Home  »  Volume IV: April  »  St. Leonides, Martyr

Rev. Alban Butler (1711–73). Volume IV: April. The Lives of the Saints. 1866.

April 22

St. Leonides, Martyr

THE EMPEROR Severus, in the year 202, which was the tenth of his reign, raised a bloody persecution, which filled the whole empire with martyrs, but especially Egypt. The most illustrious of those who, by their triumphs ennobled and edified the city of Alexandria, was Leonides, father of the great Origen. He was a Christian philosopher, and excellently versed both in the profane and sacred sciences. He had seven sons, the eldest of whom was Origen, 1 whom he brought up with abundance of care, returning God thanks for having blessed him with a son of such an excellent disposition for learning, and a very great zeal for piety. These qualifications endeared him greatly to his father, who, after his son was baptized, would come to his bedside while he was asleep, and, opening his bosom, kiss it respectfully, as being the temple of the Holy Ghost. When the persecution raged at Alexandria, under Lætus, governor of Egypt, in the tenth year of Severus, Leonides was cast into prison. Origen, who was then only seventeen years of age, burned with an incredible desire of martyrdom, and sought every opportunity of meeting with it. But his mother conjured him not to forsake her: and seeing his ardour redoubled at the sight of his father’s chains, was forced to lock up all his clothes to oblige him to stay at home. So, not being able to do any more, he wrote a letter to his father in very moving terms, strongly exhorting him to look on the crown that was offered him with courage and joy; adding this clause: “Take heed, sir, that for our sakes you do not change your mind.” Leonides was accordingly beheaded for the faith in 202. His estates and goods being all confiscated and seized for the emperor’s use, his widow was left with seven children to maintain, in the poorest condition imaginable; but Divine Providence was both her comfort and support. Suidas informs us, that St. Leonides was honoured with the episcopal character; which Dom. Vincent de la Rue confirms by the authority of two Vatican MS. copies of St. Jerom’s catalogue of illustrious writers. See Euseb. Hist. l, 6, c. 12, and Chron. ad an. 10 Severi; also St. Jerom, Catal. c. 54.  1
Note 1. Origen, from his unwearied assiduity in writing, surnamed Adamantius, (from adamus, a diamond,) a native of Alexandria, was a scholar of St. Clement, then regent of the famous catechetical school in that city. He was afterwards a scholar of the celebrated Christian philosopher, Ammonius Saccas, who, with most philosophers of that age, adhered principally to Plato, though he joined with him also Aristotle, and had thus reconciled those inveterate feuds and differences which had subsisted between the schools of those two celebrated philosophers. With our Origen, Plotinus, the most judicious heathen critic, Longinus, and many other eminent men, frequented the lectures of Ammonius. Origen, in consequence of the acuteness of his parts and great industry, made vast improvements in all sorts of learning; being imcomparably skilled (according to St. Jerom and Suidas) in dialectic, geometry, arithmetic, music, rhetoric, and the several sentiments and opinions of all the sects of philosophers: he was also a great proficient in the Hebrew language and the knowledge of the sacred writings. Being reduced to extreme poverty, after the death of his father, he was relieved by the liberality of a rich lady of Alexandria; but never could be prevailed upon to communicate with a certain heretic named Paul, her particular favourite. Whether the lady on this account withdrew her charity, or that he thought it more agreeable to the Christian rule to live by his labour, he opened a grammar-school at Alexandria, and the year following he instructed certain catechumens in the faith. The applause which this procured him, moved Demetrius, the bishop, to appoint him to preside in the great catechetical school at Alexandria, though he was not then above eighteen years of age; (S. Jerom, Catal. c. 54;) whereas that province was seldom intrusted but to persons well advanced in years. But Origen was a quite finished man by the time nature in others begins only to open their genius to serious studies: a time of life never so remarkable upon the same account in any other person. At this age, he was an accomplished master of so much learning as to be respected, consulted, and followed by a number of disciples; and many, after being with the greatest masters in the world, were thereby only better qualified to be his scholars. From his school, innumerable doctors, priests, confessors, and martyrs came forth. Even heathens crowded to his lectures, whom he admitted, that, under the opportunity of profane learning, he might draw them to the faith of Christ. So high did his reputation run, that Porphyrius himself tells us, Origen, going by chance into the school of Plotinus, the famous philosopher, that haughty sophist blushed at the sight of such a person, stopped short, and refused to proceed though desired: till at last he resumed his discourse only for the sake of an opportunity of passing a fine compliment upon