are worthy, and thus truly worshipping God, and instructing as many as they are able, they may be tempered with the Word of God and the divine law; and thus they may be united to the God over all through the Son of God, the Word and wisdom and truth and righteousness who is one with Him, every one who is directed to live in all things according to God. B
76. You have, holy Ambrose, the end, according to the present and given ability, of the things commanded by you. We have encompassed in eight books all that we judged it worth the labor to dictate against the work entitled "The True Word" by Celsus. It will now be for the one who reads his composition and our defense of it to judge which of the two breathes more of the true God, and of the manner of piety towards Him, and of the truth that reaches to men, exhorting them to the best life by healthy dogmas. However, know that Celsus promised another work after this, in which he engaged to teach how one ought to live who might wish and be able to believe him. If, therefore, he did not write the work as he promised—the second discourse—it may be well for us to be content with the eight books dictated against his first discourse; but if he began and finished that one too, search for it and send the treatise, so that, in response to that also—whatever the Father of truth may grant us to dictate—we may refute the false opinions it contains; or if he says anything true, we may, without any spirit of contention, acknowledge it as well-spoken. C
FINIS. Glory to Thee, our God, glory to Thee.
Here, in the Ruæan edition, there follows: 1° The book of Adamantius on the right faith in God, which the reader will find below; 2° A fragment of a work entitled *Philosophumena*, first attributed to Origen, but most recently to St. Hippolytus; the text of this book, recently edited in full, we shall provide with a Latin translation in the form of an appendix to the IVth century. ED. PATR.
NOTES OF AN ENGLISH SCHOLAR ON ORIGEN’S LITTLE BOOK ON PRAYER
From the edition of the same little book which appeared in London in the year 1728, edited by William Reading, A. M., librarian of the London clergy at Sion College.Col. 416, lin. 1. In the Stockholm codex, indeed, D this little book is anonymous; but it is appended to the Commentaries on Matthew, which bear the name of Origen, as if considered the offspring of that same parent: we do not, however, on that account judge that it should be attributed to Origen, were it not that the color of the diction and style, and the allegorical method of interpreting the Scriptures; and also the same dogmas, which are expressed in nearly the same words in his other writings; and also the Commentaries on Genesis, cited in the same way as in the books against Celsus; and finally the book inscribed to Ambrose, might most plainly demonstrate it to be his; so that it may be doubtful to no one that this is indeed that very book *On Prayer* of which Pamphilus makes mention in his *Apology*: which, indeed, we are of the opinion should be numbered among the last of Origen’s works; since we see so many of his sayings and dogmas, which are found dispersed in other writings, collected into this one little book.
Ibid. A, lin. 4. Read *δὴ*. You will find these particles in this little book often interchanged with one another through the carelessness of a scribe. — Bentley entirely expunges *δὲ* and *δὴ*.
Ibid. A, lin. 5. *χάριτι Θεοῦ*. This phrase is frequent in the apostolic writings, and that…
perhaps might be the reason why a scribe added that *Θεοῦ*, which seems to us redundant; for there is no reason to believe that Origen, tautologizing, wrote here "by the grace of God from God."
Col. 417, B, lin. 14, *χαρίζεται... τὸ θέλημα*. In the manuscript there is a lacuna of about two lines between *χαρίζεται* and *τὸ θέλημα*, which correspond to nearly three lines of our own. The Oxford editor wished to fill this gap from John xv, 15, in this way: *Χαρίζεται [εἶπε γὰρ, οὐκ ἔτι ὑμᾶς λέγω δούλους, ὅτι ὁ δοῦλος οὐκ οἶδε τί ποιεῖ αὐτοῦ ὁ κύριος· ὑμᾶς δὲ εἴρηκα φίλους, ὅτι πάντα ἃ ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός μου, ἐγνώρισα ὑμῖν. Λέγει ὅτι οὐκ οἶδε] τὸ θέλημα.* And perhaps he did not err in filling the spot; yet he less correctly connects *λέγει ὅτι οὐκ οἶδε* with what follows; since that *οἶδε* does not ask for anything in the adjuncts that is *ἑαυτῶν*, but strictly *ἑαυτοῦ* (just as in John: *οὐκ οἶδε τί ποιεῖ αὐτοῦ ὁ κύριος*), nor can any sense be made from the words conjoined in that way. I therefore believe the whole passage should be rather constituted and corrected thus: *Χαρίζεται [εἶπε γὰρ, οὐκ ἔτι ὑμᾶς λέγω δούλους, ὅτι ὁ δοῦλος οὐκ οἶδε τί τὸ θέλημα τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ· ὑμᾶς δὲ εἴρηκα φίλους, ὅτι πάντα ἃ ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός μου, ἐγνώρισα ὑμῖν. Δούλοις οὖσιν αὐτοῖς γνωρίζει] τὸ θέλημα τοῦ κυρίου ἑαυτῶν, οὐκέτι, ὅτε διδάσκει αὐτοὺς τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ, κυρίου εἶναι θέλοντος* — : For in these words, as I think, when thus read and punctuated, you will find neither sense nor syntax lacking. Indeed, in the words of John, instead of *τί ποιεῖ ὁ κύριος*, I have placed *τί τὸ θέλημα τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ*, because it fits more aptly with what follows, and Origen himself reads it so in a parallel passage, Vol. I, num. 31, Comment. in Joan., *ἐπεὶ ὁ δοῦλος οὐκ οἶδε τί θέλει ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ, οὐ μένει κύριος γινόμενος αὐτῶν φίλος· καὶ αὐτὸς τοῦτο διδάσκει, φάσκων, οὐκέτι ὑμᾶς λέγω δούλους, ὅτι ὁ δοῦλος οὐκ οἶδε τί τὸ θέλημα τοῦ κυρίου αὐτοῦ.* It is not our business to mend the lacunae of the codex; and we have taken pains in this matter merely to prevent those things which follow from remaining entirely void of sense. I am quite satisfied with this conjecture of the learned man. Wherefore, I would wish these words of our Latin translation, *voluntate domini sui* [by the will of his lord], not to be changed even when he teaches them the will of him who wishes to be lord, but to be changed to these: *voluntatem domini sui, qui cum eos docet voluntatem suam, non amplius dominus esse velit, sed in amicum* [the will of his lord, who, when he teaches them his own will, wishes no longer to be lord, but [to be] a friend], etc.
Col. 417, lin. 1, *ἀλλ' εἰκὸς, ᾿Αμβρόσιε*. In almost the same way, Origen in his Comment. in Joan., having prefaced certain things sought from further afield, finally turns his discourse to Ambrose with these words: *τί δὲ πάντα ταῦθ' ἡμῖν βούλεται; ἐρεῖς ἐντυγχάνων τοῖς γράμμασιν, ᾿Αμβρόσιε, ἀληθῶς Θεοῦ ἄνθρωπε* [But what do all these things mean for us? You will say, as you encounter the writings, Ambrose, truly a man of God].
Ibid., *φιλοπονώτατε*. Origen praises the *φιλοπονία* [industry/love of labor] of Ambrose in a certain epistle found in Suidas, s.v. *Ωριγένης*, yet he nowhere else addresses him as *φιλόπονον*, as is most frequently done; but he uses only appellations taken from holiness and piety, namely: *φιλόθεε ᾿Αμβρόσιε*, *ἱερὲ ᾿Αμβρόσιε*, *πιστότατε ᾿Αμβρόσιε* (against Cels., pp. 315, 447, 501, 577, 629); also at the end of Vol. VIII and in Joan., Vol. I, 2, 6, 28, 32, and in Joan., Vol. XX, *φιλοθεώτατε καὶ φιλομαθέστατε* [most God-loving and most eager to learn], and ibid. Vol. XII, *φιλοθεώτατε καὶ εὐσεβέστατε*. Whence we conjecture that here, too, *θεοσεβέστατε καὶ φιλοπονώτατε* should not inappropriately be read as *εὐσεβέστατε καὶ φιλοθεώτατε*, which seems to fit more aptly the question proposed concerning prayers. The man Adamantius himself was certainly *φιλοπονώτατος* [most industrious], but his *ἐργοδιώκτης* [taskmaster/overseer], Ambrose, was *φιλομαθέστατος* [most eager to learn], as he later calls him toward the end, num. 33.
Ibid. A, lin. 5, *ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἐκλελοιπέναι τὰ γυναικεῖα... εὔχομαι*. By these words, Origen seems to indicate that Tatiana was at that time advanced in age; since in her, as in Sarah, the menses had already ceased: but he certainly does not boast of this here (for why would a woman A [provide] that for praise, which is common to all old women?); but having transferred the words, he preaches her chastity, in which, though perhaps their *γυναικεῖα πάθη* [female passions], that is, the base affections to which women are subject, had already subsided and ceased, as in the elderly body of Sarah the *τὰ γυναικεῖα ἔμμηνα* [female menses]. Therefore, he prays that she be such as the Apostle describes in 1 Tim. ii, 9.
Ibid. lin. 13, *ἐπιτήδειοι*. Read *ἐπιτηδειότεροι*. There is truly here, in the manuscript, a lacuna of about three lines, the last of which must be understood as *τὸν Ἀπόστολον* or *τὸν Παῦλον*, as is clear from the following, *τὸν διὰ τήν*. These things have already been observed by us. — RUEUS.
Ibid. B, lin. 2, *δέ*. Read *δή*. For he does not here transition to another thing, but Origen notes these things concerning the preceding words of the Apostle.
Ibid., lin. 9, *αἰτεῖτε τὰ μεγάλα*. These, as if they were the words of Christ Himself, Origen often repeats and explains in the following parts; which, however, do not exist in the Gospels, except that Matthew cap. vi, v. 33 has things that are twin in sense, though in words quite different. Therefore, the most learned Grabe does not unsuitably conjecture in *Spic. Tom. I, p. 14*, that these had been taken word-for-word from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Moreover, it is not only in this little book that Origen cites them, but also *contra Celsum lib. VII, pag. 728*: *ἔμαθε γὰρ [Χριστιανὸς] ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ μηδὲν μικρόν, τουτέστιν αἰσθητόν, ζητεῖν, ἀλλὰ μόνα τὰ μεγάλα καὶ ἀληθῶς θεῖα* [For the Christian learned from Jesus to seek nothing small, that is, sensible, but only the great and truly divine things]. And *Tom. XV Comment. in Matth., n. 28*: *εἶπε γὰρ ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ, Αἰτεῖτε τὰ μεγάλα, καὶ τὰ μικρὰ προστεθήσεται ὑμῖν, καὶ, αἰτεῖτε τὰ ἐπουράνια, καὶ τὰ ἐπίγεια προστεθήσεται ὑμῖν.* Likewise *Tom. XXVIII Comm. in Joan., num. 4*. So also Clem. Alex. *Strom. I, p. 416 ed. Oxon.*: *αἰτεῖτε γάρ, φησί, τὰ μεγάλα, καὶ τὰ μικρὰ ὑμῖν προστεθήσεται.* In *Strom. vero IV, p. 579*, he explains this through the words of Matthew: *ζητεῖτε δὲ πρῶτον τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην, ταῦτα γὰρ μεγάλα· τὰ δὲ μικρὰ καὶ περὶ τὸν βίον, ταῦτα προστεθήσεται ὑμῖν.* So also Euseb. *Comm. in Psalm., p. 50*: *τοῦτο ὁ Σωτὴρ ἐδίδασκε, λέγων, Αἰτεῖτε τὰ μεγάλα, καὶ τὰ μικρὰ προστεθήσεται ὑμῖν.* Confer our annotations to lib. VII *contra Celsum*, num. 44. — RUEUS.
Col. 418 C, lin. 7, *ὁσίας*. Origen has it so in *Lib. II contra Cels., p. 487*, and in this little book, num. 9. In the same place, however, one also reads *ὁσίους*, as also num. 30, and *Comm. in Jerem.* and *in Joan. tom. XXVIII, n. 4*; and thus the editions have 1 Tim. ii, 8, which is certainly the true reading, as the same Attic usage follows in the next verse in *καταστολῇ κοσμίῳ*. However, in the Holmiensis codex, by a slip of the pen, *σμίως* seems written for *κοσμίῳ*.
Ibid. D, lin. 1, *μνησθείς*. So the ms., but read *μνησθῇς*. — Our annotation, in which we said the manuscript codex has *μνησθείς* correctly, should be held invalid. — RUEUS.
Col. 420 A, lin. 3, *ἔστι δὲ τοῦ καθὸ δεῖ*. Here it seems to me that the word *διδασκαλικόν* (or *παραστατικόν*) is missing, so that it might be, *ἔστι δὲ τοῦ καθὸ δεῖ διδασκαλικὸν τὸν μὴ ἀποστερεῖτε...*, precisely as Origen speaks in the preceding and following sections. Nothing is missing here, but *ἔστι δὲ τοῦ καθὸ δεῖ* ought to be changed to *ἔτι δὲ τοῦ καθὸ δεῖ*, which will depend on the preceding *διδασκαλικόν*. — RUEUS.
Ibid., lin. 4, *ἐὰν μή τι*. Origen reads later, num. 51, *ἐὰν μὴ ἐκ συμφώνου*, and *Comm. in Matth.*, *εἰ μή τι ἂν ἐκ συμφώνου... σχολάσητε τῇ προσευχή*. Doubtless, citing this passage thrice from memory, he brings it forth differently; do not think, indeed, that he described the variant readings of the copies the same number of times; which Millius, in *Proleg. 1478*, seems to have believed concerning the citations of the Fathers. Truly, the whole passage in the edition of 1 Cor. vii, 5 reads thus: *Εἰ μή τι ἂν ἐκ συμφώνου πρὸς καιρὸν, ἵνα σχολάζητε τῇ νηστείᾳ καὶ τῇ προσευχῇ, καὶ πάλιν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συνέρχησθε, ἵνα μὴ πειράζῃ ὑμᾶς*
ὑμᾶς* [the tempter, Satan]. Note, however, that Origen, in citing these words in this place, always omits "by fasting and," which was noted by others as well. A
Col. 420, line 7, *διὰ τούτων ... ἐὰν μὴ καί*. In the Oxford edition, contrary to the manuscript's authority, it reads *διὰ τοῦτο ... ἐὰν καί*, by which the sense of the entire passage is perverted.
Ibid., line 12, *τῆς συμφωνίας τὸ ἀσύμφωνον*. In much the same way, Origen's teacher, Clement of Alexandria, explains these words of the Apostle in *Stromata* III, p. 546: "The marriage-bond that exercises self-control by mutual consent for a time, for the sake of prayer, is a lesson in temperance; for he added, 'by mutual consent,' lest anyone should dissolve the marriage, and, 'for a time,' lest one who has married should, by practicing continence through necessity, slip into sin at some point; and mutual consent mediates temperate matrimony, leading both to prayer in a self-controlled manner, and to procreation with decency."
Ibid., line 15, *εἴ τι ἄν ἔχητε*. In the location cited here, Mark xi, 2, it reads *εἴ τι ἔχετε*. And Origen himself has it so later, no. 9.
Ibid. B, line 11, *φησὶν ὁρῶν δέ*. The Oxford edition begins a new section here, as if *φησὶν* were to be referred to what precedes; where, nevertheless, it has no place, but rather looks entirely to what follows—which, if taken separately, are devoid of both sense and syntax: for the order of the whole passage is this; after citing the words partly of Christ and partly of Paul himself, he adds, "Paul, knowing all these things... in accordance with [his] disposition... he says...," what then does he say? Certainly not all the things mentioned before, but those which he presently subjoins, "but the..." Thus, that light may shine upon an obscure passage, I believe it ought to be read and distinguished thus: *φησὶν* (ὁρῶν δὴ καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ... καθὸ δεῖ) *τὸ δὲ τί προσευξώμεθα δεῖ*... For thus Paul says Rom. viii, 26, *τὸ γὰρ τί προσευξώμεθα*.
Ibid. C, line 10, *τῷ Θεῷ*. Origen repeats this three times in what follows, and also in no. 14. But in the Roman editions [of Rom. viii, 26], in their place, it reads *ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν*.
Ibid., line 11, *δέ*. Read *δή*. For Origen notes these things concerning what preceded. B
Col. 421 A, line 12, *ψαλμῷ καί*. Read *ψαλμῷ δὲ καί*, as in the editions of 1 Cor. xiv, 15.
Ibid. B, line 7, *ἢ καὶ ἐν ἐπαγγ*. From these faulty [words], the Oxford editor forged equally faulty ones, viz., *λόγων οἳ καὶ εὐεπαγγελλομένων*. For me, however, it is beyond doubt that those words, *ἢ καὶ ἐν*, were written by a negligent copyist for *ἤκουσεν*, which the sense itself and the syntax demand: I read, therefore, *λόγων ἤκουσεν ἀπαγγελλομένων*... "he heard words being reported"; you have, however, *λόγους ἀπαγγέλλεσθαι* no. 18, *εἰ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἀπηγγελμένους λόγους* no. 19. The earlier Bentley found this correction, as we have warned. Ruæus.
Ibid. C, line 3, *προσεύχεσθαι*. This word is superfluous; and it seems to have been repeated here through the carelessness of a copyist, just as in the Vienna codex in Mill on Luke xi, 1; for in all others, both printed and manuscript, it is missing; nor does Origen recognize it in what precedes, nor even afterwards in no. 18, where he cites these words again.
Ibid., line 3, *αὐτοῦ ... ἄρα*. Between these words in the manuscript, a space of two lines lies vacant; nothing, however, seems to be missing.
Ibid., line 7, *ἀκροάσει*. Manuscript: *ἀκρεάσει*.
Ibid., line 9, *ἑώρα δέ μείζονος*. Thus almost Eusebius in Psalm., p. 530: "As those who have gone back beyond the prayers contained in the Old Scripture, the disciples of our Savior, approaching, requested Him to teach them how to pray," etc.
Ibid. D, line 2, *τῷ*. Read *τὸ*. For he does not speak here of a previous instruction (*πρὸς τὸ βαπτίζεσθαι*) necessary for attaining baptism, but of the subsequent instruction of those who [*πρὸς τῷ βαπτίζεσθαι*] besides baptism, were embracing also the teaching of John, and were received into the number of the disciples. Bentley preferred to place this correction earlier; it should be translated not "before baptism," but "besides baptism." Ruæus. C
Ibid., line 4, *πρὸς εὐχομένου*. Read separately *πρὸς εὐχομένου ... πνεύματος*, or *πρός* here is equivalent to *ὑπό* or *παρά*, "by him," "from him," as Hesychius. Examples, however, occur everywhere. The reading of the manuscript will not need correction if it is explained through the genitive, as they call it, absolute. Ruæus.
Col. 424 A, line 3, *τῇ γάρ*. I think it should be read *αὐτὴ γάρ*..., viz., Anna. Bentley's conjecture pleases me more. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 13, *ταύτας; καὶ ... αὐτάς;* Thus the manuscript. Read rather *ταῦτα; ἢ αὐτά;* namely, the things promised in the prayers. These are indeed the words of Hosea, xiv, 9.
Ibid., line 17, *λόγον*. Here in the manuscript follows a vacant space of about one line; but nothing seems to me to be missing.
Page 201 B, line 14, *σοι ... ἔνθα*. Between these words is a hiatus of two lines; where perhaps Origen had added another example similar to that of prayer. — This was already observed by us previously. Ruæus.
Ibid. C, line 3, *ἐπὶ τοῦ λεγομένου*. In the manuscript it is found wrongly written *ἐπὶ τοῖς ... λεγομένοις*; but for these, the Oxford editor substituted *τοῦ λεγομένου* little correctly, when it should clearly be read *τῆς ... λεγομένης*, viz., of prayer. Namely, *ου* was written for *ης*; which is a known flaw in manuscripts. See the note of the famous Mr. P. Needham in Hierocles, *De Provid.*, p. 248, 278.
Ibid., line 6, *δευτέραν ἐκάλεσε*. Between these words in the manuscript is an interstitial vacuum of two lines; but nothing at all seems to me to be missing, and the place cited here itself (Exod. viii, 8) clearly demonstrates it. — This was already observed by us previously. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 7, *εὔξασθε*. The manuscript has here *εὔξασθαι*, as well as a little later *τὴν εὔξασθαι*, by the usual error of copyists, interchanging vowels among themselves and with diphthongs.
Ibid., line 13, *πρὸς τῷ προτέρῳ*. That is, "beside the former," by which it denotes a vow. For these, however, the Oxford edition wrongly substitutes *πρὸ τῇ προτέρῳ*. — This was already observed by us previously, p. 201. Ruæus. D
Col. 425 A, line 9, *ὅτι ἐγώ*. Thus the manuscript. We correct this scribal error from the editions of the LXX (Roman and Oxford) to *ὅδὲ ἐγώ*. The Complutensian, however, has *ἰδοὺ ἐγώ*, which is indeed more convenient for the Hebrew.
Ibid., line 14, *ἀπὸ Φαραώ*. Read according to the LXX, *ἀπὸ σοῦ, καὶ τῶν ο. σου, καὶ τοῦ λαοῦ σου*.
Ibid. C, line 6, *ὡς εὔξεται τιμήν*. Manuscript: *ὡς εὔξεται τιμή*. We, however, judged it not unfair to follow the LXX editions in so manifest a matter.
Ibid., line 10, *σταθμῷ*. Thus the manuscript; but the editions of the LXX have *σταθμῷ*.
Ibid., line 13, *ἐάν*. In the editions of the LXX, *ἄν* is read here and in the following places.
Ibid. D, line 2, *Ναζιραίου*. For *Ναζιραίου*, the Oxford and Basil editions wrongly substitute *Ναζωραίου*, which has no relevance to the vow of consecration, about which the question is; but it designates only the place of birth or habitation: *Ναζωραίος, ὁ ἀπὸ Ναζαρέτ*· as also *Ναζαρηνός*, Suidas. The word *Ναζιραῖος* is formed, or as others have it, *Ναζηραῖος*, from the Hebrew NAZIR, "separated"; which the LXX also retain. The Roman edition in Judges xiii, 5, *Ναζίρ Θεοῦ*, that is, *ἅγιον Θεοῦ*, verse 7. But Hesychius [has] *Ναζιρέος* (read *Ναζιραῖος ὁ Θεῷ ἀφιερωμένος*). — Thus we read, and thus we translate. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 3, *ἁγιάσῃ*. Read, as in the editions of the LXX, *ἁγιάσει*.
Col. 428 A, line 10, *ὅρκον, ἢ ὁρίζηται ὁρισμῷ*. In the manuscript, the copyist ineptly inverts these, *ὅρκον ὁρισμῷ, ἢ ὁρίζηται*, as the Oxford edition has it. — This has already been observed by us. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 18, *περὶ τῆς*. For *τῆς*, I think one should read *εὐχῆς*, so that it may be *περὶ εὐχῆς τοιαύτης*. For that is clearly
A the reading of the Holm. codex; it is poorly read as *παραδώσει*, just as in the Alex. cod. The Oxford edition has *Habet autem ed. Rom. διδοὺς δῷς*.
Col. 428, line 19, *γέγραπται... παγὶς ἀνδρί*. In the codex there is an empty space of nearly two lines between *γέγραπται* and *ἀνδρί*, but nothing appears to be missing except *παγὶς*, which we have added from Prov. xx, 25 for the sake of the sense. However, I confess, there exist two other examples in Prov. vi, 14 and xix, 3, from which a large part of this lacuna could be filled thus: *γέγραπται, Σήμερον ἀποδίδωμι τὰς εὐχάς μου· καὶ, οὐχ ἁγναὶ εὐχαὶ ἀπὸ μισθώματος ἑταίρας· καὶ παγὶς ἀνδρί*. But we do not place too much confidence in this conjecture. In the codex, however, *ταχύ τι τῶν* is wrongly written for *ταχυτήτων*. We have already pointed out that there is a hiatus here. Ruæus. — Ibid., line 22, *ἐφ' ἑαυτῶν*. The MS incorrectly has *ἀφ' ἑαυτῶν*, which we thought should be corrected from the editions, Acts xxi, 23. Walker, however, reads *ἐφ' ἑαυτῶν* in the codex, as we have edited. Ruæus. — Ibid. B, line 3, *δῆ*. Read *δέ*.
Ibid., line 10, *λεγομένου*. In the codex there follows here a lacuna of two lines, which the Oxford editor wished to fill with only six words, and poorly at that. We, however, do not interpose our own conjectures. This has already been observed by us. Ruæus. — Ibid., *οὕτω δὴ ὁ λόγος ἐστὶν ἄδοξος*. Namely, that one might acknowledge Providence, and yet say that God is not to be prayed to; for it is evident from what follows that something of this kind had been placed in the lacuna. Origen, however, notes the absurdity in which these heretics involved themselves, since there was no sect of any note among the philosophers which, while positing God and Providence, abolished prayers; even if it perhaps doubted their efficacy: for on this point those philosophers who were eminent indeed disputed, among whom were the Peripatetics, *μηδὲν φάσκοντες ὄνησιν εὐχάς*, as Origen says in lib. II *contra Celsum*. But to me it is by no means clear that the Peripatetics were of that opinion, much less Aristotle himself, who in his *Politics* VII, 8, 9, says that care should be taken above all for the worship of the gods, as being what benefits the community most of all; and in *De mundo*, cap. 6, he says: *πάντες οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἀνατείνομεν τὰς χεῖρας εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εὐχὰς ποιούμενοι*, which he did not wish, I think, to be done to no purpose, but that in this way they might render the gods propitious and obtain their requests.
