show all favor to their masters. For they will receive a great reward in heaven from the Lord of all, the judge of the living and the dead. Joseph was sold as a slave, but he did not obey his mistress in a wicked and impious act. Deservedly, therefore, he will rule over her forever, both on earth in Egypt and in heaven, she who had seemed to rule over him for a time. We have said all these things for the instruction of good men, admonished in these matters also by the blessed Job, who clearly says: “The small and the great are there, and the servant who does not fear his master.” He who wishes to inquire will find other things that are consistent with this, and those things which now A exist in order, and all that was manifoldly spoken by that righteous man concerning the greatness of God and his own endurance, which he, innocent in the sight of God and before all men, endured without fault, which he endured with thanksgiving and confessions of God, which he endured, providing a pattern of pious endurance forever for everyone. Blessed are those who shall have imitated you, most blessed Job. Blessed are those who shall have followed in your footsteps. Blessed are those who, like you, shall have been perfected in faith, piety, and the endurance of all things that happen to them. These shall rest forever with God the Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
WORKS CONCERNING ORIGEN
ADMONITION TO THE APOLOGETIC BOOK OF THE HOLY MARTYR PAMPHILUS FOR ORIGEN
B At the end of the fifth year of the persecution moved by Diocletian against the Church, that is, the year of Christ 307, Pamphilus, a Phoenician by nation, from Berytus, a disciple of Pierius—as Photius writes, a presbyter of the Alexandrian Church—who at that time flourished among the presbyters of the Church of Caesarea, was captured and cast into prison, where he spent a space of two years in chains. At that time, Eusebius, visiting his friend and companion constantly—or, as Photius says, being joined with him in the same prison—composed five books of the *Defense of Origen* in prison together with him, but he completed the sixth and final book of the same work only after Pamphilus had died. The whole work was inscribed by Eusebius and Pamphilus to the confessors working in the mines of Palestine, just as the same Photius writes in his *Bibliotheca*, codex cxviii, in these words: C “Six books of the martyr Pamphilus and Eusebius for Origen were read, five of which were worked out by Pamphilus in prison, with Eusebius also present; but the sixth was completed by Eusebius after the martyr, having been deprived of life by the sword, had departed to the God he alone desired.” And after a few words: “Pamphilus, imprisoned in the same room with Eusebius, wrote the *Apology*, and sent it to those who were being tormented for the name of Christ in the mines; the leader of whom was Patermuthius, who, shortly after Pamphilus’s departure through martyrdom, was himself also pushed out of this life by flames along with others.” Eusebius mentions this *Apology* in his *Ecclesiastical History*, book vi, chapter 33, thus: “Whatever things it is necessary to know about him (Origen), these can be sought from the *Apologetic* which was written for his defense by us and by the holy martyr of our time, Pamphilus; which, indeed, we composed together with joint effort and labor on account of certain malevolent detractors.” Socrates likewise mentions this in *Ecclesiastical History*, book iii, chapter 7: “Origen, everywhere…”
in his own books, acknowledges that Christ became a man endowed with a soul; but he explains the mystery of this matter more broadly in the ninth volume of the Commentaries which he wrote on Genesis, where he established that Adam bears the type of Christ, and Eve the type of the Church.” Of this matter, the most trustworthy witnesses are the holy Pamphilus and Eusebius, who derived his name from him. For both of them, when they jointly composed the life of Origen and answered those who, out of a preconceived opinion, were hostile toward the man, in those illustrious books which they labored over for his defense, say that Origen was not the first to deal with this subject, but that he interpreted the mystical tradition of the Church. C Nicephorus Callistus follows Socrates in book x, chapter 14. An Anonymous author, who in the sixth century collected the synodical epistles edited by the Reverend Father Lupus, in his observations on epistle 198, also mentions this: “Eusebius, in the apologetic work for Origen and his dogmas—that is, composed for the pre-existence and restitution, which is titled under the names of the martyr and of Eusebius of Caesarea himself—used the testimonies of very many preceding Fathers for the aforesaid errors.” But as to what Eusebius says, that this Defense of Origen was written by him and the martyr Pamphilus on account of certain malevolent detractors, I do not know if he does not primarily refer to Methodius, bishop of Olympus in Lycia, who was then most celebrated for his learning. For Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (these are the words of Jerome, book i, *Apology against Rufinus*), in the sixth book of his *Apology for Origen*, objects this same thing to Methodius the bishop and martyr, which you blame in my praises, and says: “How did Methodius dare to write against Origen now, who has spoken such and such things about Origen’s dogmas?” Methodius wrote a book *On the Resurrection* against Origen, as attested by Jerome and Epiphanius: and this seems to have been the reason why Eusebius made no mention of him in his *Ecclesiastical History* books. For although he accurately commemorated almost all ecclesiastical writers in this work, he nevertheless deliberately passed over Methodius, for the reason that he had attacked Origen, whom he himself especially admired. Thus Jerome D exercised [his skill] against Rufinus, with whom he had differences, though he made no mention of him in his *Catalogue of Illustrious Men*.
