mystical or prophetical, and moral significance. | except a few fragments cited by Jerome or by Pam(Orig. Homil. XVII. in Genesim, c. 1.) His philus, in his Apologia pro Origene, or by Origen desire of finding continually a mystical sense led himself in his De Principiis (Delarue, vol. i. pp. him frequently into the neglect of the historical | 32-37). sense, and even into the denial of its truth. This capital fault has at all times furnished ground for depreciating his labours, and has no doubt materially diminished their value: it must not, however, be supposed that his denial of the historical truth of the Sacred Writings is more than occasional, or that it has been carried out to the full extent which some of his accusers (for instance, Eustathius of Antioch) have charged upon him. His character as a commentator is thus summed up by the acute Richard Simon (Hist. Critique des Principaux Commentateurs du N. T. ch. iii.) : Origen is every where too long and too much given to digressions. He commonly says every thing which occurs to him with respect to some word that he meets with, and he affects great refinement in his speculations (il affecte de paroître subtil dans ses inventions), which often leads him to resort to airy (sublimes) and allegorical meanings. But notwithstanding these faults, we find in his Commentaries on the New Testament profound learning and an extensive acquaintance with every thing respecting religion; nor is there any writer from whom we can learn so well as from him what the ancient theology was. He had carefully read a great number of writers of whom we now scarcely know the names." His proneness to allegorical and mystical interpretations was probably derived from, at least strengthened by, his study of Plato, and others of the Greek philosophers.

III. Other Works. The exegetical writings of Origen might well have been the sole labour of a long life devoted to literature. They form, however, only a part of the works of this indefatigable father. Epiphanius affirms (Haeres. lxiv. 63) that common report assigned to him the composition of "six thousand books" (étarioxiλious Bibλous); and the statement, which is repeated again and again by the Byzantine writers, though itself an absurd exaggeration, may be taken as evidence of his exuberant authorship. Jerome compares him to Varro, the most fertile author among the Latins (Hieron. ad Paulam Epistol. 29, ed. Benedictin, 33, ed. Vallars., et apud Rufin. Invectiv. lib. ii. 19), and states that he surpassed him and all other writers, whether Latin or Greek, in the number and extent of his works. Of his miscellaneous works the following only are known:

1. 'ETIOTOλal, Epistolae. Origen wrote many letters, of which Eusebius collected as many as he could find extant, to the number of more than a hundred (H. E. vi. 36). Most of them have long since perished. Delarue has given (vol. i. p. 1-32) those, whether entire or fragmentary, which remain.

2. Пeρl dvaσтáσews, De Resurrectione. Eusebius says this work was in two books (H. E. vi. 24), and was written at Alexandria before the Commentaries on the Lamentations of Jeremiah, in which they are referred to. Jerome (ibid.) adds that he wrote two other Dialogi de Resurrectione; and in another place (Ad Pammach. Epistol. 61, edd. vet., 38, ed. Benedictin.; Lib. Contra Joannem Jerosolymitanum, c. 25, ed. Vallarsi) he cites the fourth book on the resurrection, as if he regarded the two works as constituting The works on the resurrection are lost,

one.

