“the holy spirit in prin i, 3”, in gyorgy heidl and robert somos (eds.). origeniana nona. origen...

1. On this topic see F. COCCHINI, Lo Spirito Paraclito: Una considerazione origeni-ana, in L. PADOVESE (ed.), Turchia: la Chiesa e la sua storia, XIII. Atti del VII Simposio di Efeso su S. Giovanni Apostolo, Rome, 1999, 205-211. M. O’CARROLL, Origen, in Veni Creator Spiritus: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Spirit, Collegeville, MN, 1990, 165-168. G. BERTHOLD, Origen and the Holy Spirit, in R.J. DALY (ed.), Origeniana quinta: Papers of the 5th International Origen Congress, Boston College, 14-18 August 1989 (BETL, 105), Leuven, 1992, 444-448. M. SIMONETTI, Spirito Santo, in A. MONACI CASTAGNO (ed.), Origene. Dizionario: La cultura, il pensiero, le opere, Roma, 2000, 450-456. G. DI NOLA (ed.), Lo Spirito Santo nella testimonianza dei Padri e degli scrittori cristiani (I – V sec.), Rome, 1999, 243-290. F. DÜNZL, Pneuma. Funktionen des theolo-gischen Begriffs in frühchristlicher Literatur, Münster, 2000, 367-377. M.M. GARIJO, Aspectos de la pneumatología origeniana, in Scriptorium Victoriense 13 (1966) 65-86. C. vGRANADO, El Espíritu Santo en la teología patrística, Salamanca, 1987. M. BEYER MOSER, Teacher on Holiness: The Holy Spirit in Origen’s Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Piscataway, NJ, 2005. J. RIUS-CAMPS, El dinamismo trinitario en la diviniza-ción según Orígenes, Rome, 1970. W. VÖLKER, Das Vollkommenheitsideal des Origenes: Eine Untersuchung zur Geschichte der Frömmigkeit und zu den Anfängen christlicher Mystik, Tübingen, 1931. A. HERON, The Holy Spirit in Origen and Didymus the Blind: A Shift of Perspective From the Third to the Fourth Century, in A.M. RITTER (ed.), Kerygma und Logos: Beiträge zu den geistgeschichtlichen Beziehungen zwischen Antike und Chris-tentum. FS Carl Andresen, Göttingen, 1979, 298-310. H.-J. VOGT, Das Kirchenverständ-nis des Origenes, Köln – Wien, 1974. P.L. TITE, The Holy Spirit’s Role in Origen’s Trinitarian System: A Comparison with Valentinian Pneumatology, in Theoforum 32 (2001) 131-164.

2. K. MCDONNELL, Does Origen Have a Trinitarian Doctrine of the Holy Spirit?, in Gregorianum 75 (1994) 6-8.

3. While von Harnack perceives Origen as having “no specific theological interest” in the Holy Spirit, Florensky thinks that Origen’s pneumatology is a “false window” inserted “for the sake of the symmetry of the structure and nothing more”. Authors as Koch, Shapland and Hauschild assert that Origen has no real place for the Spirit. Hauschild even qualifies this Pneumatology as “immature”.

4. Among who affirm Origen was not really interested in the trinity we find J. Trigg, C. Schütz, and F. Courth, while J.N.D. Kelly, H.U. von Balthasar and Ch. Kannengiesser represent the opposite view.

THE HOLY SPIRIT IN PRIN I, 3

Scholars are divided in their appreciation and evaluation of Origen’s doctrine of the Holy Spirit1, which is found mostly in De Principiis and his Commentary on the Gospel of John. McDonnell2 puts forward two positions, the first regarding the level of Origen’s interest in the Holy Spirit3 and the second which questions the importance he attaches to trinitarian theology, which conditions his pneumatology4. Criticisms such as this are based chiefly on account of Origen’s alleged subordina-tionism. Even granting that Origen achieved certain pneumatological insights, some scholars have seen in them heterodox developments or, at

2061-09_Heidl & Somos_03.indd 252061-09_Heidl & Somos_03.indd 25 13-05-2009 10:56:0513-05-2009 10:56:05

26 P. ARGÁRATE

5. MCDONNELL, Does Origen Have a Trinitarian Doctrine of the Holy Spirit? (n. 2), p. 30.

6. ORIGEN, Traité des Principes. Tome I (Livres I et II). Introduction, texte critique de la version de Rufin, traduction par H. CROUZEL – M. SIMONETTI (SC, 252), Paris, 1978; Tome II (Livres I et II). Commentaire et fragments (SC, 253), Paris, 1978; Tome III (Livres III et IV). Introduction, texte critique de la version de Rufin, traduction par H. CROUZEL – M. SIMONETTI (SC, 268), Paris, 1980; Tome IV (Livres III et IV) Com-mentaire et fragments (SC, 269), Paris, 1980; Tome V (Compléments et index) (SC, 312), Paris, 1984. – Origenes. Vier Bücher von den Prinzipien. Herausgegeben, übersetzt, mit kritischen und erläuternden Anmerkungen versehen von H. GÖRGEMANNS – H. KARPP (Texte zur Forschung), Darmstadt, 1976. – M. HARL – G. DORIVAL – L. BOULLUEC, Origène. Traité des Principes (Peri Archôn). Traduction de la version latine de Rufin avec un dossier annexe d’autres témoins du texte, Paris, 1976. – De Principiis (Perì ârx¬n). Herausgegeben von P. KOETSCHAU (GCS, 22 = Origenes Werke, 5), Leipzig – Berlin, 1913. J. RIUS-CAMPS, Orígenes. Tractat sobre els Principis. Introducció, text revisit, traducció i notes, 2 vols., Barcelona, 1998. M. SIMONETTI, I Principi di Origene, Torino, 1968. C. KANNENGIESSER, Divine Trinity and The Structure of Peri Archon, in C. KANNENGIESSER – W.L. PETERSEN (eds.), Origen of Alexandria: His World and His Legacy, Notre Dame, IN, 1986, 231-249.

7. These are: the unique God, the incarnation of Christ, the Spirit, the soul, resurrec-tion, punishment and reward, free will, devil and his angels, created and corruptible world, scriptures.

8. The basis of this scheme was proposed by B. STEIDLE, in Neue Untersuchungen zu Origenes’ Peri Archon, in Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 40 (1941) 236-243. It was later accepted by scholars such as Simonetti, Harl and Dorival and finally by the editors in SC, Crouzel and Simonetti (n. 6), pp. 19-22. See Kannengiesser’s criti-cism of it in his chapter, Divine Trinity (n. 6), pp. 232-235.

least, an underdeveloped pneumatology compared to later fourth-century theology, which is regarded as standard. Special emphasis has been given in this regard to the passage of Prin I, 3, 5 where the action of the Spirit appears limited in comparison to that of the Son and the Father. Nevertheless, McDonnell regards Origen, along with Irenaeus, as “the father of Pneumatology”5.

The De Principiis6 is without doubt Origen’s most relevant work, especially from the perspective of its Nachleben. It will be the source of Origenism and of anti-Origenism as well. Organized by Origen into four books, scholars strove for decades to discover its plan. Today there is a certain consensus that recognizes in Prin a series of autonomous trea-tises, suggrámmata, organized according to this pattern: the preface is followed by a first series of treatises of a more philosophical and specu-lative character (I, 1 – II, 3), a second series more focused on the faith of the Church (II, 3 – IV, 3, 14), structured in nine treatises7 according to the nine points on the apostolic preaching that came in the preface, an anakephalaiosis (IV, 4), with no conclusion8.

In the Preface, Origen, after identifying Christ with the Truth, expresses the rationale for Prin: the ongoing lack of agreement about relevant


THE HOLY SPIRIT IN PRIN I, 3 27

9. Prin Praef 2, 25-33: Quoniam ergo multi ex his, qui Cristo se credere profitentur, non solum in paruis et minimis discordant, uerum etiam in magnis et maximis, id est uel de deo uel de ipso domino Iesu Cristo uel de spiritu sancto, non solum autem de his, sed et de aliis creaturis, id est uel de dominationibus uel de uirtutibus sanctis: propter hoc necessarium uidetur prius de his singulis certam lineam manifestamque regular ponere, tum deinde etiam de ceteris quaerere.

10. Prin Praef 10, 193-196: et unum, ut diximus, corpus efficiat exemplis et affirma-tionibus, uel his, quas in sanctis scripturis inuenerit, uel quas ex consequentiae ipsius indagine ac recti tenore reppererit.

11. Prin Praef 2, 41-43: illa sola credenda est ueritas, quae in nullo ab ecclesiastica et apostolica traditione discordat.

12. Prin Praef 3, 44-52: Illud autem scire oportet, quoniam sancti apostoli fidem Christi praedicantes de quibusdam quidem, quaecumque necessaria crediderunt, omni-bus credentibus, etiam his, qui pigriores erga inquisitionem diuinae scientiae uidebantur, manifestissime tradiderunt, rationem scilicet assertionis eorum relinquentes ab his inquirendam, qui spiritus dona excellentia mererentur et praecipue sermonis, sapientiae et scientiae gratiam per ipsum sanctum spiritum percepissent.

