Writings Concerning Origen: Saint Pamphilus’ Apology for Origen

may confer upon you the grace of the truth known to you: yet I do not doubt that I shall cause the greatest offense to those who think themselves injured ^A by anyone who has not thought something ill of Origen. And although it is not my own judgment about him that you have inquired after, but that of the holy martyr Pamphilus, and you have asked that his book, which is said to have been written in Greek in defense of Origen, be translated into Latin for you; yet I do not doubt that there will be some who will consider themselves injured even by this, if we say anything in his favor, even in another's words. These persons, however, we ourselves entreat to do nothing with a presumptuous or prejudiced mind: but since we are to come to the judgment of God, let them not refuse to know what is true, lest they happen to sin through ignorance; but considering that to strike at the consciences of weak brethren with false accusations is to sin against Christ, let them not therefore lend their ear to accusers, nor learn the faith of another from someone else, especially when there is opportunity to test it face to face, and the confession of his own mouth shows what or how anyone believes. For it is written: "For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation" (Rom. X, 10): and: "By your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned" (Matt. XII, 37). Let the tenor of this little book, therefore, teach what Origen felt regarding each of the chapters of the holy Scriptures. ^B But concerning those things found in him that are contrary to one another, we shall teach the cause in the brief addition at the end. We, however, as it has been handed down to us by the holy Fathers, so do hold: that the holy Trinity is coeternal, and of one nature, and of one power, and of one substance: and that the Son of God in the last times became man, and suffered for our sins, and in that very flesh in which he suffered, he rose from the dead, on account of which he also bestowed the hope of resurrection upon the human race. We do not, however, say that the resurrection of the flesh comes about through any illusions, as some calumniate, but we believe that this very flesh in which we now live will rise again; we do not say one body instead of another, nor do we name a body other than this flesh. Whether, therefore, we speak of a resurrecting body, we speak according to the Apostle; for this is the name he used: or whether we speak of flesh, we confess according to the tradition of the Creed. For it is a foolish invention of calumny to think that a human body is anything other than flesh. Whether, therefore, it is called flesh according to the common faith, or body according to the Apostle which shall rise, it must be believed just as the Apostle has defined, that what shall rise, will rise in power and in glory; and it will rise an incorruptible and spiritual body; "for corruption will not inherit incorruption" (1 Cor. XV, 42 et seq., 50). ^C With these prerogatives of the future body or flesh saved, the resurrection of the flesh is to be believed completely and perfectly, so that the nature of the flesh is preserved the same, and the status and glory of the incorrupt and spiritual body is not infringed upon. For it is thus written: "These things are preached in Jerusalem in the Church of God by its holy priest John: these things we both say with him, and we hold." If anyone believes or teaches beyond these things, or thinks that we believe otherwise than we have set forth, let him be anathema. Therefore, if anyone wishes to have proof of our faith, let him have it from these things. If, however, we read anything, or give a reason for this our faith, we do so according to the Apostle, proving all things, holding fast what is good, abstaining from every form of evil (1 Thess. V, 21, 22); and as many as follow this rule, peace be upon them and upon the Israel of God. Amen (Galat. VI, 16).

APOLOGY OF PAMPHILUS THE MARTYR FOR ORIGEN. PREFACE.

^A or through the perversity of their minds, make it their business not only to accuse his sayings, but even to harbor hostile enmity against those who read them, acting with such persistence that they consider them worthy of absolutely no pardon, not even that which they are accustomed to grant, for example, to those who run to the books of the secular Greek writers or sometimes even to those of the heretics in their desire to inquire and to learn. They clearly imagine that it is a skill of critical judgment that ought to be granted to them alone, so that they know how to retain what has been well said by someone, but also know how to abstain from every form of evil; yet with regard to those who read the books of Origen, they think that this command is entirely excluded, by which they are ordered to become proven moneychangers, knowing what is good to retain, and to abstain from every form of evil*: but if anyone is seen reading his books, he is immediately to be drenched with the infamy of the heretics. Finally, toward many men of honest life and religious purpose, in whom they find no fault at all, they harbor enmity for this reason alone, if they have perceived their ^B study concerning the books of the aforementioned man to be more inclined, even inventing invidiously that he and his sayings are held in the place of the holy apostles or prophets by these people. But about this, I am not certain whether they throw out such things merely from a desire to slander, or if they have perhaps heard some such thing from certain simpler people who cherish the man with a more inclined affection. We, however, frequently perceive the things said by him with great fear of God and with all humility, when he asks for pardon for those things which, through excessive discussion and through much searching of the Scriptures, occur to the mind of one disputing: when he explains these, he is frequently accustomed to add and to profess that he does not pronounce these as a definitive judgment, nor does he conclude with a settled dogma, but rather inquires according to his ability and discusses the sense of the Scriptures, yet without professing that he has comprehended them entirely and perfectly; saying rather that he is in doubt about many things, nor is he certain that he has attained what is perfect and entire in all things. But sometimes we also find him professing to be stuck on many things, in which he indeed joins ^C the things that come into question, yet he does not append their solutions, but with all humility and truth he does not blush to confess that these things are not clear to him. We have also heard that saying frequently interwoven by him, which today not even those most unskilled of all his detractors disdain to say: that if anyone says or explains these passages better than he has discussed them, one ought to listen to the one who has spoken more correctly rather than to him. Furthermore, we observe him sometimes making diverse explanations of the same chapter; and with all reverence, as one who knows that he is speaking about the holy Scriptures, when he has set forth many things that have occurred to him, he instructs those who read to test each thing he has said, and to hold to that which the prudent reader has judged to be more correct; certainly because it was not hidden even from him that not all things which he had moved or discussed ought to be held as probable or fixed, for the reason that many things are believed to be mystical in the holy Scriptures and hidden in secrecy. Finally, if we attend more intensely to this, we shall easily know his whole sense from this, how entirely and catholically he has protested about all his Tracts in the preface to those books which he writes on Genesis.

^D ... and lazy, lest we even arrive at inquiry, with our Lord and Savior provoking us to this, we would certainly have drawn back our foot, considering that we are far from that magnitude of spiritual intelligence by which the intellect ought to be investigated regarding such great matters.

PAMPHILUS. And a little after he says:

ORIGEN. If, however, anything profound occurs in a discussion, this must indeed be spoken of, but not with every affirmation. For this is either of a rash man, and of one who has lost the sense of human infirmity and has forgotten himself; or certainly of perfect men, and of those who know confidently that they have learned from the Lord Jesus Himself, that is, from the Word of Truth and from Wisdom Herself through whom all things were made, and have acknowledged [it]: or of those who, having entered the whirlwind and darkness where God Himself is, have received from heaven the divine responses, into which even that Moses, having entered, was barely able either to understand or to utter such things. We, however, for the sole reason that it is moderately permitted, believe...

that we are disciples of the Lord Jesus, and we boast of this, yet we do not dare to say that we have received from Him, face to face, the understanding of those things which are recounted in the divine books; for I am certain that the world itself could not contain [the richness of] their meaning, according to its virtue and majesty. For this reason, we do not dare to pronounce upon these matters as the apostles could. But in this we offer thanks, that while many, not knowing their own lack of learning, announce their own disjointed and unordered movements—at times even inept and fabulous notions—with every intention, as if, so they think, they were proclaiming the most certain truth, we do not ignore our own ignorance regarding great matters and those things that are above us. ^B Pamphilus: Since, therefore, we hear that he speaks thus of himself, and that he makes such assertions with this frame of mind and desire, we marvel that some have been carried to such a degree of rashness that, while he judges himself with such humility, they claim that he asserts that his own books or sayings should be held as apostolic sermons or prophetic utterances, or that he himself is compared by anyone to the prophets or apostles. And certainly, that he was endowed with the honor of the presbyterate in the Church, that he led a most abstinent and highly philosophical life, that he observed a pure discipline of religion, and that he devoted himself to the Word of God and to doctrine more than any others, is beyond doubt, as indicated by those very certain signs of his labor and study that have reached us: especially through those treatises which he delivered nearly every day in the Church extemporaneously, and which scribes would transcribe to bequeath to the memory of posterity. It was therefore logical, given all these testimonies of his labors and studies, to embrace such a man; and neither to attribute to him, out of a desire for defense, more merit than is required by measure, nor, conversely, to condemn him easily out of the vice of detraction, and to rashly pronounce him a stranger to ecclesiastical doctrine, since the divine word, foreseeing both these precipices, has forbidden them, saying: *There shall not be in thy bag a larger weight and a smaller weight. For both are abominable in the sight of the Lord*. For to give to each what is worthy, this is the proper act of justice. For which reason, both a full measure and an equal weight are acceptable before God—not that which falsifies the truth, through which something is either granted more than merit demands, or is subtracted from the merits that are due. How much more rightly would these detractors act if, without any prejudice of mind, with all the religion of truth, which we are bound by charity to extend to all our neighbors, they understood that he too is one of ^C those nearest to us to whom we owe charity by commandment, and would read his books with that indulgence which he himself requests in his Prefaces, so that they might find something worthy of indulgence? But now, on the contrary, you may see them not sparing me with curses and reproaches; yet they deter those who have the zeal to understand the Scriptures according to the mandate of our Lord and Savior from the reading of his books, affirming that any other inept things, even those that profit nothing, ought to be read rather than his commentaries. In which they are often wont to suffer something ridiculous. For so that their contentious presumption, or, that I may speak more truly, their ^D foregone madness may be more easily exposed, it happens, either by chance or sometimes by design, that something of his is read in the ears of his detractors—the codex having no title—as if it were the work of another author. And it is pleasing and praised, and held in every admiration, so long as the name has not been revealed. But when it is known that the things which were pleasing are from Origen, they immediately displease, they are immediately said to be heretical; and those things which, a little before, were raised to heaven are, by the very same voices and the same language, plunged down to the depths. Moreover, it is also to be found that his accusers are sometimes such as do not know the Greek language; others are in every way unlearned; some, even if they seem to have some skill, are found not to have had the diligence to apply themselves to his books: or if it happens that they have read them, they have not immediately been of such erudition that they could attain the height of his meaning, by which they might have been able to perceive the things that he is accustomed to discuss from a different perspective according to the place and the cause. You may find many, whom if you ask in which books or in which places the things they censure were said, they confess that they do not know the things they are attacking, nor have they ever read them, but have heard others saying them. From which their entire judgment will seem full of ridicule, seeing as they judge and condemn things which, indeed, they have not even been able to learn or know beforehand. But in others, a new plague of madness and an unheard-of corruption of insanity has fallen, since, while so many of his volumes are considered full of all utility and instruction, and since there are perhaps quite rare and very few passages in which, even the more unlearned or, what is more true, the malevolent, might think themselves offended: all those things which they themselves confess to be Catholic and apt for the edification of the soul and instruction in learning they omit and neglect; nor do they learn anything from that place, from which they can and ought to profit; but those things alone...

