferved it's changes, u^^^^ 
 infiid thofe diftempers at certain times, the 
 better to deceive men, and induce them to 
 afcribe fuch diftempers to that great light 
 in the heaven, which are really caufed by 
 themfelves, 
 
 4. Origen {jji) feems to have thought, that-'^^^'-'^v-g. 
 there was really a legion of demons in the^o/^"^' 
 poor man at the tombs ; becaufe when Chrift 
 afked him what was his name, he anfwered 
 Legion. But I fhould think it had been ealie 
 for Origen to perceive, that this is flight au- 
 thority, upon which to build any docflrine ; 
 whether we fuppofe this man to have been 
 diftraded, or to have had in him one or more 
 demons. If the former, this is only the word 
 of a mad man : if the later, of a demon. 
 However, undoubtedly, it was likewife the 
 opinion of many fober and underftanding per- 
 fons at that time, that demons were the 
 C c 4 caufes 
 
 [m] ... redeat ad Evangelii auftoritatem, et inveniet ilium 
 qui in fepulchris habitabat daemonem patiens, cum interroga- 
 retur a Salvatore, quod tibi nomen ell, refpondiffe Legio : 
 Multa enim, inquit, daemonia fumus. Quid vero mirum vide- 
 tur, fi per fingula genera peccatorum ftnguli daemones afcri- 
 bantur, cum (criptum fit in uno homine integram fuiffe dae- 
 monum legionem. In libr. Jefit Horn. .w. /• 435. A. Tom. 2. 
 Bened. 
 
392 G R I G E N. Book I, 
 
 ■A- D. caufes of divers grievous and tormenting 
 
 S — V — ' difeafes. 
 
 There is a place In Origen, where he is fup- 
 pofed to fay by way of objection to fomewhat 
 beforementioned J that (x) it is not necef- 
 farie to take the fpeech of Rhodajor doBrine. 
 Huet fays, he (y) cannot conceive what fpeech 
 of Rhoda is here meant. But I apprehend, 
 that OrigCjii does not intend what Rhoda faid, 
 but what was faid to her, fpeaking of Peter 3 
 
 Ans jai. j^ ^'j j^i^ A?is'el I think the connection fhews 
 it to be very probable, that this is Orige'^'^ 
 meaning. If fo, this paffage is applicable to 
 the prefent fubjedt. Perhaps the BenediBin 
 Editor oiOriger2y when he comes to this place, 
 will fet it in a clearer light. They might 
 be common notions among the Jews in the 
 time of our Saviour and his Apof^les, that di- 
 vers grievous difeafes were caufed by demons, 
 and that every good man had a guardian angel : 
 but certainly vulgar opinions, though received 
 by fome good men, and recorded in fcripture 
 ^S their opinions, peed not to be taken for 
 
 undoubted 
 
 (at) ^O cTe 'sra^tra.fj.iv®^ o»V 'TFpoiifmctfj.tv ipnt^d, on ix. avay- 
 jc2/ov e/va/ J'oyfy.a rov tTh p'oS'i\i X'oyov. k. A. Comm. in Matth, 
 ^.333. A. Huet. Conf. p. 331. CD. 
 
 (y) Quamnam Rhodes orationem hie fignificat, non video. 
 jNam Aft. xii. non aliud ipfa dicit, quam flare Petrum ante 
 ^amant ; illi dicebant, Angelus ejus efl. Huet Not. p..8{^ 
 
230. 
 
 Ch.XXXVIIT. o R I G E N. 393 
 
 undoubted truths, or doctrines of revela- A.p. 
 tion. ' 
 
 5. Origen fuppofed like wife, that (2;) fome 
 people were pofTcfled and a(5ted by evil fpi- 
 rits from their childhood. However Optatus 
 of Africa, in the fourth ceniurie, is yet more 
 out of the way. For (a) he fuppofes, every 
 man that is born into this world to have an evil 
 fpirit, even though he be born of Chriftian 
 parents. But perhaps he ought to be under- 
 ftood figuratively. 
 
 xxn. iz. 
 
 6. By the wedding garment in the parable ^^^^^^^^ 
 Origen underflands a pious difpofition of mind, 
 ^nd a fuitable behaviour. " All [b) are to 
 ** be invited, fays ke, good and bad : but the 
 *' bad are not to continue fo, but changing 
 " their garments, and putting off the habit 
 ** unfuitable to the wedding folemnity, they 
 
 " muft 
 
 [%) Et e contrario parvuli licet, et pene laflentes malis re- 
 plentur fpiritibus, et in divinos atque hariolos infpirantur, in 
 tantum ut etiam Daemon Pythonicus quofdam a tenera aetate 
 poflideat. &c. De PrincipHs. L.t,. cap. Hi p. i^^. j^.Tom.t, 
 Bened. ex Verfione Hieronymi. vid. et ibid. Rufin. Vers. 
 
 [a) Nam neminem fugit, quod omnis homo qui nafcitur, 
 quamvis de parentibus Chriftianis nafcatur, fine fpiritu immun- 
 do effe non poffit, qiiem necefie fit ante falutare lavacrum, ab 
 homine excludi et feparari. Hoc exorcifmus operacur, per 
 quem fpiritus immundus depellitur, et in loca deferta fugatur. 
 Qptat. Lib. 4. § i;/. edit. Du Pin. 
 
 [b) Com. in Matth. p. 473. D. E. Uuet. 
 
394 o R I G E N. Book L 
 
 A. D. <« rnuft put on wedding garments, bowels of 
 t/>^/>j *' mercies, kindneffe, hu?nbleneffe of mind, meek" 
 Col. HI. <£ ^^g-^^ hng-fiiffering. For thefe are wedding 
 " garments. Therefore the King comes in 
 ** to fee the guefls, before the dinner he has 
 " prepared is fet before them. And . .find- 
 ** ing one of them who had been invited in- 
 ** deed, and had come at the invitation, but 
 ** had not reformed his manners, nor put on 
 " the wedding garment, he fays to him : 
 ** How camejl thou in hither, not having on 
 ** the wedding garmejit ?" To the hke pur- 
 S^ Rom. pQfg jj^ another place: " They (cj who 
 G«/. iii. " are baptifed into Chriji, put on Chriji^ 
 *^* ** that is, righteoufneffe and wifdom." St, 
 Aiiftin difcourfes largely upon this fubjed in 
 {d) two Sermons. He {e) fays, that the wed- 
 ding garment muft be fomething not com- 
 mon to good and bad : That it is not 
 Baptifm, nor the Eucharift, nor Faith, nor 
 Prophecie, nor Miracles, but (f) Charity^ 
 out cf a pure heart, and [out] of a good con- 
 
 fcience^ 
 
 (c) In Pfalm xxxiit. p. 651. D. Tom. 2. Bened. 
 
 (d) Augufi. Ser7!i. 9 . otg^. edBened. Tom. 'V. 
 
 (e) Quid eft veftis nuptialis ? Sine dubio aliquid eft quod 
 mali et boni commune non habent. Serm. 95. § 7. 
 
 (f) Finis autem praecepti eft, apoftolus dicit, caritas de 
 corde puro, et confcientia bona, et fide non fifta. Haec eft 
 veftis nuptialis. Ser, 90. § 6. Conf. eund. contr. Fanjium. 
 I. 19. c. 12. T.%. 
 
 \ Tim. 1. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. O R I G E N. 
 
 fcienc&i and of faith unfeigned. It will not dif- 
 pleafe any, if I add in the margin a reference 
 to a paffage (g) of St. Cjril of Alexandria to 
 the hke efFca;. 
 
 7. In a homllie, which we have now in 
 Latin only, Origen commenting upon Numb, 
 xxiii. 24. having cited John vi. 54. k^^. goes 
 on : " And indeed he who faid thefe things was 
 *' wounded for men, for hehimfelfwasi£;oa«^- 
 " edfor our tranfgrejjions, as Jfaiah fays. Bat ^- ^"i- 5- 
 ** {h) we are faid to drink the blood of Chrift 
 *' not * only fdcramentally, but alfo when we 
 " receive his words, in which is life, as he 
 " himfelf likewife fays : The words that 1J°^^» vi. 
 " fpeak unto you ^ they arefpirit, and they are 
 *' life. He therefore was wounded, whofe 
 " blood we drink, that is, we embrace the 
 ^* words of his dodtrine. But neverthelefs 
 
 " they . 
 
 (g) Cyrill. Horn. 24. p. 288. C. D. E. 7om. <v. P. ii. 
 
 \h) Bibere autem dicimur fanguinem Chrifti, non folumfa- 
 cramentorum ritu, fed et cum ibrmones ejus recipimus, in qui- 
 bus vita confiftit, ficut et ipfe dicit. . . Ell ergo ipfe vulneratus, 
 cujus nos fanguinem bibimus, id eft, doftrinae ejus verba fufci- 
 pimus. Sed et illi nihilominus vulnerati funt, qui nobis ver- 
 bum ejus praedicarunt. Ipforum enim, id eft, apoftolorum 
 ejus verba cum legimus, et vitam ex iis confequimur, vulne- 
 ratorum fanguinem bibimus. In Numeros Horn. 16, p. 334. 
 F.y^.T. 2. Betted. 
 
 * Upon this paffage of Ongen may be feen Dr. JVaterland^s 
 Re'vienv of the Dodrine of the Eucharifi, CJl. vi. p. 164. 
 ?^5' 
 
39^ 
 
 O R I G E N. Bookr. 
 
 A. D. « they alfo were wounded, who have preach- 
 ** ed to us his word. For when we read 
 *' their words, that is, the words of his Apo- 
 ** files, and obtain Hfe by them, we drink the 
 ** blood of the wounded^'' or of the Jlain. 
 
 230 
 
 Numh. 
 xxiii. 24. 
 
 John xiii. 8. He argues, that the precept, towaPjone 
 another 5 feet, ought (i) not to be underftood 
 literally. He fays likewife, that [k) it was for- 
 merly in ufe, but in his time it was pradifed 
 by very few, and thofe mean and ignorant 
 people. 
 
