 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
Origen, most modest of writers, hardly ever alludes to himself in his own works; butEusebius 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 themartyrPamphilus he had composed the "Apology for Origen"; he dwelt at Caesarea where Origen'slibrary 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" ofSt. Gregory Thaumaturgus to his master, in the controversies ofSt. Jerome and Rufinus, inSt. Epiphanius (Haeres., LXIV), and in Photius (Biblioth. Cod. 118).
Born in 185, Origen was barely seventeen when a bloodypersecution of theChurch of Alexandria broke out. His father Leonides, who admired his precocious genius was charmed with his virtuous life, had given him an excellent literaryeducation. When Leonides was cast intoprison, 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 hisfather exhorting him to perseverecourageously. When Leonides had won themartyr'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 hismanuscripts, and by the generous aid of a certain rich lady, who admired his talents. He assumed, of his own accord, the direction of thecatecheticalschool, 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'sschool, which was frequented bypagans, soon became a nursery ofneophytes, confessors, andmartyrs. Among the latter were Plutarch, Serenus, Heraclides, Heron, another Serenus, and afemalecatechumen, 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 pictureEusebius has drawn of Origen's youth, so studious, disinterested, austere and pure, ardent andzealous 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 hiseducation. Frequenting the philosophicschools, especially that of Ammonius Saccas, he devoted himself to a study of thephilosophers, particularlyPlato and theStoics. 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 thecatecheticalschool, he learned Hebrew, and communicated frequently with certainJews who helped him to solve his difficulties.
The course of his work at Alexandria was interrupted by five journeys. About 213, underPope Zephyrinus and theemperor 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 thepersecution ofCaracalla was raging inEgypt that he visited Palestine, where Theoctistus of Caesarea andAlexander of Jerusalem, invited him to preach though he was still alayman. Towards 218, it would appear, the empress Mammaea, mother ofAlexander Severus, brought him to Antioch (VI, xxi). Finally, at a much later period, under Pontian ofRome and Zebinus of Antioch (Eusebius, VI, xxiii), he journeyed intoGreece, passing through Caesarea where Theoctistus,Bishop of that city, assisted by Alexander,Bishop ofJerusalem, raised him to thepriesthood. Demetrius, although he had given letters of recommendation to Origen, was very much offended by thisordination, which had taken place without hisknowledge and, as he thought, in derogation of hisrights. IfEusebius (VI, viii) is to be believed, he wasenvious of the increasing influence of his catechist. So, on his return to Alexandria, Origen soon perceived that hisbishop was rather unfriendly towards him. He yielded to the storm and quittedEgypt (231). The details of this affair were recorded byEusebius 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 adecree of banishment against Origen while the other deposed him from thepriesthood (Biblioth. cod. 118).St. Jerome declares expressly that he was not condemned on a point ofdoctrine.
Expelled from Alexandria, Origen fixed his abode at Caesarea in Palestine (232), with his protector and friend Theoctistus, founded a newschool 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, withoutdoubt, wasSt. Gregory Thaumaturgus who, with his brother Apollodorus, attended Origen's lectures for five years and delivered on leaving him a celebrated "Farewell Address". During thepersecution of Maximinus (235-37) Origen visited his friend, St. Firmilian,Bishop ofCaesarea in Cappadocia, who made him remain for a long period. On this occasion he was hospitably entertained by aChristian lady of Caesarea, named Juliana, who had inherited the writing of Symmachus, the translator of theOld 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 toArabia, one of which was undertaken for the conversion of Beryllus, aPatripassian (Eusebius, VI, xxxiii;St. Jerome,Illustrious Men 60), the other to refute certainheretics who denied theResurrection (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". Thepersecution ofDecius (250) prevented him from continuing these works. Origen wasimprisoned and barbarously tortured, but hiscourage was unshaken and from hisprison he wrote letters breathing the spirit of themartyrs (Eusebius,Church History VI.39). He was still alive on the death ofDecius (251), but only lingering on, and he died, probably, from the results of the sufferings endured during thepersecution (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 wasburied withhonour as a confessor of the Faith. For a long time his sepulchre, behind the high-altar of thecathedral of Tyr, was visited bypilgrims. Today, as nothing remains of thiscathedral except a mass of ruins, the exact location of histomb is unknown.
