ON ST. DEMETRIUS OF ALEXANDRIA, BISHOP AND CONFESSOR, IN EGYPT,
In the year of Christ 231.
HISTORICO-CRITICAL COLLECTION.
Demetrius, bishop and confessor, at Alexandria in Egypt. (S.)
BY I. H.
§ I. The memory of the Saint from the Abyssinian Fasti, his wonderful election to the episcopate, his chastity prodigiously proved, and the various Martyrs of that time are exhibited against Dodwell.
The Saint, whose announcement today among the Abyssinians, This eleventh Bishop of the Alexandrians after St. Mark the Evangelist, most widely known for the things done between him and Origen, is announced thus in the sacred Fasti both of the Ethiopians and of the Copts at the 12th day of the month Babah, or the 9th of our October: Demetrius, Patriarch of Alexandria. Another memory likewise of this Patriarch is celebrated in exactly the same words in the Ethiopian Calendar at the 8th day of March, which for the Abyssinians is the 12th of Barmaha, or Bermahat. But this latter announcement seems to designate not the death-day of our Saint, but that on which his unstained chastity, even in marriage, was prodigiously made manifest: for in the Abyssinian Hagiology, which an anonymous poet of that nation composed, more probably at the beginning of the XIIIth century, an explanation of this kind is added: Because today he (St. Demetrius) showed the virtue of his virginity. Besides what has been said thus far, scarcely anything has become known to us from elsewhere about the sanctity or cult of Demetrius, if you except one fragment taken from the Mystagogia of St. Peter, the XVIIth bishop of the Alexandrians, which is read in the Letter of the emperor Justinian to Menas, tome 5 of the Councils, column 651, where with St. Heraclas Demetrius is called a Blessed Bishop; and Job Ludolf, by whom, in the Annotations on the Abyssinian Fasti, he is called a Man distinguished for sanctity and wisdom. Nor have I found anything from elsewhere standing in the way of the sanctity and cult of Demetrius, for which a place should be denied him in our Acts.
[2] although married, prodigiously elected patriarch of Alexandria Further, the cited Abyssinian poet, and Abulbaracat, an Arab writer, in Vansleb, treat more fully of his deeds; likewise Abraham Ecchellensis the Maronite, in the Oriental Chronicle printed by the Paris press in the year 1651. And above all, wonderful are the things which the latter two writers committed to writing about the election of Demetrius to the patriarchal dignity, indicating at the same time what rule of life he followed before the episcopate. Namely, no one hitherto, unless celibate, had ascended the Apostolic chair of St. Mark at Alexandria. Demetrius, a farmer, who long before had married the daughter of his paternal uncle, and had kept his virginity unimpaired with her, sustained his life by the labour of his hands: at which time a deadly disease seized the patriarch Julian and brought him to his last extremity. And to him, on the night preceding his death, when he had undoubtedly earnestly prayed God to supply a vigilant pastor, worthy of the chair of Mark, to the flock now about to be left by him, and not to be loath to disclose him to him in his agony, an angel straightway stood by, and indicated the successor in these words: He who shall come in to thee bringing a cluster of grapes, he shall be patriarch after thee. When the dying Julian had related this once and again to the people asking who would succeed him after his death, all, struck by the strangeness of the thing (for they judged that neither could ripe grapes be found at the beginning of March, when this had to happen, nor could the Prelate, already breathing his last, survive to the vintage), persuaded themselves that the old man, overcome by the force of the disease, did not know what he was saying, until they saw Demetrius, who either the day before or perhaps that morning, pruning his vineyard, had by chance found a cluster of grapes left over, bringing it to the Patriarch. And here all wondered, and seized the man, destined to them indeed from heaven, but meditating flight because he reckoned himself unworthy of the episcopate, bound him with iron chains, and, Julian having now been snatched from among the living, caused him to be consecrated Patriarch. All which things, although perhaps they are not straightway to be counted among fabrications, I nevertheless do not think will have undoubted credit with all, because they are read only in writers much removed from the end of the IInd century, in which they happened, and convicted by various writers of very many slips. Besides, it is greatly to be wondered at that Abulbaracat here admits to the patriarchal throne, raised by the consent of the whole people, not one of the twelve priests, as he had falsely contended must be done according to the institution of St. Mark (see Vansleb's History of the Church of Alexandria, Part 1, chapter 5, where he wrongly extends this manner of electing up to Alexander, the XIXth bishop of Alexandria), but a layman, but a married man. Nor do the petty reasonings which are brought forward by Selden, a favourer of the same opinion, do anything to exempt him from this error, and you will find them refuted professedly, as they say, in our Sollerius in the Patriarchs of Alexandria.
[3] And this election of Demetrius, illustrious with so many prodigies, according to the accurate Chronology of the cited Sollerius concerning him, in the year of Christ 189, he sits 43 incomplete years. which we shall presently report here in compendium, is to be bound to the 4th or 3rd before the Nones of March, lest we stray from the truth in the time of his episcopate assigned by Eusebius and others, as is clear from what follows. Julian having died on the 4th day of March of the year 189, Demetrius is set over the church of Alexandria on the same or the following day, and occupies the see 42 years (which number is to be substituted for XXXII in the patriarchal History of Ecchellensis) and 219 days, or 7 months with 4 days. And if you add this number of years, months and days to the 4th or 5th of March of the year 189, you fall on the 8th or 9th day of October of the year 231, on one or other of which he more probably made an end of living, and obtained sacred cult among the Egyptians. Thus nearly the praised Sollerius in his Chronology of the Patriarchs of Alexandria. Would that it were permitted to decide so probably about the remaining things which are read to have been done under Demetrius and by him, and which were referred hither by our Forebears for discussion whenever discourse fell on Demetrius! For they had hoped, namely, that it would come about that we should at some time obtain fuller documents about this Patriarch, which they themselves had so often sought in vain. But since this has turned out otherwise, let us investigate only those things which they too were permitted both to see and to note.
[4] Before the rest, there occurs that prodigy, of which you could with difficulty define from any source at what time it happened, His chastity having been attacked by which the holy Patriarch openly proved his own and his wife's chastity before a most crowded people. Very many of the Alexandrians bore most grievously that their more hidden offences were objected to them by the most chaste Prelate, to whom God had granted the grace of penetrating the hearts of men, and feared lest what he had hitherto done secretly from others, led by the Gospel precept, he should at length, having discovered their obstinacy in wickedness, publish also before the assembled people. Hence they first muttered among themselves, and then, in order to lower utterly the authority of their Prelate, did not shrink from saying openly: Since this Man (the words are those of the patriarchal History) is joined in matrimony, how does he reprove us, especially since hitherto none but a virgin has sat upon this throne? Where, when Job Ludolf, a man otherwise most illustrious but too favourable to the marriages of priests, asks: If the Alexandrians themselves elected and established as patriarch a man joined with a wife, WITH WHAT MIND OR RIGHT could they afterwards murmur? He could answer himself: that it was done with a mind to calumniate, and with no right at all, since that was at that time prohibited by no law. But to the matter. Lest, further, slanders of this kind, scattered among the common people, should bring great harm to the Pontiff's reputation, God, a messenger having been sent down from heaven, bade Demetrius be of good heart, and at the same time disclosed the order of the prodigy by which the detractions of the malevolent might go off into the winds. Straightway on the following day (it was the Thursday of Holy Week), the holy Patriarch, relying on divine power, having celebrated the most holy Sacrifice of the Mass, ordered the clergy and laity through the archdeacon that no one should go out of the church, but that all should come as near as they could to the episcopal throne.
