Origen and Holy Tradition. Holy Fathers and Orthodox Theologians about Origen

Contents About the author About the lifetime condemnation of Origen for dogmatic errors Blessed. Jerome of Stridon (ϯ420) Letter to Pammachius and Markella J. Robertson Met. Hilarion (Alfeev) Resolution of the eighth meeting of the V Ecumenical Council on the condemnation of Origen From the Acts of the V Ecumenical Council Sschmch. Peter of Alexandria (ϯ311) From the Acts of the V Ecumenical Council. Methodius of Patara (ϯ312) On the resurrection, against Origen On the created. Against Origen St. Basil the Great (ϯ379) Interpretation of St. Emperor Justinian St. Gregory of Nyssa (ϯ after 394) St. Epiphanius of Cyprus (ϯ403) About the seventy interpreters and about those who falsely interpreted the Holy Scriptures St. Cyril of Alexandria (ϯ444) Blessed. Jerome of Stridon (ϯ420) 77. Letter to Pammachius and Oceanus 78. Letter to Paulinus 81. Letter to Pammachius and Markella St. Vincent of Lirinsky (ϯ c. 450) Memorabilia (compiled in 433) Chapter XVII Epistle of Pope Pelagius II (ϯ590) to Elijah of Aquileia and to other renegade bishops of Istria who did not agree with the condemnation of the three chapters of St. Simeon. For Christ's sake, holy fool (ϯ c. 590) Blessed. John Moschus (ϯ619) The life of brother Theophan and his wondrous vision of St. John Climacus (ϯ648) Chronicler About Leonidas Origen's father About Origen, what was the Bishop. Sylvester (Malevansky) and V.Ya. Malakhov Some remarks about Origen Appendix I. Conciliar letter of the bishops of Egypt and Alexandria Appendix II. St. Emperor Justinian on the abdication of Origen Appendix III. About the source of Origen's theology St. Nikon of Antioch. About a young man with many words and love, outraged by a demon Origen (Ὠριγένης), a famous Christian theologian and philosopher, was born in Alexandria around 185 into a Greek or Hellenized Egyptian family that converted to Christianity, received a good education from his father (rhetorician) Leonidas, who during the persecution under Septimius Severus was executed and his property confiscated. Seventeen-year-old Origen. Having a mother and six younger brothers in his care, he became a teacher of grammar and rhetoric and was elected to the mentors of the famous catechetical school in Alexandria. To avoid temptations from numerous female students at the catechetical school, Origen allegedly subjected himself to self-mutilation (castration). Reported in the “Ecclesiastical History” of Eusebius of Caesarea, a reverent admirer of Origen, this news, however, raises doubts; by the way, in view of Origen’s extraordinary mental fertility, only the existence of such a rumor during his lifetime is certain. The wide fame brought to Origen by teaching at the catechetical school and his first writings encouraged people to turn to him for advice from distant places and caused two of his trips: to Rome (under Pope Zephyrinus) and to Arabia. During the persecution of the Alexandrian church under the emperor Caracalla (216), admirers forced Origen to retire to Palestine, where there were two bishops devoted to him. Alexander of Jerusalem and Theoctistus of Caesarea gave him honorable refuge; at their insistence, he, although a layman, expounded the Holy Scriptures before crowded gatherings of believers in churches. For this he was subjected to strong censure from the Alexandrian bishop Demetrius. Forced him to return to Alexandria. At the invitation of Julia Mammai, mother of Emperor Alexander Severus. He visited her in Antioch and gave her initial instruction in Christianity. In 228, he was summoned to Greece on church affairs and, while passing through Palestine, received ordination as a presbyter in Caesarea from the bishops Alexander and Theoctistus. Offended by this, the Alexandrian bishop condemned Origen at two local councils and declared him unworthy of the title of teacher, expelled from the Alexandrian church and deprived of his priestly rank (231 2). Having communicated this verdict through a district letter to the other churches, he received the consent of all except the Palestinian, Phoenician, Arabian and Achaian. The acts of the Egyptian councils that condemned Origen have not been preserved; according to existing evidence, the grounds for the verdict, in addition to the previous guilt of “preaching a layman in the presence of bishops” and the dubious fact of self-mutilation, were the acceptance of ordination from outside hierarchs and some non-Orthodox opinions 3 . Origen transferred his scientific and teaching activities to Caesarea Palestine, where he attracted many students, traveled on church affairs to Athens, then to Bostra (in Arabia), where he managed to convert the local bishop Beryllus, who taught incorrectly about the face of Jesus Christ, to the true path. The Decius persecution found Origen in Tyre, where, after a heavy imprisonment that destroyed his health, he died in 254. Encyclopedic Dictionary "Christianity". T. II. M., 1995, p. 248 On the lifetime condemnation of Origen for dogmatic errors Blazh. Hieronymus of Stridon (ϯ420) Letter to Pammachius and Marcellus Once again I enrich you with the works of the East, and I send the riches of Alexandria first of all, as it should be, to Rome 4. God will come from the south, and the Holy One from Mount Paran, overshadowed by shadow (Hab.3:3); which is why the bride rejoices in the Song of Songs, saying: I have longed and sat down under his shadow, and his fruit is sweet in my throat (Song. 2:3). Now, truly, the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, who says: in that day there will be an altar of the Lord in the land of Egypt (Is. 19:19). Where sin abounds, grace abounds (Rom. 5:20). Those who patronized the infant Christ protect him with ardent faith when he has reached adulthood; so that he who, with their assistance, escaped the hand of Herod, escapes, with their help, the blasphemous heretic. Whom Demetrius expelled from the city of Alexandria, he is driven from everywhere by Theophilus, to whom Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles, who received his name from love for God. Where is this twisted snake now? Where is this most poisonous viper - the upper part of a person... attached to the wolf's belly (Aeneid 3)? Where is the heresy that hissed in the world, that spread about me and Pope Theophilus as supporters of their error, and lied about our sympathy in order to deceive ordinary people with the barking of unreasonable dogs? She is suppressed by his (Theophilus) power and eloquence and, according to the custom of demonic spirits, speaks from underground; for who does not know him who came from above, says the word above. Blessed creations Hieronymus of Stridon. K., 1894. Book IV. Part II, p. 379 In addition to the incorrectness of his initiation, Origen aroused dissatisfaction with some of his speculations. Finding his position in Alexandria difficult, he retired to Caesarea, and after his departure Demetrius convened two councils, by which Origen was deprived of his position in the catechetical school, his ordination was destroyed, and he himself was excommunicated as a heretic. Bishops of other countries were informed everywhere about the decision of these councils. According to the rules of catholic communion, the decisions of one church in such cases were usually accepted by the others without considering the merits of the case, and thus the verdict against Origen was confirmed in Rome and elsewhere, although it was ignored in those countries that especially felt his personal influence. - in Palestine, Phenicia, Arabia and Achaia. Demetrius soon died and was succeeded by Heracles; but it is remarkable that the new bishop made no attempt to remove the condemnation of his former teacher and comrade. Robertson J. History of the Christian Church from the Apostolic Age Until now. T.Y. St. Petersburg, 1890, p. 95 Disputes about Origen began during his lifetime and continued after his death. There is reason to believe, contrary to Eusebius, that Origen was excommunicated by Demetrius of Alexandria not only for disciplinary reasons, but also for his dogmatic errors. Eusebius himself indirectly points to this when he says (Eusebius. Church History, 6:36) that Origen “wrote letters to Fabian, Bishop of Rome, and many other bishops, about his Orthodoxy” (hence, his Orthodoxy was doubted). Blessed Jerome, in early letters, denied the “slander” that Origen was condemned for his dogmatic errors (see Letter 32, to Paul). In later letters, on the contrary, it confirms it (see Letter 81, to Pammachius and Marcellus). Ep. Hilarion (Alfeev). Origen // Anthology “Fathers and Teachers” Churches of the 3rd century." M., 1996. P. 21 Resolution of the eighth meeting of the Fifth Ecumenical Council on the condemnation of Origen 11. If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaria, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen with their wicked writings and all other heretics who were condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and the four holy councils mentioned above, and those who philosophized or philosophize like the above-mentioned heretics, and continued in their wickedness until death: let him be accursed. Signed by the cathedral participants Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. Kazan, 1913. T. V. p. 214 From the Acts of the V Ecumenical Council Evagrius (Scholasticus) adds that the same fathers set out fourteen points about the right and irreproachable faith. Then he cites the following from the report of the council to Emperor Justinian about the condemnation of Origen: “The most Christian emperor, whose soul is a partaker of ancient nobility... So we escaped, escaped this (teaching). For we did not recognize the voice of strangers, but having tightly bound him, like a thief and a robber, with chains of anathema, we drove him out of the sacred fence (of the Church).” And after a little: “You will easily understand the power of what we have done from reading about this.” Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. Kazan, 1913. T. V. p. 2225 Sschmch. Peter of Alexandria (ϯ311) Peter, saint (ϯ311), first the head of the Alexandrian catechetical school, then the bishop of Alexandria. As the head of the school sschmch. Peter tried to weaken the rationalistic direction that had dominated him since the time of Origen, and to establish a strictly ecclesiastical direction. In his lectures he refuted Origen's allegories and his doctrine of the pre-existence of souls. He also fought against anti-Trinitarians and proved the Divinity of Jesus Christ (the word “On the Incarnation”). His bishopric coincided with the most severe of persecutions - Diocletian's. Sschmch himself. Peter, at the request of the Church, having retired from Alexandria, from his solitude energetically supported courage in his flock: at this time there were especially many martyrs in Alexandria. Since there were many who fell, sschmch. Peter drew up “rules” for their acceptance back into the Church, which became part of the canons of the Universal Church. In 306, he convened a council in Alexandria against Meletius, Bishop of Nicopolis, who refused to accept the repentant fallen back into the Church, and, meanwhile, was guilty of worshiping idols. In 311 sschmch. Peter was captured by the pagans and executed without trial. His word “On Repentance” has also reached us. Encyclopedic Dictionary “Christianity” vol. II., M., 1995. P. 336 And that the Holy Fathers, who followed the Inspired Scripture, condemned this teaching together with Origen, who spoke so fabulously, we have already clearly shown this from the words of the Holy Fathers themselves; We will prove this no less by the subsequent testimonies of the Holy Fathers. And firstly, in confirmation of these words of ours, we cite the testimony of St. Peter, the former bishop of Alexandria and a martyr. Saint Peter, bishop and martyr of the great city of Alexandria, from the first word that the soul did not pre-exist and, having sinned, was not sent into the body for this. “We decided to propose something about the first earthly man created from the earth, in order to prove that he was created one and the same at the same time, although in particular sometimes it is said about the internal and external man. For although, according to the saving teaching, the one who created the internal created also the external, yet - at one time and at the same time, that is, on the same day when God said: Let us make man in our image and likeness (Gen. 1:26), so from here it is obvious that (man) did not come from the combination of something else that pre-existed and came from another place. Because if there was a connection, then what was the purpose of describing what had already been created? And a little later: “Thus, it is not allowed that souls sinned in heaven before the bodies, since they did not exist at all before the bodies. This teaching belongs to Hellenic philosophy, which is foreign and foreign to those who want to live piously in Christ.” Him from the secret teaching, which he compiled for the Church, preparing to accept the crown of martyrdom: “Therefore I beseech you, watch, because you will again be persecuted. You know how many dangers my father, who raised me, and the bishop of Theon, whose throne I inherited, endured from those insanely devoted to idols, and oh, if only - the way of life; - also the great Dionysius, who was hiding from one place to another when Savely was pursuing him. And what can I say about the blessed bishops Heraclius and Demetrius? What trials did they endure from the insane Origen, who sowed his own schisms in the Church, which to this day stir up disturbances in it?” So, who of the right minds can oppose what the holy martyr and bishop of Alexandria Peter said against Origen? He, having accepted a good deed for Christ, not only denounced Origen and his wicked teaching, but also testifies that the Holy Fathers who came before him suffered many trials from his madness. Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. Kazan.1913. vol. V. s. 522 Sschmch. Methodius of Patara (ϯ312) Your blood, wiser, secretly cries out from the earth, like Abel’s to God, the God-wise Saint Methodius, who clearly preached God’s incarnation. In the same way, you put Origen’s flattery to shame, and you introduced yourself to the Heavenly palace. Pray to Christ God to save our souls. Menea. June 20. Troparion, tone 1 Seeing Origen's charm, like a great shepherd, burning, you quickly burned with Divine fire all of his darkness, burning the shining ray of your wisdom, O God-pleasant. Troparion of the 3rd song of the canon at Matins Blazh. Jerome in one place calls St. Methodius “a most eloquent (disertissimus) man,” and in another, above-mentioned place 5, counting his creations. He says: “With brilliant and clear eloquence, he wrote several books against Porphyry and the Feast of the Ten Virgins, an excellent essay on the resurrection against Origen, against him on Pythoness and on free will, also an interpretation of the book of Genesis and the Song of Songs, and many other works that are read everywhere. Lovyagin E., prof. Saint Methodius, bishop and martyr. “On the Resurrection” is a very important and extensive work directed against Origen, the famous teacher and writer of the 3rd century, but who admitted many erroneous opinions in his writings. Realizing the danger from these opinions, which threatened the purity of faith and the immutability of Church Tradition, St. Methodius, in addition to his own holy jealousy, had another immediate motivation to fight the Origenists, as the Bishop of Tire, where Origen spent the last years of his life and had many followers. Since the Origenists, by the way, rejected the future resurrection of human bodies, the Holy Father in his creation, refuting their objections, defends the Orthodox teaching about the resurrection of the dead. Lovyagin E., prof. Saint Methodius, bishop and martyr. On the Resurrection, against Origen XVIII. So, when Proclus finished his speech with difficulty and those present were silent for a long time, rather carried away into unbelief; when I noticed that he had actually finished, then raising my head slightly and gathering my courage, as happens with sailors when the storm has already subsided, but still in fear and confusion - (for I, so to speak to you, was amazed and depressed by the importance of those words) - I turned to Auxentius, and calling him said: “Auxentius! I think that it is not in vain that the poet said: “when two go together,” etc. For we have two opponents, so we must withstand the strength of both. I choose you as an assistant and collaborator in the dispute with them, so that Aglaophon with Proclus and Origen, armed against us with destructive evidence, will not overthrow the resurrection. Let us come out against their sophisms, not at all afraid of their objections, with which they attack timid people. For they have nothing completely sound and solid, but one beautiful set of words, prepared to defeat and convince the listeners, not for the sake of truth and benefit, but in order to appear to those present as wise in words.” XIII. Denouncing Origen, (St. Methodius) says: “So, Origen believes that the same flesh will not rise (to unite) with the soul, but whatever image each had in appearance, which distinguishes the flesh even now, such will rise, imprinted in another spiritual body, so that each again appears the same in appearance; this is the promised resurrection. Since, he says, the material body is changeable and never remains by itself, but waxes and wanes according to the appearance that characterizes the image from which the appearance (of man) is made, it necessarily follows that the resurrection will consist of only one species. “Then a little later he says: so, Origen, you claim that the resurrection is expected only of a species that has an imprint in the spiritual body, and as the most obvious proof of this you present to us the appearance of Elijah and Moses, how they,” you say, “appeared after death, retaining not a different, but the same appearance that they had before, in the same form will be the resurrection of everyone.” But Moses and Elijah, according to you, even before the suffering and resurrection of Christ, were resurrected and appeared in this form. How is Christ called by the Prophets and Apostles the firstborn from the dead (Rev. 1:5)? If Christ is confessed to be the firstborn from the dead, and the firstborn from the dead is the one who rose before all. - Moses, even before the suffering of Christ, appeared to the apostles in this form, in which, according to you, the resurrection will take place, it follows that the form does not resurrect without flesh. So, if there is a resurrection of one kind, as you teach, and in this case Christ cannot be the Firstborn from the dead, because even before Him the souls of the dead appeared in the same form; or He is the Firstborn, as indeed He is, and it is absolutely impossible for anyone before Him to be worthy of resurrection, so as not to die again. If no one was resurrected before Him, and Moses and Elijah appeared to the Apostles, having not flesh, but only appearance, then the resurrection of the flesh becomes clear. Truly, it is very absurd to limit the resurrection to one type, while souls, even after leaving their bodies, turn out to not be of the type that, according to you, will be resurrected. If this species is inseparably united with them, as with the souls of Moses and Elijah, and, according to you, does not decay or perish, but always remains with them, then it follows that the species that never fell away will not be resurrected.” About what was created. Against Origen 6 I. In the saying: do not give holy things to dogs, and (do not throw) your pearls before swine (Matthew 7:6), by pearls this man 7 meant the mysterious teaching of God-devoted worship, and by pigs - people wallowing in wickedness and all kinds of (sensual) pleasures, like pigs in the mud, to whom, he says, Christ commands not to offer the Divine teachings, because they cannot accommodate it, as they are devoted to wickedness and gross pleasures. The great Methodius says: “If by pearls one must understand the venerable and Divine teaching, and by pigs - people devoted to wickedness and (sensual) pleasures, from which the apostolic preaching, inciting piety and faith in Christ, should be eliminated and hidden, then see if you are not saying that none of the Christians (should have) been converted by the preaching of the Apostles from the past of his wickedness. Then, of course, they would not have offered the sacraments of Christ to those who, through unbelief, were likened to pigs. Thus, either these sacraments were taught and preached by the disciples of Christ to all Hellenes and other infidels and converted them from wickedness to the faith of Christ (as we really believe and profess), and then it is no longer possible to understand the saying: do not cast your pearls before swine as it is said, or, allowing for the above interpretation, we need to say that none of the infidels, whom we compare with pigs, was given the apostolic with a sermon that brightly adorns souls like pearls, faith in Christ and freedom from wickedness. But this is blasphemy. So, by pearls one should not here understand the mysterious teaching, and by pigs - the wicked, and the saying: do not throw your pearls before swine does not need to be explained like this: do not communicate to the wicked and infidels the mysterious and most perfect truths of the faith of Christ. But by pearls one must understand the virtues with which the soul is adorned, like precious pearls, and should not be cast down to swine, i.e. one should not sacrifice virtues, such as virginity, chastity, justice and truth, to voluptuous pleasures (which are likened to pigs), so that, having destroyed the virtues, they do not drag the soul into a swinish life full of passions.” Lovyagin E., prof. Saint Methodius, bishop and martyr. II. Origen, whom (St. Methodius) calls a centaur 8. He taught that the universe is co-eternal with the only Wise God who needs nothing. He said: “If there is no creator without creatures, a creator without creation, an omnipotent without content, because the creator is certainly called by creation, creator by creation, and omnipotent by content, then it necessarily follows that they were with God from the beginning, and that there was no time when they were not there. Otherwise, if there was a time when there were no creations, and without creations there is no Creator, then look at the wickedness that follows: it will turn out that the immutable and unchangeable God changes and changes. For if He only subsequently created the universe, then it is clear that He changed, passing from non-creation to creation, but this is absurd after what has been said, therefore, it is impossible to say that the world is not without beginning and not co-eternal with God.” XII. Origen, after many fables about the eternity of the universe, adds the following: “So, not from the time of Adam, as some say, man, who did not exist before, was then created for the first time and entered the world; likewise, the world began to be created not six days before the creation of Adam... This is what Origen is trying to say, and look how he talks idle talk.” St. Basil the Great (ϯ379) But we need to say one word about the divided waters to those of the Church who... Under the guise of application and sublime thoughts, they resorted to allegories, claiming that under the waters, in a figurative sense, are meant spiritual and ethereal forces, and that above, above the firmament, perfect forces, and below, in places above the earth, filled with the coarsest substance, evil forces remained. Therefore, they reason, the waters, even above the heavens (Ps. 149:11), praise God, that is, the good forces, according to the purity of the ruler in them, are worthy of giving due praise to the Creator. And the waters that are lower than the heavens are evil spirits, having fallen from their natural height into the depths of corruption; and they, being restless and rebellious, agitated by storms of passions, are called the sea, due to the adaptability and inconstancy of the movements of the will. Rejecting such teachings as the interpretation of dreams and fables of old women, we will understand water by water, and we will accept the division made by the solid in accordance with the reason stated above. Although waters, even higher than the heavens, sometimes join in the common praise of all the Lords; however, on this basis we do not recognize them as rational nature. For the heavens are inanimate when they tell the glory of God, and the firmament is not an animal endowed with sense when it proclaims His hand in creation (Ps. 18:2). Interpretation of St. Emperor Justinian Listeners should pay attention to the fact that this Father, saying: “We need to say one word to those who are from the Church,” meant Origen, who had lost the grace of God and was cast out from the Holy Church of God, and his like-minded people; for he did not say: “We need to say to those who are in the Church,” but: “To those who are from the Church”; by the word “we” he designated those who belonged to the Church, and by the words “those who are from the Church” - those who had fallen away from Her. Conversations for six days. Conversation 3 // Works of St. Basil the Great. M., 1845. Part 1. pp. 57–58. Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. Kazan. 1913. T. V. p. 278 But we also found that with the Holy Spirit, Origen, a man who does not have a completely sound understanding of the Spirit in everything, gives glory in many conversations on the psalms. However, he, respecting the power of custom, left pious sayings about the Spirit in many places. St. Basil the Great. About the Holy Spirit and St. Amphilochius, bishop Iconian. Creations. Part III. M. 1003 p. 344 St. Gregory of Nyssa (ϯ after 394) “It is not beyond the scope of the work before us, perhaps, to study what in the churches is a subject of bewilderment: about soul and body. One of those who lived before us, namely those who were engaged in the doctrine of principles, decided to assert that souls, like some kind of society, exist by themselves according to special regulations; and there are examples of vice and virtue for them; and the soul, which is in goodness, remains not united with the body, but if it deviates from communion with goodness and has a desire for this life, in this case it is united with the body. Others, adhering to the order in the structure of man described by Moses, say that the soul is second in time after the body. “Since God, first from the dust of the earth (Gen. 2:7), created man, and then animated him by inspiration, then on this basis they prove that flesh is preferable to the soul that entered the previously created flesh.” And a little further: “The defenders of the first teaching, who claim that souls, before life in the flesh, have a different way of life, in my opinion, still adhere to the pagan fabulous teachings about the transmigration of souls from one body to another. For if anyone examines precisely, he will necessarily find that their teaching tends to what one of the wise men is said to have said about himself, namely: “I was a man, then I put on the body of a wife, I flew with the birds, I was a plant, I lived with the water animals.” And in my judgment, he who claimed such things about himself did not stray far from the truth. For such a doctrine, that one soul entered so many bodies, is truly worthy of the cry of some frogs and jackdaws, or the dumbness of fish, or the insensibility of plants. The reason for such absurdity is the idea that souls pre-exist.” About the structure of man // Works of St. Gregory of Nyssa. St. Epiphanius of Cyprus (ϯ403) About the seventy interpreters and about those who falsely interpreted the Holy Scriptures Under Emperor Decius, Origen became famous, who, as we said before, introduced both the asterisk sign and the ovel sign into use. He juxtaposed six translations and the Hebrew text on one page with Hebrew words and sayings, and on the other – Hebrew words in Greek letters in the corresponding column, so that even those who did not know Hebrew letters could understand the power of Hebrew sayings with the help of Greek ones. And thus, in his so-called exapla and octapla, by comparing two pages of the Hebrew text and six translations in parallel rows, he brought great benefit to those inquisitive about everything good. And, oh, if only he had not fallen into error in his writings, he would not have offended the world and himself by beginning to teach badly about the faith and poorly explain most of the passages of the Holy Scriptures! St. Epiphanius of Cyprus. Creations. M., 1884. Part 6. P. 290 St. Cyril of Alexandria (ϯ444) So, they say that some of you reject the resurrection of human bodies, and this is part of our confession, which we pronounce when approaching saving Baptism. For when we pronounce our confessions of faith, we add that we also believe in the resurrection of the flesh. If we reject this and do not believe that Christ rose from the dead in order to unite us with Himself, then we have a shaky faith and, leaving the royal path, we follow a crooked path. And such wickedness is the fruit of the extravagance of Origen, whom our fathers condemned and anathematized as having perverted the truth: for he did not think like a Christian, but, following pagan nonsense, fell into error. Here is the beginning of his ailments. For he says that souls existed before bodies, and from the works of the saints they were carried away into evil lusts and separated from God, and for this He condemned them and cast away them, and they are in the flesh, as in prison. Message to the monks who lived in Fue, Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. Kazan. 1913. T. V. p. 275–276 77. Letter to Pammachius and Oceanus 9 Jerome wishes good health to the brothers Pammachius and Oceanus! The letter you sent caused me an honorable insult - exalting my intelligence to the point of degrading the truth of faith. And since good people are accustomed to divulge the same things about me both in Alexandria and in Rome and in almost the whole world and love me so much that without me they cannot be heretics, I will leave aside persons and will answer only the case and the accusations. For, to respond with slander to slander is useless for the cause and to gnaw at opponents according to their merits, one who is commanded not to repay evil for evil, but to overcome evil with good (Rom. 12:1; Sol. 5), should not be filled with reproaches and present another cheek to the one who strikes (Matt. 5). They reproach me for why I sometimes praised Origen. If I am not mistaken, there are two places in which I praised: this is a short introduction to Damasus on conversations about the Song of Songs and a prologue to the book of Hebrew names. What does it say about the dogmas of the Church - about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, about the resurrection of the body, about the state and essence of the soul? I praised the simple interpretation and edification with a simple word. There was nothing discussed about faith, nothing about dogma. The subject of discussion is only passages relating to morality, and with the help of a clear interpretation the fog of allegory is dispelled. I praised the interpreter, and not the dogmatist, the mind, and not the faith of the philosopher, the philosopher, and not the apostle. If they want to know my opinion about Origen, let them read the commentaries on Ecclesiastes, let them open the three books on the epistles to the Ephesians, and then they will see that I have always been against his opinions. And how stupid it is to praise someone’s teaching so much as to follow his blasphemy! And blessed Cyprian, as his writings show, uses Tertullian, but, enjoying the mind of this learned and fiery man, does not follow Montanus and Maximilla with him. Apollinaris writes the most powerful works against Porphyry, Eusebius beautifully compiled church history; but one of them introduced a half economy 10, the other is the most notorious defender of the wickedness of Arius. Woe, says Isaiah, to those who say good in evil, and evil in good, who put light in darkness and light in darkness, who put bitter sweet and sweet bitter (Is. 5:20). One should not blame good qualities and enemies if they have something good, one should not praise vices and friends, and both should be judged by the significance not of persons, but of the deed itself. And Lucilius is scolded for the discordance of his speech, and, however, his wit and playfulness are praised. In my youth, I was embraced by an amazing love of learning and, contrary to the prejudice of some, I studied myself. In Antioch I often listened to and respected Apollinaris of Laodicea and, while he instructed me in the Holy Scriptures, I never accepted his controversial, unreasonable teaching 11. My head was already mottled with gray hair and looked more like a teacher than a student, but I went to Alexandria, listened to Didymus and am grateful to him for a lot. What I did not know, I learned; Under his leadership, I did not lose what I knew. People thought that I had put an end to teaching. I returned to Jerusalem and Bethlehem. With what tension, with what pleasure I studied at night with Varanina! He was afraid of the Jews and was for me a second Nicodemus (John 3:1). I often recall all this in my writings. Without a doubt, the teachings of Apollinaris and Didymus are opposite to each other. Now let both sides drag me to themselves, because I recognize both as my teachers. If it is permissible to hate people and despise any nation, then I persecute with extraordinary hatred the circumcision, for they still persecute our Lord Jesus Christ in satanic synagogues. Will anyone object to me: why did I have a Jew as a teacher? Is anyone really going to display my letters to Didim? How about a teacher? Is it a great crime for a student if I call a learned man and an elder a teacher? However, I want to look at my letter, which has been neglected for so long. There is nothing in it except respect and greeting. This is nonsense and nonsense. Better prove where I defended heresy, where I praised the wicked teaching of Origen. In the reading of Isaiah (chapter 8), in which two seraphim are depicted shouting, which, according to his interpretation, mean the Son and the Holy Spirit - have I not changed this unworthy explanation into two covenants? I also have a book in my hands, published over twenty years. How often, in so many of my writings, and especially commentaries, I attack paganism. They object that I, in front of everyone, collected all the books of him (Origen): oh, if only I had the books of all authors, so that I could reward inertia of mind with diligence in reading! I confess, I collected his books, and that’s why I don’t follow his misconceptions, because I know everything he wrote. Trust the experienced; I tell you, as a Christian to Christians: his opinions (dogmata) are saturated with poison, far from the Holy One. Scriptures, rape Scriptures. I read, I say, I read Origen and if there is a crime in reading. I confess that the Alexandrian paper also emptied my wallet. If you believe me. I was never an Origenist; If you don’t believe me, then now he has ceased to be. If you are not convinced by this, then for your own defense you encourage me to write against your favorite, so that if you don’t believe when I renounce him, at least you will believe when I accuse him. But they are more willing to believe me as someone who has erred than as someone who has corrected himself. And it’s not surprising, because they think that I am his (Origen’s) co-secretary (συμμύστης) and do not want to openly confess his teaching because of carnal and uninitiated people. For they (the Origenists) have a rule that one should not lightly cast pearls before swine and give what is holy to dogs (Matt. 7), but say to David: Your words are hidden in my heart, lest I sin against you (Ps. 119:11), just as in another place he speaks of the righteous “who speaks the truth with his sincere,” i.e. with people close in faith. They want it to be concluded from this that we, as still uninitiated, must listen to lies, so that, like young infants fed on milk, we are not burdened with the nutritional value of more solid food. And that they (the