him. (Porphyr. in Vit. Plotini.) Origen taught all the arts and sciences as well as divinity; and besides his public lectures, the fatigue of which was enough to kill another person, he dictated to seven amanuenses. Such a fertility of knowledge, such a clear order in his ideas on all sciences, such a presence of mind and facility of expression, will be the admiration of all succeeding ages. He seemed scarcely ever to cease from application, or to allow his body any other refreshment than what proceeded from a variety of labour. Even when he travelled, he every where was crowded with scholars, and every where studied to improve his mind, and taught others; so that wherever he went he left, as it were, a track of light behind him. He knew hardly any difference, as to repose, between day and night. His constitution, naturally strong, was still fortified by his way of living, which was, in all respects, most austere. In quitting his profession as a grammarian, he sold all his books that related to profane learning, to one who daily supplied him with four Oboli, or about five pence of our money, for his subsistence, which served to maintain him several years; for he had led a most austere life, sleeping upon the bare ground, watching much, besides fasting very often. In this new station of catechist he was of great use, as well by strengthening believers in the faith, as by gaining over to it a great number of Gentile philosophers; and had so many martyrs among his disciples, that his school might more properly be called a school of martyrdom, than of theology. The most eminent martyrs amongst his disciples were St. Plutarch, whom Origen followed to execution, and narrowly escaped being slain by the citizens, because he was looked upon as the cause, by his exhortations, of the other’s death. The second was St. Serenus; the third, St. Heraclides; the fourth, St. Heron: the fifth, another St. Serenus; the sixth, St. Herias, a woman catechumen, who was baptized by fire, the instrument of her martyrdom; the seventh, St. Basilides, with St. Potamiœna, &c. Origen’s school was frequented by very great personages, amongst whom St. Gregory Thaumaturgus was none of the least. He also taught many young virgins and women the principles of Christianity. As he was a young man, and by his office of catechist was obliged to converse daily, not only with men but women, by an indiscreet zeal against temptations, and to avoid all calumny, he made himself an eunuch, an action which he afterwards most justly condemned, (t. 15, in Mat. p. 369, ed. Huet.) He always walked barefooted, abstained from flesh-meat, and during many years from wine, till the weakness of his breast obliged him to mingle a little with his water. The bare floor was the only bed he ever made use of. To his continual fasts and watchings he added the rigours of cold and nakedness, and lived to his last breath in extreme voluntary poverty, constantly refusing the offers of many who earnestly desired to oblige him to share their estates with them. Yet he always thought that much was wanting to his poverty, that his disengagement from earthly things might be perfect. Whence, mentioning the precepts which Christ gave to priests, of renouncing all they possess in order to become his disciples, (Luke xiv. 33,) he says, “I tremble when I recite these words. For I am above others my own accuser, repeating my own condemnation. At least, awakened by this warning, let us hasten to accomplish this precept, let us hasten to throw off the character of the priests of Pharaoh, whose possessions are on earth, and rank ourselves among the priests of God, whose portion and inheritance is the Lord.”—Orig. Hom. 16, in Gen. p. 104.
  The desire of seeing so ancient a Church as that of Rome, induced him to take a journey thither, St. Zephyrinus being then bishop of that see, (Euseb. l. 6, c. 14.) He made no long stay in that city, but returned back to Alexandria, and to his former office of catechist, Demetrius earnestly importuning him to resume it. About this time he converted several from the errors of Marcion and Valentinus to the Catholic faith; and among the rest Ambrose, a very considerable man at Alexandria, both on account of his riches and abilities, who became one of the most intimate friends of Origen, and from that time maintained for his use ten amanuenses, or clerks, to copy his works, besides several other transcribers for his service. The emperor Heliogabalus happened to make along stay at Antioch, in 218, together with his aunt Mammea, mother of the emperor Alexander. She being a lady of great wisdom, virtue, and learning, sent for Origen to Antioch, and detained him a long time with her in great honour. Nor does it seem to be doubted, that, through his instructions, she embraced the faith, and inclined her son Alexander to favour the same. Origen mentions the abatement of the persecution during the reign of Heliogabalus, (l. 3, c. Cels.) which is generally ascribed to his influence and credit at court: and, if he modestly decline telling us the part he bore in it, we owe him so much the more honour, the less he seems to claim. When Origen returned to Alexandria, he there composed his works on the holy scriptures, from the year 219 to 228.
