22
April. Remembering
Origen, c. 185-253 AD.
The Catholic Encyclopedia has
a full article.
Prat, Ferdinand. "Origen
and Origenism." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 11. New York: Robert
Appleton Company, 1911. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm.
Accessed Apr 22, 2014.
Life and work of Origen
Biography
Origen,
most modest of writers, hardly ever alludes to himself in his own works; but Eusebius has
devoted to him almost the entire sixth book of "Ecclesiastical
History". Eusebius
was thoroughly acquainted with the life of his hero; he had collected a hundred
of his letters; in collaboration with the martyr Pamphilus he
had composed the "Apology for Origen"; he dwelt at Caesarea where
Origen's library
was preserved, and where his memory still lingered; if at times he may be
thought somewhat partial, he is undoubtedly well informed. We find some details
also in the "Farewell Address" of St. Gregory
Thaumaturgus to his master, in the controversies of St. Jerome
and Rufinus, in St.
Epiphanius (Haeres., LXIV), and in Photius (Biblioth. Cod. 118).
Origen at Alexandria (185-232)
Born
in 185, Origen was barely seventeen when a bloody persecution of
the Church
of Alexandrian broke out. His father Leonides, who admired his precocious
genius was charmed with his virtuous life, had given him an excellent literary education.
When Leonides was cast into prison,
Origen would fain have shared his lot, but being unable to carry out his
resolution, as his mother had hidden his clothes, he wrote an ardent,
enthusiastic letter to his father
exhorting him to persevere courageously.
When Leonides had won the martyr's
crown and his fortune had been confiscated by the imperial authorities, the
heroic child laboured to support himself, his mother, and his six younger
brothers. This he successfully accomplished by becoming a teacher, selling his manuscripts,
and by the generous aid of a certain rich lady, who admired his talents. He
assumed, of his own accord, the direction of the catechetical
school, on
the withdrawal of Clement, and in the following year was confirmed in his
office by the patriarch Demetrius (Eusebius, Church History
VI.2; St.
Jerome, "De viris illust.", liv). Origen's school,
which was frequented by pagans,
soon became a nursery of neophytes,
confessors, and martyrs.
Among the latter were Plutarch, Serenus, Heraclides, Heron, another Serenus,
and a female
catechumen,
Herais (Eusebius,
Church History
VI.4). He accompanied them to the scene of their victories
encouraging them by his exhortations. There is nothing more touching than this
picture Eusebius
has drawn of Origen's youth, so studious, disinterested, austere and pure,
ardent and zealous
even to indiscretion (VI, iii and vi). Thrust thus at so early an age into the
teacher's chair, he recognized the necessity of completing his education.
Frequenting the philosophic schools,
especially that of Ammonius Saccas, he devoted himself to a study of the philosophers,
particularly Plato
and the Stoics.
In this he was but following the example of his predecessors Pantenus and
Clement, and of Heracles, who was to succeed him. Afterwards, when the latter
shared his labours in the catechetical
school, he
learned Hebrew, and communicated frequently with certain Jews who
helped him to solve his difficulties.
The
course of his work at Alexandria
was interrupted by five journeys. About 213, under Pope Zephyrinus
and the emperor
Caracalla, he desired "to see the very ancient Church of
Rome", but he did not remain there long (Eusebius, Church History
VI.14). Shortly afterwards he was invited to Arabia by the governor
who was desirous of meeting him (VI, xix). It was probably in 215 or 216 when
the persecution
of Caracalla
was raging in Egypt
that he visited Palestine, where Theoctistus of Caesarea and Alexander of Jerusalem,
invited him to preach though he was still a layman.
Towards 218, it would appear, the empress Mammaea, mother of Alexander Severus,
brought him to Antioch (VI, xxi). Finally, at a much later period, under
Pontian of Rome
and Zebinus of Antioch (Eusebius,
VI, xxiii), he journeyed into Greece,
passing through Caesarea where Theoctistus, Bishop of
that city, assisted by Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem,
raised him to the priesthood.
Demetrius, although he had given letters of recommendation to Origen, was very
much offended by this ordination,
which had taken place without his knowledge
and, as he thought, in derogation of his rights. If Eusebius
(VI, viii) is to be believed, he was envious of
the increasing influence of his catechist. So, on his return to Alexandria,
Origen soon perceived that his bishop was
rather unfriendly towards him. He yielded to the storm and quitted Egypt (231).
The details of this affair were recorded by Eusebius in
the lost second book of the "Apology for Origen"; according to
Photius, who had read the work, two councils were held at Alexandria,
one of which pronounced a decree
of banishment against Origen while the other deposed him from the priesthood
(Biblioth. cod. 118). St.
Jerome declares expressly that he was not condemned on a point of doctrine.
