Carolus Delarue, O.S.B., Praefatio ad tomum III Operum Origenis

Preface.

The third volume of the Works of Origen comprises his remaining expositions on the Proverbs of Solomon, on the Song of Songs, on Isaiah, on Jeremiah, on Lamentations, on Ezekiel, on Hosea, on Matthew, and on Luke. A special Notice has been prefixed to almost each one, whence it comes about that to premise anything further concerning them seems superfluous, unless perhaps something more should be said concerning the commentaries on Matthew and concerning the homilies on Luke.

Around the year of Christ 245, during the reign of Philip, Eusebius testifies in Ecclesiastical History book 6, chapter 36, that 25 tomes on Matthew were worked out by Origen. Jerome confesses in the preface to his Commentary on Matthew that he had read just as many. Wherefore, says Huet in Origeniana book 3, section 2, number 7, it is clear that these words from the prologue of Jerome, which is prefixed to the Latin translation of the homilies of Origen on Luke, are faulty: Since indeed that which at Rome the holy Blaesilla had formerly entreated, that I should hand over to our tongue his 36 tomes on Matthew, and five others on Luke, and 39 on John. For one must read his 25 tomes on Matthew. Erasmus in his Censure of the books of Origen, Sixtus of Siena in Bibliotheca book 4, and Josias Simler and Conrad Frisius in the Epitome of Gesner's Bibliotheca followed the corrupt reading. Faulty also are those words in Rufinus's second Invective against Jerome, in which he relates that 26 books of Origen on Matthew were mentioned by Jerome; which error Vincent of Beauvais also followed in Speculum doctrinale book 18, chapter 43. However that may be, time has long since consumed the former part of those tomes, and if you except four very slight fragments, nothing from the first nine tomes survives today. The latter part, from Matthew 13:39 right to the end, we possess partly in Greek and Latin, partly in Latin only. The Greek from Matthew 13:36 to 22:33 the most illustrious Pierre Daniel Huet first published to the light, and presented with his own new Latin translation, omitting the old one, which we believed ought to be retained for two reasons, and at least represented at the bottom edge of the pages: 1st, Because although it appears less elegant, indeed for the most part barbarous, nevertheless it very often serves for understanding the Greek and restoring it to soundness; 2nd, because it does not leave off there where the Greek text leaves off, but advances right to the end of Matthew, and thus in some measure restores in Latin what has been lost in Greek.

As regards the homilies on Luke, since the sixth homily makes express mention of the epistles of St. Ignatius the martyr of Antioch, and the heterodox, commonly called Presbyterians, to whom the order of bishops superior by divine right to presbyters is displeasing, perceived deeply that they were having their throats cut by the authority of the Ignatian epistles, it is incredible to say in how many ways they turned themselves about in order to take the homilies on Luke away from Origen, and to pluck up by the roots the argument sought thence for establishing the truth of the Ignatian epistles. Some cried out that that whole work of homilies teems with tokens of Latin birth, and Daillé seriously attempted to prove this on pages 439 and 440, bringing forward various passages which he copied out from those homilies, which however are altogether easy to resolve for one who directs his mind partly to the age of the author Origen, who, as Jerome testifies, composed them while still a young man, and partly to the translator Jerome, for whom the learned know it is customary in translating Greek writings to insert some things at times of his own. Certainly that the original author of these homilies was not Latin, but Greek, the Greek text invincibly proves, the greatest part of which we present today from the manuscript papers of Combefis and Grabe, who for their own uses unearthed it from various English and French manuscript codices. Add to this that St. Jerome in his Catalogue recites thirty-nine homilies on Luke among the works published by himself, and in the prologue to Paula and Eustochium declares that he translated them from Origen. Rufinus transcribed this whole prologue of Jerome into his Invective, and showed or hinted what Jerome had unfaithfully translated in this work; for the rest, he does not raise even a single doubt against Origen's being the original author of those homilies. Therefore, just like Jerome, Rufinus must be considered to ascribe them to Origen. Yet Daillé's champion, Matthieu de Larroque, cries out in protest in his observations on Pearson's Vindiciae Ignatianae, and in order to snatch the homilies on Luke away from Origen in any way whatever, sets up the following reasoning: "At the beginning," says he, "of the reign of Antoninus Caracalla, who began to reign in the year of the Lord 212, 105 years after the martyrdom of Ignatius, Origen had reached about the 26th year of his age; he did not wholly forsake Alexandria before the tenth year of Alexander Severus, that is, before the year of Christ 234, the 46th or 47th of his age. Now that he had as yet written no homilies is established from the sixth book of Eusebius, chapter 24. For there he enumerates all the works which he had worked out at Alexandria, no mention at all being made of those homilies; and in chapter 32 of the same book the same