^A which serve for calumny, they publish with the utmost zeal: so that those who perhaps have never learned what is good, may commit to memory those things which they themselves say are not good, in order that they may the more readily bring them forward, and may be able to concoct calumnies with greater practice. There is also another class of men, foul and shameful indeed, as far as the integrity of their morals is concerned, but more vehement and more detestable in their eagerness to accuse—whom the Greeks call ^B *phagoloedoroi* (those who devour reproaches)—who, although they devoted their highest efforts and sufficient attention to his books, so that they used him as their master in all things and bound themselves to him as if they were his special disciples, yet when it came to the point where they preferred to be called masters rather than disciples, and when they began to seek the applause of the audience, there, if by chance any of those listening happened to murmur against the things of Origen that were being praised, lest they should yield to the master in praise or in the judgment of fault, they immediately protest that Origen is a stranger to them, and confirm that they have nothing in common with his doctrine. They do not even hesitate to pronounce anathema against him, and they do not spare to utter curses; not even fearing that apostolic word where it is designated that "revilers shall not inherit the kingdom of God." 10 But the malice of these men, of whom we have spoken ^C above, has progressed to such an extent that some have even dared to write against him, and by published pamphlets to disparage a man who for so many years was a master of the Church, who grew old in the Catholic Church, and who fought so constantly and so bravely against those heresies which were assailing the Church at that time, that he overthrew all the foundations of their diabolical machination, not considering the labor of his studies, nor his continence, nor his instruction, nor his humility—which, above all his other virtues, contains the greatest grace—nor even certainly the fact that he was honored with the dignity of the presbyterate in the Church. And if all these things are not enough to check their tongues and restrain their speech, at least they ought to have contemplated how great a ^D ground for mocking the Gentiles, and how much [scandal] they provide the heretics, when they see those now being refuted whom they once thought to be assertors and defenders of the Christian dogma, and [when they see them] refuted by their own men, and rejoicing as if in a civil war in the fact that that man is attacked with impunity, whom they themselves could not attack with hostility. Since, therefore, very many of the simpler brethren are harmed by the aforementioned, not only by those who think ill of him, but also by those who, through a study of science and an understanding of the Scriptures, take notice of his writings among other books, such that you yourselves have also come into doubt, lest perhaps faith should be placed in the multitude or the authority of the calumniators concerning those things which are defamed everywhere without any regard: it seemed right to us, first of all, to remove this suspicion ^A of yours; and at the same time, through this opportunity of yours, to refute the calumnies of all who speak against him. And it seemed righter to us to proceed in this way, that we do not prepare a defense with our own words and assertions, but out of his own proper utterances, by which he himself in his own language testifies that those things which these men object are alien to him—that is, everything whatsoever that is preached contrary to the Catholic faith: because if we wished to assert these things in our own words, it might perhaps appear suspicious, in that we might have concealed anything of his if he had thought wrongly, out of love for him. But when we use the very words of the man himself who is being accused, and defend him against all the objections of his accusers in his own words, and not by our own assertion, what occasion for accusation can be left, at least for those who are always agitated—not out of a desire for true [knowledge], but as if by a certain lust for blaming? And since the conversation is now about one who is certainly dead among men, who ^B before all judges ought to carry more weight and more firmly on behalf of the deceased than letters and the writings of someone deceased? Beginning, therefore, with the evidence of his own writings to show what he thought about each point, we will gather testimonies primarily from those books which his accusers blame most heavily—that is, those which he wrote in peace and quiet in secret.

for they assert that these [books] differ for the most part from the ecclesiastical preaching; they consist principally of those books which he entitled *De Principiis* (Περὶ ἀρχῶν), in which very many things are accused by his detractors. Therefore, we shall set forth ^A in these first principles what sort of exposition of the faith he used; then, furthermore, from those things which he sensed sporadically either throughout those very books or the others, we shall show that he kept the apostolic preaching. The reading, therefore, from the first book *De Principiis* (Περὶ ἀρχῶν), which we promised, is this:

CHAPTER I. A Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Preaching.

Origen. ^B "For just as, while many among the Greeks and barbarians promised the truth, we ceased to seek it among all those who asserted it by false opinions, after we believed that Christ is the Son of God, and were persuaded that we must learn this from him: so, since there are many who think they perceive the things that are of Christ, and some of them think differently from those before them, while the ecclesiastical preaching, handed down from the apostles by the order of succession and remaining in the Churches until the present, is preserved—that alone is to be believed as truth which in no way deviates from the ecclesiastical tradition. ^C But it is necessary to know this, that the holy apostles, when preaching the faith of Christ, in some matters—whatever they believed to be necessary—handed them down most clearly to all believers, even to those who seemed to be lazier toward the inquiry of divine science, leaving the rationale of their assertion, however, to be inquired into by those who were worthy to receive the excellent gifts of the Spirit, and especially the grace of speech, wisdom, and knowledge through the Holy Spirit himself. But as to other matters, they merely said that they are, but were silent regarding how or whence they are; certainly so that, from those coming after them, any more studious lovers of wisdom and knowledge might have an exercise in which they could show the fruit of their wit—those, namely, who prepared themselves to be worthy and capable of wisdom. The species of those things that are manifestly handed down through the apostolic preaching are these: First, that one is God who created and composed all things, and who made the universe to be out of nothing; ^D the God from the first creation and the foundation of the world, the God of all righteous people, Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Enoch, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the twelve patriarchs, Moses, and the prophets; and that this God, in the last days, just as he had promised before through his prophets, sent the Lord Jesus Christ, first to call Israel, and in the second place also the Gentiles after the treachery of the people of Israel. This God, just and good, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, himself gave the Law, the prophets, and the Gospels, who is also the God of the apostles and of the Old and New Testaments. Then, furthermore, that Christ Jesus himself, who came, was born from the Father before all creation. Who, when in the creation of all things he had ministered to the Father (for by him all things were made), in the last times, emptying himself, was made man; he was incarnate when he was God, and being made man he remained what he was, God. He assumed a body like to our body, differing in this alone, that he was born from the Virgin and the Holy Spirit. And since this Jesus Christ was born and suffered in truth, and not in appearance, he sustained this common death and was truly dead: for he truly both rose from the dead; and after the resurrection, having conversed with his disciples, he was taken up. Then, furthermore, they handed down the Holy Spirit, associated in honor and dignity with the Father and the Son. In this, it is not yet clearly discerned whether [he] is born or unborn."

PAMPHILUS. Whoever inquires about the born or the unborn, without doubt has no opinion in him of a creature, otherwise he would have brought this also to the inquiry. And he adds:

ORIGEN. "Or whether the Son himself also is to be held as from God, or not. But those things now are to be inquired into with all one's might from the Holy Scripture, and to be investigated with sagacious scrutiny. Indeed, it is most clearly preached in the Churches that this Holy Spirit inspired each one of the saints, or prophets, or apostles, and that it was not a different Spirit in those of old, and another, however, in those who were inspired at the coming of Christ. After these things, that the soul, having a substance and life proper to itself, when it shall have departed from this world, will be disposed according to its merits, whether it is to inherit eternal life and beatitude, if its deeds have prepared this for it; or is to be consigned to eternal fire and punishments, if the guilt of its crimes has driven it thither."

