searches after in his commentaries, inge- rally to the entire neglect and contempt of niously indeed, but perversely, and gene of the Greeks allegorically. The predecessors of Origen, who searched after a mystical sense of Scripture, still set a high value on the grammatical or literal sense; but he often expresses himself as if he attached no value to it. Before him allegories were resorted to only to discover predictions of future events, and rules for moral conduct; but he betook himself to allegories, in order to establish the principles of his philosophy on a scripAll this must have been offensive to many the literal meaning. This recondite sense he moreover divides into the moral and the mystical or spiritual; the former containing instruction relative to the internal state of the soul and our external actions, and the latter acquainting us with the nature, the history, and laws of the spiritual or mystical world. He fancied that this mystical tural basis. world was also twofold, partly superior or Christians. His propensity to allegories must be ascribed to the fertility of his invention, the prevailing celestial, and partly inferior and terrestrial, custom of the Egyptians, his education, the instructions that is the Church: and hence he divided he received from his teachers, and the example both of the philosophers, of whom he was an admirer, and of the mystical sense of Scripture into the the Jews, especially Philo. To these may be added terrene or allegorical, and the celestial or easily to convince the Jews, to confute the Gnostics, anagogical. This mode of interpreting other causes. He hoped, by means of his allegories, more and to silence the objections of both. This he himself Scripture, which was sanctioned by Jewish tells us, De Principiis, lib. viii. cap. viii. p. 164, &c.; but we must not forget his attachment to that system practice, was current among Christians beof philosophy which he embraced. This philosophy fore the times of Origen; but as he gave could not be reconciled with the Scriptures, except by determinate rules for it, and brought it into a resort to allegories; and, therefore, the Scriptures must be interpreted allegorically, that they might not a systematic form, he is commonly regarded contradict his philosophy. He also believed that it was as its originator. doing honour to the holy Scriptures, to consider them as diverse from all human compositions, and as con6. Innumerable expositors in this and the taining hidden mysteries. See Homily xv. on Genesis, following centuries pursued the method of Opp. tom. ii. p. 99: and Homily on Exod. Opp. tom. ii. p. 129; and finally, he thought many of the objections Origen, though with some diversity; nor of the enemies of religion could not be fully answered could the few who pursued a better method without recurrence to allegories. His general principles make much head against them. The comfor the interpretation of the sacred volume resolve themselves into the following positions:-1. The Scriptures mentaries of Hippolytus which have reached resemble man. As a man consists of three parts, a us show that this holy man went wholly into rational mind, a sensitive soul, and a visible body, so the Scriptures have a threefold sense, a literal sense, Origen's method. And no better, probably, corresponding with the body; a moral sense, analogous were the expositions of some books of the to the soul; and a mystical or spiritual sense, analogous Old and New Testaments, composed by to the rational mind. Homily v. on Levit. sec. 5, Opp. tom. ii. p. 209. 2. As the body is the baser part of man, Victorinus, which are lost; but the Paraso the literal is the less worthy sense of Scripture. And phrase on the book of Ecclesiastes, by Greral sense often leads us into error. Stromata, lib. x.gory Thaumaturgus, still extant, is not quoted by Jerome, b. iil. Comment on Galat. cap. iii. liable to the same objection, although its Opr. tom. 1. p. 41. 3. Yet the literal sense is not wholly author was a great admirer of Origen. Methodius explained the book of Genesis, and as the body often betrays good men into sin, so the lite useless. De Principiis, lib. iv. sec. 12, p. 169; and sec. 14, p. 173. 4. They who would see farther into the Scriptures than the common people must search out the moral sense. 5. And the perfect, or those who have attained to the highest degree of blessedness, must also investigate the spiritual sense. De Principiis, lib. iv. zec. il. p. 168. 6. The moral sense of Scripture instructs us relative to the changes in the mind of man, and gives rules for regulating the heart and life. 7. The spiritual sense acquaints us with the nature and state and history of the spiritual world, composed of two parts, the heavenly and the earthly. The earthly, mystical or spiritual world, is the Christian church on earth. The heavenly, mystical world is above, and corresponds in all its parts with the lower world, which was formed after its model. 