 Msxy. p. Origen (J) feems to underfland the de- 
 cree of the council at feriifalem, as binding 
 Gentil Chriftiam even in his ov^n time. He 
 {jn) mentions things facrifced to Idols , things 
 ftrii?2gled^ and blood. 
 
 10. In 
 
 rov ViiV iTTi Tov voilTou 7eov xcxTta Tau t'ottov, y.>i TS%piiyAvoii i^.iv 
 CKiJ.cciiy.r\v tsifi t» v'l'^l.a.^a.i rtiv aMhisQicav. k. A. Comm.. in 
 Job. p. 374. ^. Huet. ^ ^ ^ 
 
 [k] "OTTtp iQoi h » yivdcti, i) Hi v-^TspCoXiiv ff'TraviayTOiTa, Xj 
 'ea.pa kTh tsAvv ctxAarepoij iy dyfoiKorifoi^ yivilai. Ihid. 
 •p. 391. A. ruid. Huet. Not. p. 125. Vid. et Orig. in E/aiam 
 Horn, vi p. 564. 'Tom.i. Bajil. 
 
 (/) Cum tarn validis praeceptis cibus fanguinis interdicatur a 
 Deo, ut etiam nos qui ex gentibus vocati fumus, neceffario 
 jubeamur abftinere, ficut iis quae idolis immolantur, ita et a 
 fanguine. In Num. Horn. 16. p. 334. D Tom. 2. Bened. 
 
 (m) To ij.iv ya^ uJ'coXo^vtcov ^vsjcti J^ott/MVioii' . . .ra tf'i 
 
 Cont. Cdfl. 8. /).763. C. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. O R I G E N. 
 
 10. In a paffage before cited (v) Origen 
 intimated, that when Faul in his epiftles 
 fpeaks of hh Gofpely he means Luke's Go/pel. 
 But he feems to depart from that fcnfe ia 
 another place : " But, Jays ( « ) he, that 
 " the whole New Teftament is gofpel, 
 " may be argued from words of Paid, when 
 
 " he writes, according to my gofpel: for we ^o«. ".' 
 " have no writing of Faul, which is wont to xvi. 2C, 
 " be called a Gofpel. But whatever he preach- 
 " ed and faid was gofpel. And the things he 
 " preached and faid, thefe he alfo wrote: 
 ** Therefore the things writen by him are 
 ** gofpel. And if what Faul faid or wrote 
 *' is gofpel, confequently what Feter laid or 
 ** wrote is gofpel." 
 
 1 1. I Cor. XV. 7. After that he wasfeen of^ Cor. xv. 
 James, then of all the Apoftles.'] I fhall tran- ^' 
 fcribe a palTage, (hewing how Origen under- 
 wood this text. He fays, that Chriffs divinity, 
 
 after his refurredion, fhone brighter than 
 
 could 
 
 (v) See numb. iv. p. 235. 
 
 («) '^s-e« cTs 'Tirpoa-oiX&WAi arrb tZv Citto YiavXii \syoy.iveo» 
 «»-«p/ TK -sracTrtv T«y Kctmiv Xiveti ra Ivay^yiXioc, orav ■ars yfi<()n'' 
 KATA TO ivoi-yj'iXiov [/.n' kv y^ay-yMJi yaf JJavXa ix, ixofJ^'iV 
 kvxyykXiov avviiQeiX xAAifjLSVov. 'AAA* csrrtv iKYipvass id IhiyB 
 To ivocyykhiov m' a '^ kxnpvasz ;^ Ihzye, racvToc }y lypa(pi' )^ 
 « iypx^B ApA IvocyyiAiov iiv. 'Et cTe ta TTavAh kvoiyyi\tov m, 
 ttKohiiQoy \iyiiy, cT* ^ T« nixf a IvQiyyiMov m;. Covfrn. J0J3. 
 f, 6. C, D, 
 
O R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 could be feen by all : " which [o) however 
 " Cephas Peter might fee, as being the firft- 
 *' fruit of the Apoftles, and after him the 
 ** twelve, Matthias being added to them in 
 ** the room of Judas : after that he was feen 
 " of above five hundred brethren at once. 
 " After that he was feen of James^ then of 
 ** all the other befide the twelve Apoftles [or 
 *' rather, by all the other Apoftles befide the 
 1-sr. 8. " twelve,] meaning perhaps the feventy, and 
 *' la ft of all, of Paul, as of one born out of due 
 *' time.'* Compare ver. 5. 
 
 Fhil.n.6. 12. Or/^^« underflands thofe words of St. 
 Paul, which we have rendered, thought it not 
 robber ie to be equal with God, of Chrift's humi- 
 liation. For thus he writes: '' But (/>) we 
 " may be bold to fay, that the goodnefle of 
 " Chrift appeared greater and more divine, 
 ** and truly according to the image of the 
 " Father, when he humbled himfelf, being made 
 
 " obedient 
 
 {e) ''Hu TIVA KHQUi TLiTf)!^, aXTTipi'l A'TTdpyji Tuv dTro^oXun 
 
 TB<, cT^cTf;^* ctTToroABf [forte a.7ro<r'oXoii. njtd. not. Ed. BenediS.'] 
 *aa,<Ti, "ro-XA roii iCJ'oiJLriy.ovloi, 'ii7')(a]QV S'i iffoivlav Tluvho). x. 
 A. Con. Celf. I. 2. p. lOO. Cant- J). 436. B.C. Bened. 
 
 (p) To\{j.i)liov ya§ u-ttuv, TsrhAiovA, ^ -S-f/oIepstv, x) aKvt^ek 
 nxT kiKovoi TB 'Ts-AToi Ttiv tfT/siQoiTnJa aaivi^Ai t2 Xp;r«, o76 
 iocvTov iTocTriivafft.yiVoixiVoi VTrmeoi [Xiyjn -j-xmra d s rat* pK, » 
 €/ afTTAyiMV fiyr\(ja\o uvoa ^'kx<x, Qia, k^ /u« /3«A«0fe/j £tj t*i tb 
 kUi^h ff-cojnfteif ye/i^a.i sTaA©'. Comm. in. Jo. p. 34. £. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. o R I G E N. 399 
 
 ** obedient unto deaths even the death of the A. D. 
 
 230. 
 
 *« crojje^ than if he had affeBed [or, chofen] to o*-v^ 
 * * be like God, and had refufed to become a 
 ** fervant for the falvation of the world." 
 
 This pafiage is taken from the Greek com- 
 mentaries upon St. fohn^ and does moft plainly 
 fhew Origen^ intention. But it is alfo evident 
 from a palTage {q) in the books againft Celfiis^ 
 where this fame text is quoted, that he un- 
 derftood thefe words of Chriff^ humiliation. 
 This fenfe appears likewife in the Latin ver- 
 ilon of one of Ori gen's tradls, or homilies (r) 
 upon St. Matthew. It is well known, how 
 (i) Abp. Tillotfon underftood this text. Dr. 
 Wall's note [t) is thus, *' Who being in the form 
 ** of God, thought it not robberie to be equal 
 " with God: Who though he was of the di- 
 *' vine nature, yet did not in his converfation 
 " on earth claim, or infift upon it, to be 
 ** treated, dealt with, or fpoken to as God." 
 
 15. Among 
 
 [q) Con. Celf. I.'vi.p. 285. /«. Catif. /. 641. C. D. Tom.i. 
 Bened. 
 
 (r) Et dicet Patrem talia miranda dignare Filio fuo, qui fe 
 ipfum humlliavit, et propter dileftionem non rapinamarbi; 
 tratus eft efTe le aequalem Deo, &c. in Matth. Trad. JO, 
 />. 148. Tern. 2. BaJL 
 
 (s) Sertnon 44. Vol. i. Folio. 
 
 (/) Wall's Brief critical Notes upon the N, T. p.2jj^ 
 
O R I G E N. Book f. 
 
 13. Among the ancients (u) Jerofne, and 
 Efiui sfw J a.mong the moderns, underftand, St. 
 Paul to include himfelf in what is faid in thofe 
 words Tif, iii. 3. And Dr. Benfon (x) has lately 
 argued very ftrongly, that the Apoftle there 
 particularly reprefents his own cafe. I think, 
 it will appear, that Origen alfo applies the (y) 
 fame text to St. Paul, admitting only the 
 emendation of one word, which appears to me 
 probable. However I would not be too po- 
 fitive, till I fee, whether this conjedture be 
 confirmed by De la Rues edition, or by fome 
 manufcripts, which he has the fight of. Nor 
 do I adopt that interpretation. But as it is 
 well known, that Jerome often inferted in 
 his commentaries explications of divers more 
 ancient writers than himfelf, without naming 
 them, it is very pofilble, he might borrow 
 this from Origen, 
 
 General XXIX. Before I conclude this chapter, I 
 
 Objerva- * ' 
 
 tions upon would put dowH two or thtec general obfer- 
 tf*" vations 
 
 (a) TJieron. Com. in ep. ad Tit. 
 
 (qc) Ejlius in loc. 
 
 {x) See Dr. Benfon' s Paraphrafe and Notes upon St. Paul's Ep. 
 to Titus, in imitation of Mr. Locke'' s manner, p. 43. .45. 
 
 (y) ''OvTco cTe )y f^al^ rtv ^a.^ [lege -srat/Afi^] «^ avoyH^, 
 5^ aTTii^m, J'ahiveov iTri^y/iatf ^ ^S'ova'.f 'sroiKiKciii, . . .«(M«? 
 yiyovs 'zsrpaT®^, org h p^puroTWf, )y » (piKotvQpwTriet \'7Ti<pa.vr) tk 
 trw/Hf©^ w/z-wf 0€»j • • • Comm. in Matth. p. 397. C. Huet, 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. OR I GE H. 401 
 
 vations upon the fcriptiires of the New Tefla- A. D, 
 ment, which we find in this Icurned writer of ;^,^v>J 
 the third centurie. 
 