Origen at Caesarea (232)
Expelled
from Alexandria,
Origen fixed his abode at Caesarea in Palestine (232), with his protector and
friend Theoctistus, founded a new school
there, and resumed his "Commentary on St. John" at the point where it
had been interrupted. He was soon surrounded by pupils. The most distinguished
of these, without doubt,
was St.
Gregory Thaumaturgus who, with his brother Apollodorus, attended
Origen's lectures for five years and delivered on leaving him a celebrated
"Farewell Address". During the persecution
of Maximinus (235-37) Origen visited his friend, St. Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in
Cappadocia, who made him remain for a long period. On this occasion he was
hospitably entertained by a Christian
lady of Caesarea, named Juliana, who had inherited the writing of Symmachus,
the translator of the Old
Testament (Palladius, "Hist. Laus.", 147). The years
following were devoted almost uninterruptedly to the composition of the
"Commentaries". Mention is made only of a few excursions to Holy
Places, a journey to Athens (Eusebius,
VI, xxxii), and two voyages to Arabia, one
of which was undertaken for the conversion of Beryllus, a Patripassian
(Eusebius,
VI, xxxiii; St.
Jerome, Illustrious Men
60), the other to refute certain heretics who
denied the Resurrection
(Eusebius, Church History
VI.37). Age did not diminish his activities. He was over sixty when
he wrote his "Contra
Celsum" and his "Commentary on St. Matthew". The persecution
of Decius (250)
prevented him from continuing these works. Origen was imprisoned
and barbarously tortured, but his courage was
unshaken and from his prison
he wrote letters breathing the spirit of the martyrs (Eusebius, Church History
VI.39). He was still alive on the death of Decius
(251), but only lingering on, and he died, probably, from the results of the
sufferings endured during the persecution
(253 or 254), at the age of sixty-nine (Eusebius, Church History
VII.1). His last days were spent at Tyr, though his reason for
retiring thither is unknown. He was buried with honour as a
confessor of the Faith. For a long time his sepulchre, behind the high-altar of
the cathedral
of Tyr, was visited by pilgrims.
Today, as nothing remains of this cathedral
except a mass of ruins, the exact location of his tomb is
unknown.
Works
Very
few authors were as fertile as Origen. St. Epiphanius
estimates at six thousand the number of his writings, counting separately,
without doubt,
the different books of a single work, his homilies,
letters, and his smallest treatises (Haeres., LXIV, lxiii). This figure,
repeated by many ecclesiastical
writers, seems greatly exaggerated. St. Jerome
assures us that the list of Origen's writings drawn up by St. Pamphilus did not
contain even two thousand titles (Contra Rufin., II, xxii; III, xxiii); but
this list was evidently incomplete. Eusebius (Church History
VI.32) had inserted it in his biography of St. Pamphilus and St. Jerome
inserted it in a letter to Paula.
Exegetical writings
Origen
had devoted three kinds of works to the explanation of the Holy Scripture:
commentaries, homilies,
and scholia (St. Jerome, "Prologus interpret. homiliar. Orig. in
Ezechiel"). The commentaries (tomoi libri, volumina) were a continuous and
well-developed interpretation of the inspired text. An idea of
their magnitude may be formed from the fact that the words of St. John:
"In the beginning was the Word", furnished material for a whole roll.
There remain in Greek only eight books of the "Commentary on St.
Matthew", and nine books of the "Commentary on St. John"; in
Latin an anonymous translation of the "Commentary on St. Matthew"
beginning with chapter xvi, three books and a half of the "Commentary on
the Canticle of Canticles" translated by Rufinus, and an abridgment of the
"Commentary on the Epistles to the Romans" by the same translator.
The homilies
(homiliai,
homiliae, tractatus)
were familiar discourses on texts of Scripture, often extemporary and recorded
as well as possible by stenographers. The list is long and undoubtedly must
have been longer if it be true
that Origen, as St. Pamphilus declares in his "Apology" preached
almost every day. There remain in Greek twenty-one (twenty on Jeremias and the
celebrated homily
on the witch
of Endor); in Latin, one hundred and eighteen translated by Rufinus,
seventy-eight translated by St.
Jerome and some others of more of less doubtful
authenticity, preserved in a collection of homilies.
The twenty "Tractatus Origenis" recently discovered are not the work
of Origen, though use has been made of his writings. Origen has been called the
father of the homily;
it was he who contributed most to popularize this species of literature in
which are to be found so many instructive details on the customs of the
primitive Church, its institutions, discipline, liturgy, and sacraments.
The scholia (scholia,
excerpta, commaticum interpretandi genus) were exegetical,
philological, or historical notes, on words or passages of the Bible, like
the annotations of the Alexandria grammarians on the profane writers. Except
some few short fragments all of these have perished.
