Origen and
Origenism
I. LIFE AND WORK OF ORIGEN
A.
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).
(1) 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,
"Hist. eccl.", VI, ii; 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, "Hist. eccl.", VI, iv). 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
labors 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, "Hist. eccl.", VI xiv). 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.
(2) 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, "De viris ill.", lx),
the other to refute certain heretics who denied the Resurrection
(Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", VI, xxxvii). 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, "Hist. eccl.",
VI, xxxix). 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, "Hist. eccl.", VII, i). 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 sepulcher,
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.
B.
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 ("Hist. eccl.", VI,
xxxii) had inserted it in his biography of St. Pamphilus and St. Jerome
inserted it in a letter to Paula.
(1)
Exegetical Writings
Origen had devoted three kinds of works to the explanation of the Holy
Scriptures: 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).
C. 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, "Hist. eccl.", VI, xxvi;
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, "De viris ill.", lx). 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, "De viris ill.",
lxi). 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"
(De viris ill., lxxvi). 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, "De viris ill.", xciii). 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.
II.
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 Scriptures, 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.
A.
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 (In Joan., X, iii). 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.
B.
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 princip., IV, 27; I, vi, II, ii, 2; II,
iv, 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 ("In Joan.", 1,27; "Contra Cels.", VI,
xvii). Nor can we admit ignorance in the Spirit who "searcheth the deep
things of
God" (De princip.,
I, v, 4; I, vi, 2; I, vii, 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.
C.
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. They 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 princip.", II,
i, 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 princip., III, v, 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 princip., II, ix, 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 princip., I, vii, 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 princip., II, ii, 1; I, vi, 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" (op. cit., II, ii, 2).
(4)
Universality of the Redemption and the Final Restoration
Certain
Scriptural texts, e.g., I Cor. xv, 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 princip.,
I, vi, 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
princip., I, viii, 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 defense, 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?
III.
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.
A.
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 neighboring 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 combated 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.
B.
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 disfavor 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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
It
is easy to understand how this extra-conciliary sentence was
mistaken at a later period for a decree of the actual ecumenical
council.
|