Origenists) unite with each other in orgies with perjury and lies - this is very clearly shown by the sixth book of the Stromata (in which he equates our dogma with the opinions of Plato). So what to do? Deny that I hold the same doctrine? They won't believe it. Swear? “They will laugh and say: we have this at home.” I will do what they are not afraid of - I will expose their sacred rites and sacraments to everyone and I will reveal all their wisdom with which they seduce us simpletons, so that, not believing the voice of denial, they would at least believe the accusatory style. They especially fear that their writings should ever be misunderstood contrary to their chapter. They say many things with an oath, which they later break with another false oath. They refuse to sign and look for excuses. One says: they cannot condemn what no one has condemned; The other fathers decreed nothing regarding this, so that, while demanding the authority of the whole world, they eliminate the need to sign. And someone even more stubbornly said: how do we condemn those who were not touched by the Council of Nicaea? Because, having condemned Arius, he, of course, would have condemned Origen if he did not approve of his opinions. That is. All diseases together must be treated with one medicine, and therefore the greatness of the Holy Spirit must be denied - since Nature was not discussed at this council. Then the question was about Arius, and not about Origen, about the Son, and not about the Holy Spirit. They confessed what was denied, and kept silent about what no one argued about. Although Origen was indirectly condemned as the source of Arius; for, condemning those who denied that the Son is from the being of the Father, Arius also condemned him. Otherwise, based on such evidence, neither Valentinus, nor Marcion, nor the Cataphrigians 12, nor the Manichaeans should be condemned, because the Council of Nicaea does not name them, although they undoubtedly are. There were before the Council. And when they begin to be forced and they need to either sign (condemnation) or leave the church, then you will see amazing twists and turns. They limit the words so much, change their order so much, invent such ambiguities that they adhere to the confession of both ours and our opponents, and the heretic hears one thing, and the Orthodox another. Was it not in this spirit that Apollo of Delphi and Loxias 13 reproached Croesus and Pyrrhus - not at the same time, but playing in the same turn? Let me present something as an example. We believe, they say, in the future resurrection of bodies. If this is correctly understood, then this confession is pure. But since there are heavenly and earthly bodies, and air, and a light breeze are called bodies by their nature, they use their body, and not the flesh, so that the Orthodox, hearing about the body, understands the flesh, and the heretic recognizes the spirit. This is their first trap; if it is noticed, they build new forges; they feign innocence, call us treacherous and, like simple believers, say: we believe in the resurrection of bodies. When they say this, the uneducated mob considers this sufficient for themselves, especially since the symbol confesses the same thing. You ask further - the rotation begins, the benefactors shout: have you heard about the resurrection: what do you demand more? And having interpreted our efforts in a bad way, they call us crafty and themselves simpletons. If you take on a stern look, and holding the flesh with your hand, you begin to interrogate whether they recognize this flesh as having to be resurrected, which is visible and tangible, which walks and talks: they first laugh, then nod their heads. And when we say: on resurrection, will hair and lips, chest and belly, arms and legs remain intact; then they cannot restrain themselves from unruly laughter and, bursting into laughter, they notice that we need barbers, and pies, and a doctor, and tailors. Then they ask if we do not believe that the reproductive members of both sexes, our shaggy and feminine tender cheeks, and the different properties of the body, according to the difference between men and women, will be resurrected? If we give them this, they immediately demand female birth and copulation and other things that are in the womb and under the womb. Private members are denied, and they say that the body, that the body which consists of members, will rise again. Now is not the time to spread rhetoric against wicked doctrine. The rich language of Cicero would not be enough for me, the fiery speech of Demosthenes could not express the fire of my soul, if I wanted to imagine the cunning of heretics who, recognizing the resurrection in words, deny it in the soul. Their shameless women usually grab their breasts, hit their stomachs, touch their loins, thighs and stinking armpits and say: what good is it for us to be resurrected if the mortal body is resurrected? – We will be like angels, we will also have the nature of an angel. They clearly abhor being resurrected with the flesh and bones with which Christ was resurrected. But even though I was mistaken in my youth, I, educated in the teachings of philosophers, i.e. pagans, at the beginning of the faith I did not know the Christian dogmas and thought to see in the apostles what I read in Pythagoras, Plato and Empedocles: why do you follow the error of the young one in Christ, the suckling child? Why do you learn wickedness from someone who has not yet learned piety? Sincerely confessing guilt is the second board after shipwreck. You imitated the one who erred, imitate the one who has corrected himself. We were mistaken in our youth, we will correct ourselves in old age. Let us unite our sighs, unite our tears, let us weep and turn to the Lord who created us (Isa.94); Let us not wait for the devil to repent. This arrogance is vain and leads into the depths of Gehenna; here life is either gained or lost. If I have never followed Origen, then you are trying in vain to disgrace me; if I was his disciple, then imitate the penitent. You believed me when I recognized (the teachings of Origen), believe me when I deny it. If, they say, you knew this, as you say, then why did you praise him in your writings? I would still praise him if you did not praise his errors. I would not cease to like his intelligence if some did not like his wickedness. And the apostle commands: hold on to everything that tempts (1 Thessalonians 5). Lactantius, in his books and especially in his letters to Demetrian, completely denies the person (substantiam) of the Holy Spirit and, according to Jewish error, says that He refers to either the Father or the Son, and under His name the sanctification (sanctification) of both persons is denoted. But who can forbid me to read the books of his instructions, in which he wrote very strongly against the pagans, forbid me because the above-mentioned opinion is worthy of disgust? Apollinaris wrote excellent works against Porphyry, and I approve of the work of this man, although I condemn his teaching, which is unreasonable in many respects. And you admit that Origen was mistaken in some subjects, and I (against this) will not say a word. You say that he thought badly of the Son, and even worse of the Holy One. Spirit; wickedly taught about the fall of souls from heaven, recognized the resurrection of the flesh only in literal terms, but rejected it in conclusion, taught about one general restoration after many centuries, that Gabriel would be the same as the devil, Paul - the same as Caiaphas, virgins - the same as harlots. If you discard this and, as if with a censor’s rod, separate it from the faith of the Church, I will read the rest safely, and, having taken the antidote, I will no longer be afraid of the poison. It will not harm me if I say: “Origen, surpassing everyone in other books, surpassed himself in the Song of Songs,” and I will not be afraid of the thought with which I once in my young years called him a teacher of churches. Only, perhaps, I should have accused the one at whose request I translated his works, and said in the prologue: “The one whose books I translate is a heretic; reader, beware of reading them; run snakes; or if you want to read, then know that what I translated has been spoiled by ill-intentioned people and heretics, although you should not be afraid because I have corrected everything that was spoiled.” In other words, this means saying: I, the translator, am Orthodox, and the one I am translating is a heretic. Finally, and quite simply, straightforwardly and without guile, of course, having little respect for the rhetorical rules and tricks of orators, recognizing his books as heretical and wanting to shift the blame to others, you offer readers a trifle, so that they trace the author’s entire life and draw a conclusion from his other books in relation to the present issue. I, the cunning man who corrected (Origen), keeping silent about my views and hiding his errors, did not express hatred towards the culprit. And doctors say that serious illnesses should not be treated, but should be left to nature, so that treatment does not increase weakness. Almost one hundred and fifty years have passed since Origen died in Tire. Which of the Latins ever dared to translate his books on the resurrection, περί ἀρχῶν, στρωματέας and Τόμους? Who would want to dishonor himself with such a vile deed? I am no more eloquent than Hilary, no more firm in faith than Victorinus, who translated his conversations not as translators, but as the authors of their own work. Recently St. Ambrose made such a compilation from his Hexameron that he followed more the opinions of Hippolytus and Basil. I myself, whom you say you zealously imitate, and in relation to whom you have the vision of wild goats, then. As in relation to others - the eyes of a mole - I myself, if I had not been disposed towards Origen, would have translated these very above-mentioned books in order to make his shortcomings known to the Latins, but I never did this and did not want to agree, although many asked for this, because I do not have the habit of swearing at the errors of those whose intelligence I am amazed at. Origen himself, if he were still alive, would be angry with you, his benefactors, and would say with Jacob: “You have made me hated in the world” (Gen. 34:30). Does anyone want to praise Origen? - Let him praise the way I praise. He was a great man from his youth and truly the son of a martyr (Leonidas - martyr); in Alexandria he ran a church school, taking the place of the most learned man, Presbyter Clement, and ran away from lusts so much that, out of Divine zeal (but not with the help of knowledge 14), he circumcised the generative members with an iron instrument; he despised stinginess, knew the scriptures by heart, and worked day and night in the labors of explaining them. He spoke a thousand or more conversations in church, and also published countless commentaries, which he calls Who among us could not read as much as he wrote? Sometimes the great Homer dozes - But in long work, you can also indulge in sleep. Let us not imitate the vices of those whose virtues we cannot follow. Others, both Greeks and Latins, also erred in the faith, whose names it is not necessary to mention, lest it seem that I am defending him not on his own merits, but on the error of others. This means, you say, not to justify Origen, but to blame others. So, if I had not said that he was mistaken, if I had thought that in unbelief one could listen to at least the Apostle Paul or an angel from heaven. And now that I sincerely acknowledge his error, I will read him as I read others, because he was mistaken just like others. But you will say: if his error is shared by many, then why do you persecute one? Because you praise one as an apostle. Give up excessive attachment, and we will leave strong hatred. You copy out the errors of others from their books only in order to defend his error; you extol Origen so much that you say that he was not mistaken in anything. Defender of new dogmas! I ask you to spare the Roman ear, to spare the faith approved by the mouth of the Apostle. Why, four hundred years later, are you