Other writings
We
now possess only two of Origen's letters: one addressed to St. Gregory
Thaumaturgus on the reading of Holy Scripture,
the other to Julius
Africanus on the Greek additions to the Book of Daniel. Two opuscula have been preserved
entire in the original form; an excellent treatise "On Prayer" and an
"Exhortation to Martyrdom", sent by Origen to his friend Ambrose,
then a prisoner
for the Faith. Finally two large works have escaped the ravages of time: the "Contra
Celsum" in the original text, and the "De
principiis" in a Latin translation by Rufinus and in the
citations of the "Philocalia" which might equal in contents one-sixth
of the whole work. In the eight books of the "Contra
Celsum" Origen follows his adversary point by point, refuting
in detail each of his false
imputations. It is a model of reasoning, erudition, and honest polemic. The "De
principiis", composed at Alexandria,
and which, it seems, got into the hands of the public before its completion,
treated successively in its four books, allowing for numerous digressions, of:
(a) God
and the Trinity, (b) the world and its relation to God, (c) man
and his free
will, (d) Scripture, its inspiration and interpretation. Many other
works of Origen have been entirely lost: for instance, the treatise in two
books "On the Resurrection", a treatise "On Free Will", and
ten books of "Miscellaneous Writings" (Stromateis). For Origen's
critical work see HEXAPLA.
Posthumous influence of Origen
During
his lifetime Origen by his writings, teaching, and intercourse exercised very
great influence. St. Firmilian of Caesarea in Cappadocia, who regarded himself
as his disciple, made him remain with him for a long period to profit by his
learning (Eusebius,
Church History
VI.26; Palladius,
"Hist. Laus.", 147). St. Alexander of
Jerusalem his fellow pupil at the catechetical
school was
his intimate faithful friend (Eusebius,
VI, xiv), as was Theoctistus of Caesarea in Palestine, who ordained him
(Photius,
cod. 118). Beryllus of Bostra,
whom he had won back from heresy,
was deeply attached to him (Eusebius,
VI, xxxiii; St.
Jerome, Illustrious Men
60). St. Anatolus of Laodicea sang
his praises in his "Carmen Paschale" (P.G., X, 210). The learned Julius Africanus
consulted him, Origen's reply being extant (P.G., XI, 41-85). St. Hippolytus
highly appreciated his talents (St. Jerome, Illustrious Men
61). St. Dionysius, his pupil and successor in the catechetical
school, when
Patriarch of
Alexandria,
dedicated to him his treatise "On the Persecution" (Eusebius,
VI, xlvi), and on learning of his death wrote a letter filled with his praises
(Photius,
cod. 232). St.
Gregory Thaumaturgus, who had been his pupil for five years at Caesarea,
before leaving addressed to him his celebrated "Farewell Address" (P.G.,
X, 1049-1104), an enthusiastic panegyric. There is no proof that
Heracles, his disciple, colleague, and successor in the catechetical
school,
before being raised to the Patriarchate of Alexandria,
wavered in his sworn friendship. Origen's name was so highly esteemed that when
there was a question of putting an end to a schism or
rooting out a heresy,
appeal was made to it.
After
his death his reputation
continued to spread. St. Pamphilus, martyred in
307, composes with Eusebius
an "Apology for Origen" in six books the first alone of which has
been preserved in a Latin translation by Rufinus (P.G., XVII, 541-616). Origen
had at that time many other apologists whose names are unknown to us (Photius,
cod. 117 and 118). The directors of the catechetical
school
continued to walk in his footsteps. Theognostus, in his "Hypotyposes",
followed him even too closely, according to Photius (cod. 106), though his
action was approved by St.
Athanasius. Pierius was called by St. Jerome
"Origenes junior" (Illustrious Men
76). Didymus the Blind composed a work to explain and justify the
teaching of the "De
principiis" (St. Jerome, "Adv. Rufin.", I, vi). St.
Athanasius does not hesitate to cite him with praise (Epist. IV ad Serapion., 9
and 10) and points out that he must be interpreted generously (De decretis
Nic., 27).
Nor
was the admiration for the great Alexandrian less outside of Egypt. St. Gregory of
Nazianzus gave significant expression to his opinion (Suidas,
"Lexicon", ed. Bernhardy, II, 1274: Origenes he panton
hemon achone).
In collaboration with St.
Basil, he had published, under the title "Philocalia", a
volume of selections from the master. In his "Panegyric on St. Gregory
Thaumaturgus", St.
Gregory of Nyssa called Origen the prince of Christian
learning in the third century (P.G., XLVI, 905). At Caesarea in Palestine the
admiration of the learned for Origen became a passion. St. Pamphilus wrote his
"Apology", Euzoius had his writings transcribed on parchment (St.
Jerome, Illustrious Men
93). Eusebius
catalogued them carefully and drew upon them largely. Nor were the Latins less
enthusiastic than the Greeks. According to St. Jerome,
the principal Latin imitators of Origen are St. Eusebius of Verceil,
St. Hilary of Poitiers,
and St.