[5] vindicated by a miracle, it is celebrated every year at Alexandria. These things having been done, he ordered the linen cloth with which his wife, standing by, was girded to be filled with burning coals, then incense to be thrown on them, and so to go round his spouse and burn incense. And when the people wondered that this was carried on for a sufficiently long space of time, the linen always untouched, and then had heard the Prelate expounding the causes of the miracle, they at once recognised the altogether inviolate virginity of the Pastor and of his wife. And this is that celebrated prodigy, of which the church of Alexandria afterwards decreed that a solemn memory should be kept every year on the eighth day of March, and of which the Abyssinian poet praised above sang in this manner at the cited day: Greeting to Demetrius … today he showed the virtue of his virginity through the grace of Christ, wrapping fire in his bosom and in the tunic of his wife. For men had doubted of it. But why that feast is celebrated on that day, on which, if the things are true which Demetrius decreed about the observance of Easter (of which afterwards), and which are commonly admitted by the Orientals, the Thursday of Holy Week could not fall, who could attain even by conjecture? And Demetrius was then passing, as is established from the sermon delivered by him to the people on this occasion, the sixty-third year of his life, and there was running the forty-eighth year since he had entered into marriage with his cousin. Whence it becomes plain indeed that he joined himself in matrimony in the 15th or 16th year of his age, not yet completed: but (which is the observation of Sollerius under Demetrius, number 119, after Tillemont, note 21 on Origen) no light is shed hence on determining in which year of the patriarchate this happened. For you would neither rightly bind it to the end of it, lest he be said to have obtained the patriarchal dignity from his twentieth year; nor to the beginning, lest — which, all being silent, equally departs from probability — he be said to have prolonged his life to the hundred and sixth year.
Although, if the patriarchal History were of undoubted authority, and these words, subjoined to the address of Demetrius to the people after the prodigy related a little before, Having said these things, he himself rested with his wife, signified that he departed from among the living at once, the former opinion would have to be stood by. But since they can no less plainly indicate a dwelling with his wife afterwards quiet and free from all suspicion, one thing only remains, that, until it is established more certainly from elsewhere, we leave the matter undecided and proceed to the things which further concern Demetrius.
[6] Of the Cycle of Epacts There is a most celebrated dispute among the learned about the inventor of the Epacts, some of whom judge that this praise is to be attributed to our Demetrius, others to others. And Scaliger indeed, in his illustrious Work on the Year of the Egyptians, writes rightly thus of the Paschal cycle of the Alexandrians: The Alexandrians first of all both instituted the nineteen-year cycle and taught the Epacts, which would indicate the new moon in the first or second month. Then Leo the Great, ascribing skill in the sacred times to the bishop of Alexandria, has thus in chapter 64 to the emperor Marcian: The holy Fathers, therefore, took pains to remove the occasion of this error, delegating all this care to the Bishop of Alexandria, since among the Egyptians the skill of this computation seemed to have been handed down from of old, by which it might be indicated to the Apostolic See when the single days of the aforesaid solemnity would fall, so that by its writings the judgment might run generally to the more distant churches. Eutychius of Alexandria sets the matter out somewhat more clearly, tome 1 of the Annals of Alexandria, in these words: At that time Demetrius, patriarch of Alexandria, wrote to Gabius, bishop of Jerusalem, to Maximus, patriarch of Antioch, and to Victor, patriarch of Rome, about the method of the Paschal computation and of the fast of the Christians, and how it is deduced from the Passover of the Jews; on which matter they wrote many little books and letters, until they established the Easter of the Christians in the manner which is now observed. From which, although it is not altogether established that this cycle was first devised by Demetrius, it is nevertheless clear that Scaliger went astray when he judged that the origin of the Epacts is not older than the times of Diocletian.
[7] Most openly of all speaks the Abyssinian poet in the elogium is asserted the discoverer, which he directs to Demetrius thus: Greeting to Demetrius, institutor of abstinence from drink, and appointer of foods at Pentecost. Unless he had revealed it through the Holy Spirit, how would the computation have been found, whose name is Epact? Where in passing it helps to note, with Job Ludolf, most knowing in Oriental matters and tongues, who here reads of fasts for of abstinence, that by the former words it is signified that Demetrius ordained fixed fasts, in which abstinence was made not only from food but also from drink, and ordered them to cease at the time of Pentecost: whence also it is given to be understood what that abstinence from drink and what the Pentecostal foods indicate, both of which Sollerius professed he did not know, in the Patriarchs of Alexandria, number 114. Now indeed the forepraised Ludolf concludes, chiefly from this and from the earlier testimony of Eutychius, that the invention of the Epacts proceeded from Demetrius. Besides, he refutes Pearson, who detracts credit from Eutychius praising Demetrius because he asserted some bishops of Jerusalem and Antioch for others, and because the prelates of Palestine made no mention of Demetrius in their letter to Victor, the Roman Pontiff. For Eutychius, although erring in naming the bishops, as is clear from Eusebius, book V of the Ecclesiastical History, by no means treats here of the Paschal controversy, namely whether that feast is to be celebrated on the Lord's day or on the fourteenth of the moon, in which cause Demetrius had no part; but of the method of the Paschal computation to be found out for the Lord's day by the Epacts. Nor were the bishops of Palestine, writing to the Roman Pontiff about the celebration of Easter, not about finding the cycle of the Epacts, necessarily bound to mention Demetrius. Ludolf adds further that it is probable that that constitution of the Epacts, or their solemn introduction into all the churches, at least the Eastern ones, was not made without an assembly and council of the other bishops. Which opinion Sollerius likewise confirms with his own vote under Demetrius, number 116, citing with Ludolf the anonymous Abyssinian poet, who sings thus at the 2nd day of Hatur, that is, the 29th of October: Greeting to you priests worthy of praise and encomium, who ran quickly (Sollerius: ran together) without delay into one place to the congregation and assembly, (that) you might receive from father Demetrius the knowledge of the computation of Epacts which the Holy Spirit had taught.
[8] and several celebrated for martyrdom in Egypt in his time are brought forward. More certain are the things which are found handed down to memory about the martyrdom of very many, endured in the time of this Patriarch. Namely, in the year of Christ 202, the XIVth of the patriarchate of Demetrius, a most atrocious persecution blazed up against the churches under Severus, who had been brought to the helm of the empire as early as the 2nd of June of the year 193, Didius Julianus having been killed; which persecution Dodwell tries in vain to diminish, the most ancient writers opposing, especially Eusebius, book 6 of the Ecclesiastical History: for in that tempest there was such raging against the Christians with such great fury that, as St. Jerome, chapter 52 of On Illustrious Men, and the cited Eusebius witness, it was commonly thought that the time of antichrist was already at hand. Severus himself, staying in Egypt at that time, so inflamed that persecution by his presence and most severe edicts that an innumerable multitude of Christians, harassed throughout all Egypt by various tortures and punishments, underwent the glorious contest for the name of Christ. And although all the provinces of that region were watered with the blood of holy Martyrs, yet the chief theatre of Severian cruelty was the city of the Alexandrians: for thither were dragged, to be butchered and slaughtered in the most dreadful ways, as many Christians of singular fortitude or excellence as were seized in the Thebaid and the other tracts of Egypt. Among these the most illustrious in the writings of the ancient authors were Leonides, father of Origen, to whom some add as companions Arator, Quiriacus, Basilia, concerning whom consult our Work at the 22nd of April: then Plutarch, brother of St. Heraclas, the successor of Demetrius, the two Sereni, Heraclides and Heron, all disciples of Origen: and finally one of the officers who had led St. Potamiaena, of whom presently, to punishment, named Basilides. Of the female sex the most widely known are a certain Herais, still a catechumen, and Potamiaena together with her mother Marcella, who were consumed by fire. More about these and others, related from the History of Eusebius and from elsewhere, is to be found with us in tome V of June, page 355 and following. To the time of this persecution likewise is not undeservedly bound what the Oriental Chronicle relates in this manner under Julian, patriarch of Alexandria: After him (Julian) no bishop could remain at Alexandria; but they went out secretly and appointed priests in every place. But the no small difficulty which that particle after produces here on account of the extension of 14 years I do not care to discuss, since our Sollerius, in the Patriarchs of Alexandria, number 122, has examined it at sufficient length, and has proved by strong reasons that the secret departure of the bishops from Alexandria is to be ascribed not to some sedition, although otherwise sufficiently frequent in that city, but to the Severian persecution. These things having thus been discussed, let us return to Demetrius.