13. See MCDONNELL, Does Origen Have a Trinitarian Doctrine of the Holy Spirit? (n. 2), p. 27: “In the third century in addition to belonging to the godhead, theologians think the Spirit inspires the prophets and apostles, and begins indwelling the faithful at baptism. Beyond this, matters are uncertain”.

14. Prin Praef 4, 84-93.

issues of the Christian faith requires a definition and exposition of the rule of faith9 and the construction of a body of doctrine based on the ele-ments of that rule10. Only what agrees with the ecclesiastic and apostolic tradition should be deemed true11. The apostles, having preached all what is necessary, left to others the task of research, with the help of the Spirit, into the reasons of their assertions12. The rule of faith13 has in its first part a creedal structure and addresses nine topics, that will later be treated in the first cycle of Prin. God is creator, has given the scriptures and sent his Son. This one carried out the redemptive work. Following is the section referring to the Spirit:

Tum deinde honore ac dignitate patri ac filio sociatum tradiderunt spiritum sanctum. In hoc non iam manifeste discernitur, utrum natus aut innatus, uel filius etiam ipse dei habendus sit, necne; sed inquirenda iam ista pro uiribus sunt de sancta scriptura et sagaci perquisitione inuestiganda. Sane quod iste spiritus sanctus unumquemque sanctorum uel prophetarum uel apostolorum inspirauerit, et non alius spiritus in ueteribus, alius uero in his, qui in aduentu Christi inspirati sunt, fuerit, manifestissime in ecclesia praedicatur14.

Departing from the dignity of the Spirit through his association with the Father and the Son, an affirmation that will come again in 3, 2, he is said to be one and to inspire the scriptures in their totality. Highly rele-vant is the mention of two questions regarding what we would call today inner Trinitarian issues: the origin of the Spirit. According to Origen,


28 P. ARGÁRATE

15. Soul, free will, devil and his angels, world, scriptures, God’s angels. 16. In Prin I, 1, 9, 315-318, concluding the first chapter and moving on to the next

one Origen asserts: Hoc igitur modo quamuis longe inferius quam dignum est, uptote pro infirmitate humanae intellegentiae naturam dei intellegentes, nunc quid sibi nomen Christi uelit uideamus.

17. Prin I, 2, 13, 458-459: ex quo [Patre] uel filius natus uel spiritus sanctus pro-cedens …

18. See M. SIMONETTI, Osservazioni sulla struttura del De principiis di Origene, in Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica 40 (1962) 273-290; 372-393. Also from M. SIMONETTI, (I) Principi, in MONACI CASTAGNO (ed.), Origene. Dizionario (n. 1), 371-376.

19. Although the most of the elements can be found in Ireanaeus’ works. ORIGEN, Prin, ed. CROUZEL – SIMONETTI, II (SC, 253), p. 56. MCDONNELL, Does Origen Have a Trinitarian Doctrine of the Holy Spirit? (n. 2), p. 25, says that Origen is the first in his-tory to develop pneumatology in a systematic way.

20. See H. SAAKE, Der Tractatus Pneumatico-Philosophicus des Origenes in Perì ârx¬n I:3, in Hermes 101 (1973) 91-114, p. 91.

21. “Versuch einer systematischen Ontologie des Wesens, der Autorität und Würde des Pneuma”. Ibid., p. 100.

22. “Erörterung der trinitätstheologischen Funktion des Geistes innerhalb der Abhan-dlung über den functional relativerten Ökonomismus der Dreieinigkeit”. Ibid., p. 100.

these are open questions. The rest of the preface deals with other topics that remain at least partially open15.

The first series of treatises centres on the three ârxaí: God (I, 1), the Son (I, 2), the Spirit (I, 3, 1-4), the specific activities of the divine per-sons (I, 3, 5 – I, 4, 5), the rational natures (I, 5-8), the world and the creatures in it (II, 1-3). Special attention is to be given obviously to God the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. While God is presented from a more philosophical perspective on the divine nature16, the treatment of the Son is more biblically oriented and based on different êpínoiai attributed by the Bible to him. In these two chapters that precede the thematization of the Spirit, this has emerged in only two passages. In I, 1, 3, the Spirit, although participated by many saints, is not a body. In I, 2, 13, immedi-ately before chapter III the Spirit appears proceeding from the Father17.

The third chapter of Book One of Peri Archon18 consists in its turn of eight paragraphs and could be subdivided into two parts. Whereas the first one (sections 1-4) clearly turns around the Holy Spirit, constituting the first treatise on him19, a Systematisierungsversuch der Geistlehre20 that explores a biblical theology on the existence of the person of the Spirit and his dignity21, the second part (sections 5-8) considers the spe-cific activity of the divine persons emphasizing, however, that one of the Spirit22. Concentrating on the first part we discover there first a gnoseo-logical discussion on the sources of the knowledge of the Spirit, com-pared to those of the Father and the Son, second a biblical theology on the Spirit with the hermeneutical criteria for interpreting the passages of



23. “Die sukzessive begrenzte Zahl der betreffenden Menschen, denen die jeweils spezifischer Erkenntnis zuteil wird”. Ibid., p. 93.

24. Certain parallels between the Spirit and the third hypostasis of Neoplatonism has been drawn. However, H. ZIEBRITZKI, in his study, Heiliger Geist und Weltseele: Das Problem der dritten Hypostase bei Origenes, Plotin und ihren Vorläufern, Tübingen, 1994, p. 266, concludes that the respective doctrines on the “third” hypostasis in Origen and Plotinus “völlig unabhängig voneinander entstanden sind. In ihren konkreten Gestalt weisen die Trinitätslehre des Origenes und die Drei-Hypostasen-Lehre Plotins gegenüber gemeinplatonischen Übereinstimmungen wesentliche Unterschiede auf und müssen somit als der Beginn einer Entwicklung verstanden werden, in deren Verlauf die christliche Trinitätslehre und die neuplatonische Prinzipienlehre als zwei konkurrierende metaphy-sische Entwürfe ausgebildet werden”.

25. On the natural knowledge of God see HGn VI, 2; CC III, 47; VI, 30; VII, 44; Prin I, 1, 5-6.

26. Prin I, 3, 1, 2-6: Et omnes quidem qui quoquomodo prouidentiam esse sentiunt, deum esse ingenitum, qui uniuersa creauit atque disposuit, confitentur eumque parentem uniuersitatis agnoscunt.

27. All philosophical schools affirmed with exception of Epicureanism and Skepti-cism. See Origenes. Vier Bücher von den Prinzipien, ed. GÖRGEMANNS – KARPP, p. 159, n. 2.

28. It is not clear who these philosophers may be. Görgemanns alludes to the impos-sibility of a clear identification either with Platonism, Stoicism or Hermetism: “Wahr-scheinlich darf man keine scharfe Abgrenzung machen”, Origenes. Vier Bücher von den Prinzipien, ed. GÖRGEMANNS – KARPP, p. 159, n. 3. Simonetti points out to the second god of the Platonic triad. Letter II, 312e-313a, commented by Origen in CC VI, 18, and Letter VI, 323d quoted in CC VI, 8. See ORIGEN, Prin, ed. CROUZEL – SIMONETTI, II (SC, 253), p. 57.

29. Both Crouzel and Butterworth do not render correctly the term ‘cum’ either with par or by.

the scripture that refer to the Holy Spirit. Without clear continuity sec-tion I, 3, 3, acting in a certain fashion as an excursus, gives rise to the question already mentioned in the preface, namely, whether the Spirit is created or not. Finally, the revelatory activity of the Spirit with respect to the Father is analyzed, anticipating in a certain fashion the second part of the chapter.

As already expressed, Origen sets out his investigation within a gnose-ological framework in relation to the sources of our knowledge of the different divine persons. While the breadth of those sources gradually decreases23, the relevance of scripture increases; from acting only as confirmation of the natural knowledge of the Father, they turn to be the exclusive font of our knowledge of the Spirit24. It is worth underscoring that this progressive reduction builds a parallelism with 3, 5 in the sec-ond part of the chapter, where Origen analyses the diverse areas of activ-ity of the divine persons. Whereas God25 is known as Father of all (parentem uniuersitatis), unbegotten and creator of everything26 by all who accept providence27, his Son seems to be known by some of the philosophers28 who admit that everything has been created with29 the


30 P. ARGÁRATE

30. Prin I, 3, 1, 6-11: Huic tamen esse filium non nos soli pronuntiamus, quamuis satis hoc et mirum et incredulum uideatur his, qui apud Graecos uel barbaros philos-ophari uidentur; tamen a nonnullis etiam ipsorum habita eius uidetur opinio, cum uerbo dei uel ratione creata esse omnia confitentur.

31. Prin I, 3, 1, 13-14.32. . Prin I, 3, 1, 18-21: De subsistentia uero spiritus sancti ne suspicionem quidem

ullam habere quis potuit praeter eos, qui in lege et prophetis uersati sunt, uel eos, qui se Christo credere profitentur.