II. In the year of Christ 397, Rufinus, having been summoned from Palestine to Italy by the holy Chromatius, Bishop of the Church of Aquileia, arrived at Rome. There he first translated this book of the *Apology* into Latin, and published it under the sole name of the martyr Pamphilus. But as to why he undertook this work, he explains it himself in book i against Jerome: “Macarius, a man famous for his faith, erudition, nobility, and life, while he had in his hands small works against fate or astrology, and was composing them with useful and very necessary labor—in some parts, however, because the matter was very difficult, he hesitated concerning the dispensations of divine Providence—said that while he slept, something like this was shown to him by the Lord: that a certain ship was shown to him arriving from afar across the sea, which, having entered the harbor, would resolve the knots of his hesitation. Awakening, however, while he was anxiously thinking about the vision, he said that we had arrived in the nick of time, to whom he immediately indicated both his own small works, and his ambiguity, and the vision. He next inquired what Origen, whom he had heard was the most esteemed among the Greeks, thought concerning such things, and asked that his opinions on each single point be briefly explained to him. I said at first that the matter was difficult to do; yet I said that the holy martyr Pamphilus had written something of this kind in his *Apologeticus*. He immediately demanded that it be translated into Latin for him. I said that I had made no use of a work of this kind, and that I had become rusty in the Latin language through nearly thirty years of neglect. He persisted, however, begging that the knowledge of those things he desired be shown to him in whatever language I could. And when I had done this in the best language I could, he was inflamed with a greater desire to know more fully those very things from which those few things that I had translated seemed to have been taken. He began to urge me, who was excusing myself, more vehemently, and to adjure me under the testimony of God not to deny him the helps that might be able to assist him in a good work. When he insisted more vehemently, and I perceived that his desire was according to God, I finally agreed, and translated it.” But indeed Jerome, in book iii against Rufinus, mocks this narrative of Rufinus: “O most wealthy trireme,” he says, “which had come from the Orient to enrich the poverty of the Roman city with Egyptian wares! You are that greatest one, the only one who restores the matter to us by writing. Therefore, if you had not come from the East, the most learned man would still be lingering among astrologers, and Christian men would be ignorant of what they might argue against fate.” The most eminent Cardinal Noris, in *Dissertatio historica de synodo V*, chapter 13, in order to convict Rufinus of an open lie, objects that in this *Apologeticus* libellus, which he published under the name of the martyr Pamphilus, nothing is read as proven against the astrologers or assertors of fate; but only about the Father, about the eternity of the Son, about the divinity of the Holy Spirit, about the incarnation of the Word, and Christ the Lord, about the punishments of the damned, etc.
"What, then," he says, "is the work against the mathematicians that Pamphilus wrote?" But the answer is easy. For even if I were to grant that there was nothing against the mathematicians in the first book of the *Apology*, it was nonetheless in Rufinus’s mind to translate into Latin the remaining books that might follow, in which the defenders of fate were perhaps refuted somewhere; but he was deterred from this labor by Macarius alone, who was eager to see the books *De Principiis*. For the latter, as witnessed by Rufinus in book 1 of his *Apology against Jerome*, once he had read the translation of the first book of the *Apology*, was inflamed with a greater desire to know more fully those very things from which the few lines that Rufinus had translated seemed to have been taken. Rufinus was thus constrained to undertake the translation of the books *De Principiis*.
B III. Jerome, giving credence to the title of the Greek codex which he had borrowed from Rufinus, had first believed that the *Defense of Origen* circulated under the name of Pamphilus was a work distinct from the six books for Origen elaborated by Pamphilus and Eusebius, and was proper to Pamphilus alone; but he later contended fiercely that this having been stripped from Pamphilus, it was one and the same work by Eusebius alone. "For the present," he says in book 2 *Against Rufinus*, "let it suffice to have met your assertions, and to have briefly instructed the prudent reader, that I had first seen that work, which was borne under the name of Pamphilus, written in your codex; and because it was no concern of mine what might be said on behalf of a heretic, I always held it as if it were a work different from that of Pamphilus and Eusebius: but later, when the question was raised, I wished to respond to their writings, and for this reason read what each one thought on behalf of Origen; and I clearly perceived that the first book of the six volumes of Eusebius was the very one that, under the name of Pamphilus, was edited by you in both Greek and Latin, with only the meanings concerning the Son and the Holy Spirit—which betrayed an open blasphemy—changed. Hence, even about ten years ago, when my friend Dexter, who administered the prefecture of the praetorium, asked me to compile for him an index of the authors of our religion, I placed this book among other treatises, thinking it to be as it had been divulged by you and your disciples. But since Eusebius himself says that Pamphilus wrote nothing, except for brief letters to friends, and the first book of his six volumes contains the same things and in the same words as what you have forged under the name of Pamphilus, it is clear that you wished to disseminate this book so as to introduce heresy under the guise of a martyr." The same is related in book 3 *Against Rufinus*: "Regarding the book of Pamphilus, it is not a ridiculous matter—as you write—but a laughable one that has happened to me, that after I had asserted it to be by Eusebius, not by Pamphilus, I should in the end say that I too had thought for many years that it was by Pamphilus, and C had borrowed the exemplar of this volume from you. From your codex, as if it were Pamphilus's exemplar, I accepted it. I believed a Christian, and I believed a monk: I did not think such wickedness could be feigned by you." Later, however, through your translation... your question having been stirred up concerning Origen throughout the world, I was more diligent in seeking out copies, and in the library at Caesarea I found Eusebius’s six volumes of *Apology for Origen*. And when I had read these, I discovered that book which you alone edited under the name of the martyr, with most of the blasphemies regarding the Son and the Holy Spirit changed for the better. He says the same in book 1 of the *Apology against Rufinus*: "Six books, as I have said before, Eusebius