native sphere; but they who neglect, are then sent into other bodies of men, brutes, or plants, to repeat their mortal course of discipline, until they are fitted for heaven. Such, however, as fight against the truth and persecute its adherents, are first driven into the dominions of the prince of darkness, to be tormented awhile in flame, before they transmigrate again upon earth.

At length, in the fulness of times, when all souls, or nearly. all, shall have been reclaimed, and the captive particles of light won back to the kingdom of Deity, the whole of this world shall be destroyed by fire. Some of the Manicheans, perhaps, held the restoration of all souls ;3 but none of them, the salvation of Hyle and his demons. These were independent powers, over whom, so long as they remain in their own sphere, the true God claims no jurisdiction. After the end of our world, they are to be forever restricted to their original empire of darkness, unblest with the least mixture of the good substance; and if any human souls shall be found utterly irreclaimable, they will be stationed, as a guard, on the frontiers of that realm, to keep the evil hosts within their rightful dominions.

Like other Gnostics, the Manicheans denied the resurrection of the body. We have only to add that they rejected the Old Testament, pretended that many parts of the New, especially of the four Gospels, had been interpolated, either by ignorant or designing men; and that they received the writings of Mani, as of canonical authority.4

3. Beausobre, Hist. de Manichee, Tom. ii. pp. 569-575. And Lardner's Credibility, &c. Chap. Mani and his followers, Sect. iv. 18.

4. The sources whence I have drawn this short account of Manicheism, are Moshemii De Rebus Christianorum &c. pp. 728-903; Beausobre's large work, Histoire de Manichee et du Manicheisme; and Lardner's Credibility of the Gospel Hist. Part ii. Chap. lxiii. Of Beausobre, however, I have made but little

III. To us their scheme of doctrine appears almost too monstrous for conception; but to those brought up in the oriental philosophy, it was an ingenious system, the fundamental principles of which accorded with all their prejudices and habits of thinking. Nor was it so utterly shocking to the more simple-minded Greeks; and the advantages it was supposed to offer, in accounting for the introduction of evil without implicating the purity and goodness of God, counterbalanced weighty objections, in the opinion of many. When it had spread in Persia and other oriental countries awhile, it began to appear among the Christians in the eastern part of the Roman empire, as early, probably, as A. D. 280; but, here, its progress was, at first, undoubtedly slow, as the orthodox fathers do not seem to have taken any notice of it, till thirty or forty years afterwards.

use, except what may be derived from Lardner's remarks, extracts and references.

CHAPTER VI.

[From A. D. 254, to A. D. 390.]

I. Throughout the long period, of nearly a century and a half, to be surveyed in this chapter, there is not an intimation found that Origen's Universalism gave any offence in the church, notwithstanding his writings, the meanwhile, underwent the severest scrutiny, and were frequently attacked on other points. In order to give a full view of the state of that doctrine in this age, we must attempt a narration intricate and often digressive, stating not only the opinions of all the principal fathers concerning future punishment, but likewise all the complaints and controversies that arose on Origen's sentiments.1 As we proceed we shall dis

1. Huetii Origeniana, (inter Origenis Opera) particularly Lib. ii. cap. 4. directs to nearly all the materials for a history of Origen's doctrine. By his doctrine, we mean, of course, not his Universalism in particular, but his general religious system, or rather the whole body of his peculiar tenets. Whoever has perused Huet's work, will scarcely be repaid for reading the smaller and less critical treatise, "Histoire de l'Origenisme, par le P. Louis Doucin," published at Paris, 1700, in one volume, small 12mo. of 388 narrow pages; but even this contains much more information than Bishop Rust's "Letter of Resolution concerning Origen, and the Chief of his Opinions, which may be found in the first volume of The Phenix, a miscellaneous work begun at London in 1707. I have seen the following titles, but not the works: "Joh. Hen. Horbii Historia Origeniana, sive de ultima origine et progressu Hæreseos Origenis Adamantii." Franc. 1670; and "Berrow's Illustration and Defence of the Opinions of Origen." 4to.

cover, what is a very important fact, that even the few who treated his name with indignity, and bitterly censured various parts of his doctrine, uniformly passed, in silence, over the prominent tenet of Universal Salvation.

A. D. 257,

to 263.

It was but a few years after his death that some of his views appear to have been, for the first time, publicly impeached; though in this instance, without mentioning his name. Origen had combatted, even in his earliest publications, the prevailing notion of Christ's personal reign on earth for a thousand years; and his successive attacks, which he continued to urge against this point with more than his wonted spirit, had eventually brought it into disrepute, to the great dissatisfaction of the few who still adhered to it. Towards the year 260, as is supposed, Nepos, bishop of some place in Egypt, published in its defence, a Confutation of the Allegorists: a title which aimed, undoubtedly, against Origen and his followers. This book, now lost, was well received in some parts of Egypt, particularly in the district of Arsinoe, south of the lake Moris; where the doctrine of the Millennium began to revive, and in the course of a few years, involved several churches in schism. But Dionysius the Great, formerly a scholar of Origen, and now bishop of Alexdria, happening in the infected district, about A. D. 262, succeeded in bringing over all its advocates to his own opinions.2

II. It will be readily believed that so obscure and

Cave's Lives of the Fathers, Chap. Dionysius, § 15. And Mosheim, De Rebus Christian. &c. pp. 720-728.

momentary a disturbance could not affect the renown of Origen. Accordingly, we find that, twenty or thirty years afterwards, to call an author by his name, was generally

A. D. 280, - 290.

esteemed a peculiar honor; and it appears that he was imitated by some Egyptian writers, particularly by the learned Pierius, a presbyter of Alexandria, and by Theognostus, president of the Catechetical School in that city,—the works of both of whom have perished.3 But though his memory was held in general veneration, it seems, nevertheless, that the division, originally occasioned by Demetrius, still continued, in some degree, among the Egyptian churches.4

A. D. 290, - 300.

And in Asia, a public attack, more direct and hostile than that of Nepos, was, about this time, made upon several points of his doctrine, Methodius, bishop at first of Olympus in Lycia, and then of Tyre, became, from some cause unknown, bitterly prejudiced against his memory, and sought every means to render it odious. He published, professedly against him, a treatise On the Resurrection, another On the Pythoness or Witch of Endor, and a third on Created Things; in all which, as well as in some other pieces, he inveighed against his opinions, and sometimes treated his name with angry abuse. In the first, he directed his attacks against such of Origen's notions as may be comprised under the following heads, viz.

3. See the accounts of Pierius and Theognostus, in Du Pin, Lardner, &c. 4. Petrus Alexandrinus, apud Justiniani Epist. ad Menam, quoted by Du Pin.