 1. In the books againft Celfus he (2:) fays, ^''^<^'^^p- 
 ** That Chriftians are induced to believe iht E^jange- 
 " writers of the Gofpels by obfcrving the evi- I^J^^.^ '" 
 *' dences of piety and probity that appear in 
 
 *' their writings : in which there is no deceit^ 
 " or artifice, or cunning, or defign." 
 
 2. Orige?t Was of opinion, that there are o<5/:«r//y 
 fome things obfcure and difiicalt in the^^/ 
 fcriptures : not only in the Old, but likewife 
 
 in the New Teftament. I have already al- 
 leged (w) a paffage to this purpofe from a 
 Latin homilie. We find the fame obferva- 
 tion in a Greek fragment of his books [a) of 
 D d Prin- 
 
 (z) Tii^ivouiv S'l ^ raui ':z-po:tipi<Ti7i tw^ ypadJ.vrav nx 
 
 <7rK(i.<j ykvm y^ 'Tffcinpyov s^ii/liiyu. Co>i. Celf. I. 3- /■ 473. A» 
 Tom. i. Bencd. 
 
 (w) S e Nnmh. xx. 7. p. 298, 
 
 {a) Kii Tj S'ii Kiyiiv 'Zfifi Tiov wpo^HlixS^u a; Wv7s; W/X£» 
 diviyuareov Hj a-/.olBivcov ■wSTAnpse^ai Koycov I xovj iTTi to. kvccy- 
 y'iXiM cT'i pOaViJ/y.ey, xay.ktvxv ■nanpiCui ra;, an Vii Xp/r«, S'zt- 
 
 IJ.iV. ■ . [l Cor. ii. 12. 13.] ^ra. a.-joH.ixaKvi^fJLV.'A'^i.TU luetwi) 
 TiiiiLuv avetyvii Ka]A-7rXa.yun rm i'7r'upv-\.'.v t^.>v a-;Topp{na>Ti 
 [jLV^i\p'iav . . . ; at S'i rZv a'TToToAcov iTnTohat tic/ tcov fixaavi^eiv 
 iTTt^ay.ivcov Aoynf J'o^aji-j av i.VM o'xzui >9 su^/fp^-f vo-'-fiiVKi i 
 ii. A. Philoc. cap, i. p. 8. Canf. De Prin. I. iv. p. 167. Bgned, 
 Loiif. On'g. p. 58. B.C. p. 39, B. C. 7om. i. Huct. 
 
(( 
 
 402 O R I G E N. Book L 
 
 A. D. Principles, where he fays, '' There are many 
 
 " difficulties in the fcriptures, not only in 
 
 " the prophetical writings, which all allow 
 
 *' to have many obfcure and enigmatical ex- 
 
 preiiions, but likewife in the Gofpels, and 
 
 in the Revelation of 'Johriy and the epiftles 
 
 of the Apoftlcs." This pclTage alfo ferves 
 
 to fliew in part what were the fcriptures, 
 
 which Origcn and other Chrijltam efteemed 
 
 divine, and of authority. 
 
 Stile of 3. In his books againfl Celfiis, Origen more 
 ' than once [b) fpeaks of the fimple and popu- 
 lar, or even low ftile of the writers of the 
 New Teflament, which however he affirms 
 to be moft for the general benefit of man- 
 kind. Particularly {c) he fays, " That the 
 " Jewifi Prophets, and the Difciples of Jefus 
 *' renounced all artful compofition of words, 
 1 Cor. i:. <c ^j^^^^ what the fcripture calls, 7J2an's wifdom, 
 Cor.\. '* and flejflAy wtfdomr In the Philocalia is a 
 fragment of Origens fourth Tome upon St. 
 Johns Gofpel, which is introduced, and be- 
 gins, 
 
 (o) Cof!. Celf. Lib. i-v. p. 210. Cant. /. 556. 557. Bened. 
 et Lib. vi init. 
 
 {c) 'Oi J'i. h laJ^Moii 'jrpo(p«Ta/, ^ 01 t« h<ri< fjoc^tijcil 01 
 liax-f'J-V %«'.'ff/v UTiiviBi 7j) ■T7T':4it'iK» 7Zv A»^?«i; avv^iuu, K. T- \. 
 Lo7il,Cclj: l.'Vii p. 372. Cant. p. 737. Bcncd. 
 
 2 
 12. 
 
Gh.XXXVJIL o R I G E N. 403 
 
 gins, as follows : " Then (d) after what he ^- ^• 
 * * had f aid of the- filed fm of the Gojpel^ [or, the v. — ^^ 
 ** Evangelift] he goes on : But the Apoftles be- 
 " ing fenfible of their imperfedion in this 
 " refpedt, and that they had not been educa- 
 " ted in human learning, own themfelves 
 *' rude infpeech, though not in knowledge. For 
 " thefe words are not to be understood of 
 " Paul only, but Hkewife of the reft of the 
 *' Apoftles : But though we be rude in fpeech,^/^°^' '^^^ 
 *' &c. and, But we have this treafure inzCorAw 
 " earthen veffels^ that the excellence of the power '^' 
 " may be of God, and not of us'' By this 
 means, he fays, the truth of the gofpel has 
 been rendered more confpicuous : Men have 
 not been allured into it by the elegance of 
 fpeech, but overcome by the mere force of 
 truth alone. 
 
 XXX. It appears to me worth the while to Whether 
 confider, whether Or/^^« thought St. Mi^t-)le^f^' 
 thews Gofpel was originally writ in Hebrew,'^'"*^ ^^ 
 We have {&zx\ three places, where Origen 
 fpeaks of this matter. In the paftage (x) 
 D d 2 cited 
 
 {d) EiTct, iinruv tIv t« ivxyyiXia (To'KoDt'.iryih, iTxyir ''A7g 
 
 id) ■wfp/ a. iix. n'^ohnvlat, (fxo^iv, k. A. Philoc, cap. i'v. p. 25. 
 Cant. Tom. 2. p. 86. Huet, 
 (x) Numb. iv. 
 
404 O R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 A. D. cited from Eiifebe he fays, that Matther deli^ 
 ^ ^^ 'uered his Gofpel to the Jewijh believers in the 
 Hebrew language. In the (y) fecond pafTage 
 he obferves, there was a tradition that Mat- 
 thew "wrote Jirfl^ and delivered his Gofpel to the 
 Hebreivs^ that is^ the believers of the circiim- 
 cijion. In the (z) third he fays, that Mat- 
 thew wrote for the Hebrews ^ who expelled him 
 that was to dejcend from Abraham and David' 
 Having thus reminded the reader of thefe 
 places, I would obferve fome other paflages 
 of Origen. 
 
 In his treatife of Prayer explaining the 
 fourth peti ion of the Lord's prayer he ob- 
 krves, " that [e) the Greek word, s^/aW, 
 *' whivh by us is rendered ^i^//y, is not ufed 
 *' by ary o^ the learned Greeks, Nor is it, 
 *' fay^ he, in ufe with the vulgar, but it feems- 
 «* to have been coined by the Evangelifls. 
 *' For both Matthew and Luke agree in ufing 
 " it without any difference. He goes on t^ 
 
 "fay, 
 
 (y) Nuvih, 'vii. 4. 
 (z) N. X'vii. p. 278. 
 
 ruv iAXfiVcov, are ro-v <TOip&:v cov'o/j.oi.^a.1. kT5 SI' 7ii /t/'i^Tfoi' ffvi'nQuA 
 TiTpi-rrjai, ah?C ioiiti '^i'TiXa.S; 0,1 vtto 7cov ivoc^y-iKi^cov- 2i/W)- 
 
 (?)epaV«« [^t. J'ta(pipio'r)v'] avjh i'^zvwoyji-ri';- To oy.oiov cTe i^ 
 iTT ciKXciV 0/ ipij-wivoyjii ra iCouiit^^j '^tTroititiOiai, De Or at. 
 p. 2 4ji ^' 246. A. Tom. i. hemd. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. o R I G E N. 405 
 
 *' fav, that they alfo who tranllated the Old a. D. 
 ■' "' 230. 
 
 " Teftament into Greek had fome words pe- v^S/>^ 
 
 " culiar to themfelves." It is fomewhat 
 flrange, that Origen (honld here take no no- 
 tice of St. Matthews Greek Gofpel being a 
 tranflarion, if he thought fo. 
 
 In his commentaries (f) upon the fecond 
 Pfalm he makes mention of two Hebrew co- 
 pies which he had feen, and obferves a differ- 
 ence between them in difpofing the firft two 
 Pfalms, and then how they were difpofed in 
 the Septiiagiftt Verfion. Again, (to mention 
 no more inftances of this fort) upon Pf.ui. 7. 
 he (g) confuhs the Hebrew copies, and finds a 
 difference from the Seventy. Well, why did 
 not Origen enquire alfo for Hebrew copies of 
 St. Matthew's Gofpel ? 
 
 In his Commentaries upon St. yohn he ob- 
 ferves: *' yohn (h) Baptijl in the three (a) 
 D d 3 " Gofpels 
 
 (f) Au(r<u ivjuyovjii IfTpautoT? av}i'ypa.(poi<, su yAv ra Irepw 
 
 iVpOlXiV A^'XJ^V (P'iVlifif '>]^*^//» TaJjct" iV cTfe TOi ixipti) (TVViJTrlilo 
 
 70} -wpaja- Kctii)) Tocii typn^ifft <^'i rccv uTo'^'oXav TO, vi'oi [yx 
 ii (TV, s^fej (Xriixipov ytyivvwi'l (Xi, iXiyiJo iivcn rZ '^pan -^xK- 
 fjCi \_Adls xiii. 33.] T« iKKiWiKo. fxivfoi a.v]'iypoc(pix, J^iv]spoviivxi 
 TBTof (j.mvU-in Pf. ii. p. 537. F. Tom. 2. Bejied. 
 
 (g) ''07/ (Tt) iTTUTa^oLi ^uvja,'; ry.i ky^^pd.ivovldi iJ.oi fAdraiu^, 
 K- A.] Ta iCpxiKa ivlv^jivla, t& (/.ocldicos, iS'oi^.ui Ivpouev (Tu- 
 vci[/.iVov cTHABc&at. Jliiii. p. 554. A. 
 