3. Στρωματεῖς s. Στρωματέων λόγοι ί. Stromatewv (s. Stromatum) Libri X., written at Alexandria, in the reign of Alexander Severus (Euseb. H. E. vi. 24), in imitation of the work of the same name by Clemens Alexandrinus. [CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS.] The tenth book was chiefly composed of Scholia on the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians. Nothing is extant of the work, except two or three fragments cited in Latin by Jerome. (Delarue, vol. i. pp. 37-41.) 4. Περὶ ἀρχῶν, De Principiis. This work, which was written at Alexandria (Eusebius, H. E. vi. 24), was the great object of attack with Origen's enemies, and the source from which they derived their chief evidence of his various alleged heresies. It was divided into four books. The first treated of God, of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit; of the fall, of rational natures and their final restoration to happiness, of corporeal and incorporeal beings and of angels: the second, of the world and the things in it, of the identity of the God of the old dispensation and of the new, of the incarnation of Christ, of the resurrection, and of the punishment of the wicked: the third book, of the freedom of the will, of the agency of Satan, of the temptations of man, of the origin of the world in time and of its end: the fourth, of the divine original and proper mode of studying the Scriptures. The heterodoxy of this work, according to the standard of the day, or rather perhaps of the next generation, was ascribed by Marcellus of Ancyra to the influence of the Greek philosophy, especially that of Plato, which Origen had been recently studying, and had not taken time maturely to consider. Eusebius replied to Marcellus by denying the Platonism of Origen, and Pamphilus, in his Apologia pro Origene, attempted to prove that he was orthodox. On the outbreak of the Arian controversy, Origen was accused of having been the real author of that obnoxious system; and Didymus of Alexandria, in his Scholia on the Пep apxav of Origen, in order to refute this charge, endeavoured to show how far he differed from them. [DIDYMUS, No. 4.] But as the limits of orthodoxy became more definite and restricted, this mode of defence was abandoned; and Rufinus, no longer denying the heterodox character of many passages with respect to the Trinity, affirmed that they were interpolations. When, therefore, at the close of the fourth century, he translated the Пepi dpxŵr into Latin, he softened the objectionable features of the work, by omitting those parts relating to the Trinity, which appeared to be heterodox, and illustrating obscure passages by the insertion of more explicit declarations from the author's other writings. On other subjects, however, he was said to have rather exaggerated than softened the objectionable sentiments. (Hieron. Contra Rufin. i. 7.) Such principles of translation would have seriously impaired the fidelity of his version, even if his assertion, that he had added nothing of his own, were true: but as he did not give reference to the places from which the inserted passages were taken, he rendered the credibility of that assertion very doubtful. Jerome, therefore, to ex-pose, as he says (Ibid.), both the heterodoxy of the writer and the unfaithfulness of the translator,

5. Περὶ εὐχῆς, De Oratione. This work is mentioned by Pamphilus (Apol. pro Orig. c. viii.), and is still extant. It was first published, 12mo. Oxford, 1685, with a Latin version. (Delarue, vol. i. pp. 195-272.)

6. Eis uaprúpov рOTρETTIKOS XÓYos, Exhortatio ad Martyrium, or Пep μapтupiov, De Martyrio, addressed to his friend and patron Ambrosius, and to Protoctetus of Caesareia, during the persecution under the emperor Maximin (A. D. 235—238), and still extant. (Delarue, vol. i. pp. 273-310.) It was first published by Jo. Rud. Wetstenius (Wetstein) the younger, 4to, Basel, 1574, with a Latin version and notes. Origen's letter of like purport, written when a mere boy to his father, has been already noticed.

Jerome (Ad Paulam Epistol. 29, ed Benedictin, 33, ed. Vallars. and apud Rufin. Invect. lib. ii. 19), was, we have no means of ascertaining. There were, perhaps, other works beside those enumerated by Fabricius (1. c.) for there is no complete list of Origen's works extant; those drawn up by Eusebius (see H. E. vi. 32) in his Life of Pamphilus, and by Jerome (see De Viris Illustr. c. 54) in the mutilated Epistle to Paula, just cited, are now lost.