of Caesarea, once the standard-bearer of the Arian faction, wrote on behalf of Origen—a most extensive and elaborated work—and by many testimonies proved Origen to be Catholic according to himself, that is, according to us, an Arian. You translated the first book of these under the name of the martyr... and with a few testimonies concerning the Son of God and the Holy Spirit changed, which you knew would displease the Romans, you left the rest intact, right to the end." But the holy doctor, who consistently asserts in the passages just cited that this book translated into Latin by Rufinus is the first of Eusebius’s six volumes of *Apology for Origen*, seems to say near the end of epistle 41 (otherwise 65), to Pammachius and Oceanus, that it is the opposite, namely, the beginning of the sixth book, and that the remaining parts were added by Didymus or some other person: "This book, which is called Pamphilus’s, contains the beginning of the sixth book of Eusebius’s *Defense of Origen* up to about a thousand lines, and in the rest, the writer of the same work brings forward testimonies by which he strives to prove Origen was Catholic. Eusebius and Pamphilus held such concord between them that you would think they were men of one soul, and that one received his name from the other. How, therefore, could they have differed so as to be at odds, that Eusebius in his whole work proves Origen to be of the Arian dogma, and Pamphilus, a defender of the Nicene synod, which was later? From which it is shown that it is the work of either Didymus or someone else, who, having truncated the head of the sixth book, united the other members." That the open conflict of these words may be removed, the most eminent Cardinal Norisius, in his *Historical Dissertation on the Fifth Synod*, ch. 13, refers it to the error of copyists, who, when they read these abbreviated notes in this letter to Pammachius and Oceanus: "vi lib. Eusebii super Origenis defensione principium," rendered it "sexti libri Eusebii" [of the sixth book of Eusebius], whereas they ought to have written "sex librorum Eusebii super Origenis defensione principium" [beginning of the six books of Eusebius's defense of Origen]. So also to those reading a little later: "qui vi lib. capite detruncato [who, with the head of the sixth book truncated]," it was not to be written by them "sexti libri [of the sixth book]," but "sex librorum [of the six books]." Now what Jerome adds, "or the work of Didymus, or of another, who, having truncated the head of the six books, united the other members," is not to be understood as if he meant that the *Apology for Origen* edited by Rufinus under the name of Pamphilus is truly by Didymus; but this is to be explained from another place cited above from book 1 of the *Apology against Rufinus*, where after he had said: "Later, however, by your translation..."
A which ought not to have been said, since he was more diligent in seeking out the exemplars of another, namely Eusebius, and in the library at Caesarea I found the six volumes of the *Apology for Origen*. And when I had read them, I discovered this first book which you alone have published under the name of the martyr, with most of the blasphemies concerning the Son and the Holy Spirit changed for the better, he adds: "And I know not who did this, either Didymus, or you, or someone else, since you are most clearly convicted of having done so in the books *On First Principles*." Therefore, this is the one thing Jerome wishes to convey everywhere: that either Didymus, or Rufinus, or someone else I know not who, changed for the better, both in Greek and Latin, most of the blasphemies which appeared in the text of Eusebius. Whether this is likely to be true, we shall soon attempt to investigate.
IV.
Now indeed, that Jerome may prove that this *Apologetic* booklet for Origen is not Pamphilus's, but Eusebius's alone, these are his arguments: 1° "If this book is Pamphilus's," he says in book 1 of the *Apology against Rufinus*, "which will be the first of the six books of Eusebius?" The answer is easy. It will be the first of both Pamphilus and Eusebius; 2° he insists in the same place: "In the very volume which you feign to be Pamphilus's, mention is made of the following books. In the second and the rest, Eusebius says what he had said before in the first book, and that he ought not to repeat the same things." We find no mention of the others in the first book: but granted it was made in the Greek, what is strange about that? Namely, that the first five works had been elaborated by Pamphilus and Eusebius together; 3° he continues in the same place: "If the whole work is Pamphilus's, why do you not translate the remaining books?" Doubtless, the desire of Macarius was an obstacle, as we have already said: or rather, there seems to have been no other cause than that Rufinus's codex contained only the first book of this *Apology* under the name of the martyr Pamphilus. Certainly, in book 2 against Rufinus, Jerome himself admits that he had seen this book, which was carried about under the name of Pamphilus, written first in the codex of Rufinus, and because he did not care what was said in defense of a heretic, he always held it as though it were a separate work of Pamphilus and Eusebius; and in book 3 he says that he had borrowed from Rufinus "a copy of this volume" (not of the six volumes); 4° Jerome objects that Pamphilus wrote nothing of his own work. "And he himself," he says in book 1 against Rufinus, "wrote nothing of his own work at all, except for the letters which he perhaps sent to friends D in such a way had he humbled himself through humility. But he used to read the treatises of ancient writers most studiously, and was constantly engaged in their meditation." The defender of Origen and praiser of Pamphilus says that Pamphilus wrote nothing at all, nor did he compose anything of his own speech: and he says this, even after Pamphilus was crowned by martyrdom, so that you might not have a refuge to say this was written by Pamphilus after the books published by Eusebius. But this knot could have been solved very easily by Rufinus. For that *Apologetic* work of the B martyr and Eusebius of Caesarea was a work of Pamphilus's own. Add to this that the whole work consists of places of Origen excerpted from his various works, if only you except the beginning, which in some way is nothing other than a letter to the confessors condemned to the mines: and accordingly it can hold a place among the letters of Pamphilus; 5° "Give," says Jerome in Epistle 65 to Pammachius and Oceanus, "any other work of Pamphilus. You will find none. This is the only one." Whence then should I know that it is Pamphilus's? Will my style and saliva be able to teach me? Indeed, today we cannot judge by the style whether it is a work of Pamphilus; but it was easy for those to whom it was permitted to compare it in its entirety with his letters, which still survived. Jerome himself, who certainly compared the very thing, did not dare to assert that it was the same style of this book as Eusebius's; and in actual fact, it seems to depart a little from Eusebius's saliva.V.