33. See for instance the nos of Prin I, 3, 2, 33. “Die auch zuvor nur peripheren Ans-peilungen auf das Judentum sind gänzlich aufgegeben; einzig die christliche doctrina kommt zu Wort”. SAAKE, Der Tractatus (n. 20), p. 94.

34. Prin I, 3, 1, 13-14.35. Christ’s revelation is always per Spiritum sanctum. HEx II, 4.36. Prin I, 3, 1, 16: quae [scil. scriptura] a sancto spiritu inspirata est. In Prin Praef 8,

138-139, it was stated: per spiritum dei scripturae conscriptae sint.37. See Prin I, 3, 2, 34-35: De spiritu uero sancto quia sit, multae nos scripturae

docuerunt.38. Prin I, 3, 1, 21: qui se Christo credere profitentur.

word or reason of God30. Nevertheless, this philosophical approach is overcome by the eminentiorem diuinioremque rationem de filio dei31 provided by scriptures. This superiority of revelation in respect to natu-ral knowledge attains its summit in the case of the Spirit. Unlike the Father and the Son, the Spirit, and his personal existence, is only known by those acquainted with the Hebrew Bible or, even in a more restricted fashion, eos, qui se Christo credere profitentur32. Origen’s statement is strong: outside the scriptures, there is no suspicionem ullam. In this way, the gnoseological sources for God depart from all who accept provi-dence, going through some philosophers and ending up with only the Bible, and this understood from the perspective of faith in Christ. Here I want to point out the problematic double subject of the knowledge of the Spirit. Linked with a uel are on the one side those uersati in lege et pro-phetis, and on the other those who profess the faith in Christ; Old or New Testament. However, the sequence of the treatise will show that the real subjects of the knowledge of the Spirit are Christians33. Meanwhile, it is significant here to highlight the deep interaction between the Holy Spirit and Christ. On the one hand, the higher and diviner teaching about the Son34 could only be attained by the Spirit35 who inspired the scrip-tures36 and whom the scriptures reveal37. On the other hand, the knowl-edge on the Spirit is only available to those who profess their belief in Christ38.

In the rest of the paragraph, Origen goes on and summarizes what he has just affirmed regarding the Father and the Son, introducing, how-ever, new important aspects and nuances. First, there is a clear restric-tion of the possibility of discourse on the Father, de deo quidem patre



39. Prin I, 3, 1, 21-22.40. Prin I, 3, 1, 26-27.41. Prin I, 3, 1, 25-26: insuper etiam de scripturis sanctis confirmari possible est.42. Prin I, 3, 1, 27-28: tamen ex diuinis scripturis etiam de ipso qualiter sentiri

debeat. 43. De susbistentia uero sancti spiritus, 18-19; De spiritu uero sancto, 33.44. In Prin I, 3, 3, Origen distinguishes secundum historiam and secundum intellegen-

tiam spiritalem, while in Prin Praef 8, he affirms a sensum manifestum and another laten-tem, being the latter revealed only to whom have received the grace of the Holy Spirit.

45. This subdivision is asserted by Christ. See Prin I, 3, 1, 18.46. In the Preface (1, 7-15), Origen had already referred to the presence of Christ in

the Old Testament.47. In Prin I, 3, 3, 79-78, he will refer to the spiritual sense. 48. Prin I, 3, 1, 28-32: mens humana formatur, non solum ex nouo, sed etiam ex

ueteri testamento per ea, quae a sanctis gesta ad Christum figuraliter referuntur, ex qui-bus aduerti uel diuina eius natura uel humana, quae ab eo assumpta est, potest.

49. Prin I, 3, 3,78-79: secundum intellegentiam spiritalem.50. See Prin II, 7, 1.51. Prin II, 7, 1.

quamuis digne proloqui nemo ualeat39, and the natural knowledge of Christ, quamuis nemo nouerit filium nisi pater40. Both absolute state-ments (nemo) are tempered through a tamen; the possibility of some knowledge still remains. While for the Father there are two sources: vis-ible creatures and human intelligence, being both confirmed by the wit-ness of the scriptures41, regarding the Son it is the human mind that is directed by the scriptures how to think of him42. The knowledge of the Spirit is in both parts of the paragraph opposed to that one of the Father and the Son through a uero43, an opposition that anticipates that one on the different areas of activity in the second part of the chapter.

It is evident from the very outset the relevant connection between Holy Spirit and Holy Writ. Origen’s interest in the biblical basis of the pneumatological doctrine is apparent in the inspiration of the scriptures, their classification, their growing relevance, their teaching function, their two senses44, and unity. As mentioned above the Spirit is the author and inspirer of scripture. This Scripture can be subdivided into euangelica and apostolica, legis and prophetarum45. Nevertheless, this distinction does not suppress the unity; there is one Scripture. A clue for this is provided when Origen observed that both the New but also the Old Tes-tament instruct us about Christ46. There is a certain way (figuraliter)47 of reading the Hebrew Bible that already discovers the mystery of Christ48 within it, or even that of the Spirit49. As there is one Scripture, there is also one Spirit, and not two50. It is the same Spirit that acts in the Old and the New Testament. “It is the same Holy Spirit himself who was in the prophets and the apostles”51. The role played by the scriptures in the


32 P. ARGÁRATE

52. See docuerunt 34; edocemur, 37; didicimus, 45.53. Prin I, 3, 2, 33-34: De spiritu uero sancto quia sit, multae nos scripturae doc-

uerunt.54. J. RIUS-CAMPS, Orígenes y Marción: Carácter preferentemente antimarcionita del

prefacio y del segundo ciclo del Peri Archon and A. LE BOULLUEC, La place de la polémique antignostique dans le Peri Archon, in H. CROUZEL – G. LOMIENTO – J. RIUS-CAMPS (eds.), Origeniana: Premier Colloque International des Études origéniennes, Bari, 1975, 297-312; 47-61.

55. Regarding this distinction, see the caesura introduced also here through uero. De spiritu uero sancto quia sit, multae nos scripturae docuerunt … in nouo uero testamento abundantibus testimoniis edocemur (Prin I, 3, 2, 33-37).

56. F. COCCHINI, Dalla Regula fidei: Riflessioni origeniane sullo Spirito Santo, in L. PERRONE (ed.), Origeniana octava: Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition (BETL, 164A-B), Leuven, 2003, I, 593-603, p. 596: “L’elenco delle testimonianze addotte è tutt’altro che ovvio. Non solo Origene cita passi che, per quanto possiamo sapere, sembra non fossero stati ancora utilizzati dagli autori ecclesiastici a lui precedenti – come Sal 50,13; Dan 4,6; 1 Cor 12,3 e At 8,18 – ma soprattutto interpreta in modo nuovo, pre-cisando cioè che dovevano intendersi come testimonianze dell’esistenza personale dello Spirito santo, altri che invece, pur citati, non erano però mai stati riferiti esplicitamente alla terza ipostasi divina”.

57. Et spiritum sanctum tuum ne auferas a me. Cocchini highlights the recurrence of this passage in Origen. COCCHINI, Dalla Regula fidei (n. 56), p. 595, note 12.

58. Spiritus sanctus, qui est in te.59. The passage of Ps 50 anticipates the theme of removal of the Spirit that will

appear in Prin I, 3, 7.

knowledge of the divine persons increases therefore progressively. They confirm the knowledge of the Father that we get from the world and the human mind; it is from them that human intelligence draws the knowl-edge of the Son; constituting finally the exclusive basis for the knowl-edge of the Holy Spirit, acting as teacher of his doctrine52. Precisely these teachings of the scriptures about the Spirit build the topic of the next section53.

Paragraph 2 focuses first on the existence of the Spirit, based on six biblical references, and secondly on his dignity, grounded in Christian baptism and, in a negative way, in the gravity of the sin against the Spirit. For the existence of the Spirit (quia sit) the Alexandrian pro-vides a scriptural selection organized according to the division of the Bible already presented in I, 3, 1, 16-18: euangelica, apostolica, legis and prophetarum, with the only exception of the Law, from which no text is offered. In providing evidences from both the Old and New Tes-tament, a polemical response to Marcionitic statements can be sus-pected54. Nevertheless, the centre lies in the New Testament55. Cocchini has demonstrated the relevance of Origen’s collection of texts, either used for first time or being reinterpreted in a pneumatological perspec-tive56. Ps 50,1357 and Dan 4,658 represent the prophets and the Old Tes-tament, positing the presence of the Spirit in the human being already in the old economy59. Three highly significant references are drawn



60. See M. SIMONETTI, Lc 1,35 nelle controversie cristologiche del II e III secolo, in S. FELICI (ed.), La mariologia nella catechesi dei Padri, Roma, 1989, 45-47.

61. Prin I, 3, 2, 37-38: cum spiritus sanctus super Christum descendisse. The alluded passage is probable that of Luke. Only in this Gospel, the Spirit appears in the baptism of the Lord designed as “holy”: Luke 3,22. Matthew (17,16) speaks of the Spirit of God, while Mark refers only to the Spirit.