Very few authors were as fertile as Origen.St. Epiphanius estimates at six thousand the number of his writings, counting separately, withoutdoubt, the different books of a single work, hishomilies, letters, and his smallest treatises (Haeres., LXIV, lxiii). This figure, repeated by manyecclesiastical 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 andSt. Jerome inserted it in a letter to Paula.
Origen had devoted three kinds of works to the explanation of theHoly 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. Anidea 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. Thehomilies (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 betrue that Origen, as St. Pamphilus declares in his "Apology" preached almost every day. There remain in Greek twenty-one (twenty on Jeremias and the celebratedhomily on thewitch of Endor); in Latin, one hundred and eighteen translated by Rufinus, seventy-eight translated bySt. Jerome and some others of more of lessdoubtful authenticity, preserved in a collection ofhomilies. 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 thehomily; 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, andsacraments. The scholia (scholia, excerpta, commaticum interpretandi genus) wereexegetical, philological, or historical notes, on words or passages of theBible, like the annotations of the Alexandria grammarians on the profane writers. Except some few short fragments all of these have perished.
We now possess only two of Origen's letters: one addressed toSt. Gregory Thaumaturgus on the reading ofHoly Scripture, the other toJulius Africanus on the Greek additions to the Book of Daniel. Twoopuscula 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 aprisoner 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 hisfalse 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 toGod, (c) man and hisfree 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 seeHEXAPLA.
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 thecatecheticalschool was his intimate faithful friend (Eusebius, VI, xiv), as was Theoctistus of Caesarea in Palestine, whoordained him (Photius, cod. 118). Beryllus ofBostra, whom he had won back fromheresy, was deeply attached to him (Eusebius, VI, xxxiii;St. Jerome,Illustrious Men 60). St. Anatolus ofLaodicea sang his praises in his "Carmen Paschale" (P.G., X, 210). The learnedJulius 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 thecatecheticalschool, whenPatriarch ofAlexandria, 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 atCaesarea, before leaving addressed to him his celebrated "Farewell Address" (P.G., X, 1049-1104), an enthusiastic panegyric. There is noproof that Heracles, his disciple, colleague, and successor in thecatecheticalschool, 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 aschism or rooting out aheresy, appeal was made to it.
After his death hisreputation continued to spread. St. Pamphilus,martyred in 307, composes withEusebius 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 thecatecheticalschool 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 bySt. Athanasius. Pierius was called bySt. 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 ofEgypt.St. Gregory of Nazianzus gave significant expression to his opinion (Suidas, "Lexicon", ed. Bernhardy, II, 1274:Origenes he panton hemon achone). In collaboration withSt. 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 ofChristian 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 toSt. Jerome, the principal Latin imitators of Origen areSt. Eusebius of Verceil,St. Hilary of Poitiers, andSt. 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 andmartyr (311), had written several works against Origen, amongst others a treatise "On the Resurrection", of whichSt. 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 creditLeontius of Byzantium and the emperor Justinian. But his chief adversaries were theheretics, Sabellians,Arians,Pelagians,Nestorians,Apollinarists.
By this term is understood not so much Origen'stheology 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 fromorthodox writers. They are chiefly:
Before examining how far Origen is responsible for these theories, a word must be said of the directive principle of histheology.
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 in 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 toecclesiastical preaching,ecclesiastical teaching, and theecclesiasticalrule of faith (kanon). He accepts only four Canonical Gospels because tradition does not receive more; he admits the necessity ofbaptism of infants because it is in accordance with the practice of theChurch founded onApostolic tradition; he warns the interpreter of theHoly Scripture, not to rely on his own judgment, but "on the rule of theChurch instituted by Christ". For, he adds, we have only two lights to guide us here below,Christ and theChurch; theChurch reflects faithfully the light received fromChrist, as the moon reflects the rays of the sun. The distinctive mark of theCatholic is to belong to theChurch, to depend on theChurch outside of which there is nosalvation; on the contrary, he who leaves theChurch walks in darkness, he is aheretic. It is through the principle of authority that Origen is wont to unmask and combatdoctrinalerrors. It is the principle of authority, too, that he invokes when he enumerates thedogmas offaith. A man animated with such sentiments may have made mistakes, because he is human, but his disposition of mind is essentiallyCatholic and he does not deserve to be ranked among the promoters ofheresy.
