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 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, "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 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.

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). For Origen's critical work
see HEXAPLA.

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 r�le, 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 r�les 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'�tre 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 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?

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 expose
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 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 r�les.
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 expose 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 (q. v.),
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.

F. PRAT
Transcribed by Anthony A. Killeen

Aeterna non caduca

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright � 1913 by the
Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version copyright � 1996 by
New Advent, Inc.

Taken from the New Advent Web Page (www.knight.org/advent).

This article is part of the Catholic Encyclopedia Project, an
effort aimed at placing the  entire Catholic Encyclopedia 1913
edition on the World Wide Web. The coordinator is Kevin Knight,
editor of the New Advent Catholic Website. If you would like to
contribute to this  worthwhile project, you can contact him by e-
mail at (knight.org/advent). For  more information please download
the file cathen.txt/.zip.

-------------------------------------------------------

  Provided courtesy of:

       Eternal Word Television Network
       PO Box 3610
       Manassas, VA 22110
       Voice: 703-791-2576
       Fax: 703-791-4250
       Web: http://www.ewtn.com
       Email address: [email protected]

-------------------------------------------------------

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.ratthing.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.