§ II. The sentence of exile passed by St. Demetrius against Origen is examined.
[The state of the most difficult controversy about Origen, certain things being noted beforehand.] A matter now occurs to be treated, referred by one or another of my predecessors to this day, namely the condemnation of Origen, and his departure from the city of Alexandria, Demetrius labouring for it with a twofold synod. Very many have found it so intricate and liable to so many and such great difficulties that, after a long inquiry of ancient as well as more recent authors, writing both for Origen and against him, they almost hesitated in doubt whether they should maintain, with Eusebius — who, which is most to be noted, certainly favoured Origen more than was fair — that Demetrius here suffered something human, or that Origen was punished with this penalty deservedly. And that a fair judgment may be passed on that matter, two things above all are to be investigated, namely the time at which Origen fled from Alexandria condemned, and the things which he did there and committed to writing before the condemnation. In the XIVth year, then, of the patriarchate of Demetrius, of Christ 202, Origen, when he had not yet completed the seventeenth year of his age, having been bereaved of his father by an illustrious martyrdom, in order to procure a living for himself, and perhaps also for his mother and six brothers in want of everything, undertook with such great zeal to teach the more humane letters, as they call them, and then the Work of Catechesis, that afterwards, confirmed by Demetrius … in the place of Clement, says St. Jerome, Ecclesiastical Writers, chapter 54, he flourished for many years in the fame of his teaching. And since not only men but also very many of the weaker sex, even younger ones, flocked to him daily for the sake of learning, in order that men might not be able to suspect anything sinister about him, or, as Eusebius says, Ecclesiastical History, book 6, chapter 8, in order to take away from unbelievers every occasion of obscene rumour and calumny, he undertook to carry out in very deed on himself the saying of the Saviour, Matthew 19: There are some Eunuchs who have castrated themselves for the kingdom of heaven, in the twenty-first year of his age, according to Huet following Baronius. The cited Eusebius adds that Origen applied the greatest diligence lest that deed of his should become known to anyone. In which he plainly seems to have forgotten what was said a little before: for if, as he had said above (the observation is Huet's), Origen did this in order to stop the mouths of the malevolent, especially of the unbelievers, and to remove from himself every suspicion of unchastity among men, how could he have wished to hide that deed, which it greatly concerned him should be spread abroad?
[10] When this matter had reached the ears of Demetrius, he indeed admired the young man's daring, is proposed, but by no means approved the deed: yet neither did he judge that Origen was on that account to be removed from the office of teaching. He continued, therefore, to bear the care of instructing the catechumens and others, being wont meanwhile to spend the time, if any was free from the work of teaching, in bringing to light commentaries written on various places of Scripture, and likewise other works, among which the famous book On First Principles comes to be numbered. Some years afterwards, having set out into Achaia for the sake of certain affairs with letters of commendation from his Bishop, he came to Caesarea of Palestine, and there, Demetrius not having been consulted beforehand either by letter or by messenger, he was ordained priest by Theoctistus, pontiff of that city, Alexander, prelate of Jerusalem, approving, more probably in the year of Christ 228, and the 43rd of his age. Demetrius bore this ordination ill, and complained of it to the praised bishops and others. Origen nevertheless returned to Alexandria, now a priest, and there discharged his customary office, until, condemned thence by a twofold synod, or a little before, as some would have it, he hurried away to Caesarea in the year 231.
[11] and not from the hatred and envy of Demetrius, as Eusebius contends, And here it is that the wits of the learned are so greatly racked in passing their judgment on the condemned Origen, some maintaining that that condemnation proceeded unjustly and from the hatred and envy of Demetrius, others that it was passed most justly on account of the priesthood received from a foreign bishop, some on account of a lapse in faith in the time of persecution, and finally others on account of the poison of heresy scattered in his books, especially in that which is entitled On First Principles.
Before I disclose what seems to be decided amid so many conflicts of the dissenting parties, it will help to bring forward the reasons of each and to examine whether they are sufficiently firm. As regards the first, then, these follow as leader Eusebius, a most notorious follower of the Arian impiety, nay, as St. Jerome calls him in the Apologetic book against Rufinus, a heretical man, the standard-bearer and prince of the Arian faction, and even for that reason most hostile to the orthodox prelate Demetrius. They allege therefore the authority of him speaking thus in book 6 of the Ecclesiastical History: And at that time indeed Demetrius was of this kind. But not much time after, when he saw him (Origen) increasing daily with prosperous successes, and celebrated now as great and illustrious in the talk of all, having suffered something human (namely the goads of envy), he began, by letters written to all the bishops everywhere on earth, to rail at that deed of Origen (of which at number 9) as most absurd. And a few things between, Then, therefore, he says, when Origen flourished with immense glory, and had obtained the greatest name among all mortals everywhere on account of virtue and wisdom, Demetrius, since he had nothing else to object to him, accused him of that deed which he had once committed as a youth. But what need had he, unless he too, an Arian man, burned with the highest envy and hatred against the Catholic Demetrius, of repeating the mention of that hatred and envy within the small space of the same book and the same chapter? Nor, I think, did he treat the holy Patriarch more mildly in those Apologetic books for Origen which he alone wrote, the holy martyr Pamphilus having no part in them, as St. Jerome, book 1 against Rufinus, most manifestly proves from these words of Eusebius himself: And he himself (St. Pamphilus) wrote absolutely nothing of his own Work, except letters which he perchance sent to friends; unless perhaps someone could so write six entire books, or a great part of them, that he must nevertheless be said to have written absolutely nothing of his own Work. I do not care to allege more bearing on this, because these things are read set forth more at length by Stilting in tome VIII of September of our Work, in the Life of St. Jerome, number 349 and following, and occur here and there in the books of St. Jerome against Rufinus.