8. As the Scripture contains the history of this twofold mystic world, so there is a twofold mystic sense of Scripture, an allegorical and an anagogical. 9. The mystic sense is diffused! throughout the holy Scriptures. 10. Yet we do not always meet with both the allegorical sense and the anagogical in every passage. 11. The moral sense likewise pervades the whole Bible. 12. But the literal sense does not occur everywhere; for many passages have no literal meaning. 13. Some passages have only two senses; namely, a moral and a mystical [the mystical being either allegorical or anagogical, rarely both,] other passages have threo senses, [the moral, the mystical, and the literal.] 14. The literal sense is perceived by every attentive reader. The moral sense is somewhat more difficult to be discovered. 15. But the mystic sense none can discover with certainty, unless they are wise men, and also taught of God. 16. Neither can even such men hope to fathom all the mysteries of the sacred volume. 17. In searching for the anagogical sense, especially, a person must proceed with peculiar care and caution.-Schl. [Mosheim states the follow ing as Origen's general rule for determining when a Origen, in his Stromata, lib. x. cited by De la Rue, Opp. tom. i. p. 41, says: Multorum malorum occasio est, ri quis in carne Scripture mancat. Que qui fecerint, regnum Dei non consequentur. Quamobrem spiritum Scripture fructusque quaramus, qui non dicuntur ma the Canticles; but his labours have not reached us. Ammonius composed a Har mony of the Gospels. 7. Origen, in his lost work entitled Stromuta, and in his four books De Principiis, explained most of the doctrines of Christianity, or, to speak more correctly, deformed them with philosophical speculations. And these books of his De Principiis were the first compendium of scholastic, or, if you please, philosophic theology. Something similar was attempted by Theognostus, in his seven books of Hypotyposes, for a knowledge of which we are indebted to Photius,' who says they were the work of a man infected with the opinions of Origen. Gregory Thaumaturgus, in his Expositio Fidei, gave a brief summary of Christian doctrines. Certain points of the Christian faith were taken up by various individuals, in reply to the enemies or the corrupters of Christianity. Tracts on the Deity, the resurrection, antichrist, and the end of the world, were composed by Hippolytus. Methodius wrote on free-will, and Lucian on the creed; but as most of these treatises are no longer extant, their character is little known. ner, in his Feast of Virgins. Dionysius of Alexandria wrote on penance and on temptations. To mention other writers in this department would be needless. 9. Of polemic writers, a host might be mentioned. The idolaters were assailed by Minutius Felix, in his dialogue entitled Octavius; by Origen, in his eight books against Celsus; by Arnobius, in his eight books against the Gentiles; and by Cyprian, in his tract on the vanity of idols. The Chronicon of Hippolytus, written against the Gentiles; and the work of Methodius in opposition to Porphyry, who attacked Christianity, are lost. We may also place among polemic writers, both those who opposed the philosophers, as Hippolytus, who wrote against Plato, and those who treated of fate, of free-will, and of the origin of evil, as Hippolytus, Methodius, and others. Against the Jews, Hippolytus attempted something which has not reached us; but the Testimonies [from Scripture] against the Jews, by Cyprian, are still extant. Against all the sectarians and heretics, assaults were made by Origen, Victorinus, and Hippolytus, but nothing of these works has come 8. Among the writers on moral subjects down to us. It would be superfluous here (or practical theology), passing by Tertul- to enumerate those who wrote against indilian, who was mentioned under the preced-vidual heretics. ing century, the first place belongs perhaps 10. But it must by no means pass unnoto Cyprian. From the pen of this extraor- ticed, that the discussions instituted against dinary man we have treatises on the advan- the opposers of Christianity in this age tages of patience, on mortality, on alms departed far from the primitive simplicity, and good works, and an exhortation to mar- and the correct method of controversy; for tyrdom. In these works there are many the Christian doctors, who were in part excellent thoughts, but they are not ar- educated in the schools of rhetoricians and ranged neatly and happily, nor sustained sophists, inconsiderately transferred the arts by solid arguments.2 Origen wrote, among of these teachers to the cause of Christianity; other works of a practical nature, an Exhor- and therefore considered it of no importance tation to Martyrdom; a topic discussed by whether an antagonist were confounded by many in