{"collection":"chr","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/chr/ecf/006/footnote/fn56.htm","path":"chr/ecf/006/footnote/fn56.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/006/footnote/fn56.htm","text":"14 [Recur to what is said of Origen and his epoch on p. 224, vol. iv. of this series.]\n15 [Recur to what is said of Origen and his epoch on p. 224, vol. iv. of this series.]\n16 [Here is our author's conclusive condemnation of Origen, whose great mistake, I have supposed, gave occasion to this extraordinary work. Possibly the epoch of Anthony had revived such discussions when this was written.]\n17 Introduction to the Dialogues, etc. Dobson's translation, Cambridge, 1836.\n18 See his work On the Apocalypse, Lecture IX. p. 198, ed Philadelphia, 1852.\n20 Vol. v. p. 217, this series.\n21 Works, vol. i. p. 447, ed. Paris, 1845.\n23 See The Eirenicon of Dr. Pusey, ed. New York, 1866.\n1 [This debate between Orthodoxus and a Valentinian reminds us of the Octavius of Minucius Felix, vol iv.]\n6 Iliad, ix. 4, H. (Cowper's Tr.).\n8 [See the essay of Archbishop King On the Origin of Evil, ed. Cambridge, 1739. Law's annotations in this edition are valuable. See also Dr. Bledsoe, Theodicy, and Elucidation VIII. p. 522, vol. ii, this series. Of Leibnitz (refuting Bayle), no need to speak here. Comp. Addison, Spectator, Nos. 237 and 519; also Parnell's Hermit; also Jer. xii. 1.]\n9 The reader will here naturally think of the great and long-continued Manichaean controversy.-Tr.\n10 [See Routh, R. S., tom. ii. p. 98, and note p. 115, and all Routh's notes on Maximus, the original of Methodius, of whom see Eusebius, H. E., book v. cap. 27.]\n11 Jahn's reading is here followed.\n12 The text is here in an uncertain state. Cf. Migne and Jahn.","title":"chr/ecf/006/footnote/fn56.htm","type":"page"}