HistoricalChristian.Faith

Was Origen's pre-existent soul of Christ a theological achievement — the full human soul Apollinaris denied and Chalcedon vindicated?

Type: supporting argument (off-timeline) · Assessment: contested — the reading holds by one discipline's lights and slips by another's. As a matter of the history of doctrine its central historical claim is strong and widely granted: Origen is one of the first theologians to insist, at length and against the drift of his own Logos-centred school, that Christ took a complete rational human soul, the very thing Apollinaris would later deny and Chalcedon would write into the creed as “a reasonable soul and body.” And the sharpest anathemas of 553 — the descending nous who is “Christ properly so called,” the mind that suffers for the demons — do strike a sixth-century Evagrian system, not the mediating soul of Peri Archōn. But three things keep the defence from carrying the whole claim. The doctrine is a limb of the pre-existence scheme that fails independently, so vindicating the soul does not vindicate the theory it hangs on. The union Origen actually describes is effected by the soul's own merit and inseparable love — the assumption “conferred as the reward of its virtues” — which is a union of adhesion, sitting uneasily beside the hypostatic union Chalcedon meant. And the eighth anathema, which condemns making the soul-that-is-called-Christ prior to the Word, catches a reciprocal predication that Peri Archōn II.6 does in part supply. So the achievement is real and the “they condemned Evagrius, not Origen” line is half right — but the mediating soul is not the innocent proto-Chalcedonian its warmest defenders make it. See also was the pre-existence of souls an open question when Origen taught it?, the scheme this christology presupposes.

The claim

The interpretation weighed here is that Origen's account of the soul of Christ is a genuine theological advance, wrongly swept up in his condemnation. In Peri Archōn II.6 Origen asks how the infinite Word could be joined to mortal flesh, and answers with a third term. One rational creature, of all those made at the beginning, clung to the Word with a love so total that it never cooled; that soul, “inhering, from the beginning of the creation… inseparably and indissolubly in Him,” becomes the medium of the incarnation:

This substance of a soul, then, being intermediate between God and the flesh — it being impossible for the nature of God to intermingle with a body without an intermediate instrument — the God-man is born, as we have said, that substance being the intermediary to whose nature it was not contrary to assume a body… And therefore deservedly is it also called, along with the flesh which it had assumed, the Son of God, and the Power of God, the Christ, and the Wisdom of God, either because it was wholly in the Son of God, or because it received the Son of God wholly into itself.

— Origen, De Principiis II.6.3 (c. 229).¹ The heart of the advocated reading is that this soul is a real, complete, rational human soul, not a divine stand-in. Origen says so in as many words, and treats it as a difficulty he must defend, not evade: “if our having shown above that Christ possessed a rational soul should cause a difficulty to any one… we must believe that there existed in Christ a human and rational soul, without supposing that it had any feeling or possibility of sin.”² The same insistence surfaces against Celsus, where Origen distinguishes the Logos from a soul that could genuinely suffer: “we do not suppose the body of Jesus… to have been God. And why do I say His body? Nay, not even His soul, of which it is related, ‘My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death.’”³

Two centuries later that is precisely the point the Church would define. Against Apollinaris of Laodicea, who taught that in Christ the divine Word took the place of the human rational mind, the Council of Chalcedon confessed him “perfect… in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul (anima rationali) and body… consubstantial with us according to the Manhood.”⁴ Apollinaris's motive was to secure Christ's sinlessness by removing the mutable human mind and substituting the Logos;⁵ Origen, a century and a half earlier, had already refused that shortcut — the soul of Christ is a soul like ours in nature, kept sinless not by being replaced but by an unbreakable adherence to the Word. On this reading his mediating soul is not the error the condemnation supposes but the seed of the orthodox answer to it.

Who advances it

The historical half of the claim is the settled judgement of the specialists. Aloys Grillmeier, in the standard survey of early Christology, treats Origen's doctrine of the soul of Christ as a real and deliberate contribution — the soul as the bond of union between Logos and flesh, and one of the earliest sustained defences of a full human soul in Christ against the Logos-sarx tendency of Alexandrian thought.⁶ Henri Crouzel likewise reads the mediating soul as a serious solution to the problem of union, not a Platonizing lapse, and distinguishes Origen's own christology from the Evagrian system later fathered on him.⁷ The second half — that 553 condemned the mutation and not the original — rests on the discovery, associated above all with Antoine Guillaumont, that the unexpurgated Syriac (S2) recension of Evagrius's Kephalaia Gnostica contains exactly the nous-christology the anathemas describe, which the surviving Greek of Peri Archōn does not.⁸

The evidence for

Origen really does insist on a complete human soul, and defends it as controversial. The decisive feature of Peri Archōn II.6 is that Origen does not slip a human soul past his reader; he raises the objection himself — a soul whose nature is “capable both of good and evil” seems unfit for the sinless Christ — and answers it without abolishing the soul. Its nature “was the same as that of all others… otherwise it could not be called a soul were it not truly one”; what makes it impeccable is not a swapped-in divinity but the sheer constancy of its love, by which “that which formerly depended upon the will was changed by the power of long custom into nature.” That is a soul kept sinless while remaining a soul — the exact opposite of the Apollinarian move that a later century would anathematize.