^A But because there will be a time of the resurrection of the dead, when this body, which is sown in corruption, shall rise in incorruption; and that which is sown in shame, shall rise in glory. There is also this defined in the ecclesiastical preaching: that every soul is rational, has free will and volition; and that it also has a contest against the devil and his angels, and the opposing powers, from the fact that they strive to burden it with sins, while we, if we live rightly and prudently, strive to unburden ourselves of such 56 loads. Whence it is consequent to understand that we are not subjected to necessity, so that we are compelled in every way, even if we are unwilling, to do either good or evil deeds. For if we are of our own free will, perhaps some powers may seek to assault us towards sin, and others to assist us towards salvation, yet we are not compelled by necessity to act either rightly or wrongly. This is what those who say that the course and movements of the stars are the cause of human actions think occurs, not of those things which happen outside the freedom of our will, but of those which are placed in our power. Regarding the soul, however, 57 whether it is derived from the transmission of seed, so that its reason or substance is considered inserted into those very bodily seeds, or whether it has another beginning: and if this beginning itself is begotten or unbegotten, or certainly whether it is infused into the body from without, or not, is not distinguished with sufficiently manifest preaching. Concerning the devil and his angels, and the opposing powers, the ecclesiastical preaching has taught that these things exist, but as to what they are, or how they exist, it has not explained very clearly. Among many, however, this opinion is held, that this devil was an angel, and became an apostate and persuaded very many of the angels to decline with him, who even now are still called his angels. Moreover, there is also this in the ecclesiastical preaching: that this world was made, and began from a certain time, and is to be dissolved on account of its own corruption: yet what was before this world, or what will be after this world, has not now become known to many as a manifest thing; for no clear argument is brought forth concerning these in the ecclesiastical preaching. Then next, that the Scriptures were written through the Spirit of God, and possess a meaning, not only that which is in the manifest, but also another one hidden from many. For these things which are written are forms of certain sacraments and images of divine realities: about which there is one single sense of the whole Church—that indeed every law is spiritual, yet not that all things which the law breathes are known to all, except to those alone to whom the grace of the Holy Spirit is granted in the word of wisdom and knowledge.

ORIGEN: ^B ‹ There is also this in the ecclesiastical preaching, that there are certain angels of God, and good powers, who minister to it for the perfecting of the salvation of men: but when these were created, 58 or of what kind they are, or how they exist, is not distinguished with sufficient manifestation. But concerning the sun and the moon and the stars, whether they are living beings or inanimate, it is not clearly handed down. It is necessary, therefore, to use such things as elements and foundations, according to the command which says: "Illuminate for yourselves the light of knowledge," 18 for one who desires to compile a certain series and body from the reason of all these things, so that by manifest and necessary assertions he may inquire into the truth of each one, and, as we have said, make a single body from examples and affirmations, or those which he finds in the holy Scriptures, or those which he finds by the investigation of consequence itself and the tenor of right reason. ›

PAMPHILUS: ^C 59 These things indeed he discussed among the principles of the first book *Περὶ ἀρχῶν*, to show what those things are which have been manifestly handed down in the ecclesiastical preaching, and what those things are which are not openly defined. Concerning each of which, according to the division which he showed above, he argues sporadically in the remaining body of the books, indeed asserting those things which he showed above to be preached by the Church from the defined, with all proofs brought to bear, more manifestly and constantly from the holy Scriptures; but concerning those things about which he showed that they are not preached manifestly, nor from the defined in the Church, he uses opinions rather, and those senses which occur to one discussing and treating of such things, than any certain and defined assertions; that is to say, discussing and treating rather than affirming. In all things, however, he is mindful of his discourse, which he exposed above, when he says that only that truth is to be received and believed, which in nothing contradicts the apostolic and ecclesiastical dogmas: and not only in these books of which we have made mention above, but also in everything which he explains from the Scriptures, he is accustomed to use this opinion, and especially in those in which he explains several interpretations of one chapter, asserting this, that he himself, so that he might omit nothing which could be said, has brought forth many or different things, as far as he was able to perceive; but that that ought to be held which an apostolic and ecclesiastical reader would approve. He does the same thing also when he discusses the sects of heretics: having refuted and convicted all of whom, he holds one only, and that which he explained above, the opinion of Catholic truth. Concerning each of which, how he answered the heretics, and how, by destroying all their dogmas, he himself always confirmed the apostolic faith, if we wish... ^D

^A to collect all his sentiments, it is quite long, and will be as burdensome for us who write as it is tedious for those who read. But it is sufficient to put forward a few things, in which the indications of all of them may certainly be easily discerned. For one must not think against the Lord’s sentiment; for one who is found faithful in a few things ought to be held and believed faithful also in many. Therefore, we shall first set out from his books an example which conforms to the one above, from that book which he wrote on the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to Titus, concerning that chapter in which the Apostle says: *A heretical man after the first and second admonition avoid, knowing that he that is such an one is subverted and sinneth, being condemned by his own self.* Regarding whom he says what kind of person he is who is a heretic, and what kind of person he is who is Catholic and ecclesiastical.

ORIGENES. ^B The name of heresy, as far as I have been able to discern, is also indicated in the Epistle to the Corinthians in this way: *For there must be also heresies: that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.* And again, among the works of the flesh in the Epistle to the Galatians, the name of heresy is also inscribed, as he says: *Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, drunkenness, revellings, and such like, of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.* From which we recognize that, just as those who are defiled with fornications or uncleannesses, and immodesties, and the worships of idols, shall not obtain the kingdom of God, so also those who have declined into ^C heresy. For it is not to be thought that the absolute judgment of so great an Apostle can in any way vacillate. For he is the Apostle of all the Churches of Christ, chosen not by man, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father. Therefore, according to the authority of his judgment, we must, just as we avoid the other evils which he enumerated, also avoid the name of heresy, nor be mingled with such people in the communion of prayer.

PAMPHILUS. And after these things, with a few others inserted in between, he added:

ORIGENES. But let us describe what a heretical man is, to the best of our ability, according to what we are able to perceive. Everyone who professes to believe in Christ, ^D yet confesses another God of the Law and the Prophets, and another God of the Gospels, and does not say that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is He who is preached by the Law and the Prophets, but someone else, I know not whom, unknown to all and unheard of by all—such men we designate as heretics, however much they may weave together these figments with various and diverse and fabulous tales, as do the followers of Marcion, and Valentinus, and Basilides, and those who call themselves Tethians. But even Apelles, though he does not in all ways deny that the Law or the Prophets are of God, even he is designated a heretic, because he pronounces that this Lord who fashioned the world fashioned it to the glory of another unbegotten and good God: and that this unbegotten God, in the consummation of the age, sent Jesus Christ for the emendation of the world, having been asked by that God who had made it to send His Son for the correction of His world. And if indeed only he who thinks otherwise about God the Father than the rule of piety demands were to be considered a heretic, what was said above would suffice. But now, one and the same thing must be believed also concerning him who has felt anything false about our Lord Jesus Christ, whether according to those who say He was born of Joseph and Mary, as are the Ebionites and Valentinians, or according to those who deny His primogeniture, and [deny that He is] the God of all creation, and the Word, and the Wisdom, which is the beginning of the ways of God before anything was made, founded before the ages and begotten before all the hills, but say He is a mere man: or according to those who, while they do indeed confess Him to be God, yet [deny that He] assumed a soul and an earthly body: who, under the pretense as it were of attributing greater glory to the Lord Jesus, testify that all things which were done by Him were done in appearance rather than truly done: and who neither confess that He was born of the Virgin, but that He appeared in Judea as a man of thirty years. Others, indeed, believe that He was begotten of the Virgin, but they confirm that He seemed to have been born of a Virgin, yet did not truly give birth, asserting indeed that the sacrament of His putative generation was hidden even from the Virgin. How are these not to be placed far from the Church, since, languishing with the disease of *philarchia* [the love of preeminence], they established dogmas by which they might turn away disciples to their own name

^A nor is it without danger to the Church that those be joined to its number who say that the man, the Lord Jesus, was foreknown and predestined, and that He did not exist substantially and properly before His fleshly advent, but that, being born a human, He possessed in Himself only the deity of the Father. Just as it is dangerous to join those who, more superstitiously than religiously—in order that they may not appear to say there are two gods, nor again to deny the deity of the Savior—assert one and the same ^B subsistence of the Father and the Son; that is, they accept two names according to the diversity of causes, yet maintain that one *hypostasis* subsists, that is, one person underlying two names, who are called in Latin Patripassians.

But also, if there are any who say that the Holy Spirit is one being who was in the prophets, and another who was in the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, they admit the same crime of impiety, for they, insofar as it lies within them, sever the nature of the deity and ^C split the one God of the Law and the Gospels. Moreover, those who do not say that all human souls are of one and the same nature or substance, but that there are diverse natures of souls, are to be numbered among the heresies that "speak iniquity against the Most High" (Ps. LXXII, 8) and accuse His justice and iniquity. Furthermore, those who strive to take away the power of free will from souls are to be judged as bringing a certain stain upon common human life and the virtue of continence by these pernicious dogmas, lest any act, word, or thought of human intent be considered a good thing: from which the human mind is fashioned toward contempt for and negligence of divine judgment.

There must also be faith within the ecclesiastical order concerning the punishments of sins, and concerning those who are to receive the rewards of good conduct and life in the kingdom of the Lord through His just judgment. If, therefore, anyone attempts to change or subvert anything of what we have set forth above, he is, as one perverse and condemned by himself according to the sentence of the Apostle (Tit. III, 11), to be regarded similarly by us who obey his precepts. Let there also be established the ecclesiastical ^D faith concerning the resurrection of the dead, regarding which the holy apostle Paul speaks thus: that if anyone denies the resurrection of the dead, it follows that he denies the resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. XV, 13).