  In 230, being at Cæsarea in Palestine, he was ordained priest by Theoctistus, bishop of that city, with the approbation of St. Alexander of Jerusalem and other bishops. This step gave offence to Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, who not long after, in two councils, deposed and excommunicated him. Origen had fled back to Palestine in 231, to withdraw himself from his censures, which he foresaw. The matters laid to his charge were, that he had made himself an eunuch, which indeed was afterwards declared by the church an irregularity, rendering a man incapable of holy orders; that he had been ordained without the consent of his own bishop; and that he taught several errors in doctrine, chiefly that the devil will at last be freed from his torments and saved. Origen in a letter to his friends at Alexandria, (apud S. Hieron. l. 2, contra Rufin. p. 413,) condemns this error, and avers, that it had been foisted into his writings by heretics, willing to authorize their erroneous tenets under his great name. Nevertheless, the Origenist heretics, who maintained that error, boasted of his authority, and he certainly fell into several errors in his books, On Principles, and for some time denied the eternity of the torments of the damned, as is clear from this work still extant. Both his writings and his name were condemned in the fifth general council. Who does not tremble for himself, whilst he trembles for an Origen? Halloix, Tillemont, and Ceillier strain matters too far in his vindication. He seems indeed to have speedily risen from his errors. For the most learned and holy prelates of Palestine, as those above mentioned, always continued to entertain him in their communion, and treat him with honour. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus spoke his panegyric, in which he exceedingly extols his learning and virtues. St. Pamphilus composed his apology, in which he produces his letter, proving that his works had been corrupted by heretics. We should be willing even to forget that he ever sinned, if deference to truth and the greatest authority could allow it. However, some ancients have spoken against him with the greater bitterness, to destroy an authority of which the Origenist heretics availed themselves: though their principal error, by which they denied the eternity of the torments of hell, seems only derived from a mistake of his words, that if the devil could repent he would still be saved, as Origen himself assures us, in words quoted by St. Pamphilus, and also by St. Jerom, during the time that his zeal against the Origenists had made him the most violent enemy to his memory. When Beryllus, bishop of Bostra, in Arabia, fell into dangerous errors relating to the divinity of Christ, Origen was despatched to him from Cæsarea, in 238; and such was the success of his conference, as to convert Beryllus and crush his heresy in its birth; who, as became a true convert, in several letters, gave thanks to Origen for his kind pains in his conviction. He performed the functions of catechist and preacher at Cæsarea, making sometimes remote excursions. In the persecution of Maximinus he retired into Cappadocia; in that of Decius to Tyre; where, nevertheless, he was apprehended, and suffered cruel tortures and a long imprisonment, from which the death of Decius released him: for the slander of his having yielded under his torments, though credited by St. Epiphanius, and amongst the moderns by Petavius, (Animadv. in Epiph. hær. 64, et lib. de Ponder. c. 18,) is confuted by Baronius, Halloix, (Orig. defens. l. 4, du. 3, et Not. p. 35,) Raynaudus, (Hopop. sect. 2,) Henry Valois, (in Eus. Hist. l. 6. c. 39,) Huet, (Origeniana, l. 1, c. 4,) Charles Vincent le Rue, (ib. p. 102,) &c. Origen died soon after at Tyre, and most probably of his torments, in 253, being sixty-nine years old. His tomb, with an epitaph on a marble pillar, near the high altar in the cathedral of Tyre, is mentioned by many ancient writers down to the year 1283; but is not now known, the city of Tyre itself being destroyed. See Dom. Ch. Vincent le Rue, not. in Huetij Origeniana, t. 4. parte 2. p. 103.
