C. Delarue, O.S.B., Monitum ad libros De resurrectione

Notice on the Books Concerning the Resurrection.

Eusebius, in Book VI of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 24, among the works which he relates that Origen composed at Alexandria, reckons two books On the Resurrection. They were written before the books On First Principles, since in Book I On First Principles, chapter 10, they are cited in these words: "Concerning which (namely, the Resurrection) we have disputed more fully in other books which we wrote On the Resurrection, and have shown what seemed to us concerning this. Yet now also to repeat a few things therefrom does not seem absurd." Jerome, in a certain book which is cited by Rufinus in the Second Apology against Jerome, weaving a list of the books of Origen, says that he wrote not only two books On the Resurrection, but also two other dialogues On the Resurrection. Since, therefore, in some sense Origen may be said to have written four books On the Resurrection, for that reason perhaps the same Jerome in Epistle 38, otherwise 61, cites a fourth book On the Resurrection. Against these books of Origen On the Resurrection, Bishop Methodius wrote a notable dialogue On the Resurrection, as Jerome testifies in the book On Ecclesiastical Writers, and Maximus in the scholia on the book of Dionysius On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter 7. From this Dialogue of Methodius you have excellent fragments in Epiphanius under the heresy of the Origenists, and in Photius in the Bibliotheca. Books were also written upon that question against Origen by Hammon of Adrianople, of which, however, nothing survives today. Huet, in Book II of the Origeniana, question 9, enumerates other writers, if credit is to be given to whom, Origen must needs have been guilty of various and almost diametrically opposite charges concerning the resurrection. Finally, his books On the Resurrection seemed to Jerome to teem with so many errors that in Epistle 41, otherwise 65, he exclaims: "Who of the Latins ever dared to translate his books On the Resurrection, On First Principles, the Stromateis, and the Tomes? Who wished to be defamed himself through an infamous work?" Nevertheless, the martyr Pamphilus in his Apology for Origen, in addition to other testimonies which he brought forward from his commentaries both on Isaiah the prophet and on Psalms 1, 15, and 18, in order to show that he thought very catholically concerning the resurrection, prefixed also from his first book and from his second book On the Resurrection several passages which follow this Notice, and which altogether agree with the Catholic faith. To these the holy martyr could have added what is found written concerning the resurrection in Book III Against Celsus, number 41, in these words: "If indeed matter, which underlies all qualities, is capable of exchanging qualities, how is it not possible that the flesh of Jesus also, having exchanged qualities, became such as that needed to be which has its citizenship in the ether and the regions highest above it, no longer having the properties of fleshly weakness?" "If the qualities of matter, which is subject to all qualities, can be changed, why could it not come to pass that the flesh of Jesus, with its qualities changed, became such as that ought to be which dwelt in the ether and the places higher than it, and had nothing of the things which are proper to weak flesh?" He therefore confesses the resurrection of the flesh in the Saviour and consequently in us. Compare what he has in Book IV Against Celsus, number 57; Book V, numbers 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23; Book VI, number 29; Book I On First Principles, chapter 10; and from an accurate comparison of the several passages you will confess that there is nothing in them which cannot be fitted to the Catholic dogma concerning the resurrection, provided only you except certain minor questions which the luxuriant genius of Origen, pursuing too curiously, carries a little too far. See our observations on Book II of the Origeniana, question 9.