62. John 20,22: accipite spiritum sanctum.63. Luke 1,35: spiritus sanctus ueniet super te.64. Nemo potest dicere dominum Iesum nisi in spiritu sancto. On the significance and

recurrence of this text in Origen, see RIUS-CAMPS, El dinamismo (n. 1), pp. 242-247.65. Et in actibus Apostolorum per impositionem manuum apostolicarum spiritus sanc-

tus dabatur in baptismo.66. Prin I, 3, 2, 51-55. The sin against the Spirit will come again in Prin I, 3, 7, 232-

239. Here, nevertheless, Origen will attempt to explain the difference that in the present passage is only mentioned by quoting the passage of Matt 12,32.

67. In the case of the sin against the Spirit, the term used is maiestas.68. Prin I, 3, 2, 45-51: Ex quibus omnibus didicimus, tantae esse et auctoritatis et

dignitatis substantiam spiritus sancti, ut salutare baptismum non aliter nisi excellentissi-mae omnium trinitatis auctoritate, id est patris et filii et spiritus sancti cognominatione compleatur, et ingenito deo patri et unigenito eius filio nomen quoque sancti spiritus copuletur. Every divine person is here qualified: the Father is ingenito, the Son unigenito, while the Spirit is sancto.

69. It has been affirmed that in Origen’s Greek text triáv appears only three times, while in the Latin text trinitas comes often. Even if Rufinus introduces Trinity where in the original text it is not present, the notion of Trinity exists in Origen’s thought. See M. SIMONETTI, Note sulla teologia trinitaria di Origene, in Vetera Christianorum 8 (1971) 273-307.

70. Prin I, 3, 2.

from the Gospels, indicating the relevance of the coming of the Spirit on Christ, the apostles, and the Virgin Mary60. The baptism of Christ is mentioned61, while the Johannine Pentecost62 and the Annunciation63 are introduced by quotations. From the apostolica scriptura the highly rel-evant passage of 1 Cor 12,364 stands for Paul while a reference to Acts 8,1865 closes the list. A further text will come below referring to the gravity of the sin against the Spirit compared with the sin against the Son66. Origen concludes that from all these biblical texts we have learnt the great dignity of the Spirit67. This sentence, however, builds a com-parative structure: tantae esse et auctoritatis et dignitatis … ut … In other words, the dignity of the Spirit reflected in the Bible leads to another conclusion. This refers primarily not to the Bible but to the liturgical and sacramental event of baptism, qualified as salutare. The external link between scriptures and baptism was established by the last biblical passage of the list (Acts 8,18). The pivotal role of baptism in Christian life seems evident to Origen. This salvific baptism can only be full or completed when the Spirit is named along with the unbegotten Father and the only begotten Son, in the Trinity68. Baptism occurs only in the power and authority of the Trinity69, which includes the Spirit70.


34 P. ARGÁRATE

71. It could be argued that the command of baptizing into the Trinity is to be referred to Matt 28,19. However, Origen stresses here the baptism in its salvific function, as will happen again in a parallel way in I, 3, 5.

72. Butterworth translates here “begotten or unbegotten” that does not render Rufinus natus aut innatus. However it is highly probable that this one has modified Origen’s genjtòv Æ âgénjtov (not âgénnjtov as Butterworth writes).

73. Prin Praef 4, 85-87: In hoc non iam manifeste discernitur, utrum natus aut inna-tus, uel filius etiam ipse dei habendus sit, necne.

74. In opposition to Gnostic speculations. 75. Prin I, 3, 3, 56-57: a deo uniuersa creata sint, nec sit ulla substantia, quae non

ab eo hoc ipsum ut esset acceperit. This is opposed to false doctrines on the co-eternity of matter and on the existence of unbegotten souls. I, 3, 3, 59-62.

76. Primo omnium crede quia unus est deus, qui omnia creauit atque composuit; qui cum nihil esset prius, esse feci omnia. HERMAS, Mand. 1; Prin I, 3, 3, 64-66. In Prin Praef 4, 59-61, when Origen renders the rule of faith he had already introduced Hermas’ defini-tion, nevertheless, without referring to him. The text ist almost the same: quod unus est deus, qui omnia creauit atque composuit; quique cum nihil esset prius, esse fecit uni-versa. Underline highlight the differences. Other appearances of this notion of creation ex nihilo in Origen are II, 1, 5 where he quotes the same passage of Hermas and 2 Mac 7,28; CIo I, 17 (18), 103 and CIo XXXII, 16 (9), 187; Prin IV, 2, 4; HJs X, 1; CRm X, 31; HPs 37 I, 1; HNm VIII, 1.

Relevant here, in my opinion, is the fact that along with the scriptures Origen now introduces tradition as a source of our knowledge of the Spirit71. Besides, we can discover here a soteriological line of argumen-tation, in a certain fashion similar to what Athanasius will use to support the divinity of Christ and the Spirit presupposing the reality of ‡éwsiv. Here Origen, departing from the evident salvific function of baptism, argues for the highest dignity of the Spirit, equal to the Father and the Son.

Paragraph 3 comes without announcement, interrupting the flow of thought, acting in a certain fashion as an excursus. After having pre-sented in the first part the doctrine of creation, Origen provides his con-viction about the uncreated character of the Spirit. Already in the Preface of Prin, Origen expressed that “it is not yet clearly known whether he [the Spirit] is to be thought of as born or unborn72, or as being himself also a Son of God or not”73. While the first question is addressed in the present paragraph, I will refer later to the second one that seems to have been forgotten. From the outset of 3, 3 Origen stresses the biblical notion of creation: God is creator of all74 and there is no substance which has not received its existence from him75. This universal creation is further confirmed by the quotation of Hermas, where it is even specified as cre-atio ex nihilo (cum nihil esset prius)76, alongside a reference to the book of Henoch. After this general introduction, the Alexandrian deals with his proper question: the uncreated character of the Spirit on its biblical basis. In doing so he proceeds first in a negative and then in a positive



77. I, 3, 3, 70. ORIGEN, Prin, ed. CROUZEL – SIMONETTI, II (SC, 253), p. 60, n. 19 refer to CIo II, 10, where the Spirit is said to be genjtón of the Father through the Son, in dependence of John 1,3.

78. See Prin I, 2, passim.79. Prin, ed. KOETSCHAU (GCS, 22), p. 52.80. K.F. SCHNITZER, Origenes über die Grundlehren der Glaubenswissenschaft,

Stuttgart, 1835, p. 43.81. Ep. ad Mennam (Sacrorum Consiliorum nova et amplissima collectio, ed.

J.D. MANSI, vol. IX, p. 528). See G. SFAMENI GASPARRO, Il problema delle citazioni del Peri Archon nella lettera a Mena di Giustiniano, in L. LIES (ed.), Origeniana quarta: Die Referate des 4. Internationalen Origeneskongresses (Innsbruck, 2.-6. September 1985) (Innsbrucker theologische Studien, 19), Innsbruck, 1987, 54-76.

82. See COCCHINI, Dalla Regula fidei (n. 56), pp. 600-603 and D. PAZZINI, L’interpretazione del Prologo di Giovanni in Origene e nella patristica greca, in Annali di storia dell’esegesi 11 (1994) 45-56, pp. 49-50.

83. SAAKE, Der Tractatus (n. 20), p. 97, says: “Allerdings sind die Bedenken gegen die fragwürdige Kombination und unpassende Lokalisierung des Justinian-Zitats durch Koetschau nicht zu zerstreuen; mindestens an diesem Ort sollte der Text der Rufinischen Übertragung ohne Unterbrechung durch den zweifelhaften griechischen Passus beibe-halten bleiben, zumal dessen Einfügung die Annahme dreier lacunae erforderlich macht!”.

84. Prin I, 3, 3, 78-79.

way. Origen expresses that until the time of composing Prin he had found no evidence per quem spiritus sanctus factura esse uel creatura77, and this not even in a figured sense, as was the case with the Wisdom, the Life, the Word and other denominations of the Son78.

In this place, Koetschau79, following Schnitzer80, believes that Rufi-nus omits a passage, present only in Justinian: “Following the same reasoning we believe that everything (p¢n) whatever except the Father and God of the universe is created (genjtón)”81. Cocchini82 agrees in the necessity to posit here a lacuna. The text for this, nevertheless, is not the passage extant in Justinian but Origen’s answer to the second ques-tion opened in the preface, i.e. if the Spirit is Son of God or not (uel filius etiam ipse dei habendus sit, necne). According to this scholar, Ori-gen would have asserted here that the Spirit is not Son of God, because only the Only begotten is Son by nature from the beginning, arguing on the basis of John 1,3 as he did in CIo II, 73-76. Otherwise, according to Cocchini, the problem posited in the Preface would remain unsolved. Nevertheless, this and similar proposals, instead of solving the problem, complicate it even more83.