Furthermore, Jerome objects in book 2 against Rufinus that the most learned Eusebius (most learned, but not a Catholic) "did nothing through the six volumes except to show Origen to be of his own faith, that is to say, of Arian wickedness;" therefore, no part of this work belongs to the martyr Pamphilus, whose faith the Church approves. He repeats the same things in the places cited above, and here and there elsewhere, whence he concludes that the book edited under Pamphilus's name was amended by some Catholic in the Trinity, who changed most of the blasphemies about the Son and the Holy Spirit for the better, both in Greek and Latin. "But that this faith ought not to be given to Jerome here can be proven by most valid arguments," says Bull in *De Filii τῷ ὁμοουσίῳ*, ch. 9, art. 20. For: 1° Photius in codex cxviii testifies that he read in Greek the six books of the martyr Pamphilus and Eusebius, in which that severe censor, who otherwise is wont to constantly rebuke even the slightest things in the writings of others which might even appear to savor of Arianism, notes no traces of Arian wickedness; 2° the same Photius, in cod. cxvii, commemorating a certain ancient anonymous author who had likewise written an *Apology* for Origen, says that that author in his *Apology* for Origen had fought for his opinions with the authority of both other ancient writers, and then especially of the martyr Pamphilus and Eusebius of Caesarea. "Rather indeed," he says, "he relies upon the martyr Pamphilus and Eusebius more than all others," that is to say, "he relies upon the martyr Pamphilus and Eusebius above the rest," so that it appears indubitable to me that that anonymous author followed the exact same method of defending Origen with Pamphilus and Eusebius. Was the apologist then a follower of Arius? Far from it. For Photius himself, who otherwise attributes most of Origen's errors to him, expressly says that "concerning the Holy Trinity he brings forth nothing erroneous." How, then, does the author defend Origen?A Photios says next that that writer proved the fifteen chapters objected against Origen—of which the first three, the thirteenth, and the last pertain to the article on the Trinity—to be calumnies, doing so by constructing his refutations out of the arguments brought forward from the very writings of Origen himself. The exact same reasoning and method are kept by the *Apology* edited by Rufinus under the name of Pamphilus. From these things it is surely evidenced at least that by an ancient Greek writer, who in the article on the Holy Trinity was, even in the judgment of Photios, a Catholic, testimonies were brought forward from the very writings of Origen, as they existed at that time in Greek, which would show that Origen was likewise a Catholic in that same article, and that that author did this by the example of the martyr Pamphilus and Eusebius, following in their footsteps. 3. It is not probable that Eusebius had already fallen away to the Arian heresy at the time he was writing in favor of Origen. For who would believe, if he had already been an Arian, that he would have undertaken to prove for himself that it was maintained by Origen ‹ that the Trinity is equal; that Christ is not a mere man but of a divine nature; that the generation of the Son of God is outside any beginning; that the Father is not before the Son, but the Son is coeternal with the Father; that the Son was not born through a procession; that he is inseparable from the Father; that there is the same immutability of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; that just as the Father knows the beginnings and the ends of all things, so does the Son, so does the Holy Spirit; that the Son was born of God the Father, and is of one and the same substance with the Father; but is alien from the substances of creatures, etc., › which strike diametrically against the Arian heresy? Who could persuade himself that he, while he was excerpting those most brilliant testimonies of Origen by which the Arian error is pierced, would have inserted Arian ones alongside them? 4. Our most learned master, the reverend Prudentius Maran, demonstrates invincibly in his *De divinitate Christi* (lib. IV, caps. 14–16, and elsewhere passim) that Origen by no means favored the Arian heresy, but on the contrary must be held to be a Catholic writer and a most fierce defender of the sacred dogma of the Trinity; and that those things which are objected are either fabricated and alien to him, or partially have a most brilliant meaning if you interpret them rightly, and partially are not inconvenient if you aptly reconcile them with his other principles. How, therefore, could Eusebius, in those most excellent contexts in which he vindicates Origen's doctrine from the Arian taint, have approved that Origen himself was an Arian? What blasphemies would he have foisted in, if there were in Origen nothing that could merit being dragged toward the Arian heresy? But granting, though not conceding, that the *Apologeticum* libellum edited by Rufinus under the name of Pamphilus was tainted with Arian venom in the Greek text, would it follow from that that it was not by the martyr Pamphilus? Not at all, even in the judgment of Jerome himself. B "But let us grant out of superfluity," he says in *Epist.