Ibid., line 5, *ἐπὶ τῆς κατὰ τὸ σύνηθες... σημαινόμενον εὐχῆς*. This passage is certainly corrupt: for *τὸ σύνηθες σημαινόμενον εὐχῆς* is clearly the same as *τὸ κοινὸν προσευχῆς*, since Origen notes here a different meaning for each from the common one; for he wishes the word *προσευχή* to denote not only prayer in the common signification, but also in a non-common one, just as *εὐχή* is taken for a vow; which he also strives to prove by the following example. Thus, therefore, I restore this passage: *τέτακται καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ μὴ κατὰ τὸ σύνηθες ἡμῖν σημαινομένου τῆς εὐχῆς*. Thus above, no. 5, *τὸ ὄνομα τῆς εὐχῆς μὴ κατὰ τὸ σύνηθες τέτακται*, and in the present number, a little later, *μήποτε τὸ προσηύξατο, ἐπὶ τῆς συνήθως ἡμῖν ὀνομαζομένης τέτακται εὐχῆς, τὸ δὲ, ηὔξατο εὐχήν, ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐν Λευιτικῷ τεταγμένου σημαινομένου*. This passage is not flawed by any error. B It is indeed true that *τὸ σύνηθες ἡμῖν σημαινόμενον εὐχῆς*, if taken generally and abstracted from all circumstances, is clearly the same as *τὸ κοινὸν προσευχῆς*. But it is false that *τὸ σύνηθες ἡμῖν σημαινόμενον εὐχῆς ἐν τοῖς περὶ τῆς Ἄννης λεγομένοις ἐν τῇ πρώτη τῶν Βασιλειῶν*, is clearly the same as *τὸ κοινὸν τῆς προσευχῆς*. For *εὐχή* in 1 Kings 1, 9, clearly signifies a vow in the sense common to us, which certainly is not the same as *τὸ κοινὸν προσευχῆς*. Ruæus. — Ibid., line 6, *ἔν γε περὶ*. Origen produces only one example here; how then does he say *ἔν γε τοῖς περὶ*, as if there were a preceding or following example? Surely you should read more correctly: *ἔν γε τοῖς περὶ τῆς Ἄννης λεγομένοις*, in these at least, he says, which are spoken of concerning Anna, the word *προσευχή* is taken in this sense. You will find these particles *τε* and *γε* often interchanged in the following. From our critique of the preceding note it is clear that one should not read *ἔν γε τοῖς*, etc., but simply *ἐν τοῖς*. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 9, *ψυχῇ πικρᾷ*. In all editions, in place of these, *τῶν Ο'* reads *κατώδυνος ψυχῇ*.
Ibid. C, line 2, *μήποτε τὸ, προσηύξατο, ἐπὶ τῆς συνήθως*. Origen cited only one place in which he wished *προσευχή* to signify, in a non-common sense, a vow; but now he acknowledges that the word *προσηύξατο* in that very place can be understood *κατὰ τὸ σύνηθες* (i.e., of prayer): the distinction, therefore, which he posited between *προσευχήν*, prayer, or *προσευχήν*, vow, falls into ruin, since for the latter meaning he could produce no example—unless, by his own admission, a doubtful one—not to mention that Origen himself, both in the preceding no. 3 and the following no. 14, understands this prayer (*προσευχή*) of Anna as prayer *κατὰ τὸ σύνηθες*.
Col. 429 A, line 1, *παραδόσει* for *παραδῷς*. We follow here the editions of *τῶν Ο'*, Complut. and Ald.; for D ibid. B, line 4, *τινάς*. Meaning the heretics, the Prodicians, as Origen’s teacher Clement of Alexandria teaches (Strom., VII, p. 854): *ὑπεμνήσθην τῶν περὶ τοῦ μὴ δεῖν εὔχεσθαι πρός τινῶν ἑτεροδόξων, τουτέστι, τῶν ἀμφὶ τὴν Προδίκου αἵρεσιν, παρεισαγομένων δογμάτων*: of whom he says Clement of Cyrene (i.e., the followers of Theodorus the atheist) was the predecessor, who, having abolished God, left no place at all for prayers.
Ibid., *οἱ τὰ αἰσθητὰ πάντη ἀναιροῦντες*. Read *πάντα*, that is, those who abolish all external rites of religion. Indeed, they denied that Christ was a man, and thus affirmed that he neither truly suffered nor rose again; for this reason they rejected his signs, i.e., baptism and the eucharist, and spurned prayers offered to God through his merits. Such were the Docetae (Ignat., *ad Smyrn.*, c. 7), the Marcosians (Iren. I, 18), Marcionites (Iren. V, 2), Archontici (Epiphan., *Hær.* XL; Theod., *Hær. Fab.* I, 11), Cainites (Tertull., *De bapt.*, c. 1), Ascodrutae (Theod., *ibid.*, I, 10), and finally the most impious offspring of all these, *οἱ ἀμφὶ τὸν Πρόδικον*, whom I consider to be specifically noted by Origen here. Confer Clem. Al., *Strom.* I, p. 544, 545, and Theod., *Hær. Fab.* I. Why he wishes *οἱ τὰ αἰσθητὰ πάντα ἀναιροῦντες* to be read, I do not understand, since the words of the manuscript codex return to the same sense, whether *πάντῃ* or *πάντα* is read. Ruæus.
Col. 432 A, line 14, *εἰκὸς τῷ θ.* *δέ* is missing; for he passes here to another argument of the heretics, as is noted in the margin of the codex: therefore read *εἰκὸς δὲ τῷ Θεῷ*.
Ibid. B, line 1, *αὐτῷ παρὰ τὰ*. The copyist inverted these; for the true reading is certainly *παρὰ τὰ αὐτῷ προδιατεταγμένα*. Bentley had previously noticed this error of the copyist and amended it, as we have noted at this passage. Ruæus.
Ibid. C, line 2, *μήπω*. Read *καὶ μήπω*, for *καί* is clearly missing. Bentley first thought of this emendation, as I have noted. Ruæus. — Ibid., line 3, *φαῦλον*. Thus the codex Alex. and others have it, instead of *κακόν*, which exists in the Roman edition, IX, 11. But this passage of Origen escaped Mill, as did that other one in *Com. in Joan.*, no. 25, where *ἀγαθόν* or *φαῦλον* is also read.
Ibid. D, line 2. MS *ἑβδόμῳ*, contrary to the truth of the matter. One should read *ἐννάτῳ*. Whether it should be read *ἐννάτῳ* will not be certain until it is established that the cited words, as they are now, were formerly the beginning of Psalm xc. Ruæus. — Ibid., line 6, *ἐν αὐτῷ ἐν Χριστῷ*. Origen here,
as I think, wrote for the sake of the meaning *ἐξελέξατο αὐτοὺς ἐν Χριστῷ*, while some annotator placed the words of the Apostle himself, *ἐν αὐτῷ*, in the margin; whence A eventually they were received into the context along with them, *ἐν Χριστῷ*; for Origen certainly did not write both, *ἐν αὐτῷ ἐν Χριστῷ*. Origen could write both, *ἐν αὐτῷ ἐν Χριστῷ*, namely, after the *ἐν αὐτῷ* which the Apostle has in Eph. 1:4, implying *τουτέστιν*, that is, *ἐν Χριστῷ*. Ruæus.
Col. 433 A, line 4, *ἐκ τῶν*. No meaning is derived from these; and they seem to me to be written erroneously for *ἐν Χριστῷ*. For these fit the place aptly, in which Origen clearly looks back to the words of the Apostle cited above, *ἐξελέξατο αὐτοὺς ἐν Χριστῷ πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου*.
Ibid., line 10, *τῆς εἰκόνος τῆς δόξης*. Thus also Origen cites the words of the Apostle in Rom. 8:29, in tom. III of the *Commentary on Matthew*, num. 29, with the additions, to wit, *τῆς δόξης*: but in the same place, tom. XII, num. 27, he reads *συμμόρφους τῆς δόξης*, omitting *τῆς εἰκόνος*. Origen, being in a hurry, certainly confuses these words of Paul with similar ones, *συμμορφον τῷ σώματι τῆς δόξης* (Phil. 3:21), and adapts them to his own subject. But indeed in the *Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans*, where he deliberately recites and explains this passage, he repeats it in the very same words at least five times, as it exists in the editions: *συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ Υἱοῦ*. Therefore, it seems to me that Millius wasted his effort when he corrected variant readings from places of this kind.
Ibid. B, line 1, *ὀνομαστός*. Read *ὀνομαστί*. Thus Origen above, *περὶ Κύρου ὀνομαστί προφητεύεται*, and elsewhere often. This emendation was first thought of by Bentley. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 11, *εἰ ὡς*. Read *ἢ ὡς*, which the very sense demands. — This had already been emended by Bentley. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 14, *τὸ δοκιμάζον*. Read *τὸ δοκιμασθέν*, or *δ δοκιμάζει*. Bentley had already warned that this should be read thus. Ruæus.
Ibid. C, line 7, *προδιαληπτέον*. In the manuscript codex it is read *προσδιαληπτέον*, as the Oxford edition has it. But *προδιαληπτέον* is superscribed by the same hand, which is certainly more apt for the place. "These things," he says, "must be treated beforehand," and they must be explained first. But similarly, about to speak of the same matter in *De Principiis* book III, chapter 1, he entitles it thus: *Περὶ τοῦ αὐτεξουσίου ὀλίγα διαλάβωμεν... ἵνα δὲ νοήσωμεν τί τὸ αὐτεξούσιον, τὴν ἔννοιαν αὐτοῦ ἀναπτύξαι δεῖ... ἵνα σταθῇ τὸ ζητούμενον. Τῶν κινουμένων*, etc.
Ibid., line 7, *τῶν κινουμένων*. Origen has similar things in chapter 1, book III of *De Principiis*: *Τῶν κινουμένων τὰ μέν τινα ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἔχει τὴν τῆς κινήσεως αἰτίαν, ἕτερα δὲ ἔξωθεν μόνον κινεῖται*, etc. Thus also Clement of Alexandria, *Strom.* II, p. 487. *Τῶν κινουμένων τὰ μὲν καθ' ὁρμὴν καὶ φαντασίαν κινεῖται, ὡς ζῶα· τὰ δὲ κατὰ μετάθεσιν, ὡς τὰ ἄψυχα... ἕξεως μὲν οὖν οἱ λίθοι, φύσεως δὲ τὰ φυτὰ, ὁρμῆς... τὰ ἄλογα μετέχει ζῶα*. And thus almost Philo, *De allegor.*, p. 1091: *Ἡ μὲν ἕξις κοινὴ καὶ τῶν ἀψύχων ἐστὶ, λίθων καὶ ξύλων... ἡ δὲ φύσις διατείνει καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ φυτά*, etc.
Ibid. C, line 12, *λίθος*. Read *λίθοι*.
Ibid., *τὰ ἐκκοπέντα μετάλλου*. It is *excisa et eruta venis*, in which they were rooted, nourished, and grew. But *μέταλλον*, which indeed fits with stones, does not seem to be said very aptly concerning woods. See Casaubon and Salmasius in Spartianus’ *Vita Pescen.*, chapter 12.
Ibid., *ἤ*. Read *καί*. Perhaps the whole passage should be read thus: *λίθοι γὰρ, καὶ ξύλα, καὶ τὰ ἐκκοπέντα μέταλλα, τὰ τὸ φύειν ἀπολωλεκότα...* Thus a little later: *Λίθοις καὶ ξύλοις, τοῖς τὸ φύειν ἀπολωλεκόσι*. Origen refers to cut-off metals alongside stones and woods for the reason that all these things (which, while they remain in their own seats and veins, *ὑπὸ φύσεως κινοῦνται* and have a certain soul, to wit, *τὸ θρεπτικόν*), being snatched from their places, *ἄψυχα διαμένουσιν*, *τὸ φύειν ἀπολωλεκότα*. Confer chapter 1, book III of *De Principiis*.
D Ibid. D, line 3. But this whole passage is corrupt, which I think should be emended thus: *Ἀπολωλεκότα (κἂν κινῆται καὶ ταῦτα τῷ ῥευστὰ εἶναι πάντα σώματα, καὶ φθίνοντα παρακολουθητικὴν ἔχειν τὴν ἐν τῷ φθίνειν κίνησιν) δεύτερον...* Thus almost in the place cited above, chapter 1, book III of *De Principiis*, *ὑπεξηρήσθω δὴ νῦν τοῦ λόγου τὸ κίνησιν λέγει τὴν ῥεῖσιν τῶν σωμάτων*. Bentley proposes another emendation. Lord Fleuri, moreover, devised another, as I noted. But if that which the learned Englishman proposed pleases anyone more, let him translate with the London editor: "Although these also are moved because bodies are fluid, and while they decay, they have motion as a companion. Second, however," etc. Ruæus.
Col. 436 A, line 1, *ἢ ψυχῆς*. Read *καὶ ψυχῆς*, as above. But thus chapter 1, book III of *De Principiis*: *φυτὰ, καὶ ἀπαξαπλῶς ὅσα ὑπὸ φύσεως καὶ ψυχῆς συνέχονται*. He means all vegetabilia, such as have in themselves *θρεπτικὴν δύναμιν*; for, as Aristotle says (*De anima* II, 4), *τρέφεται οὐδὲν, δ μὴ κοινωνεῖ ζωῆς*, since *τὸ θρεπτικόν* is *μόριον ψυχῆς* (ibid. c. 2) or *ψυχή φυτική*, as Galen calls it, *Περὶ φυσ. δυνάμ.*, book I. Confer Aristotle, *De plantis*, I, 1, 2.
Ibid., *ἐξ αὐτῶν*. Thus Origen, *Περὶ ἀρχῶν* III, 1: *Τῶν δὲ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς τοῦ κινεῖσθαι τὴν αἰτίαν ἐχόντων τὰ μέν φασιν ἐξ ἑαυτῶν κινεῖσθαι, τὰ δὲ ἀφ' ἑαυτῶν· ἐξ ἑαυτῶν μὲν ἄψυχα, ἀφ' ἑαυτῶν δὲ ἔμψυχα.* Where by *ἄψυχα* he does not mean those things which he said above are moved from without, or are held by habit alone, stones to wit or woods, for these he says *ἄψυχα* are those which have the cause of being moved in themselves; by *ἄψυχα* therefore he here means (as Rufinus paraphrastically interprets) those things which indeed live, but are not animals, i.e., plants and those that are moved by nature alone. But these *ἄψυχα* he now calls opposite to animals, which are properly *ἔμψυχα*, if they are moved from themselves. But do not wonder that Origen sometimes says plants are *ἄψυχα*, and sometimes that they are moved by a soul, since it has not been settled among the philosophers themselves about that matter; *οὐ συνίσταται γάρ*, says Aristotle, *πότερον ἔχουσιν, ἢ οὐχὶ, τὰ φυτὰ ψυχήν*, *De Plant.* I. ... *μεταθέσει κινεῖσθαι τὰ ἄψυχα· κινεῖσθαι δὲ καὶ τῶν ἀψύχων τὰ φυτὰ μεταβατικῶς φασιν εἰς αὔξησιν, εἴ τις αὐτοῖς ἄψυχα εἶναι συγχωρήσει τὰ φυτά*. *Strom.* II, pag. 487.
Ibid., line 4, *ἀπ' αὐτοῦ*. Read here, and a little later, *ἀφ' αὑτοῦ*. Thus chapter 1, book III of *De Principiis*, *ἀπ' ἐμοῦ*. Bentley would prefer *ἀπ' αὐτῶν* and *ἀφ' αὑτῶν* instead of *ἀπ' αὐτοῦ* and *ἀφ' αὑτοῦ*, which is *ἀφ' ἑαυτῶν*. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 10, *τις*. Read *τι*. For the following demands it, *ἀνάγκη τοῦτο εἶναι λογικόν*. This had already been observed by Bentley, as we noted at this place. Ruæus.
Ibid. B, line 2, *ἰδίοις πάθεσιν ἐπιστήσας*. In the same way Origen discourses about this matter in chapter 1, book III of *De Principiis*: *Οὗτος ἐπιστησάτω τοῖς ἰδίοις πάθεσι καὶ κινήμασι, εἰ μὴ εὐδόκησις γίνεται, καὶ συγκατάθεσις, καὶ ῥοπὴ τοῦ ἡγεμονικοῦ ἐπὶ τόδε τι διὰ τάδε τὰς πιθανότητας*, etc. But a little later I think it should read, *τίς γὰρ οὕτως διάκειται...*
Ibid., line 14, *δή*. Read *δέ*.
Ibid. D, line 2, *κατὰ τὸν εἰρμόν*. Thus *Philocal.*, chapter 25: *προατενίσας ὁ Θεὸς τῷ εἰρμῷ τῶν ἐσομένων*. And a little later: *ὄντος δὲ τοῦ ἐφ' ἡμῖν, ὁ Θεὸς ἐπιβαλὼν τῷ εἰρμῷ τῶν ἐσομένων προγνώσεται*, etc.
Ibid., line 5, *οὐχὶ τῆς προγνώσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ αἰτίας*. See Origen discourse more fully about this matter in *Philocal.*, chapters 21, 23, 25, and *contra Cels.* book II, num. 18 et seqq., and Eusebius, *Comm. in Psalm.*, pp. 255-259.
Ibid., line 6, *οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο*. This is, we do not act freely not because God (as is now put) is ignorant of what we are going to do, but because we have an innate faculty of acting freely, which, whether God knows they are future or not, always remains the same.
Col. 457 A, line 1, *πλέον*. Read *πλήν*.
πλήν*. A Ibid., line 2, *κατὰ τάξιν λαμβάνειν*. Read *τὸ* fere, *Contra Cels. lib. iv, num. 70*, "of what is in our power for each person, even if God uses the wickedness of the wicked for the ordering of the whole, assigning them to the necessity of the whole," etc. Ibid., line 6, *διατάττεται*. Read *διατέτακται*, so that it agrees in time with *ἔγνωσται*. So indeed above, *προδιατέτακται κατ᾽ ἀξίαν*. See this passage as to how these things may be more correctly emended by Bentley. Rueus. Ibid., line 7, *εὔξηται ποίαν*. Read *εὔξεται*, and *ποίαν*. I have read *εὔξεται*, but *εὔξηται* requires nothing; rather, it should be read *εὔξηται*, just as it is rightly translated in Latin: "what he is to pray for," is foreknown by God. Rueus. Ibid., line 9, *προκατειλῆφθαι*. In the codex it is written *προκατείληπται*, as the Oxford edition has it. But this seems to be corrected in the margin by the same hand, with the word divided thus: *κατειλῆ*, whence we have formed *προκατειλῆφθαι*, which the syntax also clearly demands; i.e., "to everyone it is reasonable, and that, what he will pray for... has been seized beforehand." That it should be read *προκατειλῆφθαι* had already been noted by Bentley. Rueus. Ibid., line 14, *εὔξασθαι*. Read *εὔξεσθαι*, in the future, as before, *ἔσεσθαι*. This had already been noted by Bentley. Rueus. Ibid. B, line 2, *τοῦδε*. Read *τήνδε*, meaning "the prayer." Ibid., line 3, *ἐὰν δέ τις ταράττηται*. Thus Origen, *Comm. in Gen.*, "Let us look first at what some of the Greeks, fearing that things are compelled and that what is in our power is in no way preserved if God foreknows the future," etc. Ibid., line 8, *βούλεσθαι*. Read *βουλήσεσθαι*, for it concerns the future. Ibid. C, line 1, *ἐμοὶ τόνδε πρέπει νικᾷν ἐν ταῖς εὐποιίαις*. Origen brings forth the same sentiment in similar words in *Comm. in Joan. tom. vi, num. 20*: "It is proper for the goodness of God to conquer in doing good, by anticipating him who is to be worthy, and before he becomes worthy, adorning him with ability." This, as well as other parallel passages here and there, we have noted from Origen himself, so that when you see him always consistent with himself, you may not doubt that this little book is his genuine product. Ibid., line 5, *τόνδε τὸν ἄγγελον*. Consult *lib. Contra Cels.* and *Comm. in Matth. tom. xi, num. 27, 28, and tom. xiv, num. 21*. Ibid. D, line 1, *Ἀμώς*. In this name editions vary, some reading *Ἀμώς*, others *Ἀμμών*, or *Ἀμών*, the last of which is most congruent with the Hebrew. See IV Kings XXI, 2, Chron. XXXIII, Jer. I, 2, and Millington in Matth. 1, 10.
Col. 440 A, line 2, *κατὰ μὲν τάς*. Perhaps the scribe inverted these; for the order is certainly better, *κατὰ τὰς μὲν ἀρχάς*. Moreover, regarding Judas the traitor, Origen has similar sentiments in *Comm. in Joan. tom. xxxi, n. 8*: "I think that Judas had once genuinely believed, not being a thief from the beginning, and he was such a man of peace of Christ, that he held good hopes for Jesus at one time, as a noble apostle." And likewise in number 1: "From the apostolic order, in which he was exalted, he has fallen away from having a disposition once similar to the rest." And number 12: "Being holy, he has fallen; he was not an enemy from the beginning... he once loved Jesus." Item number 8 in *Matth. tom. xvi*: "Judas, being of the same choice as the others, fell into the snare of the evil one." Ibid., line 5, *ἡ δὲ πρόγνωσις... ἐπὶ Ἰούδα*. He has almost the same genuine sentiments in *lib. i Contra Cels., pag. 406*: "I shall use the prophecies concerning Judas, and that of our Savior concerning him, as knowing he was about to betray... In the one hundred and eighth Psalm it is said from the person of the Savior, 'O God, do not neglect my praise,' etc." So also ibid., pag. 396. Ibid., line 14, *ἐν ἐμαυτῷ*. This seems to me to be written erroneously for *ἐν ἐμῷ υἱῷ*, or *ἐν ἐμοῦ τῷ Χριστῷ*, since God the Father is not called this in Holy Scripture, but here Origen clearly looks to the words of Paul himself, "He chose us in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4). Ibid., line 15, *ἐπιβαλλόμενος*. He has almost the same words in *Comm. in Gen.*, "God applying Himself to the beginning of the creation of the world." Ibid. B, line 2, *ἅμα τῷ γεννηθῆναι*. Confer Origen in *Matth. tom. xi, num. 27 et seqq.*, and in *Rom. p. 423*. Ibid., line 9, *μεταβαλλόμενος*. Read *μεταβαλόμενος*. Ibid., line 10, *λέγει*. Read *λέγῃ*. Bentley had already read it this way before. See this passage. Rueus. Ibid. C, line 2, *τοῦ ἡλίου ἐφ' ἡμῖν*. That is, of the sun's *free will*. But thus *Contra Cels. lib. v, pag. 585*: "The stars in heaven are rational and noble living beings... for their sensible light is indeed the work of the creator of all things, but the intelligible light, perhaps even of themselves, has come from the free will within them." And pag. 587: "Concerning the sun, and moon, and stars, we say also 'praise Him, all the stars'." And *lib. vii, pag. 791*: "We therefore praise the sun, as a good creation of God, and keeping the laws of God, and obeying the 'praise the Lord, sun and moon,' etc." Regarding this dogma of Origen, see Huet, *Origeniana lib. ii, quæst. 8*. Ibid., line 6, *αὐτὸν πάντα*. Read *αὐτόν, φησί, πάντα*, as in the preceding. Ibid., line 7, *εἰρήκαμεν*. Namely, num. 6, where he said God "takes according to order, for the direction of the whole, the things of each one of us which are necessary for the constitution of the world." Ibid., *τά*. Read *τῷ*. This was already noted as required by Bentley. Rueus. Ibid., line 10, *τῷ ἐφ' ἡμῖν... ἄστρων*. Either something must be added, or at least *being abused* must be understood. Ibid., line 14, *ἑτέρου*. This word seems less appropriate in this place; for who, I ask, is this "other," of whose "in our power" Origen here boasts? Not another, I opine, than (what he said above) "each one of those upon the earth," or any man whatsoever. Therefore, for *ἑτέρου* I think we should read *ἡμετέρου*, so that it may be *περὶ τοῦ ἐφ' ἡμῖν ἡμετέρου*, concerning our (referring to humans) free will; for this is what he prays about in the preceding, and which he here contrasts with the "in our power" of those in heaven. The syllable *in* dropped out by the concurrence of a similar voice. Bentley first thought of this emendation. Rueus. Ibid. D, line 5, *κρείττον*. You should read the contrary, *χεῖρον*. For the passage itself demonstrates this. Bentley had noted this for this passage. Rueus. Col. 441 A, line 4, *ὑπὸ λόγου*. Namely, the Creator, for he means the *Logos* here, through whom all things were made (Joan I, 3). Thus *Contra Cels. lib. v, p. 585*, he says that the stars are "rational living beings, enlightened by the light of knowledge by the wisdom, which is the brightness of eternal light," etc. Ibid., line 9, *περί*. It should clearly be read *παρὰ τὴν αὑτῶν αἰτίαν*, which is, from the free will within them, as in *Contra Cels., pag. 585*; so indeed later in number 29, "possessing a soul by free will, and according to its own cause... coming to be among the greater things..." And *Comm. in Gen.*, "things about to be done according to his own cause." And *Philoc. pag. 57*: "not so much according to their own cause as according to the ineffable kindness of God." And pag. 65: "to be a vessel honorable or dishonorable according to the cause of the creator." So also *lib. iv Contra Celsum, p. 556*: "to be placed in a most beautiful place according to their own cause." Hence, however, you may correct the same error in the Holmiensis codex in *Comm. in Matth. tom. x, num. 11*, "the cause not concerning the souls, but concerning that, the cause not being concerning it," where *περί* is written three times instead of *παρά*, which Huetius did not notice. That *παρά* should be read instead of *περί*, I have already warned. But I freely admit I poorly understood the sense of this passage in translating it. Therefore turn.
