A works, which he wrote at Athens, he mentions, but of the homilies he says nothing. If you compare all these things with chapters 3, 15, 16, and 23, you will be confirmed more strongly in the opinion that Origen did not write homilies before his manhood; and if any doubt on this matter remains with you, it will easily be removed from your mind after you hear that Origen was over sixty years of age when he allowed his homilies to be written down; and I cannot sufficiently marvel that this, though noted by learned men, has not been accurately weighed or exactly pondered, even though Eusebius expressly testifies to it, whom alone in matters concerning Origen I think should be believed more than many Hieronymuses or Rufinuses. Eusebius narrates the matter thus in Book VI, ch. 36: “When our faith, as was fitting, increased daily, and the doctrine of the Christians enjoyed the greatest liberty everywhere, Origen, already over sixty, being one who from long practice had acquired the greatest skill in speaking, permitted the discourses which he gave to the people to be taken down by stenographers, whereas he had never permitted this to be done before.” From this it follows that Jerome was misled by the codex of homilies on Luke, which was marked under the name of Origen; and certainly it is probable that Jerome was deceived by the false title of the codex. Yet, since he did not observe in those homilies those exquisite gifts of the Origenian genius which are wont to shine in the genuine writings of Origen, he falsely thought they had been written by him as a very young man; for Origen was over sixty when he allowed his homilies, which he gave to the people, to be taken down by stenographers. Rufinus followed the erring Jerome, all the more because he was only looking for an occasion to disparage him; and when he had found this in the Latin translation of those homilies, he clung solely to the title of the codex, and labored no further to know whether they were truly Origen’s, which could have been discerned from a comparison of them with his genuine works. You have what Matthew Larroque thought was an unanswerable argument, but which is nonetheless of no weight or significance, being based upon a false principle, namely, that Eusebius asserts that Origen published no homily before the sixtieth year of his age. But Eusebius does not say that. He says, only this: that Origen, before his sixtieth year, did not permit the discourses which he delivered to the people to be taken down by stenographers. Be it so; he did not permit it. But could not some, at least, such as these short discourses on Luke, have been taken down—without his permission, or without his knowledge, indeed even against his will—by stenographers thirsty for novelty and covetous of gain? What prevents Origen from having experienced in the past what the most celebrated preachers of today also complain happens to them daily against their will, namely, that secret stenographers purloin their sermons? B “But,” says Larroque, “Eusebius would not have omitted the testimony of Origen for the Ignatian epistles, which stands in the sixth homily on Luke, if he had held this work of homilies to be a genuine product of Origen.” If, indeed, he did not forget a scrap of Polycarp’s epistle, nor the sentiment of Ignatius mentioned by Irenaeus, why, I ask, would he have passed over the passage taken from the sixth homily on Luke, where the epistle of the martyr Ignatius is praised? But this argument of Larroque is still weak. For Eusebius held the books *Peri Archon* to be a genuine work of Origen, where those words of Christ, “I am not an incorporeal demon,” are cited from the *Doctrine of Peter*; yet, although the same are found in an epistle of Ignatius, Eusebius says he wonders whence Ignatius could have drawn those things. Therefore, the passage of Origen did not come into the mind of Eusebius, and no one, for that reason, has the right to adjudge the books *Peri Archon* or the homilies on Luke away from Origen. Larroque insists: the writer of homily 39, whoever he may be, says that Isaiah and the Psalms were understood literally by the Sadducees: for when he had brought forward certain things from both books, which he defines as to be received spiritually, he says, “All these, which the Sadducees, who were a portion of the Jews, understood bodily, the Savior says: ‘You do not know the Scriptures, nor the power of God.’” But it is clear that this is alien to the genuine little works of Origen, since he constantly writes that the Sadducees admitted no other books from the entire Old Testament than the books of Moses. “The Samaritans and Sadducees receive only the books of Moses,” he says in Book I against Celsus, no. 49, and in Tractate 22 on Matthew: “The Sadducees did not read Scriptures other than the Mosaic books, nor did they understand even those they read.” Thus the ancient Latin interpreter. The Greek texts hold otherwise: “The Sadducees do not admit any Scripture other than the legal [Scripture]”; and after a few words: “The Sadducees do not admit the Scriptures which follow the law.” If