Returning to I, 1, 3, Origen forwards the positive argument through his opinion (puto) that the Spirit is in principio facturae mundis. The “Spiri-tus dei” of Gen 1,2 is understood as the Holy Spirit. In doing so, the Alexandrian is aware of going beyond the text (non tamen secundum his-toriam) into a spiritual sense (sed secundum intellegentiam spiritalem84),


36 P. ARGÁRATE

85. See SIMONETTI, Spirito Santo (n. 1), p. 454: “… appare preferibile far rientrare anche l’interpretazione trinitaria di Sal 32,6 nell’ambito della oscillazione di O. riguardo all’attività creatrice dello Spirito Santo, di per sé soltanto santificatore, ma anche crea-tore quando la sua operazione è compresa insieme con quella delle altre due ipostasi trinitarie”.

86. COCCHINI, Dalla Regula fidei (n. 56), p. 598, n. 29, refers to Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria.

87. Prin I, 3, 4, 81-82: sicubi spiritus nominator sine adictione ea, quae designet qualis sit spiritus.

88. Prin I, 3, 4, 87-88.89. Prin I, 3, 4, 88-91.

here introducing one of the most significant themes of all his work: the spiritual meaning of scripture. In a nutshell, although the Bible does not explicitly state that the Spirit is uncreated, neither does it say that is cre-ated, and even the passage of Genesis places him in a certain sense within the creative activity85.

From the outset of this pneumatological chapter Origen has clearly stated the exclusive biblical basis for the understanding of the Spirit. It was the Bible that provided us the quia of the Spirit’s existence and his dignitas. It is necessary that Origen addresses the problem of the inter-pretation of the biblical text. This was alluded to at the end of the last section with the reference to the two senses. In paragraph 4, he will discuss one of the most difficult questions for a biblical theology on the Spirit, namely, when does the word “spirit” refer to the Holy Spirit? In order to systematically address this issue some unnamed and difficult to identify predecessors of Origen86 had proposed the criterion that con-sists in the appearance of the term “spirit” without further qualifica-tion87. This principle, used for texts of the New Testament, is shown by Origen through two passages of Gal: 5,22, and 3,3. However, Origen claims originality when he extends the criterion also to the Old Testa-ment, supporting his position with three passages: Isa 42,5; Isa 6,3, and Hab 3,2. The first text of Isaiah: Qui dat spiritum populo, qui est super terram, et spiritum his, qui calcant eam88 is further explained by the Alexandrian as follows: sine dubio enim omnis qui calcat terram, id est terrena et corporalia, particeps est spiritus sancti, a deo eum accipi-ens89. The problem is that Rufinus introduces twice the term spiritus in the text of Isa 42,5. The LXX and the Vulgata, however, distinguish them, rendering only the second one as Spirit (kaì didoùv pno®n t¬ç la¬ç t¬ç êpˆ aût±v kaì pneÕma to⁄v patoÕsin aûtßn; dans flatum populo qui est super eam et spiritum calcantibus eam). It is also diffi-cult to identify who this ‘people’ is: all human beings, Israel, or the “saints”. While the context seems to incline to the first meaning,



90. Without doubt not a Jew, but a Christian Jew in the line of the Alexandrian school. See G. DORIVAL, Origène, témoin des textes de l’Ancien Testament, in J.-M. AUWERS – A. WENIN (eds.), Lectures et relectures de la Bible. FS P.-M. Bogaert (BETL, 144), Leuven, 1999, 351-366, p. 365.

91. Prin I, 3, 4, 95: nos vero putamus …92. TITE, The Holy Spirit’s Role (n. 1), p. 162, observes: “Many times the exact roles

are confused, especially between the Son and the Spirit, who both function to reveal the Father and are part of the conversion process”.

93. Prin I, 3, 4, 98-99.94. Prin I, 3, 4, 101.

according to Origen and his understanding only the last possibility is valid. In addition, it is worth noting that this reception of the Spirit has been regarded as participation, an understanding that will come up again and even be expanded in 3, 7. Let us for now only observe that the reception (accipiens) of the gift (dat) is understood as participatio. In the following two quotations, there is a clear shift of emphasis. First, Origen introduces the famous text of Isa 6,3, where the two Seraphim crying one to another “Sanctus sanctus sanctus dominus Sabaoth” are understood to be referring to de unigenito filio dei et de spiritu sancto. This interpretation is attributed to a certain Hebraeus magister90. A similar allegorical (and subordinationist as well!) understanding and belonging this time to Origen is offered of Hab 3,2 (in medio duorum animalium [uel duarum uitarum] cognosceris)91. While in the text of Isa 42 the topic hinged on God giving the Spirit, in the last passages (Isa 6 and Hab 3) appears the Son, and with him the Trinity, as well. Whereas in Isa 6 the context is clearly liturgical, Hab 3 addresses more obviously the revelation of God through the other two divine persons. The centre is no longer the award or reception of the Spirit, but its role – along with that one of the Son – in the revelation of the Father. This is further explained by Origen. The Son and the Spirit reveal the Father in different and coordinated ways92. The entire gn¬siv of the Father is known (cognoscitur) in the Spirit through the Son: omnis enim scientia de patre, reuelante filio, in spiritu sancto cognoscitur93. The Son and the Spirit, placed side by side in the interpretation of Isa 6,6 and Hab 3,2, act therefore as mediators or, expressed in an even stronger way, are causae scientiae dei patris94. Origen goes on to explain how this is fulfilled by them. Also here the foundation is provided by two biblical texts: Matt 11,27 (nemo nouit patrem nisi filius et cui uoluerit filius reuelare), regarding the Son, and 1 Cor 2,10 (nobis autem reuelauit deus per spiritum suum; spiritus enim omnia scrutatur, etiam alta dei), on the Spirit’s role in the revelation of God the Father. This capacity of revealing God is, however, differently grounded; while the Son nouit


38 P. ARGÁRATE

95. See Prin IV, 4, 8, 309-311: Solus enim pater nouit filium, et solus filius nouit patrem, et solus spiritus sanctus perscrutatur etiam alta dei. This completion is supported by the “uult” of John 3,8, Prin I, 3, 4. From the Son it is expressed: revelat cui uult, addressing this “cui” to the “patrem”.

96. Prin I, 3, 4, 112-113: sicut filius … ita et spiritus sanctus.97. Prin I, 3, 4, 126-127.98. Prin I, 3, 4, 128.99. “Diese Erkenntnisvermittlung des Geistes indes vollzieht sich nicht über den Sohn

als Mittlerinstanz zwischen der ersten und dritten trinitarischen Hypostase”. SAAKE, Der Tractatus (n. 20), p. 99.

100. In the preface of CCt, Origen expresses that the Spirit knows what is in God because he proceeds from him.

101. At the beginning of the first section of the chapter (Prin I, 3, 1, 2) Origen uses requiramus, now it is inquirere (Prin I, 3, 5, 136).

(present tense in Greek: êpiginÉskei), the Spirit scrutatur (êraun¢ç) not only God’s alta (tà bá‡j)95 but omnia. Furthermore, Origen goes on to assert that the Son is the only one to know the Father (solus cog-noscit) and the Spirit the only one to search God’s alta. The structure becomes perfectly parallel96 when Origen asserts from the Spirit the same that scripture affirms from the Son: reuelat (deum) qui uult. While the focus lies in the activity of the Spirit, the special operations of the Trinitarian persons that will constitute the centre of the second part of chapter 3 are already introduced here. Nevertheless, before moving to this topic, Origen feels obliged to address a problem that seems to arise with what he affirmed before (omnis enim scientia de patre, reuelante filio, in spiritu sancto cognoscitur). This could lead to the understand-ing that also the Spirit knows the Father only through the revelation of the Son (filio reuelante), introducing into the Spirit a transition from ignorance to knowledge, and becoming so Holy Spirit. If this were the case, numquam utique in unitatem trinitatis … haberetur97. On the con-trary, the Spirit semper98 and directly99 knows the Father100. Here again, Origen declares the equality within the Trinity, something that will be addressed and expanded in I, 3, 7.

Paragraph 5 introduces the second section of the third chapter101. As already expressed, this section will turn around the operatio specialis of the Spirit in relation to the same operations of the Father and the Son. The transition to this subject was announced in the last part of paragraph 4 with the revealing role of the Son and the Spirit. In addi-tion, in paragraph 5, Origen takes some enunciations of 3, 2 and explains them, building a certain parallel with that paragraph. Through-out this second part, Origen undertakes a detailed analysis and a theo-logical reflection on the function of the divine persons in the work of salvation. Along with these functions come the diverse spheres of



102. G. GRUBER, HWJ: Wesen, Stufen und Mitteilung des wahren Lebens bei Ori-genes, München, 1962, p. 186.

103. Prin I, 3, 7, 266-267.104. Prin I, 3, 7, 246-247.105. Prin I, 3, 7, 247-249. Nevertheless the psalm refers to omnis uirtus eorum (scil.

caelorum). Whereas the activity of the Verb can easily be transferred from the caeli to uniuersa, the shift of the Spirit’s activity from uirtus to sanctificatio does not result evi-dent. In addition to this, the pneumatological interpretation of this text would be new and found only in ATHANASIUS, Ad Serapionem I, 31. However, Crouzel correctly refers to CIo I, 39 where Origen already witnesses some pneumatological usage of the passage of Ps 32. ORIGEN, Prin, ed. CROUZEL – SIMONETTI, II (SC, 253), p. 75.