Eusebius mentions the lucubrations of Origen written at Caesarea in Palestine, and those which he had composed at Athens; but of the homilies he makes no mention. If you compare all these things with chapters 3, 15, 16, 23, you will be the more confirmed in that opinion, that Origen did not write homilies before his manhood: and if any scruple concerning this matter clings to you, it will easily be removed from your mind after you hear that Origen was past sixty when he suffered his homilies to be taken down in writing: a thing which, though noticed indeed by learned men, I cannot sufficiently wonder was not accurately weighed nor exactly pondered, seeing that Eusebius expressly testifies to it, who alone in the affairs of Origen I think ought to be believed more than several Jeromes or Rufinuses. Eusebius relates the matter thus in book 6, chapter 36: When our faith, as was fitting, was increasing day by day, and the doctrine of the Christians was enjoying the utmost freedom everywhere, Origen, now past sixty, inasmuch as from long practice he had acquired for himself the greatest skill in speaking, permitted the discourses which he delivered to the people to be taken down by shorthand writers, whereas he had never allowed this to be done before. From these things it follows that a codex of the homilies on Luke marked with the name of Origen imposed upon Jerome; and certainly it is probable that Jerome was deluded by the false title of the codex; yet because in those homilies he did not observe those distinguished gifts of Origenian genius which are wont to shine forth in the genuine writings of Origen, he falsely supposed that they had been written by him when quite a young man: for Origen was past sixty when he permitted his homilies which he delivered to the people to be taken down by shorthand writers. Rufinus followed the erring Jerome, the more so because he was only seeking an occasion for taunting him; and when he had found it in the Latin translation of those homilies, he clung to the title of the codex alone, and did not labour to know further whether they were truly Origen's, which could have been discerned from a comparison of them with his genuine works." You have the argument which Matthieu de Larroque considered inescapable, but which nevertheless is of no weight or moment, inasmuch as it rests upon a false principle, namely that Eusebius affirms that Origen published no homily before the 60th year of his age. Yet Eusebius does not say that. He says this one thing, that Origen before the sixtieth year of his age did not permit the discourses which he delivered to the people to be taken down by shorthand writers. Granted that he did not permit it. Could not at least some, of such sort as are the brief discourses on Luke, have been taken down without his permission, or without his knowledge, nay even against his will, by shorthand writers greedy for novelty and desirous of gain? What prevents Origen from having formerly experienced that which the most celebrated preachers complain every day happens to them even now against their will, whose sermons secret shorthand writers steal? "But," says Larroque, "Eusebius would not have omitted Origen's testimony for the Ignatian epistles which is extant in the sixth homily on Luke, if he had held this work of homilies to be a genuine offspring of Origen. For if he did not forget a shred of Polycarp's epistle, nor the saying of Ignatius mentioned by Irenaeus, why, I ask, would he have passed over the passage drawn from the sixth homily on Luke, where the epistle of the martyr Ignatius is praised?" Yet this argument of Larroque's is still weak. For Eusebius held the books On First Principles to be a genuine work of Origen, where those words of Christ: I am not a bodiless demon, are cited from the Teaching of Peter; and yet since the same words are found in one epistle of Ignatius, Eusebius says he wonders whence Ignatius could have drawn them. Therefore the passage of Origen did not come back into Eusebius's memory, nor on that account would anyone rightly adjudge the books On First Principles, or the homilies on Luke, not to be by Origen. Larroque presses on: the writer of homily 39, whoever he be, says that Isaiah and the Psalms were understood literally by the Sadducees: for when he had brought forward certain things from each book, which he defines are to be taken spiritually, to the Sadducees, says he, who were a sect of the Jews and understood all these things corporeally, the Saviour says: You do not know the Scriptures, nor the power of God. Now it is clear that this is foreign to the genuine works of Origen, since he constantly writes that no other books than those of Moses out of the whole Old Testament were admitted by the Sadducees. The Samaritans and the Sadducees receive the books of Moses alone, says he, in the first book against Celsus, number 49, and in tractate 22 on Matthew: The Sadducees did not read other Scriptures outside the Mosaic books, nor in reading them themselves did they understand them. So the old Latin translator. The Greek is otherwise: The Sadducees do not admit another Scripture besides the legal; and with a few words interposed: The Sadducees do not admit the Scriptures which follow the law. If it were truly Origen who in the work on Luke wrote concerning the Sadducees, it is reasonable to believe that he would not have spoken otherwise. Yet the writer of homily 39 does speak otherwise. Therefore at least this homily is foreign to the very genius, custom, and sense of Origen, and accordingly ought to be held as spurious. Pearson replies that the writer of homily 39 on Luke does not affirm that the Sadducees received the prophets into the canon of the Scriptures. He says only this, that the Sadducees misunderstood the prophets. Now they could, says he, both understand, and even misunderstand, things which they did not hold as sacred Scriptures. The Sadducees indeed did not admit sacred Scriptures outside the Mosaic books, namely, says Pearson, in determining controversies of faith: and he defends this gloss of his by the authority of the rabbis: which is abundantly sufficient.