[12] the falsity of which opinion, from the testimonies of others, But not even so does the stain of envy sprinkled on our Saint by Eusebius and his followers seem sufficiently wiped away, unless it be shown from elsewhere also that Origen deserved this persecution. Photius relates in the Bibliotheca, Codex 118, that two synods were gathered by Demetrius against Origen at Alexandria, in the former of which, the honour of the priesthood not being taken away, he was judged to have to be expelled from Alexandria: but in the latter, to which some bishops of Egypt had come together, he is said to have been stripped also of the priesthood, and to this condemnation, as St. Jerome cited by Rufinus, book 2 of the Apology, witnesses, the bishops of almost the whole world subscribed, except the priests of Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia and Achaia. Shall we think that this consent of the prelates of almost the whole world, conspicuous no less for holiness than for learning, to the condemnation of Origen also is to be ascribed to hatred, and to envy conceived from the fame of a private man? What could the celebrity of the Origenian name so greatly concern those far removed from the city of Alexandria, that, without any advantage at all, they of their own accord and willingly stained themselves with the blot of a most shameful crime? Did St. Jerome also, book 2 against Rufinus, say out of hatred against Origen that he wrote a letter in which he wholly tears Demetrius, pontiff of the city of Alexandria, and inveighs against the bishops and clergy of the whole world; and says that he was excommunicated by the churches in vain? From which words I think it is clear that the things which Rufinus recites from a fragment of a letter which Jerome had once written to St. Paula — in which, after the list of the Origenian Works had been set out, he is said to conclude thus — were either never written by Jerome, or certainly were dictated by him, from the Apology of Eusebius for Origen, not prudently enough (as he himself admits): What reward did he (Origen) receive for this labour? He is condemned by Demetrius the bishop … the city of Rome consents to his condemnation: she herself (others have: the world consents to his condemnation. Rome herself) assembles her senate against him, not on account of novelty of dogmas, not on account of heresy, as rabid dogs now pretend against him; but because they could not bear the glory of his eloquence and knowledge, and when he spoke all were thought dumb. Where it is clear that not all are Jerome's from the things which the Holy Doctor immediately subjoins in this manner: Why I have written these things, and dictated them by the little flame of a poor man's lamp in speech quick but not cautious, you can understand if you think of the Epicuruses and Aristippuses. Where that phrase, In speech not cautious, seems to hint that St. Jerome believed it permitted to him to take a little more liberty in reporting the things of others, especially since he warned that they were uttered in speech not cautious: unless someone prefers that these things were written by him before he knew the heresy of Origen more fully. But more things pertaining to Jerome will follow afterwards.
[13] Meanwhile, besides those already brought forward, two things are worth investigating concerning that hatred of Demetrius against Origen invented by Eusebius: and of the times the one is the very time at which Demetrius began to spread it with so great a crash among all the bishops everywhere on earth; the other, whether this one crime which the young Origen had once committed against himself could be objected by Demetrius in order to satisfy his spite against his enemy. Namely, that hatred broke out after he had not only treated most kindly Origen, who for about XXII years since his mutilation had been teaching in his city with the incredible applause of all, but had also, when he returned from Rome to Alexandria, vehemently exhorted him, and almost entreated him, to serve tirelessly the advantage of the brethren by continuing the office of teaching, as Eusebius himself has it, book 6 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 14. What sane man, if he burns with hatred against another, conceived from his glory, will exhort him to deign to undertake an office from which he judges so much praise has come and will further come to his adversary? It broke out after he had at once dismissed into Arabia Origen, who had been asked by letters by the Duke of Arabia, moved by the fame of his learning, to hasten to him (Eusebius, cited chapter 19), not at all anxious about the new and signal increase of glory which he foresaw would beyond doubt come to his enemy. Finally that most bitter hatred broke out when Origen had already visited the mother of the emperor Alexander at Antioch, about to acquire no small honour from this journey, Demetrius assuredly permitting. Which matter Eusebius sets forth thus, in the book cited, chapter 21: Further, the mother of the emperor Alexander, … since the name of Origen was now held most celebrated everywhere, so that it had been carried even to her own ears, desired to enjoy the sight of him, and to know by most certain experience the knowledge of divine things which all greatly admired in that man. Therefore she, staying at Antioch, having sent a military escort (not a simple letter, as the duke of Arabia had done), summoned the man and obtained him from Demetrius, who opposed nothing; who, if he had been unable to bear the fame of his subject growing immensely day by day, would undoubtedly have shuffled, and pleaded the very great harm which would arise to the church from the absence of a most laborious man, or something else.
[14] is refuted by the circumstances; Moreover, why did not even the least spark of that lurking hatred or envy manifest itself, when so great a number of hearers frequented his (Origen's) school from the first rising of light (the words are Eusebius's, book cited, chapter 15) until evening, that he was not permitted even to breathe because of them? When, in order that men might think more honourably of him, having taken as associate the most learned Heraclas, afterwards successor of Demetrius, he entrusted to him the instruction of those who were still being imbued with the first rudiments, and reserved to himself alone the more perfect to be taught? But, they say, Demetrius gave a signal specimen of envy gradually growing, when, on account of a most grievous war stirred up at Alexandria (Huet, book 1, chapter 2, number 6, notes the year of Christ 215, of Caracalla 5, of Origen about 30), he recalled by letters Origen, who had fled thence secretly and was staying at Caesarea; nay, having sent deacons of his church, did not cease to urge his return, until, having returned to Alexandria, he took up his customary office, as Eusebius cited relates, chapter 14. For Demetrius could not bear that so much honour was paid to Origen, still a youth and a layman, by the bishops of that region that they gave him the opportunity of discoursing publicly in church and expounding the sacred Letters. Hence the complaints of Demetrius to Alexander and Theoctistus, prelates of Jerusalem and of Caesarea. Shall we, forsooth, attribute to envy that Demetrius expostulated, in friendly letters and not (for if it were otherwise Eusebius would not have kept silent about it) very querulous ones and, as Halloix writes rather crudely in the Life of Origen, book 1, chapter XI, bitter ones, about what he judged had been granted to a man of his jurisdiction by foreign bishops contrary to the custom of all the churches, and what he himself had therefore never permitted to be done in his church? If he brought back to Alexandria, first by letter and then by deacons sent, a master hitherto very useful to his flock and now perhaps too long absent, yet reproaching Origen in nothing on his return, but admitting him most kindly to the customary office of teaching, as he afterwards proceeded with him when already a priest? But whether, as I had said at the beginning of number 13 was to be treated here, no other crime than that which the young Origen had committed could be objected to him will be clear from what is to be said afterwards. Meanwhile all the aforesaid things seem, in my judgment at least, to suffice abundantly for us to believe that all spite was most remote from the mind of Demetrius. Let us now hear those who contend that Origen was rightly condemned on account of the priesthood received at Caesarea.
[15] These strive to prove the ordination of Origen not only unlawful and most worthy of ecclesiastical penalties, nor on account of the priesthood received, for which canon XI of the Apostles, but almost invalid. And first indeed they would have Origen wrongly ordained because he had been made a eunuch not by the fault of nature or the injury of wicked men but by his own crime, the canon of the Apostles XXI ordaining, in the interpretation of Hervet: He who has mutilated himself, let him not be a cleric: he is (in Greek is added: for) his own murderer, and an enemy of God's handiwork. Which canon, they say, was published by the prelates of the primitive Church even before Origen, namely on account of the heresy of the Valesians which had arisen in the preceding century, who, perversely interpreting various places of Scripture, especially Matthew XIX, 12, made themselves eunuchs. For why, they say, did Demetrius, having been made certain of the voluntary castration of Origen, bid him be of good heart? Why, if he transgressed no ecclesiastical rule by this, did Origen take such anxious care that what he had done should be altogether hidden from others? Namely, lest the canonical penalty be inflicted on him. Then, they say, in order that one might be lawfully promoted to the sacred order of the priesthood, the consent of the clergy and people was required, and indeed of that church in which he who was to be initiated into the priesthood had either been born or had at least lived for no small space of time: which
had therefore been decreed, so that, if anyone of the clergy or people had anything to object to the one to be ordained, he might bring it forward openly, and thus ward off from the Church the scandal which would arise from the taking up of an unworthy man.