Let there be held, nonetheless, in the ecclesiastical order, a rationale concerning the devil and all his army: that they foment certain struggles and contentions against all men, but especially against those who believe in our Lord Jesus Christ. And although they cannot impose the necessity of sinning through these struggles and contentions, they are able to persuade and deceive for the purpose of subversion those who do not fortify their hearts with every precaution. It must be held in ecclesiastical observations that no one of men has been predestined by God to destruction, but that each one of the perishing perishes through his own negligence and fault, who, having the freedom of the will, could and should have chosen what is good. The same is to be thought concerning the devil himself, who is described in the sight of the omnipotent Lord as having resisted (Dan. X, 13; Apocal. XII, 7), and as having abandoned his own state in which he had been immaculate (Jud. 6): the one who surely could have remained until the end in this state in which he was from the beginning, had he wished.

I have, as I think, designated and described for us who and what sort the heretic might be, and what his dogmas and false opinions are, and what the purity of ecclesiastical observance is.

PAMPHILUS. And after a few words he added these:

ORIGEN. "Some have certainly inquired whether they ought to be called a heresy or a schism, those who are named Cataphrygians, who observe false prophets and say: 'Do not come near me, for I am holy' (Isa. LXV, 5): for I have not taken a wife, nor is my throat an open sepulcher (Ps. CXL, 3), but I am a Nazarene of God, not drinking wine as they do."

PAMPHILUS. These are the words of one who is accused as if he were a heretic, and a corruption and perdition of souls, by those who have not learned from the Prophet to set a gate for their mouth and bars for their lips.

These things were not said by him in public, that is, in the common assembly of the Church, lest he should be thought to have adapted his discourse to please his hearers; but we have brought forward these passages from those books which he dictated in secret, by himself, with no one acting as mediator or witness. Here I wish you to consider carefully what he said: that if anyone changes any of these things, he is a heretic, and sins by being placed in a state of subversion, and is condemned by himself, according to the sentence of the Apostle; whose authority we also obey and whose opinion we ought to hold. Since, then, these things are so, I deem it necessary to question these very accusers of his: whether they themselves think otherwise ^B than is expressed by his voice, regardless of whether they consider him a heretic or a Catholic. Let them say what other ecclesiastical dogmas exist, if these are not those which he set out above. And let these things be said generally regarding all the ecclesiastical dogmas he has spoken of. But let us proceed further, and indicate what he felt specifically regarding particular and especially principal matters—regarding the holy and blessed Trinity, that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—and let us bring into the midst those things which he commanded to be inserted in the various volumes of his work, so that his opinion on the greatest and most divine matters may be shown, and that by the mouth of two or three witnesses ^C every word of his defense may stand. He indicates, therefore, what he felt concerning God the Father Almighty in these very books, which are celebrated as much as possible by his accusers, that is, *On First Principles*, writing these things:

CHAPTER II. On God the Father Almighty.

Origen. Every sense, therefore, which suggests that something corporeal should be understood concerning God, having been refuted as far as we were able, we say according to the truth that God is indeed incomprehensible and inestimable. For if that which we have been able to feel or understand concerning God is something, it must necessarily be believed that He is better than what we felt by many long ways. For just as if we were to see someone who can barely ^D look at a spark of light or the light of a very small lamp, and we were to wish to teach the one whose eyes are capable of more light than we mentioned above about the brilliance and splendor of the sun, would it not be necessary for us to say to him that all this light which you see is ineffably and inestimably better and more excellent than the splendor of the sun? So too, when our mind is enclosed within the walls of flesh and blood, and is rendered duller and more obtuse on account of its participation in such matter, although it is held to be far superior by comparison to a corporeal nature, yet when it strives toward incorporeal things and probes for an intuition of them, then it scarcely attains to the plane of some spark or lamp. But what, among all intellectual—that is, incorporeal—things, is as outstanding in all, as ineffably and inestimably excellent, as God? Whose nature, indeed, the eye of the human mind, however pure and limpid it might be, cannot reach and behold. But it does not seem absurd if, for a clearer manifestation of the matter, we make use of another comparison. Sometimes our eyes cannot behold the very nature of light, that is, the substance of the sun; but by looking at its splendor, or at rays infused into windows perhaps, or into any brief receptacles of light, we can consider how great the lamp or the source itself is of corporeal light. Thus, therefore, the works of Divine Providence and the art of this universe are, as it were, certain rays of God’s nature, by comparison to His very substance and nature. Because, therefore, our mind cannot behold God Himself as He is, it understands the Parent of the universe from the beauty of the works and the elegance of the creatures. God, therefore, is not to be thought of as any body, or as being in a body, but as an intellectual nature, simple, admitting nothing at all of adjunction in Himself, so that He may not be believed to have any greater or lesser thing in Himself, but that He is in every part a *monad* and, so to speak, a *henas*, and a mind, and a font from which is the beginning of the entire intellectual nature or mind. But a mind, in order to be moved or to work, does not require a corporeal place, nor sensible magnitude, nor corporeal habit or color, nor does it require at all any other of those things which are proper to body or matter. For this reason, that simple nature, which is entirely mind, cannot have any delay or hesitation so that it might move or work something, lest by such adjunction the simplicity of the divine nature should seem to be circumscribed or hindered in any way, so that what is the beginning of all might be found to be composite and diverse and be many, not one.

that it ought to be alien to all mixture, and that it consists in one alone, so to speak, species of deity. ^A

PAMPHILUS. Thus he writes concerning the divine nature in the first book *On First Principles*. But in the second, concerning the fact that the same God is of the Old and New Testaments, he refers to it in this way:

ORIGEN. ‹Having briefly digested these in order, as we were able, it is consequent, according to that which was proposed from the beginning, to confute also those who think that there is another God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, besides Him who either gave the answers of the Law to Moses, or sent the prophets, who is the God of the fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For it is necessary first that we be strengthened in this reasoning of the faith. We must therefore consider that which is frequently said in the Gospels, and is added to each and every act of our Lord and Savior: *That it might be fulfilled which was said by the Prophet such and such*: since it is manifest that the prophets are of that God who made the world. From the very consequence, therefore, it is concluded that He who sent the prophets ^B foretold what was to be done concerning Christ: and there is no doubt that these things were foretold not by someone alien to Him, but by His own Father. But even that which is frequently brought forward by the Savior or His apostles as examples from the Old Testament indicates nothing else than that authority is attributed to the ancients by the Savior and His disciples. But that also which the Savior, provoking His disciples to kindness, says: *Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect, who commands His sun to rise upon the good and the bad, and rains upon the just and the unjust*: suggests to any man of even small intelligence the most evident understanding, that He proposes for imitation to His disciples no other God than the maker of the sun and the giver of rain.› ^C

PAMPHILUS. After these things, affirming in the subsequent sections with many arguments and examples from the Scriptures, he shows that one and the same God is the God of the Law, and of the Gospels, and of the prophets, and of the apostles, just and good, and the Lord of things visible and invisible and of the whole universe. How he thought on God the Father, therefore, has become clear from these writings of his which we have set forth above. Let us now see, therefore, how he discourses also concerning the Son of God.

CAPUT III. Concerned with the deity of the Son of God.

ORIGEN. ‹Having therefore considered according to our meager strength, from His ^D works rather than from the contemplation of our senses, the divine nature, we nevertheless contemplate His visible creatures and also, by faith, the invisible things, because human frailty can neither see all things with the eyes nor grasp them by reason, for the reason that we men are the weakest and most fragile animal of all rational beings; for those things which are held either in heaven or above the heavens are more excellent: it remains that we seek the medium of all these creatures and of God, that is, the mediator, whom the Apostle Paul proclaims the firstborn of all creation. For seeing those things which are reported in the holy Scriptures concerning His majesty and contemplating that He is called the invisible image of God, the firstborn of all creation, and that in Him were created all things, whether in heaven or on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, all things were created through Him and in Him, and He is before all, and all things consist in Him, who is the head of all, having as His only head God the Father, as it is written: *But the head of Christ is God*,—perceiving also what is written: *For no one knows the Father, except the Son; nor does anyone know the Son, except the Father*; (for who can know what is wisdom, unless He who begat her? Or who knows clearly what is truth, unless the Father of truth? Who indeed could investigate the entire nature of His Word, and of God Himself who is from God, unless God alone, with whom was the Word?) We must hold for certain that this Word, or reason, if it must be so called, this wisdom, this truth, no one knows except the Father alone: of whom, as it is written: I do not think that even the world itself can contain the books that would be written concerning the glory and majesty of the Son of God. For it is impossible to commit to writing those things which pertain to the Savior's glory.›

PAMPHILUS. We have brought forward this one testimony concerning the deity of the Son of God from those books which are most strongly impugned by the accusers. But there is no doubt that he thinks in the same sense also in the rest, nor is he contrary to himself. Concerning the fact that the Father is not before the Son, but the Son is co-eternal with the Father, he says this in his first book *On Genesis*:

ORIGEN. ‹For God did not begin to be a Father, when previously He was not a Father, afterwards becoming a Father, as if impeded by certain causes, by which mortal men are wont to be impeded, so that they cannot at any time be fathers. For if God is always perfect, and there is present to Him...›

^A the power to be Father, and it is good for Him to be the Father of such a Son, why does He delay, and why does He deprive Himself of this good, and why, if it may be so said, is He not made Father from the moment He can be Father? The same must be said also regarding the Holy Spirit.