it were truly Origen who wrote on Luke regarding the Sadducees, it is fitting to believe he would not have spoken otherwise. Yet the writer of homily 39 speaks differently. Therefore, at least this homily is alien to the very genius, manner, and sense of Origen, and must consequently be held as spurious. Pearson answers that the writer of homily 39 on Luke does not affirm that the Sadducees received the prophets into the canon of the Scriptures. He only says that the Sadducees understood the prophets ill. But they could, he says, understand, and even ill understand, those things which they did not hold for sacred Scriptures. Indeed, the Sadducees did not admit sacred Scriptures beyond the Mosaic books, namely, says Pearson, in determining controversies of faith: and this gloss of his he defends with the authority of the rabbis: which is abundantly sufficient. C Before an end is put to this short preface, the rule of just defense now demands of me that I repel that accusation which Monsieur Alexis Desessarts used against me in a little book written in French, to which he gave the title *Défense du sentiment des saints Pères et des docteurs catholiques sur le retour futur d’Élie, et sur la véritable intelligence des Écritures*, where on page 158 et seqq. these things are read: “The editor of the latest edition of the Works of Origen has placed at the head of the second volume a preface where he explains Origen's method for interpreting Scripture. He glories, he says, in copying what the author of *The Literal Sense and the Mystical Sense of the Holy Scriptures according to the Doctrine of the Fathers* says on this subject, in the second chapter of his
book. In fact, this Latin dissertation is only a literal translation of the French dissertation. I had no knowledge of that work; but having found myself one day at the bookseller's who printed Origen, I happened by chance upon page 12 of the preface to the second volume, where the editor translates article 6 of chapter 2 of the *Treatise on the Literal and Mystical Sense* (p. 67). The title carries: *Difficilimum, ne dicam impossibile, mysticos quos Scriptura complectitur, sensus investigare*; and in French, in the *Treatise on the Literal and Mystical Sense*: "It is very difficult, not to say impossible, to discover the mystical senses of Scripture." I was surprised, and I suspected at first that the text of Origen itself—that is to say, the version of Rufinus—might have been altered. I therefore begged the bookseller to lend me the first volume, and opening the fourth book of *On First Principles*, no. 9, p. 166, I saw with an astonishment I cannot express, that they had put: *ut non dicam impossibile*, "not to say impossible," instead of *non dicam impossibile*, "I will not say impossible,"—so that the thing is not impossible, as the Genebrard edition asserts. Is this alteration the effect of chance? Is it the fruit of human malice? I leave the judgment of this to the public. I content myself with remarking that it would be much more reasonable to suppose that the anti-Origenists, in order to make their particular opinion prevail, had succeeded in falsifying the latest edition of Origen. *Hæc si discutiantur, nedum novæ Origenis Operum editioni noceant, summam potius novi editoris fidem sinceritatemque commendabunt.* Indeed, as regards what M. Alexius Desessarts complains of to me: one thing, namely, in the fourth book of *On First Principles*, no. 9, p. 166, I edit: *Perdifficile, ut non dicam impossibile*, etc., not, in fact (as is read in the Genebrard edition), *perdifficile, non dicam impossibile*, etc. Yet that is the only genuine, only true reading; therefore, having neglected the other, I had it inserted into the text. Why so? Because it alone is supported by the authority of all the manuscripts. The first note about the Rufinian interpretation that I moved is that it was reviewed by me against six very ancient manuscript codices: the first of Vienna from the ninth century, the second of Corbie from the same century, the third of Colbert, the fourth of the Sorbonne, the fifth of the monastery of Saint-Michel-en-l'Herm, and lastly the sixth of the monastery of Saint-Remi in Reims. If M. Alexius Desessarts had prudently consulted these, he would certainly have recognized my reading, which is absent from Genebrard but present in all the manuscripts, as being the only one. Perhaps he will say it is at least a fault of mine that I did not point out the mistake in Genebrard for his words: *Perdifficile, ut non dicam impossibile*, I read: *Perdifficile, non dicam impossibile*. But for every single error of the typesetters, I was not bound to have and to note as many variant readings, especially where the thing is of no account, as in the present case, where you read: *Perdifficile, ut non dicam impossibile*, you may read: *Perdifficile, non dicam impossibile*; in a word, whether the word is in the context or is removed from it, the meaning remains always or nearly always the same. For both readings affirm that the matter is very difficult, neither absolutely denies that the matter is possible.