[16] To this point they cite first the things which Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 6, and the consent of the clergy and people chapter 43, narrates from the letter of St. Cornelius, bishop of the Romans, to Fabius, prelate of the church of Antioch, concerning the ordination of Novatian (whom, as Valois notes in the Annotation on chapter 45 of the Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius wrongly calls Novatus), namely that the bishop, who was hindered by the whole clergy and many laymen, in Greek ὃς διακωλυόμενος ὑπὸ παντὸς τοῦ κλἥρου, ἀλλὰ καὶ λαἳκῶν πολλῶν, from raising Novatian to the priestly dignity, asked that they would suffer this one only to be ordained by him. Then they bring forward the things which the Fathers of the council of Nicaea, held almost an entire century after the ordination of Origen, prescribe in the synodical letter to the bishops of Egypt about promoting clerics; among which they require the consent of the people, saying: μόνον εἰ ἄξιοι φαίνοιντο, καὶ ὁ λαὸς ἁιροῖτο, provided he seem fit and the people elect him, in Labbe, tome 2 of the Councils, column 251, letter A. They allege also a certain singular place, and, as they judge, most bearing on this, from the 18th Homily of St. Chrysostom on the 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians, which is found in tome X of the Paris Edition of the year 1732, where the holy Father speaks thus: For hear how in the time of the Apostles they themselves very often employed those over whom they presided as partners of counsel. For when they were creating seven deacons, they first referred it to the people: and when Peter (was electing) Matthias, he treated of the matter with all who were then present, men as well as women. Whence, they say, it is established that this custom of requiring the consent of the people in promotion to orders was derived from the very times of the Apostles. Finally, from the fact that very often the people, with tumultuous shoutings in the church itself, demanded that someone be made priest, nay sometimes even compelled it, as Paulinus testifies happened to himself at Barcelona, Letter 6 to Severus (in the Verona Edition of the year 1736 it is the first), and as St. Augustine relates of Pinianus, son of Albina, Letter 225 to Albina, they conclude that the vote of the people was always necessary in the election of priests. Now indeed the priesthood was conferred on Origen not only without the consent of the clergy and people of Alexandria, to whom it belonged to cast their vote about Origen, but even with them plainly ignorant of this matter, nay even without consulting his own bishop. All of which things sufficed Demetrius to drive Origen into exile and strike him with anathema. So they.
[17] are alleged in vain, as from the cited canon, But however these things, sufficiently plausible in appearance, may militate against the ordination of Origen, and so for his condemnation arising from this head; they nevertheless by no means seem to prove that anything stood in the way of his promotion to the priesthood, and accordingly that he was worthy on this ground to be struck with anathema. For indeed, besides that in the exposition of the synodical Letter of the bishops of Egypt and Alexandria against the doctrine of Origen there is read, tome V of the Councils, column 659: οὗτος … Ωριγένης … πρεσβύτερος χειροτονηθεὶς ὑπὸ τῆς κανονικῆς τε καὶ μιᾶς χειρὸς ἀληθινῆς, εἶχε τὸ ἀξίωμα τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου. This … Origen … ordained priest by a canonical, by one, by a true hand, had the dignity of a priest: I think the other things which have been brought forward also can help nothing. For as regards the canon of the Apostles (about whose authority, and that of others which are circulated under the name of the Apostles, I do not care to dispute), it can be greatly doubted whether it was in force from that time already, since, as Photius narrates, codex 118, the former Alexandrian synod gathered against Origen decreed that he was to be removed indeed from the office of teaching and also expelled from Alexandria, but by no means deprived of the priesthood or declared deprived. Had the ministers of the church gathered there perhaps come to such a pitch either of ignorance or of sloth that they did not know the chief rules of the Church, or shrank from subjecting their transgressor, from whom they had nothing much to fear, to the penalty of due deprivation? To what is added, namely that that canon seems to have been published before the deed of Origen on account of the heresy of the Valesians, and that Origen was bidden by Demetrius to be of good heart (for I pass over the anxiety of Origen to conceal his crime, already refuted above), let me also answer by asking. Why, if by that crime Origen seemed to follow the heresy of the Valesians, did not Demetrius at once cast him out of the chair of Catechesis? Did he perhaps hear of it only when he had already been consecrated priest? Why for XXII years did innumerable people continue to flock to the school of a man suspected, if not convicted, of the error of the Valesians, to some at least of whom that voluntary mutilation was not unknown? Could not Demetrius bid Origen be of good heart because he saw him, now better instructed, so oppressed with grief on account of the gravity of the crime that it seemed to be feared that he would no longer be equal to bearing the burden of teaching? I do not add, because it does not please me, the third answer to this objection of Natalis Alexander, tome 3 of the Ecclesiastical History, page 699, namely that Origen did not intend his emasculation, but only applied a drug, from which perhaps the emasculation followed beyond his design. For it is uncertain, as Natalis himself admits in the same place, how this was done by Origen; nay it is more probable, as St. Jerome witnesses, letter 41 (otherwise 65), and Nicephorus, book 5, chapter 8, says Pagi at the year of Christ 206, that Origen carried it out with the knife, his encomiast Eusebius being perpetually silent, who would by no means have been silent about it if he had accomplished it by a drug, which displays less cruelty. But if so, how would the emasculation have followed beyond his design?
[18] Weak likewise is the argument sought from the Letter of St. Cornelius to Fabius, of the letter of St. Cornelius and of the Nicene Fathers, and from that which the Nicene Fathers gave to the prelates of Egypt: for as regards Novatian, he had incurred here a manifest irregularity, as they call it; for, afflicted by adverse health, he had received baptism in bed, and already before the letter of Cornelius it had been provided by ecclesiastical law that none of those who, under the stress of disease, had been sprinkled in bed, that is, baptised, should be taken into the clergy: and since it had become known to the clergy and people that this was the case with Novatian, all rightly opposed themselves to his ordination, until they resolved to acquiesce at the prayers of the bishop, who removed that obstacle by his authority. All which things can be seen in Eusebius in the place cited by the adversaries. But nothing similar occurs in Origen: he had been lawfully baptised; the clergy and people of the church of Caesarea (if indeed this was then necessarily required) seem to have consented to his ordination, and I judge that this sufficed, since he was well known to the Caesareans, among whom he had long before stayed with the highest praise, and to whom he had now turned aside a second time, so that they could bear testimony about his rule of life and probity. Then, if anything can be deduced from the letter of Cornelius, it is only this, that the bishop did not wish to ordain Novatian, on account of the scandal of the opposing clergy and people, before that opposition, and so the danger of scandal, had been removed. Further, it is a far different thing not to oppose someone's promotion to orders, which was prudently thought necessary for the sake of avoiding scandal; another to approve it by positive consent, which is not shown to have always been required. And the synodical letter of the Nicene Fathers, written not before the year 325, is too remote from the times of Origen for it to seem that one should stand by it in this business. Add that the Fathers of the synod of Nicaea treat only of the bishops consecrated by Meletius the Schismatic, as Valois proves at length in the Annotations on book 6, chapter 43, of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius.