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 ofGod. 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 thepagan oracles, for bodily disorder, disturbance of the senses, momentary loss of reason are but so manyproofs of the action of theevil spirit. Since Scripture is fromGod, it ought to have the distinctive characteristics of the Divine works:truth, unity, and fullness. The word ofGod cannot possibly beuntrue; hence noerrors or contradictions can be admitted in Scripture (Commentary on John X.3). The author of the Scriptures being one, theBible 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 ofGod" (Philoc., I, xxviii, cf. X, i). True there are imperfections in theBible: 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 thePlatonic trichotomy, distinguishes thebody, thesoul, and thespirit ofHoly Scripture; at another, following a more rational terminology, he distinguishes only between the letter and the spirit. In reality, thesoul, or the psychic signification, ormoral meaning (that is themoral parts of Scripture, and themoral applications of the other parts) plays only a very secondary rôle, and we can confine ourselves to the antithesis:letter (orbody) andspirit. 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 ofGod 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 has no corporal meaning." As examples Origen cites theanthropomorphisms, 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 oferroneous applications, areproof against criticism. They may be formulated thus:
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 theBible would be unworthy ofGod if they had to be taken according to the letter, or if they were to be takensolely according to the letter. He justifies the allegorism by the fact that otherwise certain accounts or certainprecepts 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 ofHoly Writ. It will thus be seen that though the criticisms directed against his allegorical method bySt. Epiphanius and St. Methodius were not groundless, yet many of the complaints arise from a misunderstanding.
The three Persons of the Trinity are distinguished from all creatures by the three following characteristics: absolute immateriality, omniscience, and substantialsanctity. As is well known many ancientecclesiastical 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 theknowledge 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 ofignorance toknowledge. How could the Son, who is the Wisdom of the Father, beignorant of anything (Commentary on John I.27;Against Celsus VI.17). Nor can we admitignorance in the Spirit who "searcheth the deep things ofGod" (De Principiis I.5.4,I.6.2,I.7.3; "In Num. him.", XI, 8 etc.). As substantialholiness is the exclusive privilege of the Trinity so also is it the only source of all createdholiness. Sin is forgiven only by the simultaneous concurrence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; no one is sanctified atbaptism save through their common action; thesoul 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 perfectlyorthodox texts there are some which must be interpreted with diligence, remembering as we ought that the language oftheology 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 theliturgical practice ofpraying the Fatherthrough the Son in the Holy Ghost, or in the theory so widespread in theGreek 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'sorthodoxy concerning the Trinity and why St. Basil andSt. Gregory of Nazianzus replied to theheretics who claimed the support of his authority that they misunderstood him.
Here we encounter an unfortunate amalgam ofphilosophy andtheology. 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 thelogical conclusions, and oftentimes corrects byorthodox professions offaith theheterodoxy 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, theerror and danger of which were not recognized by Origen.
(1) Eternity of Creation
Whatever exists outside ofGod was created by Him: the Alexandrian catechist always defended this thesis most energetically against thepaganphilosophers who admitted an uncreated matter (De Principiis II.1.5; "In Genes.", I, 12, inMigne, XII, 48-9). But he believes thatGod created frometernity, for "it is absurd", he says, "to imagine thenature of God inactive, or Hisgoodness inefficacious, or His dominion without subjects" (De Principiis III.5.3). Consequently he is forced to admit a doubleinfinite series of worlds before and after the present world.
(2) Original Equality of the Created Spirits
"In the beginning allintellectual natures were created equal and alike, asGod had no motive for creating them otherwise" (De Principiis II.9.6). Their present differences arise solely from their different use of the gift offree will. The spirits created good andhappy grew tired of theirhappiness (op. cit., I, iii, 8), and, though carelessness, fell, some more some less (I, vi, 2). Hence thehierarchy of theangels; hence also the four categories of created intellects:angels, stars (supposing, as is probable, that they are animated,De Principiis I.7.3), men, anddemons. But their rôles may be one day changed; for whatfree 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 islogically 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 theangels of God, and thechildren 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 thephilosophical principle which he enunciates several times, without ever proving it, that the end is always like the beginning: "We think that thegoodness ofGod, through the mediation ofChrist, 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 theelect inheaven does not fail; in their case "the freedom of the will will be bound so thatsin will be impossible" (In Roman., V, 10). So, too, the reprobate will always be fixed inevil, less from the inability to free themselves from it, than because they wish to beevil (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 theeternalsalvation 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 againstdoctrine as anintellectual exercise or amusement; or, withSt. 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?