 '\h) 'O r'oii'uv luavviii tpmi -arctpa {xiv Toii rptah, kk. ilvxiiKel- 
 vli, tiupa. S'irZluMiv^, ix uvcct «!^i(^. Comm. in Job. p. 127. 
 J. Huet. 
 
 {^)^zzMatth,\n, I J. Mark \ "J. Lukcui, i^.^n^ John i^zj. 
 
O R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 " Gofpels fays : / am not fufficient, but in 
 *' yohn^ I am ?wt worthie.'' It is wonderful, 
 that On'gen, who was fo nice and exadt, and 
 minded fuch litde thing?, did not compare 
 like wife the Hebrew of St. Matthew, if he 
 thought this Evangeliil had writ in that lan_ 
 guage. 
 
 It is true, that in two or three places of 
 Origais, works, which (b) were tranfcribed 
 formerly, we find the Gofpel according to 
 the Hebreivs cited. And in one of thofe places 
 it is brought into a kind of comparifon with 
 a Liftorie related in the firft three Evangelifts : 
 but then it is in fuch a manner as to afford no 
 ground at ail for fuppofing, lie thought that 
 an authentic edition of St. Mattheiv's Gofpel. 
 In the place, where he fays [ij there were many 
 differences in the copies of the Gofpels, he makes 
 mention of what he had done for correding 
 the errours crept into the Greek edition of the 
 Old Teilament then in ule : and takes notice 
 of the helps and advantages he had for that 
 purpofe by comparing the Hebrew original, 
 and the fevcrai Greek verfions of it : intima- 
 ting 
 
 (b; See Numb. xxIv. :. p. 321. . . . 324. 
 [i) TjVi> [Av iv h' Tcii dvi:ypa;:oi< tTt; 'Ttra.Koiiai i'.oSnKYtf S'loc- 
 ^K\\aM, Qm J^icTovJv^, ivpouBV \ci.(TdL^a., ypfjupia '/j;vjc£p.(voi 
 ■ 7cc7i MtTTciti (.nSoaeaiv. k- a. Ccm»:. in Matth, p 382. ^. 
 382. J. lorn. i. Uuet. 
 
Ch.XXXVIII. o R I G E N. 407 
 
 ting at the fame time, that he had not fuch A. D. 
 helps for attaining the right readings in the Go- v.,oj-0 
 fpels. But certainly, if St. Mattbewh Gofpel 
 had been writ in Hebrew, the original edition 
 might have been of great ufe for correding 
 the Greek copies of that Gofpel at left. And 
 it was an advantage very fit to be taken notice 
 of, and could not eafily have been omitted, 
 
 I cannot but think therefore, Origen was not 
 fully fatisfyed, that St. Matthew wrote his Gof- 
 pel in Hebrew. Undoubtedly there was fuch 
 a tradition, as he [Ji) himfelf owns : but it is 
 likely, he did not altogether relye upon it. 
 This was faid by fome. But perhaps the 
 account was not fo attefted as to demand a 
 ready aflent. If Origen had believed St. Mai- 
 thew\ Gofpel to have been writ in Hebrew^ 
 in all probability he would have been induced 
 to enquire for it. And if his belief had been 
 well grounded, it can hardly be doubted, but 
 he might have found it upon enquiry. Origen 
 had an intimate friendfhip with the chief 
 Biftiops olFaleliine. He could not but be well 
 known to all the Chriftians in general in that 
 countrey, none of whom would have refufed 
 D d 4 to 
 
 {k) "Of :^ TfAfAiPi J'ola.t '73- fZT<^ Xoi'TTKiV TOli iCpxiolf i'lcJ^eJ^a- 
 
 yJiva.1 TO ivacyyiKiov, roii hi 'tsipiToy.iii 'ar/rif«fl'iJ'. ^» Joh. 
 />. 123. C, l^eeabove, /». 245. 
 
4c8 o R I G E N. Book I, 
 
 A.D. to lend him their copies of any book of the 
 iJ^-^sT^ New Teflament in their poffeflion. At 
 one word fpcken by him, Ambrofe and the 
 notaries employed by him, and many others, 
 would have fought for Hebrew copies of St.. 
 M^tfhew's Gofpel. And jf there had been any 
 fuch in that countrey, or near it, there woul4 
 have been brought to him as many as he defired. 
 Neverthelefs Orjgen does not appear to have 
 ever feen fuch a copie. Therefore there was 
 no fuch thing in being as an authentic Hebrew. 
 Gofpel of St. Matthew. If there ha(3, how 
 could it have efcaped the induflrie and inqui- 
 latiyenelTe of Origen t 
 
 Su7ii of his XXXI. Origen then received as divine fcrip- 
 '^^"^"ture the four Gofpels of Matthe%v, Mm% 
 Luke^ and John : the Acts of the Apoflles, writ 
 by tlie Evangelift Luke : thirteen epiftles of 
 theApodle Paul: and likewife the epiflle to 
 the Hebrews, which he continually quotes as 
 Paul's ; though in one place he delivers his 
 opinion, that the fentiments only of the 
 epiflle were the Apoflle's, the phrafe and com- 
 pofiuon, of iome one elfe, whofe he did not 
 certainly know. He received likewife the fir ft 
 ep.iftle of Pe(er, and the firft of jolm. We 
 
 learn 
 
Cll.XXXVIII. O R I G E N. 409 
 
 learn from him alfo, that the epiftle oi James, 
 the fecond of Petcr^ the fecond and third of 
 Johriy and the epiftle of ^W(f, were then well 
 known, but not univerfally received as ge- 
 nuine. Nor is it evident, that Origen himfeif 
 received them as facred fcripture. He owns 
 the book of the Revelation for the writing of 
 John the Apoftle and Evangelift. He quotes 
 it as his without hefitation. Nor does it ap- 
 pear, that he had any doubt about it's ge- 
 nuinneffe or authority. Origen does mightily 
 recommend the reading of the fcriptures of 
 the Old and New Teftament, received in the 
 churches as facred and divine. From the large 
 colledion here made of his quotations of Ec- 
 clefiaftical and Apocryphal writings, and from 
 the obfervations that have been madeupon them, 
 I prefume it appears, that none of thefe were 
 efteemed by him as books of authority, from 
 whence doctrines might be proved, or fcrip- 
 ture in the higheft fenfe of that word. Indeed, 
 it is not evident that Origen received, as facred 
 books of the New Teftament, all that we now 
 receive. But that he admitted no other, befide 
 thofe in our prefent canon, may be reckoned 
 certain, or however in the higheft degree pro- 
 bable. If this has been made out to fatisfac- 
 
 tioD, 
 
4IO 
 
 O R I G E N. Book I. 
 
 tlon, It Is a material point, and worth all the 
 labour of this long chapter, though I hope 
 it may likewife anfwer feme other good pur- 
 pofes. Particularly, we may perceive hence^ 
 as well as from other parts of this work, that 
 this was not with Chrijlia?is an age of grofs 
 darkneffe : at left the minifiers of Chriji did 
 not encourage flothand ignorance in the peo- 
 ple, but earneftly excited all men to a diligent 
 purfuit of religious knowledge, according to 
 their feveral abilities and opportunities, efpeci- 
 ally by ftudying the holy fcriptures. The va- 
 rious Readings, Explications of texts, and other 
 matters, are left with the reader, who is able 
 to make a proper ufe of them. 
 
 CHAP, 
 
CHAP. XXXTX. 
 
 St. F I R M I L I A N. 
 
 FIRMILIJ N^ as we are aflured by 
 Eufebe {a) in his Ecclefiaflical Hiftorie, 
 and by other;, was Bi(hop of Cefarea in Cap- ^-^^ '■'''' 
 padocia. If we may relye upon [b) Gregorie 
 Oi Ny /fay he was defcended from an honor- 
 able familie in that countrey. But that ac- 
 count {c) has been difputed. Cave (d) fup- 
 pofcs, that FirmiUa?i was ordained Bilhop o^ 
 the forementioned city in the year 233. Baf- 
 7iage [e) and Tillemont (f) think, he obtained 
 that honour fooner. They argue this from 
 fome words of (g) Eufebe^ where he fpeaks 
 of Firmtlian^ flourifhing at the tenth year of 
 the Emperour Alexander ^ when Or i gen left 
 Alexandria y in the year 231. 
 
 Fir- 
 
 (a) AliTpeTS S'i \v T«T«U <pipUlhlitVO( KxKTOipiiaci TMf KacTTTrx' 
 S'oxiiy k'Tr'iff'iO'Troi- EuJ. H. E. L. w. cap. 26. Vid. et lib. 
 cvti. cap. 28. iiiit. 
 
 ^[b) (^ipy.i^Ldva tZv iVTrtxlpiJ^M KaTTTroiJ^oKn. Greg, Nj^. 
 T. ■^. p. 54.2. C. Fit. T^haumat. 
 
 [c] Vid. Bafn, jinn. 269. <viii, 
 
 [d) Hijl. Lit. P. i. p. 86. 
 (f) Ut fupra. 
 
 (f) Tiliem. Tom. i-v. P. 2. p- 646. St. Firmilien. 
 
 (g) I have cited Eujebe'i 'wordi note (a). 
 
F I R M I L I A N. Book L 
 
 Firmiliaji was prefent at a council (h) in 
 Iconiumy which Tillemont thinks [i) could not 
 be held later than 231, ihon^ Valejius (k) 
 and Ca've (I) place it in 235. There feems 
 to have been a council at {m) Antioch in the 
 year 252, on account oi Novatus, at which 
 Firmilian was prefent. He was likewife {n) 
 at the council of Antioch in the caufe of 
 Taul of Samofata in the year 264. or 265. 
 He is faid to have been [0) twice at Antioch 
 upon that account. But when the council 
 was met at Antioch^ in which Paul was con- 
 demned and depofed, as he was coming thi- 
 ther, he died at Tarfus (p) in the later part of 
 the (^) year 269, of a great age, as may be 
 well concluded from the commencement of 
 his epifcopate. 
 