A I. 11, 53, under the name of Jeremias are cited the words of Zacharias viii, 17. *Ibid.*, line 4, the earth. Read "of the earth," as the LXX have, "from the land of Egypt." Thus says Epiphanius in *Ancor.*, sect. 113, "in Chanaan and in Egypt," is read instead of "in the land of Chanaan and in the land of Egypt," as all editions of the 70 in Exod. vi, 40 have. But the origin, I opine, is this error from the similarity of the letters T and Γ in the manuscript codices; whence we have also observed the particles *te* and *ge* often interchanged in this little book. *Ibid.*, line 6, from resentment. It should clearly be read on the contrary "from lack of resentment." So indeed in number 30, *mnēsikakein* (to bear a grudge) is written for *amnēsikakein* (to not bear a grudge). Consistent with these things is Clement of Alexandria, *Strom.* VII, p. 884: "Nor are they yet passionless, unless they have become perfectly without resentment, according to the teaching of the Lord, by praying even for their enemies." And thus roughly the scholia on the Lord's Prayer [say]: "Then the Word, entreating [men] to be without resentment... for if one is not endowed with the virtue of non-resentment, he cannot obtain forgiveness." This emendation was first devised by Bentley. Ruæus. *Ibid.*, line 14, looking into. I opine this was written faulty by a copyist for "in heaven." For Origen seems here to look to the words of Solomon II Reg. viii, 30: "You shall hear in the place of your dwelling, in heaven." *Ibid.*, "Behold, I am here." These are the words of Isaiah lviii, 9, regarding which the same Origen notes almost the same thing here in *In Joan.*, tom. XXVIII, num. 5: "To those worthy of praying, such a promise is said by God regarding their prayer, 'And while you are still speaking, I will say, Behold, I am here.'" Similarly indeed Clement of Alexandria, *Strom.* VII, p. 801: "He [the Gnostic] will call upon the Father; and He is near, and while he is still speaking, He is present." *Ibid.*, line 1, before him. It should be read, I opine, "on the first temptation," namely, Job i, 22, for the preceding lines cite from Job xl, 10, where it deals with the second temptation. But you will find "before him" written as "before the first" in number 12. Origen indeed notes here that those words, "with the lips," according to the LXX translation, are said not of the first, but only of the second temptation of Job; and so indeed he himself displays it later in number 30, just as they also currently stand in the Roman edition. From these things, therefore, it is clear that the words "with the lips," which in the Complutensian, Aldine, and Oxford editions are read in Job i, 22, are an interpolation made after the age of Origen from chapter ii, 10. *Ibid.*, lines 5, 8. Read *hōn... mēden*, which the construction demands. Conversely, it should be read from the manuscript codex *mē dein* (that it is not necessary), not *prostassōn mē dein genesthai* (commanding that it must not happen). Nor is *mēden* read in the manuscript codex, as the London editor has it, but *mē dein*. Ruæus. *Ibid.*, line 8, to be mingled... with the Spirit. Thus *Comm. in Joan.*, tom. I, num. 30: "The soul of each one has been mingled with the Holy Spirit, and each of the saved has become spiritual." *Ibid.*, line 11, of him saying. Read "to him saying," namely, to the one who has filled. Thus *Contra Cels.*, p. 586: "...of him who has filled heaven and earth, and saying, 'Do I not fill heaven and earth?'" etc. That it should be read "to the one saying," the former [scholar] Bentley already warned. Ruæus. *Ibid.*, line 13, yet. Since in the Holmiensis codex (as in others) *eti* and *esti* are written with almost the same stroke of letters, the Oxford editor, being deceived, displayed *esti* for *eti*, which drains the entire force of the sentence. We have already warned about this place. Ruæus. *Ibid.*, line 14, in the midst of those not knowing. He refers to the words of the Baptist, John i, 26. So indeed *Contra Cels.*, lib. V, p. 586: "Who [Christ] being with those who everywhere have cleaved to Him, is already also everywhere with those who do not know Him; and this indeed John shows... 'In the midst of you stands one whom you do not know.'" *Ibid.*, D, line 7, having prayed. Read "praying," as "about to be" follows shortly after. The former [scholar] Bentley already read this. Ruæus. Col. 448 B, line 7. *nōn*. So the copyist wrote,
perhaps for *son*, or even for *hymn*, which he had omitted in the preceding lines; for this, as I believe, is the true reading: "your Father gives the good gift from heaven." A
Ibid., lin. 9, *angels*. What Origen says here regarding angels and saints who have fulfilled this mortal life—namely, that they, being solicitous for the salvation of pious men, join their own prayers to the prayers of those—he repeats later at no. 54: "If we also desire a multitude of those whose philanthropy we wish to attain, let us learn that there are thousands of thousands... which assist in the salvation of those who pray genuinely," etc. And ibid. no. 64: "To placate God is followed by having all His friends as favorable—angels, and souls, and spirits; for they sympathize with the worthy... and assist... and pray together, and deem them worthy," etc.
Ibid., lin. 12, *the souls of the saints who have fallen asleep*. The Oxford editor, against the authority of the codex, moved these words to a new place and placed them much later, after "righteousness"; and then, wishing to mend the resulting dislocation, he added "of His" of his own accord after "offering," and added "they pray together" and "of Jeremiah" after "souls." A remarkable effort indeed; whence I see that nothing was accomplished, unless that he perverted both the sense and the syntax of each passage, which are sound enough by themselves. This has already been observed by us. Ruæus.
Ibid., lin. 14, *Tobit*. Thus this name is always written in this little book, just as in *Contra Celsum*, p. 591, and thus the LXX in the Complutensian edition have it. But in the Aldine, Roman, and Oxford editions, it is more correctly read *Tobit*. See Drusius on Tobit. B
Ibid. C, lin. 1, *was heard*. In codex H it is written incorrectly "he heard," which we have not hesitated to correct from the editions of the Seventy, the Roman, Aldine, and Complutensian. The Alexandrine codex, however, has "The Lord heard the prayer."
Ibid., lin. 5, *great Raphael, and*. Thus the LXX have it in the Roman and Oxford editions; but more correctly the Complutensian and Aldine have "great God, and Raphael was sent."
Ibid., line 4, *to heal*. Looking back to this, Origen says in homily 14 in *Numbers*: "For consider how you may be taken into the company of Michael the archangel, who offers the prayers of the saints to God; or certainly how you may be taken into the company and office of Raphael, who presides over medicine," etc. Compare book 1, c. 8, *De principiis*.
Ibid., lin. 14, *of Jeremiah, however*. He had said above that angels and saints who have completed this life "pray together with those who pray"; but having given the example of an angel praying together in Raphael—"Raphael, as he offers"—he now exhibits the example of a saint who has departed, in these words: "of Jeremiah, however." Consonant with these is Origen *Comm. in Joan.* tom. xiii, no. 57: "It appears, however, that the saints who have departed from this life care for the people, as is written in the Maccabees, *after very many years from the assumption of Jeremiah, this is Jeremiah the prophet of God, who prays much for the people*." C
Col. 449 A, num. 9, *to understand, and properly*. Read "to understand, and properly." The manuscript has "to understand, then properly," etc., and so our edition stands. Ruæus.
Ibid., lin. 10, *in this being perfected*. The word "then" seems to be missing here; for Origen means that those virtues which are begun in this life are finally perfected in the future life; read, therefore, "of those prepared in this life, *then* perfected," for it refers to the Apostle's words cited above, "but *then* face to face." Nearly the same in no. 25, "of the perfect *then* to be revealed, when the mind shall strike against the intelligible things face to face." I believe that "then" was omitted because of the similarity of the neighboring syllables *tote*. Nothing is missing, as is clear from our preceding observation. Ruæus.
Ibid. B, lin. 10, *to exercise*. Read "to exercise nakedly."
Ibid., lin. 12, *in the reference to himself*. In almost the same way, Origen discourses about this matter in homily 14 *in Jeremiah*: "Christ is judged in each of the martyrs... whom He says to be in prison when you are in prison, but Himself; not you hunger when you hunger, but Himself; not you thirst when you thirst, but Himself," etc. In tom. xii *in Matthew*, no. 2, "Jesus therefore says, *I was sick for the sake of the sick, and I hungered for the sake of those who hunger, and I thirsted for the sake of those who thirst*."
Ibid., lin. 13, *and the angels*. The sentence plainly demands that you read "if indeed the angels," or, which is better, "if, however, the angels." This had already been observed by Bentley. Ruæus. D
Ibid. C, lin. 5, *of the bodily*. More correctly, I think, "that of the bodily." It would be wrong to add "that," for the order of words here is "for a little time... of the bodily... sojourn, to have been the service of the angels toward Jesus."
Ibid., lin. 5, *how many*. The Oxford edition changed this into "by how much," whence no sense at all is made. To me, however, it seems that "how not" ("why not") should be read instead of "how many"; for the question is not about the number of angels, but only about their ministry. "Why is it not likely that the angels... assist more than the apostles?" Why not, he says, is it equal that angels labor more than the apostles themselves in propagating and establishing the Church for Christ? Consonant with these is Origen *in Joan.* tom. i, no. 14: "The angels are entrusted not with a single or brief evangelic ministry, nor only that which was directed toward the shepherds; but for the completion... the flying angel... will preach to every nation," etc. There is no cause why "how many" should be read instead of "why not." For even if the ministry of angels is sought here, not their number, nothing prevents him from noting the multitude of ministering angels in passing. Ruæus.
Ibid., lin. 7, *one by one*. Thus the LXX interpreters aptly rendered the Hebrew phrase "one by one" in Is. xxvii, 12, "Gather the sons of Israel one by one" (Complutensian edition), or "one by one" (Oxford edition), for in the Aldine and Roman the other "one" is omitted. This phrase, "one by one," has the same value here as "into one" in the parallel passage of John xi, 52, "that He might gather the children of God into one."
Ibid., lin. 9, *calling upon*. Add, or at least understand, "God." Thus Acts vii, 59, "They stoned Stephen calling upon [understand: the Lord] and saying."
Ibid., lin. 10, *to assist*. Thus in book viii *Contra Celsum*, p. 767, "[the angels] assist in the salvation of those who call upon God... deeming that they ought to obey them, and as if by one signal they come to the benefit and salvation of those who pray to God." And *Comm. in Joan.* tom. xxxi, no. 10, "Jesus sends not only saints, but also angels... for we shall not err, assigning the name of apostle also to these, concerning whom it is written, *all are ministering spirits*," etc. Confer homily 11 *in Numbers* and homily 25 *in Luke*.
Ibid., lin. 12, *to be called angels*. These words at first glance seem to signify that the bishops of the seven Asiatic churches were called angels because they had undertaken their care, like angels (in which opinion are the Fathers of the fourth century: Epiphanius, Hilarius Diac., Augustine, and other interpreters of later age of no mean note); nevertheless, when the matter is weighed, I think Origen here wished only this to be proved by the example of these angels—that which he had said before—that angels themselves preside over the administration of the Church, and labor for its increase and advantages; seeing that in the Apocalypse the presiding officers (presides) of the seven churches are expressly called angels. Origen certainly intended that there be two presiding officers for each church: one a man, the other an angel: and he supposed that the angels are specifically designated as presiding officers in the Apocalypse. For thus in *Numbers* homily 11: "They offer, he says, the angels the first..."
fruits of his own Church; to which angels, it seems, John likewise writes in the Apocalypse; for example, to the Angel of the Church of the Ephesians, or of the Smyrneans, or of the Laodiceans, and of the others which are written. Therefore, each of the angels offers the first fruits either of the Church or of the nation which has been committed to him to be administered." Likewise, Homily 20: "According to those things which John writes in the Apocalypse, an angel presides over each Church in general, who is either praised for the good deeds of the people, or is also blamed for its sins." Similarly also in Homily 13 on Luke: "Through the individual Churches there are two bishops, one visible, the other invisible; ... and just as a man, if he has managed the stewardship committed to him well, is praised by the Lord; if badly, he is subject to blame and fault: so also the angel. For it is written in the Apocalypse of John," etc. A
Col. 432 A, line 14, *euxomend* (praying). Read *euxamenô* (to one praying). As above, "having heard the prayer of the one praying." The former reading had been corrected by Bentley. RUEUS.
Ibid. B, line 6, *tô pistô*. Read *tou pistou dedeêmenou* (of the faithful one who has petitioned). I would prefer *tou pistôs dedegmenou* (of the faithful one who has received). For in the ms. codex it reads *pistôs*, not *pistô*. RUEUS.
Ibid., line 9, *suneuchetai kai sumprattei* (prays with and collaborates). So *Contra Celsum*, p. 789: "The angels of the worthy both perceive (with them) and collaborate and pray with and petition together," etc.
Ibid. C, line 6, *ê* (or). Read *kai* (and). The whole of this passage, however, appears corrupt; for a word is missing, and that *hagiou* (holy), which ought to have followed *euchomenou* (the one praying), is inappropriately added... Thus, therefore, I think it ought to be restored: "From the soul of the holy one praying, it goes forth sent into knowledge, and by the Word, and by faith, wounding..."
Ibid., line 12, *ho sunaptôn... ergois tên euchên* (he who joins works to prayer). In almost the same way, Origen interprets these words of the Apostle, "Pray without ceasing," in Matthew, tom. XVI, num. 22: "There must be nothing else in the Church of God but prayer of every holy action... being reckoned as prayer before God, even as it is possible to 'pray without ceasing'." B
Ibid. D, line 4, *ouk elatton* (no less). This passage is clearly mutilated, since there is nothing to which the verb *opheilousi* (they owe) refers; therefore, I have no doubt that it should be read *euchai de ouk elatton* (but prayers, no less), for the word *euchai* was absorbed by the preceding *euchê*. More native is the correction of Bentley, who, for *opheilousin*, reads *opheilousa* (owing). RUEUS.
Col. 455 A, line 2, *tris* (thrice). So Clem. Alex., *Strom.* VII, p. 854: "Some assign fixed hours to prayer, as the third, and the sixth, and the ninth."
Ibid., line 5, *tên hektên* (the sixth). Read *peri tên hektên hôran* (about the sixth hour), or *peri hôran hektên* (about the sixth hour), just as it exists in Acts x, 9; but Origen himself reads it so in *Contra Celsum*, book II, p. 386.
Ibid., line 4, *hôra* (hour). Read *hora* (he sees). The copyist, being blind, omitted *hôran* in the preceding line; but here, for *hora*, he put *hôra*.
Ibid., line 5, *tetrasin archais kathiemenon* (let down by four beginnings). So the ms.; the codex of the Acts also has it so, ancient, *Hearn* ed.; but through the obvious negligence of the scribe, both here and there, for *tettarsin* or *tessarsin archais dedemenon* (bound by four beginnings), as it is read in the editions of Acts x, 11. And thus Origen himself clearly reads it in *Contra Celsum*, p. 386, and not much differently Clem. Alex., *Paed.* I, p. 175, "a vessel bound by four beginnings." C
Ibid., line 6, *tên pro autou para tou Dauid legomenên* (the one before it spoken by David). This passage is most corrupt, which I thus restore: *tês prôtês kai para tô Dauid legomenês, to prôi* (of the first, and that spoken by David, the morning). Sometimes for *para tou Dauid* it is read *para tô Dauid*, and this passage does not seem to me to labor under any other fault from elsewhere. At least three times Origen urges one to pray. The first prayer from him is made at midnight. The second, which he calls the middle one, Peter performed about the sixth hour; which also he says before him Origen... D
A one ought to delete here either *kai* or *te*. He intends, moreover, that the cetus (sea-monster) which swallowed Jonah, is a type of that *megalou ketous* (great fish) of Job III, 8, through which he allegorically understands the devil. For he says thus in Homily 8 on Leviticus, citing these words of Job: "You see how in the Holy Spirit [Job] foretold the great sea-monster which the Lord was to slay, the type of which was that fish of Jonah; whence also the Lord, who was to slay that sea-monster, the devil, says: 'For as Jonah...'" etc.
Ibid., line 10, *exeleusetai*. The manuscript has *exeleusetai*. Walker reads *exeleusetai* in the manuscript. Ruæus.
Ibid. D, line 2, *pros tous... te*. The order is certainly better: *te pros tous metanoountas apotomia*.
Ibid., line 7, *kai idete*. The copyist omitted these, which we, because the sense demanded it, judged should be inserted from 1 Kings XII, where it reads thus: *kai nyn katastete, kai idete*.
Col. 460 A, line 1, *poiei*. Read *poiesei*. The LXX have *poiesei en ophthalmois hymon*.
Ibid., line 2, *Kyrion*. *Ton Kyrion* in LXX.
Ibid., line 4, *Kyrion*. Read, as previously, *ton Kyrion*, without *pros*, for the LXX always have it so, except in one place, Hos. VI, 7, where I do not know how it is read: *epikaloumenos pros me*.
Ibid., line 9, *ho therizon*. You see that *kai*, which in the printed editions of John IV, 36, stands before *he*, is here absent, just as it is absent in the Cantabrigiensis and Colbertinus 8 manuscripts according to Mill. But there is no reason for you to wonder that this passage was not noted by Mill, since he found the particle *kai* added in the Oxford edition, contrary to the authority of the manuscript.
Ibid., line 10, *de touto*. Read *de toutou*, namely, *pneumatikou*. For Origen explains these words of Christ thus in Book IX on Romans: "The harvest is named twice: according to the first, it is referred to the bodily; according to the second, to the spiritual."
Ibid., line 12, *pros*. Read *ton Kyrion*, without *pros*.
Ibid., line 15, *panti to*. The Oxford edition wrongly exhibited this inverted: *to panti*. But I think it should be read here just as a little before, *panti hagio k*.
Ibid. B, line 4, *panta te*. Read *panta ge*, or *panta de*.
Ibid., line 9, *aitomen autas*. Namely, prayers (*euchas*). Yet we are said less correctly *aitein euchas* (to ask for prayers). Therefore, for *aitomen*, I think we should read *epitelomen* (we perform), as the custom follows: *hos ekeinoi epeteloun*. So indeed, number 11: *euchai tris... epiteleisthai opheilousi*. And number 13: *he peri ton mystikon euche epiteleitai*. See another emendation of this passage, no less ingenious than Bentley’s, which he proposes. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 10, *kata to alethes*. Thus Origen roughly in his Commentary on John, tom. XXVII, num. 4: "If Paul is an imitator of Christ, and those who are like him, it is necessary for one who is praying according to the imitation of the prayer of Christ, having lifted up the eyes of the soul, and having raised them up from the things here, to speak thus to God the words of the prayer that are about great and heavenly [things], to be great and heavenly."
Ibid., *typikon*. He refers here to those things which he had said about the prayers of Anna and other saints, and he says that those great things which they obtained through their prayers were only small symbols and types of the "great and heavenly" [things] which Christ ordered us to ask for. For *typikon*, Bentley reads *typikos*. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 11, *peri*. This being omitted, you might read more correctly *dia ton epigeion*.
Ibid., line 14, *aitesate hin' auton*. The sleepy copyist omitted some things here, as is clear from what follows; therefore I think this passage should be restored thus: *aitesate TA MEGALA KAI EPOURANIA, hin' auton tychontes, hos EPOURANION, basileian... kai, hos megalon, ton*. For you could hardly make a suitable meaning of the passage otherwise. See another emendation of this passage proposed by M. Claude Fleury. Ruæus.
Ibid. C, line 5, *epichoregese*. Read *epichoregese*. B It has already been observed by us. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 9, *ho Gabriel*. I think *tou* is missing, for it is certainly read more correctly thus: *ho tou Gabriel... logos*.
Ibid. B, line 1, *Theou*. *Theou autou* in the LXX.
Ibid., line 2, *thymei*. Read *thymou*, as the editions of the LXX rightly have it.
Ibid. C, line 3, *pasai*. *Kai* is missing, for the LXX is more correct: *panta ta erga sou, kai pasai*.
Ibid., line 13, *Abakoum*. This name is read written thus in Cyril, *Catecheses* 12 and 14, and in Eusebius, *De locis Hebraicis* in the verses on Keilah or Gabaa, and in the Aldine edition of the LXX. But in the Complutensian, *Abakouk* is read. In the Roman and Oxford editions, *Ambakoum*, and so also Eusebius has it in *Demonstratio evangelica* IV, 16; VI, 14, as does Origen himself in his book V, ch. 2, *De principiis* (as his words are cited by Justinian in his epistle to Menas, *Concilium*, vol. V, col. 673): "We think that also in the ode of Habakkuk, 'In the midst of two living creatures you shall be known' [supplying 'is to be understood'] concerning Christ and the Holy Spirit." For I do not doubt that these were the words of Origen, although they do not appear in Rufinus's version; obviously, as is his habit, Rufinus omitted them; but he retained the rest, which Justinian cites; and indeed, in the twin passage to this (*De principiis* I, 5), Rufinus exhibits this: namely, "We ourselves think also that text which is said in the Canticle of Habakkuk, 'In the midst of two, or of animals, or of two lives, you shall be known,' ought to be understood concerning Christ and the Holy Spirit." But that Justinian says that Origen intended to prove from this that the Son and the Holy Spirit are creatures is not something we should believe; for it does not appear from the words which he produces, and (if any faith at all is to be placed in the interpreter Rufinus) the whole series of the argument on both sides is directed to demonstrating the opposite, that the Son and the Holy Spirit are to be removed from the number of creatures.
Ibid., line 14, *phonen*. In all the editions, *akoen* is read, and the Hebrew word sounds like that indeed.
Ibid. D, line 1, *zoon*. So the editions of the LXX. Eusebius, however, in *Demonstratio evangelica* VI, 15, approves another reading, namely *zoon*, "of lives." "In the plural," he says, "here and with the circumflex accent, *ton zoon* from the singular *tes zoes*, when the noun is understood... Therefore, he says, 'In the midst of two lives you shall be known,' one being the life according to God, and the other that according to man." And Theodoret reads thus: *zoon*, "of lives," understanding this life and the future one; just as Cyril does in *Hierosolyt. Catech.* XII, 20, as the learned Toutée correctly edited it. But the uncertain Rufinus in the passage cited above placed both: "in the midst of two, or of animals, or of two lives." But this ambiguity (and consequently Origen's own argument about Christ and the Holy Spirit from this passage) is correctly resolved by Theodotion, who, according to the Hebrew truth, translated it thus: *en meso eton zooson auton* (in the midst of the years, revive him), in Eusebius, *Dem. ev.*, page 279.
Col. 464 A, line 6, *pros ton on*. So wrongly the manuscript. The Oxford edition changed this for the worse, namely, *proton hon*. But the true reading, as I think, is *pros ton ho*, or, as I would prefer, *pros Theon ho*... For it seems that Origen is looking to the Apostle's words, 1 John...
A II, 21, "we have boldness toward God." I had already advised that it should be read with Bentley as *pros ton ho*. Rufus.
Ibid., we shall pray. Read "we shall pray" [*proseuxometha*], as it stands in the editions, Rom. VIII, 26.
Ibid., line 14, Gabaoth. In the codex, indeed, it is written here, and twice afterwards, Gabaoth. But all the editions of the Seventy have Gabaon, and Origen himself reads thus in *Matth.*, tom. XVII, num. 2, and *Hom. I in Jos.*, and *De Principiis* IV, 2, in the *Apology of Pamphilus*; which, since it is more appropriate to the Hebrew, I have not hesitated to insert.
Ibid. B, line 5, Elom. So Origen in *Matth.*, tom. XVII, num. 2, and *Hom. I in Jos.* But the Complutensian edition has *Aalon*, or indeed *Ailon*.
Ibid., line 11, "it seems to be an intercession" [*enteuxis*]. Namely, because of that "boldness" [*parrhesia*] which they used, which he placed in the definition of an intercession, num. 14. But to me indeed it seems that Samson here is rather praying [*proseukhesthai*] than interceding [*entynchanein*], since intercession, according to the Apostle, is an appeal for another, B and not, as this of Samson is, for himself. See 1 Tim. II, 1; Rom. VIII, 27, 34; Heb. VII, 25. You will understand soon, however, to what Origen's *leptologia* (subtlety) concerning the proper meaning of words leads.
Ibid. C, line 2, "to confess" [*exomologoumai*] is equal to "I give thanks." In the same way Eusebius explains these words of Christ in *Eccl. Theol.*, p. 151: "In the Gospels, when this is said by our Savior: 'I confess to thee, O Father...' we say that it signifies the thanksgiving regarding the infants; instead of, 'I give thee thanks, O Father,' the word 'to confess' is used."
Ibid., line 7, "to men." Read "to holy men," for the very sentiment and the antithesis which follows immediately demand it. Thus, also, a little later, "to holy men these things are to be offered." But here, as I think, "holy" [*hagiois*] has fallen out, because it was similar to "to men" [*anois*], an abbreviation written for "to men" [*anthropois*]. Bentley had already advised that "to holy men" should be read instead of "to men." Rufus.
Ibid., line 14, "to men." That is, to men in general, as men, whether they be holy or not. But perhaps "all" [*pasin*] is missing, so that it might be, "but also to all men."
Ibid., line 15, "one must intercede" [*enteukteon*], as... Stephen, "Lord, do not lay (this sin to their charge)." Stephen indeed is interceding here, but in the preceding words, "Lord Jesus..." he is clearly praying, so that Origen could have added to these, "but one must also pray to him, as the one who says, Stephen, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,'" and he might not have hesitated, I think, to say this elsewhere: but he was obliged to preserve here that more subtle distinction of words, and that which follows immediately, the "proper meaning of prayer."