Ambrose of Milan; St. Victorinus
of Pettau had set them the example (St. Jerome, "Adv. Rufin.", I, ii;
"Ad Augustin. Epist.", cxii, 20). Origen's writings were so much
drawn upon that the solitary of Bethlehem called it plagiarism, furta Latinarum. However, excepting
Rufinus, who is practically only a translator, St. Jerome
is perhaps the Latin writer who is most indebted to Origen. Before the
Origenist controversies he willingly admitted this, and even afterwards, he did
not entirely repudiate it; cf. the prologues to his translations of Origen
(Homilies on St. Luke, Jeremias, and Ezechiel, the Canticle of Canticles), and
also the prefaces to his own "Commentaries" (on Micheas, the Epistles
to the Galatians, and to the Ephesians etc.).
Amidst
these expressions of admiration and praise, a few discordant voices were heard.
St. Methodius, bishop
and martyr
(311), had written several works against Origen, amongst others a treatise
"On the Resurrection", of which St. Epiphanius
cites a long extract (Haeres., LXVI, xii-lxii). St. Eustathius
of Antioch, who died in exile about 337, criticized his allegorism (P.G.,
XVIII, 613-673). St. Alexander of Alexandria, martyred in
311, also attacked him, if we are to credit Leontius of Byzantium
and the emperor Justinian. But his chief adversaries were the heretics,
Sabellians, Arians,
Pelagians, Nestorians, Apollinarists.
Origenism
By
this term is understood not so much Origen's theology and
the body of his teachings, as a certain number of doctrines, rightly or wrongly
attributed to him, and which by their novelty or their danger called forth at
an early period a refutation from orthodox
writers. They are chiefly:
- Allegorism in the interpretation of Scripture
- Subordination of the Divine Persons
- The theory of successive trials and a final restoration.
Before examining how far Origen
is responsible for these theories, a word must be said of the directive
principle of his theology.
The Church and the Rule of Faith
In
the preface to the "De
principiis" Origen laid down a rule thus formulated in the
translation of Rufinus: "Illa sola credenda est veritas quae in nullo ab
ecclesiastica et apostolica discordat traditione". The same norm is
expressed almost in equivalent terms n many other passages, e.g., "non
debemus credere nisi quemadmodum per successionem Ecclesiae Dei tradiderunt
nobis (In Matt., ser. 46, Migne,
XIII, 1667). In accordance with those principles Origen constantly appeals to ecclesiastical
preaching, ecclesiastical
teaching, and the ecclesiastical
rule of faith
(kanon). He accepts only four
Canonical Gospels because tradition does not receive more; he admits the
necessity of baptism
of infants because it is in accordance with the practice of the Church
founded on Apostolic
tradition; he warns the interpreter of the Holy Scripture,
not to rely on his own judgment, but "on the rule of the Church
instituted by Christ". For, he adds, we have only two lights to guide us
here below, Christ
and the Church;
the Church
reflects faithfully the light received from Christ, as
the moon reflects the rays of the sun. The distinctive mark of the Catholic is
to belong to the Church,
to depend on the Church
outside of which there is no salvation; on
the contrary, he who leaves the Church walks
in darkness, he is a heretic.
It is through the principle of authority that Origen is wont to unmask and
combat doctrinal
errors. It
is the principle of authority, too, that he invokes when he enumerates the dogmas of faith. A man
animated with such sentiments may have made mistakes, because he is human, but
his disposition of mind is essentially Catholic and
he does not deserve to be ranked among the promoters of heresy.
Scriptural allegorism
The
principal passages on the inspiration, meaning, and interpretation of the
Scriptures are preserved in Greek in the first fifteen chapters of the
"Philocalia". According to Origen, Scripture is inspired because it
is the word and work of God.
But, far from being an inert instrument, the inspired author has full
possession of his faculties, he is conscious of what he is writing; he is
physically free to deliver his message or not; he is not seized by a passing
delirium like the pagan
oracles, for bodily disorder, disturbance of the senses, momentary loss of
reason are but so many proofs
of the action of the evil
spirit. Since Scripture is from God, it
ought to have the distinctive characteristics of the Divine works: truth,
unity, and fullness. The word of God cannot
possibly be untrue;
hence no errors
or contradictions can be admitted in Scripture (Commentary on John
X.3). The author of the Scriptures being one, the Bible is
less a collection of books than one and the same book (Philoc., V, iv-vii), a
perfect harmonious instrument (Philoc., VI, i-ii). But the most Divine note of
Scripture is its fullness: "There is not in the Holy Books the smallest
passage (cheraia) but reflects the wisdom
of God"
(Philoc., I, xxviii, cf. X, i). True there are imperfections in the Bible:
antilogies, repetitions, want of continuity; but these imperfections become
perfections by leading us to the allegory and the spiritual meaning (Philoc.,
X, i-ii).