PAMPHILUS. Another testimony on the same matter from the books of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

ORIGENES. ‹ But as for the eternal light, what else is to be thought than God the Father, who was never without the splendor, while indeed he was the light? For the light cannot be understood at all without its splendor. If this is true, there never was a time when the Son was not. He was not, however, as we have said concerning the eternal light, unbegotten, lest we should see two principles of light being introduced, but as the splendor of unbegotten light, having that very light as its beginning and source, begotten indeed from it; yet there was not when He was not. ›

PAMPHILUS. Another testimony on the same matter from the books of the Epistle to the Romans.

ORIGENES. ‹ Which He had promised, he says, through his prophets in the holy Scriptures concerning his Son, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. He was made what he was not before. For it is manifest that according to the flesh he was not before: but according to the Spirit he was before, and there was not when he was not. ›

PAMPHILUS. Item, in the first book *On First Principles*. That the generation of the Son of God is beyond any beginning.

ORIGENES. ‹ If, therefore, it has once been rightly accepted that the Only-begotten Son of God is His wisdom substantially subsisting, I do not know if our sense ought to wander further to suspect ^B that perhaps his very subsistence has anything corporeal, since everything that is corporeal is marked either by habit, or by color, or by magnitude. And who of sound sense ever sought for habit, or color, or the measure of magnitude in Wisdom, by which it is Wisdom? But how can any one who knows or feels anything pious about God, believe or even think that God the Father was ever without this generation of Wisdom, even for a point of a moment? For either he will say that God could not beget Wisdom before He begat it, so that he might give birth to it afterwards to be what it was not: or that He could indeed, but (which it is not lawful even to say of God) He did not wish to beget; both of which it is evident to all are absurd and impious, that is, that either God was progressing so that He might be able to do what He could not, or that, being able, He delayed to beget Wisdom. For this reason we know God the Father as always having His Only-begotten Son, born indeed from Him and drawing what He is from Him, but without any beginning, not only that which can be distinguished by some periods of time, but not even that which the mind is accustomed to contemplate by itself alone, and, to speak so, to discern by naked intellect and spirit. Beyond every beginning, therefore, that can be either spoken or understood, it must be believed that Wisdom was begotten. ›

PAMPHILUS. Another testimony ^C on the same.

ORIGENES. ‹ But as for him who gives a beginning to the Word of God, or the Wisdom of God, consider whether he does not rather cast his impiety upon the unbegotten Father Himself, since he denies that the Father was always, and that He begat the Word, and had Wisdom in previous times, or ages, or in whatever else can be named. ›

PAMPHILUS. Item, another testimony on the same.

ORIGENES. ‹ It follows, therefore, that there is another virtue subsisting in its own property, as the word of Scripture says, a certain vapor of the first and unbegotten virtue of God, this which truly is, drawing from thence: but there is not a time when it was not. For if anyone wishes to say that it did not exist before, but afterwards came into subsistence, let him state the cause why the Father, who made it subsist, did not do so before. But if ^D any seed gives a beginning by which this vapor is made from God...

reached by virtue, he will be questioned ^A again why he did not also ask about that which he called the beginning: and thus, ever inquiring about what came before and ascending by the word of questioning, we shall arrive at that understanding, that since God was always able and willing, it never could have been fitting, nor could any cause have existed, for Him not to have always possessed that which He was both willing and able to have as good. From this it is shown that this vapor of the virtue of God always existed, having no beginning other than God Himself. For it was not fitting for Him to have any other beginning than Himself, from whom He is and is born, God. But according to the Apostle saying that Christ is the power of God, He must now be called not only the vapor of the virtue of God, but also virtue from virtue.

PAMPHILUS. Another testimony concerning the same.

ORIGEN. ^B "Sempiternal" or "eternal" is properly said of that which had neither a beginning in order to exist, nor can it ever cease to be what it is. This is indicated in John when he says: "For God is light" (1 John 1, 5). Now the splendor of His light is His Wisdom, not only in that it is light, but in that it is sempiternal light, so that His Wisdom is the splendor of eternity. If this is understood in its entirety, it clearly declares that the subsistence of the Son descends from the Father Himself, but not temporally, nor from any other beginning, except, as we have said, from God Himself.

PAMPHILUS. Another testimony from the first book concerning the eternity of the Son of God and His inseparability from the Father.

ORIGEN. It is unspeakable and illicit, ^C indeed, for the Father God to be equated in the generation of His only-begotten Son, and in His subsistence, with anyone among men or other living creatures who generates; rather, there must be something set apart and worthy of God, for which there can be found no comparison at all, not only in things, but not even in thought or sense, so that human thought might be able to grasp how the unbegotten God becomes the Father of the only-begotten Son. For there is an eternal and sempiternal generation, just as splendor is generated from light. ^D For not because splendor is generated inseparably from light, and as long as the light remains, the splendor also remains forever. Our Savior, therefore, who is the Wisdom of God (and Wisdom itself is the splendor of eternal light) is generated inseparably and unceasingly from the Father. For thus also Wisdom itself says of itself through Solomon: "He generates me before all the hills" (Prov. 8, 25). For He did not say, "He generated me before all the hills," but, "He generates me." In which the significance of sempiternity is contained.

CAPUT IV. About the Holy Spirit.

ORIGEN. It is time now, according to our ability, to write a few things about the Holy Spirit, whom our Lord and Savior in the Gospel according to—

John called the Paraclete. Just as it is certain ^A that darkness does not comprehend the light. Similarly, the nature of the Holy Spirit, which is holy, does not receive defilement. For it is naturally or substantially holy. But if any other nature is holy, it has this by assumption or inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so that it may be sanctified, not possessing this by its own nature, but as an accident; for which reason it can also fall away from what is accidental. Thus also one can possess an accidental justice, from which it is also possible for one to fall away. But one also has wisdom, which is nonetheless accidental, even though it is placed within our power by our study and by the merit of our life, if we devote ourselves to wisdom, to become wise; and if we always maintain that study, ^B we always participate in wisdom; and it happens to us in greater or lesser measure, either according to the merit of our life or the quantity of our study.

PAMPHILUS. That the Trinity is equal to itself, and that the Holy Spirit is not a creature. From the first book On First Principles.

ORIGEN. Concerning the Holy Spirit, that He is, many Scriptures have taught us, just as David says in the fiftieth Psalm: "And take not thy holy spirit from me." And in Daniel it is said: "The holy spirit which is in thee." In the New Testament, moreover, we are taught by abundant testimonies, when it is recorded that the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ, and when the Lord Himself breathed upon the apostles after the resurrection, saying: "Receive the Holy Spirit." And it is said to Mary by the angel: "The Holy Spirit ^C will come upon thee." Paul indeed teaches that no one can say "Lord Jesus," except in the Holy Spirit. And in the Acts of the Apostles, through the imposition of apostolic hands, the Holy Spirit was given in baptism. From all of which we have learned that the substance of the Holy Spirit is of such great authority and dignity that it is certain that ^D darkness does not comprehend the light.

For if he has such majesty that he who says a word against the Son of Man may be heard to hope for forgiveness, while he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit has no forgiveness either in the present age or in the future, ^A who would not be struck with wonder at how great the majesty of the Holy Spirit is?

PAMPHILUS. And after a few words he added:

ORIGEN. Nevertheless, up to the present we have been able to find no passage in the Holy Scriptures through which the Holy Spirit could be called a production or a creature.

PAMPHILUS. And after inserting several testimonies concerning the power of the Holy Spirit, after a while he also added these words:

ORIGEN. If the Holy Spirit knows the Father as the Son reveals Him, then He came from ignorance to knowledge; but it is both impious and foolish to confess the Holy Spirit and [yet] ascribe ignorance to Him. For He did not come by progress to that state in which He is the Holy Spirit, as if He were something else before He was the Holy Spirit, such that one might dare to say that at the time when He was not yet the Holy Spirit, He did not know the Father, and afterward, when He received knowledge, He also became the Holy Spirit. If this were the case, He would never be held in the unity of the Trinity, unless He were always the Holy Spirit. ^B

PAMPHILUS. And after a few words he added:

ORIGEN. Yet it seems right to inquire what is the cause that he who is regenerated through God unto salvation has need of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and will not receive salvation unless the Trinity be integral, ^C and it is impossible to be a participant of either the Father or the Son without the Holy Spirit. Regarding which we shall, without doubt, find it necessary to describe the special operation of the Holy Spirit, the special operation of the Father, or of the Son. I therefore suppose that the work of the Father and of the Son ^D is present both in the holy and in the sinners, in rational humans and in irrational animals; but also in those things which are inanimate, and in all things that exist absolutely. The operation of the Holy Spirit, however, does not reach at all either to those things which are inanimate, or to those which are indeed living, but are mute. Moreover, it is not to be found even in those who are indeed rational beings, but who are placed in wickedness and have not turned at all toward better things. But I suppose that the work of the Holy Spirit is only in those who are already turning themselves to better things and are walking along the ways of Christ Jesus—that is, those who are walking in new acts and are remaining in God. For that the operation of the Father and of the Son is both in the holy and in the sinners is manifested by the fact that all who are rational are partakers of the Word of God, that is, of reason, and through this they carry within themselves certain seeds sown of wisdom and knowledge, which is Christ. But this very thing, that every creature exists and remains, is the operation of God the Father, who said, "I am who I am," which reaches over all. For He Himself is the one who commands His sun to rise over the good and the bad, and rains upon the just and the unjust.