Ibid. D, line 2, "not even to Christ himself." This, I think, is that statement of Origen condemned by the Fathers, which the anonymous author of the *Apology* mentions in Photius, cod. CXVII: "They say that he (i.e., Origen) commands not to pray to the Son," and Augustine, *Haer.* 43: "Origen dares to say that the Son is not to be prayed to with the Father, because he is not the author of the petitions of forgiveness, but a suppliant"; and also Theophilus of Alexandria in *Ep. Pasch.* 2: "Origen dared to say that the Son is not to be prayed to, nor the Father with the Son." And I confess that this is a harsh statement of his, and not undeservedly reproved by the Fathers; which, however, might perhaps be reduced to a sound sense if we more carefully weigh what he understands here by "through Christ" and by "prayer." Therefore, by "through Christ," he means the God-man, or the mediator, in so far as he is our High Priest and advocate before the Father; for he declares this openly both in this and in the following section. By "prayer," however, strictly spoken, he desires that which is offered to the Father through the mediation of Christ, just as he himself commanded, saying: "Thus pray ye, Our Father," and, "Ask in my name." Under this formal relation of advocate and high priest, he says that Christ himself is not to be prayed to; for with these premises set down, the Father alone, as the author of the petitions of forgiveness, is strictly to be prayed to; Christ, however, as high priest, is to be prayed to in a derivative sense, so that he may carry our prayers to the Father: for if we pray either to the high priest without the Father, or to the Father without the high priest, or even to both together, we will violate the order C of the persons or of the offices and the dispensation. That this is Origen's mind here will be evident from similar places in his books *Contra Celsum*, viz., lib. V, p. 580: "Every petition, and prayer, and intercession, and thanksgiving, is to be sent up to the God over all, through the high priest of the living Word and God. But we will also pray to the Word himself, and we will intercede with him, and we will give thanks, and we will pray, if we are able to perceive the distinction between the proper and derivative meaning of prayer." And in lib. VIII, p. 751: "We worship the one God, and his Son... with supplications and requests, offering to the God of all our prayers through his Only-Begotten, to whom we first offer them, asking him, as high priest, to bring our prayers, and sacrifices, and intercessions to the God over all." And p. 761: "One must pray to the God over all, and one must also pray to the Only-Begotten... and one must ask him, as high priest, to refer the prayer that has reached him to the God and Father of him and our God." Of all of which this is the sum, namely, that the Father is to be prayed to, and Christ the high priest is to be prayed to; but the Father strictly, the high priest in a derivative sense, since this is the order of mediation, so that our prayers may be directed to the Father through the high priest. From this, however, it by no means follows that Origen denied that Christ himself, as God and the Son of God, is to be prayed to; for as far as his divine nature is concerned, he very often affirms that he is just as much to be prayed to and to be followed with all manner of worship as the Father; and that, either by himself alone, as in *Contra Cels.*, p. 586: "Let such a one pray to the Word of God who is able to heal him," or even together with the Father, *Contra Cels.*, p. 750, where, to Celsus objecting that an injury is done to God by Christians in that they worship Christ above measure, he replies thus: "If Celsus had understood, 'I and the Father are one,' and 'I and you are one,' he would not have thought that we worship another than the God over all; for the Father, he says, is in me, and I in the Father... therefore we worship one God, the Father and the Son." And a little later in clear words he acknowledges (which is what Celsus objects to them) that Christians "worship the Son along with God." It is not our business to discuss these things more fully; and therefore we have only noted these things so that you may see that Origen can be consistent with himself, when he says that Christ is sometimes to be prayed to, and sometimes not.
Col. 465 A, line 6, "Our Father." Origen seems to cite these from the Gospel of Luke, to which the preceding things belong; yet the case is certainly otherwise: for when he later, number 48 (where he describes the formulas of the Lord's Prayer from Matthew and Luke more accurately), does not acknowledge the words "of us, who art in heaven" as belonging to Luke, but ascribes them to Matthew alone, it is clear that here he is not using only the words of Luke, but, as is his habit, is accommodating the words of both, partly of the former and partly of the latter, to the present matter, so that the former, "teach us to pray," are brought from Luke, but the latter, "Our Father, who art in heaven," from Matthew. And indeed thus Eusebius, *Comm. in Psalm.*, p. 530, joins these of Luke with the words of Matthew: "The apostles asked him to teach them how to pray (Luke narrating)... therefore he says to them (according to Matthew): 'Thus therefore pray ye, Our Father, who art in heaven'." Do not believe therefore Mill on Luke XI, 1, who notes that Origen in *De Oratione*, p. 50 (this is in this place), acknowledges those words, "of us, who art in heaven," as being in Luke. Consult note to number 18.
Ibid., line 7, "another... in essence and sub-
-Ajection," is, *hupokeimenos*, that is, *subjectus*. But never elsewhere does Origen, nor anyone else among the Fathers that I know of, use the word *hupokeimenos* concerning the subjection of the Son; nor does it govern the genitive, but the dative; nor does the question of the Son’s subjection seem to be addressed here, but merely a distinction, insofar as He is a Person other than the Father. Wherefore I suspect that *hupokeimenon* should be read, so that it may be, "another than the Father in essence and *hupokeimenon*," that is, in essence and suppositum, which he says elsewhere he has demonstrated, namely against the Noetians, who affirmed that the Son was one with the Father in essence and *hupokeimenon* (in *Joan.* tom. X, num. 21); fighting against them here, therefore, he says that the Son is other in essence and *hupokeimenon*, that is to say, in *hupostasis*, just as he explains himself in the aforementioned place; for essence and *hupokeimenon* constitute *hupostasis*, that is, Person, which he calls individual essence (in *Joan.* tom. II, num. 6) and individual essence’s description (in *Joan.* tom. I, at the end of num. 41, and tom. II, num. 2, and against Beryll. ap. Euseb. *Eccl. Hist.* VI, 33). He means, therefore, that the Son, although He is one in essence with the Father (in *Joan.* tom. X, n. 21), is yet B other than the Father in His own individual *hupostasis*; so that they are two things in *hupostasis* (Contra Celsum, p. 751), but one God in essence; since that one essence is, which is distinguished by individual quality, and is one thing for the Father, another for the Son; yet it is indivisible, and therefore the same in both. For the Father, as Origen himself says, "becomes the Father of the Son in an indivisible and impartible way" (ap. Euseb. *Contra Marcell.*, p. 23), or "the Father is inseparable from the Son" (in *Matth.*, tom. XI, num. 19). Although, therefore, he calls the Son a "second *hupostasis*" (ap. Euseb. *loc. cit.*) and a "second God" (Contra Celsum, p. 608), he nonetheless affirms that both are one God (Contra Celsum, p. 750). But if you prefer to retain the codex’s reading, *heteros kat’ ousian kai hupokeimenos*, then you must understand *ousia* as *hupostasis* or Person; in which sense it has been shown by Bishop Bull in *Defens. fid. Nic.*, sect. 2, cap. 9, that the word *ousia* was used by Origen himself and other Fathers, so that the meaning of this passage is that the Son is a Person distinct from the Father and subject or subordinate to Him.
Ibid., line 12, *enargeian*. The Oxford edition wrongly changed this to *energeian*, namely, *para ten energeian* legethsomenon, saying that if it is called "to be prayed to" apart from efficacy—the sense of which I do not see. But Origen clearly means this, namely, that whoever asserts that the Son—and not the Father—is to be prayed to, does so absurdly and *para ten enargeian*, apart from the evidence of the facts. Origen often uses this phrase; e.g., *Comm. in Psalm.*, *para to enarges einai phamen*. And in *Joan.* tom. XII, num. 21: "as fools, and saying things contrary to things manifest." And in *Joan.* tom. II, num. 8: "things announced by him (Heracleon) *para ten enargeian*," for Ferrarius rightly read this from the Venetian codex, as did Grabe from the Bodleian (Spic. saec. II, p. 86), even if Huet there also retained the worse reading, *energeian*. D And indeed, so it is found edited in Simplicius *in Epictet.*, c. 32, *energos* for *enargos*; just as in this very booklet (for I omit others) the Oxford editor replaced *energos* with *enargos* in number 52. See Mill on *Ep. prim. ad Corinth.* XVI, 9, and *Philem.* V, 6.
Ibid., B, line 3, *leipetai*. The manuscript codex has this, as the Oxford edition showed: but the true reading is certainly *leipetai*, as the passage itself demonstrates; for Origen has proposed three modes of prayer in the preceding, namely, that we should direct our prayers either to the Son without the Father, or to both together, or to the Father alone; but the first two having been rejected, he now says that the third remains for us to use: "It remains, therefore, to pray to the Father alone..." Bentley had already warned that *leipetai* should be read. RUEUS.
Ibid., line 6, *omose*. Read *omose Kyrios*, as it is read in Ps. CIX, 4, and Hebr. VII, 21.
[COLUMN 1654] Ibid., line 11, *ou chre*. Origen says the same thing about the worship of the sun and stars (Contra Celsum, p. 585): "We say that one ought not to pray to those who are prayed to." Yet, a little later, he concedes to Christ what he denies to the stars, and when he teaches that He is to be prayed to, he says, "Let such a one pray to the Word who is able to heal him." And indeed, Origen himself often directs prayers to Christ; e.g., Hom. XI in Exod.: "Lord Jesus, grant to me that I may deserve to have some monument in your tabernacle," etc. And Hom. 5 in Levit.: "I ought to call upon my Lord Jesus, that He may make me find Him whom I seek," etc. And in Numer. hom. 26: "But let us pray to the Word of God, that He may deign to reveal these things to us."
Ibid., line 13, *Patri*. Read *Patera*. There is no necessity for *Patera* to be read, for *Patri* can refer to the preceding *ou*. RUEUS.
Ibid., C, line 2, *aithsete*. MS: *aithsetai*.
Ibid., *Patera mou, dosei*. So also a little later. But in the cited passage, John XVI, 23, it is read more correctly in the editions "...the Father in my name, He will give to you."
Ibid., line 7, *didaxei*. Read *didaxe*, which the sense requires. Bentley reads *didaxe*. RUEUS.
Ibid., D, line 4, *Hierousalem*. The Church is not named *Hierousalem* in the passage cited here, but—which comes to the same thing—*Sion*. Esdr. XLIX, 14.
Ibid., *tou prophetou*. Read *to prophete*. We have noted *para tou* instead of *para to David*, written wrongly, in number 12.
Ibid., line 5, *proskyneisthai... legetai*. The Church, specifically, is said to be *proskyneisthai*, "to be worshipped," *katachrestikos* (improperly/metaphorically). Origen therefore wishes that that [expression], *proskyne-satosan*, be said of Christ *katachrestikos*, namely, he is distinguishing here, as before in the word "to pray." Nevertheless, Origen himself clearly teaches in Contra Celsum, p. 586, that Christ is properly *proskyneteon* (to be worshipped). And in *Explan. in Epist. ad Rom.*, cap. X, he declares that the Son is to be worshipped, invoked, and prayed to just as the Father Himself, with these words: "If to invoke the name of the Lord and to adore God is one and the same thing; just as Christ is invoked, so Christ is to be adored, and just as we offer prayers to God the Father, so also to the Lord Jesus Christ; and just as we offer petitions to the Father, so we offer petitions to the Son; ... for the divine word teaches that one and the same honor is to be rendered to both, when it says, 'that they may honor the Son, as they honor the Father.'" Translated by Jerome. The translator of the *Explanation in Ep. ad Romanos* is Rufinus, not Jerome. RUEUS.
Col. 468 A, line 10, *aischyntheson*. So Co. Alex. Is. XLIX, 23. But the Complutensian edition has *ouch aischynthesontai oi hypomenontes auton*, "they shall not be ashamed who wait for Him," Vulgate. But Rom. and Ald. have *ouch aischynthesontai oi hypomenontes me*, "they shall not be ashamed who wait for me," and so indeed the Hebrew truth sounds. See Procop. in Isa. ed. Curter, and Orig. *Hexapla* ed. Montfauc.
Ibid., *kata ton eipein anti...* The drowsy scribe corrupted this whole passage; the Oxford editor faithfully followed him. But I judge that these things should be emended thus: *pos de ouk esti kai ton eiponta, ti me..., eipein auto, ti emoi proseuche;* that is, why then would He (Christ, that is) who said, "Why do you call me good?", not also say to this man (who, as stated above, thinking it necessary to pray to Christ, says...), "Why do you pray to me?" For this is clearly the meaning of this passage. As we have edited this place, so it is read in the manuscript codex of Walker. But he does not read *eipein an ti*, but *eipein an, ti*. RUEUS.
Ibid., line 11, *eis o Theos, o Pater*. In the same way Origen cites these things in Contra Celsum, p. 586, and in *Joan.* tom. I, num. 40, and tom. II, num. 7, which the Oxford edition here refers to Matth. XIX, 17, but I refer them to Luke XVIII, 19, whereas Origen himself, in *Matth.* tom. XV, num. 10, clearly says these things are not present in Matthew, but that in their place there is put, "Why do you ask me about the good? One is the good," but in Mark and Luke is read, "Why do you call me good? No one is good."
Otherwise," A if you should read this passage, "of love [is] more blessed than those serving in the slavery of fear." He refers back to the words of St. John, 1 Epist. iv, 18: "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear." Consistent with these are the words of Clement of Alexandria, *Ecl. proph.*, c. 19: "Having progressed from faith and fear toward knowledge, a man knows how to say, 'Lord, Lord'; but not as the slave learned to say, 'Our Father,' having been freed by the Spirit of slavery—which is toward fear—and having progressed through love toward adoption, already revering through love what he once feared." Not unlike these are the words of Cyril in *Catech.* 1: "If anyone here is a slave of sin, let him be most ready through faith for the birth of that free adoption; and having put off the most wretched slavery of sins, and having acquired the most blessed slavery of the Lord, let him be deemed worthy to inherit the kingdom of heaven." — Bentley proposes another reading of this Origenian passage, which comes to the same sense. RUEUS.
"Except one, God." And indeed Tertullian reads thus, *unless one, God*, *Adv. Marcion.* iv, 36: whence it is clear that the addition B "the Father" is here. As to Luke, I refer it to the fact that Epiphanius (hær. 42) says that this was added by Marcion—not that I believe this was done by Marcion himself (for if he had done so, Tertullian would certainly have reproached him for it among other things; nor would Origen have used words interpolated by a heretic, to whom he was most hostile), but it seems more likely to me that the Fathers themselves—Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others—quoting these words paraphrastically, with "the Father" usually added, gave at length the handle to the followers of Marcion, so that, to establish their fancy concerning that good God, the Father of Christ, they might insert into the Gospel of Luke (which alone they used), just as Epiphanius notes, "the Father," as though it had been written by Luke himself, "No one is good except one, the God the Father," when nevertheless the true reading was, "except one, God," as the author of the *Dial. de Trin.* among the works of Athanasius, vol. II, p. 479, notes. And in this way Origen cites the words of Luke in the *Dial. contra Marcion*. Ibid., line 15, "our." Read "your" (*humōn*). For Christ here addresses his own worshippers. Bentley had already so read it. RUEUS. Ibid. B, line 11, "with me." These words at first sight seem to signify what was very firmly believed by the ancient Fathers of the Church, namely, that the Father is to be prayed to with the Son and through the Son; however, Origen's thought here is clearly different, since throughout this entire argument he denies that Christ is to be prayed to simultaneously with the Father. These words, therefore, "with me," are not to be joined with "the Father," but with the following "you," so the order of the words is: "it is necessary for you, with me and through me, to offer prayer to the Father," that is, it is necessary for you to offer prayers to the Father with me, your brother, and through me, your Pontiff. Ibid. C, line 3, "whether with the Father, or without." This is that of which Theophilus of Alexandria complains in his *Ep. Pasch.* 2: "Origen has dared to say that neither the Son is to be prayed to, nor the Father with the Son." But as for this complaint of Theophilus, Huet (Origenian., lib. 1) says it is absurd and self-contradictory; however, I marvel that a learned man who, as he himself says, copied these C contents of Origen with his own hand and thought of editing it, did not notice that Theophilus complains of nothing other than what Origen himself says here, namely, that the Son is not to be prayed to either by Himself or together with the Father; which, in my opinion, by no means conflict with each other. But it must be noted that the same Origen, who here contends that the Son is not to be prayed to with the Father, acknowledges on the contrary in lib. VIII *Contra Celsum*, p. 751, that Christians "reverence together with God, His Son," and in homil. 12 *in Ezech.* exhorts his hearers that they should "pray more attentively to Christ the Lord with His Father"; which things surely appear to be reconcilable in no other way than that which we proposed in the note to number 45. But see how different Tertullian is from Origen, who, explaining the Lord's Prayer, says that under the name "Father," the Son is also comprehended, and in the Father the Son is invoked; "For," he says, "I and the Father are one." Ibid., line 7, "of a slave." Read "of slaves." Ibid., line 12, "being ennobled." That is, being liberated. Hesychius, *exegenēsō* (read *exegenēsō*) "I will liberate." Origen acts thus, *Contr. Cels.*, p. 485: "We all confess that we desire to be instructed by the Word of God, so that we may bestow upon adolescents the exhortation appropriate to them, and demonstrate... how, having taken up a free mind, they might be ennobled by the Word." Origen here refers to the words of the Apostle, Rom. viii, 15; Gal. iii, 14; and Gal. iv, 1. Thus almost Eusebius in *psalm.* xli, 7: "He who has received from Him (Christ) the authority to become a son of God, when he becomes a son... is ennobled." D Ibid., "love... slavery." More correctly, as you might read this passage, "of love... more blessed than those... in the slavery... of fear." He refers to the words of St. John, 1 Ep. iv, 18: "Perfect love casts out fear." Consistent with these are the words of Clement of Alexandria, *Ecl. proph.*, c. 19: "Having progressed from faith and fear toward knowledge, a man knows how to say, 'Lord, Lord'; but not as the slave learned to say, 'Our Father,' having been freed by the Spirit of slavery—which is toward fear—and having progressed through love toward adoption, already revering through love what he once feared." Not unlike these are the words of Cyril in *Catech.* 1: "If anyone here is a slave of sin, let him be most ready through faith for the birth of that free adoption; and having put off the most wretched slavery of sins, and having acquired the most blessed slavery of the Lord, let him be deemed worthy to inherit the kingdom of heaven." — Bentley proposes another reading for this Origenian passage, which leads to the same sense. RUEUS.
Ibid., line 17, "disobeys." [Disregards]. This is almost what Origen says in *Matth.*, tom. xvi, num. 29: "We shall not receive in any other way, unless we ask. Let therefore the disposition be worthy of obtaining what we ask, and the prayer, being sent up with knowledge, worthy of being granted, and the requests heavenly and great, and worthy of being given by God." Col. 469 A, line 5, "of the Gospel." To wit, according to the Hebrews. See the note at number 3. Ibid., line 4, "to be added." Read "will be added" (*prostethēsetai*), for he cites the very words of that Gospel. Bentley retains "to be added" (*prostiestheai*), but for "you" which precedes, he reads "us." RUEUS. Ibid. B, line 1, "to each." Read "of each." Ibid., line 4, "has borne fruit." Read "had borne fruit." Ibid., line 7, "he has begotten." Read "he had begotten." Ibid., "the... begotten." Read "the... things [which have been] begotten." Ibid., line 15, "Aman and those... to destroy." This passage is clearly mutilated; and in the margin of the codex I have found noted by the same hand, "The writing is faulty." Therefore I judge that the whole passage should be restored: "Aman and those breathing along with him; and rather than wishing to destroy the soul of Judith, he had broken her power." The Latin translation of our text entails this restoration. RUEUS. Ibid. C, line 5, "Nebuchadnezzar." Thus Origen interprets this name allegorically, *hom. 18 in Jerem.*: "The King of Babylon, according to the history, is Nebuchadnezzar, but according to the anagogy, the Evil One." Confer *homil. 1 in Jerem.* Ibid., "they were silenced." Read "they were silenced" (*epephimōnto*). Ibid., line 9, "he has escaped." Read "has escaped" (*ekpepheuge*). Ibid., line 10, "the sea monster." Allegorically, to wit, the Devil. He refers to the words of Job iii, 8, according to the LXX: "he who is about to subdue the great sea monster." So also *Comm. in Joan.*, tom. 1, num. 17: "named the dragon, and the great sea monster, which the Lord subdued." And *De principiis* IV, 1: "There came against Job, he who subdued the great sea monster, and having given authority to his disciples to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and upon all the power of the enemy." For thus these words exist in Greek in the *Philocal.*. But he says that the type of this great sea monster was he who swallowed Jonah, above, number 13. Ibid., line 42, "unless bodies or similar." No suitable sense arises from any of these [words] in this passage; thus, therefore, it seems to me they should be emended: "if indeed for all, who receive in like manner... bodies, shadow is given in like manner." Bentley had already proposed the same emendation, and beyond this, for "to some [it is] given in like manner, shadow," he reads: "to some it is not given at all, shadow." RUEUS. Ibid. D, line 4, "according to the bodies." I suspect a mistake here; for shadows at midday vary not according to the condition of the bodies, but of the climates, and by far...
or more nearly or even at the very vertex itself. Thus, therefore, I read and distinguish: "occurring according to the climates; for to some..." Concerning the difference of shadows, one may be silent—see Achilles Tatius, *Isagoge in Arati Phaenomena*, cap. 51, and Pliny, *H. N.* II. 72–78.
Col. 472 A, line 10, *pephotismenous* (enlightened), i.e., "desiderari" here seems to be an error; it should be *pephotismenou* that is, "being enlightened." The vowel *epsilon* was certainly absorbed by the same vowel following it. Bentley had previously noted that it was missing. RUÆUS.
Ibid. C, line 15, *basileuonton* (of those reigning). Read *basileuontos* (of Him who reigns). Thus Origen, in *Matth. tom. xiv*, numb. 7: "He (Christ) is the King of the heavens, and just as He Himself is Essential Wisdom, and Essential Justice, and Essential Truth, so perhaps also Essential Kingship... reigning according to each of His concepts... He is Justice, and He is Wisdom, and He is Truth." But the Oxford editor thus perverted this passage: "Christ the King... of those reigning." Bentley proposes another emendation, namely *asaleuton* (unshaken), from Heb. XII, 28, instead of *basileuonton*. RUÆUS.
Ibid. D, line 6, *adranesteros, e kai touton* (weaker or even these). The particles "or even" (*e kai*), from the preceding words, seem ill-born and are clearly inept in this place, inasmuch as they disjoin things joined in sense: for those things, "admired by the foolish," are nothing other than what he said before, "weaker than a shadow." Thus, therefore, I think it should be read: "weaker than these shadows of the things... that are admired." By these, however, he means the principalities and powers of this world, as is clear from the antithesis. I have proposed another emendation in the notes. Let the reader judge which is closer to the true reading. RUÆUS.
Col. 473 A, line 13, *autarkos de en toutois*. Read *de*, and after *toutois* supply *egenemetha* (we have become), unless you prefer that it be added so that it reads: "we have become sufficiently satisfied in these things."
Ibid. B, line 2, *ede kai*. Origen, having finished those things which he had to say on the question "on prayer" in general, now proceeds to the explanation of the Lord's Prayer, which was the second part of that task which Ambrose had demanded of him; to which the transition is made in the manuscript codex thus: "Already of the problem and now to the following matter." The Oxford editor, however, prefixed a new title here (*Exegesis of the Lord's Prayer*) and restarted the numbering of the sections from the beginning: but why he did this I do not see, unless perhaps he mistakenly read *allon* (another, i.e., *logos*) instead of *athlon* (task/burden), and thought that a separate book or volume of the work was indicated thereby.
Ibid. C, line 1, *aphekamen*. But in the editions (Matth. VI, 12) *aphiemen* stands. Millius passed over this reading, *aphekamen*, which is not Origen's alone, but also that of the Barberini codex 1.
Ibid., line 3, *apo tou ponerou*. Note here that the doxology, which stands in the published editions, is missing. See Mill.
Ibid., line 5, *Pater, hagiastheto*. You see that Origen does not recognize here those words, "*hemon, ho en tois ouranois*," which stand in the editions of Luke XI, 2; just as the old Latin interpreter also did not recognize them, who likewise reads: *Pater, sanctificetur*. The Oxford editor, however, did not hesitate to insert them here against the authority of the codex, whence Millius, deceived, says in the Prolegomena (sect. 419, ed. Kust.) that it appears from this place that the words, "*hemon, ho en tois ouranois*," had crept into the text of Luke before the time of Origen. Wonderful indeed was the editor's rashness; nevertheless, I do not know if the negligence of Millius is more to be wondered at, who did not notice that he himself later acknowledged in the notes that these words, "*hemon, ho en tois ouranois*," do not appear in the model and therefore omitted them entirely in the Version. Moreover, that this reading, "Pater, hagiastheto," proceeded from the hand of Origen himself, these words of his (numb. 22), "Pater, which is written in Luke," demonstrate most plainly: for why would he say that "Pater" is written in Luke, which is also written in Matthew, unless he wanted *Pater*…
A B C D
to be understood as being written precisely because Luke—as we know—only records the name "Father," without the addition of "our, who art in heaven"? See the note on number 18.
Ibid., C, line 5, *Lord Jesus*. Origen reads these words of the Apostle in this way also in *John*, tom. XXVIII, num. 12; tom. XXXII, num. 7 and 19; though here a little later he has "Lord Jesus," just as is set forth in the editions of 1 Cor. XII, 3.
Ibid., line 2, *holy*. Read *of God*. For it is evident that Origen wrote this from what follows, calling the same thing the "holy Spirit" and the "Spirit of God." For how could it be "of God" if he had written "holy" in both preceding cases? And indeed, he himself cites these words of the Apostle in *Matthew*, tom. XX, num. 14, "they speak in the Spirit of God," as the editions of 1 Cor. XII, 3 have it. The matter comes to this: that the copyist, being less attentive, repeated "holy Spirit" from what preceded instead of "Spirit of God." Mill, indeed, says that Origen reads it this way not only in this place but also in his *Commentary on John*, and not just once "speaking in the holy Spirit," which, however, cannot be true unless he means by that "not once, not entirely"; since Origen, in *John*, cited only the latter part of the verse, and nowhere the former part, which is what is under discussion. Therefore, Mill acted with little consideration in appending a variant reading to Paul’s words as if on the authority of Origen, based on what is clearly a scribal error here and on poorly noted passages in *John*.
Ibid., line 6, *of those uttering the voice*. I read: *of those uttering this voice*. But it is thus above, "to have uttered this voice to him."
Ibid., line 7, *of the heterodox*. He intends, I think, the followers of Marcion, Basilides, and Valentinus, of whom he says in *Homilies on Jeremiah*, 10, "You are near to their mouth, but far from their reins," that they invoke the name of Jesus, but they do not have Jesus; for they do not acknowledge him as Christ.
Ibid., D, line 4, *lord, the Lord*. Something seems to be missing here to complete the sentence, perhaps "truly, of those rightly saying," so that it might be, "of those only who speak from conviction... 'Lord,' [and] of those rightly saying 'Lord Jesus,'" for thus Origen himself roughly says in the passage twin to this, *Commentary on John*, tom. XXXII, num. 7: "He who speaks in the holy Spirit, 'Lord Jesus,' says it well. It is the work of one genuinely serving the Word to say well, 'Lord Jesus.'" He refers, one assumes, to John XIII, 15: "You call me... the Lord; and you say well."