* 65 to Pammachius and Oceanus, "that it is Pamphilus'; but he was not yet a martyr. For he wrote before he underwent martyrdom. And how, you will ask, was he worthy of martyrdom? Clearly so that by martyrdom he might wipe away his error, so that he might purge one sin by the shedding of his own blood. How many martyrs in the world, before they were slaughtered, were subject to various sins!" Jerome uses these words as a refuge, so that if he did not raise the reputation and fame of Rufinus, he might at least diminish the authority of the martyr Pamphilus, whom he does not dare to deny completely is the author of this *Apology*. But his argument is the weaker for the fact that Pamphilus had already suffered many torments before he wrote; and thus he was already truly a martyr in the common mode of speaking of that time. Jerome, however, is answered by Rufinus in *Invect.* lib. II: "If you wanted to be so bold as to rebuke a martyr, you ought to have brought forward the very statements which seemed to you reprehensible; and then each of the readers would have seen what was absurd there, what consistent, what iniquitous, what certainly contrary to the apostolic rules; but you only [mention] some I-know-not-what of impiety, for the expiating of which, as you say, the martyr shed his blood. If he were to read those very words, he would say that it is no longer your opinion, but his own, or that the martyr had erred, or he would say that a compilation absurd and impious had been composed by another under the name of the martyr. But now, knowing that if the things you rebuke are read, the mark will be turned back onto him who blames unjustly, you do not bring forward the things that you rebuke." And in fact Jerome brought nothing forward against this *Apology* except generally. Indeed, he had promised in *lib.* II against Rufinus that he would write against the work itself in his subsequent ones, if there were time for dictating, but we know he wrote nothing, although he lived for many years afterward.
VI. But yet, so that I may reconcile Jerome to himself, I would not deny that Pamphilus and Eusebius seem indeed to have brought forward in that *Defense* some testimonies from Origen into which were mixed some little words and some sayings which were less pleasing to the Catholic ears of Jerome's age, C as being usurped by Arians at that time to propagate their heresy: which little words, or which sayings, Rufinus seems to have excised from his version for that reason, and to have softened them by adding some things and removing others, so that he might hand down the Catholic doctrine in plainly Catholic words. Which Rufinus himself seems to intimate when in the epilogue to his translation to Macarius he states that he "had arranged in Latin speech the *Apologeticum* of the holy martyr Pamphilus, as he could, or as the matter demanded." A trace of such a resection still exists. In chapter 4 of this *Apology*, Pamphilus brings forth a testimony from chapter 3 of book I, *De principiis*, of which a fragment
is presented by the Emperor Justinian at the end of his letter to Menas, since he and others—Athanasius in his *Comm. in Matt.* xII, 32; Theophilus in his 1st Paschal Epistle; Jerome in his epistle to Avitus; and Photius in *Bibliotheca*, cod. cxvii—bring no small charges against it. Behold the very words for you: "That God and Father who contains all things reaches to each of the things that exist, bestowing on each from his own being that it should be; for he is who is. But the Son is lesser than the Father, reaching only to rational beings; for he is second to the Father. And yet lesser is the Holy Spirit, appearing only to the saints. So that according to this, the power of the Father is greater than the Son and the Holy Spirit. And greater is that of the Son than the Holy Spirit; and again, the power of the Holy Spirit is more excellent than the other holy beings." A "That God, indeed, and Father, containing all things, reaches to each one, bestowing upon each something of his own: for he himself is the One who is. But that, besides the Father, the Son reaches only to rational beings—for he is second from the Father—and the Holy Spirit, further still, is lesser, reaching only to the saints. Thus, from this, the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Likewise, the power of the Son is greater than that of the Holy Spirit; and, again, the virtue of the Holy Spirit is more excellent than that of other holy beings." B These things, although at first glance they may seem rather harsh, if one attends to the mind of Origen rather than his words, will receive a sound sense, and they are excused by Huet himself in his *Origeniana*, bk. II, ch. 2, quæst. 