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 theirhumble beginnings. They are complicated by so many personal disputes and so many questions foreign to the fundamental subject in controversy that a brief and rapidexposé 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'sorthodoxy was not the sole point in dispute.
It broke out in thedeserts ofEgypt, raged in Palestine, and ended at Constantinople with the condemnation ofSt. Chrysostom (392-404). During the second half of the fourth century themonks 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 intoAnthropomorphism. Thesedoctrinal discussions gradually invaded themonasteries of Palestine, which were under the care ofSt. Epiphanius,Bishop ofSalamis, 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'serrors, in presence of thebishop of that city, John, who was deemed an Origenist. John in turn spoke againstAnthropomorphism, directing his discourse so clearly against Epiphanius that no one could be mistaken. Another incident soon helped to embitter the dispute. Epiphanius had raised Paulinian, brother ofSt. Jerome, to thepriesthood in a place subject to theSee of Jerusalem. John complained bitterly of this violation of hisrights, 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 theirbishop, when in 392 Aterbius, amonk of Sceta, came to Jerusalem and accused them both of Origenism.St. Jerome, very sensitive to the question oforthodoxy, was much hurt by the insinuation of Aterbius and two years later sided withSt. 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 byfraud. A reconciliation was effected sometime later, but it was not lasting. In 397 Rufinus, then atRome, had translated Origen's"De principiis" into Latin, and in his preface followed the example ofSt. 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'serrors to Pope Anastasius, tried to win thePatriarch ofAlexandria 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 confidant was Isidore, a formermonk of Nitria, and his friends, "the Tall Brothers", the accredited leaders of the Origenist party. He had supported John of Jerusalem againstSt. Epiphanius, whoseAnthropomorphism he denounced toPope Siricius. Suddenly he changed his views, exactly why was never known. It is said that themonks 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 hisavarice 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 irasciblePatriarch ofAlexandria determined on this plan: to suppress Origenism everywhere, and under this pretext ruin Chrysostom, whom hehated andenvied. For four years he was mercilessly active: he condemned Origen's books at theCouncil of Alexandria (400), with an armed band he expelled themonks from Nitria, he wrote to thebishops ofCyprus and Palestine to win them over to his anti-Origenist crusade, issued paschal letters in 401, 402, and 404 against Origen'sdoctrine, and sent a missive to Pope Anastasius asking for the condemnation of Origenism. He was successful beyond his hopes; thebishops ofCyprus accepted his invitation. Those of Palestine, assembled atJerusalem, condemned theerrors 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 almostheretical, until the day thetruth began to dawn on him, and suspecting that he might have been deceived, he suddenly left Constantinople and died at sea before arriving atSalamis.
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. ThePatriarch ofAlexandria 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.
In 514 certain heterodox doctrines of a very singular character had already spread among themonks ofJerusalem and its environs. Possibly the seeds of the dispute may have been sown by Stephen Bar-Sudaili, a troublesomemonk expelled fromEdessa, who joined to an Origenism of his own brand certain clearlypantheistic views. Plotting and intriguing continued for about thirty years, themonks suspected of Origenism being in turn expelled from theirmonasteries, 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 namedbishops, one to theSee 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 ofScythopolis, "Vita Sabae"; and Liberatus, "Breviarium", xxiii). At all events, the emperor then wrote his "Liber adversus Origenem", containing in addition to anexposé of the reasons for condemning it twenty-four censurable texts taken from the"De principiis", and lastly ten propositions to beanathematized. Justinian ordered the patriarchMennas to call together all thebishops present in Constantinople and make them subscribe to theseanathemas. This was the local synod (synodos endemousa) of 543. A copy of the imperial edict had been addressed to the otherpatriarchs, includingPope Vigilius, and all gave their adhesion to it. In the case of Vigilius especially we have the testimony of Liberatus (Breviar., xxiii) andCassiodorus (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 haveTheodore 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 fifthecumenical council, in whichTheodore of Mopsuestia, Ibas, and Theodoretus were condemned (553).
Were Origen and Origenismanathematized? 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:
APA citation.Prat, F.(1911).Origen and Origenism. InThe Catholic Encyclopedia.New York: Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm
MLA citation.Prat, Ferdinand."Origen and Origenism."The Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 11.New York: Robert Appleton Company,1911.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm>.
Transcription.This article was transcribed for New Advent by Anthony A. Killeen.Aeterna non caduca.
Ecclesiastical approbation.Nihil Obstat. February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor.Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmasterat newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.