trying to teach us something we didn’t know before? Why are you offering something that Peter and Paul did not want to preach? Until now, the Christian world has not had this teaching. In my old age I will retain the faith in which I was reborn in childhood. We are called Pelusiots, obscene, sensual and carnal, because we do not accept spiritual things, as if they themselves were Jerusalemites whose mother is in heaven. I do not despise the flesh in which Christ was born and resurrected, I do not disdain the dust, which, being burned on the purest vessel, reigns in heaven; and yet I wonder why those who despise the flesh live according to the flesh, warm and exquisitely nourish their enemy - perhaps that’s not why. That they want to fulfill the words of Scripture: love your enemies, bless those who swear (Matthew 5:44). I love pure, virgin flesh. When I fast, I love not the works of the flesh, but its essence. I love the flesh that knows that it has to be judged, I love that which in martyrdom for Christ is beheaded, tormented, burned. How unfair that is. what they claim. As if his (Origen's) books were spoiled by some heretics and malicious people - this can be proven from the following. Who can be found smarter, more learned, more eloquent than Eusebius and Didymus, the defenders of Origen? And the first of them, in six books of Origen’s apology, claims that Origen thinks like himself, and the second, without denying what is written, but reinterpreting the meaning of the author, justifies his errors in such a way that, however, he admits that these errors are his own. It is another matter if something is added by heretics, and another if something is defended (Origen’s opinion) as correct. Of all, they found one Origen, whose writings must be forged, from whose books, as if according to the message of Mithridates, 15 all truth was erased in one day. If one book of his was spoiled, then could all his works, published by him in different places and at different times, be spoiled together? Origen himself, in a letter written to Fabian, bishop of the city of Rome, tells why he wrote such works and blames Ambrose for the reasons for the unrest - so that he would publish works written in secret. Why else talk idle talk that what they don’t like is alien? Further, that Pamphilus is presented as his admirer - for this I thank them on my own behalf, since they deigned to blame me along with this martyr. If you say that Origen’s books were spoiled by his enemies in order to humiliate them, then why can’t you say that his friends and followers compiled a book under the name of Pamphilus so that through the testimony of the martyrs it would protect him (Origen) from shame? So you approve of things in Origen’s books that he did not write, but you are surprised if someone publishes a book that he (Pamphilus) did not publish. You can find evidence for yourself in a published work, while he, who has not published anything else, can more easily be accused. Give me some other work of Pamphilus, you will not find it anywhere, this is his only work. How can I be sure that this is the work of Pamphilus, so that, that is, the style and manner of speech can convince me of this? I will never believe that a learned man would devote the first fruits of his mind to disputes and abuse, and yet the very name of apologetics indicates an accusation, because only what is accused is defended. Now I will present one circumstance that only a fool or an unscrupulous person can speak against. That book, which is considered Pamphilus, contains the beginning of the sixth book of Eusebius in defense of Origen, almost a thousand verses, and in other places its author 16 presents evidence of the same work (Eusebius), with which he tries to prove the Orthodoxy of Origen. Eusebius and Pamphilus agree with each other so much here that we can consider them people of one mind, as if one had adopted the name of the other. How could they now disagree so much among themselves that Eusebius proves throughout his entire work that Origen was the defender of the Arian teaching, and Pamphilus - that he was the defender of the subsequent Nicene Council? From this it is clear that this is the work of either Didymus or someone else, who, cutting off the head from the sixth book (Eusebius), composed the remaining members (himself). But let us agree - out of mercy - that this is the work of Pamphilus, but not yet a martyr, because he wrote it before he suffered martyrdom. Why was he awarded martyrdom? you will say, in order to atone for error through martyrdom, in order to cleanse a single offense by shedding your blood. How many martyrs are there in the whole world who, before being killed, were subject to various vices? Let us defend sins, because those who later became martyrs were previously sinners! This, most beloved brethren, I hastily dictated to your letter, overcoming the difficult task of writing against one whose intelligence I had previously praised, and wishing rather to err in my assessment than in my faith. My friends put me in such a position that if I remain silent, I will be guilty, if I answer, then I will be an enemy. Both situations are difficult, but of the two I choose the easier one: enmity can be helped, blasphemy is unforgivable. And I let you judge how much work I put into translating the books of περί ἀρχῶν - when changing something from Greek means not translating, but perverting, and translating is literally impossible for someone who wants to preserve grace in the language. Blessed creations Hieronymus of Stridon. Kyiv. 1894. Book IV. Part II.p. 380–374 By addressing me you invite me to correspondence, but you frighten me with your eloquence; the style of your letters reminds you so much of Tullius! If I send you, as you complain, letters that are short and colorless, this does not depend on negligence, but on fear that with my verbosity I will not give you more subjects for reproach. Moreover, to frankly admit to your holy soul, at the only favorable time for sailing to the West, they demand from me so many letters at once that I absolutely could not keep up if I wanted to write everything to everyone. That’s why it happens that, throwing aside the choice of words and the diligence of writing, I dictate whatever comes to mind, and I look at you as a friend, and not as a judge of my speech. You asked me two questions in your letters. Firstly, why did God harden the heart of Pharaoh (Exodus 4:21, 9:20), and why did the apostle say: God is neither willing nor effective, but God is merciful (Rom.9:16), etc.; which apparently destroys free will. Secondly, in what way are those holy who are born of the faithful, i.e. from those who received baptism 17. When they cannot be saved without the gift of grace, which is already received and preserved. The first of these questions is answered very thoroughly by Origen in the books περί ἀρχῶν (On Principles), which I recently translated on behalf of our Pammachius. Busy with this matter, I could not fulfill my promise to you, and again I put off my Daniel until another time. I would have postponed until another time the fulfillment of the will of Pammachius, if it were the will of one, albeit the most kind and excellent man to me, but almost the entire brotherhood of Rome asked for this, assuring that many were in danger and were inclined to the wrong teaching. Therefore, I was forced to translate books that contained more bad than good, and to maintain such accuracy so as not to add or subtract anything, and to combine the literal meaning of Greek with the purity of Latin speech. You can get copies of them from the above-mentioned brother. However, you can be content with the Greek original, and you don’t have to look for the muddy streams of our little mind, because you drink from the very sources. Moreover, since I am speaking with a learned man who knows both the Divine Scriptures and the secular sciences, I want to warn you so that you do not think that I, a rude idle talker, condemn everything that Origen wrote (for which he is accused of me ἀ καισοσπουδασταί 18 and they reproach him that I am like Dionysius philosopher, suddenly changed his mind); I reject only his perverse teaching. I know that those who call good evil and those who consider evil good are subject to the same curse; making bitter sweet and sweet bitter (Isa. 5:20). And is such stubbornness conceivable - to praise the teachings of a famous person so much as to share his blasphemy? Tertullian discussed your second question in his books “On Monogamy”; he argues that the children of the faithful are called saints because they are, as it were, candidates of the faith, and are not defiled by any impurities of idolatry. At the same time, take into account that the vessels in the tabernacle and other objects related to the rites of worship are called holy, although in the proper sense only that which thinks and honors God can be holy. Such is already the property of the language of the Scriptures that they use, in places, the name “holy” instead of “pure,” cleansed, and atonement for sins. Thus, Bethsabea is written as having been sanctified from her uncleanness, and the church itself is called a sanctuary. I ask you not to mentally accuse me of vanity or deceit. God is my witness to my conscience that the above-mentioned necessity distracted me from the interpretation, when I was already ready for the task and began it, you yourself know how bad it comes out when done with a biased mind. A hat, small in fabric, but wide in love. I received it with pleasure, prescribed to warm the senile head, and rejoiced about the macaw and the giver. Book IV. Part II. pp. 374–376 81. Letter to Pammachius and Markella Once again I enrich you with the works of the East, and I send the Alexandrian riches first of all, as it should be, to Rome 19. God will come from the south. And the holy one from Mount Paran, overshadowed by a shadow (Hab.3:3); which is why the bride rejoices in the Song of Songs, saying: I have longed and sat in His shadow, and His fruit is sweet in my throat (Song. 2:3). Now, truly, the prophecy of Ishaim is being fulfilled, who says: in that day there will be an altar of the Lord in the land of Egypt (Isa. 19:19). Where sin abounds, grace abounds (Rom. 5:20). Those who provided protection to the Infant Christ protect Him with ardent faith when he reached adulthood, so that he who escaped the hand of Herod with their assistance, escapes with their help the blasphemous heretic. Whom Demetrius expelled from the city of Alexandrov, he is driven from everywhere by Theophilus, to whom Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles, who received his name from love for God. Where is this twisted snake now? Where is this most poisonous viper - the upper part of a person... attached to the wolf's belly (Aeneid 3)? Where is the heresy that hissed in the world, that spread about me and Pope Theophilus as supporters of their delusion. And lied about our sympathy in order to deceive ordinary people with the barking of foolish dogs? She is suppressed by his (Theophilus) power and eloquence and, according to the custom of demonic spirits, speaks from underground: for who does not know the one who, having come from above, speaks from above. Blessed creations Hieronymus of Stridon. Kyiv. 1894. St. Vikenty Lirinsky (ϯ ca. 450) Memoirs (composed in 433) We said above that in the Church of God the error of a teacher was a temptation for the people, and, moreover, the greater the more learned the erring one was. We taught this, firstly, by the authority of Scripture, and secondly, by church examples, that is, by remembering those who, holding on to a once sound faith, finally either deviated into an alien sect, or themselves founded their own heresy. This subject is very important, worthy of study and worth new consideration. It is our duty to clearly explain and confirm it through many examples, so that all truly Orthodox people know that their duty is to follow the Church in accepting its teachers, and not following the teachers to leave the faith of the Church. However, although we are able to indicate many such persons who were temptations of this kind for the people, we