Ibid., line 4, *such a one*. It seems read more correctly as "thus" [τοιούτως].
[τοιούτως]. A Ibid., line 10, *to be speaking* [λέγων]. Read *he speaks* [λέγει], as in the codex manuscripts Walkerus has; and therefore there is nothing to be changed. Ru.euss. Col. 485 A, line 5, *he speaks, Father*. Read *he speaks, Father*, as it is read three times in the following. Ibid. B, line 4, *image* [εἰκών]. I think it should be read as *images* [εἰκόνες]. And Origen himself in *John*, tom. II, num. 5: "The true God is the Father, in relation to the image, and the images of the image." And similarly *Contra Cels.*, pp. 755, 756. And in *John*, tom. I, num. 19. Ibid., line 7, *in* [ὅτι]. Read *in truth* [τῷ ὄντι]. So too shortly after, *in the body* [ἐν τῷ σώματι]. Ibid., line 10, *through all* [δι' ὅλων]. That is, completely, and not 'in half,' as he said a little before. Ibid. C, line 4, *him* [αὐτόν]. Read *it* [αὐτό], namely, the seed. — So also the previous one, Bentleius, had read. Ru.euss. Ibid., line 10, *let us think therefore* [τοίνυν νομίσωμεν]. Read *let us think therefore only* [τοίνυν μόνον νομίσωμεν], for the word "only" [μόνον] is plainly missing, which, as I suppose, was lost due to the concurrence of similar syllables. Ibid., line 12, *to pray* [προσεύχεσθαι]. Read *pray* [προσεύχεσθε]. We pointed out already that *pray* was to be read. Ru.euss. Ibid., line 14, *thrones* [θρόνοις]. So *Homil. 1 in Gen.*: "Before all things, heaven is said to have been made, that is, every spiritual substance, upon which, as upon a throne, God rests; and that indeed which we have called heaven, is our mind.... A man, who is placed in a body, if he is able to divide, he is called heaven, that is, the celestial man, according to the sentiment of the Apostle saying, 'For our conversation is in heaven.'" Ibid. D, line 1, *if* [ἐπάν]. Perhaps *if indeed it be said* [ἐπὰν δὲ λέγηται]. Ibid., line 6, *to be encompassed and held together* [περιέχεσθαι καὶ συνέχεσθαι]. Thus Hermas describes the immensity of God, *Past.*, mand. 1: "He himself is the only one capable of all things, immense," which in Greek, in Athan. vol. III, p. 252, stand thus: "The only one containing all things, and being the only one uncontained." Similarly, *Preaching of Peter* in Clem. Alex. *Strom.* VI, p. 759: "Uncontained, he contains all things." Likewise Novat. *De Trin.*, cap. 17: "Moses everywhere introduces God the Father as immense and without end; not who is enclosed by place, but who encloses every place; nor who is in a place, but rather in whom every place is, containing all things and complexing all things; so that by merit he neither descends, nor ascends, since he himself contains and fills all things." Confer Clem. Alex. *Strom.* II, p. 431, and *Strom.* VII, p. 845, ed. Oxon. B Col. 488 B, line 8, *nor then locally* [οὐδ᾽ ἄρα τοπικῶς]. This very thing Origen inculcates everywhere; e.g., *Contra Cels.*, p. 509: "We treat metaphorically of God descending... for God descends from his own magnitude, when he manages the affairs of men." And p. 510: "He descends by providence, and by dispensation, to human affairs." And p. 586: "Not locally, but providentially, he descends to men." So also p. 505: "Even if the Word, being himself God, comes to us, he does not become 'out of place,' nor does he leave his own seat, as if making it an empty place, and the other full." But similarly Clem. Alex. *Strom.* VII, p. 831: "For the Son of God never departs from his own height... not moving from place to place, but being everywhere always, and in no way contained," etc. Confer Orig. *Comm. in Joan.*, tom. XX, num. 16. It is clear that both Origen and Clem. Alex. attribute the same immensity to the Son as to the Father. Ibid., line 11, *is said* [λέγεται]. Ms., *is said* [λέγηται]. — In the codex, ms. Walkerus reads *is said* [λέγεται]. Ru.euss. Ibid. C, line 11, *I think together* [ἡγοῦμαι συνεξ]. There is missing here, I think, the word *necessarily* [ἀναγκαίως], so that it should be *I think necessarily examined along with* [ἡγοῦμαι ἀναγκαίως συνεξητακέναι], for the argument requires such a thing, and Origen uses this phrase everywhere. So above, num. 13, "these things I think to be most necessarily... said." And num. 24, "and it seems necessary to me that these things be most necessarily examined." And num. 31, "these things seem to me to have been necessarily said." So also in *Matth.*, tom. XI, num. 14, "these things seemed to me to have been necessarily considered." And num. 17, "these things... are necessarily said." And in *Joan.*, tom. X, num. 21, "I think that these things also were necessarily appended." And so often in the books *Contra Celsum*. Ibid., line 14, *to permit anyone... to be in a place*. This passage is plainly mutilated, which I restore thus: "and not to claim that God exists in any bodily place" [καὶ μὴ ἐν τινα ἐν σωματικῷ τόπῳ φάσκειν εἶναι τὸν Θεόν]; for thus at the beginning of this section: "words thought by the simpler ones to assert that God exists [in a place]." D Ibid. D, line 1, *him to be a body* [σῶμα αὐτὸν εἶναι]. So Origen *Hom. in Gen.*: "They induce that God himself is corporeal, which to think about God is most manifestly impious." And *Contra Cels.*, p. 778: "For God according to us is not a body; so that we may not fall into those absurdities into which those who philosophize on the things of Zeno and Chrysippus fall." But confer *Comm. in Joan.*, tom. XIII, num. 21-23, and tom. XX, num. 16, and *De Princ.* I, 1, and *Contra Cels.*, pp. 685, 715, from all of which it will abundantly appear how unjustly Jerome, in his epistle to Avitus and Theophilus Alex. *Ep. Pasch.* 1, cast suspicion upon Origen, as if he wished to attribute a body to God. Ibid., line 6, *of a different nature* [ἑτέρας φύσεως]. Read *to be of a different nature* [ἑτέρας εἶναι φύσεως], for the word *to be* [εἶναι] is plainly missing. Bentleius, instead of *it is* [ἐστί] which precedes, reads *to be* [εἶναι]. Ru.euss. Col. 489 A, line 2, *by the amount* [τῷ ὅσον]. Read *insofar as it depends on them, slightly* [τῷ, ὅσον ἐπ' αὐτοῖς, μικρῷ]. It can however be borne, that *the amount*, which Origen himself uses elsewhere, e.g., *Comm. in Joan.*, tom. II, num. 8, "excluding from all, insofar as depends on his hypothesis, the things of the world." But one should distinguish thus: "through the idiom, insofar as it depends on them, slightly." Ru.euss. Ibid., line 15, *in a brief [manner]* [βραχείᾳ]. Read *of a brief [place]* [βραχέος], that is, of place, which shortly follows. So also one should read as we have already signaled. Ru.euss. B Ibid. B, line 2, *corporeal paradise* [σωματικὸν παράδεισον]. You see here that Origen wishes the history of paradise to be understood not *bodily* [σωματικῶς], but *allegorically*. And so he says indeed expressly in *Contra Cels.* lib. IV, p. 532: "All these things [paradise, namely, and the trees planted therein] are not unseemingly interpreted tropologically." And from lib. IV, c. [?]: "How can one believe that God, as a gardener of men, planted a paradise in Eden? ... and if God is said to walk in the cool of the day in paradise, and Adam to hide under a tree, I do not think anyone should hesitate that these things are tropically signified through a seeming history, and not one that happened bodily, indicating certain mysteries." Concerning this opinion of Origen, see Huetius, *Origeniana* lib. II, quaest. 12. Ibid., line 12, *concerning these things... into Genesis*. In almost the same way Origen has spoken about Adam and paradise in the books *Contra Celsum*, saying that a fuller explanation is to be sought from his *Commentaries on Genesis*. So lib. IV, p. 530: "For primarily in the exegetical works on Genesis these things have been examined by us." And p. 534: "For primarily in the exegetical works on Genesis we have treated of these things." And lib. VI, p. 670: "Let him take up the things treated by us on Genesis," etc. Ibid. C, line 2, *in Deuteronomy*. The words cited here do not exist in Deuteronomy, nor is there anything similar to them (unless Origen intended those: "Your God walks about in your camp," cap. XXIII, 14), nor do they occur anywhere in the Scriptures joined in this way, except in II Cor. VI, 16, but the Apostle seems to have taken those partly from Levit. XXVI, 12, and partly from Ezech. XXXVII, 27. And Origen himself indeed in *Matth.*, tom. X, num. 13, seems to cite them from Leviticus: "The law saying in Leviticus... 'I will place my tabernacle among you... he places his own tabernacle among us, fulfilling what he said in the promise, I will dwell and walk about among them.'" The words however in
and so make them A partakers of the divine nature, as the Apostle speaks. II Cor. vi, 16, stands thus: *I will dwell in them and walk in them*. I am surprised, therefore, that Mill, who is accustomed to note down even the smallest things among various readings, did not observe that Origen here in his *On Prayer*, and *Contra Celsum*, page 756, and in *John*, tom. xiii, num. 24 (just as Eusebius, *Ecc. theol.* p. 186), reads: *I will dwell in them and I will walk in them*, and that in *Matthew*, tom. x, num. 15, he omits the *in them* in the former clause; for Mill noted down for this passage other things which are certainly of no greater moment.
Ibid., line 4, *of Him who is hidden, God*. The scribe wrote this sleepily; do not hesitate to read for it: *of Him who is hidden from the face of God*. For Origen clearly refers to the words cited above from Gen. iii, *Adam and his wife hid themselves from the face of God*. And, indeed, in *Homily 16 on Jeremiah*, he says: *The wicked hide themselves from the face of God... but the saint is not hidden.* See the following note.
Ibid., line 7, *for so also Cain*. Origen has similar things in the *Philocalia*: *But also Cain, going out from the face of God... it seems to move the inquirer to seek what the face of God is, and what it is for someone to go out from Him.* And in *Homily on Jeremiah*: *Adam did not sin to excess... therefore he was hidden from the face of God; but Cain, who was more sinful and impious than he... went out from the face of God; so that in a comparison of evils, to be hidden from the face of God is the lesser, etc.*
Ibid., line 10, *in heaven... to every saint*. Thus Origen, *Homily 1 on Genesis*: *For every perfect one is made celestial, or made a heaven, and declares the glory of God; therefore the Apostles, who were heavens, etc.* But Origen was anticipated in these things by his teacher Clement in *Ecl. proph.*, ch. 51, 52, where, explaining the words, *The heavens declare the glory of God* (Ps. xviii, 1), he says: *The heavens are spoken of in many ways... and they are called heavens, primarily, indeed, the Lord, then also the first-created, after whom are the saints, the men before the law... then also the Apostles.* And Cyril, *Catech. mystag.* v, similarly: *There might also be heavens, they who bear the image of the heavenly, in whom God is dwelling and walking.*
Ibid., line 11, *in which are... luminaries*. Eusebius says almost the same: *All the saints... shall be shown to be luminaries in Him [Christ] for the new age, possessing their lights derived from Him.* *Eccl. theol.* p. 184.
Ibid., line 13, *dwells, the*. Something is clearly missing which perhaps should be supplied thus: *dwells THERE, ACCORDING to what was said... There, that is, in heaven.* However, the words *THERE ACCORDING to* seem to have been lost in *dwells*. Bentley proposes another emendation. RUEUS.
Ibid., D, line 6, *by the benefit and the word*. Delete *and*. Consonant with this, Origen reports to us in *Comm. in John*, tom. I, num. 34: *The Savior... that He might win all or perfect them, became man for men, and an angel for angels.* And num. 40: *He is a great high priest, not for men only, but for every rational being... having offered Himself, etc.* But concerning this opinion of his, see Huet, *Origeniana*, lib. ii, quæst. 3.
Ibid., line 7. Read *and in Him*.
Col. 492 A, line 3. For *dē*, read *de*.
Ibid., line 7, *removing*. There is nothing to which this *removing* refers; it should therefore seem that one B must read *to the remover*, namely, to the *Our Father who art in the heavens*. For he wishes such to be the force of that phrase, that it might signify the essence of God as being far removed from creatures, and that He is present to earthly things not *bodily*, but only *providentially*.
Ibid., line 8, *for He does not hold communion with those*. This passage is clearly corrupt, and perhaps it might be repaired in this way: *of generated beings, WITH WHOM He does not hold communion; for with those with whom He does hold communion (or dwelling, holds communion) to them glory... comes near.* For he seems to refer to those things which he C said above.
Ibid., line 10, *when he sets forth*. I believe something must be supplied here, or at least understood, namely, *the one praying*, whence I reconstruct the whole passage, which is clearly full of errors, thus: *THE ONE PRAYING, when he sets forth... but when, HAVING OBTAINED this, he begs that it might not remain WITH HIM and be kept; it is manifest, HOWEVER, as much as...* Almost the same is in Clem. Al. *Str.* vii, p. 855: *We pray that the goods from God might be given to us, and might remain. For it is not the same thing to ask that the gift remain, or [read: and] to be eager to receive the beginning.* And p. 837: *But true goods, those concerning the soul, he prays both that they be his and that they remain.* Where the phrase, *he prays that they might remain for him*, is clearly the same as what Origen says here, *he begs that it might be kept for him*. — In place of *Origen*, Bentley reads *he*. RUEUS.
Ibid., line 15, *according indeed to Matthew and Luke*. Origen had shown above that Luke differed from Matthew, and that he did not recognize those words, *our, who art in heaven*, which precede these; but now he notes that both return here to the same path, and agree in these, *Hallowed be thy name*; it is therefore more fitting that *according indeed to Matthew and Luke* be read, *both according to M. and L.*, that is, *following both Matthew and Luke*. See note ad num. 4.
Ibid., B, line 3, *of the Father*. For *of* read *then*, so that it may be, *what then is the name of the Father*. For the sentiment seems to require this.
Ibid., line 9, *contemplative*. Read *contemplative*, namely, *mind*. We have advised that the ancients should be read thus. RUEUS.
Ibid., C, line 7, *the, the Being*. Indeed, the codex Holmiensis has it so, but it seems to me that the article *the* is missing, so that it may be, *the name, the Being*. For this is that name which God claims for Himself in the passage cited here (Ex. iii, 14), where He answers Moses who was asking about His name: *I am the Being... Thus shalt thou say to the sons of Israel, the Being hath sent me.* By this name, therefore, *the Being*, Origen says that God’s *own quality* is signified, namely, that He is immutable and without any variation, precisely what Novatian discusses concerning the same matter: *Whatever that may be which is God, it must needs be always; that God may always be, keeping Himself in His own virtues: and therefore He says: I am what I am; for what is it that has this name for this reason, because it always maintains the same quality.* *De Trin.* c. 4.
Col. 494 A, line 15, *impetus of the building*. The Oxford edition translates these words badly into Latin as *in the street of the building*; since *impetus* of the building here signifies the onrush, or vehement zeal of building others by his speech, *impetus*, *surge*. Hesych. *violent motion*, Phavorin, from Suidas. Origen surely wishes his words to be like a *snowstorm*, delivered all at once and with a certain vehement outpouring, such as those of Ulysses (Hom. Iliad Γ, v. 222), *like to snowflakes*, i.e., *because of the density and intensity of the speech*, schol. But he himself says this in *Homil. 16 in Levit.*: *"Let my speech be expected," he says, "like rain, and let my words descend like the dew, like the shower upon the grass, and like snow upon the hay." Attend diligently, auditor; lest you think that we do violence to Scripture when, in instructing the Church, we say that either waters, or showers, or other things which seem to be spoken of corporally, are to be understood spiritually: listen to Moses, how he now calls the word of the law rain, now calls it dew, now calls it shower, now even says it is snow.* For *rume* Bentley reads *rōme* (strength). Which seems to be better.
Ibid., line 15, *for this reason he is able to these. These*. It seems that it should be read, *by this (namely, of the name) he is able to these; having conceived for this reason.*
Ibid., B, line 5, *is reminded*. You see here that Origen favors the *pre-existence* of souls, and that he therefore interprets the word *shall be remembered* in the passage cited above, Ps. lxxi, 49, Platonically concerning the reminiscence of things known in a prior state. And thus indeed he himself.
A And those, at least, who were in the same heresy, wanted to understand the word *shall be remembered*, Ps. xxi, 28, as Jerome teaches us in his Commentary on Ephesians [1, 17]. Regarding this opinion of Origen, Huet, *Origeniana*, book ii, quest. 6, will supply you with more.
Ibid., line 7, *the things here*. Since in what precedes Origen says that the nature of God and His attributes are to be understood by one who intends to pray rightly, so that the name of God may be hallowed, I do not see how he introduces *the things here* as things necessary to be understood, which pertain nothing to that *true and high knowledge of God*, as he calls it. The force of his own opinion therefore compels me to read here *the things of God* instead of *the things here*, that is, *what He is* (as he said above), and what His *own quality* might be; ignorant of which, one prays in vain, as he taught us before, no. 21: *If anyone is ignorant of God and the things of God, he is ignorant of the things of which he has need.* Hierocles, indeed, speaks eloquently on this matter: *The whole power of honor lies in the knowledge of the essence of those who are honored... For how could one converse with those whom he does not know?* etc. *Commentary on the Golden Verses*, p. 34, ed. Cant. To me, however, *the things here* seem to be retained and explained as Master Claude Fleury has interpreted them. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 8, *to ask* [αἰτεῖν]. Thus it is written in the codex, but erroneously, in my opinion, for *asking* [αἰτοῦντα], as the Oxford edition exhibited; for the sentence will not stand otherwise. *Him* [Αὐτόν], that is, *alone*. See the scholia on Homer, *Iliad* Θ, 99. *To ask* is to be retained, understanding *it is evident*. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 10, *of the Father*. In place of this, it is clearly to be read *David*, for these words—*let us exalt the name*—belong to him, as he commands. But you will find *David* replaced by *God* by a similar error of a scribe in Eusebius *Against Marcellus*, p. 52.
Ibid., line 14, *of Him who exalts* [ὑψοῦντος]. Read *the exalting of the name* [τὸ ὑψοῦν τὸ ὄνομα], for that *-tos* is an obvious blunder of a copyist. The former Bentley had read *the exalting* [τὸ ὑψοῦν], or *of the exalting* [τοῦ ὑψοῦντος]. Ruæus.
Ibid., *having taken someone... exalts*. More correctly, as I think, you should read, *having taken, someone ... will exalt . . .* as it follows in the example, *I will exalt..., because you have taken me...*. Bentley adds *when* [ὅτε] before *having taken*. Which seems to be better. Ruæus.
Ibid. C C, line 6, *writing* [γραφη]. Read *inscription* [ἐπιγραφή]. For this is the inscription of Ps. xxix, *a psalm of the song*. — The former Bentley warned that *inscription* should be read. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 8, *still concerning* [ἔτι περί]. Perhaps *still, however, concerning* [ἔτι δὲ περί], as Origen often has in this little book. In the Oxford edition, however, it is wrongly read *it is concerning* [ἔστι περί].
Ibid., line 14, *instead of* [ἀντὶ τοῦ], *may it be* [γενηθείη]. Thus the anonymous Scholia on the Lord's Prayer, which we have added to this book, [state]:*Hallowed be* is not an imperative, but an optative, for example, *may it be hallowed* [ἁγιασθείη].
Ibid. D, line 3, *for the whole*. So almost Origen, *Contra Cels.*, p. 590: *For the whole hundred and eighth psalm contains the prophecy concerning Judas.* And in the same way, p. 406. See the note to no. 6.
Ibid., line 4, *to* [τῷ]. Read *with* [τῷ] *may it come to pass*, ... *to happen*. Bentley reads *the* [τὸ] *may it come to pass* ... *to signify*. Ruæus.
Col. 496 A, line 5, *as of one praying*. Origen attacks this impious opinion of Tatian, without indicating the name, in book v *Contra Cels.*, p. 672, *having misheard, I think, [Celsus], a certain wretched heresy, and one that interpreted badly [the words] "Let there be light," as if they were spoken optatively by the Creator.* But Clement of Alexandria, *Ecl. proph.*, cap. 38, explicitly [remarks]: *But we must speak against Tatian, who says that "let there be light" is optative.*
Ibid., line 7, *underneath* [ὑποκάτω]. Read *the underneath* [τὸ ὑποκάτω], as it exists in the editions of the LXX; for so Origen himself repeats it a little later.
Ibid. C, line 1, *of every saint*. Thus Origen in *Matt.*: *Perhaps each virtue is a kingdom of heaven, and all together are the kingdom of heaven; so that according to this, one [is] already in the kingdom of heaven who is—* D *if you seek the one whose kingdom of heaven is, you can say that Christ is theirs, insofar as He is Self-Kingdom..., reigning according to each of His notions... by which He is righteousness, and by which He is wisdom, and by which He is truth*, etc.
Ibid., line 4, *of one counseling*. It clearly appears from what follows that here it should be read, *of one reigning together*. For thus afterwards, *Lord... our sole reigning [King] together with His Christ.* The former Bentley had read this. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 5, *he made mention* [ἐμνημόνευε]. Read *I made mention* [ἐμνημόνευσα], namely in nos. 20 and 22. The codex has *I was mentioning*, according to Walker. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 9, *of every sinner*. Read *of every* sinner [τὸ παντὸς δὲ ἁμαρτωλοῦ], as it answers to the preceding, *of every* saint. The former Bentley read it thus. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 15, *of sinners*. Read *of sins*, as it exists in the editions [Gal. i, 4].
Ibid. D, line 4, *and may he be delivered*. This, as I think, the scribe repeated from the preceding; for I do not see why Origen himself would do that. However, the Oxford edition is less correct in omitting them entirely in silence.
Col. 497, line 6, *of us*. Read *of you*. But this whole passage in the editions, Rom. vi, 12, is read thus: *Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to obey it in its lusts.*
Ibid., line 15, *shall stand* [ἐνστήσεται]. The Ms. [has] *shall begin to stand* [ἐνστήσηται]. Walker in the Ms. reads *shall stand* [ἐνστήσεται]. Ruæus.
Ibid. B, line 12, *the one to be manifested*. Read *the one* [τοῦ τελείου], namely *the perfect one*, to be manifested. The former Bentley had read this thus. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 13, *attacks* [προσβάλλει]. Read *will attack* [προσβαλεί].
Ibid., *to the intelligible things* [τοῖς νοητοῖς]. The Oxford edition wrongly exhibited here, *of the intelligible* [τοῦ νοητοῦ]. This has already been observed by us. Ruæus.
Ibid. C, line 4, *to the things before*. Origen here, as at the end of the little book, and *De principiis* iv, 2, reads the Apostle's words in Phil. iii, 13-14 inversely, where in the editions they are thus: *forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before.*
Ibid., line 5, *to the... kingdom*. Read *of the... kingdom... extremity*. There is no reason why *of the kingdom* should be read. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 2, *Belial*. The Oxford edition exhibits *Belial* [βελίαλ], whence Mill, deceived, says that Origen in *On Prayer* reads *Belial*. And yet Origen, not only here but also in other places omitted by Mill (sc. *Comm. in Joan.*, tom. xxxi, nos. 16 and 19, and *Contra Cels.*, p. 605), reads *Belias*. And so indeed Hesychius [says] *Belias, a dragon*, just as Suidas [says] *the Apostle means by Belias in the Hebrew language the apostate, and what concord has Christ with Belias*. I do not deny, however, that the reading *Belial* is more consistent with the Hebrew. See Drusius, *Commentary on the Hebrew words of the New Testament*. We have already hinted that *Beliar* exists in the codex Ms.
Col. 500 A, line 8, *to one sitting* [καθεζομένῳ]. Read *to one about to sit* [καθησομένῳ], for he is speaking of the future.
Ibid., line 17, *of the regeneration*. Origen clearly looks to Christ's words, Matt. xix, 28, *in the regeneration*, and shows, contrary to what others want, that they are not to be joined with the preceding *having followed me*, but with the following *when He shall sit*, while he explains *regeneration* by *resurrection*.
Ibid. B, line 1, *as in heaven, and on earth*. Origen above, no. 18, describing the whole prayer after Matthew, reads these things thus: *as in heaven, and on earth*, as they exist in the editions; so therefore, I judge that they should be read here too, for he certainly intended to repeat the same words.
Ibid., line 11, *will happen* [συμβήσεται]. Ms., *will begin to happen* [συμβήσηται]. Walker in the codex Ms. reads *will happen* [συμβήσεται]. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 14, *in heavens* [οὐρανοῖς]. Read *in heaven* [οὐρανῷ]. For thus in this section he repeats *in heaven* ten times, and not once *in the heavens*.
A Col. 501 A, line 2, *will be drunken* [μεθυσθήσεται]. Ms., *will be drunk-* [μεθυσθή-].
Ibid., line 6, *he comes* [ἔρχεται]. Ms., *is coming* [ἔρχηται].
Ibid., line 9, *allegorizing* [ἀλληγορῶν]. It is so above at the end of numb. 23, "For it is not absurd that he [Christ] is strictly the throne of the Father, being more allegorically called heaven, and his Church, named earth, ..."
Ibid., line 10, *heavenly* [οὐράνιος]. In the manuscript the word is almost erased; but from the traces it appears to have been *ounios*, that is, *heavenly* [οὐράνιος]; which, as it fits the place, we have not hesitated to restore, although *strictly a throne* [κυρίως θρόνος] could be read here not inappropriately, as above at numb. 25. Walker in the manuscript codex reads *worthy* [ἄξιος], but not *heavenly* [οὐράνιος]. Ruæus.
Ibid., B, line 1, *of his Father* [αὐτοῦ τοῦ Πατρός]. The copyist, as I think, has inverted this for *of the Father of himself* [Πατρὸς αὑτοῦ].
Ibid., line 4, *the will* [τὸ θέλημα]. It seems that *of the Father* [τοῦ Πατρός] is missing.
