|
HOME | GREEK LANGUAGE | LIBRARIES | BLOG | HELP | SEARCH | FREEWARE | BOOKSTORE |
|
|
By Frederick Crombie.
Origen Resources OnLine & in Print
|
17 Pages
Page 8
The motives which impelled Demetrius to this treatment of Origen have been variously stated and variously criticized. Eusebius [1886] refers his readers for a full account of all the matters involved to the treatise which he and Pamphilus composed in his defence; but this work has not come down to us, [1887] although we possess a brief notice of it in the Bibliotheca of Photius, [1888] from which we derive our knowledge of the proceedings of the two synods. There seems little reason to doubt that jealousy of interference on the part of the bishops of another diocese was one main cause of the resentment displayed by Demetrius; while it is also possible that another alleged cause, the heterodox character of some of Origen's opinions, as made known in his already published works, among which were his Stromata and De Principiis, [1889] may have produced some effect upon the minds of the hostile bishops. Hefele [1890] asserts that the act of the Palestinian bishops was contrary to the Church law of the time, and that Demetrius was justified on that ground for his procedure against him. But it may well be doubted whether there was any generally understood law or practice existing at so early a period of the Church's history. If so, it is difficult to understand how it should have been unknown to the Palestinian bishops; or, on the supposition of any such existing law or usage, it is equally difficult to conceive that either they themselves or Origen should have agreed to disregard it, knowing as they did the jealous temper of Demetrius, displayed on the occasion of Origen's preaching at Caesarea already referred to. This had drawn from the Alexandrine bishop an indignant remonstrance, in which he had asserted that such an act was "quite unheard of before;" [1891] but, to this statement the Caesarean bishops replied in a letter, in which they enumerated several instances of laymen who had addressed the congregation. [1892] The probabilities, therefore, are in favour of there being no generally understood law or practice on the subject, and that the procedure, therefore, was dictated by hierarchical jealousy on the part of Demetrius. According to Eusebius, [1893] indeed, the act of mutilation already referred to was made a ground of accusation against Origen; and there seems no doubt that there existed an old canon of the Church, [1894] based upon the words in Deuteronomy xxiii. 1, which rendered one who had committed such an act ineligible for office in the Church. But there is no trace of this act, as disqualifying Origen for the office of presbyter, having been urged by Demetrius, so far as can be discovered from the notices of the two synods which have been preserved by Rufinus and Photius. And it seems extremely probable, as Redepenning remarks, [1895] that if Demetrius were acquainted with this act of Origen, as Eusebius says he was, [1896] he made no public mention of it, far less that he made it a presence for his deposition.
[1886] Hist. Eccles., b. vi. c. 22. and c. 33.
[1887] With the exception of the first book; cf. Migne, vol. ix. pp. 542-632.
[1888] Cf. Photii Bibliotheca, ed. Hoeschel, p. 298.
[1889] Eusebius expressly mentions that both these works, among others, were published before he left Alexandria.--Hist. Eccles., b. vi. c. 24.
[1890] s.v. Origenes.
[1891] Hist. Eccles., b. vi. c. 19.
[1892] Ibid.
[1893] Ibid., b. vi. c. 8.
[1894] ho akroteriasas heauton me genestho klerikos. Cf. Redepenning, vol. i. pp. 208, 216, 218.
[1895] Cf. Redepenning, vol. i. p. 409, note 2.
[1896] Hist. Eccles., b. vi. c. 8.
Reference address : https://ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/fathers/origen/introduction.asp?pg=8