Several works have been ascribed to Origen, and

gave another and more exact version of the work. Of the original work some important fragments, including a considerable part of the third and fourth books, have been preserved in the Philocalia; in the Epistola ad Mennam, Patriarcham CPolitanum of the emperor Justinian, given in the various editions of the Concilia (e.g. vol. v. p. 635, &c., ed. Labbe, vol. iii. p. 244, &c., ed. Hardouin); and by Marcellus of Ancyra (apud Eusebium, Contra Marcellum). Of the version of Jerome, there are some small portions preserved in his letter to Avitus (Epistol. 59, edd. vett., 94, ed.published under his name, which really do not Benedictin, 124, ed. Vallars.). The version of belong to him. Of these, the most important are Ruinus has come down to us entire ; and is given the following. (1) Διάλογος κατὰ Μαρκιανιστῶν with the fragments of Jerome's version and of the | ἢ περὶ τῆς εἰς Θεὸν ὀρθῆς πίστεως, Dialogus contra original by Delarue (vol. i. pp. 42-195). Marcionitas sive de Recta in Deum Fide. This was first published in the Latin version of Joannes Picus, 4to, Paris, 1555, and in Greek by Jo. Rud. Wetstenius, with a Latin version, 4to, Basel, 1674. It is given by Delarue (vol. i. pp. 800872), but not as Origen's. It was ascribed to Origen, perhaps by Basil and Gregory Nazianzen, certainly by Anastasius Sinaita; but Huet has shown that internal evidence is against its being his; and it is in all probability the production of a later age. Adamantius is the "orthodox" speaker in the Dialogue (comp. MAXIMUS HIEROSOLYMITANUS); and there is reason to believe, from the testimony of Theodoret (Haeret. Fabular. Praefat. and i. 25), that the author really bore that name, and was a distinct person altogether from Origen; but that, as Origen also bore the name of Adamantius, the work came to be erroneously ascribed to him. (2) Xoropovμeva, S. TOû kaтà πασῶν αἱρέσεων ἐλέγχου βιβλίον α'. Philosophu mena s. Adversus omnes Haereses, Liber primus. This work was first published with a Latin version and notes, vindicating Origen's title to the authorship, by Jac. Gronovius, in the tenth volume of his Thesaurus Antiquitatum Graecarum, p. 249, &c., under the title of Origenis Philosophumenov Fragmentum. This title is not quite correct: the Philosophumena, or account of the systems of the anIt may be as well here to mention that the cient philosophy, appears to be entire, but is itself Þionaría, Philocalia, so often mentioned, was a only a portion of a larger work against all "herecompilation by Basil of Caesareia, and his friend sies" or sects holding erroneous views. The author Gregory of Nazianzus [BASILIUS, No. 2; GREGO- is not known; but he was not Origen; for in his RIUS NAZIANZENUS], almost exclusively from the prooemium he claims episcopal rank, which Origen writings of Origen, of which many important frag-never held. (The work is in Delarue, vol. i. pp. ments have been thus preserved, especially from 872-909.) (3) Exória eis eỷxǹv kupiakýν, Schohis reply to Celsus. It is divided into twenty-lia in Orationem Dominicam, published by Fed. seven chapters. It was first published in the Latin version of Gilbertus Genebrardus, in the second volume of that author's edition of Origen's works, fol. Paris, 1574, and in Greek by Joannes Tarinus, 4to, Paris, 1618. It is not given as a whole by Delarue, but such of the extracts as are not elsewhere extant are distributed to their appropriate places.

7. Karà Kéλσvu Tóμo n', Contra Celsum Libri VIII, written in the time of the emperor Philippus (Euseb. H. E. vi. 36), and still extant. In this valuable work Origen defends the truth of Christianity against the attacks of Celsus, an Epicurean, or perhaps a Platonic philosopher [CELSUS]. The Philocalia is chiefly made up of extracts from it. It was first printed in the Latin version of Christophorus Persona, fol. Rome, 1481, and in Greek by David Hoeschelius, 4to, Augsburg, 1605. (Delarue, vol. i. pp. 310-799.)

Many works of Origen are totally lost. As enumeration of those of which we have any in. formation is given by Fabricius (Bibl. Graec. vol. vii. p. 235, &c). The majority of those which are lost were biblical and exegetical. The others were chiefly directed against the various classes of heretics, and partly consisted of records of his disputations with them. The book De Libero Arbitrio, mentioned by himself in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, was perhaps that portion of his Пepi apxav which relates to that subject. What the Monobiblia, mentioned by

Morellus, in 1601, as the production of "Origen or some other teacher of that age:" but Huet and Delarue deny that these Scholia are his, and Huet ascribes them to Petrus of Laodiceia, following the editors of the Bibliotheca Patrum, who have given a Latin version of them in that collection. (Delarue, vol. 1. pp. 909, 511-The above, with (4), an ancient Latin version of a Commentary on Job, are the only supposititious works given by Delarue. Others, however, are extant, and have been given by other editors, but do not reduire any further notice here:

Beside his own works, Origen revised the Lexicon of Hebrew names, Hebraicorum Nominum S. Scripturae et Mensurarum Interpretatio, of Philo Judaeus [PHILO]; and enlarged it by the addition of the names in the New Testament: the work is consequently ascribed to him in some MSS.: but after his reputed heresies had rendered him odious, the name of Cyril of Alexandria was prefixed to the

work in some MSS. in place of his. The Lexicon is extant in the Latin version of Jerome, among whose works it is usually printed. (Vol. ii. pars i. edit. Benedictin, vol. iii. ed. Vallars.)