At
one time Origen, starting from the Platonic
trichotomy, distinguishes the body, the soul, and the spirit of Holy Scripture;
at another, following a more rational terminology, he distinguishes only
between the letter and the spirit. In reality, the soul, or the psychic
signification, or moral meaning (that is the moral parts of Scripture,
and the moral
applications
of the other parts) plays only a very secondary rôle, and we can confine
ourselves to the antithesis: letter (or body) and spirit. Unfortunately this antithesis is not
free from equivocation. Origen does not understand by letter (or body) what we
mean today by the literal sense, but the grammatical sense, the proper as
opposed to the figurative meaning. Just so he does not attach to the words
spiritual meaning the same signification as we do: for him they mean the
spiritual sense properly so called (the meaning added to the literal sense by
the express wish of God
attaching a special signification to the fact related or the manner of relating
them), or the figurative as contrasted with the proper sense, or the
accommodative sense, often an arbitrary invention of the interpreter, or even
the literal sense when it is treating of things spiritual. If this terminology
is kept in mind there is nothing absurd in the principle he repeats so often:
"Such a passage of the Scripture as no corporal meaning." As examples
Origen cites the anthropomorphisms,
metaphors, and symbols which ought indeed to be understood figuratively.
Though
he warns us that these passages are the exceptions, it must be confessed that
he allows too many cases in which the Scripture is not to be understood
according to the letter; but, remembering his terminology, his principle is
unimpeachable. The two great rules of interpretation laid sown by the
Alexandria catechist, taken by themselves and independently of erroneous
applications, are proof
against criticism. They may be formulated thus:
- Scripture must be interpreted in a manner worthy of God, the author of Scripture.
- The corporal sense or the letter of Scripture must not be adopted, when it would entail anything impossible, absurd, or unworthy of God.
The abuse arises from the
application of these rules. Origen has recourse too easily to allegorism to
explain purely apparent antilogies or antinomies. He considers that certain
narratives or ordinances of the Bible
would be unworthy of God
if they had to be taken according to the letter, or if they were to be taken solely according to the letter. He
justifies the allegorism by the fact that otherwise certain accounts or certain
precepts now abrogated
would be useless and profitless for the reader: a fact which appears to him
contrary to the providence of the Divine inspirer and the dignity of Holy Writ. It will thus be seen that
though the criticisms directed against his allegorical method by St. Epiphanius and St.
Methodius were not groundless, yet many of the complaints arise from a
misunderstanding.
Subordination of the divine persons
The
three Persons of the Trinity are distinguished from all creatures by the three
following characteristics: absolute immateriality, omniscience, and substantial
sanctity. As
is well known many ancient ecclesiastical
writers attributed to created spirits an aerial or ethereal envelope without
which they could not act. Though he does not venture to decide categorically,
Origen inclines to this view, but, as soon as there is a question of the Divine
Persons, he is perfectly sure that they have no body and are not in a body; and
this characteristic belongs to the Trinity alone (De Principiis
IV.27, I.6,
II.2.2, II.4.3,
etc.). Again the knowledge
of every creature, being essentially limited, is always imperfect and capable
of being increased. But it would be repugnant for the Divine Persons to pass
from the state of ignorance
to knowledge.
How could the Son, who is the Wisdom of the Father, be ignorant of
anything (Commentary on John
I.27; Against Celsus
VI.17). Nor can we admit ignorance in
the Spirit who "searcheth the deep things of God" (De Principiis
I.5.4, I.6.2,
I.7.3;
"In Num. him.", XI, 8 etc.). As substantial holiness is
the exclusive privilege of the Trinity so also is it the only source of all
created holiness.
Sin is forgiven only by the simultaneous concurrence of the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost; no one is sanctified at baptism save
through their common action; the soul in
which the Holy Ghost indwells possesses likewise the Son and the Father. In a
word the three Persons of the Trinity are indivisible in their being, their
presence, and their operation.
Along
with these perfectly orthodox
texts there are some which must be interpreted with diligence, remembering as
we ought that the language of theology was
not yet fixed and that Origen was often the first to face these difficult problems.
It will then appear that the subordination of the Divine Persons, so much urged
against Origen, generally consists in differences of appropriation (the Father
creator, the Son redeemer, the Spirit sanctifier) which seem to attribute to
the Persons an unequal sphere of action, or in the liturgical
practice of praying
the Father through the Son in the Holy
Ghost, or in the theory so widespread in the Greek Church
of the first five centuries, that the Father has a pre-eminence of rank (taxis) over the two other
Persons, inasmuch as in mentioning them He ordinarily has the first place, and
of dignity (axioma) because He represents
the whole Divinity, of which He is the principle (arche), the origin (aitios), and the source (pege). That is why St.