Vix ita præfatus erat dominus Carolus Delarue, cum subita correptus paralysi, mœrentibus sociis, mœrentibus et amicis tum genere, tum dignitate, tum doctrina præstantissimis, extremum obiit diem. Cujus non ingratum fore reor si vitam hic paucis persequar. Sed monendum prius censeo errorem suum agnovisse dominum Alexium Desessarts. Sic pag. 497 libri quem nuper inscripsit: *Examen du sentiment des saints Pères et des anciens Juifs sur la durée des siècles, où l'on traite de la conversion des Juifs*, etc., quam vivo promiserat auctori, palinodiam cecinit mortuo. Et y a à la page 157 (du livre de la *Défense du sentiment des saints Pères sur le retour futur d'Élie*) une autre correction à faire beaucoup plus importante. Il est dit dans le IV liv. des *Principes* d'Origène, n. 9, t. I, pag. 166, nouvelle édition, et pag. 468 de l'édition de Génébrard: *Expliquer allégoriquement toutes les parties du tabernacle dressé par Moïse, c'est une entreprise que je crois très-difficile*. L'édition de Génébrard ajoute: *Je ne la dis pas impossible, non dicam impossibile*: au lieu qu'on lit dans la dernière édition donnée en 1733: *Pour ne dire impossible, ut non dicam impossibile*. J'ai laissé en doute à la page 159 de la *Défense du sentiment des saints Pères*, etc., si ce changement était l'effet du hasard, ou le fruit de la malice des hommes. Je n'ai point soupçonné la fidélité du Père Delarue, auteur de cette édition; mais j'ai appréhendé que des mains étrangères n'eussent glissé la particule *ut* à son insu. La grande exactitude du savant Bénédictin a servi à me tromper: *Car ayant vu qu'il avait soin d'avertir toutes les fois que les imprimés sont différents des manuscrits, j'ai soupçonné que la particule ut pourrait avoir été ajoutée sans sa participation, puisqu'il ne marquait pas qu'on ne la trouvait point dans les imprimés*. Mais les manuscrits que j'ai consultés, entr'autres ceux de la Bibliothèque du roy, et de Sorbonne, où on lit *non dicam*, au lieu de *non dicam*, ont dissipé mes soupçons. Je suis même convaincu que c'est avec un juste fondement que le Père Delarue a préféré la leçon de *ut non*, à celle de *non* qu'on lit dans Génébrard. En conséquence je prie les personnes qui ont la *Défense du sentiment des Saints Pères sur le retour futur d'Élie*, de retrancher du chap. 6 l'article 15 tout entier, les cinq dernières lignes du 12 et ce qui répond dans le sommaire.
COMPENDIUM OF THE LIFE OF DOM CAROLUS DELARUE
A Born at Corbie, near Amiens, on July 29, 1685, Dom Carolus Delarue, a youth of Meaux, took his solemn monastic vows to God in the monastery of St. Faron on Nov. 21, 1703. Then, having been instructed in theology, Hebrew, and Greek by Dom Bernard de Montfaucon, a man most illustrious for every ornament of erudition, toward the end of the year 1712 he received him as a disciple.
Dom Bernard de Montfaucon was preparing Origen's *Hexapla* for publication, and he judged that it would be most useful if the remaining works of so great a writer, both those of which only a Latin translation survived and those whose Greek text reached us, were recalled to the fidelity of the early manuscripts and gathered into one body of work; a task which had been done neither by Huet in the Greek, nor by Genebrard in the Latin, both of which works crawled with errors everywhere. But, being impeded by other business of no less moment at that time, that very learned man entrusted this province to his disciple.
Animated by the desire to promote the public good, Dom Carolus Delarue undertook this arduous work, and he was not deterred by the tedium that usually follows such labors. Thus, he applied himself entirely to Origen, so that in the year 1725 he sent to press the first two volumes of his Works, which, to the applause of the literary world, were brought to light at the beginning of the year 1733. Among other praisers of his work, the doctors of the Sorbonne, in a letter to the Very Reverend Father Prior General and the monks of St. Germain-des-Prés, printed in the year 1735, page 20, say: "Not begrudgingly, as is hoped, will the most erudite Ruanus bear our observation, as he is not one of those lightweight spirits who, because they possess nothing, cannot extract anything from themselves. He edits accurately, he notes accurately what must be noted; and the new edition of Origen will always be a weighty argument against the motley crowd of everyday editors."
