Page:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu/305

 laymen, with permission of the bishop, to address the people in the church. In Alexandria, however, this custom had been given up, and Demetrius took occasion to express his disapproval and recall Origen to Alexandria. Probably the bishop was jealous of the high reputation of the teacher; and a coolness arose between them which led, fifteen years later, to an open rupture. On his way to Greece (apparently in the year 230) Origen was ordained a presbyter in Palestine by his friends the bishops. This was undoubtedly an infringement of the rights of the Alexandrian bishop; at the same time it was simply a piece of spite on the part of the latter that had kept Origen so long without any ecclesiastical consecration. Demetrius convened a synod, at which it was resolved to banish Origen from Alexandria. Even this did not satisfy his displeasure. A second synod, composed entirely of bishops, determined that Origen must be deposed from the presbyterial status. This decision was communicated to the foreign churches, and seems to have been justified by referring to the self-mutilation of Origen and adducing objectionable doctrines which he was said to have promulgated. The details of the incident are, however, unfortunately very obscure. No formal excommunication of Origen appears to have been decreed; it was considered sufficient to have him degraded to the position of a layman. The sentence was approved by most of the churches, in particular by that of Rome. At a later period Origen sought to vindicate his teaching in a letter to the Roman bishop Fabian, but, it would seem, without success. Even Heracles, his former friend and sharer of his views, took part against him; and by this means he procured his own election shortly afterwards as successor to Demetrius.

In these circumstances Origen thought it best voluntarily to retire from Alexandria (231–232). He betook himself to Palestine, where his condemnation had not been acknowledged by the churches any more than it had been in Phoenicia, Arabia and Achaea. He settled in Caesarea, and very shortly he had a flourishing school there, whose reputation rivalled that of Alexandria. His literary work, too, was prosecuted with unabated vigour. Enthusiastic pupils sat at his feet (see the Panegyric of Gregory Thaumaturgus), and the methodical instruction which he imparted in all branches of knowledge was famous all over the East. Here again his activity as a teacher was interrupted by frequent journeys. Thus he was for two years together at Caesarea in Cappadocia, where he was overtaken by the Maximinian persecution; here he worked at his recension of the Bible. We find him again in Nicomedia, in Athens, and twice in Arabia. He was called there to combat the Unitarian christology of Beryllus, bishop of Bostra, and to clear up certain eschatological questions. As he had formerly had dealings with the house of Alexander Severus, so now he entered into a correspondence with the emperor Philip the Arabian and his wife Severa. But through all situations of his life he preserved his equanimity, his keen interest in science, and his indefatigable zeal for the instruction of others. In the, year 250 the Decian persecution broke out, Origen was arrested, imprisoned and maltreated. But he survived these troubles—it is a malicious invention that he recanted during the persecution—and lived a few years longer in active intercourse with his friends. He died, probably in the year 254 (consequently under Valerian), at Tyre, where his grave was still shown in the middle ages.

Writings.—Origen is probably the most prolific author of the ancient church. “Which of us,” asks Jerome, “can read all that he has written?” The number of his works was estimated at 6000, but that is certainly an exaggeration. Owing to the increasing unpopularity of Origen in the church, a comparatively small portion of these works have come down to us in the original. We have more in the Latin translation of Rufinus; but this translation in by no means trustworthy, since Rufinus, assuming that Origen’s writings had been tampered with by the heretics, considered himself at liberty to omit or amend heterodox statements. Origen’s real opinion, however, may frequently be gathered from the Philocalia—a sort of anthology from his works prepared by Basil the Great and Gregory Nazianzenus. The fragments in Photius and in the Apology of Pamphilus serve

for comparison. The writings of Origen consist of letters, and of works in textual criticism, exegesis, apologetics, dogmatic and practical theology.

1. Eusebius (to whom we owe our full knowledge of his life) collected more than a hundred of Origen’s letters, arranged them in books, and deposited them in the library at Caesarea (H. E. vi. 36). In the church library at Jerusalem (founded by the bishop Alexander) there were also numerous letters of this father (Euseb. H. E. vi. 20). But unfortunately they have all been lost except two—one to Julius Africanus (about the history of Susanna) and one to Gregory Thaumaturgus. There are, besides, a couple of fragments.

2. Origen’s textual studies on the Old Testament were undertaken partly in order to improve the manuscript tradition, and partly for apologetic reasons, to clear up the relation between the LXX and the original Hebrew text. The results of more than twenty years’ labour were set forth in his Hexapla and Tetrapla, in which he placed the Hebrew text side by side with the various Greek versions, examined their mutual relations in detail, and tried to find the basis for a more reliable text of the LXX. The Hexapla was probably never fully written out, but excerpts were made from it by various scholars at Caesarea in the 4th century; and thus large sections of it have been saved. Origen worked also at the text of the New Testament, although he produced no recension of his own.

3. The exegetical labours of Origen extend over the whole of the Old and New Testaments. They are divided into Scholia (, short annotations, mostly grammatical), Homilies (edifying expositions grounded on exegesis), and Commentaries ( ). In the Greek original only a very small portion has been preserved; in Latin translations, however, a good deal. The most important parts are the homilies on Jeremiah, the books of Moses, Joshua and Luke, and the commentaries on Matthew, John and Romans. With grammatical precision, antiquarian learning and critical discernment Origen combines the allegorical method of interpretation—the logical corollary of his conception of the inspiration of the Scriptures. He distinguishes a threefold sense of scripture, a grammatico-historical, a moral and a pneumatic—the last being the proper and highest sense. He thus set up a formal theory of allegorical exegesis, which is not quite extinct in the churches even yet, but in his own system was of fundamental importance. On this method the sacred writings are regarded as an inexhaustible mine of philosophical and dogmatic wisdom; in reality the exegete reads his own ideas into any passage he chooses. The commentaries are of course intolerably diffuse and tedious, a great deal of them is now quite unreadable; yet, on the other hand, one has not unfrequently occasion to admire the sound linguistic perception and the critical talent of the author.

4. The principal apologetic work of Origen is his book  (eight books), written at Caesarea in the time of Philip the Arabian. It has been completely preserved in the original. This work is invaluable as a source for the history and situation of the church in the 2nd century; for it contains nearly the whole of the famous work of Celsus  against Christianity. What makes Origen’s answer so instructive is that it shows how close an affinity existed between Celsus and himself in their fundamental philosophical and theological presuppositions. The real state of the case is certainly unsuspected by Origen himself; but many of his opponent’s arguments he is unable to meet except by a speculative reconstruction of the church doctrine in question. Origen’s apologetic is most effective when he appeals to the spirit and power of Christianity as an evidence of its truth. In details his argument is not free from sophistical subterfuges and superficial reasoning.