[19] But what of the words of St. Chrysostom, of the words of St. Chrysostom deriving from the Apostles that custom of the people consenting to someone's being taken into the clergy? Does the holy Doctor say that the Apostles always, or rather very often, employed those over whom they presided as partners of counsel in matters of this kind? What is asserted of the election of Matthias to the Apostolate proves nothing against the taking up of Origen to the simple priesthood, in which matter the Apostles, or their successors up to the times of Origen, are not always read to have consulted the people, or to have required its assent. And in the election of the deacons the Apostles judged that recourse was to be had to the people not of necessity, but led by most prudent counsel, so that the murmur stirred up by the Greeks against the Hebrews might be the more easily checked thereby, as the ministers whom they had chosen for themselves would be the more pleasing to them. It remains that I show that the argument sought from the tumultuous shoutings of the common people, and from the examples of Paulinus and Pinianus, is also of no great strength here. For I see only this proved thence, that the people at times, moved by the probity of some man, paid little attention to what the laws and statutes of the Church, which certainly never approved tumults and violence of this kind, required, and, when it saw that it could not attain its proposed end by any other way, wrongly judged that it was permitted to take refuge in the one remedy which remained, of disturbances and coercion.
[20] and is established by the refutation of the letters of commendation; Notwithstanding the things which we have thus far discussed, I cannot dissemble that it is certain from Eusebius and St. Jerome that the aforesaid ordination of Origen was borne most ill by Demetrius, and that he complained of it: yet I cannot admit what Natalis Alexander writes, tome 3 of the Ecclesiastical History, page 698 in my copy, that Demetrius unjustly raised a suit against Origen (why does he not add: and against Theoctistus and Alexander, whom, according to Eusebius, book 6, chapter 8, he had tried to involve in his accusations?), and attacked his ordination from the sole motive of envy, after having previously supported him with testimonial letters (of which Jerome alone makes mention, On Ecclesiastical Writers, chapters 54 and 62). For I can by no means persuade myself that those testimonial letters (to Jerome an ecclesiastical Letter) contained any commendation for receiving the priesthood, which Demetrius himself, if he had judged it either necessary or useful, could easily have conferred on Origen when he was about to set out: for why does Eusebius, everywhere in the Ecclesiastical History so anxious to twist all blame from Origen onto Demetrius, make no word about them there? Why does not even Origen himself, in that famous Letter which, having set out from Alexandria, he gave to his friends, and in which, as Jerome witnesses, he wholly tears his Patriarch and clergy, make any mention of these letters, than which he could have alleged nothing more solid for himself, nothing more suited to uncovering and breaking the calumny of his adversary? Shall we think that Demetrius came to such a pitch of impudence and madness that he opposed himself to the ordination, now conferred, of the very man for whose ordination he had a little before earnestly asked by letters of commendation, not at all thinking how with no trouble he could be refuted by the exhibition of his own letters? Moreover, why would he have committed Origen to be ordained to the very men to whom he had previously complained as of a violation of his right, because they had permitted a layman of his church to expound the Scriptures and to teach the people in the sacred buildings?
By all which things I am led to believe, first, that St. Jerome was interpolated in the cited places On Ecclesiastical Writers, as happened very often elsewhere in the editions of that book, as the editors of the Works of St. Jerome observe; or that he was deceived by the favourers of Origen, as he admits in his Apology against Rufinus happened to him in the supposed Apologetic of St. Pamphilus for Origen; or finally that it was written by him at a time when he did not yet know Origen more fully: then, that letters of commendation of this kind were given to Origen, by which the Bishops of the places through which his passage lay into Achaia were asked to receive him kindly on the journey undertaken and to accompany him with the greatest favour they could. However that may be, certainly Halloix, than whom I know no one more friendly to Origen, in book 1, chapter XI of the Life of Origen, candidly professes that this consecration, made without his own Prelate being consulted, seems not an unjust occasion of the offence of Demetrius.
[21] nor finally on account of the crime of idolatry committed, about which variously Some think that the third cause of Origen's exile was the crime of idolatry committed by him, among whom the illustrious Huet, book 1 of the Origeniana, chapter 2. And they cite and follow as leader St. Epiphanius, Heresy 64, chapter 2, who narrates that Origen, when he flourished at Alexandria with signal praise for holiness and learning, so stirred up against himself the minds of the Magistrates and Prefects of the city that, in order that he might necessarily fall from his fame, they gave him, when seized, the option either of sacrificing to the idols or of committing a most shameful crime with an Ethiopian: and that he preferred to venerate the gods sacrilegiously rather than to suffer the execrable filthiness. And in this manner (says Epiphanius, cited) he fell both from the glory of martyrdom, by the judgment of the Confessors and Martyrs who were in those times, and was cast out of the Church. To which opinion indeed, after Epiphanius, very many adhered, namely Nemesius, the emperor Justinian, Leontius of Byzantium, Nicetas Choniates and others: but Baronius, Valois, Tillemont and many of the more recent reject it as a fable, bringing forward these reasons chiefly for their opinion. The first is that from the narrative of Epiphanius it seems to follow that this faithlessness of Origen happened in the time of some persecution: but indeed, while Origen was driven from Alexandria, no tyrant is read to have raged there against the Christians, no one to have shed his blood for Christ; nay the church of Alexandria had been disturbed by no commotions on account of religion for about twenty years already. Which others noticing bound the lapse of Origen into idolatry to the times of the Decian persecution: but with an equally unhappy conjecture, if they would have this lapse to have been the cause of the exile with which Origen was punished under Demetrius, since it is established from writers of the best repute that the condemnation of Origen passed by two synods gathered by Demetrius, and his expulsion from the city of Alexandria, to which he did not afterwards return, fell at least in the twentieth year before Decius.
[22] The second argument by which they exempt Origen from so great an impiety is disputed: is negative indeed, but one which ought to seem here of no small strength. They say, then, that no mention of this lapse is found in St. Jerome, none in Theophilus or Vincent of Lérins, none finally in Porphyry himself. But the writers cited in the former place were assuredly not of such a kind as to have pardoned Origen this most grave fault, if they had known that it had really been contracted by him; and the last, who, though truth protested, had not blushed to snatch Ammonius from the Christians, would not have shrunk from making Origen alien from the true Church after so enormous a deed. Their third reason finally is this, that, while the first Alexandrian synod under Demetrius decreed that Origen was to be removed from the office of teaching and banished from the city, it nevertheless did not judge that he was to be stripped of the priesthood, which it would assuredly have judged if he had been convicted of incense offered to idols, since that, they say, had already then been prescribed by the Apostolic canons. The very many other things which are brought forward to this point can be seen in Tillemont, tome 3 of the Ecclesiastical Memoirs, Annotation XXII on Origen, from whom the recent editor of the Works of Origen drew, or rather copied out, his observations here, in the Notes on chapter 2, number 13, book 1 of Huet's Origeniana, where at letter c he rather lightly calls very light the arguments by which Petau, in the most learned Annotations on Epiphanius, Heresy LXIV, tries to vindicate the truth of this history. Whether meanwhile Origen in very fact lapsed or not, I judge it to be clear, from the authors cited both for him and against him, that a lapse of this kind did not take place before he departed from Alexandria towards the end of the life of Demetrius: whence it is permitted to conclude for my purpose that Origen was not condemned for idolatry by Demetrius and the twofold synod gathered by him, and that accordingly another cause of this condemnation necessarily existed, which we now approach.