The dedicatory epistle to the Supreme Pontiff Clement XII pleased the Holy Father so much that the illustrious Prefect of his library, Monsignor D'Inghembert, then Archbishop of Theodosia, today Bishop of Carpentras, wrote back to the author in friendly fashion: "Very Reverend Father, I have the honor to read your Holy Father the Pope's dedicatory epistle as soon as I received it. His Holiness heard the reading with such attention and satisfaction that I cannot express it; and in truth, I do not know if I have ever read anything since I have had the pleasure of being in his service that pleased him more. You can therefore print this dedicatory epistle exactly as you sent it to me. Our Holy Father the Pope, and Cardinal Quirini, to whom I communicated it, judge that you cannot touch it without spoiling it. I have the honor to be with much consideration, my Very Reverend Father, etc. Rome, November 19, 1732."
Once the first volume of Origen was received, the Supreme Pontiff sent to the author his own likeness represented on two coins of gold and silver (a most honorable token of grace and benevolence), to whom Cardinal Firrao wrote on behalf of His Holiness this epistle at the same time: "Very Reverend Father. The Sovereign Pontiff accepted with a cheerful face and held dear the first volume of Origen’s work, which you presented to him with your usual diligence, infused with the light of much erudition, and handed down to posterity; thinking that you, in this ingenious work, by interpreting as an undoubted author, did not wish to deceive anyone. Wherever he erred, he did not err to the detriment of the Catholic religion; and at the same time, in the truths elucidated by you, he saw you as a disciple of the most holy institution of your order and of the true faith, which is fitting. Therefore, he desired that your gift be placed in his most ample and select library, as a document of his devotion to you, that the papal benevolence might be excited by your work, and he was pleased that it happened to you. He ordered me to reply to these letters of yours, adding his paternal benediction. I wish, as I am one of those who congratulate you for pursuing letters with good and diligent study, that you might learn that I am an expert. Rome, Nov. 18, 1733. At your service, etc."
The second volume of Origen was already about to be committed to the press in the beginning of 1756 by Dom Carolus Delarue, when Dom Vincent Thuillier, who had lived most amicably with him since his solemn vows, was suddenly taken by death, and he was deterred from his purpose. Deeply grieving, and afflicted by such bitter sorrow at the loss of his friend, he was almost exhausted by a severe chest inflammation, as if he saw the law of fate slipping away, and he strove to increase the seeds of Christian piety which he had conceived and cherished, as his life was being consumed by persistent weakness. Meanwhile, however, supplying the lack of mental strength with the vigor of his soul, he had almost brought the third volume of Origen to completion in the year 1757, when his tongue suddenly became immobile, and his right side became without all sense or motion, and he died after a few days. He passed away in Paris in the monastery of St. Germain on the day before the nones of October, 1757. He lived 54 years, 2 months, and 7 days.
Dom Carolus Delarue was of the most pleasant and elegant discourse, open and simple, a faithful friend, more diligent to his intimate acquaintances than he was cultivated, always prepared to serve. To his keen and excellent judgment was added a vigorous power of sublime genius, ease, and splendor. Long before his death, he had contemplated a work on other matters of great weight and very useful to French ecclesiastical antiquities, and now, no small part of it—
Dom Charles Delarue was born at Corbie near Amiens on July 29, 1685; as a youth at Meaux, he pronounced his solemn religious vows to God in the monastery of St. Faron on November 21, 1703. Thereafter, he was instructed in theology, Hebrew, and Greek literature by Dom Bernard de Montfaucon, a man most famous for every kind of scholarly praise, who toward the end of 1712 took him on as his disciple. Dom Bernard de Montfaucon was bringing out Origen’s *Hexapla*, and he judged that it would be most useful if the remaining works of so great a writer—both those of which only a Latin interpretation survives and those which have reached us in Greek—were recalled to the reliability of ancient manuscripts and all gathered into a single corpus. This had been done neither by Huet, who had edited the Greek, nor by Merlin and Genebrard, who had edited the Latin versions, which were everywhere teeming with errors. But since this most learned man was then occupied with other tasks of no less moment, he entrusted this province to his disciple. With a heart eager to promote the public good, Dom Charles Delarue set upon this arduous work, nor did the usual drudgeries that follow deter him. He applied himself so entirely to Origen that in the year 1725 he sent the first two volumes of his Works to the press, which appeared to the applause of the scholarly world at the beginning of 1733. Among other admirers, the most celebrated doctors of the Sorbonne wrote thus of them in an epistle to the Very Reverend Fathers Superior General, Prior, and monks of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, printed in the year 1735, page 20: "It will not be with grief, as we hope, that the most erudite Ruæus will bear our observation, inasmuch as he is not like those shallow wits who, because