 Firmilian fided with St. Cyprian in the dif- 
 pute about baptifing heretics that returned to 
 
 the 
 
 (/&) Quod totum nos jampridem in Iconio, qui Phrygiae lo- 
 cus eft, colledli in unum, convenientibus ex Galatia, ec Cilicia 
 et ceteris proxirnis regionibus, coniirmavimuf. &c. Firmilictn 
 at. Cyprian, p.zzi. 
 
 (?) Tiliem. ibid. 
 
 \k) Vai. Not. ad Euf. />. 143. 
 
 (/) Can}. H. L. P. 2. p 62. 
 
 \m) Vid. Eujlb. l.'vi. cap. 46. /». 247. D. 
 
 (n) Euj. l.tjii. cap. 28. 
 
 (0) Eujeh. lb. cap- 30. p, 279. V. 
 
 ip) lb. 280. A B. 
 
 {q) lillem, as before, p. 65 4.. and Bnfnagc, as befort^ 
 
Ch.XXXIX. F I R M I L I A N. 413 
 
 the catholic church, and upon that fubjed: A. D. 
 wrote a long letter to St. Cyprian^ which is ftill ^^v"^ 
 (r) extant. But whereas, undoubtedly, it was 
 writ in Greek, we have now only a Latin 
 tranfl-ition. However it may be reckoned a 
 good one, fince learned men [s) are generally 
 agreed in allowing it to have been made by 
 St. Cyprian himfelf, whofe ftile it refembles. 
 This Letter was writ {t) in theyear 256, and 
 near the end of it. 
 
 St. Bafil (u) makes a general mention of 
 writings which Firmilian had left behind 
 him, without faying exprefsly what they were* 
 It may be argued, that they were not very 
 numerous, or not much known, fince Je^ 
 romc ha: not allotted any diflindl article in 
 his catalogue of eccleliaftical writers for this 
 eminent Bifliop. 
 
 As the Letter to St. Cyprian^ the only re- 
 maining piece of our author, was not writ 
 before the year 256. perhaps I {hould have 
 chofen to place him about that time. But 
 fince Csi;^, and other learned moderns fpeak 
 
 of 
 
 (r) Inter Epijlolas CypfianUas. Ep. 75./. ZlJ.^c. Oxon. 
 1682. 
 
 (j) Cwv. H. Lit. P. I. Rigalt.notis. lilhmont.p. 652. 
 
 (/) Vid Bafnag. A. Z69. njiii. Ttllem. p. 651. 
 
 (a) 1a.v\nv ^ (pif>y.iXixvcj 7a i]y.ilif!a f/.a.fjvf'^a't rriv TifWiV oi 
 i'uyai bV xoiTi^i'^i. Bafil. De S. Sp. cap.z^, Tom.z,. p. '^60. E. 
 
F I R M I L I A N. Book I. 
 oi Firmilian as flourifhing about the year 233* 
 and according to Eufebe himfelf, he was a 
 perfon of note at that tiaie, or fooner, and 
 the matter is of no great iniportancCj I have 
 determined not to innovate. 
 His Cha- Firmilian had an earnefi: zeal for what he 
 thought to be the truth, as his letter to St. Cy- 
 prian (liews : which i ; alfo confirmed by what 
 the council at Antiocb m 269, or 270. fay {w) 
 of his condemning the opinions of Paul of 
 Samofata^ Bifliop of that city. He was be- 
 fides a man of prudence and moderation. For 
 to him it is afcribed (x^ by the faid council, 
 that Paul was not depofed in a former coun- 
 cil met at the fame place. And who knows^ 
 whether Firmilian. if he had lived to be ore- 
 fent at this lafl afTemblv, mieht not have 
 prevented the depolition of Paul, or at left 
 once more deferred the fentence then pro- 
 nounced ? 
 
 Though Firmilian feems not to have made 
 any great figure, , as an author ; he was well 
 known in the world, and highly elleemed by his 
 contemporaries, and by following ages. There 
 
 is 
 
 {iv) 'O cTj ^i^ulXiaitoi 59 cTif d:ptii'ofji.iV<^, Kocriyvco [aIv tZv 
 iiit V/AiVi: KUlvolQiJ.cif/.kve:.v, K. A. ap Euf. I 7. c. 30. p. 279. D. 
 
 k?~7ric «,( clveu Ttvo; 'Tiifnov X'oycv hzil'of'iici 70 'Ts^a.yij.x g/jcTici* 
 y.a]oi.?Mi^O(,t, 'lviC<}.hi\'i, K- A. Jliid p. 2S0. J. 
 
Ch.XXXIX. F 1 R M I L I A N. 415 
 
 is honorable mention made of him by (y) A. D. 
 
 2 2 2. 
 
 Dhnyfius of Alexandria in one of his letters, k^^^st^^ 
 and (z) by the council of Antioch^ by which 
 Paul of Samofata was dcpofed. The odor et 
 gives this Cappadocian Bifhop the charader 
 (^) of an illujlrkus per Jon ^ equally mailer of 
 divine and human knowledge. It is a farther 
 argument of his great reputation, that (a) 
 both Eiifebe and 'Jerome have fo particularly 
 infifted upon his refped for Origen, as a confi- 
 derable teftimonie to the extraordlnarie merit 
 of that great man. 
 
 Thi; may fuflice for the hiftorie and cha- His Tef,i. 
 raster of Firmilian. I proceed to obferve the X'iv'V. 
 quotations of the books of the New Tefta- 
 ment, which are to be found in his foremen- 
 tioned letter to St. Cyprian, 
 
 I. " Hence (I?) we may be able to under- Matti>; 
 " ftand what Chrifi faid to Pefer only : I^Fhaf- 
 
 '^ Joever 
 
 (y) Euf. H. E. I. 7. c. 5. ^ 251. D. 
 (zj lb. cap. 30. p. 279. D. 
 
 [a) Kct/ 'tify.iKid.vU Koiiirx/iav Ttii YLa.'^'wix.S'oiuocf Itt'iukq' 
 
 Ti)V ^'ilAV. Theodorit Haeret. Tab. I. i-v. cap. 8. p. 222. D. 
 
 (a) See the preceding chapter, p. ig-j, 
 
 {b) Hinc intdligi poteft, quod loli Petro Chriftus dixcrit : 
 ^aecunque Uganieris fuper terram, erunt ligata et in coelis : 
 et quaecunque folverii fuper terram, erunt Joluta et in coelis. 
 Inter Ep. Cyprian. 75. />. 225. Oxon. 
 
4 1 6 F I R M I L I A N. Book I. 
 
 A. D. (c yj^-^u^^ thoufialt bind on earthy Jhall be alfo 
 
 {iy^Y\j ** bound i?i heaven : and whaffoever thou palt 
 
 " loofe on earthy Jhall be alfo loo fed in hea^ven^ 
 
 Matth.xviii. i8. 
 
 Mark, n. *' The {c) Lord himfelf declaring : Ma- 
 
 " nyfiall come in my name, faying : Ia?n Chrijii 
 ** a?id JJoall deceive mafiy." ^tt Markxm.bi 
 But it muft be owned, that there are exadly 
 the fame words in Matth. xxiv. 5. 
 
 lake. Ill- *' Foi* (^) union and peace and concord 
 
 " afford the greateft joy not only to faithful 
 " meUy and thofe that know the truth ^ but alfo 
 ** to the heavenly angels^ who, the divine word 
 *' fays, rejoice over one Jinner that repenteth" 
 Luke XV. 10. And in the preceding words 
 is a plain reference to i Tim, iv. 3. 
 
 John. IV. *' And [e) again in the Gofpel, when 
 
 " Chrift breathed on the Apoftles only, faying : 
 
 ** Receive 
 
 {c) ... Dominus ipfe manifeftat dicens : Multi 'venient in 
 nomine tneo dicentes : Ego fum Chrijlus, et niultos fallent. lb. 
 p. 22 2. 
 
 [d] Adutiatio enim et pax et concordia, non folum homini- 
 bus fldetibus et cognofcentibus veritacem, fed et angelis ipfis 
 coeleltibus voluptatem maximam praeltat ; quibus dicit divi- 
 nus fermo effe gaudium in una peccatore poenitentiam agente, 
 p. 2 1 7. 
 
 , {e) Et iterum in Evangelio, qinndo m folos apoftolos infuf- 
 flavit Chiillus dicens : Accipiie Spt> ihtrri Sajalurn. p. 225. 
 
Ch.XXXIX. FIRMILIAN. 417 
 
 " Receive ye the Holy Ghofi" John XX. 22. He A- !>• 
 has likewife quoted (f) Jobnxvii. 21. v^^Yn,ji^ 
 
 V. "Accordingly (g) the blefTed Apoftle^^^* 
 ** Paul baptifed again with a fpiritual baptifm 
 
 " thofe who had been baptifed by Jobjij be- 
 " fore the Holy Spirit had been fent by the 
 ** Lord J and then laid his hands upon them, 
 " that they might receive the Holy Ghofl/* 
 See j^^s xix. i .... 7. 
 
 VI. ** Though (Ij) the yews were in great Romans. 
 " ignorance and guilty of much wickednefle, 
 
 " the Apoftle owns they had a zeal of God.'\ 
 Rom. X. 2. 
 
 VII. " This (/) will be the wifdom, which « ^"^^ 
 " Paul writes to be in them that 2XQperfe5il* 
 
 1 Cor. ii. 6. He likewife quotes (k) i Cor^ 
 xiv. 30. and {I) i Cor.xi. 27. 
 
 E e VIII. " Nor 
 
 f/J P- 219- 
 
 (g) Secundum quod et beatus Paulus apoftolus eos qui ab 
 Joanne baptizati fuerant, priufquam miffus eflet a Domino Spi- 
 ritus Sanftus, baptizavitdenuoipiritali baptifmo, et ficmanuift 
 impofuit, ut acciperent Spiritum Sanflum, &c. p 221. 
 