Athanasius defends Origen's orthodoxy
concerning the Trinity and why St. Basil and St. Gregory of
Nazianzus replied to the heretics who
claimed the support of his authority that they misunderstood him.
The origin and destiny of rational beings
Here
we encounter an unfortunate amalgam of philosophy
and theology.
The system that results is not coherent, for Origen, frankly recognizing the
contradiction of the incompatible elements that he is trying to unify, recoils
from the consequences, protests against the logical
conclusions, and oftentimes corrects by orthodox
professions of faith
the heterodoxy
of his speculations. It must be said that almost all the texts about to be
treated of, are contained in the "De
principiis", where the author treads on most dangerous ground.
The system may be reduced to a few hypotheses, the error and
danger of which were not recognized by Origen.
(1) Eternity of Creation
Whatever
exists outside of God
was created by Him: the Alexandrian catechist always defended this thesis most
energetically against the pagan
philosophers
who admitted an uncreated matter (De Principiis
II.1.5; "In Genes.", I, 12, in Migne, XII,
48-9). But he believes that God
created from eternity,
for "it is absurd", he says, "to imagine the nature of God
inactive, or His goodness
inefficacious, or His dominion without subjects" (De Principiis
III.5.3). Consequently he is forced to admit a double infinite
series of worlds before and after the present world.
(2) Original Equality of the Created Spirits.
"In
the beginning all intellectual
natures were created equal and alike, as God had no
motive for creating them otherwise" (De Principiis
II.9.6). Their present differences arise solely from their different
use of the gift of free
will. The spirits created good and happy grew
tired of their happiness
(op. cit., I, iii, 8), and, though carelessness, fell, some more some less (I,
vi, 2). Hence the hierarchy
of the angels;
hence also the four categories of created intellects: angels,
stars (supposing, as is probable, that they are animated, De Principiis
I.7.3), men, and demons. But their rôles may be one day changed; for
what free
will has done, free
will can undo, and the Trinity alone is essentially immutable in
good.
(3) Essence and Raison d'Être of Matter
Matter
exists only for the spiritual; if the spiritual did not need it, matter would
not exist, for its finality is not in itself. But it seems to Origen - though
he does not venture to declare so expressly - that created spirits even the
most perfect cannot do without an extremely diluted and subtle matter which
serves them as a vehicle and means of action (De Principiis
II.2.1, I.6.4,
etc.). Matter was, therefore, created simultaneously with the spiritual,
although the spiritual is logically
prior; and matter will never cease to be because the spiritual, however
perfect, will always need it. But matter which is susceptible of indefinite
transformations is adapted to the varying condition of the spirits. "When intended
for the more imperfect spirits, it becomes solidified, thickens, and forms the
bodies of this visible world. If it is serving higher intelligences, it shines
with the brightness of the celestial bodies and serves as a garb for the angels of God,
and the children
of the Resurrection" (De Principiis
II.2.2).
(4) Universality of the Redemption and the Final Restoration
Certain
Scriptural texts, e.g., 1 Corinthians 15:25-28,
seem to extend to all rational beings the benefit of the Redemption, and Origen
allows himself to be led also by the philosophical
principle which he enunciates several times, without ever proving it, that the
end is always like the beginning: "We think that the goodness of God, through
the mediation of Christ,
will bring all creatures to one and the same end" (De Principiis
I.6.1-3). The universal restoration (apokatastasis) follows necessarily
from these principles.
On
the least reflection, it will be seen that these hypotheses, starting from
contrary points of view, are irreconcilable: for the theory of a final
restoration is diametrically opposed to the theory of successive indefinite
trials. It would be easy to find in the writings of Origen a mass of texts
contradicting these principles and destroying the resulting conclusions. He
affirms, for instance, that the charity of the elect in heaven does
not fail; in their case "the freedom of the will will be bound so that sin will be
impossible" (In Roman., V, 10). So, too, the reprobate will always be
fixed in evil,
less from the inability to free themselves from it, than because they wish to
be evil (De Principiis
I.8.4), for malice has become natural to them, it is as a second
nature in them (In Joann., xx, 19). Origen grew angry when accused of teaching
the eternal
salvation of
the devil. But the hypotheses which he lays down here and there are none the
less worthy of censure. What can be said in his defence, if it be not with St.
Athanasius (De decretis Nic., 27), that we must not seek to find his real
opinion in the works in which he discusses the arguments for and against doctrine as
an intellectual
exercise or amusement; or, with St. Jerome
(Ad Pammach. Epist., XLVIII, 12), that it is one thing to dogmatize and another
to enunciate hypothetical opinions which will be cleared up by discussion?
Origenist controversies
The
discussions concerning Origen and his teaching are of a very singular and very
complex character. They break out unexpectedly, at long intervals, and assume
an immense importance quite unforeseen in their humble
beginnings. They are complicated by so many personal disputes and so many
questions foreign to the fundamental subject in controversy that a brief and
rapid exposé of the polemics is
difficult and well-nigh impossible. Finally they abate so suddenly that one is
forced to conclude that the controversy was superficial and that Origen's orthodoxy
was not the sole point in dispute.