^A

NEW INTERPRETATION

PAMPHILUS. And after much assertion concerning the Father and the Son through examples from the Scriptures, he added these things:

ORIGEN. We find that the participation of the Holy Spirit is held by the holy alone. For this reason it is said: "No one can say," (31) "Jesus is Lord, except in the Holy Spirit." And scarcely are the apostles themselves held worthy to hear: "You will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you." For this reason, and consequently, I think, that he who sins against the Son of Man is worthy of pardon, for he who is a participant of the Word or of reason, if he ceases to live rationally, seems to have fallen into ignorance or foolishness, and on account of this to merit pardon: but he who has already been held worthy of the participation of the Holy Spirit, and has turned back, this one is said to have blasphemed in deed and act against the Holy Spirit. ^B

PAMPHILUS. (32) That just as the Father knows the beginnings of all things that are, and the ends, so also the Son, and so also the Holy Spirit knows, (33) for the reason that it is possible for God to know every creature.

From the Fourth Book

ON PRINCIPLES

ORIGEN. (34) The Apostle Paul, through the Holy Spirit who searches even the deep things of God, searching into the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God, and yet not reaching the end, and, if I may so say, to the ultimate knowledge, ^C exclaims in desperation of the thing and in amazement, saying: "O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!" (35) And that he exclaimed this out of the desperation of perfect comprehension, hear him saying himself: "How inscrutable are the judgments of God, and how unsearchable His ways!" For he did not say that the judgments of God could be searched with difficulty, but that they could not be searched at all: nor did he say that His ways could be investigated with difficulty, but that they could not be investigated. For however much one may advance by searching, and may progress with more intent study (36), aided also by the grace of God, and illuminated in mind, he will not be able to arrive at the perfect end of those things which are sought; nor does any mind that is created have the possibility in any way to comprehend: but when it has found a little from those things which are sought, it again sees other things which must be sought. And if it should arrive at those as well, it will again look upon many more from those which ought to be sought. For which reason also the most wise Solomon, contemplating the nature of things through wisdom, says: "I said, I will be wise, and wisdom itself was far from me, far more than it was: and who shall find the deep height?" But even Isaiah, knowing that the beginnings of things cannot be found by mortal nature, and indeed not even by those natures which, although they are more divine (37) than the human is, yet have been made and are themselves created: knowing therefore that from none of these can either the beginning or the end be found, he says: "Tell the former things which have been, and we will know that you are gods: or announce what are the latest things, and then we will see that you are gods." (38) For the Hebrew teacher also taught thus, because the beginnings of all things or the end could not be comprehended by any, except only by the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Holy Spirit, ^D and for that reason he said that Isaiah had spoken through a figure of a vision that two seraphim alone are those who with two wings cover the face of God, and with two they cover the feet, and with two they fly, and (39) cry to one another saying: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Sabaoth," to be the only-begotten Son of God and the Holy Spirit. We ourselves think that even that which is said in the Canticle of Habakkuk (III, 2), "In the midst of two animals," or "of two lives, you will be known," ought to be understood concerning Christ and the Holy Spirit. This interpretation of Origen, however, so moved the stomach of Jerome that he calls it impious and detestable in his book *On Isaiah* and in epistle 41, otherwise 65, to Pammachius and Oceanus. But see how it is excused in *Origenianorum*, book II, question 2, number 26.

..., Holy, holy, holy Lord God of Sabaoth, the whole earth is full of thy glory.” That therefore only the Seraphim have both their wings upon the face of God and upon his feet, ^A it must be pronounced, that neither the host of holy angels, nor the holy thrones, nor the dominations, nor the principalities, nor the powers can know entirely the beginning of all things and the end of the universe. But it is to be understood that those holy ones whom we have enumerated are spirits and virtues proximate indeed to the beginnings themselves, and attain as much as the rest are not able to achieve. Nevertheless, however much those virtues may have been able to learn, and many things more than their inferiors, it is yet impossible for them to comprehend all things, because it is written: “The most part of the works of God are in secret.” Whence also it is desirable that each one should always extend himself according to his strength toward those things which are before, forgetting those that are ^B behind, unto better works, as also unto a purer sense and understanding, through Jesus Christ our Savior, to whom is glory for ever and ever.

CHAPTER V.

Of the Incarnation of the Word of God.

ORIGENES. ^A In every part of the world, in all Greece and among foreign nations, there are numberless and immense multitudes who, having abandoned their ancestral laws and those whom they thought to be gods, have given themselves over to the observance of the Law of Moses and to the discipleship of the words of Jesus Christ; and this not without great hatred from those who venerate idols; so that they are frequently tormented by them, and sometimes even led to their death. They embrace, however, and keep with every affection the doctrine of the sermon of Christ. And it is to be seen how in a short time the religion itself has grown, profiting by the punishments and deaths of its followers, but also by the plundering of goods, and by every kind of affliction tolerated by them. And it is most especially wonderful that not even the teachers themselves are either sufficiently capable or sufficiently numerous. Yet this discourse is preached in the whole world, so that Greeks and barbarians, the wise and the foolish, ^C accept the religion of the Christian doctrine. From which there is no doubt that these things are not brought about by human strength or resources, so that the discourse of Jesus Christ may prevail among the minds and spirits of all with every power and persuasion. For it is manifest that these things were even predicted by him, and confirmed by divine responses from him, when he says that you will be led before presidents and judges for my sake, in testimony...

NEW INTERPRETATION.

But the whole of Greece, as well as Barbary [the foreign nations] which lies throughout our whole world, possesses numberless people who, having abandoned their ancestral laws and the gods they had accepted, keep with the highest zeal the Mosaic laws and the discipline of the words of Jesus Christ, although those who adhere to the Mosaic law are an object of hatred to the worshippers of idols; and besides hatred, those who have accepted the doctrine of Jesus Christ find themselves in danger of their lives. And if we should also consider how in so few years, with so many plots laid against the Christians, of whom some have been killed and others deprived of their goods, this doctrine could — although the number of teachers is otherwise not great — be preached everywhere in the world, so that Greeks and barbarians, the wise and the unwise, have joined themselves to the true worship of God through Jesus Christ, we shall not hesitate to say that it is a matter greater than human strength, especially ^D since in our text. But the books of the Principles, both printed and manuscripts, have: *to the observance of the Law of Moses and discipleship, etc.*, and it seems it ought to be read according to the Greek.

^A And I will say to them: "Depart from me, all you workers of iniquity, I never knew you." For if these things had been spoken by Him in vain, so that they did not come true, perhaps it might have been plausible to say so; but since the things spoken with such authority have come to pass, it manifests that God truly became man and delivered saving doctrines to men. And what need is there to say also that Christ was prophesied to appear ^B at the time when the rulers and leaders from the loins of Judah would fail, when He to whom it belongs comes—manifestly the kingdom—and the expectation of the nations arrives? For it is clearly evident from history and from those things observed today, that from the times of Jesus there have been no longer kings of the Jews; since all Jewish affairs in which they prided themselves—I mean those regarding the temple, the altar, the performed worship, and the garments of the high priest—have been abolished. For the prophecy that said was fulfilled: "For many days the children of Israel shall sit, without a king, and without a leader, and without a sacrifice, and without an altar, and without priesthood, and without revelations." And we use these words ^C against those who, while being pressed by those things spoken by Jacob to Judah in Genesis, argue that the ethnarch from the race of Judah continues to rule the people, and that those from his seed have not failed until the advent of Christ, which they imagine. For if the children of Israel sit for many days without a king, nor a leader, nor a sacrifice, nor an altar, nor priesthood, nor revelations; and from the time the temple was torn down, there is no longer a sacrifice, nor an altar, nor priesthood, it is clear that the ruler from Judah has failed, and the leader from his loins. And since the prophecy says, "A ruler shall not fail..."

NEW INTERPRETATION

which was to come about because of the sins of the former people, and which happened through none other than Jesus. For they themselves, he says, "have provoked me with that which is not God, they have vexed me with their idols; and I will provoke them with that which is not a nation, and with a foolish nation will I vex them." And it is most clearly possible to understand how the Hebrews, who are said to have provoked God with that which is not God, and to have vexed him with their idols, were themselves provoked to jealousy by the foolish "not-nation," which God chose through the coming of Christ Jesus and his disciples. We see, therefore, our calling, that not many are wise according to the flesh, not many are powerful, not many are noble, but God chose the foolish things of the world that he might put to shame the wise; and God chose the base and despised things, and the things that are not, that he might bring to nothing those things that before were; and let not carnal Israel—for so he is called by the Apostle—boast; let not, I say, flesh boast in the sight of God. But what must be said concerning the prophecies in the Psalms regarding Christ, in that one especially which is inscribed, "A canticle for the beloved," where it is reported that his tongue is the "pen of a ready writer: fair in beauty above the sons of men, because grace has been poured out in his lips." For a proof of the grace poured out in his lips is this: that after a short time of his teaching—for he taught for about a year and a few months—the world was filled with his teaching and the religion of God through him. For "in his days righteousness has sprung up," and "a multitude of peace" remaining "unto the end," which is called the "taking away of the moon," and it remains to have dominion "from sea to sea, and from the rivers unto the ends of the earth." And there is given ^C

NEW INTERPRETATION.

