Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol. 6 (Jerome: Letters)

from Paradise." His intemperateness, which showed contempt for marriage, was severely blamed by his friends at Rome, who tried to stop the publication (79; see also Rufinus, Apology ii. 44, Vol. iii. 480). He only replied with renewed expressions of derision, and several years later, when he had occasion to refer to Jovinian, he said, “This man, after being condemned by the authority of the Roman Church, amidst his feasts of pheasants and swine’s flesh, I will not say gave up, but belched out, his life” (417).

393-403. (2) Origenism. The second great controversy in which Jerome was engaged during this period relates to Origenism, about which a great controversy had arisen at Alexandria. This led to its condemnation by the bishops of Palestine and Cyprus in the East, and by the Pope, the Bishop of Milan, and others in the West.

The great church teacher of Alexandria Origen of Alexandria in the third century was little known in the West. Pope Anastasius, in the year 399, declared that he neither knew who he was nor what he had written (Vol. iii. 433). Jerome, who had become acquainted with his writings during his first sojourn in the East, conceived a strong admiration for him. He did not, indeed, accept all his views, as may be seen from the first letter in which he alludes to him (22); but on coming to Rome, he did all in his power to make him known. He was invited by Damasus to translate some of his works (485); and when he found ignorant condemnations passed upon him, he praised him with his usual vehemence and without discrimination, even eulogizing the Περὶ Ἀρχῶν (On First Principles), on which the subsequent controversy mainly turned (46; Rufinus, Apology ii. 13, Vol. iii. 467). He had also quoted without blame, in his Commentary on the Ephesians, statements such as those relating to the pre-existence of human souls and the possible restoration of Satan (Rufinus, Apology i. 448, 454). But it was more a literary enthusiasm and an admiration for original genius than an express consent to Origen’s system. His calm judgment in later years was that his literary services to the Church were inestimable, but that his doctrinal views were to be read with the greatest caution and that those specifically impugned were heretical (176, 177, 238, 244). It must be allowed, however, that he appears in his earlier stage as a vehement panegyrist of Origen (46, 48), and in his later stage as his equally vehement condemner; this change seems less the effect of conviction than of a fear of being accused of heresy (Apology iii. 33, Vol. iii. 535).

The monks in the deserts near Alexandria were divided; some held Origenistic views, while others held the opposite tendency, verging upon Anthropomorphism The belief that God possesses human physical form.. Theophilus, the Bishop of Alexandria, at first sided with the Origenists, but afterwards turned against them and became their relentless persecutor. During his former phase, he was appealed to by John, Bishop of Jerusalem, in his controversy with Epiphanius and Jerome (427), and took his part so vehemently that he sent his confidant, Isidore, to Jerusalem to inquire—but really to crush out all opposition, as he stated in a letter to John (444). This letter fell into the hands of Jerome and his friends, and Theophilus’s intentions were frustrated. A period of suspicious silence followed (134); but when Theophilus had changed his stance, he found a ready instrument in Jerome, who threw himself eagerly into the conflict (182-184). Jerome translated the encyclicals of Theophilus (185, 186, 189)—which led to the condemnation of Origen in the East—and even his diatribe against St. John Chrysostom for receiving Isidore and his brethren, whom Theophilus now treated as his enemies (214). Jerome also, through his friends Pammachius, Marcella, and Eusebius (186, 256), procured the condemnation of Origen in the West.

(3) John of Jerusalem. The controversy with John of Jerusalem forms an episode in the more general controversy. John had been trained among the Origenistic ascetics; Epiphanius was trained among the anti-Origenists. Jerome appears to have undergone no change in his sentiments regarding Origen during the first period of his stay at Bethlehem [see his Preface to the Book of Hebrew Questions (486, 487) written in 388] and was on good terms with the Bishop of Jerusalem and with Rufinus, who was then living on the Mount of Olives. But at the beginning of the second period, a certain Aterbius came to Jerusalem and spread suspicion and alarm regarding heresy. Jerome, perhaps weakly, “gave him satisfaction” as to his faith (Apology iii. 33, Vol. iii. 535), while by John and Rufinus he was treated as a busybody (id.). This produced the first estrangement, which was greatly increased by the visit of Epiphanius in the following year. The scenes which followed may be read in Jerome’s treatise “Against John of Jerusalem” (430) and in Epiphanius’s letter translated by Jerome (83-85). Epiphanius was popular at Jerusalem, and after a scene in the church—in which he preached against Origenism and John against Anthropomorphism—a breach was made between the two prelates. Epiphanius came to stay at Bethlehem and spoke of John as nearly a heretic. John spoke of Epiphanius as “that old dotard” (430). The monks of Bethlehem took part with Epiphanius; and he, to prevent their...