that age, with different degrees of base artifices or by solid arguments. Thus eloquence and perspicacity. Methodius that mode of disputing which the ancients treated of chastity, but in a confused man-called economical, and which had victory rather than truth for its object, was almost universally approved. And the Platonists contributed to the currency of the practice by asserting that it was no sin for a person to employ falsehood and fallacies for the support of truth, when it was in danger of being borne down. A person ignorant of these facts will be but a poor judge of the arguments of Origen in his book against Celsus, and of the others who wrote against the worshippers of idols. Tertullian's nifesti. He had said a little before:-Non valde eos juvat Scriptura, qui eam intelligunt, ut scriptum est. Who would suppose such declarations could fall from the lips of a wise and considerate man? But this excellent man suffered himself to be misled by the causes mentioned, and by his love of philosophy. He could not discover in the sacred books all that he considered true, so long as he adhered to the literal sense; but allow condite meanings, and those books would contain Plato, And thus nearly all those who would model Christianity according to their own fancy or their favourite system of philosophy, have run into this mode of interpreting Scripture. him to abandon the literal sense, and to search for re Aristotle, Zeno, and the whole tribe of philosophers. 1 Photius, Biblioth. cod. cvi. p. 279. Photius represents him as erring, with Origen, in regard to the character of the Son of God; but Bull defends him against this charge, in his Defensio Fidei Nicana, sec. ii. cap. x. sec. 7, p. 135. See concerning him Fabricius, Biblioth. Gr. lib. v. cap. i vol. v. p. 276; and lib. v. cap. lxxxviii. vol. ix. p. 408-Schl. 2 See Barbeyrac, De la Morale des Pères, chap. viii. p. 104, &c. 3 3 Souverain, Platonisme dévoilé, p. 244, Daillé, De vero usu Putrum, lib. 1. p. 160; Wolfii, Casauboniana, p. 100. On the phrase, to do a thing κar' oikovoμíav. Gataker has treated largely in his notes on Antoninus, lib. xi. p. 330, &c. [It signifies to do a thing artfully and dexterously, or with cunning and sagacity, as a shrewd manager of a household (oikovóμos) controls those under him.-Mur. [See Note 2, page 68, above.-R. act to employ deception and fraud in support of piety. 12. Among the controversies which divided Christians in this century, the most considerable were concerning the millennium, the baptism of heretics, and Origen, That the Saviour is to reign a thousand years among men before the end of the world, had been believed by many in the preceding century without offence to any; all, however, had not explained the doctrine in the same manner, nor indulged hopes of the same kind of pleasures during that reign. In this century the millenarian doctrine fell into disrepute, through the influence especially of Origen, who opposed it because it contravened some of his opinions.5 But Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, attempted to revive its authority in a work written against the allegorists, as he contemptuously styled the opposers of the millennium. The book and its arguments were approved by many in the province of Arsinöe, and particularly by Coracion, a pres method of confuting heretics; namely, by prescription, was not perhaps altogether unsuitable in that age. But they who think it always proper to reason in this manner must have little knowledge of the difference which time and change of circumstances produce.' 11. This culpable disposition to circumvent and confound an adversary, rather than confute him with sound argument, produced also a multitude of books falsely bearing on their front the names of certain distinguished men. For the greater part of mankind, being influenced more by the authority of names than by arguments and scripture testimony, the writers conceived they should prefix names of the greatest weight to their books, in order to oppose successfully their adversaries. Hence those Canons which were falsely ascribed to the apostles; hence those Apostolic Constitutions which Clemens Romanus was reputed to have collected; hence too the Recognitions of Clement, as they are called, and the Clementina, and other works of the like character, which a too credulous world long held in high estimation. By the same artifice the mystics, as they are called, sought to advance their cause. Having no answer to give to those who demanded who was the first author of this new sort of wisdom, they alleged that they received it from Dionysius, the Areopagite of Athens, a contemporary with the apostles; and to give plausi. bility to the falsehood, they palmed upon volume of his Commentary upon the New Testament. this great man books void of sense and See also, for an account of the doctrine of the ancient rationality.3 3 Thus they who wished to sur-Millenarians, the fourth, fifth, seventh and ninth volumes of Lardner's Credibility, &c.