think that in this temptation hardly anyone can compare with Origen. There was a lot in this man that was so excellent, special, amazing that anyone would easily decide to rely on his faith in everything that he claimed. For, if authority comes from life, then Origen was very hardworking, chaste, tolerant, and patient. If he is informed by origin or upbringing, then who is more famous than the one who, firstly, was born in such a house, which became famous for martyrdom, and who, secondly, was deprived not only of his father, but also of all his property for Christ, and who prospered so much in the extremes of holy poverty that for the glory of the “Confession of the Lord” 20, they say, he was often insulted? But this was not the only thing in him, that subsequently everything had to serve as a temptation. He had such a strong, deep, sharp, excellent mind that he was almost far superior to everyone else. He was so richly learned and educated in every way that there is little left in divine wisdom, there is hardly anything, perhaps in human wisdom, that he did not know perfectly: he not only had a complete command of Greek knowledge, but also studied Hebrew thoroughly. And what is said about the eloquence of the one who spoke so pleasantly, so purely, so sweetly that from his lips flowed, in my opinion, not words, but some kind of honey? What was obscure for understanding that he did not make clear with his interpretations? What difficult thing did he not make so that it seemed very easy? Will they think that he connected his thoughts and positions only by a weave of arguments? On the contrary, there has never been a teacher who used as many proofs from the Divine Law as he did. Perhaps he wrote a little? No other mortal wrote it, so it seems impossible not only to read, but even to acquire all of his works; and so that he did not lack any of the means of knowledge, he was filled with an excess of years 21. Maybe he was not too rich in students? Was there ever anyone as rich in them as he? From his womb came countless teachers, an equal number of priests, confessors and martyrs. And who can describe how they all marveled at him, glorified him, and were captivated by his charming affection? Who, who had any pious feeling, did not strive for it from the most distant countries of the world? Who among the Christians did not almost reverence him as a prophet, and among the philosophers as a teacher? And in what esteem he was held not only by private people, but also by the royal power itself, history tells, reporting that the mother of Emperor Alexander summoned him to her, especially out of respect for heavenly wisdom, with which he was loved and which she also loved. The same is evidenced by his letters, written according to the authority of Christian teaching to the Emperor Philip, who was the first of the Roman sovereigns to become a Christian. If anyone does not believe the Christian testimony, our story about his incredible knowledge, let him at least believe the pagan news of this, the testimony of philosophers. The famous wicked Porfiry 22 says that, excited by his glory, he arrived in Alexandria as a child and here he saw him as an old man, but in full greatness and glory, because he contained within himself the ark of all knowledge. I would not have enough time if I decided to calculate even the slightest share of Origen’s merits, which, however, all related not only to the glory of religion, but also to the greatness of temptation. Who could tear himself away from a man who had such intelligence, such learning, such pleasantness in his manners, and not be better than the opinion that he wants to err with Origen, rather than think the truth with others. What more can I say? The power lies in the fact that the temptation from such a famous person, a teacher, a prophet, was not an ordinary one, but, as the consequences showed, extremely dangerous, it alienated many from the integrity of the faith. The great and glorious Origen used the gift of God with great arrogance, indulged his mind without boundaries, trusted himself too much, put the ancient simplicity of the Christian religion at nothing, imagined himself to understand more than everyone else, and, despising Church traditions and teachings of the ancients, interpreted some passages of Scripture in a new way? Therefore, he also deserved to be told about him to the Church of God: if a prophet arises among you (Deut. 13:1), and somewhat lower: let you not listen, he says, to the word of that prophet (v. 3), and also: for, he says, the Lord your God is tempting you, whether you love Him or not (v. 3). In fact, it was not just a temptation, but a great temptation to suddenly and gradually incline from the ancient religion to a new obscenity. The Church, which was completely devoted to him, was completely surprised by his intelligence, knowledge, eloquence, life and behavior, which did not suspect him of anything and did not fear anything from him. Will someone say: Are Origen’s works damaged? I do not contradict this, I even wish that it would be so, because some not only Orthodox, but also heretics, spoke and wrote about this. But this is what we must now notice, that although not he himself, the works published under his name serve as a great temptation; for, filled with many infectious blasphemies, they are read and loved not as strangers, but as his own, so that, although Origen had no intention of conceiving error, however, the authority of the Origens apparently has the power to lead into error. St. Vikenty Lirinsky. Memoirs. St. Petersburg, 2000. Chapter XVII. pp. 60–66 Epistle of Pope Pelagius II (ϯ590) to Elijah of Aquileia and to other renegade bishops of Istria who did not agree with the condemnation of the three chapters Now we find it very timely to briefly respond to those words of yours that we heard without a letter from your messengers. They said that Theodore (of Mopsuestia) was praised in an epistle by John, bishop of Antioch, with extraordinary approval; We don't believe that in any way. If, however, something like this exists, then we are ready to believe that this relates more to the faith of the first Council of Ephesus, more to the books of Cyril and Hesychius, than to other messages that have not yet come to light. However, we must come closer to the matter and condescend to talk about something else. You know, beloved brethren, that things that are subject to doubt must always be interpreted for the better. What is the importance if he is praised by one father, when his error was hitherto still hidden and doubtful? And after the treachery became known, he was so wounded by the opinions of almost all the great fathers, like a fierce beast with frequent arrows. Don’t we know that sometimes even evil people are praised by good people, and yet they are not saved by these praises? Who is worse than Origen among heresiarchs and who can be found more honorable than Eusebius among historiographers? And who among us does not know with what praise Eusebius extols Origen in his books? But since the Holy Church judges by looking more favorably at the hearts of her faithful than by strictly treating the words, and since she can be guided by her own understanding regarding heretics more than by the testimony of Eusebius, she did not blame Eusebius for praising Origen. Did not Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, expound the Song of Songs, extol Origen with great praise? Does not Jerome, the elder of your church and the only translator from the Hebrew language, treat Origen with such affection that he almost seems to be his disciple? But since deeds should be taken into account more than words, their disposition did not harm them, and someone else’s good testimony did not justify them in their own guilt. Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. Kazan, 1913. T. V p. 257–258 St. Simeon. Fool for Christ's sake (ϯ c. 590) The saint also saw the secret thoughts of human hearts, which is clear from the following: near the city there was a monastery, where two fathers in conversations carried out research about Origen, why such a sage deviated into heresy. One argued that Origen’s wisdom is not from God, but from the teaching and reading of many books, and the other, that it is impossible for a person without the grace of God to speak and write in such a way that something else is still accepted by the Orthodox. So, after much debate and disagreement, they decided with each other: “It is heard that the Jordanian desert has great holy fathers, wise by God, so let’s go there, see if we can find someone there who would resolve our doubt.” So having decided, they first went to the holy city of Jerusalem and, having bowed to the holy places, went to the desert of the Dead Sea and, according to the dispensation of God, who did not despise their labors, they found the Monk John, who was Simeon’s friend and fellow priest. At that time John had already arrived in the perfect measure of holiness and had the gift of providence. As soon as he saw the fathers coming to him, he said to them: “You did well, leaving the sea in order to draw from the dry lake.” After a long spiritual conversation between them, when the dispute about Origen came to mind, the Monk John said to those who came: “I, fathers, did not receive a gift from God so that I could reason about the unknown, but go to the holy fool Simeon, who is in your city, he will answer you everything you ask.” They returned to their place and came to the city of Emessa and asked: -Where is the foolish elder Simeon? Some, laughing, said to them: -What do you want to hear from a madman who seduces everyone, mocks everyone, and most of all annoys the monks? They, disdaining such speeches, looked for the old man and in the house of a vegetable grower they found him lying over a bean and eating a bean like a bear. And immediately one of them, tempted, thought and laughed to himself: “Truly they have come to look at the great sage! We can learn a lot from him! Approaching him, they said: He looked at them and said with anger: “You came in vain, and the one who sent you to me is a madman.” Then, getting up, he hit the seduced man hard on the cheek, shouting: - You scold a bean for a hundred, it is wet for 40 days: Origen did not eat such a thing; but he went into the sea, could not get out of it and drowned in the depths. Leave here, leave, otherwise you will be beaten! They left, marveling at the elder’s foresight, because, without asking them, he told them about Origen and remembered the one who had sent them and exposed the thought of his heart, but they could not tell anyone about him. And what he said about the bean, that he was wet for 40 days, meant that he spent that many days without food, as he himself later told his friend Deacon John. Life of St. Simeon, Christ for the Fool's sake, and John, his companion // Lives of the Saints St. Demetrius of Rostov. July. M. Synodal Printing House. 