2, nos. 27 and 28. For there the subject is the account of principle, source, and origin. But Rufinus, because these things were less pleasing in his own age, with certain things added and certain things cut away, softened them both in this *Apology* and in Book 1 of *De principiis*: "I think, therefore, that the operation of the Father and the Son is in the saints as well as in the sinners; in rational men, and in mute animals; but even in those things which are inanimate, and in everything at all that exists: but the operation of the Holy Spirit in no way extends into those things which are inanimate, or into those which are indeed living, but mute: nor even in those who are rational indeed, but placed in malice, and not at all converted to better things. In those only, however, do I think the work of the Holy Spirit to be, who already turn themselves to better things, and walk through the ways of Jesus Christ, that is, those who are proceeding in new acts, and remaining in God." There is scarcely any doubt that Jerome had this context in mind, and perhaps a few others like it, when he says that Rufinus removed most of the blasphemies which appeared in Eusebius’ text regarding the Son and the Holy Spirit, and changed them for the better. Perhaps you might say it is possible that Pamphilus and Eusebius, with the questions regarding the Son and the Holy Spirit not yet being so highly agitated in their age, did not extract the clearer and more expressive contexts of Origen regarding the Trinity, in whose place Rufinus might have perhaps substituted others proving the consubstantiality more clearly. And Jerome seems to indicate this C in his book against Rufinus with these words: "With a few testimonies changed, which you knew would displease the Romans, you dismissed the rest (of the first book of Eusebius) to the end intact." He hints at the same thing more openly in his epistle to Pammachius and Oceanus. Indeed, he can hardly contain himself in this same epistle from saying that the whole of this book was composed by another writer than Eusebius, namely by Didymus, or by Rufinus himself. "Furthermore," he says, "because they bring forward Pamphilus as his (Origen’s) praiser, I give thanks to them on my own behalf, that they deemed me worthy to be slandered along with the martyr. For if you say that his books have been violated by the enemies of Origen so that they might be defamed, why should it not be lawful for me to say that a volume was composed by his friends and followers under the name of Pamphilus, which would vindicate him from infamy by the testimony of a martyr? Behold, you amend in the books of Origen what he did not write; and are you surprised if someone publishes a book which he did not publish? You can be refuted in the work produced: he who published nothing else lies more easily open to slander. Produce any other work of Pamphilus. You will find it nowhere. This is the only one. Whence, therefore, shall I know that it is Pamphilus’s? Will the style and the saliva be able to teach me? I shall never believe that a learned man dedicated the first fruits of his talent to questions and infamy... I shall now bring forward one thing, to which it would be either the part of a fool or of an impudent person to contradict. This book, which is said to be Pamphilus’s, contains from the beginning of Eusebius’s six books *On the Defense of Origen* up to a thousand verses, and in the remaining (verses), the writer of the same work brings forward testimonies by which he strives to prove that Origen was a catholic. Eusebius and Pamphilus held such great harmony between themselves that you would think them men of one soul, and one received his name from the other. How, therefore, could they dissent among themselves, so that Eusebius in his whole work proves Origen to be of the Arian dogma, and Pamphilus to be a defender of the Nicene synod, which was later? From which it is shown D that it is the work of Didymus, or of someone else who, with the head of the six books cut off, joined the other members." Yet Jerome is not consistent with himself. For he determines the complete opposite in Book II against Rufinus, where he testifies that the first book of Eusebius contains the same things and with the same words as were edited by Rufinus under the name of Pamphilus, and that Rufinus had merely changed or perverted the meanings regarding the Son and the Holy Spirit, which displayed open blasphemy. "And clearly," he says, "I detect that the first book of the six volumes of Eusebius was the very same one that was edited by you under the name of Pamphilus, as much in Greek as in Latin, with only the meanings changed regarding the Son and the Holy Spirit, which displayed open blasphemy... And since the first book of the six volumes of his (Eusebius) contains the same things and with the same words as those which were fabricated by you under the name of Pamphilus, and since regarding this very book, which you pretend is Pamphilus’s, you have perverted many things, and it is otherwise in Greek, otherwise in Latin, etc." He says that Rufinus perverted only the meanings, namely certain little words, which Hiero-
-Anymus interpreted as being twisted to the bad side, by certain additions and certain subtractions, and that he converted them to the good side; that he had subtracted the entire context and substituted others. And that this was the intention of Jerome is understood from book II *Against Rufinus*, where he says that either Didymus, or Rufinus, or I know not whom, had converted most of the blasphemies which appeared in the text of Eusebius to a good meaning, both in Greek and in Latin. Which signifies nothing other than this: that he had brought what seemed blasphemous to Jerome, with only the meaning of the words changed, to a Catholic sense. For to change some thing to the good side is to convert the very same thing, which was or seemed to be evil, to good. The thing itself remains the same; the status of the thing is not the same.