-Macl. [Also H. pass all others in piety deemed it a pious 1 See Spanheim, Diss. de Præscriptione in Rebus Fidei, Opp. tom. iii. p. 1079. [Tertullian's book was entitled De Præscriptione Hæreticorum, or Præscriptionibus adversus Hæreticos, which might be translated, On the Presumption in regard to Heretics, or Presumptions against them. The author attempts to confute all the heretics at once, and by means of an historical argument. He maintains that the orthodox churches were founded by the apostles and their approved assistants, who ordained the first pastors of these churches, and established in them all one and the same faith, which must of course be genuine Christianity, and that this faith, having been handed down pure and uncorrupted, is now contained in the creeds and inculcated in the assemblies of these churches. But he alleges that not one of these things can be said of the heretical churches, which had not such an origin, and embrace various differing creeds, and creeds derived from other sources. Being bred an advocate and familiar with the proceed ings of courts, he gives a forensic form to his argument, not only by using the law term Præscriptio, but by maintaining that the orthodox were, and had always been, in right and lawful possession of that invaluable treasure, true Christianity; and that of course the heretics, who were never in possession of it, in vain attempt now to oust them of what they thus hold by legal prescription. Mur. mystic theology, and breathe a devout spirit, but are It is supposed they were written in the fourth or fifth exceedingly obscure and difficult of comprehension. century, as they bear marks of that period, and are not mentioned by any writer prior to the sixth century. The best edition of these works, Gr. and Lat. with copious notes, is that of Balthazar Corderius, Antwerp, 1634, 2 vols. fol embracing the Gr. scholia of St. Maximus the martyr (A.D. 659), and the paraphrase of G. Pachymeras (A.D. 1280.)-Mur. 4 See the learned Treatise concerning the True Millennium, which Dr. Whitby has subjoined to the second. Corodi's Kritische Geschichte des Chiliasmus, 2d ed. 1794, 3 vols. 8vo.-Mur. 5 See Origen, De Principiis, lib. ii. cap. xi. Opp. tom. 1. p. 104, and Prolog. Comment. in Cantic. Canticor. tom. iii. p. 28. The Cerinthians, Marcionites, Montanists, and Melitians, among the heretical sects, and among the orthodox fathers Papias, Justin Martyr, and Irenæus, held to a millennial reign of Christ, and Irenæus understood it in a very gross sense. Mosheim, in his Comment. de Reb. Christ. &c. p. 721, believed the doctrine had a Jewish origin; and he supposed the Christian doctors received, or at least tolerated it, because they hoped by it to make the Jews more willing to embrace Christianity. But Walch, in his Hist. der Ketzer, vol. ii. p. 143, is more discriminating, and maintains that the question, whether a millennial reign of Christ is to be expected, had a biblical origin, the earlier Chillasts relying on the testimony of the Revelation; but the explanation of the doctrine was derived from the Jewish opinions. According to the account of Gennadius of Marseilles, De Dogmat. Ecclesiast. cap. lv. p. 32, the Chiliasts may be divided into four classes. The first open opposer of Chiliasm that we meet with, was Caius, a teacher in the Church of Rome, towards the end of the second century. He denied that the Revelation was written by John, and ascribed it rather to Cerinthus. But he effected very little. Origen was a more powerful opposer of the doctrine. He did not, like Caius, deny the canonical authority of the Apocalypse, but explained the passages in it which describe the millennial reign of Christ, alle3 The spurfous works ascribed to Dionysius the Arco- gorically, as referring to spiritual delights, suited to pagite (who is mentioned Acts xvii. 34), are the follow-the nature of spirits raised to perfection, and these to ing: De Celesti Hierarchia, De Ecclesiastica Hier- be enjoyed, not on the earth, but in the world to come. archia, De Divinis Nominibus, De Mystica Theologia, See Mosheim, Comment. de Reb Christ. p. 720, &c. and together with twelve epistles. They all relate to the Walch, Hist. der Ketzer. vol. ii. p. 136-151.- Schl. 2 Respecting these supposititious works, see the notes to sec. 19. chap. ii. part. ii. cent. i.