FOOTNOTES.

“Tibi quem promitti sæpius audis.” Æneid, lib. vi. 791.

Jerome about the year 390 said of Origen, “Quem post Apostolos, Ecclesiarum Magistrum nemo nisi imperitus negabat. Præf. ad nom. Heb.” His celebrated controversy with Ruffinus then began, and as the latter was an admirer and translator of Origen’s writings, the character of Origen was involved in the dispute, and Jerome heaped upon it all the abuse he thought due to Ruffinus. Bishop Bull says of this transaction, “Hieronymus odiô suô in Originem seu potiùs in Origenis interpretem Ruffinum, nimiùm indulgens, indeque omnia ejus verba dictaque in pessimum sensum trahere amans.”—Bullii. Op. Om. p. 121. And again, “Hieronymus in hac Origenis accusatione, animum à candore alienum atque affectibus abreptum ita manifestè prodidit, ut in cæteris criminationibus fidem sibi omnem derogâsse videatur.”—Bullii. Op. Om. p. 123.

Milner (Ecc. Hist. I. 496) observes that the Arians who had so very little assistance from precedents, were glad to catch at the shadow of an argument drawn from Origen’s illustrious name, and they accordingly sought out expressions obscure in themselves, but plainly contradictory to the general tenor of his opinions, upon the ground of which they claim him as their supporter. Milner observes of these men (Ecc. Hist. II. 163) that every thing mean and sordid, cruel and inhuman, ambitious and perfidious is on their side, and this is the character of their conduct towards the writings of Origen.

Of modern writers the opinion is decisive. Bishop Bull says, “Ita mecum statuo Origenem in articulo de fillii divinitate adeoque de S. Trinitate revera Catholicum fuisse.”—Bullii. Op. Om. p. 127. Waterland, Chandler, Fiddes, and Cudworth hold the same sentiment.

De Illust. Eccle. Script. 249. Ed. Colon. 1580.

Geor. Cedr. Compen. Hist. 253. Ed. Par. 1647.

Mic. Glycæ. An. 242. Ed. Par. 1660.