 {h) Judaeos tamen, quamvis ignorantia caecos et graviffimo 
 faeinore conftridos, xe/um Dei apoitolus habere profitetux'. 
 p. 225. 
 
 (/) Deinde, haec erit fapientia, quam fcribit Paulus effe in 
 his qui perfedti funt. p. 221. 
 
 {i) P. Z19. 
 
 {I) P, 227. 
 
if I R M I L I A N. Book L 
 VIII. ** Nor (;«) are there many fpoufes of 
 *' Chrifty fince the Apoftles fays : I have 
 " efpoiifed you unto one hujhand^ that I may 
 " prefent you as a chafi 'virgin unto Chrijiy 
 2Cor. xi. 2. He alfo refers to (li) ver. 13. 
 of the fame chapter. 
 
 Caiat. IX. ** For (p) If the Apoftle docs not lye, 
 *' when he fays. As many oj you as have been 
 ** haptifed into Chrijl, have put on Chrijiy 
 Gal. iii. 17. 
 
 Ephef. X. " But (/») what fays the Apoflle PauU 
 
 ** One LiOrdy one faith ^ one haptifm^ oneGod^ 
 Eph. iv. 5. 6. A little before (^) he quoted 
 the firft four verfes of this fame chapter. 
 
 ThiUf. XI. " But (r) as to what they pretend in 
 
 " favour of heretics, that the Apoftle has faid : 
 " Whether in pretcnje^ or in truth, Chriji is 
 
 ^^ preached: 
 
 [m) Nequc enim multae fponfae Chriili, cum dicat apofto- 
 • lus : Defpondi I'os uni viro ijirginem cajiam ajjigtiare Chrijio. 
 p. 224. 
 
 {n) P. 229. 
 
 \o) Nam fi non mentitur apoftolus dicens : ^otquotin Chri- 
 jio tinSli ej}is, Cbriflum induijlis : ... . p. 223. 
 
 (/)) Sed quid ait apoftolus Paulus ? Vnus Domimts, ima fides, 
 unum baptifna, unus Deus. p. 229. 
 
 [q) P.' 228. 
 
 [r] Ad iliud autem quod pro haereticis ponunt, et aiunt apo- 
 ftolum dixifTe : Si've \er occaftone?n, five per 'ueritatem, Chii- 
 fi{s amiunticttir, ut refpondeamus, ineptum elt. p. zzb. 
 
Ch.XXXIX. FIR M ILIA N. 419 
 
 " preached: We muft anfwer, that it Is im- A- D. 
 " pertinently alleged." Which he fays will^ 
 appear to any one who reads the epiftle of 
 the ( J ) Apoftle, whence thofe words are 
 taken. 
 
 XII. He %s of all heretics In general (0, iTm.and 
 It is manifeft, they are condemned of ' '"' 
 
 <c 
 
 themfelv'es, and before the day of judgement 
 ** they have paffed an inconteftabie fentence 
 *' againft themfelves." It is very probable, he 
 refers to Tit. iii. 10. 11. And we before (b) 
 faw a plain reference to St. Paul's firft epiftle 
 to Timothie, 
 
 XIII. This writer fays, that Noah's ark was 1 p^/.: 
 
 a figure of the Church of Chrift, He adds : 
 
 ** As (u) alfo the Apoftle Peter teaches, fay- 
 
 " ing : In like manner alfo will baptifm fai:e 
 
 E e 2 ^^ you','[ 
 
 (j) Quando manifeftum fit, apoftolum in epiftola fua qua 
 hoc dicit, neque haereticorum, neque baptifmi eorum men- 
 tionem feciffe, led locutum effe de fratribus tantum . . . Nee 
 oporteat hoc longo traftatu excutere, fed ipfam fatis fit epiito- 
 1am legere, &c. Uid. 
 
 (t) Quos omnes manifeftum eft a femetipfis damnatos efle, 
 et ante diem jadicii inexcufabilem fententiam adverfus feraet^ 
 ipfos dixifle. p. 220. 
 
 (b) At Numb. iii. p. 416. 
 
 (a) Quemadmodum et apoftolus Petrus pofuit dicens : Sic 
 ei 1)0$ Jimiliter falvos fackt baptifma. p. 224.. 
 
420 F I R M I L I A N. Book L 
 
 A. D. c< yQu j" or us^ as in fome copies, i Vet. 
 
 233 
 
 111. 21. 
 
 ^ ^"- XIV. " And (w) moreover abufing the blef- 
 
 ** fed Apoftks Feter and PW, as if they alfo 
 ** had delivered this dodirine : though they 
 ** in their epiftles have curfed heretics, and 
 *' admoniflied us to avoid them." This paf- 
 fage may be thought to (hew, that Firmilian 
 owned two epifties of Peter ^ becaufe he fpeaks 
 of epiftles in the plural number. And befides, 
 what is here faid does well enough fuit the 
 fecond epiftle afcribed to that Apoftle. Here 
 one cannot help wishing, that we had this let- 
 ter in it's original language. It would be a par- 
 ticular fatisfadion to know, that Firmilian re- 
 ceived two epiftles of St. Peter, 
 
 1 John. XV. He feems to refer to the firfl epiftle 
 of St. John, when he fays of heretics in ge- 
 neral, *' That (x) fince they have not the 
 *' true Lord the Father, they cannot have the 
 " true Son, nor the true Spirit : " and of the 
 
 Cata- 
 
 Uw) Adhuc etiam infamans Petrum et Paulum beatos apo- 
 ftolos, quafi hoc ipfi tradiderint ; qui in epiftolis fuis haereti- 
 cos execrati funt, et ut eos evitemus monueriint. p, 220. 
 
 (,y) Satis ell illud in compendio dicere, eos qui non teneant 
 verum Dominum Patrem, tenere non poffe nee Filii iiec Spi- 
 ritus SaniSi veiiiatem. p. 250. fin. 
 
Ch.XXXIX. F I R A'l I L I A N. 
 
 Cataphrygiam or Montanifts In particular, That 
 (y) they have not the Father, nor the Son, 
 nor the Holy Spirit : and that they ('z) have 
 not in them the fpirit of truths but the fpirit 
 of errour. See i yohnn. 22. 23, and iv. 6. 
 
 XVI. I forbear tranfcribing any more, though Simofthh 
 I might infift on feme other allufive expref- ^J'"^""^'' 
 fions. Here are fufUciently clear references 
 to the Gofpels of St. Matthew^ St. Luke^ and 
 St. John : to the Ads of the Apoflles : to the 
 epiftle to the Romans : the firfl and fecond to 
 the Corinthians : the epiftles to the Gaiatiam» 
 the Ephefians^ the Fhilippians^ the firft to TUmo- 
 thicy and to Titus : the firfl, if not alfo the fe- 
 cond of St. Peter y and the iirft: epiftle of St. 
 John. And fometimes the names of the Apoflles 
 Peter and Paul are exprefsly mentioned, v^hen 
 their v^rords are quoted. And there appear 
 marks of a peculiar refpe6t for thefe books, 
 lince they are quoted as writings of authority. 
 It cannot be well queflioned, but Firmilians 
 canon of the New Teftament was much the 
 fame as ours. It is plain, that our fcriptures 
 E e 3 v/sre 
 
 (y) Nee Patrem poffunt habere, nee Filium, nee Spjritjtn 
 Sanctum, p, 211. in. 
 
 (z) In quibus cum animadvertamas non vcritatis fpiritum, 
 fed errorls furfTc. /i;V. 
 
42 2 F I R M I I. I A N. Book L 
 
 A. D. vvere well known at this time in Cappadocia. 
 I^^^Yn; A"^ ^^ particular it may be obferved, that the 
 epiftle of St. Paul to the churches of Galatia, 
 and the firft epiftle of St. Peter, both addrelTed 
 to Chrijiians in that countreyj or near it, were 
 received as genuine and divine fcriptures by 
 this learned and difcreet Bifliop, who had his 
 refidence in thofe parts. 
 
 anoui 
 
Various Readings of divers T*exts of 
 the N. T. cited in Vol III. 
 
 
 Tage. 
 
 •^yTAtth. vi.33. 
 
 366. 367. 
 
 -.Vl....viii.28.-) 
 
 
 Mark v. i.> 
 
 366. 
 
 Luke viii. 26. ^ 
 
 
 Matth. X. 29. 
 
 369. 
 
 xix. 19. 
 
 362. 
 
 xix. 24. 
 
 370- 
 
 xxvii. 9. 
 
 340- 
 
 Mark vi. 3. 
 
 371* 
 
 xvi. 9 . . . 20. 
 
 142. 150. 
 
 Luke xi. 2. 3. 4. 
 
 372. 
 
 .....xxii. 43. 44. 
 
 142. 150. 
 
 .,,. .xxiii, 43. 
 
 374.' 
 
 Ee4 
 
 John 
 
Various Readings^ &c. 
 
 John i. 28. 
 • . . . V. 4. 
 . . . , vii. 39. 
 . , , . viii. I . 
 I Their. V. 21. 
 I Tim. ii. 2. 
 ...... iii. 1 6. 
 
 Jude ver. i. 
 
 II, 
 
 Page. 
 
 365. 
 143. 150. 
 
 375- 
 150. 
 
 376. 
 
 113- 
 
 ■387: 
 270. 271. 
 
 ^ EX TS 
 
y^ X T S explained in VoL III. ^ 
 
 M 
 
 I 
 
 Atth. iv. 23. 
 . . xvi. 28. 
 .... xxii. 12. 
 Matth. xxvii. 32.] 
 Mark xv. 20. 
 Luke xxiii. 26. 
 
 xxii. 43. 44. 
 
 John yi. 54. SS- 
 . . . . xiii. 14. 15. 
 Adls XV. 29. 
 Rom. ii. 16. xvi. 25. 
 I Cor. XV. 7. 
 Phil. ii. 6. 
 Tit.iii.3. 
 
 Page, 
 
 390- 
 '_i44, 
 
 393- 
 148. 
 
 •■H7- 
 
 H7-395- 
 .396. 
 
 396. 
 
 397- 
 
 397- 
 
 39^. 
 40Q. 
 