The collected works of Origen, more or less complete, have been repeatedly published. The first editions contained the Latin versions only; they were those of Jac. Merlinus, 4 vols., or more exactly, 4 parts in 2 vols. fol. Paris, 1512-1519. In this edition the editor published an Apologia pro Origene, which involved him in much trouble, and obliged him to defend himself in a new Apologia, published in A. D. 1522, when his edition was reprinted, as it was again in 1530, and perhaps 1536. The second edition was prepared by Erasmus, who made the versions, and was published after his death by Beatus Rhenanus, fol. Basel. 1536. Panzer (Annales Typ. vol. vii.) gives the version of Erasmus as published in 4 vols. fol. Lyon (Lugdunum), 1536. It was reprinted, with additions, in 1545, 1551, 1557, and 1571. The third and most complete Latin edition was that of Gilbertus Genebrardus, 2 vols. Paris, 1574, reprinted in 1604 and 1619. The value of these Latin editions is diminished by the consideration, that some of the works of Origen, for instance, the De Martyrio and De Oratione, are not contained in them, and that the versions of Rufinus, which make up a large part of them, are notoriously unfaithful. We do not here notice any but professedly complete editions of Origen's works. Of the Graeco-Latin editions the most important are the following: Origenis Opera Exegetica, 2 vols. fol. Rouen, 1668, edited by Pierre Daniel Huet, afterwards Bp. of Avranches. An ample and valuable dissertation on the life, opinions, and works of Origen, entitled Origeniana, was prefixed to this edition. The fragments, collected from the Catenae oy Combéfis, were sent to Huet, but were not inserted by him. Huet intended to publish the complete works of Origen, but did not execute his purpose. His edition was reprinted at Paris, in 1679, and at Cologne, or rather Frankfort, in 1685. But the standard edition of Origen's works is that of the French Benedictine, Charles Delarue, completed after his death by his nephew, Charles Vincent Delarue, a monk of the same order, 4 vols. fol. Paris, 1733-1759. The first volume contains the Miscellaneous, including some of the supposititious works; and the other three the Exegetical works, including one of the supposititious Commen tari in Jobum. The fragments of the Hexapla and the Hebraicorum Nominum, &c. Interpretatio, and a portion of the supposititious works, are not given. To the fourth volume are appended (1) Rufinus' version of the Apologia pro Origene of the Martyr Pamphilus, with considerable fragments of the Greek, accompanied by a new Latin version of the fragments (2) The Epilogus of Rufinus bit the interpolation of Origen's writings. (3) Eis Ωριγένην προσφωνητικὸς καὶ πανηγυρικὸς λόγος. In Origenem Prosphonetica ac Penevyrica Oratio, addressed by Gregoris Thaumaturgis to Origen, his preceptor, oirleaving him to return to his native land, with the Latin version of Gerard Vossius. (4) The Origeniana of Huet: and (5) an extract from Bishop Bull's Defensio Fidei Nicaenae, cap. ix. on the Consubstantiality of the Son of God. The whole works were accompanied by valuable pre

faces," monita," and notes.

The works of Origen, from the edition of Delarue, revised by Oberthür, were reprinted without

notes, in 15 vols. 8vo. Würzburg, 1785, &c. A number of additional passages from Origen, chiefly gleaned from various Catenae, and containing Scholia on several of the books of Scripture, are given in the Appendix to the xivth (posthumous) volume of Galland's Bibliotheca Patrum. The most important of these additions are to the Scholia on the books of Deuteronomy, Samuel, Kings, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, and the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Some additions to the Scholia on the Canticles, and to the Hexaplar readings on the same book, are contained in the Eis Tà gouara, Catena in Canticum, of Procopius of Gaza, published in the Classicorum Auctorum e Vaticanis Codd. editorum of Angelo Mai, vol. ix. p. 257, &c. 8vo. Rome, 1837. Two fragments of Origen, one considerable one, Els To катà Aоvкâv, In Evangelium Lucae (pp. 474-482), and one of a few lines, Eis AeuiTikóv, In Leviticum, appear in vol. x. of the same series. Some Scholia of Origen are contained in a collection, Eis Tov Aavinλ épunveîai diapópwv, In Danielem Variorum Commentarii, published in vol. i. pars ii. p. 161, &c. of the Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio, 10 vols. 4to. Rome, 1825, &c. of the same learned editor.

