ORIGENISTIC CONTROVERSIES

OEIGENISTIC CONTROVERSIES 155

there stands side by side with the names of !Arius, Eunomius. Macedonius, Apollinarius,Nestorius, and Eutyches. There is reason, how-ever, to suspect the genuineness of the reference. .The name of Origen, unlike the rest, does notoccur in its due chronological order. But for thisexception, the list includes only those hereticscondemned at the first four general councils. Inthe Roman copy of the acts, the name of Origenis here omitted, nor does it occur with the restin the emperor’s confession of faith (§ 10) (cf.Migne, vol. lxxxvi. pt. 1, p. 1018 ; Hefele, vol. ii.

§ 274, pp. 893-899). Even if we admit thatthe fifth council added the name of Origen tothose anathematised by the four preceding coun-cils, it is difficult to explain how or when theassembly could have decided upon the prelimi-nary censure before inserting his name in thecondemned list. The widest difference of opinionprevails among historians. Noris, for instance,admits that the council was convened solely todiscuss the “three chapters,” but he suggeststhat before proceeding to their real business,they considered the case of Origen as well.De Marca, on the other hand, thinks that thecondemnation of Origen came at the close of thesittings, and that the synodical acts, as we havethem, are mutilated ( De Epist. Vigil, c. xxiii.pp. 36, foil.; Biss. iii. edit, by Baluze, Paris,1669). This is the view of Natalis Alexanderalso (II. E. saecl. tert. Diss. xvi. § 11). Somehistorians, again, suppose that Origen’s doctrineswere condemned only after a fair trial and dis-cussion ; others, that they were condemnedwithout any such formality.

The evidence against the supposition thatOrigen was condemned at the fifth generalcouncil has been summarised with great care bythe Rev. H. N. Oxenham, in the work entitled“ What is of the Truth as to Everlasting Punish-ment? ’’(Part ii.), a reply to Dr. Pusey’s “ Whatis of Faith as to Everlasting Punishment ?” Thechief heads of the evidence are as follows:—(1) In the fifth council there is no mention ofOrigen except in one single place (canon xi.), andeven this may possibly be an interpolated for-gery. (2) No mention of Origen and his errorsoccurs in the edict of Justinian convening thefifth council, though he there enumerates thesubjects for discussion (Labbe, vol. v. pp. 419,foil.; Mansi, vol. ix. p. 178, foil.), whereas inthe letter to Mennas on the occasion of the homesynod the errors are stated and the synod isasked to condemn them (Mansi, ib. p. 487, foil.).(3) Vigilius, the pope, in confirming the acts ofthe council, makes no allusion to any condemna-tion of Origen ; and indeed throughout hisletters from a.d. 540 to 554, there is no refer-ence of the kind. Pelagius and Gregory are silenttoo, and it is not reasonable to suppose that ifsuch a decision had been arrived at in the coun-cil three successive popes would have beensilent on the point; the less so that. Vigiliushimself discusses at considerable length whatthe council had done (Mansi, vol. ix. pp. 414,loll.). (4) The reference supplied by the evi-dence of later councils (e.g. the seventh generalcouncil), historians and other writers is not suffi-cient to establish Origen’s condemnation againstthe silence of the highest authorities.

The authorities quoted by Dr. Pusey (op. cit.)to sustain the opposite view may be divided into

two sets. The first refer to a specific condem-nation of Origen at the fifth council. The listincludes (1) Cyril of Scythopolis (Vita Sabae fc. xc. vid. sup.) (2) Evagrius (II. E. iv. 37),(3) Maximus of Aquileia, in his address to theLateran Council, A.d. 649 (Labbe, vol. vi.pp. 96, 97). (4) The acts of the Lateran

Council itself (Labbe, vol. vi. pp. 75, foil. (5)Sophronius of Jerusalem in a letter to Sergiusof Constantinople (Migne, vol. lxxxvii. part 3,pp. 3182-6). (6) Tarasius, in a letter read atthe second council of Nicaea, and also an allusionin the definition of the council (vid. Cone. Nic.II. act. viii. Labbe, vol. vii. p. 684). (7) Theprofession of faith made by a bishop of Romebetween a.d. 685 and a.d. 715 (Migne, P, vol.

! cv. p. 49). (8) Photius, cod. 18 and Ep. i. 8,ad Michael. Migne, vol. cii. pp. 643-6, and vol.ciii. pp. 42-58). (9) Nicephorus Callistus (H. E.xvii. 27, 28). Without giving all the passagesquoted by Dr. Pusey, in which a general refer-ence to a condemnation of Origen is to be found,but apart from any specific allusion to the fifthcouncil, we may select two or three as illus-trative of the whole body of testimony. (1)Victor Tununensis (Chron. ad ann. Migne, P. L.vol. lx viii. p. 959 ; Galland, JBibl. Pair. vol. xii.p. 231). (2) An imperial edict read at the sixthgeneral council (Labbe, vol. vi. p. 1096). (3)

A letter of Leo II. to the emperor Constantine(Labbe, vol. vi. pp. 1017, foil.).

It must be admitted that the value of eachindividual testimony taken separately is as arule extremely slight, especially when weremember what intervals of time separated thewriters from the events about which theywrote, and the ingenuous way in which onerepeats the mis-statements of his predecessors.For all that, it is impossible to refuse to creditthem with a certain amount of authority whentaken collectively. They prove at the least theexistence at a comparatively early date of abelief, that Origen had been condemned at or inconnection with the Fifth Council. The evidenceis not conclusive, but it is sufficient to deter usfrom a dogmatic denial that such a condemna-tion occurred. And without more convincingproof than any that has hitherto been given tosupport the theory, that the name of Origen asit stands in the Eleventh Canon is a subsequentinterpolation, we must accept the clause as itstands. There is another passage in the pro-ceedings of the council, which must not be leftwithout notice. In the course of an argumentsupporting the legality of anathematising here-tics after death, the following passage occurs:“ Et multos quidem alios invenimus post mortemanathematizatos, necnon et Origenem; et si adtempora Theophili sanctae memoriae recurrent,post mortem inveniet anathematizatum; quodetiam nunc in ipso fecit et vestra Sanctitas etVigilius, religiosissimus papa antiquioris Romae.”Without the word “nunc;” nothing would bemore natural than to explain the passage as areference to the Home Synod under Mennas;and Hefele, who does not obliterate a wordwhen he is face to face with a difficulty, suggeststhat the reference in nunc is to past not con-temporary history (\ol. ii. § 270, p. 875). Vin-cenzi (vol. v. p. 88) has recourse to his usualtheory of interpolation; while Noris, taking theword in its ordinary sense, supposes that the