But Perhaps You Will Say to Me: "Why do You Fill Your Paper with this Superfluous Matter? Does Even My Friend Say that it is a Crime to Name Origen, or to Give Him Praise for his Talents? if Origen is Proclaimed as Such and So Great a Man,' this Makes us the More Anxious to be Told Whether He is in Other Passages Spoken of as an Apostolic Man,' or a Teacher of the Churches,' or by any Similar Expressions which Appear to Commend not Only his Talents but his Faith. " this Then Shall be Done. It was Indeed for this Purpose that I Produced the Passage Where He Speaks of Him as Such and So Great a Man,' Because it Was, if I am not Mistaken, in the Preface this Laudatory Expression is Used About Him that He Also Claims the Right of Origen to be Called an Apostle or a Prophet, and to be Praised Even to the Heavens. And in the Same Way, if There are Passages in which I Happen to have Praised Origen's Learning, all My Praise is Just of this Kind. This Man Rouses all this Alarm in You Because of Such Expressions of Mine; but He Maintains that it is Unjust to Bring up Similar Expressions against Him when they Occur in his Own Writings. But, Since He Does not Choose to Stand on Equal Terms with us Before the Tribunal of Opinion, but Condemns us on Mere Suspicion, While He Himself Does not Hold Himself Bound Even by his Own Handwriting; Since He, I Say, Does not Think it Necessary in Such a Matter to Observe the Rule of Holy Scripture which Demands that Each Man Should be Judged Without Respect of Persons; I Will Make Answer for Myself, not According to the Demands of Justice, but According to his Wishes. He Says to Me: "If You have Translated Origen, You are to be Blamed; but I, Even if I have Said the Very Things for which I Blame Him, have done Well, and These Ought to be Read and Held as True. If You have Praised his Talents or his Knowledge, You have Committed a Crime; if I have Praised his Talents, it Goes for Nothing. " C20. Well Then; He Says, "Give Me an Instance in which I have So Praised Him as to Defend his System of Belief. " You have no Right to Ask This, I Reply; yet I Will Follow Where You Lead. There is a Certain Writing of his in which He Gives a Short Catalogue of the Works which Varro Wrote for the Latins, and of those which Origen Wrote in Greek for the Christians. In this He Says: |
19. But perhaps you will say to me: "Why do you fill your paper with this superfluous matter? Does even my friend say that it is a crime to name Origen, or to give him praise for his talents? If Origen is proclaimed as such and so great a man,' this makes us the more anxious to be told whether he is in other passages spoken of as an apostolic man,' or a teacher of the churches,' or by any similar expressions which appear to commend not only his talents but his faith." This then shall be done. It was indeed for this purpose that I produced the passage where he speaks of him as such and so great a man,' because it was, if I am not mistaken, in the Preface this laudatory expression is used about him that he also claims the right of Origen to be called an Apostle or a Prophet, and to be praised even to the heavens. And in the same way, if there are passages in which I happen to have praised Origen's learning, all my praise is just of this kind. This man rouses all this alarm in you because of such expressions of mine; but he maintains that it is unjust to bring up similar expressions against him when they occur in his own writings. But, since he does not choose to stand on equal terms with us before the tribunal of opinion, but condemns us on mere suspicion, while he himself does not hold himself bound even by his own handwriting; since he, I say, does not think it necessary in such a matter to observe the rule of holy Scripture which demands that each man should be judged without respect of persons; I will make answer for myself, not according to the demands of justice, but according to his wishes. He says to me: "If you have translated Origen, you are to be blamed; but I, even if I have said the very things for which I blame him, have done well, and these ought to be read and held as true. If you have praised his talents or his knowledge, you have committed a crime; if I have praised his talents, it goes for nothing." c20. Well then; he says, "Give me an instance in which I have so praised him as to defend his system of belief." You have no right to ask this, I reply; yet I will follow where you lead. There is a certain writing of his in which he gives a short catalogue of the works which Varro wrote for the Latins, and of those which Origen wrote in Greek for the Christians. In this he says:Antiquity marvels at Marcus Terentius Varro because of the countless books which he wrote for Latin readers; and Greek writers are extravagant in their praise of their man of brass, because he has written more works than one of us could so much as copy. But since Latin ears would find a list of Greek writers tiresome, I shall confine myself to the Latin Varro. I shall try to shew that we of to-day are sleeping the sleep of Epimenides and devoting to the amassing of riches the energy which our predecessors gave to sound if secular learning. Varro's writings include forty-five books of antiquities, four concerning the life of the Roman people. But why, you ask me, have I thus mentioned Varro and the man of brass? Simply to bring to your notice our Christian man of brass, or, rather, man of adamant -- Origen, I mean -- whose zeal for the study of Scripture has fairly earned for him this latter name. Would you learn what monuments of his genius he has left us? The following list exhibits them. His writings comprise thirteen books on Genesis, two books of Mystical Homilies, notes on Exodus, notes on Leviticus...also single books, four books on First Principles, two books on the Resurrection, two dialogues on the same subject. And, after enumerating all his works as if making an exact index, he added what follows: "So you see the labours of this one man have surpassed those of all previous writers both Greek and Latin. Who has ever managed to read all that he has written? Yet what reward have his exertions brought him? He stands condemned by his bishop, Demetrius, only the bishops of Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia, and Achaia dissenting. Imperial Rome consents to his condemnation, and even convenes a senate to censure him, not -- as the rabid hounds who now pursue him cry -- because of the novelty or heterodoxy of his doctrines, but because men could not tolerate the incomparable eloquence and knowledge, which, when once he opened his lips, made others seem dumb. I have written the above quickly and incautiously, by the light of a poor lantern. You will see why, if you think of those who to-day represent Epicurus and Aristippus.
Footnotes:
|
   
|