Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 11.djvu/343

 ORIGEN

311

ORIGEN

Until 400 Theophilus of Alexandria was an acknowl- edged Origenist. His confident was Isidore, a former monk of Nitria, and his friends, "the Tall Brothers", the accredited leaders of the Origenist partv. He had supported John of Jerusalem against St. Epiphanius, whose Anthropomorphism he denounced to Pope Siri- cius. 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 in- vaded his episcopal residence and threatened himwith death if he did not chant the palinody. What is cer- tain is that he had quarrelled 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 Constanti- nople, where Chrysostom extended his hospitality to them and interceded for them, without, however, ad- mitting them to communion till the censures pro- nounced against them had been raised, the irascible Patriarch of Alexandria determined on this plan: to suppress Origenism everywhere, and under this pre- text ruin Chrysostom, whom he hated and envied. For four years he was mercilessly active: he con- demned 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 Pales- tine to win them over to his anti-Origenist crusade, issued paschal letters in 401, 402, and 404 against Ori- gen'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 ac- cepted 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 Chrysos- tom. St. Epiphanius, preceding Theophilus to Con- stantinople, 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 Isi- dore and "the Tall Brothers", cleverly succeeded by his machinations in changing the roles. Instead of being the accused, he became the accuser, and sum- moned Chrysostom to appear before the conciliabule of the Oak (ad QuercumJ, 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 (cf. Dale, "Origenistic Contro- versies" in "Diet, of Christ. Biog.", IV, 146-151).

B. Second Origenistic Crisis. — This new phrase, quite as intricate and confusing as the former, has been partially elucidated by Prof. Dickamp, upon whose learned study, "Die origenistischen Streitigkeiten in sechsten Jahrhundert" (Munster, 1899), we draw. 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 Origen- ism 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 Aski- das 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 Ctesarea in Cappadocia, though they continued to reside at court (537). In these circumstances a report against Ori- genism 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 Sabs"; and Liberatus, "Breviar- ium", xxiii). At all events, the emperor then wrote his "Liber adversus Origenem", containing in addi- tion to an expose of the reasons for condemning it twenty-four censurable texts taken from the "De principiis", and lastly ten propositions to be anathe- matized. 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 (a-ivodos {vS-qtwvaa.) 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 (Lib- eratus, "Breviar.", xxiv; Facundas of Hermianus, "Defensio trium capitul.", I, ii; Evagrius, "Hist.", IV, xxxviii). Justinian's new edict, which is not ex- tant, resulted in the assembling of the fifth cecumenical 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 coun- cil 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 Con- stantinople 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 concern- ing the affau- 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 (5.5G~(J1), Pelapius II (579-90), Gregory the Great (590-004), ha treat- ing of the fifth council deal only with the Three Chap- ters, make no mention of Origenism, and speak as if they did not know of its condemnation. (5) It must he 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 Origen- ism that had practically nothing in common with Ori- gen, but which was held, we know, by one of the Origenist parties in Palestine. The arguments in cor- roboration of this hypothesis may be found in Dick- amp (op. cit., 66-141). (6) The bishops certainly subscribed to the fifteen anathemas proposed by the emperor (ibid., 90-96); an admitted Origenist, Theo- dore 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