/> which the standing of Origen as an orthodox theologian was seriously

attacked, as well as the whole tendency for which he stood. The result was

a wide-spread condemnation of the spiritualizing teaching of the great

Alexandrian, and the rise of what might be called an anthropomorphic

traditionalism. The first of the three controversies took place in

Palestine, 395-399, and was occasioned by Epiphanius of Salamis, a zealous

opponent of heresy. He denounced Origen and induced Jerome to abandon

Origen; and Rufinus was soon in bitter enmity with Jerome. The second

controversy took place in Egypt about the same time, when a group of monks

in the Scetic desert, who were violently opposed to Origenism, compelled

Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria and an admirer of Origen, to abandon that

theologian and to side with them against the monks of the Nitrian desert,

who were Origenists, and to condemn Origen at a council at Alexandria,

399. The third controversy involved John Chrysostom, bishop of

Constantinople, who had protected four Nitrian monks who had fled to his

protection. Theophilus seized the opportunity and, with the assistance for

a time of Epiphanius, ultimately brought about the downfall of Chrysostom,

who died deposed and in exile, 404. No controversies of the ancient Church

are less attractive than the Origenistic, in which so much personal

rancor, selfish ambition, mean intrigue, and so little profound thought

were involved. The literature, therefore, is scanty.





Additional source material: Jerome, Ep. 86-99 (PNF); Rufinus and

Jerome, controversial writings bearing on Origenism in PNF, ser.

II. vol. III, pp. 417-541; Socrates, Hist. Ec., VI, 2-21;

Sozomen, Hist. Ec., VIII, 2-28.





(a) Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, 27. (MSG, 32:187.)





The force of unwritten tradition.





The following is the most important and authoritative statement of

the force of unwritten tradition in the Eastern Church. It is

referred to by John of Damascus in his defence of images (De Fide

Orthod., IV, 16), cf. § 109. It is placed in the present

section as illustrating the principle of traditionalism which, in

a fanatical form, brought about the Origenistic controversies.





Of the beliefs and public teachings preserved in the Church, some we have

from written tradition, others we have received as delivered to us "in a

mystery" by the tradition of the Apostles; and both of these have in

relation to true piety the same binding force. And these no one will

gainsay, at least no one who is versed even moderately in the institutions

of the Church. For were we to reject such customs as are unwritten as

having no great force, we should unintentionally injure the gospels in

their very vitals; or, rather, reduce our public definition to a mere name

and nothing more. For example, to take the first and most general

instance, who is there who has taught us in writing to sign with the cross

those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing

has taught us to turn to the East in our prayers? Which of the saints has

left us in writing the words at the invocation and at the displaying of

the bread in the eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is

well known, content with what the Apostle or the Gospel has recorded; but,

both before and after, we say other words as having great importance for

the mystery, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover, we

bless the water of baptism and the oil of chrism, and, besides this, him

who is baptized. From what writings? Is it not from the silent and

mystical tradition? What written word teaches the anointing of oil itself?

And whence is it that a man is baptized three times? And as to other

customs of baptism, from what Scripture comes the renunciation of Satan

and his angels? Does not this come from the unpublished and secret

teaching which our fathers guarded in silence, averse from curious

meddling and inquisitive investigation, having learned the lesson that the

reverence of the mysteries is best preserved in silence? How was it proper

to parade in public the teaching of those things which it was not

permitted the uninitiated to look at?





(b) Jerome, Preface to the Vulgate Translation of the New Testament.

(MSL, 29:557.)





Jerome's free critical attitude in his work in his earlier life.





This preface is addressed to Bishop Damasus of Rome and is dated

383.





You urge me to make a new work out of an old and, as it were, to sit in

judgment on the copies of the Scriptures already scattered throughout the

whole world; and, inasmuch as they differ among themselves, I am to decide

which of them agree with the Greek original. A pious labor, but a perilous

presumption; to judge others, myself to be judged of all; to change the

language of the aged, and to carry back the world already grown gray, back

to the beginnings of its infancy! Is there a man, learned or unlearned,

who will not, when he takes the volume into his hands and perceives that

what he reads differs from the flavor which once he tasted, break out

immediately into violent language and call me a forger and a profane

person for having the audacity to add anything to the ancient books or to

change or correct anything? I am consoled in two ways in bearing this

odium: in the first place, that you, the supreme bishop, command it to be

done; and secondly, even on the testimony of those reviling us, what

varies cannot be true. For if we put faith in the Latin texts, let them

tell us which; for there are almost as many texts as copies. But if the

truth is to be sought from many, why should we not go back to the original

Greek and correct the mistakes introduced by inaccurate translators, and

the blundering alterations of confident and ignorant men, and further, all

that has been added or altered by sleepy copyists? I am not discussing the

Old Testament, which was turned into Greek by the Seventy Elders, and has

reached us by a descent of three steps. I do not ask what Aquila and

Symmachus think, or why Theodotion takes a middle course between the

ancients and the moderns. I am willing to let that be a true translation

which had apostolic approval [i.e., the LXX]. I am now speaking of the

New Testament. This was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception

of the work of the Apostle Matthew, who first published the gospel of

Christ in Judea and in Hebrew. This [i.e., the New Testament], as it is

in our language, is certainly marked by discrepancies, and the stream

flows in different channels; it must be sought in one fountainhead. I pass

over those manuscripts bearing the names of Lucian and Hesychius, which a

few contentious persons perversely support. It was not permitted these

writers to amend anything in the Old Testament after the labor of the

Seventy; and it was useless to make corrections in the New, for

translations of the Scriptures already made in the language of many

nations show that they are additions and false. Therefore this short

preface promises only the four gospels, of which the order is Matthew,

Mark, Luke, and John, revised by a comparison of the Greek manuscripts and

only of the ancient manuscripts. And that they might not depart far from

the Latin customarily read, I have used my pen with some restraint, so

that having corrected only the passages which seemed to change the

meaning, I have allowed the rest to remain as it was.





(c) Jerome, Ep. 7, ad Pammachium. (MSL, 23:376.)





The principal errors of Origen according to Jerome.





This is the most important work of Jerome in the controversy known

as the Origenistic controversy. Jerome attacks in this work John,

bishop of Jerusalem, and writes as a result of the work of

Epiphanius in Palestine three years before. The following were

addressed to John to reject, as a test of that bishop's orthodoxy.

See above, § 43.





First, in the book it is said [I, 1:8]: "For as it is unfitting

to say that the Son can see the Father, so it is not meet to think that

the Holy Spirit can see the Son."



Secondly, that souls are bound in this body as in a prison; and that

before man was made in paradise they dwelt among rational creatures in the

heavens. Wherefore, afterward, to console itself, the soul says in the

Psalms, "Before I was humbled I went wrong," and "Return, my soul, unto

thy rest," and "Lead my soul out of prison," and similarly elsewhere.



Thirdly, that he says that both the devil and the demons will some time or

other repent and ultimately reign with the saints.



Fourthly, that he interprets the coats of skins, with which Adam and Eve

were clothed after their fall and ejection from paradise, to be human

bodies, and no doubt they were previously in paradise without flesh,

sinews, or bones.



Fifthly, he most openly denies the resurrection of the flesh, the bodily

structure, and the distinction of sexes by which we men are distinguished

from women, both in his explanation of the first psalm and in many other

treatises.



Sixthly, he so allegorizes paradise as to destroy the truth of history,

understanding angels instead of trees, heavenly virtues instead of rivers;

and he overthrows all that is contained in the history of paradise by his

tropological interpretation.



Seventhly, he thinks that the waters which in the Scriptures are said to

be above the heavens are holy and supernal powers; while those which are

upon the earth and beneath the earth are, on the contrary, demoniacal

powers.



Eighthly, that the image and likeness of God, in which man was created,

was lost and was no longer in man after he was expelled from paradise.





(d) Anastasius, Ep. ad Simplicianum, in Jerome, Ep. 95 (MSL,

22:772.)





Condemnation of Origen by Anastasius, bishop of Rome, A. D. 400





To his lord and brother, Simplicianus, Anastasius.



It is felt right that a shepherd have great care and watchfulness over his

flock. In like manner, also, the careful watchman from his lofty tower

keeps a lookout day and night on behalf of the city. In the hour of

tempest and peril the prudent shipmaster suffers great distress of mind

lest by the tempest and the violent waves his vessel be dashed upon the

rocks. With similar feelings that reverend and honorable man Theophilus,

our brother and fellow-bishop, ceases not to watch over the things which

make for salvation, that God's people in the different churches may not by

reading Origen run into awful blasphemies.