106. Prin III, 5, 8, 240-243.107. It is not clear here if cuncta is to be understood absolutely or restricted to the

saints.108. Also in Prin I, 3, 7, 215-216, the Spirit is connected to the renouatio. 109. Prin I, 3, 5, 137.

action, “Herrschaftsbereiche”102 of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. While the Father covers the entire realm of being, the Son is reduced to the rational spectrum, the Spirit finally being restricted to the saints. This diversity of functions and domains is, nevertheless, to be balanced by some passages that underscore the thorough unity of the Trinity and the equality of the Trinitarian persons, as, for instance, nulla est in trinitate discretio103; or nihil in trinitate maius minusue dicendum est104. In this sense, the difference of extension in the spe-cific domains and activities of the divine persons is to be understood as functional rather than ontological; Origen follows immediately after the last passage quoted: cum unus deitatis fons uerbo ac ratione sua teneat uniuersa, spiritu uero oris sui quae digna sunt sanctificatione sanctificet as an explanation of Ps 32,6105. In the same functional line is to be read the doxology that concludes III, 5, 8: soli deo cognitum est et unigenito eius, per quem creata ac reparata sunt uniuersa, et spiritui sancto, per quem cuncta sanctificantur, qui ab ipso patre pro-cedit, cui est gloria in aeterna saecula106. The Father operates creation and restoration through his Son, and sanctification of everything (cuncta)107 by his Spirit.

In paragraph 5, the context refers again to the highly relevant baptis-mal regeneration and participation in the entire Trinity and the absolute necessity of the Spirit in order to attain this, which builds a clear paral-lelism with 3, 2. Although in 3, 5 there is no explicit mention of the baptism, the context clearly refers to it108. Instead of baptismum salu-tare Origen refers here to qui regeneratur per deum in salutem109. As in 3, 2, this salvation requires the integra trinitas in order to be fulfilled. The relation established between human beings and the divine persons


40 P. ARGÁRATE

110. Prin I, 3, 5, 139-140: nec possibile sit participem fieri patris uel filii sine spiritu sancto. See also I, 3, 6, 157.

111. Prin I, 3, 5, 140-142: De quibus discutientes sine dubio necessarium erit ut operationem specialem spiritus sancti et specialem patris ac filii describamus.

112. “Die scharfe Trennung zwischen den Wirkungsbereichen der einzelnen Hypos-tasen gibt Origenes indes alsbald auf, indem er die Wirksamkeit des Vaters und des Sohnes zusammengenommen überblickt, davon aber die des Geistes absconder und aus-führlicher bespricht”. SAAKE, Der Tractatus (n. 20), pp. 102-103.

113. In Justinian’s text, to which I refer below, the activities of the three persons are clearly distinguished and a progressive reduction of areas could be observed. “So that in this way the power (dúnamiv) of the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the Holy Sprit, and that of the Son is more than that of the Holy Spirit, and in turn the power of the Holy Spirit exceeds that of every other holy being”.

114. Prin I, 3, 5, 143-146: tam in sanctis quam in peccatoribus, in hominibus ration-abilibus et in multis animalibus, sed et in his, quae sine anima sunt, et in omnibus omnino quae sunt.

115. Prin I, 3, 5, 152-153. Notice the dynamic character of sanctity (conuertunt … incedunt). McDonnell points out that Origen is not the only one to connect the Spirit with the saints, not even of restricting him to them, mentioning in this case for instance Tatian, Clement of Rome and Hermas. MCDONNELL, Does Origen Have a Trinitarian Doctrine of the Holy Spirit? (n. 2), pp. 21-22.

116. Regarding Rufinus’ translation, see N. PACE, Ricerche sulla traduzione di Rufino del “De Principiis” di Origene, Firenze, 1990.

117. Ep. ad Mennam (ed. MANSI, vol. IX, p. 528): “The God and Father who holds the universe together is superior to every being that exists, for he imparts to each own from his own existence that which each one is; the Son, being less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone (for he is second to the Father); the Holy Spirit is still less, and dwells within the saints alone. So that in this way the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and that of the Son is more than that of the Holy Spirit, and in turn the power of the Holy Spirit exceeds that of every other holy being”. Italics are mine.

118. Filium quoque minorem a patre eo quod secundus ab illo sit, et spiritum sanctum inferiorem a filio in sanctis quibusque uersari. Atque hoc ordine maiorem patris fortitu-

is further described as participation110 of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In this context, Origen becomes aware of the necessity of discussing the operationem specialem of the divine persons111. We would expect here the reference to the operatio specialis of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Nevertheless, the Alexandrian distinguishes the activity of the Spirit on the one side, and on the other hand that one patris et filii112, as an operatio communis. Throughout this second part of chapter 3, the activities of the Father and the Son are very often dealt together and in a certain way in opposition to that of the Spirit113. Those ones extend to omnibus omnino quae sunt114. In opposition to this (uero), the opus of the Spirit is restricted to the saints, i.e. qui iam se ad meliora conuertunt et per uias Christi Iesu incedunt, id est qui sunt in bonis actibus et in deo permanent115.

It is necessary to observe that regarding paragraph 5, besides Rufinus’ Latin version116, we have one passage of Justinian’s letter to Mennas117 and another of Jerome’s Letter 124118. The latter – without, however,



dinem esse quam filii et spiritus sancti, et consequenter ipsius sancti spiritus maiorem esse uirtutem ceteris quae sancta dicuntur.

119. Prin I, 3, 7, 246-247: nihil in trinitate maius minusue dicendum est.120. “Des trois arguments que nous venons d’exposer il faut conclure que ni le texte

de Jérôme – que ne le présente pas d’ailleurs comme citation – ni celui de Justinien n’ont trouvé place dans le développement d’Origène. Jérôme nous transmet sa propre réaction aux affirmations de ce dernier, réaction d’un postnicéen exaspéré par tout ce qui, dans le langage et les spéculations de l’Alexandrin, peut être soupçonné de non-conformité avec la stricte littéralité nicéene. Quant au passage de Justinien il oblige à envisager une influ-ence de la Lettre à Avitus sur les moines palestiniens qui composèrent le florilège. Sig-nalons que Photius, dans Bibl., codex 8, indique les appropriations, mais, non les con-séquences qu’en tirent Jérôme et Justinien: il entend cependant ce passage de la même manière qu’eux”. ORIGEN, Prin, ed. CROUZEL – SIMONETTI, II (SC, 253), p. 70.

121. Prin I, 3, 5, 162-163.122. Prin I, 3, 6, 161.123. Prin I, 3, 6, 170-171.124. This is a clear reference to the lógov spermatikóv.

pretending to be a quotation – coincides in a noteworthy fashion with the former in some aspects. According to both of these texts, Origen would have proposed a severe subordinationism, with a clear hierarchy within the Trinity expressed by the terms maior and inferior, superior and less. This is at odds with the already mentioned passage of 3, 7119. Beside this, other differences arise if we further compare Justinian’s text with Rufinus’. While the Greek puts forward a distinction between the activities of the Father and of the Son, the presentation in Latin joins the Father’s and Son’s activities. An integration of these materials (the passages of Justinian and Jerome), such as Koetschau undertook in his edition of Prin, remains highly difficult and even problematic because of these dissimilarities, and therefore Rufinus’ translation is to be preferred120.

The remaining part of Chapter III, paragraphs 6-8, attempts to explain Origen’s distinction among the operations of the divine persons. After holding that the activity of the Father and the Son is to be found in sanc-tis et in peccatoribus, he moves on to distinguish between the activities of the Father and the Son. From the perspective of the creatures, that relationship is regarded as participation. Everything partakes of the Father, tam iustos quam peccatores et rationabiles atque irrationabiles et in omnia omnino quae sunt. This sentence is almost an exact reproduc-tion of what was said before121. Besides the different grammatical cases the only difference between both texts is that in 3, 6 iustos replaces sanc-tis. However, in 3, 5 the operatio was attributed to the Father and the Son, while in 3, 6 it is the participatio dei patris122. The participation of Christ is restricted to the rational beings, being a participation uerbi uel rationis, that renders the participants rationabiles123 since they bear in themselves uelut semina quaedam insita … sapientiae et iustitiae124, quod


42 P. ARGÁRATE

est Christus125. Being rationabiles they are capable of moral decisions. Beyond moral qualities, therefore, no human being is extra commun-ionem dei126 because omnes homines habent participium dei127. Origen supports this assertion with the inbreathing of the spirit in Gen 2,7: et insufflavit in faciem eius spiramentum uitae, et factus est homo in ani-mam uiuam. Behind spiramentum is the LXX’s pnoß, while the Vulgata will render it as spiraculum. Nevertheless, Origen states that this argu-ment is only valid if understood generaliter. On the contrary, if spira-mentum is to be interpreted as spiritus dei, that is pnoß as pneÕma ‡eoÕ, this could only be applied to the saints128. In order to substantiate this second understanding, Origen brings forward in 3, 7 some scriptural texts as Gen 6,3 (Non permanebit spiritus meus in hominibus istis in aeternum, propter quod caro sunt) and Ps 103,29-30 (Auferes spiritum eorum, et deficient et in terram suam reuertentur. Emittes spiritum tuum, et creabuntur, et renouabis faciem terrae). In both of them, Origen dis-covers the fact that the Spirit is removed from the unworthy ones and sinners. The second passage is, however, more positive, referring to the outpouring of the Spirit as well. Nevertheless, the text is transferred from its original cosmological sense into a moral one. The Alexandrian, in summarizing both texts, concludes that the Spirit inhabits not in omni-bus neque in his, qui caro sunt (first text), but only in his, quorum terra renouata fuerit (second passage)129. This statement is substantiated by three examples: the Spirit bestowed by the laying on of the hands of the apostles130 takes place after the renewal of baptism131; after the Lord’s resurrection and renewal of all, he sent the Holy Spirit132; the new wine has to be put into new wineskins133, where these are understood in a moral perspective and identified with the already mentioned nouitas vitae and the Spirit with the uinum nouum134.