^A in his lips; this is, that he taught for a short time (for he taught for a year and a few months), yet the whole world was filled with the proclamation and faith of his piety. Righteousness therefore arose in his days, and the abundance of peace continues to the end; this end is called the "taking away of the moon," and he shall rule from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth. And a sign was given to the house of David; for a virgin conceived in the womb and brought forth Emmanuel, which is interpreted "God with us," and that which the prophet himself says is fulfilled: "God with us: know, O nations, and be overcome." For we have been overcome and conquered, we who from among the nations have been captured by the grace of his word. But the place of his birth was also foretold in Micah: "And you," he says, "Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means the least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come forth a leader, who will shepherd my people Israel." And seventy weeks were fulfilled until Christ the leader, according to Daniel. And he who was predicted through Job has come, he who is to consume the great whale, and who has given power to his true disciples to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and upon all the power of the enemy, so that they are harmed by nothing by them. ^B

NEW INTERPRETATION

PAMPHILUS. These are the main points, that is, concerning the Holy Trinity, which is Origen's faith, which we have taught from the very few testimonies ^C assumed from his many volumes. And what is so right, what is so true, what is so catholic, what certainly more useful for the instruction of all, or even among those very people who rage against him with hostile minds, what is so irreprehensible? And indeed, in summary, it would have sufficed to have set forth these things regarding the proof and evidence of his faith, if it did not also seem necessary to respond to the rest of those who accuse him. Let us consider, however, what those very accusations are which are brought forward by the malevolent. The first is that they say he declares the Son of God to be unbegotten. The second, that they say he declares the Son of God came into subsistence through procession, according to the fables of Valentinus. The third, which is very contrary to all these, is that they say he, according to Artemas or Paul ^D of Samosata, says that he is a mere man.

4. (64) Next, the fourth is this, which is leveled against all these (for malice is blind), that they say he speaks of Christ—*doxen*, that is, only putatively, and through allegory, and not even according to those things that are related by history—that all things which were done by the Savior were done in this way. 5. (64) Another charge also is this, that they assert that he preaches two Christs. 6. They also add this, that he utterly denies the corporeal histories which are related throughout all holy Scripture concerning the deeds of the saints. 7. But they also impugn him with no light slander regarding the resurrection of the dead and the punishments of the impious, as if he denied that penalties were to be inflicted upon sinners. 8. Certain persons blame his disputations or opinions which he discusses concerning the state or dispensation of the soul. 9. (65) The last of all is the charge, which is spread with all manner of defamation, *metensomatoseos*, that is, that he asserts that human souls are transmuted after death into irrational animals, either serpents or beasts, and that the souls of the irrational animals themselves are rational. We have placed this charge last, therefore, that by collecting more examples from his books, his falsity might be more evidently known.

If, then, we well remember (66) the order of the charges which we wrote above, let us begin with the first.

(67) RESPONSE TO THE FIRST CHARGE. That the Son is born from God the Father, and is of the same substance as the Father; but is alien from the substances of created things. ^B

(From the first book of the Epistle to the Romans.) (68) ORIGEN. One might perhaps ask if the Son expresses these things, especially because John ^C refers this voice to God the Father, saying: "Because God is love." (1 John iv, 8, 16). But again, we shall produce from that very Epistle of his that which he says: "Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God." (ibid. 7). Whoever, therefore, said: "Because God is love," he continues to teach that love is from God: which love I believe to be nothing other than his only-begotten Son, just as God is from God, so love is begotten from love.

PAMPHILUS. Of the same things in the fifth book on the Gospel according to John. ORIGEN. (70) The only-begotten Son, our Savior, who alone is born of the Father, is Son alone by nature and not by adoption.

ORIGEN. Therefore, one is the true God who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light (1 Tim. vi, 16). One and true God, lest we believe that the name of true God applies to many. So, therefore, even those who receive the spirit of adoption of sons, in which (72) we cry, Abba, Father (Rom. viii, 15), are indeed sons of God, but not like the only-begotten Son. For the only-begotten is Son by nature, and is always and inseparably Son: but the others, because they have received in themselves the Son of God, have received (73) the power to become sons of God. Who, although they were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (John i, 12, 13), yet they are not born by that birth by which the only-begotten Son was born. Because of this, how great a difference the true God has toward those to whom it is said: "I said: You are gods" (Ps. lxxxi, 6), so great a difference the true Son ^D has toward those who hear: "You are all sons of the Most High" (ibid.).

PAMPHILUS. Of the books of the Epistle to the Hebrews, how (74) the Son is *homoousios* with the Father, that is, of one substance with the Father, but alien from the substances of the creature.

ORIGEN. (75) We ask, therefore, those who are ashamed to confess that God is the Son of God, how

^A human nature alone, possessing in itself nothing excellent, nor anything of the divine substance, was able to receive the inheritance of all dominion, and all power, and virtue, and to be preferred and placed before all these by the Father. Whence it seems correct that he who receives the inheritance should be the more excellent; and certainly in kind, and in species, and in substance, and in subsistence or nature, and in every way of all, he must be more excellent.» Pamphilus. And after a few words in the same book:

ORIGEN. «But when that which is said of the Son of God is discussed, that He is the brightness of glory, it seems necessary to discuss at the same time that which is said, not only because He is the brightness of eternal light, but also because that which is similar is referred to in the Wisdom of Solomon, in which Wisdom describes itself, saying: For it is the vapor of the power of God, and the ^B purest effluence of the glory of the Almighty.»

PAMPHILUS. And after a little:

ORIGEN. «But we must know that Holy Scripture, by making for itself a certain way through ineffable and secret and recondite matters, strives to indicate to men and to suggest a subtle understanding. For in introducing the name of 'vapor,' it took this from corporeal things, so that we might be able to understand, at least through some art, how Christ, who is Wisdom, comes forth from the power of God itself according to the likeness of that vapor which proceeds from some corporeal substance: so also He, as a certain vapor, arises from the power of God itself; thus also Wisdom, proceeding from Him, is generated from the substance of God itself; so likewise, according to the likeness of a corporeal effluence, He is said to be a pure and sincere effluence of the glory of the Almighty. Both of which likenesses most manifestly show that there is a communion of substance for the Son with the Father. For an effluence is seen to be ὁμοούσιος, that is, of one substance with that body from which it is either an effluence or a vapor.» ^C

PAMPHILUS. It has been shown quite manifestly, as I think, and very evidently, that he said the Son of God was born from the very substance of God, that is, ὁμοούσιος, which is to say, of the same substance with the Father; and that He is not a creature, nor by adoption, but by nature the true Son, generated from the Father himself.

It remains that he should reply to the second accusation brought against him by his accusers, through words used by us indeed but which are his own, having brought forward two or three testimonies by which it is just, according to our law, that every word should stand.

RESPONSE TO THE SECOND ACCUSATION.

ORIGEN. (78) I think that the will of the Father ought to suffice for the subsistence of that which the Father wills. For He who wills does not use any other way, and therefore the subsistence of the Son is generated from Him: which it is necessary in the first place to be accepted by those who confess that nothing is unbegotten—that is, innate—except God the Father alone. For we must observe that no one should fall into those ^D absurd fables of those who depict for themselves certain 'emanations,' so as to divide the divine nature into parts, and, as much as in them lies, to divide God the Father, whereas to suspect this even slightly concerning an incorporeal nature is not only of extreme impiety, but also of ultimate folly, nor does it follow at all for understanding that a substantial division of an incorporeal nature can be conceived. Rather, therefore, just as the will proceeds from the mind, and neither cuts off any part of the mind, nor is separated or divided from it, in such a certain manner is it to be believed that the Father begat the Son, namely His own image: so that just as He Himself is invisible by nature, so He generated an invisible image as well. For the Son is the Word, and therefore nothing sensible is to be understood in Him. He is Wisdom, and in Wisdom nothing corporeal is to be suspected. He is the true light which enlightens every man coming into this world, but He has nothing in common with the light of this sun.

PAMPHILUS. Concerning these very things, from the fourth book

On Principles.

ORIGEN. «It is time, now that those things which we discussed concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have been gone through, to repeat a few things concerning those points which had been left out by us. God the Father, when...»

he is invisible and inseparable from the Son, the Son is not generated from him by means of a prolation, as some suppose. ^A For if the Son is a prolation of the Father, and is indeed begotten of him such as the offspring of animals are, it follows necessarily that both he who puts forth, and he who is put forth, must be a body.

And he is invisible, and inseparable from the Son, and the Son is not generated from him by means of a prolation, as some people think. For if the Son is a prolation of the Father, and is indeed begotten of him such as the offspring of animals or men are wont to be, necessarily both he who puts forth and he who is put forth is a body.

NEW INTERPRETATION. It is time for us to repeat some things concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and to pursue a few points that we had passed over at that time, concerning the Father, who, while he cannot be divided into any parts, becomes the Father of the Son without emitting him, as some think. For if the Son is a prolation ^B of the Father, who might beget him from himself in the manner in which animals beget them from themselves, necessarily both he who emits and he who is emitted must be a body.