Ibid., line 9, *will be deposited* [παραθήσεται]. Ms., *will be deposited* [παραθήσηται]. Walker in the ms. codices reads *will be deposited* [παραθήσεται]. Ruæus.
Ibid., *of this* [τούτου]. Namely, of the Gospel according to Matthew. He says *of this* because he is now occupied in explaining the article of the Lord's Prayer, which exists only in Matthew, as he stated at the beginning of this section.
Ibid., C, line 7, *the... corrected* [τὰ ... διορθωθέντα]. Read *of the corrected* [τῶν διορθωθέντων], which the syntax plainly demands. — But the syntax will not demand it if at line 9 you read *by the authority* [τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ] instead of *the authority* [τὴν ἐξουσίαν]. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 13, *to find* [εὑρεῖν]. Read *he found* [εὗρεν]. For both the sense and the construction of the words require this; specifically, *he found the man* [εὗρεν τὸν ἄνθρωπον] ... to say. Bentley reads *will say* [ἐρεῖ] for *to find* [εὑρεῖν]. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 15, *and* [καί]. Delete. But it is read thus in Phil. ii, 8, *he humbled himself, becoming obedient* [ἐταπείνωσεν ἑαυτὸν γενόμενος ὑπήκοος].
Col. 504 A, line 1, *being examined* [ἀνακρινάμενος]. So it is written wrongly in the manuscript *being examined* [ἀνακιρνάμενος], which the sense itself demands. But to this matches Origen *Contra Celsum* p. 594: "We say these things, not separating the Son of God from Jesus; for the soul and body of Jesus have become one with the Word of God after the dispensation." Ibid. p. 474: "We are persuaded... his mortal body, and the human soul in him, have passed into God by communion, and indeed by union and by mixture with that [Word]." Likewise page 608: "The Word... we say, was made familiar and united to the soul of Jesus." Ibid. page 669: "The soul of Jesus... is joined to the Lord, to the Word himself, and to Wisdom itself, and to Truth itself, and to Justice itself, which if it is so, the soul of Jesus is not two in relation to the firstborn of every creature." Similarly *Comm. in Joan.* tom. i, num. 37, he says, *the man of the Son of God being mixed with his divinity*. Confer *Comm. in Matth.* tom. xvi, num. 8, and in *Joan.* tom. xxxii, num. 17. Walker in the manuscript codex reads *being mixed* [ἀνακιρνάμενος]. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 14, *from heaven* [ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ]. So almost Origen *hom. 8 in Jerem.*: "Each of us has heavenly and earthly works. Earthly are the works which bring down he who treasures them upon the earth to the earth related to them ... Again, since the places are related to the works, he brings up he who treasures in heaven to those things which are in heaven, who has borne the image of the heavenly."
Ibid., line 13, *heavenly* [οὐρανίοις]. Read *heavenly* [ἐπουρανίοις], for he repeats the Apostle's words cited above. Bentley reads either *in the heavens* [οὐρανοῖς] or *heavenly* [ἐπουρανίοις]. Ruæus.
Ibid., B, line 1, *image of the earthy* [εἰκόνα τοῦ χοϊκοῦ]. Origen here transfers the Apostle's words (I Cor. xv, 49) said of the descendants of Adam to the *spiritual hosts of wickedness*, allegorically understanding by *earthy* the devil himself: which he does similarly in *Comm. in Joan.* tom. xx, num. 20: *child of the devil, becoming according to the image of the evil father, from whom are modeled the images of that earthy one; for that first earthy one* [χoϊκοῦ]... etc. So also *Comment. in Matth.* tom. xv, num. 18: "As is the earthy, that is, the evil one, such are also the earthy ones."
Ibid., *who is the beginning* [ὅστις ἐστὶν ἀρχή]. Origen here allegorically attributes to the devil what was said of Behemoth in Job xl, 14, according to the Septuagint. But he pursues the same matter more fully in a passage twin to this, *Comm. in Joann.* tom. i, num. 17: "There is also a beginning and as of generation... but I think that the thing signified is proclaimed more clearly in Job, that is, *the beginning of the creation of the Lord, made to be played with by his angels*. For one might suppose that of those existing in the generation of the world in the beginning the heaven and earth were created. It is better... first of those in the body, him who is called the dragon, also named somewhere the great sea-monster, which the Lord tamed... for this reason the Lord calling [it]... says, that is, the beginning of the creation of the Lord, made to be played with by his angels." Similarly tom. xx, num. 21: "*Child of the devil, becoming according to the image of the evil father, from whom are modeled the images of his earthy one; for that first earthy one* [οῦ]... *having fallen away... worthy to have been the beginning... not of a creature, nor a work, but a creation of the Lord, made to be played with by his angels*." But Cyril of Jerusalem catechizes after Origen, saying: "For the beginning is the devil, a creation of the Lord, made to be played with, etc."
Ibid., line 2, *of the made* [πεποιημένου]. Read *made* [πεποιημένος], for it refers to *who* [ὅστις]. But it is so near Job, *it is the beginning made*. And in places from Origen himself and Cyril cited above...
Ibid., C, line 2, *is the earth* [ἐστὶν ἡ γῆ]. Read *is earth* [ἐστὶ γῆ], that is, earthly [γήϊνος], not *the earth* [ἡ γῆ], the earth itself. So in what follows, *we are earth* [γῆ ἐσμεν], *we have been considered earth* [γῇ λελογίσμεθα], *no longer to be earth* [μηκέτι εἶναι γῆν].
Ibid., line 5, *is heaven* [οὐρανός ἐστι]. So also Origen in *Matth.* tom. xv, num. 7: "He [Christ] is the King of heaven, reigning... of the one who has become, because of bearing the image of the heavenly [man]." Likewise in *hom. 8 in Jerem.*: "For there is a righteous heaven... and we say that those who carry the heavenly man, and they themselves are heaven; for if it is said to the sinner, 'earth you are, and to the earth you shall go,' it would not be said to the righteous, whose is the kingdom of heaven, 'heaven you are, and to heaven you shall go'?" ... So almost Tertullian, explaining this article of the Lord's Prayer: "From the interpretation," he says, "the figurative of flesh and spirit, we are not heaven and earth."
Ibid., line 6, *we pray* [εὐχόμεθα]. Read *we may pray* [εὐχώμεθα], as presently there follows *we may ask* [ἀξιώσωμεν]. I had also advised that it be read so. Ruæus.
Ibid., *will* [θέλημα]. Read *will of God* [θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ], as it is read in the preceding and following.
Col. 505 A, line 1, *remains* [μένει]. Read *will remain* [μενεῖ], for he is speaking of the future; and thus a little later, *they will be temperate* [σώφρονες ἔσονται], *they will be righteous* [δίκαιοι ἔσονται], *we shall all be heaven* [ἐσόμεθα πάντες οὐρανός].
Ibid., line 5, *and on* [καὶ ἐπί]. Read *so it may be also on* [οὕτω γένηται καὶ ἐπί]... just as in the preceding; for these words seem to have been omitted here only by negligence.
Ibid., B, line 11, *Caphar-naum* [Καφαρναούμ]. The manuscript codex correctly. But the Oxford edition changed this as an error into *Caper-naum* [Καπερναούμ], as it is read passim in the Gospels. Yet not here alone does Origen have *Caphar-naum*; indeed, in *Comm. in Matth.* tom. xii, num. 11, 14, and tom. xiii, num. 45, and in *Joan.* tom. x, xi, xviii, xxxi, of which places Mills has not noted even one anywhere. So also Eusebius reads *De loc. Hebr.*: "Caphar-naum, a village in Galilee of the Nations." And in V: "Chorazin, is, he says, a village of Galilee... distant from Caphar-naum twelve miles." And so it is often read in Epiphanius *haer. xxx et li*. See Drusius, *Comm.*
A on the Hebrew terms in the New Testament and notes on Matt. iv, 15, and Reland, *Palæstina*, vol. II, p. 682. Ibid., line 12, *ζητεῖτε* (seek). Read *ζητεῖτέ με* (seek me), as it stands in the editions, Jo. vi, 26. — I have also published the passage thus. RUEUS. Col. 508 A, line 5, *ὡς περὶ ἑτέρου ὄντος* (as about another being). One seems to miss *παρ' αὐτόν* (besides him), so that it might be *ὡς περὶ ἑτέρου παρ' αὐτὸν ὄντος* (as about one being other than him), just as he repeats it in the response a little later. Origen had said, namely, that the *ἐπιούσιος* (supersubstantial) bread is Christ himself, and furthermore that it is the Word of God, by which the soul is nourished: but to this, he says, someone might object, he who wishes Christ alone to be understood by this bread, that he does not teach us to ask for Him in such a way as if some other *ἐπιούσιος* bread existed besides himself. Ibid., line 6, *διαλέγεται* (he discourses). Ms.: *διαλέγηται*. — Walker in his manuscript codex reads *διαλέγεται*. RUEUS. Ibid., line 7, *Μωϋσῆς* (Moses). In the editions of Jo. vi, 32, it is read: *οὐ Μωσῆς δέδωκεν ... ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, ἀλλ' ὁ Πατήρ μου* (it was not Moses who gave ... from heaven, but my Father). Ibid., line 8, *ὑμῖν* (to you). Ms. incorrectly: *ἡμῖν* (to us). Ibid., line 15, *ἄρτος ὁ ἐκ τοῦ* (the bread... from the...). Read: *ἄρτος ὁ ζῶν, ὁ ἐκ τοῦ* (the living bread, the one from the...), as it is read in the cited passage, John vi, 51; for it appears that Origen did not omit those words *ὁ ζῶν* (the living) here, from what follows: "we ask for the living bread," if below: "the living bread which came down from heaven," to which he clearly refers as though cited before; which words, however, if you take them out of this place, will nowhere be found in the preceding text. But Origen himself cites these words thus in *John* tom. x, num. 15: "I am the living bread, which came down from heaven." Ibid. B, line 1, *ζήσει* (he shall live). Origen also has it thus in *John* tom. x, num. 15; but in the editions of John vi, 51, it is read *ζήσεται* (he shall live), just as Origen himself also reads in *Matt.* tom. xi, num. 44, and Eusebius in the *Psalms*, pp. 85, 471. Ibid., line 4, *πᾶσα τροφή* (all food). Origen uses almost the same words in *John* tom. x, num. 13: "All food is, more loosely speaking, called bread, as is written concerning Moses in Deuteronomy: 'Forty days he did not eat bread, and did not drink water.'" Ibid., Ms.: *λέγηται* (is called). Ibid., line 15, *ἔχετε* (you have). Ms.: *ἔχητε* (you may have). Ibid. C, line 4, *ἀληθὴς ... ἀληθής* ... Origen also reads this in *John* tom. x, num. 13, as does Eusebius, *Eccl. Theol.* p. 179, which Mill did not notice. However, the true reading, I believe, is *ἀληθῶς* (truly), as it stands in the editions of John vi, 55, and Origen himself reads it so in *Matt.* tom. xvi, num. 7. Ibid., *πόμα* (drink). The manuscript codex here indeed has *τόμα*; which is a mere error of the scribe; we therefore, by the consensus of all the codices, have not hesitated to insert in its place *αἷμα* (blood) from John vi, 55, just as Origen himself reads in *John* tom. x, num. 13, and in *Matt.* tom. xvi, num. 7. Ibid., line 9, *ζήσει* (he shall live). Eusebius reads this twice in *Eccl. Theol.* p. 89. But Mill did not cite as witness to this reading either Origen or Eusebius in John vi, 57, where in the editions it is read *ζήσεται*. Ibid., *δέ* (but). Read: *δή* (indeed). Ibid., line 12, *πίωμεν* (we may drink). This does not befit the flesh of Christ, of which Origen is now speaking; it seems to me, therefore, that it should be read thus: *ὅταν δὲ τρώγωμεν αὐτόν* (but when we eat him), so that it may refer to the words cited above: "he who eats me." Ibid. D, line 1, *ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες* (the fathers ate). There are missing here: *ὑμῶν τὸ μάννα* (your manna), which exist in John vi, 58, just as *τὸ μάννα* is missing in the Cantabrigiensis and Colbertinus 8 codices, cited by Mill; he indeed confides so much in those codices that he judges that *τὸ μάννα*, which is in the editions, should be rejected as a falsification (*Prolegom.* sect. 1493); but regarding those distinguished men, since we require diligence here, who did not note that this passage of Origen supports them, we disapprove of the judgment delivered too rashly, in that by the faith of two codices (for he himself declares them to be wondrously corrupted) he rejected the reading of all the others, which is apt and proper for the place; and for that reason alone judged that *τὸ μάννα* ought to be deleted, understanding *τὸν ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ* (the bread from heaven). He might perhaps have made much of this passage of Origen, which we judge to be in truth corrupt, and to be corrected from the editions: *ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν τὸ μάννα, καὶ ἀπέθανον* (your fathers ate the manna, and died). Ibid., line 2, *ζήσει* (he shall live). Origen also reads this in *John* tom. vi, num. 26; but in the editions of John vi, 58, it is read *ζήσεται*. Col. 509 A, line 7, *μὴ περὶ σωματικῶν* (not concerning bodily things). Thus Origen in *Matt.* tom. xxii, num. 31: "...not of solid food, and of things called figuratively 'herbs', etc." And *hom. 27 in Num.*: "The true food of the rational nature is the Word of God." And *hom. 5 in Levit.*: "Flesh in the Scriptures signifies solid food and perfect doctrine. I know there is a certain food of the soul of milk, and another of herbs, and another of flesh, etc." Ibid. C, line 11, *διαφερούσης, αὐτήν* (differing, it). Read *διαφέρουσαν* (differing), and distinguish thus: *συνηνέχθησαν ... περὶ αὐτῆς, μηδαμῶς διαφέρουσαν αὐτὴν ἐξενηνοχότες* (they were brought together concerning her, in no way having brought her forth as differing). B Bentley proposed another emendation which seems more natural. RUEUS. Ibid., line 14, *ἐνωτίζου, εἰς τὰ ὦτα δέξαι* (listen, receive into the ears). In this sense the Septuagint often use the verb *ἐνωτίζεσθαι* (to give ear); concerning which, in Jerem. xii, 15, Origen notes almost the same as here, with these words: "What 'to give ear' means, let us understand from the word itself, 'receive into the ears'," *hom. 12 in Jerem.* And in the same way Hesychius: *ἐνωτίζου*, receive in the ears. Ibid., line 15, *ἀκουτίσθητι, ἀντὶ τοῦ ... ἀκοῦσαι ποιεῖς* (be made to hear, instead of... you cause to hear). These words are certainly corrupt; for nowhere among the LXX interpreters does that word *ἀκουτίσθητε* exist, nor is this verb used at all in the passive form; nor even if it were used, would the imperative *ἀκουτίσθητι* in any way mean "you cause to hear": wherefore I think it should be read: *ἀκούτισον, ἀντὶ τοῦ, ἀκοῦσαι ποίει* (cause to hear, instead of, cause to hear). For this verb occurs in that sense not rarely among the LXX, for example in Cantic. ii, 14: *Ἀκούτισόν με τὴν φωνήν σου* (Cause me to hear your voice). And again, ch. viii, 13: *Ἀκουτισόν με* (Cause me to hear), that is, make me hear, which is *ἀκοῦσαι ποίει με*. Ibid. D, line 1, *ἰσομοιᾳ τῇ, ἐπιουσίῳ* (equality to the, supersubstantial). Read: *ἰσομοίᾳ δὲ τῇ, ἐπιούσιον, προσηγορίαν* (but to the equality, supersubstantial, nomenclature). As above, the expression "the supersubstantial". Col. 512 A, line 2, *προηγουμένην τὴν τῶν ἀσωμάτων* (the primary [nature] of incorporeal things). Thus Timaeus Locrus says concerning the soul of the world: "which God did not arrange after corporeal substance... (for he made the more honorable prior in reality and in time, but the older...)" etc.; with which Plato agrees in the *Timaeus*: "God established the soul to be prior and older than the body in generation and virtue." And in *De leg. lib. x*: "The soul of the body would be older... if also the soul is [older] than the body." Further, they posit that the *ἰδέα*, or the paradigmatic principle of things created, is an incorporeal essence, which Pythagoras and Aristotle also affirmed concerning all first causes, as Plutarch reports: "Pythagoras and Aristotle [say] that the first causes [are] incorporeal." *Plut. De placit. philos.*, 1, 10, 11. Ibid., line 8, *ἐπεισιόντος* (of that which is entering). Ms. incorrectly: *ἐπισείοντος* (of that which is shaking). Ibid., line 9, *ἐὰν πλεῖον* (if more). Thus Timaeus Locrus: "food... if there be more than what is flowing out, it is called growth; if less, decay." Ibid., line 13, *προηγουμένην δὲ τὴν τῶν σωμάτων* (but [they thought] the primary nature of bodies). In this opinion were the greatest part of the philosophers, especially the Stoics, who said that *πάντα τὰ αἴτια* (all causes) were *σωματικά* (corporeal) (ap. Plutarch, *De Placitis*, I, 11) and that *σώματα εἶναι τὰς ἀρχάς* (bodies are the principles), ap. Laert. vii, 134, which reading Lipsius seems to move correctly to delete in *Phys. Stoic.*, II, 5. Compare Origen, *Contra Cels.* p. 686. Ibid., line 15, *πρώτη ... ὕλη* (first ... matter). Here Origen records the common opinion of the primary philosophers. For thus the prince of the Stoics, Zeno (ap. Stob. *Ec. phys.* c. 14), says, "that substance is the first matter of all things that are." So also Ocellus Pythagoricus (*De universo* c. 2), "first matter is the receptacle; and..."
mother, nurse, and generator of the third substances." Plato also concurs in the *Timaeus*. Aristotle agrees with these (*Phys. ausc.* 1, 10): "There must be some first subject, that from which... for I call matter the first subject of everything." See Plutarch, *De placit. philos.* 1, 4, and Alcinous, *De doctr. Platonis*, cap. 8, and Laertius on Zeno, VII, 150.
Ibid., *ἐξ ἧς*. For these words, *ἑξῆς* is wrongly written three times in the codex.
Ibid. B, lin. 1, *ἢ... ᾗ*. The passage itself shows that it must be read this way, just as it is read in the following lines: the copyist, being less attentive, wrote *ἡ τῶν* in both places, as does the Oxford edition.
B Ibid., lin. 7, *ἄποιος*. Origen speaks in the same manner in *Contra Cels.* p. 474: "Let him attend to what is said by the Greeks concerning matter, which is *ἄποιος* (without quality) by its own definition, [even though] quality is disputed..." And p. 547: "Matter is the same, underlying all bodies, by its own definition *ἄποιος* (without quality) and without form..." See also *Comm. in Joan.* tom. xiii, num. 21. Thus Timaeus says: "He called matter formless by itself, and without shape, but receiving every form." And similarly Ocellus. Consult also Plutarch, *De anim. procreat. e Timaeo* pp. 1014, 1023, and *De placitis philos.* 1, 9; Laelius IV, 69, 76, and VII, 154; Stobaeus *Ec. phys.* 14; Origen, *Philos. de Platone*, cap. 19, ed. Wolf, and Alcinous, *De doctr. Platon.*, cap. 8.
Ibid., lin. 9, *ἔγκειται*. It should undoubtedly be read *ὑπόκειται*; for the philosophers always use this word in this matter; and Origen himself does so as well, *Contra Cels.* pp. 547, 548.
Ibid., lin. 15, *τὴν δέ*. Read *αὐτὴν δέ*. Twin to these are Origen's words in *Comm. in Gen.*: "Matter has become receptive of every quality which God wills." And *Contra Cels.* p. 548: "That the underlying matter is receptive of qualities, of which the Creator wills, we all maintain." Thus Laertius says of the Stoics: "To them there seem to be two principles of all things, the active and the passive; the passive to be the *ἄποιος* (qualityless) substance, matter; but the active the reason in it, which is God." *Lib.* VII, segm. 154.
C Ibid., C, lin. 2, *συνὼν αὐτῇ τόνος*. That *αερώδης* (airy) tension, which, as the Stoics thought, pervading qualityless matter, elicits qualities and induces the form of bodies into its individual parts; as Plutarch teaches us, discussing this matter in *De repugn. Stoic.*, p. 1054: "Everywhere they declare that matter, being idle of itself and motionless, underlies qualities, and that the qualities are spirits (*πνεύματα*); which they also call airy tensions, by whose presence in parts of matter, they make them individually qualified and shaped." In these words of Plutarch, which are clearly corrupt, I think one should read, instead of *πνεύματα; οὓς δὲ*... ΣΩΜΑΤΑ; ΕΞΕΙΣ δὲ... For the Stoics denied that the immaterial (*τὸ ἀσώματον*) is qualities (as we learn from Galen's little book, *That qualities are immaterial*, written against them), and therefore affirmed that they were not spirits, or airy tensions, but bodies; which Plutarch himself teaches in the parallel passage, *De commun. not. advers. Stoicos*, p. 1085: "They say that substance and matter subsist by qualities, but they make the qualities... BODIES." Where he discusses this opinion of theirs at greater length: do not doubt, therefore, on the authority of the author himself, to read here, "but they make the qualities BODIES." That one must read *ΕΞΕΙΣ* (states/habits) instead of *οὓς* is shown by the sequence of the whole passage; for in the preceding parts Plutarch had noted concerning Chrysippus *On States (περὶ ἕξεων)*, since he means nothing else by *ἕξις* than the airy [substance] which brings about the qualities and forms of all bodies, saying that states are nothing else but airs. "For by these bodies are held together, and the air which holds them together is the cause of each being qualified by the states...": repeating, therefore, this same opinion now, as common to the Stoics, he says, "but [they declare] that states and airy tensions make each thing qualified and shaped," and that...
D Ibid., lin. 6, *πᾶσαν οὐσίαν πάσῃ συγχεῖσθαι*. So Zeno says in Stobaeus (*Ec. phys.* c. 14), "substance to be first matter... but that parts of this are divided and mixed together." So also *ibid.* says Chrysippus, "first matter is capable of division and mixture according to the parts." But Cicero has summarized this opinion of the philosophers, about which Origen argues here at greater length, in these few words: "They think that there is a certain matter underlying all things without any image, and lacking all quality, from which all things are expressed and fashioned; which can receive all forms, and be changed in all ways, and from every part." *Acad.* 1, 8.
Col. 513 A, lin. 3, *πρὸς ἕκαστον*. I think *πρός* should be deleted, so that it is, "it follows... each... to be able..."
Ibid., lin. 5, *ἔστι... τις... τροφὴ δηλητήριος*. Origen says almost the same in *in Joan.* tom. i, num. 53: "There is also a certain poisonous food, which we learn from the Fourth Book of Kings, some saying to Elisha, 'Death is in the pot,' etc."
Ibid., lin. 14, *δή*. Read *δέ*. Ibid. B, lin. 2, *ζήσεται*. MS *ζήσηται*.
Ibid., lin. 6, *ἐπερειδομένοις, ὡς*. It is read in the LXX, *"ἐπερειδομένοις ἐπ' αὐτὴν ὡς..."*
Ibid., lin. 12, *καὶ συνεστίων*. That *καί* should, I think, be deleted.
Ibid. C, lin. 1, *ἄρτου τοῦ*. That *τοῦ* disturbs the sentence, and seems to be repeated from the preceding syllable; therefore, with it omitted, read *ἄρτου ἱστορουμένου*.
Ibid., lin. 5, *αὐτοῦ*. Read *ἄρτου*. For he does not mean *τοῦτον αὐτόν*, this same one, which the Hebrews once ate, but such bread: *τούτου ἄρτου, ὁ σωματικοῦ* (of this bread, the bodily).
Ibid., lin. 5, *λειτουργικοίς*. In the codex it is wrongly written *αὐτουργικοίς*, which we have decided should be corrected from Heb. 1, 14.
Ibid., lin. 12, *γυμνῶς τροπικῶς*. They appear [spoken] bare, and as if removed from a garment, in a tropical sense; for the bodily in the Scriptures is "the clothing of the spiritual," as the *Philocalia* says (p. 11). But in the same way that here, "the bare spiritual things [are] compared to those according to history" (*ibid.* p. 15). Origen wants these words to be merely allegorical, to be understood, as he says elsewhere, "not literally, but tropically." Bentleius reads "not bare, but tropically." RUES.
Ibid. D, lin. 1, *εἰς ὠφέλειαν αὐτῶν*. He says this in *Hom. 23 in Lucam*, that angels are instructed by human voices.
Col. 516, A, lin. 6, *αὐτὸς μεταδώσων*. So *Hom. 14 in Ezech.*: "My Savior alone eats the bread, with no one being able to eat with him: but there is a certain place, in which eating he will draw me with him to eat; for behold, he says, I stand at the door, and knock; if anyone appears to me, I will enter to him, and will sup with him, and he with me: from which it appears that others can also sup with him."
Ibid., lin. 10, *δράκοντος*. That is, "of the adversary," as he says later, namely the devil, allegorically. So Theophilus of Alexandria in *Ep. pasch.* 2: "The food of the impious is the devil himself, detestable, as the prophecy resounds: 'Thou didst give him as food to the people, the Ethiopians.'" Thus also you may see Eusebius discussing this in *Comm. in psalm.* p. 441.
Ibid., lin. 11, *νοητοῦ Αιθίοπος*. So "the intellectual Babylonians" in *Hom. 1 in Jer.*, and "the intellectual Nebuchadnezzar" in *Hom. 18*. Likewise lib. iv, cap. [2]: *On Principles*: "If, therefore, the prophecies concerning Judea, and Jerusalem, and Israel... are not what we are interpreting carnally, they suggest such mysteries, it would follow that also the prophecies concerning Ae-
Agypt and the Egyptians, and Babylon and the Babylonians, and Tyre and the Tyrians..., are not prophesying only about these bodily things, but also about the intelligible ones; for if there are intelligible Israelites, it follows that there are also intelligible Egyptians and Babylonians, etc.