The iron-in-the-fire simile is a union that preserves both natures. Origen's own illustration is built to keep the humanity intact. A mass of iron held perpetually in the furnace “become wholly fire, seeing nothing but fire is visible in it” — yet it is still iron; it has not ceased to be metal by being heated through. “In this way, then, that soul which, like an iron in the fire, has been perpetually placed in the Word… is God in all that it does.”⁹ The figure is chosen precisely so that the deification of the soul does not annihilate its created nature — the iron remains iron. Read as its author framed it, this is a defence of the integrity of Christ's humanity, not a dissolution of it.

The enforced anathemas target an Evagrian mutation, not this text. What 553 condemned in its christological articles is a system the surviving Peri Archōn does not contain. The seventh and ninth anathemas condemn the notion that a pre-existent Christ “passed through divers classes, had different bodies and different names… an Angel among Angels, a Power among Powers,” and that it was “the Nous” — not “the Divine Logos made man by taking an animated body” — that descended into hell and rose; the twelfth condemns the doctrine that all beings, devils included, are united with “the Nous which is by them called Christ… and that the Kingdom of Christ shall have an end.”¹⁰ The recurring “Nous… by them called” is the giveaway: the anathemas quarrel with a party's technical vocabulary, the pre-cosmic intellects and equal-to-Christ spirits of the sixth-century Isochristoi, whose sources were Evagrian. Origen's mediating soul that suffers and is sorrowful is not the impassible descending nous the council describes.

Adversarial assessment

The soul cannot be rescued apart from the pre-existence it presupposes. Origen's mediating soul is not free-standing; it is the one rational creature that, alone among the pre-cosmic minds, did not fall — “inhering, from the beginning of the creation… inseparably… in Him.” The whole force of the account depends on souls existing and choosing before their bodies, the very scheme the first anathema of 543 and 553 condemns and which is weighed, and found to fail on its own merits, on its own page. One may grant that a full human soul in Christ is a real achievement and still deny that this soul — a pre-existent, pre-incarnately meritorious intelligence — is the way to secure it. The Chalcedonian “reasonable soul” is created with the manhood it animates; Origen's is older than the world. Vindicating the predicate (a human soul) does not vindicate the theory Origen used to reach it (a pre-existent one), and the defence trades on the first to smuggle in the second.

The union is by merit and love — which is an adhesion, not a hypostatic union. The most telling strain is in how the joining is effected. For Origen the soul is assumed because it deserved to be: “the assumption of that soul was not accidental, or the result of a personal preference, but was conferred as the reward of its virtues… As a reward for its love, then, it is anointed with the oil of gladness; i.e., the soul of Christ along with the Word of God is made Christ.”¹¹ A soul that is made Christ as the wage of its own virtue is united to the Word by an ethical bond — adherence, merit, inseparable will — and that is the grammar of a union of grace, not of person. It sits closer to what a later century would call the conjunction of two subjects than to the single hypostasis of Chalcedon; the very definition that vindicates the “reasonable soul” also insists the two natures concur “in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons.” So the reading that makes Origen a proto-Chalcedonian on the soul makes him something less than Chalcedonian on the union — and the two cannot be praised in the same breath.

The eighth anathema catches something the text really says. The claim that 553 struck only an Evagrian invention overstates. The eighth anathema condemns holding that “this intelligence united to God the Word is the Christ in the true sense of the word, while the Logos is only called Christ because of this union with the intelligence, and e converse that the intelligence is only called God because of the Logos.”¹² Set that beside Origen's own reciprocal predication: the soul “is also called… the Son of God… the Christ, and the Wisdom of God, either because it was wholly in the Son of God, or because it received the Son of God wholly into itself,” while “the Son of God… is named Jesus Christ and the Son of man.” The two-way naming — the soul called Christ, the Word called Jesus — is Origen's, and Jerome reports the Greek to the same effect, that “no soul… has borne upon it so true an impress of its previous character as Christ's soul.”¹³ Origen's intent is the communication of idioms, not the elevation of the soul over the Word; the Evagrian who made the nous the “true” Christ pressed the reciprocity into a system Origen did not build. But the anathema is not condemning a proposition foreign to Peri Archōn; it is condemning a hardening of one that is there. That is the pattern of the whole condemnation — the enforced charge misnames the mechanism while catching a real feature of the text — and it holds here too.

Assessment

contested. By the lights of the history of doctrine the argument is strong and largely granted: Origen is among the first to insist, deliberately and against his school's grain, that Christ assumed a complete rational human soul, he defends it as the very point most likely to trouble a reader, and that insistence is vindicated, not refuted, when Chalcedon confesses Christ “of a reasonable soul and body” against Apollinaris. The specialists are right that the fiercest anathemas of 553 — the descending impassible nous, the mind crucified for demons — strike an Evagrian construction absent from his surviving text. By the lights of dogmatic theology the defence falls short of clearing the doctrine as a whole. The mediating soul is inseparable from the pre-existence scheme that fails on its own account, so the human soul is secured by a mechanism orthodoxy could not keep; the union is effected by the soul's merit and inseparable love, an adhesion that reads as a conjunction of subjects rather than the single hypostasis Chalcedon defined; and the eighth anathema condemns a reciprocal predication that Peri Archōn II.6 does in part supply, so “they condemned Evagrius, not Origen” is only half true. The reading that survives the counter-evidence is the measured one: Origen's insistence on a full human soul in Christ is a genuine achievement and a real anticipation of Chalcedon's manhood — but the pre-existent, merit-united soul that carries it is not the innocent proto-orthodoxy its warmest defenders describe, and the sixth century condemned an Evagrian exaggeration of a christology whose own premises were already unsound.

Sources