  Origen’s style is diffusive and prolix, and the arbitrary allegorical manner of interpreting the holy scriptures he certainly carried to an excess: but an astonishing erudition and other great qualities will ever support his reputation against the heavy censures of his enemies. They who call Origen a babbler and trifler, betray the weakness of their own judgment, or the violent bias of prepossession. As to his principal works, the Hexapla, which he published in the year 231, contained the holy scriptures in Hebrew: the same in Greek letters: the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion, in six columns corresponding to each other. In his Octapla he added two other Greek versions, viz. a fifth, found at Jericho, and a sixth at Nicopolis in Epirus. His Tetrahla consisted only of the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. From various sources and manuscripts, Montfaucon gathered together what fragments of this work could be met with, which he printed in two volumes, folio, at Paris, in 1713. So many expositions, additions from the other Greek versions, and other alterations, had crept into the common copies of the Seventy, with infinite variety amongst themselves, that this performance of Origen was of great advantage. To every word in the margin which was an explication or an addition borrowed from any of the other three Greek versions allowed by the Jews, he prefixed an asterisk, or star *. To all such words as were not found in the Hebrew as then extant, he prefixed an obelus, or dagger †. The signification of two other marks which he made use of, is not very well known: the one called lemniscus, a kind of double obelus ††; the other hypolemniscus †. The asterisk is much the most frequent mark, and an omission of it before any word by the carelessness of a copyist, was sufficient to introduce a foreign word into the text. Montfaucon received great succours in restoring the Greek text of the Seventy, in the Hexapla, from an imperfect manuscript of the Pentateuch of this edition, of the seventh century, in the king’s library at Paris; and from the Chigi manuscript of the prophets, belonging to the library of that prince at Rome; and another of the same in the hands of the Jesuits at Clermont college, at Paris, of the seventh or eighth centuries; both very fair and entire: and in both is contained the old version of Daniel, called of the Seventy, never printed; that which is published in our Greek bibles being universally allowed to be the version of Theodotion. It is a great pity that the learned Montfaucon wrote often too hastily some words of this MS. of the Jesuits, which he probably took upon trust, being quite mistaken and wrong copied throughout his citations, doubtless by the fault of his copier. The original work of Origen, which was deposited by him with his other writings in the library of Cæsarea, is supposed to have perished when that city was taken and destroyed (not by Chosroes, the Persian, who only plundered Jerusalem and Cæsarea in Cappadocia, not this city of Palestine, as appears from Theophanes, Chron. p. 199, but) by the Saracens in 653, after a siege of seven years. See Hoffman’s Lexicon. Kennicot, Diss. 2, p. 392, and Montfaucon, Prælim. in Hexapla, p. 76.
  As to his comments on the scriptures, those extant in Greek are published with dissertations by Huet. The same with additions, and those only extant in the Latin translation, by Dom. Charles de la Rue, the Benedictin Maurist monk, with his other works. This learned editor has given us, with notes, (Op. Origenis, t. 1. p. 43, Parisiis, 1733,) his four books [Greek], or On Principles, in the Latin translation of Rufinus, in which only it is extant. Though Rufinus declares he had corrected the errors of this work, because it had been corrupted by heretics, we still discover in it dangerous principles concerning the pre-existence of souls, the plurality of worlds, the nature of the stars, as if endued with understanding and souls, the salvation of the devils, &c. This work raised clamours against the author, who in it attempted to blend the principles of many philosophic sects with those of religion: though they are only problematically asserted, or with a perhaps; and Origen, in the preface to this very work, clearly teaches, that nothing is to be admitted as a religious doctrine or point of faith which squares not with the tradition of the church, and with what was preached by the apostles and preserved entire in the doctrine of the church. His treatise On Prayer, to Ambrose, proves its necessity, and expounds the Lord’s Prayer. We have a good edition of this work given by William Reading, at London, in 1728; and a later still improved, by De la Rue, (t. 1, p. 195.) His golden book, On Martyrdom, was an exhortation to certain confessors in prison for the faith at Cæsarea in Palestine. De la Rue has enriched his edition with judicious notes. But the most valuable and finished work of Origen is his Apology for the Christian Religion, written in 249, in the reign of the emperor Philip, in eight books, against Celsus, an Epicurean