He Praised Origen’s Teaching, Not Only His Commentaries

Very well, then. He says, “Give me an instance in which I praised him in such a way as to defend his system of belief.” You have no right to ask this, I reply; still, I will follow where you lead. There is a certain writing of his in which he gives a short list of the works Varro wrote for the Latins, and of those Origen wrote in Greek for the Christians. In it he says: [a]

“Antiquity marvels at Marcus Terentius Varro for the countless books he wrote for Latin readers; and Greek writers are extravagant in praising their Man of Brass, because he wrote more works than any of us could so much as copy. But since Latin ears would find a list of Greek writers tiresome, I will keep to the Latin Varro. I will try to show that we today are sleeping the sleep of Epimenides, and spending on piling up riches the energy our forebears gave to sound, if worldly, learning. [b] “Varro’s writings include forty-five books of antiquities, four on the life of the Roman people. “But why, you ask me, have I 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 him this latter name. Would you learn what monuments of his genius he has left us? The following list sets them out. His writings include 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, and two dialogues on the same subject.” [c]

And after listing all his works as though he were drawing up an exact index, he added this: “So you see that the labors of this one man have surpassed those of all earlier writers, Greek and Latin alike. Who has ever managed to read all that he wrote? Yet what reward have his efforts brought him? He stands condemned by his bishop, Demetrius, with only the bishops of Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia and Achaia dissenting. Imperial Rome agrees to his condemnation, and even convenes a senate to censure him. It does so not, as the rabid hounds who now hunt him cry, because of the novelty or unsoundness of his teaching, but because men could not bear the matchless eloquence and knowledge that, once he opened his lips, made everyone else seem dumb. [d] “I have written this quickly and carelessly, by the light of a poor lantern. You will see why, if you think of those who stand today for Epicurus and Aristippus.” [e]