VII. But Jerome, not yet content with these things which he objected above for the sake of adjudging this Apology away from the holy martyr Pamphilus, insists again in book II *Against Rufinus* with these words: "Although he has subtracted many things from the book of Eusebius, and has striven to convert them to a good meaning regarding the Son and the Holy Spirit, yet many scandals are found in it and most open blasphemies, which this man will not be able to deny, while pronouncing them to be Catholic. Eusebius says—or rather, as you would have it, Pamphilus—in that volume that the Son is a minister of the Father; that the Holy Spirit is not of the same substance of the Father and the Son; that the souls of men have fallen from heaven, and that in this [state] in which we are, we are changed from angels, and in the restitution of all things, angels, and demons, and men will be equal; and other things so impious and wicked that it is a crime even to repeat them." But this holy doctor openly contradicts himself. For he is so far from having found any error regarding the Trinity in that interpretation of Rufinus, that on the contrary he asserts that through it Pamphilus is shown to be a defender of the Nicene synod, which was later, and concludes from thence that that work had been amended by some Catholic skilled in the Trinity. For thus he says toward the end of letter 65 to Pammachius and Oceanus: "This book, which is called Pamphilus's, contains the beginning of the six books of Eusebius on the Defense of Origen up to nearly a thousand verses, and in the remainder the writer of this same work produces testimonies by which he strives to approve that Origen was a Catholic. Eusebius and Pamphilus had so great a harmony between them that one would think them men of one soul, and that one had received his name from the other. How therefore could they disagree among themselves, so that Eusebius in his whole work proves Origen to be of the Arian dogma, and Pamphilus to be a defender of the Nicene synod, which was later? From which it is shown that the little work is either by Didymus or by someone else, who, having truncated the head of the six books, joined the remaining members to it." Therefore, Jerome found no heresy, no scandal, and no blasphemy at that time in that interpretation of Rufinus. There exist indeed two testimonies where the Son is called a minister of the Father: but that this is called a blasphemy I would not wish, just as what is said B before and after the Nicene council is held to be Catholic; that which Theophilus of Antioch, that which Justin, that which Irenaeus, that which the Orientals said in the instance of the faith against Photinus, and which Hilary and Athanasius, the fiercest impugners of the Arian heresy, said in the same sense as Origen, as we shall see below in *Origeniana*, book II, chapter 2, question 2, number 14. But that which Jerome says, that in that volume it is said not to be of the same substance of the Father and the Son, is nowhere found today, yet I think it should not be concluded from this, as Huetius surmises (5), that those things were erased by Rufinus, so that he might cut off every occasion for complaint. For could it be that Rufinus—who in that very book religiously professes that "the holy Trinity is coeternal, and of one nature, and of one power and substance," and denounces anathemas against those who teach otherwise—could he be so stupid that he would place such a dense blasphemy in his translation and would not notice it without a monitor like Jerome? Furthermore, if he expunged it from his codices, whence then does it happen that no copy of his work exists today in which that blasphemy is found? For copies of the Rufinian version had been dispersed far and wide before Jerome objected to that. Is it likely that Rufinus could have suppressed or amended all those earlier codices? What therefore is to be said? "Let the fair reader give me leave to conjecture," says Bullus in his *Defense of the Nicene Faith* concerning the 'consubstantial' of the Son, chapter 9, number 21. Pamphilus, near the end of the Apology translated by Rufinus, defending—or at least excusing—Origen’s error concerning the pre-existence of souls, and arguing against those who defended the translation of souls, describes two kinds of these people: the first of those who, while they taught that the souls of men are by traducion, yet defended that the first soul was of the substance of God; the second of those who asserted that that first soul was made by God out of nothing. Against the former, Pamphilus discourses thus: "Now, truly, those who affirm that souls come by traduction, and at the same time are sown with the bodily seed; if, as certain of them are accustomed to affirm, they say that the soul is nothing else than an insufflation of the Spirit of God, namely that which, in the beginning of the creation of the world, God is said to have insufflated into Adam, professing it to be of the very substance of God; how will not even these seem in a certain way to assert these things beyond the rule of Scripture and the reason of piety, that it is of the substance of God?" I scarcely doubt but that Jerome fabricated this calumny against Pamphilus from these words. Indeed, as Jerome felt with many of the ancients, the breath of life, which God is said to have insufflated into the first man, was the Holy Spirit Himself infused into the same man along with his soul. Thus in the *Commentaries on chapter IV of the Epistle to the Ephesians*, on those words: “Grieve not the holy Spirit, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption” (Ephes. IV, 30),
he notes this: “For we have been sealed by the holy Spirit of God, so that both our spirit and our soul may be imprinted with the seal of God, and that we may receive that image and likeness A to which we were created in the beginning. This seal of the holy Spirit, according to the utterance of the Savior, is sealed as God imprints it.” Where he interprets that image and likeness of God, in which man was formed in his very creation, as the seal of the holy Spirit: and it seems he did this entirely because he believed that the breath of life, which God is said to have breathed into man when He first formed him, was the holy Spirit. Tertullian spoke more clearly on this in book *De baptismo*, ch. 5, where, concerning the regeneration of man which takes place through baptism, he speaks thus: “Thus man is restored to God to the likeness of Him, who had been created in the image of God before, etc. For he received that Spirit of God, which he had then received from His breath, but had afterward lost through sin.” From this, therefore, it seems it came about that, from the fact that Pamphilus denied that the breath of the Spirit of God (surely understanding the breath, in agreement with the adversaries whom he refutes, as nothing other than the very soul of man) was of the substance of God, Jerome traduced him, as if he had taught that the Spirit of God, the third person of the Divinity, is not of the substance of God. Nowhere, moreover, do those things appear which Jerome later criticizes, namely, “that the souls of men fell from heaven, and that in this, that we have been changed from angels, in the restitution of all things, both angels and demons and men will be equal.” But since these things follow naturally from the pre-existence of souls, which Pamphilus attempts to excuse, Jerome seems to have reproached him as if those things had been said.