[23] but on account of heresy handed down in his books, And this seems to me at least to have been the perverse and heretical doctrine which was read scattered through several of his works, but especially through the books which he entitled On First Principles: which περὶ ἀρχῶν little books, it must necessarily be noted, were written by Origen before he was condemned; and this is most clearly established from the things which Eusebius has, book 6, chapter 24 of the Ecclesiastical History, writing thus: Likewise he (Origen) composed the books On First Principles (he had already enumerated other Works of Origen written at Alexandria) before he departed from the city of Alexandria. Which departure from Alexandria is assuredly one of those which Origen undertook before his condemnation, as is clear from the Eusebian narrative; nay it is that which, if credit is to be had here in Tillemont, as I altogether think, either preceded his condemnation by a small space of time or followed immediately: for the cited author says, tome 3 of the Ecclesiastical Memoirs, page 578: Origen composed these books (On First Principles) while he was still staying at Alexandria, before the year 231. The same is testified by Charles de la Rue, the Benedictine, editor of the Origenian Works, already praised above, in his Admonition prefixed to these books in tome 1.
[24] concerning which of St. Epiphanius and others, Of the perverse doctrine which I have just said was scattered through several Works of Origen, it helps to set forth how greatly it was beaten by men conspicuous for holiness and learning, before I show how deservedly he could have been subjected to anathema on account of the περὶ ἀρχῶν volumes alone. St. Epiphanius, Heresy 64, writes these things of the dogmas of Origen: As regards that heresy of which he (Origen, of whom he treats there) was the author … it is indeed pestiferous, and surpasses in wickedness all the old ones, whose errors it embraces. For although he imposes no practice of turpitude on his followers, he nevertheless inserts (in his books) an absurd and impious opinion about God through the greatest turpitude. For from this fountain Arius took the handle of his error, and all the rest afterwards, such as the Anomoeans, and others of that kind. No less sharply does Theophilus censure him, the XXIIIrd Patriarch of Alexandria, who died his last day in the year 412, and waged with St. Epiphanius perpetual war against Origen and his followers. He, in the 1st Paschal book, puts forth his opinion of Origen and of those adhering to him at that time in this manner: Let them know, therefore, that those strangers to this solemnity cannot celebrate the Lord's Passion with us who follow Origen … the Hydra of all heresies, and glory in having him as master and prince of error. Then, some of his errors having been reviewed, he subjoins: He surpasses all heretics in the greatness of blasphemy. And thirdly, in the same place, he speaks thus of Origen circumscribing the omnipotence of God with fixed limits: I do not think that anyone, I do not say of men, but not even of demons, would dare to invent these things about Him which he (Origen) both thought and wrote, that God made as much matter as He could adorn and divide into the forms of things. I pass over more, which the reader will find for himself everywhere in these Paschal books.
[25] also of St. Jerome, who himself declares why he praised Origen, We now proceed to St. Jerome, to whom very many Works of Origen were thoroughly known, inasmuch as he gave Latin dress to some of them, and who admits, Letter 41, that he knows all that Origen wrote. And since this opinion had settled in the minds of many following Rufinus, that many things were written by Jerome out of hatred against Origen, whom he had often admired and more often praised, it will help to hear the holy Doctor himself rendering in his own words the reason for the praises once given by him to Origen. Thus in the Letter to Tranquillinus, given in the year 398, which is 56 (otherwise 76), he has these things: I think Origen is sometimes to be read in the way in which Tertullian, Novatus, Arnobius, Apollinaris are read. In Letter 41 he teaches Pammachius and Oceanus what he praised in Origen and what he disapproved: I praised, he says, the interpreter, not the dogmatist; the genius, not the faith; the philosopher, not the apostle. And because some thought that he had once followed the opinions of Origen, he at once subjoins: But if they wish to know my judgment about Origen, let them read the Commentaries on Ecclesiastes: let them unroll the three volumes on the Epistle to the Ephesians, and they will understand that I have always gone against his dogmas. For what folly is it so to praise someone's learning as to follow his blasphemy also? He repeats things almost similar to these last words to the same end in Letter 3 to Paulinus, which in the cited edition is 51 (otherwise 153.) Then he concludes the praised Letter 41 thus: These things, most beloved brethren, I have dictated in answer to your letter in rapid speech, overcoming my purpose, so that I should write against him whose genius I had previously praised. In book 1 of the Apology against Rufinus, solving the objection sought from the fact that he had called Origen a Diligent reader, he says: We are wont … to call both troublesome pedagogues and the cleverest thieves Diligent. And in the third book he addresses Rufinus thus: With the same fervour with which we formerly praised Origen, let us now condemn him who has been condemned by the whole world… We erred as youths (praising Origen perhaps too much on account of the weakness of the readers), let us be amended as old men. And then he proceeds thus: Forgive me that I praised the learning of Origen and his zeal for the Scriptures in my youthful age, before I knew his heresy more fully. Finally, not to cause the reader weariness with further testimonies of the holy Doctor on this matter, in the same place he says, In Origen we admire the knowledge of the Scriptures, and yet we do not receive the falsity of the dogmas. Nor do I reply anything here to that most famous saying of the divine Jerome, which is wont to be objected, and in which the patrons of Origen so greatly glory, from the Fragment of the Letter to Paula exhibited by us above at number 12, since all the difficulty which arises thence has been thoroughly solved by our Stilting in the last tome of September, in the Life of that Saint, number 769. Whence you may gather in what and at what time St. Jerome favoured Origen, and correct those who have not feared to assert that this Saint first followed Origen and afterwards condemned all his Writings: both of which things were once boasted by the lovers of Origen, and which some moderns still boast, or certainly speak of the change of Jerome as if he had suddenly fallen from excessive love to extreme hatred.
[26] Let us now bring forward in a few words what the holy Doctor thought of Origen and his works. testimonies In Letter 87 (otherwise 78) he writes these things to Pammachius and Marcella: Those who had cherished Christ as a little one defend Him grown up with the warmth of faith, so that He who through them had escaped the hands of Herod may escape the blaspheming heretic. And lest there be doubt that by the latter words he designates Origen, he at once adds: Him whom Demetrius drove from the city of Alexander, Theophilus puts to flight from the whole world. Then, some things being interposed, he proceeds: Behold, Pope Theophilus with full freedom convicts Origen of being a heretic. Where, since he manifestly hints that Origen was put to flight from the whole world by Theophilus on account of heresy, and attaches to this condemnation the expulsion of Origen decreed by Demetrius, it is easy to judge that Jerome meant to signify that he was likewise ordered by Demetrius to go into exile from Alexandria on account of heresy. In book 2 of the Apology against Rufinus, Are then, he says, the blessed bishops Anastasius and Theophilus and Venerius and Chromatius, and the whole synod of the Catholics both of the East and of the West, who with equal sentence, because with equal spirit also, denounce him to the peoples as a heretic, to be judged thieves of his books? Which question is openly equivalent to a denial, and indicates that those prelates condemned Origen not on account of dogmas foreign to him or inserted in his writings by the malevolent. The holy Doctor will afterwards give more things, no less weighty and no less manifest, when we have come to the books On First Principles. Meanwhile it will be worth while to investigate the opinions of certain others about Origen.