On the writings of Origen, see Huet, Origeniana, lib. iii.; Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 230, vot. i. p. 11, p.1 ed. Oxford, 1740-43; Tillemont, Mémoires, voì. iii. p. 551, &c., 771, &c.; Dupin, Nouvelle Biblioth. des Aut. Ecclés. des I. II. III. Siècles, vol. i. p. 326, &c. 3d ed. 8vo. Paris, 1698; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. iii. p. 708, &c., vol. vi. p. 199, &c., vol. vii. p. 201; Oudin. Comment. de Scriptoribus Eccles. vol. i. col. 231, &c.; Ceillier, Auteurs Sacrés, vol. ii. p. 601, &c.; Lardner, Credibility, &c. part ii. c. 38.

Few writers have exercised greater influence by the force of their intellect and the variety of their attainments than Origen, or have been the occasion of longer and more acrimonious disputes. His influence is the more remarkable as he had not the advantage of high rank and a commanding position in the church; and his freedom in interpreting the Scriptures, and the general liberality of his views were in direct opposition to the current of religious opinion in his own and subsequent times.

Of the more distinctive tenets of this father, several had reference to the doctrine of the Trinity, on which he was charged with distinguishing the ovoía, substantia, of the Father from that of the Son, with affirming the inferiority of the Holy Spirit to the Son, with making both the Son and Spirit creatures, and with various other errors either asserted by him, or regarded as necessarily flowing from his assertions, which it is not requisite to mention. Others of his opinions had reference to the difficult subject of the incarnation, and to the pre-existence of Christ's human soul, which, as well as the pre-existence of other human souls, he affirmed. He was charged also with holding the corporeity of angels, and witn other errors as to angels and daemons, on which subjects his views appear to have fluctuated. He held the freedom of the human will, and ascribed to man a nature less corrupt and depraved than was consistent with orthodox views of the operation of divine grace. He held the doctrine of the universal restoration of the guilty, conceiving that the devil alone would suffer eternal punish

ment.

Other points of less moment we do not notice here. A full discussion of them is contained in the Origeniana of Huet (lib. ii. c. 2, 3).

|

of the greatest difficulty to distinguish the different writers, and to assign to them their respective productions. The subject has been investigated with great care and acuteness by Ritschl, and the following are the leading results at which he has arrived. Suidas speaks of two writers of the name of Orion, and one of the name of Orus. The first Orion he makes a native of Thebes in Egypt, the author of an avloλátov in three books, dedicated to Endocia, the wife of the younger Theodosius. The second Orion he describes as an Alexandrian grammarian, the author of, 1. an dveoλóyiov; 2. 'ATTIKwv λéžewv ovvaywyń; 3. A work on etymology; 4. A panegyric on the emperor Hadrian. Orus is said by Suidas (as the text stands) to have been a grammarian of Alexandria, who taught at Constantinople, the author of a treatise περὶ διχρόνων, α treatise Teplovikŵv, one on orthography, and several others. Now Orus and Orion are mentioned some hundreds of times in the Etymologicum Magnum, the Etymologicum Gudianum, and the Etymologicum of Zonaras. But they are neither of them ever styled Alexandrians, while a Milesian Orus is often quoted, here and there a Theban Orus is spoken of, and also a Milesian Orion and these quotations apportion the writings referred to not only quite differently from Suidas, but not even uniformly as regards these etymological works as compared with each other and themselves. Both a Theban Orion and a Theban Orus are quoted as writing on etymology; a Milesian Orion and Orus wepl ¿ovikŵy; a Milesian Orus (not an Alexandrian, as Suidas says) on orthography. Now in the midst of this confusion it happens fortunately enough that the etymological work of Orion is still extant ; and in it he is distinctly spoken of as a Theban, who taught at Caesarea. The dvoоxóуiov πрòs Eudoklav, in three books, is likewise extant in manuscript, bearing the name of the same author. The dedication of this work to Eudocia fixes the period when the Theban Orion lived to about the middle of the fifth century after Christ. This is confirmed by what Marinus says in his life of Proclus (c. 8), that the latter studied under a grammarian of the name of Orion, who was descended from the Egyptian priestly class. It would appear from this, that Orion taught at Alexandria before he went to Caesarea. There is no reason whatever for considering these to be distinct persons, as Fabricius does (vol. vi. p. 374).