 An 
 
An Alphahetlcal Catalogue of Chri- 
 Jizan Writers a?2d SeEis in VoL III. 
 
 Fage. 
 
 XUlius Africanus. 
 J Alexander, Bp. 
 
 
 
 ^si- 
 
 of 
 
 Jerufalem. 
 
 64. 
 
 Ambrofe, Origen's \ 
 
 Friend. 
 
 190. 
 
 Ammonius. 
 
 
 
 114. 
 
 Anonymous Author againft Artemon. 
 
 36. 
 
 Another ApoUonius. 
 
 
 
 12. 
 
 Afterius Urbanus. 
 
 
 
 54- 
 
 Beryllus. 
 
 
 
 200. 
 
 Caius. 
 
 
 
 i8. 
 
 Firmillan. 
 
 
 • 
 
 411. 
 
 Hippolytus. 
 
 
 
 78. 
 
 M. MInucius Felix; 
 
 
 
 1. 
 
 Origen. 
 
 
 
 180. 
 
 Themifon, 
 
 
 
 15' 
 
 AN 
 

 A N 
 
 Alphahet'ical TA B L E of principal 
 Matters in Vol III. 
 
 A. 
 
 ABercius Marcelks : 
 to whom Afterius 
 Urbanus infcribed his 
 books againft the 
 Montanifts. ^y. 
 
 A£is of the Apojiles : afcri- 
 bed toLukebyOrigen. 
 238. 245. an uncon- 
 tefted book. 246. a 
 a book of authority. 
 288. received by Hip- 
 poly tus. 109. 
 
 J^s of Paul: 328. 
 
 yulivs Afrkanus : his hi- 
 ftorie. 155. his learn- 
 ing. 164. his teftimo- 
 jiie to the fcriptures. 
 
 165. an eminent per- 
 fon. 179. 
 
 Alexander^ Bp. of Jerufa- 
 lem : his hiftorie. 64. 
 ereiled a Jibrarie at Je- 
 rufalem. 73. 74. ^^, 
 his chara<5ler. 74. . . . 
 yy. ordained Ori- 
 gen. 194. heard him. 
 196. 
 
 Ami^rofe iOngen^s friend : 
 faid to have been once 
 a Marcionite. 80. his 
 hiilorie. 190. . . . 194. 
 
 A?mmaSi of FWihdcl-ih'ia. : 
 a Prophet of the N.T. 
 62. 
 
 Anmonius Saccas : 116. . t 
 118. 
 
 Apocry- 
 
An Alphabetical Table 
 
 Apocryphal hooks : much received the fcriptures, 
 dcfpifed by Chriftians. 41. . . .49. charges a-^ 
 342. in fome of them gainll them weakened 
 a future (late clearly and confuted. 43... 49. 
 mentioned. 349. faid their fentiment the 
 to be referred to in fame with that of Paul 
 the N. T. 340, how of Samofata. 37. 
 apocryphal books of Afcenfion of Mofes: how 
 the O. and N. T. are quoted byOrigen, 338. 
 quoted by Origen, y^/^/)W^j,Bp.of Antioch 
 315. &c. after Serapion. 69.70. 
 
 Apollonius : his hiftorie. AfdepiodotuSy or Afclepia- 
 12. wrote againft the des : reckoned among 
 Montanifts, 12. 13. the followers of Arte- 
 Tertullian wrote a- mon. 42. 45. 
 gainft him. 13. d'lf- AJierius Urhams. 54. 
 
 ferent from Apolloni- 
 us, Senator and Mar- B. 
 tyr. 14. fays, that 
 Chrift commanded his 
 Apoflles to ftay twelve 
 
 Ofes Bar-cepha: his 
 time. 163. 
 
 years at Jeruralem.i6. Gregorie Bnr-Hebraeus, or 
 
 received the Revelati- Abulpharagius : his time. 
 
 on. 16. 131. 
 
 Apollonius, or Apolloni- Dion)'f.Bar-S^libi:Kist\me. 
 
 des : reckoned among 163. And fee 131. 
 
 the followers of Arte- St. Barnabas: how quoted 
 
 mon. 45. by Origen. 305. 
 
 Apojiles : commanded by Bafdides : wrote a Gofpel. 
 
 Chrift to flay twelve 317. ..3*9. his fol- 
 
 yearsat Jerufalem.i6. lowers ufed fpurious 
 Arijlides : a letter of Afri- books. 347. 
 
 canus to him. 1 56. 167. G. Benfon: quoted. 400. 
 ArtcmoUy and his followers: Beryllus : flourifhed about 
 
 an anonymous author 230. his hiftorie. 199. 
 
 againft them. 37. they ...201. 
 
c 
 
 of principal Matters. 
 
 C. Chrijlianity : how it pre- 
 
 vailed, notwithftand- 
 /f/«i.'hishiftorie. i8. ing oppofition. 232. 
 (iiid to have been a 233. 
 difciple of Irenaeus. Chrijiians: their modera- 
 19.20. did not receive tion to men of differ- 
 the epirtle to the He- ent fentiments. 230. 
 brews. 20. 24. nor the 231. 
 Revelation. 32. . . 35. Clement of Alexandria: 
 not certain, that he was commended by Alex- 
 a Prefbyter of Rome. ander Bp. of Jerufa- 
 21.26. his works. 21. lem. 70.71. 
 22. the Dialogue with Clement of Rome: how 
 Proculus his only quoted by Origen. 307. 
 work. 22.26. ^y. 38. was one of St. Paul's 
 what he writes of the fellow-laborers. 308. 
 Martyrdom of St. Pe- Apoftolkal Confiituiions: 
 ter and St. Paul at Pearfon's opinion a- 
 Rome. 23. how he bout them. ^^. 
 reckons St. Paul's epi- 
 ftles. 24. 27. 28. The D. 
 
 reafon, why he did not 
 receive the epiftle to "W^Emetrius: Bp. of A- 
 
 the Hebrews, confi- J_^ lexandria.186.189. 
 dered. 28. . . 31. 194 196. 
 
 CelfuSy the Epicurean : Demoniacs : Phyficians a- 
 iiow he reviled the fcribed their diforders 
 Apoftles. 306. men- to natural caufes. 390. 
 tioned again. 2 85.336. Origen's opinion con- 
 Z37' cerning them. 390. . . 
 
 Cm«//^«J : Caius is faid to 393. Optatus fays, 
 have writ againlt him. every man is born with 
 22. what Caius faid of an unclean fpirii. '^g^. 
 him, and that he for- Bionyjiiis, of Alexandria : 
 ged a Revelauon. 32. fucceeded Hcraclas,as 
 
 Gate- 
 
An Alphabetical Table 
 
 Catechift and Bifhop. 
 196. 
 
 E. 
 
 Eledjefu : his time. 162. 
 Eccle/tajlicus : how 
 quoted byOrigen. 333. 
 Egyptians : Gofpel ac- 
 cording to them much 
 negleded. 321. 
 
 Ekefaites. 201. 
 Enoch: his books. 336. 
 Ephefians: the epiftle to 
 
 them quoted with that 
 
 title by Origen. 247. 
 
 248. 
 Ephrem : wrote Com- 
 mentaries upon Ta- 
 
 tian's Harmonic. 128. 
 Evangelijls : knew better, 
 
 how and what to write 
 
 than Plato. 285. are 
 
 credible witneffes. 401 . 
 Eucharijl: the defign oi Gregorie 
 
 it. 148. called 
 
 Eufebe of Cefarea . 
 red. 25. 50. 
 
 cenfu- 
 
 ftimonie to the fcrip- 
 
 tures. 415 422. 
 
 whether he received 
 the fecond epiftle of 
 Peter. 420. 
 
 G. 
 
 Enealogies^ in Mat- 
 thew and Luke, re- 
 conciled. 167. . . 173. 
 Go/pels : four only receiv- 
 ed by Origen. 235, 
 236. 239. 241. 243. 
 
 Gofpels : according to 
 Matthias, and Tho- 
 mas, and the twelve. 
 317. ... 331. accord- 
 ing to the Hebrews : 
 how quoted by Ori- 
 gen. 321... 325. ac- 
 cording to Peter. 325. 
 See likewife Egyptians, 
 of Neocefarea^ 
 'Tbaiimaturgus, 
 
 comes to Origen. 196. 
 197. 
 
 F. 
 
 H. 
 
 F 
 
 Irmilian: his friend- TO. H^//^/: quoted and 
 (hipforOrigen.197. J commended. 252. 
 his hiftorie. 411. his 253. 259. 374. 
 character. 414. his te- Hcbedjefu : S^^Ebedjefu. 
 
 jEpislk 
 
Origen. 
 
 of principal Matters, 
 
 the preaching of Pe- 
 ter. 327. 
 Heretics : who of them 
 corrupted the fcrip- 
 tures. 362. 
 
 how quoted by 
 310. ..315. 
 /i. Heumann : his opi- 
 nion concerning the 
 Bifhoprick and Mar- 
 tyrdom of Hippolycus. 
 92. 
 Origen's Hippolytus : author of the 
 treatife of the univerfe. 
 51. his hiftorie and 
 works. 78. what fort 
 of Bifhop he was, and 
 whether he was a Mar- 
 tyr. 92. wrote againft 
 the 
 the 
 
 le to the Hebrews : 
 not received by Caius, 
 or Irenaeus. 20. 256. 
 257. not by Caius. 54. 
 rejeded by fome Ro- 
 mans in the time of Hermas 
 Eufebe. 24. 26. and 
 of Jerome. 27. the 
 groand of Caius re- 
 jefling it confidered. 
 29. . . 31. not receiv- 
 ed by Hippolytus, or 
 Irenaeus. 8 
 
 judgement upon it. 
 237. afcribed by Ter- 
 tullian to Barnabas. 
 257. by fome to Luke, 
 by others to Clement. 
 237, 238. how quoted 
 by Origen. 249. 250. 
 obfervations upon his 
 judgement. 281. .262. 
 he fuppofed this epi- 
 ille to have been 
 writ in Greek. 259. 
 260. 
 