[27] are reported, Saint Pachomius above all, as is clear from his Life, which you will find in our Work, tome 3 of May, pursued Origen or his Works with such hatred beyond the rest that he was wont to admonish very anxiously all the brethren over whom he presided not only not to read the Origenian fabrications, but not even to lend an ear to those reading them. And when, as the author of the same Life narrates, he had chanced upon a certain volume of Origen, he at once threw it into the waters with the greatest indignation, adding straightway that he would have burned all the chatter of his blasphemies had he not known that the name of God was written in it. Pierre de Marca, in his Dissertation on the Decree of Vigilius, which consult in Labbe, tome 5 of the Councils, column 601, cites the synodical Letter given by Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, who flourished before the sixth synod, to Sergius of Constantinople, in which he professes that he embraces with the other four synods the fifth ecumenical synod, which confirms the council of Chalcedon; and removes and utterly abolishes, principally indeed, the insane Origen. Photius, codex 18 of the Bibliotheca, relates of Origen that in the fifth synod, the Actions in which the famous three chapters were treated having first been read, he was condemned with anathema together with his Writings. To these finally I add the single testimony of the Oriental Chronicle. It has thus under Demetrius: This holy Patriarch had removed from the priesthood a certain man named Origen, who by cunning had obtained the priesthood from the bishop of Caesarea of Palestine; wherefore father Demetrius would not receive him when he returned to Alexandria (rather, would not afterwards retain him when condemned), because he was a heretic. Which things, said rather crudely against Origen, Sollerius perhaps would not have thought so, in the Patriarchs of Alexandria, number 124, if he had compared them with the things cited above and to be cited afterwards. But let us turn to that which is the chief point, the books, I say, On First Principles, to which, as I hinted above at number 24, the just condemnation of Origen seems chiefly to be attributed.
[28] and especially on account of the books On First Principles, How many monsters of errors, how many ravings of Origen (these words are those of the cited Pierre de Marca) are contained in these may be conjectured even from book 1, chapter 2, number 10, still surviving. For here he teaches that God is omnipotent, not because He can effect all things, but because He has power over all things which are. Which crime Theophilus of Alexandria objects to him in the first Paschal Letter, and the emperor Justinian at the end of the Letter to Menas, and in refuting which the illustrious Huet, book 2 of the Origeniana, Question 1, number 2, rightly observes that Halloix, book 4 of the Defence of Origen, Question 6, afforded Origen a vain patronage. It will profit to hear this author, by no means hostile to Origen, beginning Question 3 of the cited book 2 thus: We here abandon the common order of Theological disputations received in the schools, following Origen, whose very many opinions about divine things were as irregular as they are to be treated with a peculiar … division … therefore … the questions which pertain to the Angels … and other things being rejected, let us search out the decrees of Origen about the ἐνανθρωπήσει and οἰκονομίᾳ of the word, if any are liable to reproof and can offend the mind of an orthodox reader. And there certainly are, and not few, which, aired and confuted by his adversaries, have imposed eternal stigmas on his name.
[29] St. Jerome, whose judgment of these books I promised to report, against which Jerome most of all inveighs in Letter 127 (otherwise 16) to Principia calls the περὶ ἀρχῶν volumes impious, and says, book 1 of the Apology against Rufinum, that in translating them into Latin he exposed their heretical author; and in that which he gave to Avitus, and which is 94 (otherwise 59), after he had related that the holy man Pammachius, to whom he had sent those books translated from the autograph into Latin, shuddered at the first reading of them and shut them up in a chest, lest, brought out among the people, they should wound the minds of many; for his (Origen's in these books) dogmas are (as he has in Letter 41, otherwise 65) poisoned, alien from the Scriptures, doing violence to the Scriptures; he writes these things: Receive (the Work On First Principles) what you asked for: but so that you know that very many things in them are to be detested by you; and, according to the word of the Lord, that you must walk among scorpions and serpents. Then, having set out with a prolix narration the errors with which these four books swarmed, and in the first of which especially Origen blasphemed with sacrilegious tongue, book 2 of the Apology against Rufinus, he concludes the Letter with these words: Whoever, therefore, wishes to read these books (On First Principles), and … to proceed to the land of promise, lest anywhere he be bitten by serpents and be struck by the curved wound of the scorpion, let him first read this book (this letter). The holy Doctor had received the copies of the books περὶ ἀρχῶν translated by Rufinus, and since he was doubtful about the fidelity of this version, he at once ran through them, and then compared them with the Greek, which he thought he certainly held genuine, and at once, he says, book 1 of the Apology cited, I noticed that the things which Origen had impiously said of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and which Roman (that is, Catholic) ears could not bear, had been changed for the better by the (faithless) interpreter. Which words indeed, besides calling the doctrine of Origen impious, also tell most strongly against those who contend, by right and wrong, that all the Works of Origen were interpolated and depraved either by heretics or certainly by the malevolent. I should be endless if I wished even to indicate whatever St. Jerome comprises against this Work of Origen, especially in this Apology.
[30] and Baronius, Nor, further, did very many writers of later times, of whom I shall cite only one or two, think otherwise of this perverse work of Origen. And Photius indeed, to whom, according to the editor of the Works of Origen, Charles de la Rue, tome 1, page 42, it was permitted to read these four books in Greek even in the IXth century, writes in his Bibliotheca, codex 8: The four books of Origen On First Principles were read. Of these the first treats of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. In which book he writes very many things blasphemously… He hands down other things also (in the same books) most absurd and full of impiety: he trifles about migrations of souls, and animate stars, and more things of that kind. The most illustrious parent of the Ecclesiastical Annals, Baronius, at the year of Christ 232, number 3, sets forth in this manner what he himself thinks of the books περὶ ἀρχῶν: Further, among all the Commentaries of Origen which (Eusebius) enumerates, that which he wrote On First Principles is filled beyond the rest with denser and greater errors. Then, having said that Origen in those books wished to seem a philosopher rather than a Christian, he subjoins: It can scarcely be believed how much of the Christian faith received from the forefathers he betrayed in that Commentary. Whence he also finishes this number thus: But let these things be added concerning the just indignation of Demetrius against him on account of the Periarchon published by Origen. Where he manifestly favours our opinion about the condemnation of Origen; with which also agree the things which are read at the end of a certain Epitaph cited by Mabillon, tome 2 of the Analecta, page 660, which he found prefixed to the books On First Principles in a most ancient codex of Corbie: they run thus:
The words of the Periarchon alone have brought my fall, he is held to have been condemned, Cast down by these, darts press me on every side.
[31] Now indeed, since Origen is convicted by the testimonies of so many holy and learned men of having handed down impious, sacrilegious and blasphemous things, chiefly in the books On First Principles, which he is never read to have retracted; since it is established that he composed those books before his condemnation, and it is most probable that they were either expounded publicly by him to his hearers or even handed into their hands, whence the most vigilant Prelate Demetrius could easily have come to the knowledge of so many and so great impieties, is it not all but certain that Origen was condemned rightly and deservedly on account of the perversity of his dogmas by the holy Patriarch and by the twofold synod, both of bishops and of priests of inferior rank, gathered by him? Which opinion approaches the more nearly to the truth, the less any more certain cause of the Origenian anathema can be brought forward, as I have tried to show above. And all these things indeed have been brought forward, both that I might discharge the promise of my Forebears, and most of all that I might demonstrate that the equity and holiness of Demetrius suffered no harm on this head.