The Alexandrian Orion, who is said by Suidas to have written a panegyric on the emperor Hadrian, would probably be a contemporary of that emperor. It is probably by a mistake that Suidas attributes to him a work on etymology: of the other works assigned to him we know nothing further.

The lexicon of Orion the Theban was first intro- | duced to the notice of philologers by Ruhnken, and was published under the editorship of Sturz at Leipzig in 1820.

In like manner Ritschl distinguishes two grammarians of the name of Orus. In many passages of the Etymologica Orus is quoted and called a Milesian. In others he is quoted without any such distinctive epithet. It might seem a tolerably easy mode of reconciling this with the statement of Suidas to suppose that the Alexandrian Orus, as being the more celebrated, is mentioned without any distinctive epithet, while the Milesian is always thus distinguished. But it is decisive

against this supposition, that, besides the internal evidence that the articles taken from Orus and those taken from Crus the Milesian are really taken from one and the same author, all the works attributed by Suidas to the Alexandrian Orus are quoted as the works of the Milesian Orus in the Etymologica. From this, combined with the circumstance that the quotations made by Orus exhibit a more extensive acquaintance with ancient and somewhat rare authors than was to be expected in a Byzantine grammarian of the fourth century, and that in the passages in the Etymologica no author later than the second century is quoted by Orus, Ritschl concludes that there were two grammarians of the name of Orus; one a Milesian, who lived in the second century, and was the author of the works mentioned by Suidas: the other, an Alexandrine grammarian, who taught at Constantinople not earlier than the middle of the fourth century after Christ, and of whose works, if he was the author of any, we possess no remains.

A comparison of the Etymologicum Magnum and the Etymologicum Gudianum with the lexicon of Orion shows that the various articles of the latter have been incorporated in the two former, though not always in exactly the same form as that in which they appear in Orion. It is found also that in the Etymologicum Magnum a very large number of the citations professedly taken from Orus are also found in Orion. Ritschl has shown that it is impossible to substitute in all these passages the name of Orion, as the Orus spoken of is sometimes distinctly called & Minois; and that moreover it is not necessary to attempt it, for an article in the Etymologicum Magnum, which ends with the words οὕτως Ωρος· ἀλλὰ καὶ ̓Ωρίων καὶ Ἡρωδιανὸς περὶ παθών, renders it all but certain that Orion had borrowed a large number of his articles from Orus without acknowledgment. This is confirmed by a comparison of various passages. Orion cites the older authorities by name. Orus he never so quotes; and in this he followed the example of various other grammarians, who were rather given to make use of the labours of their more immediate predecessors without acknowledgment. It is of cource possible enough that in a few passages of the Etymologicum Magnum, the name of Orus has been accidentally substituted for that of Orion.

It appears that Orus was the author of the following works. 1. A commentary on the orthography of Herodianus. 2. A treatise of his own on orthography, arranged in alphabetical order (Suidas s. v.pos. Zonaras quotes Orus év T vikelą avrou optoypapia) The treatises on the diphthongs al and et, mentioned by Suidas, were probably portions of this work. 3. Περὶ ἐθνικῶν. 4. Περὶ διχρόνων. 5. Περὶ ἐγκλιτικῶν μορίων. Of this we know nothing further. 6. Fabricius (Bibl. Graec. vol. vi. p. 374) mentions a treatise Пep woλvo Οι πολυσημάντων λέξεων as extant in manuscript. Of this likewise nothing further is known. 7.Пeрl nábous. This is omitted by Suidas, but is quoted 8. Λύσεις προτάσεων τῶν in the Etymologica. Ηρωδιανού. Απ Ιλιακὴ προσῳδία is attributed to Orus in the Etymol. Magn. (536,54); probably from a confusion with the work of Herodianus on the same subject. Fabricius (vol. vi. p. 374) speaks of an Etymologicum Ori Milesi, on the authority, as he supposes, of Fulvius Ursinus, whom Fabricius understands to say that he pos