they possess nothing, can have nothing subtracted from them. He edits accurately, he notes accurately what is worthy of note; and this new edition of Origen will always be great evidence that he is to be distinguished from the motley crowd of daily editors." The dedicatory epistle of the work, addressed to the Supreme Pontiff Clement XII, so pleased the Most Holy Father that the illustrious president of his library, Dom d'Inghembert, then Archbishop of Theodosia and today Bishop of Carpentras, wrote back to his friend the author as follows: "My very Reverend Father, I had the honor of reading your dedicatory epistle to our Holy Father the Pope as soon as I received it. His Holiness listened to the reading with an attention and satisfaction that I cannot express to you: and in truth, I do not know that I have ever read anything to him, since I have had the happiness of being in his service, that pleased him more. You may therefore print this dedicatory epistle precisely as you have sent it to me. Our Holy Father the Pope, and Cardinal Quirini, to whom I have also shared it, judge that you cannot touch it without spoiling it. I have the honor to be with much consideration, my very Reverend Father, etc. Rome, November 19, 1732." Upon receiving the first volume of Origen, the Supreme Pontiff sent to the author an express image of his countenance on two medals of gold and silver (a most honorable pledge of favor and benevolence), for which Cardinal Firrao wrote this letter in the name of the Most Holy Father: "Very Reverend Father. The Holy Father has accepted with a joyful countenance and held in gratitude the first volume of the Origenian work, presented to him in your name, rendered to posterity more clearly and diligently than before, and bathed in the light of much erudition; he judged that in interpreting this most ingenious but ambiguous author, you wished that no one would remain unaware that he, wherever he erred, erred to his own loss, not that of the Catholic religion; and at the same time, that nothing has escaped you in explaining his opinions that does not befit a student of your most holy institute and a follower of the true faith. Wherefore he wished your gift to be placed in his most extensive and select library, a document of your obedience toward him, by which papal benevolence, if you should have need of it, might be excited; and it will be pleasant for him to have it excited. He ordered me to reply to your letter with his added paternal blessing. I myself wish that you might learn, by experience, in what honor I hold those who pursue good letters with diligent study (and I rejoice that you are one of these). Rome, November 11, 1733. Prepared for the offices of your Paternity, etc." Dom Charles Delarue was about to entrust the final two volumes of Origen to the press at the very beginning of 1736, had he not then been deterred from his purpose by the unexpected death of Dom Vincent Thuillier, with whom he had always lived most amicably since the solemn profession of his vows. For grieving for the loss of a friend, he wasted away in such bitter sorrow that, having himself been nearly extinguished by a bronchial congestion, he seemed to have escaped fate on the condition that he would trade his life for a perpetual languor. However, judging this to be a harbinger of imminent death, the more the languor worsened, the more he strove religiously to augment those seeds of Christian piety which he had conceived and cherished. In the meantime, however, supplementing what was lacking in vigor with the firmness of his spirit, he had already brought the third volume of Origen, sent to the press in 1737, almost to completion, when his tongue suddenly became immobile, and with the right side of his body void of all sense and motion, he perished in a few days. He died at Paris in the monastery of Saint-Germain-des-Prés on the 6th of October, in the year 1739. He lived 54 years, 2 months, 7 days. Dom Charles Delarue was a man of most pleasant and elegant speech, open and simple, a faithful friend, loving his family more than he cultivated them, always prepared to serve. To a judgment both extraordinary and keen, there was added a vigorous power of high intellect, facility, and splendor. For many years before his death, the learned man had meditated upon writing another very weighty and most useful work, *On Ecclesiastical Antiquities*, in French, and already—
FRAGMENTA IN PROVERBIA SALOMONIS
A B 4
FRAGMENTS ON THE PROVERBS OF SOLOMON.
B 1. *Proverbs of Solomon the son of David.* He is also called the Savior and Son of David. This peaceable Savior of ours, who came from the seed of David according to the flesh, reigned in Israel. Therefore he was also inscribed as fulfilling the dispensation for men: "This is the king of the Jews." The Jews are Israel, whom the peaceable Savior rules as those who have discernment, if they are truly Israel. For not all who are the seed of Abraham are necessarily his children, because they do not perform the works of Abraham.
*To know wisdom and instruction.* Wisdom is the science of divine and human things, and the apprehension of them; according to some, it is a vapor of the power of God, and a pure effluence of the glory of the Almighty; for nothing defiled enters into it; for it is the brightness of everlasting light, and an unspotted mirror of the operation of God, and the image of his goodness. He who knows the works of wisdom knows these things, that is, the brightness of the everlasting light, and the unspotted mirror of the operation of God, and the image of his goodness.