Before an end is put to this brief preface, the principle of a just defence now demands of me that I repel that accusation which Monsieur Alexis Desessarts employed against me in a booklet written in French to which he gave the title: Defence of the sentiment of the holy Fathers and Catholic doctors on the future return of Elijah, and on the true understanding of the Scriptures, where on page 158 and the following these words are read: The editor of the latest edition of the Works of Origen has placed at the head of the second volume a preface in which he explains the method of Origen for interpreting Scripture. He glories, says he, in copying what the author of the Literal sense and mystical sense of the Holy Scriptures, according to the doctrine of the Fathers, has said on this subject, in the second chapter of his

book. Indeed this Latin dissertation is nothing but a literal translation of the French dissertation. I had no knowledge of this work; but having found myself one day at the shop of the bookseller who printed Origen, I chanced 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 sense and the mystical sense (page 67). The title bears: That it is most difficult, not to say impossible, to investigate the mystical senses which Scripture comprises: and in French, in the treatise on the literal and mystical sense: That it is very difficult, not to say impossible, to discover the mystical senses of Scripture. I was surprised, and I suspected at first that someone might well have altered the very text of Origen, that is to say, the version of Rufinus. I therefore begged the bookseller to lend me the first volume, and opening the fourth book of the Principles, number 9, page 166, I saw with an astonishment that I cannot express, that there had been put, ut non dicam impossibile, not to say impossible, instead of non dicam impossibile, I will not say that the thing is impossible, as the edition of Génébrard bears. Is this alteration the effect of chance? Is it the fruit of the malice of men? I leave the judgement of it to the public. I content myself with remarking that it would be much more reasonable to suppose that the anti-figurists, in order to make their particular opinion prevail, have succeeded in falsifying the latest edition of Origen. If these things are examined, far from harming the new edition of the Works of Origen, they will rather commend the highest fidelity and sincerity of the new editor. For truly, what is it that Monsieur Desessarts complains of against me? That one thing, namely that in book 4 On First Principles, number 9, page 166, I published: Very difficult, that I may not say impossible, etc., and not (as is read in the edition of Génébrard), very difficult, I will not say impossible, etc. And yet that is the sole genuine, the sole true reading, which accordingly, the other being set aside, had to be inserted into the text. Why so? Because it alone is fortified by the authority of all the manuscript codices. In the first note to the prologue of Rufinus on the books On First Principles I had given notice that the Rufinian translation had been revised by me according to six very ancient manuscript codices, the first of Verdun of the ninth century, the second of Corbie likewise of the ninth century, the third Colbertine, the fourth of the Sorbonne, the fifth of the monastery of St. Michael in Peril of the Sea, and the sixth finally of the monastery of St. Remi of Reims. Which if Monsieur Alexis Desessarts had prudently consulted, he would certainly have recognized that my reading is absent from none, whereas Génébrard's reading is absent from all the manuscript codices. He will perhaps say that a fault was at least committed by me because at the bottom edge of page 166 I neglected to give notice that in Génébrard instead of these words: Very difficult, that I may not say impossible, there is read: Very difficult, I will not say impossible. But truly I ought not to have regarded and noted down the individual negligences of printers as so many variant readings, especially where it is a question of a matter of naught, as in the present passage, where whether you read: Very difficult, that I may not say impossible, or whether you read: Very difficult, I will not say impossible; in a single word, whether ut has a place in the text, or is removed thence, the same, or almost the same sense always remains. For either reading affirms that the thing is most difficult, neither absolutely denies that the thing is possible.

Scarcely had Dom Charles Delarue written his preface thus, when, seized by a sudden paralysis, to the grief of his brethren, to the grief also of friends most distinguished alike by birth, by dignity, and by learning, he met his last day. Whose life I think it will not be unwelcome if I here trace in a few words. But I judge that notice should first be given that Monsieur Alexis Desessarts acknowledged his error. Thus on page 497 of the book which he recently entitled: Examination of the sentiment of the holy Fathers and of the ancient Jews on the duration of the ages, wherein is treated the conversion of the Jews, etc., the recantation which he had promised to the living author, he sang to him when dead. There is on page 157 (of the book of the Defence of the sentiment of the holy Fathers on the future return of Elijah) another much more important correction to be made. It is said in the 4th book of the Principles of Origen, number 9, volume I, page 166, new edition, and page 468 of the edition of Génébrard: To explain allegorically all the parts of the tabernacle set up by Moses is an enterprise which I believe very difficult. The edition of Génébrard adds: I do not call it impossible, non dicam impossibile: whereas one reads in the latest edition given in 1733: Not to say impossible, ut non dicam impossibile. I left in doubt on page 159 of the Defence of the sentiment of the holy Fathers, etc., whether this change was the effect of chance, or the fruit of the malice of men. I did not at all suspect the fidelity of Father Delarue, author of this edition; but I feared lest foreign hands might have slipped in the particle ut without his knowledge. The great exactness of the learned Benedictine served to deceive me. For having seen that he took care to give notice every time that the printed editions differ from the manuscripts, I suspected that the particle ut might have been added without his participation, since he did not mark that it was not found at all in the printed editions. But the manuscripts which I have consulted, among others those of the King's Library and of the Sorbonne, where one reads ut non dicam instead of non dicam, have dispelled my suspicions. I am even convinced that it is with a just foundation that Father Delarue preferred the reading of ut non to that of non which one reads in Génébrard. Consequently I beg the persons who have the Defence of the sentiment of the Holy Fathers on the future return of Elijah to cut out from chapter 6 article 13 in its entirety, the last five lines of 12, and what corresponds to it in the summary.