125. Prin I, 3, 6, 158-159.126. Prin I, 3, 6, 187.127. Prin I, 3, 6, 194-195.128. . Prin I, 3, 6, 195-198: si uero hoc de spiritu dei dictum intellegendum est, quo-

niam et Adam prophetasse de nonnullis inuenitur, ergo iam non generaliter sed sanctis quibusque datum accipi potest.

129. Prin I, 3, 7, 212-213. However, it is the Spirit who renews the face of the earth and with his grace human beings put off the old man and in nouitate uitae coeperint ambulare. Prin I, 3, 7, 211.

130. This passage has already come in Prin I, 3, 2.131. I, 3, 7, 215: post baptismi gratiam. In Prin I, 3, 2, 44-45, however, the Spirit was

given in baptismo. 132. John 20,22.133. See Matt 9,17.134. Prin I, 3, 7, 223-225: sed iubebat utres fieri nouos, id est homines in nouitate

uitae ambulare, ut uinum nouum, id est spiritus sancti gratiae susciperent nouitatem.



In a new summary, Origen reiterates his conception on the activities of the divine persons. Again, here the Spirit’s operatio is distinguished from that of the Father and Son. While this indiscrete super omnem protenditur creaturam, spiritus uero sancti participationem a sanctis tantummodo haberi inuenimus135. From this, we can draw the following conclusions. Origen oscillates between joining and distinguishing the activities of the Father and the Son. In addition, there are two notions to express the rela-tionship between the divine person and the creatures; from the perspec-tive of the former, it is operatio, while from the latter, the notion used is participatio. Beyond the aforementioned oscillation the Spirit is almost always set aside for the saints. This is here grounded with two references already present in paragraph 2: 1 Cor 12,3 (Nemo potest dicere dominum Iesum nisi in spiritu sancto) and Matt 12,32 (the sin against the Spirit). A further text, Acts 1,8 (accipietis uirtutem superueniente in uos spiritu sancto) stands close to the Johannine Pentecost, also brought up in 3, 2.

In the second part of paragraph 7, Origen provides a digression136, where the equality of dignity of the divine persons is sustained, as well as their different operationes. This argumentation is based on Origen’s fear that the concentration of the Spirit on the saints could lead to mis-understandings and adjudicate to the Spirit maiorem dignitatem in rela-tion to that one of the Father and the Son137. In this context, the Alexan-drian inserts the already mentioned sentence: porro autem nihil in trinitate maius minusue dicendum est138. Instead of a hierarchy of the persons Origen posits an order or oîkonomía, supported by his interpre-tation of two texts: Ps 32,6 and 1 Cor 12,4. The first one, uerbo domini caeli firmati sunt, et spiritu oris eius omnis uirtus eorum, is interpreted as the fount of deity – the Father – upholding everything by his Logos and sanctifying by his Spirit those who are worthy139. In this way, the cosmological biblical text has shifted, especially in its second part, into a moral one. This can only explained on the basis of uirtus, the Latin translation of ™ dúnamiv, with which the LXX renders the Hebrew jaïkïo∫ (army). Uirtus is interpreted then in a moral sense. Within an even clearer Trinitarian view, Origen explains the Trinitarian dispensation in the following mode: the inoperatio of the Father bestows upon all beings

135. Prin I, 3, 7, 226-229.136. Prin I, 3, 7, 240-269.137. The unforgivable sin against the Spirit could be read in the same line, distin-

guished from the sin against the Son, and the fact is that Origen did not adduce texts that present the Spirit as created, while this was the case, figuratively, for some êpínoiai of the Son. See Prin I, 3, 3.

138. Prin I, 3, 7, 246-247.139. Prin I, 3, 7, 247-251.


44 P. ARGÁRATE

ut essent naturaliter, the ministerium of the Lord Jesus Christ towards the rational beings makes them rationabiles and ut bene sint, while the spiritus sancti gratia, qua dignis praestatur140. In the second passage mentioned above, 1 Cor 12,4, Paul explains, according to the Alexan-drian, unam eandemque uirtutem trinitatis141, attributing the different gifts to the Spirit, the different ministries to Christ, and the different activities to God the Father, concluding that nulla est in trinitate discre-tio, sed hoc, quod donum spiritus dicitur, ministratur per filium et inop-eratur per deum patrem142. The divine persons, equal in dignity, have different special activities143 in the Trinitarian economy.

After the long digression, Origen summarizes his view twice in para-graph 8. In the second summary the operationes speciales of the differ-ent divine persons are displayed in a pregnant scheme: Cum ergo primo ut sint habeant ex deo patre, secundo ut rationabilia sint habeant ex uerbo, tertio ut sancta sint habeant ex spiritu sancto144. The proper activity of the Spirit is further explained as consisting in ut ea quae sub-stantialiter sancta non sunt, participatione ipsius sancta efficiantur145. Behind this statement stands the conception of the Spirit as Sanctity sub-stantialiter, being the creature capable only of a participated sanctity146. In other words, it is the participation of the Holy Spirit that sanctus et spiritalis efficitur147. Meanwhile this participation is a participation in the Trinity, quippe cum una et incorporea natura sit trinitatis, in which not only the entire rational creation must partake148, but even more every creature simpliciter partakes of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the only intellectual light149. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are holy by nature.

140. See Prin I, 3, 7, 251-257.141. Prin I, 3, 7, 260-261.142. Prin I, 3, 7, 266-268.143. See Prin I, 3, 5, 140-142: De quibus discutientes sine dubio necessarium erit

ut operationem specialem spiritus sancti et specialem patris ac filii describamus.144. Prin I, 3, 8, 278-281.145. Prin I, 3, 8, 277-278. In Prin I, 1, 3, 63, Origen had already stated: cum de

spiritu sancto multi sancti participant…146. In Prin I, 2, 13, 462-465, Origen referring to the bonitas, distinguishes one sub-

stantialis and another accidens. 147. Prin IV, 4, 5, 186. In CIo, fragm. 36 (parallel text in fragm. 122) emerges the

same idea.148. Prin IV, 4, 5, 188-189.149. Prin IV, 4, 9, 359-362: Non solum autem, sed quoniam ipsa patris et filii et

spiritus sancti natura, cuius solius intellectualis lucis uniuersa creatura participium tra-hit, incorrupta est et aeterna. GRUBER, HWJ (n. 102), pp. 198-199 says: “So bleibt die besondere Rolle des Hl. Geistes gewahrt. Seine Eigenart besteht darin, daß er die Teil-haber mit den anderen Personen und der ihnen gemeinsamen oûsía verbindet. Insofern er die Teilhaber mit der göttlichen oûsía gerade gemäß den Attributen der Vollkommen-heit, Heiligkeit und Geistigkeit verbindet, beschränkt sich seine Wirksamkeit auss-chließlich auf die Heiligen, die Pneumatiker”.



Sanctity (immaculatum esse) belongs to the entire Trinity substantial-iter, being on the other hand an accident in the creatures150. In addition to this, the significance of the usage of Platonic mé‡eziv is difficult to exaggerate, not only in Origen, but also through him in the entire Chris-tian mystical tradition. This notion will prove especially helpful in the later development of the relevant notion of ‡éwsiv.

The process of descent turns, conversely (rursum), in a process of spiritual ascent to the unity of the Father in a scheme close to that one of Neoplatonism of próodov – êpistrofß. Having started with the progression being – rationality – sanctity, sanctity produces within the saints the capacity to receive Christ151 and through him to return to the Father. This is exemplified through the quotation of 1 Cor 12,6: Diui-siones sunt inoperationum, sed unus deus, qui operatur omnia in omni-bus. The sanctification of the Spirit renders purior ac sincerior, and then this person dignius receives Christ, and eventually through progress in purity152 receives from the same Father, that gave them existence, bestows now the perfect (perfecte) being, that consists in ut tam dignum sit id quod est, quam est ille qui id esse fecit153. The sanctifying action of the Spirit is presented by Origen as the summit, the final success of God’s creative action154. In this fashion, Origen sees the goal of spiritual life in a resemblance to God, the ömoíwsiv ‡e¬ç, following Plato155 indeed but chiefly Gen 1,26, and in so doing opening up the subsequent paths of Christian mysticism. Spiritual life is therefore the ascent to the

150. Prin I, 5, 5, 284-286: inmaculatum autem esse praeter patrem et filium et spiri-tum sanctum nulli substantialiter inest, sed sanctitas in omni creatura accidens res est (quod autem accidit, et decidere potest).