Having been informed, then, by the letter of the aforesaid, we inform your

holiness that just as we are set in the city of Rome, in which the prince

of the Apostles, the glorious Peter, founded the Church and then by his

faith strengthened it; to the end that no man contrary to the commandment

read these books which we have mentioned and the same we have condemned;

and with earnest prayers we have urged that the precepts of the

Evangelists which God and Christ have inspired the Evangelists to teach

ought not to be forsaken; but that is to be remembered which the venerable

Apostle Paul preached by way of warning: "If any one preach a gospel unto

you other than that which was preached unto you, let him be anathema"

[Gal. 1:8]. Holding fast, therefore, this precept, we have intimated that

everything written in days past by Origen that is contrary to our faith is

even by us rejected and condemned.



We have written these things to your holiness by the hand of the presbyter

Eusebius, who, being a man filled with a glowing faith and having the love

of the Lord, has shown me some blasphemous chapters at which we shuddered

and which we condemned, but if any other things have been put forth by

Origen, you should know that with their author they are alike condemned by

me. The Lord have you in safe-keeping, my lord and brother deservedly held

in honor.





(e) Rufinus, Preface to Translation of Origen's "De Principiis".

(MSL, 22:733 and also MSG, 11:111.)





In this preface Rufinus refers, without mentioning names, to

Jerome. Inasmuch as it was perfectly clear to whom the allusion

was made, as the translator and admirer of Origen, Jerome felt

himself personally attacked and retorted furiously upon Rufinus.





I know that a great many of the brethren, incited by their desire for a

knowledge of the Scriptures, have requested various men versed in Greek

letters to make Origen a Roman and give him to Latin ears. Among these was

our brother and associate [i.e., Jerome], who was so requested by Bishop

Damasus, when he translated the two homilies on the Song of Songs from

Greek into Latin, prefixed to the work a preface so full of beauty and so

magnificent that he awoke in every one the desire of reading Origen and of

eagerly examining his works, and he said that to the soul of that man the

words might well be applied, "The King has brought me into his chamber"

[Cant. 2:4], and he declared that Origen in his other books surpassed all

other men, but in this had surpassed himself. What he promised in his

preface is, indeed, that he would give to Roman ears not only these books

on the Song of Songs, but many others of Origen. But, as I perceive, he is

so pleased with his own style that he pursues an object bringing him more

glory, viz., to be the father of a book rather than a translator. I am

therefore following out a task begun by him and commended by him. In

translation, I follow as far as possible the method of my predecessors,

and especially of him whom I have already mentioned, who, after he had

translated into Latin above seventy of the books of Origen, which he

called Homilies, and also a certain number of the tomes written on the

Apostle [the Epistles of St. Paul], since a number of offensive passages

are to be found in the Greek, eliminated and purged, in his translation,

all of them, so that the Latin reader will find nothing in these which jar

on our faith. Him, therefore, we follow, not indeed with the power of his

eloquence, but as far as we can in his rules and methods: that is, taking

care not to promulgate those things which in the books of Origen are found

to be discrepant and contradictory one to the other. The cause of these

variations I have set forth fully in the apology which Pamphilus wrote for

the books of Origen, to which is appended a short treatise showing how

proofs which, as I judge, are quite clear in his books have in many cases

been falsified by heretical and evil-disposed persons.





(f) Augustine, Ep. 73, Ch. 8. (MSL, 33:249.)





The attempt of Augustine to bring about a reconciliation between

Rufinus and Jerome. Jerome had written some affectionate words to

Augustine to which he alludes in the beginning of the following

passage:





When, by these words, now not only yours but also mine, I am gladdened and

refreshed, and when I am comforted not a little by the desire of both of

us for mutual fellowship, which has been suspended and is not satisfied,

suddenly I am pierced through by the darts of keenest sorrow when I

consider that between you [i.e., Rufinus and Jerome] (to whom God

granted in fullest measure and for a long time that which both of us have

longed for, that in closest and most intimate fellowship you tasted

together the honey of Holy Scriptures) such a blight of bitterness has

broken out, when, where, and in whom it was not to be feared, since it has

befallen you at the very time when, unencumbered, having cast away secular

burdens, you were following the Lord, were living together in that land in

which the Lord walked with human feet, when He said, "Peace I leave with

you, My peace I give unto you"; being, moreover, men of mature age, whose

life was devoted to the study of the word of God. Truly, "man's life on

earth is a period of trial" [Job 7:1]. Alas, that I cannot meet you both

together, perchance that in agitation, grief, and fear I might cast myself

at your feet, weep till I could weep no more, and appeal as I love you,

first to each of you for his own sake, and then for the sake of those,

especially the weak, "for whom Christ died" [I Cor. 8:11], who to their

great peril look on you as on the stage of time, imploring you not to

scatter abroad, in writing, those things about each other which when

reconciled, you, who are now unwilling to be reconciled, could not then

destroy, and which when reconciled you would not dare to read lest you

should quarrel anew.