-R. byter of some respectability and influence. But Dionysius of Alexandria, a disciple of Origen, allayed the rising storm by his oral discussions and his two books on the divine promises. The 14. The contests concerning Origen were moved by Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria, who is reported by the friends of Origen to have been influenced by envy and hatred; which, however, is very doubtful. In the pro13. As no law had determined in what ceedings of Demetrius against Origen, one manner those who came over from heretical may discover marks of a mind exasperated, churches to the catholic Christians were impassioned, arrogant, and unreasonable, to be received, different customs prevailed but none scarcely of envy. In the year 228 in different churches. Many of the Ori- Origen took a journey to Achaia, and on ental and African Christians classed re- his way suffered himself to be ordained a claimed heretics among the catechumens, presbyter by the bishops of Cæsarea and and admitted them to the Christian ordi- Jerusalem. At this, Demetrius was greatly nances by baptism. But most of the Eu- offended, because he deemed Origen unfit ropean Christians regarded the baptism for such an office, on account of his having administered by erring Christians as valid; mutilated himself, and because being master and therefore received reclaimed heretics of a school under him, he had been ordained simply with imposition of hands and prayer. without his knowledge and consent. This diversity long prevailed without giving matter, however, was compromised, and rise to contention. But in this century the Origen returned to Alexandria. But not Asiatic Christians determined in several long after, from some unknown cause, new councils, what before had been left at dis- dissension arose between him and Demecretion, that all heretics coming over to the trius, which became so great that Origen true church must be re-baptized. This left Alexandria and the school in the year coming to the knowledge of Stephen, bishop 231, and removed to Cæsarca [in Palestine]. of Rome, he with little humanity or pru- Demetrius accused him in his absence bedence excluded those Asiatics from his fore an assembled council, and deprived fellowship and from that of his church. him of his office without a hearing; and Notwithstanding this rashness of Stephen, afterwards, in a second council divested Cyprian with other Africans, in a council him of his ministerial character. It is procalled on the subject, embraced the opinion bable that Demetrius accused Origen before of the Asiatics, and gave notice of it to the council, particularly the last one, of erStephen. Upon this Stephen was very in-roneous scntiments in matters of religion; dignant; but Cyprian replied with energy, and in a new council held at Carthage, again pronounced the baptism administered by heretics to be wholly invalid. The rage of Stephen now waxed hotter, and he most unjustly excluded the Africans from the rights of brotherhood. But the discord was healed partly by the moderation of the Africans and partly by the death of Stephen.3 1 See Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vii. 24, and Gennadius Massiliensis, De Dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis, cap. lv. p. 32, ed. Elmenhorst. [Nepos held the Revelation to be an inspired book; and he maintained in opposition to the allegorists, that the passages which speak of a millennial reign of Christ must be understood literally, and as promising corporeal pleasures. But he does not appear to have defined clearly what these pleasures were to be, though he excluded eating, drinking, and marriage, as Mosheim supposes, ubi supra, p. 726. The very obscure and defective history of Nepos is explained, as far as it can be, by Walch, ubi supra, pages 152-167.-Schl. [See also Münscher, Handbuch der Dogmenges, vol. ii. pages 408-431, and Neander, Kirchenges. vol. i. part iii. pages 1088-96.-Mur. 2 Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vii. cap. v. and vii. Firmillian, Epist. ad Cyprianum, in Cyprian's Epist. 75. The councils which decided this point, before Stephen's rash procedure, were (1) the council of Carthage, about A.D. 215. See Cyprian, Ep. 71 and 73-(2) that of Iconium in Phrygia, A.D. 235. Cyprian, Ep. 75. Euseb. H. E. vii. 4-(3) that of Synada, and (4) some others, which are barely mentioned in Cyprian, Ep. 75, and Euseb. ubi supra. See Walch, Hist. der Kirchenversamml. pages 91, 94, and 96.-Mur. 3 Cyprian, Ep. 70 and 73, and several others, ed. Baluze. Augustine, De Baptismo contra Donatistas which it was easy for him to do, as Origen's book, De Principiis, which was full of dangerous sentiments, had been published not long before. The decision of the council at Alexandria was approved by the majority of the Christian bishops, though rejected by those of Achaia, Palestine, Phoenicia, and Arabia.5 lib. vi. and vii. Opp. tom. ix. where he gives the acts of the council of Carthage, A.D. 256. Prudent. Maran, Vita Cypriani, p. 107, and all the writers of the life of Cyprian. [The whole history of this controversy is discussed at large by Mosheim, Comment. de Rebus, &c. pages 540--547, and still more fully by Walch, Hist. der Ketzer. vol. ii. pages 328-384.-Schl. 4 Mosheim is singular in this opinion; which he defends at great length, in his Comment. de Rebus. &c. p. 671, &c. in opposition to the express testimony of Eusebius, H. E. vi. 8, and Jerome, Epist. 