 Helcefaites: See Elcefai- 
 tes. 
 
 Heradas: Catechift and 
 Bifiiop of Alexandria : 
 famous for learning. 
 156. mentioned again. 
 186. 189. 196. 
 
 H^rackon : how he quoted 
 
 Valentinians. S^. 
 
 Marcionites. yg. 
 85. the Nicolaitans. 
 85. the Noetians. 8^. 
 againft all heretics. 79. 
 85. did not receive 
 the epiftle to the He- 
 brews. 86. 88. no. 
 opinions of learned 
 moderns concerning 
 his remaining works. 
 g^. his teftimonie to 
 the fcriptures. 104, . . 
 113. received the Re- 
 velation, no. III. 
 
 I. 
 
An Alphabetical Table 
 
 I. 
 
 ( T.James : how his epi- 
 ftle is quoted by Ori- 
 gen. 262. 270. 
 
 JESUS: the duration 
 of his miniftrie. 136. 
 . . 142. 
 
 Ignatius : how quoted by 
 Origen. 313. 
 
 St. John: raifed a dead 
 man to Ufe at Ephc- 
 fus.i6. hisGofpeljand 
 his firft epiftle, uni- 
 verfully received : his 
 fccond and third e- 
 p'.ftles not received 
 by all in Origen's 
 time. 236. 237. 267. 
 his Gofpel the firft- 
 fruit of the Gofpels. 
 278. 279. See Reve- 
 lation. 
 
 St. Jude : how his epi- 
 ftle is cited by Ori- 
 gen. 269. 270. why 
 rejefted by fome. 344. 
 
 Judith: how quoted by 
 Origen. 322. 
 
 L. 
 
 LEonides : Origen's fa- 
 ther. 182. 184.185. 
 Longinus, the critic, dif- 
 
 ciple of Ammoni'Js 
 Saccas. 1 17. 
 
 'The Lord's Prayer: deli- 
 vered but once. 152. 
 1^3- the doxologie 
 wanting in fome co- 
 pies. 154. 374. how 
 the prayer was read by 
 Origen. 372. 
 
 W. Lowth : corrected. 
 
 293- 
 Lucanus : corrupted the 
 
 fcriptures. 362. 
 St. Luke : his Gofpel faid 
 
 to have been writ for 
 
 theGentils. 235.236. 
 
 See Gojpels^ and A5li 
 
 0} the Apojiles. 
 
 M.- 
 
 Accabees : not a part 
 of the Jewifh ca- 
 non. Q^Q^C^. 
 
 Mamaea: fends for Ori- 
 gen. 198. 
 
 %K..Mark: faid to have writ 
 his Gofpel, as Peter 
 didated it to him. 2 35. 
 
 St. Matthew: wrote his 
 Gofpel in Hebrew, for 
 the Jewifh- believers. 
 235. 278. 279: whe- 
 ther Origen was of 
 opinion, that he wrote 
 in 
 
of prmcipal Matters, 
 
 in Hebrew ? 403. 
 
 408. 
 
 Maximilla: the time of 
 her death, c^^. a re- 
 port concerning the 
 manner of it. 60. 
 
 J. Af/7/; quoted. 36.100. 
 loi. 103. 129.373. 
 
 Minucius Felix: his hifto- 
 rie and charadler. i. 
 . . 8. his teftimonie to Origen : 
 theN. T. 8. .. II. 
 
 Monianiffs : defcribed by 
 Firmilian. 421. Au- 
 thors, who wrote a- 
 ApoUo 
 
 Novatus : reckoned a- 
 mong thofe called he- 
 retics. 2 It. 
 
 O. 
 
 that 
 
 gainft them 
 
 nius. 12. 13. Caius. 
 21. ... 23. Aflerius 
 Urbanus. 54. . . p,6. 
 
 Mont anus : a report con- 
 cerning his death, 60. 
 
 Walter Moyle .' commend- 
 ed. 2. 
 
 N. 
 
 NArciJJ'us, Bp. of Je- 
 rufalem. 65. Gy. 
 Natalis: his hiftorie. 42. 
 
 43. 
 Nicolaitans : Hippolytus 
 wrote againft them. 
 
 O Planus : fays, 
 every man is born 
 with an unclean fpirit, 
 
 393- 
 
 fee the contents 
 
 of his chapter. 180. 
 went to Rome. 188. 
 189. allowed his ho- 
 milies to be writen. 
 202. hisconfeflionand 
 fufferings. 202. 203, 
 the number of his 
 works. 203. , . . 207. 
 what now extant. 207. 
 ... 210. his opinions. 
 210. 211. teftimonies 
 to him.2i2.. .2x6. his 
 cl?ara6ler. 216. 217. 
 did not receive any 
 books as facred fcrip- 
 ture, befide thofe in 
 the prefent canon. 304. 
 i^c. and 351. .. 361. 
 and 409. 410. his 
 Greek text amended 
 in two places, 265. 
 and 400. Note (y). 
 
 «5- . . . 
 
 T^icolas: divers opinions Another Or/§;^«. 184. 
 
 concerning him. 88. 
 
 Ff P. 
 
An Alphabetical Table 
 
 P. 1 1 6. of Origen. 182. 
 
 183. 212. 
 
 PAiitaenus : zoWi'Ci'\tv\^- 'Preaching of Peier and 
 ed by Alexander ^^^. Paid: quoted by He- 
 of Jerufalem. 71. racleon, and Origen. 
 
 St. Paul: fuffered mar- 326. .. 328. 
 
 tyrdom at Rome. 23. Proculus^ or Proclus : a 
 
 his writings commend- Montanift. 21 
 
 ed by Origen. 247. his 23. 
 
 account of his ftile. Proto5letus : Prefbyter of 
 
 237. 402. 403. his Ccfarea, and triend of 
 
 epiftles : how reckon- Origen. 191. 
 
 ed by Caius. 24. by 
 
 Origen. 236. 237. Q^ 
 
 241. his ads. 328. . . 
 
 3 qo. /"^""^adratus : fpoken of 
 
 St. Peter: fuffered mar- \^ as a Prophet. 62. 
 tyrdom at Rome. 23. 
 his Erft cpiiHe univer- R. 
 
 fally received, the fe- 
 cond doubted of in T) Ecognitions : how 
 
 Origen's time. 236. X\ quoted by Origen. 
 
 264. how the fecond 310. 
 
 epiftle is quoted by The Revelation : received 
 
 Origen. 264 by ApoUonius. 16.17. 
 
 269, whether receiv- afcribed to Cerinthes 
 ed by Firmilian. 420. by Caius. 32. . . . 34. 
 his gofpel. 325. his received by Hippoly- 
 dodrine or preaching. tus. i lo. received by 
 326. Origen. 236. 241. 
 
 Philemon: the epiftle to 272. . .274. 409. 
 him quoted by Ori- Romans: the epiftle to 
 gen. 248. them difficult. 294. 
 
 Porphyrie : what he [ays Ejiffin: his account of 
 of Ammonius. 114. apocryphal books of 
 
 the 
 
of principal Matters^ 
 
 the Old Teftament. T. 
 
 TAtian: his harmo- 
 nic ftill extant. 
 S. 125. extradls out of 
 
 ^1^- '34- --MP- 
 
 Scriptures : their gene- Tejlameni : the canonical 
 ral titles and divifi- books of the O. T. 
 
 ons. 276. . . 282. re- writ in Hebrew. 175. 
 
 fped for them. p,y. 135. 
 
 and 282. . . 286. doc- Teftajnents of the xii Pa- 
 
 trines to be proved by iriarchs : how quoted 
 
 them only. 286 by Origen. 338. 
 
 289. to be read by Thallus: his account of 
 
 all. 289. . .300. pub- an eclipfe. 167. 
 
 Jicly read. 300 . . . Themifon : a Montanid. 
 
 304. fome parts ob- 15. 
 
 fcure. 299. 401. their Theo^iflus^ Bp. of Cefa- 
 
 ftile. 402. a threefold rea, an admirer of 
 
 fenfeof fcripture. 295. Origen. 6^, y^. or- 
 
 296. Whether Chri- dains him. 194. 
 
 ftians were from the ^eodotm : a banker. 42. 
 
 begining divided 2i- Theodotus : a tanner. 42. 
 
 bout the books of 45. 
 
 fcripture.? 274.276. Timothie : an objedion 
 Serapion^ Bp. of Antioch. againfl the fecond e- 
 
 69. piftle to him. 342. 
 
 Soul: fome faid, \t d.\t^ Tobit : how quoted by 
 
 with the body, and Origen. 343. 
 
 would be raifed with L. Twells : a remark of 
 
 it. 201. his examined. 28. 29. 
 
 Sufanna: that book not quoted again. 259^ 
 
 received by the Jews. 
 
 m- ^74. 175- 334- 
 
 v. 
 
'An Alphabetical Table^ &c. 
 
 V. terpretation of Philip, 
 
 ii. 6. 398. 
 
 VJlentinians : corrupt- J. J a. JVetiie'm: quoted, 
 ed the fcriptures. 123. 133. 151. 361. 
 362. Hippolytus wrote J. R. WetSiein. 162. 
 againft them. 83. J.Chr. Wolf : quoted and 
 
 Various Readings : their commended. 308. 
 number, and the oc- Writings of three Sorts ! 
 cafions of them. 361. genuine, mixed, and 
 . . . 365. fpurious. 327. 358. 
 
 W. 
 
 z. 
 
 YV • Wall :K\s, o^mi- r^ Acheus : called a 
 oa concerning Clement ^j dwarf. 146. 
 
 of Rome. 308. his in- 
 
 End of the Third Volume. 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 ■^^isitt... 
 
 
 
 
 -'*'^ii,^:... 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CAVLORO 
 
 
 
 PRINTED tN USA. 
 
^■w^WWlWt-''' •^''^- 
 
^■r^. 
 
 m 
 
 '.>-:9^.^7»'' 
 
 
 ♦ s,.^' 
 
 ''ftZ^.S^^V^'AiP'^J^'Jl