Ibid., B, line 5, "You have given him." There is nothing to which "him" (*auton*) refers. Supply, therefore, the passage according to the LXX: "of water. You crushed the head of the dragon; you gave him..." Thus indeed does Origen himself have it in *Commentary on Matthew*, tom. XVI, no. 20.
Ibid., line 7, "of the adversary." Namely, of the dragon, or the devil. But thus he says in *Homily 6 on Ezekiel*: "It is written in Job concerning the dragon: 'His strength is in his belly'..." I know that, when I was explaining the present passage, I said that the dragon is the contrary power; for this dragon is the ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, etc.
Ibid., line 11, "to be fed by all." Origen says almost the same thing in *Homily 7 on Leviticus*: "After the flesh of Christ, the food of the world is Peter, and Paul, and all the apostles; in the third place their disciples; and thus each one, according to the quantity of his merits or the purity of his senses, becomes food for his neighbor."
Ibid., C, line 2, "in whom all." Namely, "there existed." For so it is read in Acts 5:12, "in whom there existed all..."
Ibid., D, line 2, "indeed" (*dē*). Read "but" (*de*).
Col. 517 A, line 2, "the" (*ton*). Read "the" (*to*), "supersubstantial" (*epiousion*). Origen had said above "the supersubstantial" (*ton epiousion*), or regarding the word *epiousios*, that it was formed from *ousia* (substance); but someone, he says, might counter here that this word *epiousios* could also be formed from *epienai* (to come). And thus the scholia on the Lord's Prayer [are] subjoined to these: "The word *epiousion* is onomatopoetically derived from *epienai* and *hyperexthai*, so that it may be: 'give us already, not [the bread] proper to the present age, but the one to be rendered to the saints in the future.'"
Ibid., line 9, "the one concerning the." I think it is better [to read] "the one concerning the, 'today'; but what, I ask, is that 'the one concerning the today'..., lying before us here? For I see nothing in Matthew besides the word 'today' itself. Therefore to me the 'the one concerning the today' would seem to be read as 'this today,' or even 'the today,' just as the custom follows [the word] 'the' [in] 'daily'."
Ibid., line 10, "lying before us" (*prokeimenon*), "or the." Read "placed toward" (*proskeimenon*), and "the one placed toward," apposed, added, "placed by way of addition." Hesychius.
Ibid., line 12, "in many places of the Scriptures." Origen repeats these things in almost the same words in *Commentary on John*, tom. XXXI, num. 19: "In many places 'today' in Scripture extends even to the whole present age, as in, 'It was spoken... until today'; and, 'This father... until this day'; and, 'Today, if you hear his voice... and, do not harden your hearts... in the day of today'."
Ibid., B, line 6, "today the whole." Read "the today, the whole."
Ibid., line 7, "the yesterday." Read "the yesterday" (*to chthēs*). But in that which Origen says a little later, namely, that "the yesterday," or "the day of yesterday," is the famous millennium, he clearly attacks the followers of Papias, who dreamed of a certain thousand-year kingdom of the saints on earth after the resurrection.
Ibid., line 9, "to say." Understand from the preceding "the Scriptures," or instead of "to say" you ought to read "to be said."
Ibid., C, line 2, "of one day." So *Commentary on Matthew*, tom. XV, num. 31: "See if we are able to call the whole present age a certain day," etc.
Ibid., "in the interval... to say." There is without doubt to be read: "to have the reasoned account of an interval." So it must be read. Bentley had already warned of this. RUEUS.
Ibid., D, line 1, "who is wise." In almost the same way Origen discusses this matter in *Commentary on Matthew*, tom. XV, num. 31: "Who then is sufficient to raise the six days, and the seventh of the resurrection, unto such days, and after the sabbaths the new moons," etc.
Col. 520 A, line 4, "on the tenth." Read "the tenth is the day of atonement," just as what precedes, "the new moon is the day of trumpets." Contra Bentley here, [who] corrects it to "on the tenth," and above [who] reads "the new moon is the day of trumpets." RUEUS.
Ibid., line 11, "of seven years." "Of weeks" is plainly missing, so that it may be "of seven weeks of years": for not seven years, but seven years seven times, constitute the Jubilee. Lev. XXV, 8. Nothing is missing here. There was one festival of seven years, another the Jubilee. The Jubilee was greater than the seven-year festival. The London editor has confused both festivals, but Origen distinguished them well. RUEUS.
Ibid., line 13, "to be something." I judge "to be" (*eivai*) should be deleted; for in that place they are plainly inept, and seem to have been fabricated by a drowsy scribe from the tail of the preceding word. It seems otherwise to me. RUEUS.
Ibid., line 14, "is of the." You see that some word is missing here; therefore read, "is, except the." However, he wishes [to refer to] Christ the Son of God. But those things which Origen says here concerning the Jubilee are consonant with those in *Matthew*, tom. XV, num. 31: "Who is able to ascend to the number of B the days of the abyss in the fifty-year period (by 'of the abyss' I mean because of the depth of the dogmas), so that one may ascend and see the fiftieth year, and the things legislated in it being fulfilled," etc. Bentley had previously read, "is, except the." RUEUS.
Ibid., B, line 13, "the surpassing multitude." In the edition. Eph. IV, 7, it is read, "the surpassing wealth." But the Alexandrian codex and others have "the surpassing wealth," and so perhaps Origen; since Eusebius, who follows him almost throughout, in Coloss. I, 27, twice reads "the wealth" (*Eccl. Theol.*, p. 99, 101), just as others also do: however, since Origen a little later repeats, "the wealth of his grace," I am led to believe that he read here with the vulgate readings "the surpassing wealth," especially since I see him reading thus in *Matthew*, tom. XV, num. 51, or *De Principiis* II, 5, just as Eusebius also reads in *against Marcellus*, p. 34. Bentley reads "wealth." RUEUS.
Ibid., C, line 3, "of more ages, as if, a year." At the same time, when Origen here attempts to reconcile the words of the Apostle cited above with one another in *Commentary on Matthew*, tom. XV, num. 34: "I think that... upon the consummation of more ages. Whether completing a certain year, or whatever it may be, for the putting away of sin was our Jesus manifested, so that after the consummation of the ages—[the] days as of a year—another beginning might succeed and God might show in the ages to come the surpassing wealth of his goodness," etc.
Ibid., line 8, "most sinful." Thus "a sinner greater than Cain," *homily 16 on Jeremiah*.
Ibid., line 12, "being disposed of" (*oikonomēsomēnou*). That is, through a certain economy [God] attains the forgiveness of sins. But Origen inculcates this opinion of his concerning the remission of even the most serious sins in the coming ages everywhere; e.g., *Commentary on John*, tom. XIX, num. 3: "I know some [who are] kept by their own sin not only in this age, but also in the one to come, as those concerning whom the Word says, 'If anyone blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, he has no forgiveness neither in this age, nor in the one to come'; not, however, that [it is] not in the age to come, nor even in the ages that are coming." The same in *Matthew*, tom. XV, num. 51: "Perhaps, to speak more boldly, the Lord will not cast away [one] unto the ages; for it is too much even to be cast away by the Lord for one age; but perhaps he will be cast away even unto a second age, because such a sin is not forgiven, neither in the present age, nor in the age to come." And *against Celsus*, p. 589: "The Word... says that those who according to their desert need the economy of punishment through fire, are in these [ages] in accordance with some end," etc. But Athanasius attacks this opinion of Origen with these words: "...the wretched Origen is accused, proclaiming the end of punishment, as if the forgiveness of every sin were to happen both to men and to demons by..."
God." *Commentary on Matthew*, ap. Montfauc., *Collect. nov. Patr.*, vol. II, p. 38. Cf. Huet, *Origeniana*, lib. II, quest. 11.
Col. 522 A, line 4, ἑβδοματικοὺς ἑπτά (sevenfold-weekly). Namely ἑνιαυτούς (years), which seems to be omitted by the scribe; I therefore read ἑβδοματικοὺς ἑπτὰ ἐνιαυτούς. He desires, moreover, a Jubilee of ages. — Bentley, for ἑβδοματικούς, reads ἑβδομαδικούς. Ruæus. Ibid., line 10, ἤδη σαφούς... τοῦ καθ' ἡμέραν. Namely, that since "today" (as he showed in the aforementioned) denotes the present age, "daily" consequently designates all the future ages. Ibid., line 11, περὶ τῆς. Read περὶ τοῦ, σήμερον, as "concerning that which is today" follows. So indeed a little later: "in order that both 'today' and 'daily' may be understood." Ibid., line 16, αὐτοῦ. The scribe clearly wrote this while dozing instead of ἡμῶν. Indeed, what follows, εἰ καὶ τελευταῖον... up to the end of the section, he corrupted and mutilated in such a way that we cannot sufficiently grasp what Origen truly wrote, or what he intended in these parts. Having therefore set aside our conjectures here, we leave the whole passage to be elucidated and emended according to your own ingenuity. We have presented the Oxford version here, so that you may also correct it; which we neither approve of, nor do we think you will be overly pleased with it. Ibid. B, line 2, ἀφήκαμεν. So it is read above, no. 18. But in the editions of Matthew vi, 12, it is more correctly read ἀφίεμεν. Ibid., line 4, ἀφήκαμεν. The editions, Luke xi, 4, have ἀφίεμεν, and Origen himself is the same above, no. 18. Ibid., line 5, ὀφειλημάτων. The scribe wrote λειμμάτων. Ibid., line 11, τοῖσδε. Read τοιοῖσδέ τισι... Ibid., line 15, δή. Read δέ. Ibid. C, line 3, συναναγεγεννημένους. The codex is wrong with συναναγεννημένους. Col. 524 A, line 6, δή. Read δέ. Ibid., line 15, προσεύξηται. Read προσεύξονται. The Septuagint editions read thus, and so Origen repeats afterwards. The negligent scribe here wrote προσεύξηται, καὶ εἰ ἐὰν εἰς instead of ἐὰν δέ εἰς... in what follows. Ibid. B, line 6, ἔστι τις. Here too δέ seems to have been omitted, for you would read it more aptly as ἔστι δέ τις. Ibid. C, line 11, ὀφειλὴ βαρυτάτη. Similar to these, Origen says in Homily 11 on Jeremiah: "I, a presbyter, am required to give more than a deacon, the deacon more than a layman; but he who has been entrusted with the rule of us all [the bishop] is required to give even more." And Homily 5 on Ezekiel: "He who presides over the Church and errs has a greater punishment. Does not a faithful catechumen deserve mercy by comparison? Is not a layman more worthy of pardon if compared to a deacon? And again, does a deacon merit more pardon by comparison to a presbyter?" etc. Ibid., line 15, ἀποδιδῶτο. Read ἀποδιδῶται, or ἀποδιδοῖτο. Ibid. D, line 4, τοῦ ἐντυγχάνοντος. Read τῷ ἐντυγχάνοντι. Bentley proposes another emendation of this passage. Ruæus.
Col. 525, line 10, ὥστε μηδὲν ὀφείλειν. In the same manner Origen discourses in Homily 14 on Jeremiah: "He who renders debts to all, to whom tribute is due, the tribute; to whom custom, the custom; to whom fear, the fear; to whom honor, the honor—and rendering to all their proper duties, so as to owe nothing to anyone, having honored parents as parents, brothers as brothers, sons as sons, bishops as bishops, presbyters as presbyters, deacons as deacons, the faithful as the faithful, catechumens as catechumens—if he renders all duties, he has owed nothing," etc. Ibid., line 15, ἀποδιδομένοις. Read ἀποδιδομένων. — I had already warned that this should be read this way. Ruæus.
Col. 528 B, line 1, ἐν τῷ ἡγεμονικῷ τυπούμεναι. Origen says almost the same in Homily 16 on Jeremiah: "The sins that we commit are written into us by the act of sinning... having made it [the sin], he has a type of it, and it is as though it were written: 'The type of the sin that was sinned in my soul.'" And Homily 15: "Each of us is a debtor to sins, and is a debtor having a handwriting," etc. Ibid., line 5, προαχθησομένων. Read προαχθησόμενον, i.e., the handwriting from which we will be judged. Bentley had already warned that it should be read as προαχθησόμενον. Ruæus. Ibid., line 7, φαῦλον. Origen also reads this way in *Jerem.*, homily 19, and in *Matth.*, tom. XII, no. 50, and tom. XIII, no. 30; but the editions in II Cor. v, 10, have κακόν. Ibid., line 9, λέγεται. The manuscript has λέγηται. Ibid., line 10. In the codex, it is written incorrectly as αἰσχυνόμενος, and soon, ἕξει... ἀποδώσει, with no sense. We therefore do not doubt that the scribe's error should be corrected from the editions by reading εἰς ἐγγύην αἰσχυνόμενος... εἰ γὰρ οὐχ ἕξῃς πόθεν ἀποδώσεις. But for ἀποδώσῃς, the editions have ἀποτίσῃς. Ibid. D, line 2, ἀληθοῦς. In the codex, it is written incorrectly as ἀληθοῦς. Write ἀληθείας. I had already warned that this should be read this way. Ruæus.
Col. 528 A, line 2, ἐνειλήσας. That is, punished, he has been involved, he has been punished. Hesychius. But instances for this meaning do not occur to us. It seems to me, therefore, that this was written carelessly by the scribe instead of ἀπειλήσας, that is, having scolded with anger, acting in anger and threateningly, which fits the passage aptly; for *apeile* is an angry scolding, or a threat of evil, as the author of the *Etymologicum Magnum* teaches us. Instead of ἐνειλήσας, Bentley reads ἀνηλεῶς. Ruæus. Ibid., line 4, καὶ ὀκνηρέ. These words do not exist in the cited passage, Matthew XVIII, 32; but are transferred here by Origen from a similar passage (as is habitual), Matthew XXV, 26: where, however, they could have more correctly been omitted; since in this passage, the cruelty of the servants is being reprimanded by the Lord, not—as in the other passage—also their sloth. Ibid., line 9, ὑμῶν. Origen here omits τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν, which follow after ὑμῶν in the editions, which Mill did not notice. It is truly strange, moreover, how the distinguished man dissents from himself regarding these words, who in his notes thinks they should be retained by the authority of the Greek codices, but rejects them on the authority of the prologue to the Ethiopic version. Ibid., line 12, ἑπτάκις... ἑπτάκις. In the codex, it is written incorrectly ἑπτὰ ἑπτά. Ibid. B, line 3, ἐγγενέσθαι. Scil. healing. I think, therefore, it should be read ἐγγενέσθαι αὐτὴν τῷ. — We, however, have punctuated this passage in such a way that there is no need for such an emendation. Ruæus. Ibid., line 7, ἡμῶν. Perhaps ἡμῖν, for he refers to the words of Luke... τῷ ὀφείλοντι ἡμῖν. — ἡμῶν must be retained. For it concerns us as debtors and [those] not rendering debts. Ruæus. Ibid., line 11, μόνον λέγων. There is no sufficiently sound meaning in these; for Matthew does not say this only, nor could he say that Christ established for debtors that they "must not..." perhaps: "to those who owe only, and do not render," saying..., as above. But we are in need of the aid of a better codex here. The passage will be sound, provided you punctuate just as in our text, where, however, through the printer's carelessness, χῶρον is incorrectly read instead of χώραν. Ruæus. Ibid., line 14. After ἐξουσίαν, we must add ἔχομεν. The scribe omitted this, which we, as the sentence demands, have added, just as the Oxford edition had also added it; but so also a little later, τῷ μόνῳ ἐξουσίαν ἔχοντι ἀφιέναι Θεῷ. We had already warned that ἔχομεν should be added. Ruæus. Ibid. C, line 3, ὡς οἱ ἀπόστολοι. He said almost the same above, no. 14, "if any Paul or Peter were found," etc. Confer *Comm. in Matth.*, tom. XII, nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. Ibid., line 4, ἀφίετε. Read ἀφῆτε, just as is the custom
A 85 from the same, as usually happens, absorbed by the preceding syllable.
Col. 529 A, line 2, ἀκουσίων. From the Mosaic law it seems to be established that there was no "involuntary" sin which could not be expiated by some sacrifice; and in this the Hebrew doctors almost all agree. Yet there is one among them, not undistinguished, R. Levi of Barcelona, who in the book *Chinuch*, explaining the precepts of the Law from the legal and ritual books of the Jews, excludes three sins which, even if committed inadvertently, were not expiated by sacrifice—namely, blasphemy, neglect of circumcision, and the failure to observe the Passover properly; and perhaps Origen learned something of this sort from his Hebrew teacher, whom he mentions often in book 1 of *De principiis*, in his *Comm. in Psalm.*, p. 39, and in *Matth.* tom. 11, no. 9, as well as in the Hexapla. However, Origen perhaps means this: that there were certain "involuntary" faults regarding which the power of the priest, by order of the law, did not extend, inasmuch as there was no victim prescribed by law for their expiation—such, namely, as were inadvertently spoken and thought, and rashly omitted, which those who repented were forgiven without a sacrifice. See Outram, *De sacrificiis*, pp. 112, 126. — The London editor punctuated his text thus: *καὶ οὐδήπου τὴν περί τινων ἐξουσίαν ὁ ἱερεὺς ἀκουσίων, ἢ πλημμελημάτων ἀναφοράν, ἔχων ἤδη· καὶ περὶ μοιχείας*, etc. But if he had punctuated it as we have, he would have refrained from this useless note, which is contrary to Origen's mind. RUAEUS. — Ibid., line 4, ἤδη. Read καί. Thus in no. 29: *ἤδη συμπεπληρωκώς*. The ἤδη must be retained by all means, as is clear from the punctuation of our text. RUAEUS. — Ibid., line 5, προσφέρει. Read οὐ προσφέρει, for the negative particle is clearly missing. — One should wrongly read οὐ προσφέρει, since the negative particle has already preceded. RUAEUS. — Ibid., line 6, περὶ ἁμαρτίας. Supply *θυσίαν*. Thus in Psalm. xxxix, 7, *ὁλοκαύτωμα καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας οὐκ ᾔτησας*. — Ibid., line 15, καὶ τό. Read καίτοι, or καὶ τοῖς. Bentley also reads καὶ τοῖς. And Lord Fleury, *καὶ τὸ ἀπογινώσκειν*. RUAEUS. — Ibid. B, line 4, οὐκ οἶδ' ὅπως. It seems that *νῦν* is missing, or *ἀλλά*, so that it might be read *νῦν δ' οὐκ οἶδ' ὅπως*, or *ἀλλ' οὐκ οἶδ' ὅπως*. B Ibid., line 10, *τῆς πρὸς θάνατον ἁμαρτίας*. He seems to designate by this those graver faults mentioned before—idolatry, adultery, etc.—which by the Mosaic law were "death-bearing" and not to be expiated by any sacrifice. For Origen himself, in *Comm. in Matth.*, tom. XIII, no. 30, enumerating great sins of this kind, calls them "those toward death," or, as the Law named them in Numbers, "death-bearing." But for those guilty of such sins in Origen's time, pardon was very rarely granted, as he himself says in *Hom. 15 in Levit.*: In more serious crimes, a place for repentance is granted only once. He rebukes here, therefore, those priests who, acting more arrogantly than they should, or not being sufficiently acquainted with the rule of discipline, were too easy in remitting these more serious sins, *φαντασία τῆς τοῦ λόγου χρηστότητος καὶ πρὸς τοὺς τὰ μέγιστα ἡμαρτηκότας τὸ συγγνωμικὸν διδόντες*, as he says in the place cited above, in *Matth.* tom. XIII, no. 30. This relaxation of discipline, however, which displeased Origen, gave the occasion to Tertullian, the defender of stricter discipline, to flee into the camps of Montanus; as is apparent from his book *De pudicitia*, where he reproaches the priests with almost the same things that Origen does here: "I hear," he says, "that an edict has been proposed, and indeed a peremptory one; the Pontifex Maximus... edicts: I forgive the sins of adultery and fornication to those who have performed penance," etc. Col. 532 B, line 1, *Θεὸς οὐκ*. Read *Θεός, ὃς οὐκ*, as it stands in the editions. 1 Cor. x, 13. The article, however, is [missing]. — Ibid., line 4, *δύνασθαι*. In the editions *δύνασθαι ὑμᾶς* is read. But the Alex. codex and others, like Origen here, omit *ὑμᾶς*. See Mill. — Ibid., *ἡ πάλη*. *ἡμῖν* seems to be missing; and so in the editions, Eph. vi, 12, *ἡμῖν ἡ πάλη*. And so Origen a little later, *ἡμῖν τὰ ἀγωνίσματα*. — Ibid., line 5, *—*. Read *καί*. — Ibid., *ψυχὴν πάσης σαρκός*. That is, *αἷμα*; for *ψυχὴ πάσης σαρκὸς αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἐστι*, Levit. xvii, 11. It is therefore a "transferring" of soul for blood, where it has its seat, and of the heart for the soul, which is the fountain of blood and soul simultaneously. Origen therefore wishes there to be a struggle for us with the soul, which is the *ἡγεμονικόν* of the animate body, and is called the heart, whence arise the evil affections which he calls human temptations, with which the spirit struggles. — Ibid., line 8, *τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν, ὃ καλεῖται καρδία*. Thus in *Comment. in Joan.*, tom. II, no. 29, *ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ τὸ ἡγεμονικόν*. But Origen borrowed this from the Stoics: for they, as Laertius says in Zeno, "say the *ἡγεμονικόν* is the sovereign part of the soul... which is in the heart." Book VII, segment 159. See the notes of Menagius. — Ibid., line 13, *καταπεπατηκασιν*. Ms. *καταπεπατηκόσιν*, as the Oxford edition has. C — Ibid., line 13, *σκότους τούτου*. Thus also Origen reads these words of the Apostle in *Matth.*, tom. XII, no. 13, and tom. XVII, no. 2, and *contra Cels.*, p. 768, with *τοῦ αἰῶνος* omitted, which exist in the editions of Eph. vi, 12. But these four passages of Origen escaped Mill, who certainly needed their testimony before he so confidently rejected those words, *τοῦ αἰῶνος*, in his *Prolegom.* sect. 478, as if they were born from an interpretation. In Book VIII *contra Celsum*, in our edition, *τοῦ σκότους τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου* is read, as the manuscript codices bear. RUAEUS. — Ibid. C, line 4, *Ἰουδίο, οὐ*. In the codex there is a strange blunder here, *Ἰουδαία, εἰ οὐ*, clearly for *Ἰουδίθ, οὐ*; and we have not hesitated to correct it thus; just as the Oxford edition exhibited it without reminding the reader. — Ibid., line 12, *ἡμᾶς ἐκδικεῖ*. In the editions of the Seventy it is read... *ἡμᾶς οὐκ ἐξεδίκησεν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς νουθέτησιν μαστιγοῖ*. You see, however, that Origen omits the negative particle *οὐκ* here, which Badvell and Grotius think should be omitted in the earlier part of the sentence; nevertheless, all the Greek exemplars dissent (as Badvell himself admits): and to me, indeed, this reading of Origen seems sufficiently appropriate, *οὐ γὰρ καθὼς ἐκείνους ἐπύρωσε, καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐκδικεῖ...*; for God does not now deal with us more harshly than he dealt with our forefathers of old, testing them alone and destining us for destruction, but he chastises all sons equally—us as well as them—only for the sake of admonition and amendment. But the Oxford editor, rejecting the words of the codex according to his custom, inserted here those of the Seventy cited above. D Ibid. D, line 8, *περισσοτέρως .... ὑπερβαλλόντως*. The words seem to be inverted by the scribe's carelessness; and they are to be read in the order in which they appear more aptly arranged in the editions of 2 Cor. xi, 23: *ἐν πληγαῖς ὑπερβαλλόντως, ἐν φυλακαῖς περισσοτέρως*. And indeed Origen himself recites it thus in *hom. 44 in Jer.* But in *Comm. in Rom.*, p. 426, it is written thus: *ἐν φυλακαῖς περισσευόντως, ἐν πληγαῖς ὑπερβαλλόντως*, which we also judge must be attributed to the carelessness of the librarian. Col. 533 B, line 13, *σκόλοπος τοῦ*. I think it should be read *σκόλοπος ἀγγέλου τοῦ Σατανᾶ*. For so the editions of 2 Cor. xii, 7 [have it], and Origen himself in *hom. 12 in Jer.* Ibid. C, line 1, *κακῶν*. It should clearly be read conversely, *καλῶν*, as is clear from the preceding *κρείττονα*.
κρείττονα*.
B Ibid., line 2, *ὠρέχθησαν*. Read *ὠρέχθητε*, or… [rest of line obscured by scan note].
B Ibid., line 4, *ἀναπλάττοντες ἕτερον*. He means the Marcionites, whom he depicts in almost the same way in his book *Contra Cels.*, p. 754, with these words: "Those who walk another path, and while denying this [creator], have given themselves over to a novel fiction, and to the name of 'God' alone, as though he were greater than the creator," etc. Compare, however, Just. Mart. *Apol. 1*, sect. 35, 75; Iren. 1, 29; Epiphan. *hær. XLII*; Theod. *Hær. Fab. 1*, 24, and Tertull. *advers. Marcion.* Ibid., line 6, *ή*. Read *καὶ Πατέρα*, and in the same line, *καὶ Χριστοῦ*. Ibid., line 8, *ὃν δέ*. Read *οὓς δέ*, i.e., Father and Son.
Col. 557 A, line 9, *μὴ εἰσελθεῖν*. The sentence is clearly incomplete: read therefore, "pray not to enter"; for he himself intends the very words of Christ in Luke xxii, 40, and thus he cites them a little later.
Ibid. C, line 9, *ταῦτα πάντα προσεκτέον*. "One must observe all these things..." — *Ed. Oxon.* But the word *προσεκτέον* in this sense demands a dative of the thing, i.e., *τούτοις πᾶσι προσεκτέον*... And indeed, that word taken in that way does not suit this place. To me, therefore, instead of *προσεκτέον* it seems that *ΠΡΟΣΑΚΤΕΟΝ* should be read, i.e., "they are to be brought as charges," for Origen uses this verb often in this way. Thus above, no. 16: "But if anyone should bring against us the..." — "let them worship..." See *Comm. in Gen.*: "if we bring against them... that the world..." And *Contra Cels.* p. 504: "Which Celsus brings against us..." And in *Joan. tom. II*, num. 6: "He must be brought [read *αὐτῷ*] as being inferior to the angels... that Jesus had come to be," and *Philoc. 24*: "Let them untie the knotty questions brought against them by us." So also Clem. Alex. *Str. VII*, p. 866: "They bring this very thing against us," i.e., they object this very thing to us. Thus also Euseb. *Eccl. theol.*, p. 193: "The matters proposed against them must be brought."