29, Opp. tom. iv. part ii. p. 68. If Demetrius was not envious of the growing reputation of Origen, or otherwise affected by personal antipathy, it seems impossible to account for the rancour he manifested.-Mur. 5 This account is derived from the original sources, especially from Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vi. 23. Pho tius, Biblioth. cod. cxviii. Jerome, De Viris Illustr. and Origen himself.-It differs, in some respects, from that given by the common writers, Doucin, Huet, and others. [That Demetrius accused Origen of erroneous sentiments, is a mere conjecture of Mosheim and others, which however is expressly denied by Jerome. Epis. ad Paulam, No. 29, Opera, tom. iv. par. ii. col. 68 and 480, ed. Martianay. Neither is it certain that De metrius assembled two councils. See Walch, Hist. der Kirchenversam. p. 92, &c.-Mur. CHAPTER IV. HISTORY OF RELIGIOUS RITES. 1. ALL the monuments of this century which have come down to us show that there was a great increase of ceremonies. To the causes of this which have already been mentioned, may be added the passion for Platonic philosophy, or rather the popular superstition of the oriental nations respecting demons, which was adopted by the Platonists and received from them by the Christian doctors. For, from these opinions concerning the nature and the propensities of evil spirits, many of these rites evidently took their rise. Hence arose the public exorcisms, the multiplication of fasts, and the aversion to matrimony. Hence the caution not to have intercourse with those who were either not yet baptized, or had been excluded from the communion of the church, because such were considered as under the power of some evil spirit; and to pass over other things, hence the painful austerities and penances which were enjoined upon offenders.1 face of testimony which is altogether unexceptionable. 3. Those who conducted religious worship annexed longer prayers and more of ceremony to the celebration of the Lord's Supper; and this I suppose with no bad intentions. Neither those doing penance nor those not yet baptized were allowed to be present at the celebration of this ordinance; which practice it is well known was derived from the pagan mysteries. That golden and silver vessels were used in it, is testified among others by Prudentius, 6 and I see no reason to doubt the fact in respect to the more opulent Christian churches. The time of its administra tion was different, according to the state and circumstances of the churches. Some deemed the morning, some the afternoon, and some the evening, to be the most suitable time for its celebration." Neither were all agreed how often this most sacred ordinance should be repeated. But all believed it absolutely necessary to the attainment of Yet 4 Beveridge, Ad Canon. iii. Apostol. p. 461, and his Codex Canon. Vindicatus, p. 78. [The Christians originally abhorred the use of incense in public worship as being a part of the worship of idols. See Tertullian, Apolog. cap. xlii.; and De Corona Militis, cap. x. they permitted its use at funerals against offensive smells. Afterwards it was used at the induction of magistrates and bishops and also in public worship, to temper the bad air of crowded assemblies in hot countries, and at last degenerated into a superstitious rite. 5 See Pfaff, Diss. ii. De Præjudic. Theolog. sec. 13, p. 149, &c.; and Bingham, Antiquit. Eccles. book x. chap. v. - Schl. 6 Hepi σTepáv. Hymn. ii. p. 60, ed. Heinsii [and 2. That the Christians now had in most provinces certain edifices in which they assembled for religious worship will be denied by no candid and impartial person. Nor would I contend strenuously against those who think these edifices were frequently adorned with images and other ornaments.--Schl. As to the forms of public worship and the times set apart for it, it is unnecessary here to be particular, as little alteration was made in this century. Yet two things deserve notice. First, the public discourses to the people underwent a change. For, not to mention Origen, who was the first, so far as we know, that made long discourses in public, and in his discourses expounded the sacred volume, there were certain bishops, who being educated in the schools of the rhetoricians, framed their addresses and exhortations according to the rules of Grecian eloquence, and their example met the most ready approbation. Secondly, the use of incense was now introduced, at least into many churches. Very learned men have denied this fact; but they do it in the Optatus Milevit. De Schismate Donatist. cap. xii. p. In 8 It was commonly administered every Sunday, as well as on other festival days; and in times of persecu tion, daily. See Cyprian, De Oratione Domin. p. 209, Ep. lvi. p. 90, Ep. liv. p. 78, ed. Baluze.-Schl. |