philosopher, to whom the impious Lucian dedicated his Pseudomantis. De la Rue has, by ample notes, rendered it more useful, though those of the learned Spencer, in the Cambridge edition, in 1658, had before justly received the thanks of all lovers of ecclesiastical antiquity. This Celsus was an Epicurean philosopher, who lived in the reign of Adrian, and is to be distinguished from one of the same name and sect who lived in Nero’s time. He was the most formidable adversary that ever attacked in writing the Christian religion. For Porphyrius, the Tyrian philosopher, in his voluminous invective, about the year 270, endeavoured to invalidate the truth of the history of the Old and New Testament, by pretended contradictions, but by a sophistry equally weak and extravagant, as appears from Eusebius, (de Præp. Evang. l. 1, 5, 10.) St. Jerom, (Præf. Comm. in Gal,) &c. Hierocles, a judge and cruel persecutor of the Christians, first at Nicomedia, afterwards at Alexandria, in the reign of Dioclesian, wrote a bitter book against the Christians, entitled Philalethes, in which he only repeated the slanders of Celsus and Porphyrius, and drew a supposed parallel between the miracles of Christ and the pretended miracles of Apollonius Tyanæus, borrowed from the fabulous life of that famous impostor and magician, written by Philostratus: of which absurd blasphemy Eusebius of Cæsarea published an ample confutation. Julian the Apostate, after trying in vain every other expedient to extirpate Christianity, set himself to write against that divine religion. He had the advantage of the most perfect knowledge of its doctrine, and of whatever the philosophers and Jewish or Pagan historians could furnish against it: yet was not able to start any objection deserving a serious regard, or that could be a solid apology for his apostacy. St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. Cyril of Alexandria answered his cavils. From the latter it appears, that he laid his main stress upon the want of antiquity in the Christian religion; as if Moses, who foretold Christ throughout the whole dispensation of the Old Law, was not far more ancient than all the philosophers, not to mention Abraham, &c. Secondly, he insisted on the authority of Pagan philosophers. Thirdly, he argues ludicrously on several passages of the Mosaic history, not from reason, but with a low ridicule unbecoming so serious a subject. Lastly, he scornfully insults the person and sufferings of Christ. It is happy for religion that the objections of Julian have been transmitted down to our times: otherwise some might have imagined that this learned emperor had sufficient reasons for his apostacy. But nothing more visibly betrays the weakness of infidelity, nor more strengthens the cause of truth.
  Of all these writers, Celsus is the most crafty and subtle. He wrote with the most refined fallacy that sophistry could invent, with an air of positiveness to impose on the vulgar, and all the advantages that wit and fine raillery could give; he was also master of all the difficulties that an extensive knowledge, seconded by artifice and management, could object. On the other side, Origen, with all the force and solidity of right reason, reduces every argument to its true principles, follows his adversary step by step, convicts him of falsehood in point of fact, sets in the true light things which his adversary disguised or smothered, and establishes the truth of the Christian doctrine by the evidence of facts and of its history. Eusebius (l. ad Hieroclem) and St. Jerom (ep. adv. Magn.) say, that all objections that ever were, or can be made to Christianity, will find an answer in this work. Celsus objects the privacy of the assemblies of the Christians: that their precepts of morality were not new. And though he does not deny that Christ wrought miracles, yet he ascribes them to magic. Origen, answering this last, says that miracles were still wrought in his time by the disciples of Christ, and that he had been himself an eye-witness of several. (l. 1, pp. 5, 7, 37.) Origen answers next his objections to the ancient prophecies, to the meanness of the disciples of Christ, to the descent of God on earth in Christ, and to various passages of the scriptures. (l. 2, 3, 4.) He refutes the principle of Celsus, big with fatal consequences, that the Jews and other people ought to follow the customs and religion of their own country. (l. 5, p. 248.) He compares the prophets with the heathen philosophers, and shows that Christ had borrowed no points of his doctrine from Plato, as his adversary pretended. (l. 5.) He proves the heathenish oracles to proceed from the devil, because their priestesses uttered them in fits of phrensy, and possessed by evil spirits, not knowing what they said; and he displays the truth of the prophets, and the sanctity of the Christian morals. (l. 7.) Lastly, he says, that Christians adore both God, the Father of the Truth, and the Son, who is the Truth; and takes notice of the assiduity of prayer, the humility, contempt of the world, and other virtues practised by the Christians. (l. 8.)