1910. P. 487 The life of brother Feofan and his wondrous vision An elder, great before God, named Kyriakos, lived in the Kalamon Lavra, near the holy Jordan. One day a foreigner brother from the country of Dora, named Theophanes, came to him and asked the elder about his lustful thoughts. The elder began to instruct him with speeches about chastity and purity. The brother, having received great benefit from these instructions, exclaimed: “My father, in my country I am in communion with the Nestorians. If it weren’t for this, I would have stayed with you forever! Having heard the name of Nestorius, the elder was deeply saddened by the death of his brother and began to convince him and pray that he would leave this destructive heresy and join the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. – It is impossible to be saved if you do not have the right to think and believe that the Most Holy Virgin Mary is the true Mother of God. “Father,” the brother objected, “but all heresies say exactly the same thing: if you are not in communion with us, you will not receive salvation.” I don’t know, unfortunate thing, what to do. Pray to the Lord that He will clearly show me what the true faith is. The elder joyfully listened to his brother’s words. “Stay in my cell,” he said. “I have hope in God that He, in His mercy, will reveal the truth to you.” And leaving his brother in his cave, the elder went to the Dead Sea and began to pray for his brother. And sure enough, the next day, around the ninth hour, the brother sees that someone appeared to him, scary in appearance, and said: “Go and learn the truth!” And, taking him, he leads him to a dark, stinking place emitting flames and shows him in the flames Nestorius and Theodore, Eutyches and Apollinaris, Evagrius and Didymus, Dioscorus and Severus, Arius and Origen and others. And the one who appeared to his brother said: “This place is prepared for heretics, and for those who wickedly teach about the Most Holy Theotokos, as well as for those who follow their teaching. If you like this place, stick to your teachings. If you do not want to taste such punishment. Turn to the Holy Catholic Church, to which the elder who instructed you also belongs. I tell you: “Even if a person is adorned with all the virtues, if he believes wrongly, he will end up in this place.” “At these words, my brother came to his senses. When the elder returned, the brother told him everything he had seen, and soon joined the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, remaining in Kalamon with the elder, he lived with him for several years and died in peace. Blazh. John Mosch. Spiritual meadow. Ch. 26. TSL. 1915. P. 32 St. John Climacus (ϯ648) Let us all pay attention, especially the fallen, so that the destructive teaching of the godless Origen does not enter our hearts. It, bad, showed primarily God’s love for mankind, which was very much to the heart of the sensualists. Philokalia. T. II. TSL. 1992. P. 497 At the same time, there was a great persecution against Christians, and many people suffered for Christ, and Leonidas, the father of Origen, was married in them. Origen is still a youth, but has labored with zeal for torment, and strengthened his father, so that he does not weaken from faith; His mother forbade him, and shut him up in the church, so that he does not go to his father, but he sent the scripture to his father in prison, urging him to suffer, not for the sake of speech, do not be sad and thus die for Christ. Origen himself constantly studied the scriptures, and not only read the scriptures, but also often experienced all the depths. He asked his father, and his father came and discovered him sleeping, and kissed him on the forehead, as if he were the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. And thanking God, he was honored to give birth to such a child, and when his father passed away in Christ, Origen remained a sire and a beggar, and a certain rich wife took him in Alexandria for a son; When he was 18 years old, I made his teacher a catechumen and then tormented for Christ’s sake, and you labored them to patience and to death, and you consoled them many times. Evil men were moved to anger, to torment the hedgehog, because they labored as a martyr for complacency, but with the help of God they were delivered, because they were wise and virtuous, and did many years in one robe, and walked without shoes, nor drank wine, nor ate countless poisonous foods, as he said and interpreted the book of Hebrew, You have been well taught by their words. Then Origen came to Caesarea Palestine and from many countries, the great Gregory the wonderworker, and his brother Athenodorus, at the same time, and Amphrigian the writer was with them, and Firmilian, who repelled the words of the husband Ambrose about the heresy of the Walentovs and Marianovs, in Caesarea I exist. Ambrose force him to interpret the divine scriptures, assign him 7 cursive writers, and another typewriter. And in submitting demands to them, I am satisfied, and for 18 years, all the Divine Scriptures of interpretation of 6000 books were written by Ambrose’s compulsion, and Origen commemorates him, O sacred speech to God, Ambrose loves God’s words. He exhausted so many of his skin with his diligence, so that we would not die in the slightest, due to the need of nature, neither in the night nor in the days did we leave the hedgehog to be revered. Such is Origen, glorious in wisdom, but his glory is not completely unquenchable, having exalted himself in thought, and in relying on his wisdom he sinned, not wanting to follow the command of the holy fathers, and falling in a terrible fall. Many people are already tempted. Without remembering Solomon speaking. Son, do not strive to create many books, and do not wear out words from the face of God, for God is in heaven, but you are on earth below. For this reason, let your words be small. Origen wanted to leave nothing without experiencing the depth. And for this reason, I cast myself into the abyss of destruction, speaking unspeakable verbs that spoke deadly words. Sitsa speech. For the one-born Son of the Father cannot be seen, neither the Holy Spirit of the Son, nor the angel of the Spirit, nor the human angels, nor the being of the Father, the Son, but a creature by grace called the Son. And the souls of sinners, after some years, will have an end to their torment, until their sins are cleansed. And the demons were told to be an angel again. And demons and humans want to be together, not to suffer, but to be free, and he uttered many blasphemies, from whom Arius and Nestorius accepted guilt, and many other heretics. But Origen took time away from the idolater, and because of his blasphemy, he was exposed to God's help, and could not bear the torment, but was cast into the sacrifice, and the victim was quickly released from torment. And the Orthodox expelled him from the church and left Alexandria for the sake of reproach, he departed for Judea, entered Jerusalem, and he was commanded to quickly speak a word in the church from the priest (or presbyter), first of all we are very annoying, standing up to the point of speech. To the sinner you spoke God's justification, and you accepted the covenant with your lips, and having folded the book of lamentations, Origen died while he was still alive 60 years ago, when the philosophers Simiachos and Aquillas, Theodotian, were the philosophers who created the legend in the Hebrew scriptures. At the same time, the North was king of the war against Britania. An island where two clans of Vritanians, the Glagolemians Kalodin and Miniati, live on wondrous mountains and in empty fields, they have neither cities nor dwellings, they make the ground below. But they feed on herds and oxen and vegetables, and move from place to place, without shoes, and they have all their wives in common, and they all feed the youth in common, they all have food for themselves below the chief, they fight with four wheels, and their horses and their spears are small, they do not tolerate hunger and winter, they cry in cronyism for many days, they feed on mud, and rooting, and wood bark. The longitude of the island of Britain is 1000 miles, and its width is 300,000. Sevier, approaching that island and killing many people there, made peace with them. Although Sevier, according to Britania, died of illness; Others say that Anthony’s son killed him with poison. Tsarstova in Rome for 18 years and eight months. Ep. Sylvester (Malevansky) and V.Ya. Malakhov Some Notes on Origen The inaccuracy and uncertainty in the word expression of some teachers of the 2nd – 3rd centuries directly gives reason to suspect them of symbolism. We will not consider here the very writings of these fathers - the task is very difficult and complex, but we will refer to the authority of such a dogmatist as the Reverend. Sylvester, who can no longer be suspected of a Protestant way of thinking. This is what he says, by the way, after a thorough study of the teachings on the Eucharist of Origen and Clement of Alexandria. “Based on the foregoing, it must be accepted as undeniable that Origen (and Clement too) did not recognize in the Eucharist a significant change in the Eucharistic elements: so, on the other hand, that he recognized in the Eucharist not only the imaginary, but the real presence of the life-giving power of the glorified flesh of Christ with the Divinity united with it, and that, therefore, he was not a complete symbolist 23.” He was, therefore, we say, what Luther was in the 16th century. That is why Lutherans love to refer to him 24. Like Origen, Tertullian also expresses himself rather ambiguously, presenting a vast field for guesses and assumptions. Malakhov V.Ya. Transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. MDA. Theological Bulletin. 1898. August. P. 115 Appendix I. Conciliar message of the bishops of Egypt and Alexandria “So this Origen, of whom it is spoken, made as it were an abomination to make desolate among the true Church; Having been ordained as a presbyter by the lawful and one true hand, he had only the bare dignity of a presbyter, just as the thief and traitor Judas had the dignity of an apostle. For when he began to speak blasphemous conversations, the blessed Heraclius, who was a bishop at that time and devoted to the truth, as a farmer and vinedresser of the field of the Church, plucked him, like undoubtedly bad tares, from the midst of good grain.” And a little further: “So, having fallen from heaven to earth like lightning, and breathing, like his father the devil, great and strong anger against the truth, he sailed to the country called Palestine, and stopped in the metropolis of Caesarea; then, completely unveiling his face from all veils and like a fish, which some call cuttlefish, spewing out the dark and black poison of life, which gave him pleasure, he set out his teaching there in writing, and like a Jew shinkar, under the guise of goodness, he mixed the bitter and the sweet. For what does this evil artist and madman say? There was, he says, a soul before the body and pre-existed in heaven. There, he says, she sinned and was taken into custody, that is, sent into the body, for cleansing, they say, and atonement for the sins she committed in heaven. Firstly, here the most impious Origen speaks pure fables and wants to wage war against the truth.” And a little further: “if the soul pre-existed in heaven and sinned there first, as the insane and God-fighting Origen said, then the most holy prophet should have said something different: and the creator in him, he denounces this fierce wolf, externally clothed in sheep’s skin for disastrous deception. For he, as if cast down from heaven and well aware of the rules there, says that the soul not only existed before, but also sinned before.” Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. Kazan. 1913. T. V.s. 276–277 Appendix II. St. Emperor Justinian on the abdication of Origen So, not having established himself on the rock of faith, but also spewing out much worse than these blasphemies, the wicked Origen, as should have happened, renounced Christ during the torture, and worshiped the Hellenic polytheism he had introduced. And this happened according to the will of God’s providence, with the aim that the Church would not consider him a martyr and through this no harm would be caused to the flock of Christ. For if even now some, knowing about his fall, adhere to his teachings, then how could they not defend his teachings if he became a martyr and a father, without worshiping idols and dying a martyr? No zealot of the truth falls away from God and is not abandoned by Him, as the Divine Scripture says: look at the ancient generations and see who is the faith of the Lord and is ashamed (Sir. 2:10), or who trusted in the Lord and the Lord despised him? And the wicked Origen not only set forth his blasphemies for himself, but also carried away many others into his error through his writings, so that the following words of the holy Apostle Paul perfectly apply to him: “There are certain sins that men must bring before judgment, and certain sins that follow” (1 Tim. 5:24). For his delusion, successively passing from one weak soul to another, results in the fact that the sins originally committed by himself are repeated after him. The word of the most pious Emperor Justinian, sent to Mina, to the most holy and blessed archbishop of the prosperous city and To the Patriarch, against the wicked Origen and his obscene opinions // Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. Kazan. 