First Origenist Crisis
It
broke out in the deserts
of Egypt, raged
in Palestine, and ended at Constantinople with the condemnation of St. Chrysostom
(392-404). During the second half of the fourth century the monks of
Nitria professed an exaggerated enthusiasm for Origen, whilst the neighbouring
brethren of Sceta, as a result of an unwarranted reaction and an excessive fear
of allegorism, fell into Anthropomorphism.
These doctrinal
discussions gradually invaded the monasteries
of Palestine, which were under the care of St. Epiphanius,
Bishop of Salamis,
who, convinced of the dangers of Origenism, had combatted it in his works and
was determined to prevent its spread and to extirpate it completely. Having
gone to Jerusalem in 394, he preached vehemently against Origen's errors, in
presence of the bishop
of that city, John, who was deemed an Origenist. John in turn spoke against Anthropomorphism,
directing his discourse so clearly against Epiphanius that no on could be
mistaken. Another incident soon helped to embitter the dispute. Epiphanius had
raised Paulinian, brother of St. Jerome,
to the priesthood
in a place subject to the See of Jerusalem.
John complained bitterly of this violation of his rights, and
the reply of Epiphanius was not of a nature to appease him.
Two
new combatants were now ready to enter the lists. From the time when Jerome and
Rufinus settled, one at Bethlehem and the other at Mt. Olivet, they had lived
in brotherly friendship. Both admired, imitated, and translated Origen, and
were on most amicable terms with their bishop, when
in 392 Aterbius, a monk
of Sceta, came to Jerusalem and accused them of both of Origenism. St. Jerome,
very sensitive to the question of orthodoxy,
was much hurt by the insinuation of Aterbius and two years later sided with St. Epiphanius,
whose reply to John of Jerusalem he translated into Latin. Rufinus learnt, it
is not known how, of this translation, which was not intended for the public,
and Jerome suspected him of having obtained it by fraud. A
reconciliation was effected sometime later, but it was not lasting. In 397
Rufinus, then at Rome,
had translated Origen's "De
principiis" into Latin, and in his preface followed the example
of St. Jerome,
whose dithyrambic eulogy addressed to the Alexandrian catechist he remembered.
The solitary of Bethlehem, grievously hurt at this action, wrote to his friends
to refute the perfidious implication of Rufinus, denounced Origen's errors to
Pope Anastasius, tried to win the Patriarch of
Alexandria
over to the anti-Origenist cause, and began a discussion with Rufinus, marked
with great bitterness on both sides.
Until
400 Theophilus of Alexandria
was an acknowledged Origenist. His confident was Isidore, a former monk of
Nitria, and his friends, "the Tall Brothers", the accredited leaders
of the Origenist party. He had supported John of Jerusalem against St. Epiphanius,
whose Anthropomorphism
he denounced to Pope
Siricius. Suddenly he changed his views, exactly why was never
known. It is said that the monks
of Sceta, displeased with his paschal letter of 399, forcibly invaded his
episcopal residence and threatened him with death if he did not chant the
palinody. What is certain is that he had quarreled with St. Isidore over money
matters and with "the Tall Brothers", who blamed his avarice and
his worldliness. As Isidore and "the Tall Brothers" had retired to
Constantinople, where Chrysostom extended his hospitality to them and
interceded for them, without, however, admitting them to communion till the
censures pronounced against them had been raised, the irascible Patriarch of
Alexandria
determined on this plan: to suppress Origenism everywhere, and under this
pretext ruin Chrysostom, whom he hated and envied. For
four years he was mercilessly active: he condemned Origen's books at the Council of Alexandria
(400), with an armed band he expelled the monks from
Nitria, he wrote to the bishops
of Cyprus and
Palestine to win them over to his anti-Origenist crusade, issued paschal
letters in 401, 402, and 404 against Origen's doctrine,
and sent a missive to Pope Anastasius asking for the condemnation of Origenism.
He was successful beyond his hopes; the bishops of Cyprus
accepted his invitation. Those of Palestine, assembled at Jerusalem,
condemned the errors
pointed out to them, adding that they were not taught amongst them. Anastasius,
while declaring that Origen was entirely unknown to him, condemned the
propositions extracted from his books. St. Jerome
undertook to translate into Latin the various elucubrations of the patriarch,
even his virulent diatribe against Chrysostom. St. Epiphanius,
preceding Theophilus to Constantinople, treated St. Chrysostom as temerarious,
and almost heretical,
until the day the truth
began to dawn on him, and suspecting that he might have been deceived, he
suddenly left Constantinople and died at sea before arriving at Salamis.
