Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Dissension between Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria and the Monks of the Desert. Condemnation of Origen's Books.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter
VII.—Dissension between Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria
and the Monks of the Desert. Condemnation of Origen’s
Books.
The question had been started a
little before,851
| 851By Audius or Audæus, the founder of the Audian
heresy. Cf. Epiphan. Hær. LXX.; Walch, Histor. der
Ketzereien, Vol. III. p. 300; also Iselin, Audios und die
Audianer, in Jahrbücher für Protestant. Theologie,
April, 1890; p. 298 seq.
|
whether God is a corporeal existence, and has the form of man; or
whether he is incorporeal, and without human or, generally speaking,
any other bodily shape? From this question arose strifes and
contentions among a very great number of persons, some favoring one
opinion on the subject, and others patronizing the opposite. Very many
of the more simple ascetics asserted that God is corporeal, and has a
human figure: but most others condemn their judgment, and contended
that God is incorporeal, and free of all form whatever. With these
latter Theophilus bishop of Alexandria agreed so thoroughly that in the
church before all the people he inveighed against those who attributed
to God a human form, expressly teaching that the Divine Being is wholly
incorporeal. When the Egyptian ascetics were apprised of this, they
left their monasteries and came to Alexandria; where they excited a
tumult against the bishop, accusing him of impiety, and threatening to
put him to death. Theophilus becoming aware of his danger, after some
consideration had recourse to this expedient to extricate himself from
the threatened death. Going to the monks, he in a conciliatory tone
thus addressed them: ‘In seeing you, I behold the face of
God.’ The utterance of this saying moderated the fury of these
men and they replied: ‘If you
really admit that God’s countenance is such as ours, anathematize
Origen’s book;852
| 852On the dispute concerning Origen’s views, see
below, chap. 13.
|
for some drawing arguments from them oppose themselves to our opinion.
If you will not do this, expect to be treated by us as an impious
person, and the enemy of God.’ ‘But as far as I am
concerned,’ said Theophilus, ‘I will readily do what you
require: and be ye not angry with me, for I myself also disapprove of
Origen’s works, and consider those who countenance them deserving
of censure.’ Thus he succeeded in appeasing and sending away the
monks at that time; and probably the whole dispute respecting this
subject would have been set at rest, had it not been for another
circumstance which happened immediately after. Over the monasteries in
Egypt there were four devout persons as superintendents named
Dioscorus, Ammonius, Eusebius, and Euthymius: these men were brothers,
and had the appellation of ‘the Tall Monks’ given them on
account of their stature. They were moreover distinguished both for the
sanctity of their lives, and the extent of their erudition, and for
these reasons their reputation was very high at Alexandria. Theophilus
in particular, the prelate of that city, loved and honored them
exceedingly: insomuch that he constituted one of them, Dioscorus,
bishop of Hermopolis853
| 853There were two cities named Hermopolis in Egypt; the
most important of these in the Thebaid was known as Hermopolis proper,
whereas the other (the one here alluded to) was situated in lower Egypt
and designated Hermopolis parva.
|
against his will, having forcibly drawn him from his retreat. Two of
the others he entreated to continue with him, and with difficulty
prevailed upon them to do so; still by the exercise of his authority as
bishop he accomplished his purpose: when therefore he had invested them
with the clerical office, he committed to their charge the management
of ecclesiastical affairs. They, constrained by necessity, performed
the duties thus imposed on them successfully; nevertheless they were
dissatisfied because they were unable to follow philosophical pursuits
and ascetic exercises. And as in process of time, they thought they
were being spiritually injured, observing the bishop to be devoted to
gain, and greedily intent on the acquisition of wealth, and according
to the common saying ‘leaving no stone unturned’ for the
sake of gain, they refused to remain with him any longer, declaring
that they loved solitude, and greatly preferred it to living in the
city. As long as he was ignorant of the true motive for their
departure, he earnestly begged them to abide with him; but when he
perceived that they were dissatisfied with his conduct, he became
excessively irritated, and threatened to do them all kinds of mischief.
But they making little account of his menaces retired into the desert;
upon which Theophilus, who was evidently of a hasty and malignant
temperament, raised not a small clamor against them, and by every
contrivance earnestly sought to do them injury. He also conceived a
dislike against their brother Dioscorus, bishop of Hermopolis. He was
moreover extremely annoyed at the esteem and veneration in which he was
held by the ascetics. Being aware, however, that he would be able to do
no harm to these persons unless he could stir up hostility in the minds
of the monks against them, he used this artifice to effect it. He well
knew that these men in their frequent theological discussions with him,
had maintained that the Deity was incorporeal, and by no means had a
human form; because [they argued] such a constitution would involve the
necessary accompaniment of human passions. Now this has been
demonstrated by the ancient writers and especially Origen. Theophilus,
however though entertaining the very same opinion respecting the Divine
nature, yet to gratify his vindictive feelings, did not hesitate to
pervert what he and they had rightly taught: but imposed upon the
majority of the monks, men who were sincere but ‘rude in
speech,’854
the greater part of whom were quite illiterate. Sending letters to the
monasteries in the desert, he advised them not to give heed either to
Dioscorus or to his brothers, inasmuch as they affirmed that God had
not a body. ‘Whereas,’ said he, ‘according to the
sacred Scripture God has eyes, ears, hands, and feet, as men have; but
the partisans of Dioscorus, being followers of Origen, introduce the
blasphemous dogma that God has neither eyes, ears, feet, nor
hands.’ By this sophism he took advantage of the simplicity of
these monks and thus a hot dissension was stirred up among them. Such
as had a cultivated mind indeed were not beguiled by this plausibility,
and therefore still adhere to Dioscorus and Origen; but the more
ignorant who greatly exceeded the others in number, inflamed by an
ardent zeal without knowledge, immediately raised an outcry against
their brethren. A division being thus made, both parties branded each
other as impious; and some listening to Theophilus called their
brethren ‘Origenists,’ and ‘impious’ and the
others termed those who were convinced by Theophilus
‘Anthropomorphitæ.’ On this account violent
altercation arose, and an inextinguishable war between the monks.
Theophilus on receiving intimation of the success of his device, went
to Nitria where the monasteries are, accompanied by a multitude of
persons, and armed the monks against Dioscorus and his brethren; who
being in danger of losing their
lives, made their escape with great difficulty.
While these things were in progress in Egypt John bishop
of Constantinople was ignorant of them, but flourished in eloquence and
became increasingly celebrated for his discourses. Moreover he first
enlarged the prayers contained in the nocturnal hymns, for the reason I
am about to assign. E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