1913. T.V. With. 279 Appendix III. On the source of Origen's theology 25 St. Nikon of Antioch. About a young man with many words and love, outraged by a demon There was a certain young man at the time of Blessed Epiphanius in Cyprus, called the Wise. To this I began to speak from those who had the care 26 about the scriptures and, having happened, I talked to him 27 . He blocked their mouths with bickering words; The clergy and bishops are many, and this one bickers, and the rest, no one dares to fight with him. And his rumor spread throughout the entire island, even to Pafa. The same one, in vanity, spoke wisely, and, creating fear for bickering, was vainglorious with the wisdom of these thoughts. His rumor reached the bishop. Having heard 28 the slaughter of him, Epiphanius, and having been ill, and reasoning about his words, and thinking that this was a young man who had given himself the vain and vain sayings of the scriptures, armed himself with the faith of Christ, he said: “Bring him to me.” They walked and saw where he was, going to him, saying: “Bishop Epiphanius sent an ambassador to you, saying: come to us.” He rose up and went with them. Having come to the saint and having had a conversation, we did not begin to argue, but first even prayed. I am praying more diligently to the saint, I have begun to quarrel, gnashing my teeth and wondering about the effect of the bishop’s prayers. The saint, having understood the power of prayer, repeated the prayer even more. And praying to the Lord Jesus, saying: “Lord, heal, release the captive, and create the demon who has been manifested in wisdom since many times, drive away from Your creation and quickly show the weakness of the one who acted, our Master Jesus Christ.” Then the demon, seeing himself being driven out by the prayer of the saint, gnashing his teeth, and foaming, and driving out the first dispensation in every possible way, having bloody eyes, began to rush towards the saint. Those who are coming have begun to hold it. The holy speech: “Let him in.” He, having been sent away, spoke with a cry: “Are you driving me out?” Epiphanius: “My Lord Jesus Christ is driving you out.” The demon answered: “Have you called me for this, since for so long I have been honored in my house, having dishonored you, you have made money?” The bishop said: “The Lord of creation, Jesus, wants to heal His vessel; You will be tormented. Even though you have been quarreling over words for a long time, whether you thought you were harmless to remain, now we are torturing you, go away from the young man.” The demon said: “Don’t you weigh me who I am? Are you driving me out? And he laughed again, saying: “Even though I am unknown to you, I was known by many.” And the saint: “Who are you?” - speech. The demon of the verb: “I am, like the verb in Origen.” And the bishop said: “If you spoke in Origen, O Rtsy, even as the books of the Archon 29 spoke, which the accursed one wrote.” The demon first began to utter a book of grace and, with many rivers, kept silent. The saint returned to him: “Many are the books that the passionate one wrote, and not a single one of them was done without blasphemy, and I believe that you said in it; You combined, as I hear, also about the resurrection of unrighteous rivers, inform us about this and tell us that.” And the demon began to speak the book to him from the beginning. The saint, who cannot endure his blasphemy, will stop his ears; Likewise, the clergy have covered their ears, not tolerating blasphemy against the Lord Jesus. Then Saint Epphanius cried out and said: “Be silent, cursed son of Gehenna by your gray-wise Origen.” Suddenly, after the test, the man was cursed 30, barely reaching the ground with his feet, cursing himself, saying: “If I had known that I was coming to you for my destruction, I would not have left my man to talk to you; but I think that I will sneak up on you, like many others, with redundant words. We have lost hope and become vain from hope: we have destroyed many through the evil 31 teaching, deceiving the great ones and teaching them harmful things with my teaching.” And with other numerous words, having cursed the demon for ourselves, we drive it away from the saint; I commanded him to take him away from the young man. Then the saint said: “In the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, come out of the young man without harming him in any way.” He threw him to the ground and shook him, leaving the young man. The saint commanded those present to hide the young man and grant him joy. The clergy, after asking him, have some books from the countries of the island. The same village, as usual, said in his conversation: “From the village of Mesogia, these islands are.” They said to him: “Sitse you say; and what clearly did you answer yesterday? He said: “We don’t know what you say, below is how this came.” Having announced this to the bishop, it seemed as if the devil was thirsting for human destruction. Monk Euthymius. Osten. Monument to Russian spiritual writing of the 17th century. St. Petersburg, 2006. pp. 60–63 It is the fact that Eusebius was an ardent admirer of Origen (and he himself, as is known, occupied a position close to the Arian one) encourages us to trust Eusebius’ testimony, because this news clearly discredited Origen, and Eusebius would hardly have included it without sufficient grounds. Finally, it was the fact of castration that was one of the serious grounds for the condemnation of Origen after his consecration, which could not have happened against the background of mere rumors and speculation - priest. A.P. The fact that the condemnation of Origen was not a consequence of the personal offense of the Alexandrian bishop is evidenced by the fact that after the death of Bishop. Demetrius in 232, after Origen returned to Alexandria, the new bishop Herakles confirmed the bans imposed by his predecessor. Perhaps the illegal ordination of Origen was the last straw that overflowed Demetrius' patience. Sschmch. Peter of Alexandria, in his occult teaching, writes: “What can I say about the blessed bishops Heraclius and Demetrius, what trials did they endure from the insane Origen, who sowed his own schisms in the Church, which still stir up disturbances in it to this day?” Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. Kazan, 913, vol. V, p. 271) – priest. A.P. Disputes about Origen began during his lifetime and continued after his death. There is reason to believe, contrary to Eusebius, that Origen was excommunicated by Demetrius of Alexandria not only for disciplinary reasons, but also for his dogmatic errors. Eusebius himself indirectly points to this when he says (Eusebius. Church History, 6:36) that Origen “wrote letters to Fabian, Bishop of Rome, and many other bishops, about his Orthodoxy” (hence, his Orthodoxy was doubted). Blessed Jerome, in early letters, denied the “slander” that Origen was condemned for his dogmatic errors (see Letter 32, to Paul). In later letters, on the contrary, he confirms this (see Letter 81, to Pammachius and Markella) - Bp. Hilarion (Alfeev). Origen\\ Anthology “Fathers and Teachers of the Church of the Third Century.” T. II. P. 21. The letter was sent along with a translation of the district Easter message of Theophilus of Alexandria dated 402. Devir. Illustr. C. 83. Comment in Daniel. C XIII Extracts from this work were preserved in the library of Patriarch Photius (op. 235), who begins them like this: “A brief extract from the read work of the holy martyr and bishop Methodius, about created things.” The division into parts here is consistent with Ian's edition. S. Meth. Oper. P. 100–102. In the original ξενων, this name refers to Origen, who is called below by name. Migne. Decree. Ed. R. 331 A centaur is a fabulous creature with the head and chest of a man and the body of a horse. Letter of Pammachius to Oceanus and Jerome: Pammachius and Oceanus wish the presbyter Teronymus health. One of the sacred brothers brought us someone's notebooks, which contained a work by Origen entitled περί ἀρχῶν - translated into Latin. Since there is much in them that outrages our feeble-mindedness, which we recognize as not entirely Orthodox and even suspect that in order to justify the author, much has been destroyed from his books, which could reveal his obvious wickedness: then we ask your reverence to deign to exclusively engage in this matter, which will be useful not so much for those living in the city (Rome), - in a word, to make the above-mentioned book of Origen accessible for the purpose (for which purpose it was published by the author), to reveal what was inserted by his defender, and to expose and refute what in these notebooks that we sent to your priesthood is either contrary to Orthodox teaching or unskillfully translated. In the introduction to his work, he. Without mentioning the name of your priesthood, I only noted that he completed the work. Which you promised, indirectly hinting that you also share his views. Clear yourself from people’s suspicions and expose the liar, so as not to appear like-minded with him if you remain silent. Those. He taught that in Christ there is one nature - the Divine, and that this nature alone participated in economic salvation. Apollinaris taught that a perfect God and a perfect man cannot be united in one person, because in general two perfect and whole objects cannot be made into one thing - and he rejected human nature in Christ, especially because he did not recognize sin as a necessary property of the highest rational nature of man, or his mind (νους, πνευμα). This is the same Apollinaris mentioned above. Montanists were called Katafrigians (οἱ κατά Fρύγας) - after the place of origin of the heresy. One of the names of Apollo. It seems that Jerome with these words refutes the testimony of some (Nicephorus and others) that Origen killed the lust of the flesh artificially, through some kind of medicine. The message, or edict, of Mithridates ordered the extermination in one day of all the Romans living in Asia. Those. book attributed to Pamphilus. The reason for this question was the following passage from the first letter to the Corinthians: hallowed is the unfaithful husband over his faithful wife, and holy is the unfaithful wife over her faithful husband; Otherwise your children would have been unclean, but now they are holy (1 Cor. 7:14) From the words ἀκαιρός - untimely, untimely, and σπουδαστής - well-wisher, assistant. By these inopportunely obliging virtues of Origen, Jerome clearly means Rufinus and his accomplices. Dominicae confessionis. So, they say, was the name of one of Origen’s works, which has not come down to us, in which he gloriously confessed the name of the Lord and which attracted the constant hostility of the pagans to him. Lamin. Theolog ours comp. t.1. Pag 741. Paris. 1839 He lived without one for seventy years.// Eusebius. Church History, book. 7. Ch. 1, p. 398. St. Petersburg, 1848. A student of the Alexandrian philosopher Plotinus, who wrote fifteen books against Christians. Eusebius. Church history. Book 6, ch. 19, p. 349. St. Petersburg, 1848. Ep. Sylvester. Experience of Orthodox dogmatic theology. K. 1897. T. IV. P. 493. See, for example, Petr. Matr. Contr. Gardiner. P.IV. Object. 162, 168, etc. (In modern catenas (collections of quotes from the Fathers, Doctors of the Church and church writers), compiled by Protestants, Origen is quoted very extensively. The famous Protestant theologian A. Harnack considered Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, anathematized along with Origen at the V Ecumenical Council, “the only great theologians that the Greek Church possessed.” Harnack A. von Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte II. S. 505 – priest. Given according to the spelling of the publication. On the margin of the manuscript: Silvester Medvedev is like the seduced young man. In the field of the manuscript it was revealed that this man was promised from the devil. The word "evil" was added here from the margin of the manuscript.