  Certain modern free-thinkers affect to throw out surmises in their writings, that if these works of Celsus, Porphyrius, and Julian had come down to us, they doubt not but they could have made their cause good. But nothing could betray more their want of judgment or sincerity. A great part of Julian’s three books upon this subject, St. Cyril has preserved us in his own words, omitting only some unmeaning blasphemies, as he assures us: and this specimen suffices to satisfy all modern enemies of Christianity, that this author only discovers his distress for the want of anything which might so much as wear the appearance of a solid objection. Porphyrius was still more senseless and extravagant in his silly enthusiasm. As for Celsus, Origen has mentioned everything material that he objected. By all which it is evident, that none of the early enemies of Christianity were able to charge the main of the gospel-history with any suspicion of imposture in any of its circumstances—the only point our modern infidels want to make out from the writings of their predecessors, who lived contemporary with these facts, and wanted neither power, nor abilities, nor inclination to detect a fraud in them; yet this they were never able to do in any one circumstance or miracle of Christ’s life. And we cannot imagine they were wanting to practise every art upon many of the eye-witnesses, especially upon apostate Christians among the first disciples, who could not but be all conscious of a conspiracy in a cheat, had there been any. But the public evidence of these facts, and sincere humility and virtue of the witnesses, their multitude, unanimity, and constancy, in the testimony they gave to the miracles and other events, removed all possibility of doubt. We must add, that this their testimony they maintained against all human motives and passions, and joyfully sealed the same with their death, and under every sort of torment and suffering. I cannot dismiss this subject without mentioning two other reflections. First, that it is an undoubted matter of fact, that of all the adversaries that attacked Christianity at the beginning, not one ever had the assurance to return to the charge after the first defeat; and no Pagan attempted to answer Origen or any other of our apologists. When the spirit of controversy, which is always so keen, subtle, and fertile, is driven to this extremity, we need not ask whether the answers that forced them were solid. Secondly, all these adversaries confessed the truth of the miracles wrought by Christ and his apostles, and could make no other reply than by ascribing them to magic; which is a clear proof of the undoubted evidence of the facts. See the testimonies of Celsus, (in Origen, l. 1 and 2,) of the Jews, (in Tertullian contra Judæ. c. 9, p. 48,) of Julian the Apostate, (in St. Cyril, l. 6, p. 191, t. 6, part 2,) of Porphyrius, as St. Jerom testifies, (l. contr. Vigilant.) &c. As to the testimony of Origen concerning miracles wrought in his time, Mr. Jortin writes as follows, (t. 2, p. 249:) “He speaks of miracles which were performed even then, as healing the sick, and casting out devils by the invocation of Jesus, and he mentions some who were converted to Christianity by visions and revelations. He speaks of some of these things as one who was well-informed, and he appeals to God that what he says is true. Thus much may be affirmed that he was utterly incapable of affirming a fact which he knew or suspected to be false.” It is probable that among other conversions effected by visions, he had in his thoughts that of Basilides by a vision of St. Potamiœna, who was a disciple of Origen. (See her life.) That Origen was an advocate for the divinity or consubstantiality of the Son, and that his doctrine on the article of the Trinity was orthodox, is excellently shown against Petavius and Huet, by Marand, De Divinitate Christi, l. 4, c. 14, 15, 16. Bull, Defensio fidei Nicenæ, c. 9. Witasse, Tournely, and at length by Dom. Charles Vincent de la Rue, Notis in Huetii Origeniana, l. 2, c. 2, p. 107, ad p. 139, t. 4, parte 2. This latter strenuously clears his doctrine of the charge of Pelagianism, ib. l. 2, qu. 7, p. 192. Huet, though carried away by the authority of his friend, F. Petau, the most declared adversary of Origen, condemns him with too great severity, yet demonstrates that he never maintained his errors with obstinacy, which is required to the guilt of heresy. (Origeniana, l. 2, c. 3, n. 19, and c. 4.) Nevertheless, that he for some time denied the eternity of the torments of hell, is clear both from the torrent of the fathers and councils, and from his genuine writings, such as were deposited by him in the library of Cæsarea. (See Huet, Origen, l. 2, c. 11.) Nor does Dom. Charles Vincent de la Rue offer to vindicate him from the charge of having maintained this and certain other errors relating to the human soul, angels, &c. The Benedictin complete edition of Origen’s works was undertaken by Dom. Charles de la Rue, who published two volumes, and prepared the third. His nephew, Charles Vincent de la Rue, took care to have this printed in 1749, and added himself, in 1759, the fourth or last volume, with curious judicious critical notes on several parts of Huet’s Origeniana; wherein he clears his author of many things laid to his charge by Huet, and especially by that learned prelate’s friend, F. Petau; yet shows, against Halloix, Tillemont, and Ceillier, that he certainly fell into several dangerous errors against the eternity of hell torments, &c., though never with obstinacy; and that he undoubtedly died in the bosom of the Catholic Church. [back]