(g) Socrates, Hist. Ec., VI, 15. (MSG, 67:708.)





The fall of Chrysostom.





Epiphanius had gone to Constantinople on the suggestion of

Theophilus, and there, in his zeal, had violated the canons of

ordination as generally received. In this case he had ordained

priests in the diocese of Chrysostom and without his permission.

Other troubles had arisen. On being called to account for his

conduct by Chrysostom, Epiphanius hastily left the city, and died

on the voyage back to his diocese, Salamis, in Cyprus.





When Epiphanius had gone John was informed by some person that the Empress

Eudoxia had set Epiphanius against him. Being of a fiery temperament and

of ready utterance, he soon after pronounced to the public an invective

against women in general. The people readily took this as uttered

indirectly against the Empress, and so the speech, laid hold of by

evil-disposed persons, was brought to the knowledge of those in authority.

At length the Empress, having been informed of it, immediately complained

to her husband of the insult offered her, saying that the insult offered

her was an insult to him. He therefore gave orders that Theophilus should

speedily convoke a synod against John; Severianus also co-operated in

promoting this, for he still retained his grudge [i.e., against

Chrysostom. See DCB, art. "Severianus, bishop of Gabala."]. No great

length of time, accordingly, intervened before Theophilus arrived, having

stirred up many bishops from different cities; but this, also, the summons

of the Emperor had commanded. Especially did they assemble who had one

cause or another of complaint against John, and there were present besides

those whom John had deposed, for John had deposed many bishops in Asia

when he went to Ephesus for the ordination of Heraclides. Accordingly they

all, by previous agreement, assembled at Chalcedon in Bithynia. Now none

of the clergy [i.e., of Constantinople] would go forth to meet

Theophilus or pay him the customary honors because he was openly known as

John's enemy. But the Alexandrian sailors--for it happened that at that

time the grain-transport ships were there--on meeting him, greeted him with

joyful acclamations. He excused himself from entering the church, and took

up his abode at one of the imperial mansions called "The Placidian." Then,

in consequence of this, many accusations began to be poured forth against

John, and no longer was there any mention of the books of Origen, but all

were intent on pressing a variety of absurd accusations. When these

preliminary matters were settled the bishops were convened in one of the

suburbs of Chalcedon, which is called "The Oak," and immediately cited

John to answer charges which were brought against him. And since John,

taking exception to those who cited him, on the ground that they were his

enemies, demanded a general council, without delay they repeated their

citation four times; and as he persisted in his refusal to answer, always

giving the same reply, they condemned him, and deposed him without giving

any other cause for his deposition than that he refused to obey when

summoned. This, being announced toward evening, incited the people to a

very great sedition, insomuch that they kept watch all night and would by

no means suffer him to be removed from the church, but cried out that the

charges against him ought to be determined by a larger assembly. A decree

of the Emperor, however, commanded that he should be immediately expelled

and sent into exile. When John knew this he voluntarily surrendered

himself about noon, unknown to the populace, on the third day after his

condemnation; for he dreaded any insurrectionary movement on his account,

and he was accordingly led away.





(h) Theophilus of Alexandria, Ep. ad Hieronymum, in Jerome, Ep. 113.

(MSL, 22:932.)





Theophilus on the fall of Chrysostom.





To the well-beloved and most loving brother Jerome, Theophilus sends

greeting in the Lord.



At the outset the verdict of truth satisfies but few; but the Lord,

speaking by the prophet, says, "My judgment goeth forth as the light," and

they who are surrounded with a horror of darkness do not with clear mind

perceive the nature of things, and they are covered with eternal shame and

know by their outcome that their efforts have been in vain. Wherefore we

also have always desired that John [Chrysostom], who for a time ruled the

church of Constantinople, might please God, and we have been unwilling to

accept as facts the cause of his ruin in which he behaved himself rashly.

But not to speak of his other misdeed, he has by taking the Origenists

into his confidences,(184) by advancing many of them to the priesthood,

and by this crime saddening with no slight grief that man of God,

Epiphanius, of blessed memory, who has shone throughout all the world a

bright star among bishops, deserved to hear the words, "Babylon is fallen,

is fallen."