151. It is worth here drawing attention to the deep relation between Christ and Spirit. Christ is the sanctification and in turn in the Spirit we receive sapientia and scientia. See GRUBER, HWJ (n. 102), p. 194: “Die Tätigkeit des Heiligen Geistes ganz darauf hingerichtet ist, uns mit Christus zu verbinden”.

152. Prin I, 3, 8, 300-301: profectum sinceritatis ac puritatis. Plotinus’ emphasis on purification could be brought up in this context.

153. Prin I, 3, 8, 292-304: Vnde et inoperatio patris, quae esse praestat omnibus, clarior ac magnificentior inuenitur, cum unusquisque per participationem Christi secun-dum id, quod sapientia est, et secundum id, quod scientia est et sanctificatio est, proficit et in altiores profectuum gradus uenit; et per hoc quod participatione spiritus sancti sanctificatus est quis, purior ac sincerior effectus, dignius recipit sapientiae ac scientiae gratiam, ut depulsis omnibus expurgatisque pollutionis atque ignorantiae maculis, tantum profectum sinceritatis ac puritatis accipiat, ut hoc quod accepti a deo ut esset, tale sit, quale deo dignum est, eo qui ut esset pure utique praestitit ac perfecte; ut tam dignum sit id quod est, quam est ille qui id esse fecit. This does not supress in any way the enormous gap between Creator and creature.

154. SIMONETTI, Spirito Santo (n. 1), p. 456: “l’azione santificante operata dallo Spir-ito Santo viene presentata da O. come il coronamento, l’esito finale dell’azione creatrice di Dio”.

155. Theaetetus 176b.


46 P. ARGÁRATE

prototype. However, this ascent to the Father and the reception of him, and the eternal union with him, can only be attained through the media-tion of the Logos and the Spirit. Wisdom instructs, trains, and leads them on to perfection by the strengthening and unceasing sanctification of the Holy Spirit (ex spiritus sancti confirmatione atque indesinente sanctificatione)156. The reception of the Father is characterized as sanctam et beatam vitam, in which we must persevere. This persever-ance, nevertheless, is not to be understood as a static situation, but as an ever-increasing ascent. Origen echoes here the ardent desire of the Beloved in the Song of Songs or even anticipates Gregory of Nyssa’s êpektásiv, by affirming in an incredibly dynamic way: sed quanto magis de illa beatitudine percipimus, tanto magis in nobis uel dilatetur eius desiderium uel augeatur, dum semper ardentius et capacius patrem et filium ac spiritum sanctum uel capimur uel tenemus157. The desire158 is the motor159 of this unceasing ascent160 that makes us constantly more capacious of the Holy Trinity and attains its summit in ‡éwsiv161.

The entire chapter is closed, in an anticipation of chapter 4, by a refer-ence to the fall caused by satiety and the way to revert it, anticipating I, 4, 1-2.

After having presented in detail structure and content of the third chap-ter of Book I of De Principiis, it is time to attempt a brief conclusion on the outcomes of my survey. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

156. Prin I, 3, 8, 307-311: Quod ut accidat et ut indesinenter atque inseparabiliter adsint ei, qui est, ea, quae ab ipso facta sunt, sapientiae id opus est instruere atque eru-dire ea et ad perfectionem perducere ex spiritus sancti confirmatione atque indesinenti sanctificatione, per quam solam deum capere possunt.

157. Prin I, 3, 8, 317-321.158. See G. LETTIERI, Progresso, in MONACI CASTAGNO (ed.), Origene. Dizionario

(n. 1), p. 390: “così il progresso spirituale coincide con una dilatazione prodotta dall’ardore dell’amore”. See also F. COCCHINI, Il progresso spirituale in Origene, in Spir-itual Progress: Studies in the Spirituality of Late Antiquity and Early Monasticism (Stu-dia Anselmiana, 115), Rome, 1994, 29-45; H. CROUZEL, Origène et la “connaissance mystique”, Paris – Bruges, 1961, pp. 273-323.

159. See P. BETTIOLO, Perfetto, in MONACI CASTAGNO (ed.), Origene. Dizionario (n. 1), p. 355: “Ascesi a quel culmine di perfezione”, resta il vivere per Dio, in sempre rinnovato desiderio e moto – quel Dio che, come O. afferma in un altro luogo di CRm (4, 9), “è detto amore (cf. 1 Gv 4,8)”.

160. In the same sense, see HNum XVII, 4.161. See SAAKE, Der Tractatus (n. 20), p. 111: “Somit kulminiert der dynamischer

Ansatz innerhalb der soteriologisch-trinitätstheologischen Konzeption des Origenes in der Deifikation des Menschen, welche auf Grund der participatio an Pneuma, Christus und dem Vater sowie auf Grund der Einwohnung der Trinität, die es in aeternum zu erhalten gilt, konstituiert wird”. Also BERTHOLD, Origen and the Holy Spirit (n. 1), p. 447: “In seeking for a penetration of the letter of Scripture to its spirit, to ascend from carnal to spiritual realities, Origen is engaging in a Trinitarian enterprise made possible by the Holy Spirit whose goal was divinization of the Christian and eternal bliss with the three divine Persons”.



This “procession”162, however, is not to be regarded from the perspective of Post-Nicene theology. In the present form of the text Origen perceives the Spirit as uncreated. Scripture is the only source for his knowledge (alongside tradition), as the Holy Spirit is himself the inspirer and author of the Scriptures. These are subdivided in law, prophets, gospels, and apostolic, even though they are one. They can only be understood, at least in their spiritual meaning, by those who have received the Spirit. In addi-tion, only these pneumatofóroi are capable of doing theology, in the sense of articulating the elements of the rule of faith into one cohesive doctrine. Being “part” of the highest Trinity along with the Father and the Son and being ontologically equal to them, the Spirit has a supreme dignity. Precisely through this dignity and authority salvation is per-formed in the redemptive event of baptism, where we are regenerated, becoming terra renouata and receiving the uinum novum of the Spirit. Although present in the creation of the world, as an operatio communis of the Trinity, it seems restricted to the “saints” and in a certain way absent to the sector of reality outside these saints163. The functions of the Spirit, in concordance with the two other divine persons of the Trinity, consists in God’s economy in revealing the person of the Father and especially sanctifying human beings in likeness to Christ. The Holy Spirit is substantialiter Sanctity, from which all what is “saint” participates. The Spirit orients the Christian towards Christ and, in him, to the mystery of the Father, in an unceasing process of fulfillment of the resemblance to God, in deification, regarded as the reception of the three divine persons in the continuous expansion of our ardent desire.

Faculty of Theology Pablo ARGÁRATE

University of St. Michael’s College81 St Mary StreetToronto, OntarioM5S 1J4 [email protected]

162. See SIMONETTI, Spirito Santo (n. 1), p. 453 (on I, 2, 13, procession of the Spirit [ex quo… spiritus sanctus procedens … vel procedit spiritus sanctus]): “ma questa precisione terminological, non anteriore agli ultimi decenni del IV secolo, va attribuita all’intervento di Rufino, da cui non è possibile ipotizzare la redazione originale del testo. Più in dubbio si resta invece in Prin 3, 5, 8 ‘lo Spirito Santo … che procede dal Padre’ e a CCt, prol., 74 Bae. ‘solo lo Spirito Santo, che procede dal Padre …’, dove procedere non è introdotto col significato tecnico di Prin 1, 2, 12, ma deriva direttamente dalla citazione di Gv 15,26”.

163. MCDONNELL, Does Origen Have a Trinitarian Doctrine of the Holy Spirit? (n. 2), p. 32, sees the limits of Origen’s Pneumatology: “The absence of a relation to the creating act, together with his decision to tie the Spirit to the worthy delivered pneumatol-ogy to interiority, inwardness, and the spiritual life … Origen’s pneumatology is too cramped to serve the whole of the Christian community … Causing some twentieth-cen-tury scholars to refer to Pneumatology as ‘monks’ theology’”.


26 P. ARGÁRATE















14. Prin Praef 4, 84-93.





28 P. ARGÁRATE













30 P. ARGÁRATE











32 P. ARGÁRATE






















70. Prin I, 3, 2.



34 P. ARGÁRATE

















84. Prin I, 3, 3, 78-79.





36 P. ARGÁRATE




88. Prin I, 3, 4, 87-88.89. Prin I, 3, 4, 88-91.








93. Prin I, 3, 4, 98-99.94. Prin I, 3, 4, 101.



38 P. ARGÁRATE









40 P. ARGÁRATE













42 P. ARGÁRATE














138. Prin I, 3, 7, 246-247.139. Prin I, 3, 7, 247-251.


44 P. ARGÁRATE










46 P. ARGÁRATE