VIII. From these things it is permitted to understand what faith should be placed in Jerome, when he so sharply attacks this *Defense* of Origen. The holy doctor is nowhere consistent with himself: everywhere he contradicts himself. At first he had said that this [work] was solely by Pamphilus, later solely by Eusebius. Now he attributes it to Eusebius, now to Didymus, or to Rufinus, or to anyone else who, after the first book of Eusebius had been truncated of its head, might have joined the other members together. Now he says this is the very first volume of Eusebius himself, now the sixth; now that the same things and in the same words are contained in the first book of Eusebius, now that its writer changed some things from the book of Eusebius himself, now that he merely changed the meanings, now that he subtracted the actual testimonies and substituted others; now a few, now many; now, finally, that in Rufinus’s very Latin translation there are still to be found many scandals and most manifest blasphemies, now that Pamphilus is shown through it to be a defender of the Nicene faith. The holy doctor turns himself in every direction, he moves everything so that this book may not be of Pamphilus. Yet he could not be ignorant of Eusebius himself, whose writings B he had diligently frequented, in his *Ecclesiastical History*, book VI, ch. 39, openly testify that he along with the holy martyr Pamphilus together labored with joint study and effort on the *Apologetic for the Defense of Origen*, and that therefore this *Apology*, edited by Rufinus under the name of Pamphilus, which Jerome admits is the first volume of Eusebius himself, is of Pamphilus as well as of Eusebius. It seems, therefore, that Jerome attributed the same solely to Eusebius because Rufinus, toward whom at the time he was writing this he was no less hostile than toward Origen, had attributed it solely to Pamphilus; and therefore he attributed it again solely to Eusebius, in order to persuade more easily that it was infected with the Arian pestilence, and to derogate more surely from the faith and authority of Rufinus. But the holy doctor accomplishes nothing against the authority of Eusebius himself, of Socrates, of the anonymous writer published by the Rev. Father Lupus, of Photius, and of the others who adjudicate this to Pamphilus along with Eusebius; and it is sufficient for us that the chief author of the work is acknowledged by Eusebius and Photius as Pamphilus, so that we may judge that no blasphemies existed in it.
IX. It remains now that we should say something about the other five lost books. Socrates, in that context which we brought forward above, taken from his *Hist. eccles.*, book III, ch. 7, says that Pamphilus and Eusebius together wrote the life of Origen in that *Apology*, and there showed that Origen, who in all his books acknowledges that Christ was made man and endowed with a soul, specifically in the ninth tome of his *Commentaries on Genesis*, where he asserted that Adam indeed bore the type of Christ, but Eve that of the Church, was not the first to deal with this argument, but interpreted the tradition of the Church. Which thing Nicephorus repeats after Socrates in *Hist.*, book X, ch. 14. Eusebius also teaches in *Hist.*, book VI, ch. 23, that he had set forth in the second book of this *Apology* what movements were stirred up on account of the ordination of Origen, and what was decided by the prelates of the Churches concerning those same movements; and whatever other things Origen himself, while vigorous and flourishing in the preaching of the divine Word, had contributed. “Now the things that were set in motion concerning him on this account; and the things decreed regarding those stirred up by the leaders of the Churches; and all other things he had introduced, while in his prime, concerning the divine Word, needing a separate arrangement, we have recorded moderately in the second of the apologies we have made for him.” All of which Photius confirms in the *Bibliotheca*, codex CXVIII, with these words: “They say that Origen, during the persecutions under Severus, wrote to his father Leonidas, encouraging him toward the race of martyrdom, which he had also run well and was able to obtain the prize; and that he himself also hastened to strip for the stadium of the struggles, but his mother was able, even against his will, to restrain his impulse; and this he also indicates himself in a letter of his own.” (6) They say also that he, whether Pamphilus D had not yet seen those letters when in this *Apology* he was writing together with Pamphilus that Origen had finished his life with a famous martyrdom in the persecution of Decius; or Eusebius, without consulting Pamphilus, wrote these things alone.
A And very many others, who had made accurate inquiries about the man from those who had actually seen Origen, relate that he departed this life by a famous martyrdom, when Decius was venting his cruelty against the Christians in Caesarea itself. Others say that he lasted until the time of Gallus and Volusianus, and that he died at Tyre in his sixty-ninth year, and was committed to the earth there. B And this account is perhaps the truer one, if indeed the letters of his which are circulated as having been written after the persecution of Decius are not forgeries. They say that he both learned and taught every branch of knowledge. They say that this Origen, who, they also state, was nicknamed Adamantius—because the arguments which he would bind together seemed not unlike adamant chains—was a hearer and successor of Clement the Stromatist, and of the ecclesiastical school at Alexandria. They say that Clement was a pupil and successor of Pantaenus in the school, and that Pantaenus had heard those who had seen the apostles, and had indeed also heard some of them himself. C They say that the commotions against Origen flowed from this source: Demetrius was presiding over Alexandria, who used to praise Origen highly and counted him among his dearest friends. But Origen, having set out for Athens without the consent of his own bishop, was ordained presbyter, which was not proper. (7) Now Theotecnus was the one who held the high-priestly office at Caesarea in Palestine, who was the ordainer of Origen, having also the concurrence of Alexander of Jerusalem. Because of this, Demetrius’s affection turns to hatred, and his praises are changed into censures. And a synod of bishops and some presbyters is gathered D against Origen. But it, as Pamphilus says, decrees that Origen should move from Alexandria, and should neither remain in it nor teach, though he was by no means to be removed from the dignity of the priesthood. But Demetrius, together with some Egyptian bishops, also deposed him from his priesthood, with those who had voted with him also subscribing to the decision. When Origen was banished from Alexandria, Theotecnus of Palestine gladly received him to dwell in Caesarea, and handed over to him the full authority to teach. These are the causes from which he says the calumnies against Origen broke out. "He writes also to Fabian, the bishop at Rome, and to very many other rulers of churches, concerning the orthodoxy of his own faith; you have the proofs of these also, Theoctistus."