Ibid., *τοῖς διακόπτουσι τὴν θεότητα*. Thus concerning the Marcionites, who imagined two gods for themselves, one the just God of the law, the other the good God of the Gospel. Origen reproaches them for this with almost these same words everywhere; e.g., *hom. 1 in Jer.*: "There follow those who divide the divinity, the one [God] older than the advent of the Savior... from the divinity promised by Jesus Christ." And in *Titum ap. Pamph. Apol.*: "As far as in them lies, they cut and tear the nature of the deity, saying one is the God of the Law, and the other the God of the Gospels." And *Comm. in Joan. tom. 1*, num. 14: "The heterodox assign both Testaments to two gods." Compare *lib. II, cap. 4, 5, De Principiis*, and *Philoc. pp. 6, 7, 21, 60, 58, 101, 102*. In the same way, Irenaeus III, 42: "Marcion," he says, "dividing God into two, calling one indeed good and the other judicial, from both destroys God," etc.
Ibid., line 12, *εἰ ὁ ἀγαθὸς Θεός*. With these, compare Origen’s *Comm. in Exod.*, pp. 17, 18, 22, 25.
Ibid. D, line 12, *ταράξει*. Namely, since they had read that it was written by the Apostle, that good one, the God of the new testament whom they had fashioned for themselves, [he] likewise handed men over to a reprobate mind to commit those shameful acts, and that other one, the God of the old testament, whom for that reason they deemed to be rejected.
Ibid., *ἀναπλάσαντες*. Read *ἀναπλάσαντας*, for it refers clearly to *ἐκείνους*. Place therefore after… [rest obscured by folio edge].
Col. 540 A, line 2, *ὡς οὐκ ἀγαθῷ*. So almost Origen, *hom. 1 in Jer.*: "Those from the heresies... brought [them] against us, saying: 'Do you see God the [God] of the Law, how he is wild and inhuman...'". And *hom. 12*: "The heretics seize upon these same [scriptural] phrases, saying: 'Do you see the creator, what he is like, and the God of the prophets, who says: "I will not spare..." how can this one be good?'" Compare *Philoc. pp. 6, 7*, and *Comm. in Matth. tom. XV, num. 11*. Ibid., line 6, *εὑρίσκομεν*. Read *εὑρίσκοιμεν*. Ibid., line 7, *δή*. Read *δέ*. Ibid., line 12, *καταβαίνουσαν*. The *ἢ* is clearly missing, which matches the preceding *ἤτοι*; read therefore *ἢ καταβαίνουσαν*. Consonant with these, Origen has *hom. 1 in Ezech.*: "Through the freedom of the will, some strive toward the summit of the good, others fall into the depths of malice." So also *Philoc. p. 66*...: "So that accordingly, on account of their choices, some advance from worse to better, while others fall from better to worse, and others ascend from good to better, while others from bad... the malice being poured out, become worse..." That *ἢ καταβαίνουσαν* should be read was previously noticed and warned by Bentley. RUEUS.
Ibid., line 18, *ἡ ταχεῖα θεραπεία*. Compare *Philoc. pp. 57, 60, 61, 103, 104*, and *Contra Cels. p. 600*, where, arguing about the same matter, Origen uses almost these same words.
Ibid. C, line 12, *οὐδὲ δέκα*. It must be read exactly so, as the editions of the Septuagint have it. In the manuscript, however, the twin *δέ* through the carelessness of a scribe merged into one, i.e., *οὐδέ*.
Col. 541 B, line 5, *βίου*. That is, *βιότου*, or the things necessary for living. Hesych.
Ibid., line 15, *τῆς γενέσεως ἐπιθυμήσαντες*. The Oxford edition rendered this poorly into Latin as "mindful of [their] birth"; which neither the words signify, nor does the sense of the place admit it. Origen here uses the word *γένεσις* in a sense strictly philosophical, by which he denotes the things of this world which are subject to perpetual change through generation and corruption, because the ancient philosophers designated that part of the world which is below the moon—in which "nature and *genesis* hold dominion"—by that one word *ΓΕΝΕΣΙΣ*, as Ocellus teaches us in *De universo, cap. 2*: "*Genesis* is where there is change and transition of the underlying things... for the orbit around the moon is the isthmus of immortality and of *Genesis*." Hence also Suidas: "*Genesis*, the world, i.e., that beneath the moon." So also Philo, *Concerning the creation of the world*, "assigned the proper name of *Genesis* to the sensible world." So also Celsus ap. Origen, p. 727: "*Genesis*, the visible." And Origen himself, p. 728, says that the things of *Genesis* are the things seen, or the things of the world: in which sense he says, pp. 786, 787, that "earthly demons are bound to *Genesis*, and are lovers of the body." And p. 788 he recounts the "works of demons drawing down human souls into the things of *Genesis*." Furthermore, by *ΓΕΝΕΣΙΣ* here, Origen especially intends those earthly things which pertain to the delights of food, such as meats were, for which the Israelite people burned with desire, *τοῦ βίου ἐπιθυμοῦντες*, as appears from what went before. But in this sense the Pythagoreans taught abstinence from certain foods, especially those that are sweet, "and which constrain the mortal body toward *Genesis*," symbolically indicating, as Hierocles says, "abstinence from the whole of *Genesis* by one single example." *Comm. in aur. carm.*, p. 216, *ed. Cant.*
Ibid., line 14, *ἐπιθυμεῖτε, μισήσαντες*. It seems to me it should be read, *ἐπεθυμεῖτε, μισήσαντες δὲ τὸ ἐπιθυμούμενον*.
Ibid. C, line 1, *παλινδρομεῖν*. I supply *δυνηθῆτε* from the preceding, which also seems necessary to be added, so that it may be, *παλινδρομεῖν δυνηθῆτε ἐπί*.
ἐπί*. Ibid., line 2, ὠρέχθησαν. Read ὠρέχθητε, so that the persons may be the same as those above. So also I indicated in my reading of the text. Ruæus.
Ibid., D, line 5, *τῷ φρονίμῳ πυρί*. That is, with the purifying fire which the wise God uses. He means, however, the spirit of judgment and the spirit of burning, of which mention is made in the places cited a little later, Is. IV, 4, and Mal. III, 2. This fire indeed Clement of Alexandria calls "sobering fire" (Protrept. p. 47), "not a base fire, but a WISE one..." (Strom. VII, 851), and says it is that which God used in the burning of Sodom, "pouring out a little of that WISE fire upon their licentiousness" (Paed. I, 8). What kind of fire this is, Clement further shows in *Ec. proph.*, ch. 25: "Fire is understood as a good power, destructive of the worse, and saving of the better; wherefore this fire is also called WISE by the prophets." And Origen himself says much the same in Homily 1 on Ezekiel: "Who is this fire, which the law proclaims and the Gospel does not silence? 'The work of each, whatever it is, the fire will test.' Who, O apostle, is this fire that tests our works? Who is this fire so wise as to guard my gold, that it may consume only the evils which I have done..." Likewise Minucius Felix calls the infernal fire "wise": "There, a wise fire burns and restores members; it plucks and feeds," etc.
Ibid., line 10, *παχύνονται*. This is to say, they contract a stupor of the heart and become *παχύνοοι* (dull-witted); for he refers to the words of Isaiah VI, 10, "The heart of this people has waxed fat."
Col. 544, line 2, *εὐεργεσίαν*. In the same way Origen describes the use of this purgatorial fire in *Contra Cels.*, Book V, p. 588: "The purifying fire is applied... to each of those who have need of judgment by fire, which is at the same time a healing, burning but not consuming those who have no material needing to be consumed by that fire; but burning and consuming those who have built with wood, hay, or stubble in the building of their deeds... not that we say God brings fire like a cook, but as a benefactor to those needing toil and fire." And p. 242: "The Word... says that those who according to their desert need the economy of punishment by fire will be in these until some end," etc. Confer Book V *Contra Cels.*, p. 509, and Homily 2 on Jeremiah, and Homily 16.
Ibid., line 7, *τῇ*. Read *ἐν τῇ*. For so it is in the place cited here, Esth. V, 6, "How can I be saved in the destruction?" The reading of the codex can be borne; the order of the words will be: *ἐννοῆσαι τῇ σφῶν ἀπωλεία, περὶ τοῦ σώζεσθαι*. Ruæus.
Ibid., line 15, παραδιδόντες ἑκόντες. *ἑαυτούς* is clearly missing, so that it may be *παραδιδόντες ἑαυτοὺς ἑκόντες*.
Ibid. B, line 1, *οὐ γὰρ βούλεται*. Origen has almost the same thing in Homily 19 on Jeremiah: "God does not tyrannize, but reigns, and reigning He does not force, but persuades, and wishes that they should willingly offer themselves, those [for whom read 'under'—*ὑπ'*] His economy, so that good may not be in anyone by necessity, but by his own will," etc. Similarly Clement of Alexandria, *Strom.* VII, p. 855: "Neither indeed will the one being saved be saved against his will; for he is not soulless. But rather he will willingly and by choice hasten toward salvation... therefore God does not do good by necessity, but does good according to the choice of those who turn [to Him] on their own."
Ibid., line 6, *σκληρύνει*. Confer Origen's Commentary on Exodus, p. 17, etc., edited by Huet.
Ibid., line 8, *ἀσεβής*. Read *ἀσεβεῖς*.
Ibid., line 12, *ἐπὶ πλεονάκις*. This seems to be said less correctly; therefore read *ἔτι πλεονάκις*.
Ibid., line 15, *εἰσήγαγες*. Thus the LXX, Ps. LXV, 11, but in codex 2 it seems written wrong as *εἰσήγαγεν*, as the Oxford edition has it.
Ibid. C, line 2, *τὸ εὐτελέστερον... στρουθίων*. "The most vile of winged creatures, the sparrows," Oxford edition, which is by no means to be borne: for who, I ask, is this most vile of sparrows? And why of "winged creatures"? A For as if there were some sparrow not winged. Therefore for *στραθέων* read *στρουθίον*, and you will restore a sound sentiment.
Ibid., line 5, *ἐμπίπτει εἰς παγίδα*. Origen also has the same in *Contra Cels.*, Book VII, p. 794, "he falls into a snare," just as Chrysostom also reads: but in the editions of Matth. X, 29, it is read "it will fall upon the ground."
Ibid., line 9. The copyist wrote *τῶν καρδιῶν* incorrectly. Read *τῆς καρδίας*.
Ibid., line 12, *ἑαυτῷ*. Read *ἐπιγνώσει*; for the Apostle in the cited place Rom. I, 28, says this, and the sense here demands it.
Ibid. D, line 8, *ἡ*. Read *καὶ διαγνωσθῆναι τὰ κεκρυμμένα ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ...* Concerning this, see the similar place in Origen's Commentary on Exodus, p. 25: "Just as physicians of the rabies-bitten draw the poison to the surface," etc.
Col. 545 A, line 10, *τὸ εὐεξαπάτητον*. Read *τὸ Εὔας εὐεξαπάτητον*; for he is clearly speaking of Eve: and *Εὔας* dropped out because of the following similar syllables *εὐεξ*. Bentley in his book on her "reasoning" (λογισμοῦ αὐτῆς) reads "the reasoning of Eve" (λογισμοῦ τῆς Εὔας). Ruæus.
Ibid., line 14, *ἐπὶ*. Read *ἐπεὶ τῇ ἰδίᾳ*, which the sense clearly demands. Bentley also advised that it be read so. Ruæus.
Ibid. B, line 3, *ἐγεγύμνωτο*. Here the copyist wrote *ἐγύμνωτο*.
Ibid., line 12, *ὁ πάντα συνεργῶν*. In the same way Origen cites this place, Rom. VIII, 28, in his Commentary on the Psalms, p. 46...: "God works all things together for good," exhibiting the meaning, that is, of the Apostle, not his very words; since Origen himself in *Comm. in Joan.*, vol. XX, no. 20, and in Rom. p. 424, 425, reads with the editions... "all things work together for good," leaving out "God," and declares the words of the Apostle to be as they are in Rom. p. 424: "So the passages stand: 'We know that to those who love God all things work together for good'." Whence it seems to me to be clear that "God" was not found in the original by Origen or other Fathers in some exemplars of Sacred Scripture; but rather that, from the less accurate citations of the Fathers themselves, it crept into some codices of the sacred text; and to such an extent that it finally gave rise to various readings; just as we noted above concerning "the Father," Luke XVI, 19, in the note to number 15.
Ibid., line 13, *παρ' αὐτοῖς*. Wrongly, as I think, written for *παρ' αὑτούς*, that is, *per se*, or by themselves, and by their own judgment. So above number 6: B "Of this praiseworthy or blameworthy [thing] happening *παρ' ἡμᾶς* (among us/by us)." In *Philocal.*, p. 64, "salvation comes *παρ' ἡμᾶς* (by us)." And *Contra Cels.*, p. 556, "to be *παρ' ἑαυτούς* (by themselves) in the things to be avoided," that is, as he says a little later, "by their own cause," or *ἐκ τοῦ ἐν αὐτοῖς αὐτεξουσίου* (from the free will in them), as he speaks ibid., p. 585. But in the same way Diogenianus the Peripatetic uses this phrase while disputing against Chrysippus about fate, as found in Eusebius, *Praep. evang.* VI, 8, where he says: "That which is *παρ' ἡμᾶς* (by us) is most contrary to fate... but *παρ' ἡμᾶς* is [that which arrives] from our being zealous and acting... it becomes evident that the cause *παρ' ἡμᾶς* is released from fate." C And a little later: "If the thing, he says, is not according to some fate, and according to an external necessary cause... thus the power of choice *παρ' ἡμᾶς* is entirely destroyed." See note to number 7. Wherefore the place of Origen is to be translated thus: "Whatever they are going to be *per se*, He has foreseen." Ruæus.
Ibid. C, line 3, *τε*. This particle is extra; or perhaps, as is customary, it was written for *γε*.
Ibid., line 13, *ῥύεται*. All editions have the *τῶν Ο'* [LXX]... "The Lord will deliver them" (ῥύσεται αὐτοὺς ὁ Κύριος).
Ibid. D, line 5, *κατὰ τι πάτριον παρ' Ἑβραίοις*. Truly wonderful is this Origenian distinction between the words *θλίβεσθαι* and *στενοχωρεῖσθαι*, sought from the Hebrews who knew no Greek. But if by "Hebrews" he means the Septuagint, the matter will not become clearer thereby; for among them the words are nowhere, either separately or (as often happens) conjunctly used, to distinguish in meaning so...
Ibid., line 2, *Patrem, from whom*. Thus in Eph. III, 14, the Alexandrian manuscript has it, as did all the Greek manuscripts which Jerome had seen; and for this reason he notes that those words, *of our Lord Jesus Christ*, which exist in the published versions, are an addition of the Latins. Mill, however, who opposes Jerome, flees from this passage of Origen, though it is most worthy of note; he flees also from Cyril of Jerusalem, *Catecheses* VII, where it is read in the same way. It must be admitted, however, that Origen in his *Protrepticus to the Martyrs* does read with the published versions... *of our Lord Jesus Christ; from whom*, p. 173, ed. Bas.
Ibid., *every family*. In these words of the Apostle, there is no variation anywhere, as Mill attests; but the Oxford editor, exercising his critical judgment at last in this passage, has carved out a new reading for us; for Origen, he says, seems here to have read *worship* [latreia] instead of *family* [patria]; otherwise his argument is less consistent. But I do not see the reason for these claims; for why, if *family* is read, should his argument not stand, which is drawn not from these words, but clearly from the Apostle’s preceding words? Genuflection, he says, is necessary in prayers, as it is a sign of a humble and submissive mind, as Paul says: *For this cause I bow my knees to the Father...* Certainly, there is no cause here why he should read, or seem to have read, in the following part, *worship*: nor could he indeed read it in that way unless he wished to subvert the Apostle’s own argument; since from the words so read, *from whom every worship... is named*, from which the whole of worship... is named, no sense at all arises, unless it be a most inept one.
Ibid., line 5, *and of each... himself*. A copyist corrupted this passage; which I think should be healed thus: *Jesus [has humbled] each of those things that are and has humbled Himself to it*. For thus the sentence will stand on a firm footing. The sentence will stand on a firm footing provided that for *and of each*, one reads only *and each*, as I have already advised. RUÆUS.
Ibid., line 12, *spherical*. That the world and all celestial bodies are *spherical*, Timaeus Locrus taught in *On the Soul of the World*, and Plato followed him in the *Timaeus*, as did Aristotle, *On the Heavens* II, 4, 8; indeed, Xenophanes, Plato, and the Stoics attributed this same form to God, the fabricator of the world: to whom, in truth, as far as concerns celestial bodies, Origen seems here to support; but whether he followed the philosophers to such an extent that he would say the image of the celestial body will be *spherical*, which the saints will put on in the heavens, and that their bodies, without the distinction of limbs, will be raised in a conglobate figure, I vehemently doubt; even if, on account of some less cautiously spoken words, this dogma has been affixed to him, and under his name condemned by the ancients; for Justinian says in his *Epistle to Mennas*: "He [Origen] says that in the resurrection the bodies of men are raised spherical: O the folly and ignorance of this brain-damaged interpreter of Greek dogmas!" and in the *Anathematisms* subjoined to his epistle: "If anyone says that in the resurrection the bodies of men are raised spherical, and does not confess that we are raised upright, let him be anathema. Anathema to Origen who held these things." Concil. tom. V, col. 664 and 680. But Origen himself sufficiently refutes this calumny in his *Commentary on the Psalms*, saying: "This form, which is now in us, will remain even in the coming age," as his words are cited by Pamphilus in his *Apology*; which exist in Greek as follows, ap. Epiphanius: "It must be understood that in the present, the form is the same as it will be in the future," *Hær*. LXIV, n. 14, and in Methodius.
Ibid. C, line 6, *rectum*. In lexicons this word is hardly found, and therefore, as I think, in the Oxford edition, *subtended* is badly substituted in its place, which is also rendered worse in Latin, that is, *tended intestine*, which they concede to be the intestines. Yet in the manuscript it is clearly written *rectum intestine*, that is, the rectum; of which Galen often makes mention, and describes in more than one place; e.g., *On the Use of Parts*, book V, where the *intestine* is divided into six parts.
first the *ekphysis*, second the *nēstis*, third the *leptos* (small) intestine, fourth the *typhlon* (blind/caecum), fifth the *kōlon* (colon), and sixth the *apeuthysmenon* (rectum). Galen, in *On the Administration of Anatomical Procedures*, book V, says: "First is the *ekphysis*; after this the *nēstis*; next to this is the *leptos*... upon this is the *typhlon*, then the *kōlon*, at the end of which, extending toward the anus, is what is called the *apeuthysmenon* intestine." Also, in *On the Preservation of Health*, book I: "The excrement is conveyed little by little through all the intestines as far as the cavity of what is called the *apeuthysmenon*." Pollux, a contemporary of Galen, in book II, section 210, says: "To the *kōlon* (i.e. the intestine) the *apeuthysmenon* is attached." Aristotle, who lived some five hundred years A earlier than these, when the intestine first began to be distinguished into parts by anatomists, although he does not use this term, nevertheless shows us its etymology and origin in *On the Parts of Animals*, III, 14: "In all those creatures that do not have straight intestines... this part (i.e., the intestine) becomes wider, and they have the so-called *kōlon*, and a certain part of the intestine is the *typhlon*... and the part after this extends straight toward the exit of the excrement," for these last words clearly indicate that intestine which was later called the *apeuthysmenon*. Origen makes mention of this intestine, which is fashioned like a sewer to receive and discharge the waste of the body, in order to put to shame those who attribute all the same parts, which are necessary for earthly beings, to celestial beings as well. It will not be irrelevant to note that this new reading, which Wetstein parades—presenting us with the word *apenthismon* instead of *apeuthysmenon*, which is in the codex—is a new and utterly worthless word. In the *Problems* of Alexander of Aphrodisias, book I, the "straight intestine" (*apeuthymmenon enteron*) is read. RUEUS. B Ibid., line 15, "every place." Origen illustrates this more fully *Against Celsus*, p. 726: "A Christian is persuaded that every place in the world is a part of the whole, the temple of God being the entire world. But praying in every place, having closed the eyes of the senses and raised those of the soul, he transcends the whole world." Likewise also Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata*, p. 856: "Every place is truly sacred, in which we receive the thought of God."
Ibid., D, line 1, "bring [plural]." Read "bring [singular]," as the editions of the Complutentian, Aldine, and Roman have it correctly. In the Alexandrian codex, however, it is incorrectly written "bring [plural]," and so indeed this Holmiensis codex has "bring [plural]." See note on no. 3.
Col. 553 A, line 12, "concerning this place." About this topic, that is, this argument or head of discourse. For Origen here, in the manner of rhetoricians and philosophers, uses the word *topos* (place): which Hierocles in Photius, col. 1389, explains thus: "We are accustomed," he says, "when discussing certain writings, to say that when we have arrived at *that place* of the discourse, we shall state that head, calling the form of the writings a *topos*." Thus Origen later enumerates four *topoi* (topics) of prayers, number 33. C Ibid., line 15, "of illicit intercourse... permitted." This passage is certainly corrupt; for it manifestly disagrees with the words of the Apostle, and it is impious to say that he permitted Christians to indulge in "illicit intercourse" by way of allowance: thus, I believe, it must be left and reduced to a sound sense, for in the *place* [i.e., topic], not only of illicit intercourse, but also of that which is permitted by the apostolic word... Origen is doubting whether it is not only in the case of illicit intercourse, but not even in the case of legitimate marriage, that it is permitted by the Apostle to pray. Both the Holmiensis codex and the Colbertinus have "of illicit intercourse under the," etc. For "illicit," read with Bentleius "non-illicit," and everything will be sound. RUEUS.
Ibid., C, line 1, "shall be rescued." Ms., "shall be puffed up." Ibid., line 5, "to him who understands." That is, to him who is able to understand, as he said in no. 29. Ibid., line 10, "double church." Origen has the same words in Homily 23 on Luke: "A double church is present here, one of men, the other of angels." Interpreted by Jerome.
Ibid., line 13, "of the later bride." This is less true, since Tobias had no wife before Sarah: read therefore "of the later bride"... that is, who afterwards became his daughter-in-law.
Ibid., D, line 6, "with the Ephesians." Among whom, one must understand, Paul was staying when he wrote that first Epistle to the Corinthians. See Mill's note on the subscription of that Epistle, and Proleg. § 9. Mill, however, omitted this place of Origen, which is most worthy of note.
Col. 556 A, line 2, "in Corinth." The persons whom Paul "thinks to be co-workers" are clearly missing; you should therefore read, "...to be co-workers... [with] those in Corinth."
Ibid., line 13, "upon him who gives himself to the devil of the angels." The sleepy librarian gave this passage thus corrupted; and the Oxford edition made it much more corrupt, exhibiting it as "upon the devil of his own angels." The true reading, however, as I opine, is *epidō heauton angelō diabolou*, "let him give himself to the angel of the devil." Thus Origen above, "To whom should one give himself?" And Herodian, a contemporary of Origen, book I, "Fearing that his youth... might give itself to drunken carousals." Concerning these matters, which he says about the holy angel and the angel of the devil, there are consonant words in Homily 12 on Luke: "Two angels attend each one, one of justice, one of iniquity: if good thoughts are in our heart... there is no doubt that the angel of the Lord speaks to us: if, however, evil things are turned over in our heart, the angel of the devil speaks to us"; which words are indeed Hermas's (mand. vi) and are cited again under his name by Origen in Homily 35 on Luke and *On First Principles* I, 2. Thus also in the Commentary on Matthew, vol. XIII, no. 28, he says that for evil and faithless men "a holy angel is not present, but they, while they persist in unbelief, are under the angels of Satan": which he also confirms by the testimony of Hermas (Similitudes 6, 7, 8) in vol. XIV, no. 21: "It might be accepted that that which is from the Shepherd concerning certain persons, who, while they believe, are becoming under Michael, but through love of pleasure are falling away from him and are becoming under the [read 'under the angel'] of luxury," etc., to which those in number 6 of this little book are almost twin: "To him who is going to be such and such a person, I will send this ministering angel..., but to this other... who has been seduced... I will remove this better co-worker, upon whose departure, he being his own executioner, the power... shall stand over him, ready for these certain sins, having given himself over to sinning, he will call them [the powers] toward himself." But we have exhibited the reading of this passage from the Colbertine codex. RUEUS. D Ibid., B, line 1, "of the will overseeing." This is said quite absurdly; for the divine will does not oversee, but the angels who obey the divine will oversee the Church. Therefore it must by all means be read "overseeing [as a participle, plural]," i.e., of the angels. Thus no. 11: "It must be supposed that the presence of the angels who oversee and minister to God is gathered together."
Ibid., line 5, "to those occupied." Read "those occupied [as a participle]," that is, if they gather in the Church after the manner of merchants to transact worldly affairs, like those who were buying and selling in the temple. See Commentary on Matthew, vol. XVI, no. 20. Bentleius previously advised that it should be read "those occupied." RUEUS.
Ibid., line 6, "they shall not oversee." That is, by the angels. Thus, however, Origen in Homily 23 on Luke: "Angels are present in the Church, in that one alone which deserves it, and which is of Christ. For the house of God, or the Church, is a house of prayer, in which 'nothing else ought to be' than prayer, and every holy deed, and one that invokes the oversight of God," as he says in the Commentary on Matthew, vol. XVI, no. 22.
Ibid., C, line 7, "temples." Thus, for sure, the scribe making a mistake...