It
is well known how Theophilus, having been called by the emperor to explain his
conduct towards Isidore and "the Tall Brothers", cleverly succeeded
by his machinations in changing the rôles. Instead of being the accused, he
became the accuser, and summoned Chrysostom to appear before the conciliabule
of the Oak (ad Quercum), at which Chrysostom was condemned. As soon as the
vengeance of Theophilus was satiated nothing more was heard of Origenism. The Patriarch of
Alexandria
began to read Origen, pretending that he could cull the roses from among the
thorns. He became reconciled with "the Tall Brothers" without asking
them to retract. Hardly had the personal quarrels abated when the spectre of
Origenism vanished.
Second Origenistic Crisis
In
514 certain heterodox doctrines of a very singular character had already spread
among the monks
of Jerusalem
and its environs. Possibly the seeds of the dispute may have been sown by
Stephen Bar-Sudaili, a troublesome monk
expelled from Edessa,
who joined to an Origenism of his own brand certain clearly pantheistic
views. Plotting and intriguing continued for about thirty years, the monks
suspected of Origenism being in turn expelled from their monasteries,
then readmitted, only to be driven out anew. Their leaders and protectors were
Nonnus, who till his death in 547 kept the party together, Theodore Askidas and
Domitian who had won the favour of the emperor and were named bishops, one
to the See of Ancyra
in Galatia, the other to that of Caesarea in Cappadocia, though they continued
to reside at court (537). In these circumstances a report against Origenism was
addressed to Justinian, by whom and on what occasion it is not known, for the
two accounts that have come down to us are at variance (Cyrillus of Scythopolis,
"Vita Sabae"; and Liberatus, "Breviarium", xxiii). At all
events, the emperor then wrote his "Liber adversus Origenem",
containing in addition to an exposé of the reasons for condemning it
twenty-four censurable texts taken from the "De
principiis", and lastly ten propositions to be anathematized.
Justinian ordered the patriarch Mennas to
call together all the bishops
present in Constantinople and make them subscribe to these anathemas.
This was the local synod (synodos endemousa) of 543. A copy of the imperial edict had been
addressed to the other patriarchs,
including Pope
Vigilius, and all gave their adhesion to it. In the case of Vigilius
especially we have the testimony of Liberatus (Breviar., xxiii) and Cassiodorus
(Institutiones, 1).
It
had been expected that Domitian and Theodore Askidas, by their refusal to
condemn Origenism, would fall into disfavour at Court; but they signed whatever
they were asked to sign and remained more powerful than ever. Askidas even took
revenge by persuading the emperor to have Theodore of Mopsuestia,
who was deemed the sworn enemy of Origen, condemned (Liberatus,
"Breviar.", xxiv; Facundas of Hermianus, "Defensio trium
capitul.", I, ii; Evagrius,
"Hist.", IV, xxxviii). Justinian's new edict, which is not extant,
resulted in the assembling of the fifth ecumenical council,
in which Theodore
of Mopsuestia, Ibas, and Theodoretus were condemned (553).
Were
Origen and Origenism anathematized?
Many learned writers believe so; an equal number deny that they were condemned;
most modern authorities are either undecided or reply with reservations.
Relying on the most recent studies on the question it may be held that:
1. It is certain that the fifth
general council was convoked exclusively to deal with the affair of the Three Chapters, and that
neither Origen nor Origenism were the cause of it.
2. It is certain that the council
opened on 5 May, 553, in spite of the protestations of Pope Vigilius, who though
at Constantinople refused to attend it, and that in the eight conciliary
sessions (from 5 May to 2 June), the Acts of which we possess, only the
question of the Three
Chapters is treated.
3. Finally it is certain that only the
Acts concerning the affair of the Three Chapters were
submitted to the pope
for his approval, which was given on 8 December, 553, and 23 February, 554.
4. It is a fact that Popes
Vigilius, Pelagius I
(556-61), Pelagius II
(579-90), Gregory the
Great (590-604), in treating of the fifth council deal only with the Three Chapters, make no
mention of Origenism, and speak as if they did not know of its condemnation.
5. It must be admitted
that before the opening of the council, which had been delayed by the
resistance of the pope,
the bishops already
assembled at Constantinople had to consider, by order of the emperor, a form of
Origenism that had practically nothing in common with Origen, but which was
held, we know, by one
of the Origenist parties in Palestine. The arguments in corroboration of this
hypothesis may be found in Dickamp (op. cit., 66-141).
6. The bishops certainly
subscribed to the fifteen anathemas
proposed by the emperor (ibid., 90-96); and admitted Origenist, Theodore of Scythopolis, was forced to
retract (ibid., 125-129); but there is no proof that the approbation of the pope, who was at that
time protesting against the convocation of the council, was asked.
7. It is easy to
understand how this extra-conciliary sentence was mistaken at a later period
for a decree of the
actual ecumenical council.
No comments:
Post a Comment