Disputes Over Origen

Prospereque cursu septmo die Alexandriam pervenimus, ubi foeda inter episcopis atque monachos certamina gerebantur, ex ea occasione vel causa, quod congregati in unum saepius sacerdotes, frequentibus decrevisse synodis videbantur, ne quis Origenis libros legeret aut haberet, qui tractator sanctarum Scripturarum peritissimus habebatur. Sed episcopi quaedam in libris illius insanius scripta memorabant, quae assertores ejus defendere non ausi, ab haereticis potius fraudulenter inserta dicebant; et ideo non propter illa quae in reprehensionem merito vocarentur, etiam reliqua esse damnanda; cum legentium fides facile possit habere discrimen, ne falsata sequerentur, et tamen catholice disputata retineret: non esse autem mirum, si in libris neotericis et recens scriptis fraus heretica fuisset operata, quae in quibusdam locis non timuisset incidere Evangelicam veritatem. Adversum haec episcopi obstinatus renitentes, pro potestate cogebant recta etiam universa cum pravis et cum ipso auctore damnare: quia satis superque sufficerent libri quos Ecclesia recepisset: respuendam esse penitus lectionem, quae plus esset nocitura insipientibus, quam profutura sapientibus. Mihi autem ex illius libris quaedam curiosius indaganti, admodum multa placuerunt: sed nonnulla deprehendi, in quibus illum prava sensisse non dubium est, quae defensores ejus falsata contendunt. Ego miror unum eumdemque hominem tam diversum a se esse potuisse, ut in ea parte qua probatur, neminem post Apostolos habet aequalem; in ea vero quae jure reprehenditur, nemo deformius doceatur errasse. Sulpicius Severus, Dialogus I, Cap VI Source: Migne PL 20.187c-188b

After a favorable voyage, on the seventh day, we arrived at Alexandria where we found bishops and monks engaged in disgraceful strife, the occasion or cause of which was that the priests gathered together had often made decrees in crowded synods that no one should read or possess the books of Origen, he who was held to be the most acute commentator on the sacred Scriptures. But the bishops recalled that there were certain things in his books that were most defective, which his supporters, not daring to defend, rather declared had been deceitfully inserted by heretics, and therefore they said that it should not be that on account of those things which merited reproof that the rest should be condemned, when the faith of readers could easily make a distinction, so that they would not follow what was forged and yet would retain those matters discussed in the Catholic manner, which was nothing to be wondered at if even in new and recent writings heretical deceit had been at work, which in certain passages had not feared to add to the Gospel truth. The bishops, persistently struggling against such things, with great efforts insisted that even all that which was correct, along with the false, and the author himself, should be condemned, because those books which the Church had received were more than sufficient, and that the reading of his works must be completely avoided as they would do more harm to the simple than they would benefit the wise. As for myself, being curious to investigate some parts of these books, I found very many things which pleased, but not a few which were reprehensible, in which there is no doubt that the author thought these depraved things which his defenders argue are forgeries. I marvel that one and the same man could have been so different from himself, so that in the part which is approved he has no equal since the Apostles, but in those things for which he is rightly condemned, no one can be shown to have erred more shamefully. Sulpicius Severus, from Dialogue I, Cap VI