PAMPHILUS. Then following these things, in the subsequent sections, having inveighed more vehemently against the heresy of Valentinus which describes such things, he brought forth his own judgment, far contrary to these, according to the truth of the Catholic faith. ^C

Origen. 83 The only-begotten God our Savior, therefore, is alone generated by the Father, and is Son by nature and not by adoption. 84 But he was born from the very mind of the Father, just as a will is from the mind. For the divine nature, that is, that of the unbegotten Father, is not divisible, so that we might think that the Son was generated from his substance either by division or by diminution. 85 But whether he is to be called mind, or heart, or sense of God, remaining indiscrete, bringing forth the germ of the will, he became the Father of the Word; which Word, resting in the bosom of the Father, announces God whom no one has ever seen 76, and reveals the Father whom no one has known except the Father himself alone 77, and those to whom the heavenly Father has revealed him [77*].

PAMPHILUS. It suffices by these things to have responded to the second indictment. Now, consequently, we will respond also to those who assert that Christ is a mere man, that is, without God.

RESPONSE TO THE THIRD INDICTMENT.

That Christ is not a mere man, but of divine nature.

ORIGENES. 87 From that which the Apostle said: 88 Paul an apostle, not from men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ 78, it is given to be understood clearly that Jesus Christ was not a man, but was of divine nature. For if he were a man, Paul would not have said what he says: Paul an apostle, not from men, neither by man. For if Jesus were a man, and Paul was assumed into the apostleship through him, then indeed he would have been made an apostle through a man. But if he was an apostle through a man, he would never have said: "neither by man": but Paul clearly separates Jesus from human nature by these words. For it does not suffice for him to have said: "Neither by man"; but he added, saying: "But by Jesus Christ." Since, indeed, he knew him to be of a more excellent nature, for that reason he said he was not assumed through a man.

PAMPHILUS. Saying these things at the beginning of the Epistle, 89 in the subsequent parts of the same book he added similar things, expounding that chapter in which it is written: I make known to you, brethren, the Gospel which was preached by me to you, for it is not according to man: for neither did I receive it from man, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ [78*].

ORIGENES. Observe, therefore, what he writes, because anyone, by adding these things to the previous ones, will be able to understand and to show to those who deny the deity of Jesus Christ, yet pronounce him only a man, that Jesus Christ is not a man, but God, the Son of God.

^A For so the Apostle says, that the Gospel which I preached to you is not according to man, but according to Jesus Christ. He clearly shows, therefore, that Christ Jesus is not a man: if he is not a man, he is undoubtedly God; or rather, he is nothing else but God and man. And again, if it is true as Paul says, that he did not receive the Gospel from man, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ, it is certain that Jesus Christ, who revealed it, is more than a man. For it is foreign to a man to reveal those things which are hidden and veiled: and even if this is sometimes done through a man, it is not done by the man himself, but by Him who speaks in the man, Christ.

PAMPHILUS. It is time, now that these things have been so clearly demonstrated, for us to direct our defense toward the following charge, being content for the sake of brevity with the proof of a few testimonies.

RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH CHARGE.

ORIGENES. ^C To those things which we have said above, we must also add this, that the body of Christ was not foreign to earthly substance, according to the fact that he is the son of David and the son of Abraham, as Matthew writes: *The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham*; and as Paul says, that Christ is *from the seed of Abraham* and *from the seed of David according to the flesh*. Therefore, what is said, that *when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he afterward hungered*, undoubtedly indicates that his body was capable of being emptied and filled, just as our bodies are accustomed to be. But if anyone objects to us regarding the reason for this miracle of the forty-day fast, it can easily be resolved when one also considers the example of Moses and Elijah, who are reported to have likewise endured a fast. But note also that he, ^D being fatigued by the labor of the journey and the heat, sits down by a well, rests, and is thirsty; what does this indicate, if not that he was exhausted by the heat of the journey and the excessive warmth of the sun and the consumption of bodily moisture? But that, being occupied with better things, he deferred the drinking that he had desired, and did not drink, is not on that account to be said as though he did not suffer thirst. Furthermore, the fact that he is frequently invited to dinners, and eats and drinks in the sight of all, does not deceive or cause the eyes of those seeing him to fail, nor does he do these things only in appearance, as some suppose—especially since he took food and drink in such a way that he was even blamed by some as if for excessive presumption, as though he were too greedily craving food and drink. But if anyone should wish to assert more forcefully that these things were said because he ate through a phantasm, and they did not know how these things could come about, one must respond to them from those things which the Lord himself said: *John the Baptist came neither eating nor drinking, and they say: He has a demon. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say: Behold a man who is a glutton and a wine-drinker*. Since the Savior himself says that the Son of man came eating and drinking, how does anyone dare to say that he neither ate nor drank? Indeed, this is a manifest disbelief of his doctrine. But if he ate and drank, and the substance of the wine and food was turned into his flesh, it was undoubtedly diffused through all the joints of his body and the interlacings of his members. For it is impossible for a spiritual nature (as some erroneously and absurdly think concerning his body) to receive the substance of wine and food. But if anyone should bring forth unworthy and obscene inquiries, asking if digestions also took place in the body, it does not seem absurd to admit this according to the consequence of a corporeal nature. But if they demand that we affirm these things by examples, it must be shown that they inquire into these things quite foolishly. For where are such things reported to have happened concerning the apostles, or the other saints, or even concerning the impious and sinners, that they should be demanded in such abundance concerning him? Yet even the reason for his circumcision...

will sufficiently straiten those who are of a different opinion. For how could a spiritual body be circumcised with earthly iron? On account of this, some of them were not ashamed to publish books even concerning the prepuce of his circumcision, by which they endeavored to show that it passed into a spiritual substance. But they, too, will be no less straitened, who say that the body of Christ ^A is an animal body. And the same things must be thought concerning his blood and the water which proceeded from his side, when he was pierced by the soldier’s spear. But to those who know what they hear through what is said, namely that the marks of the nails were in his body, it is manifestly declared that the flesh was earthly, that is, of human nature; which, indeed, was not such that it would escape the quality of receiving wounds. But if he had not also felt many things of human infirmity in his very death, why is his soul troubled, and is sad for it even unto death? All of which things evidently show that not falsely, but as a man, he said: The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. The account of his sleep ^B nonetheless shows the same thing, when it is said that he was sleeping in the stern upon a pillow, as Mark reports, and is awakened by a man from sleep. For although these things have a spiritual understanding, yet the truth of the history first remaining, the spiritual sense is also to be received. For although he always heals the blind according to the spiritual intelligence, when he illuminates minds blinded by ignorance, yet he also healed the blind bodily. And he always raises the dead; yet he also performed miracles of this kind at that time, as when he raised the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, ^C the son of the widow, and Lazarus. And although, whenever he is awakened by his disciples, he always calms the disturbances or storms of the Church, yet it is certain that those things which are related through history were also done at that time. Thus, therefore, it is sound to receive the sense of Scripture; nor should one incline his ear to those who say that he was born through Mary, and not from Mary: which the Apostle, foreknowing, thus predicted: But when the fullness of time came, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that he might redeem those who were under the law. ^D You see that he did not say, made through a woman, but, made of a woman.›

PAMPHILUS. What is confirmed so evidently or so integrally as from all these things which he wrote? By it, both the truth of the Lord’s deeds and the faithfulness of the history of the Scriptures are confirmed. But let us pursue consequently also other things, in which he is accused as if he said there are two Christs, one God the Word, and another Jesus Christ who was born from Mary.

RESPONSE TO THE FIFTH ACCUSATION.

ORIGEN. [C in Latin text, 588] (9) ‹As the Apostle says: Since you are zealous for spirits. For just as when there is one Holy Spirit, so many holy spirits are spoken of through individuals, as many as are those who have the Holy Spirit in themselves: so also it must be said concerning Christ. For from one Christ, many christs are made, of whom the Scripture says: Touch not my christs, and do not malign my prophets. Thus also from one God, many gods are called, namely all those in whom God dwells: but for us there is one God the Father, from whom are all things. There is therefore one true God, who, if I may so say, is the provider of divinity, and one Christ (10) the maker of christs, and one Holy Spirit who, through the individual souls of the saints, makes the Holy Spirit. But Christ, just as by the fact that he is Christ he makes christs, so also by the fact that he is the Son of God, and the proper and only-begotten Son, he makes all those who receive from him the spirit of adoption, sons of God.›

PAMPHILUS. This is one testimony that Christ is one true Christ, who by the participation of himself...

...makes Christ. Let us however bring forward another passage from the first book of the Gospel according to Matthew, in which he says the following: ORIGEN. "If Christ Jesus, when he was in the form of God, did not account it a robbery to be equal to God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, and being made in the likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man, humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, even the death of the cross ^A," there is no doubt that his birth is not such that he began to be, as though he had not existed before, as is supposed regarding the birth of men: but he who existed previously, and was in the form of God, 13 came also to take on the form of a servant. Finally, "That which is born of the flesh, is flesh," he says. That which is born, that is, from her who said, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to thy word [Luc. I, 38]": this is the form of a servant, which is indeed flesh. PAMPHILUS. And in the third book of the Epistle to the Colossians he writes as follows concerning the same matters: ORIGEN. 14 "The law was given by Moses through the angels in the hand and power of the Mediator Christ, who, when he was in the beginning the Word of God, and was with God, and was God, ministered the Word to the Father in all things. For all things were made by him [Joan. I, 3], that is, not only the creatures, but also the law and the prophets: and he himself is the mediator of God and of men [I Tim. II, 5]." Which Word ^B at the end of the ages indeed became a man, Jesus Christ: but before this advent made manifest in the flesh, he was indeed the mediator 15 of men, but was not yet a man. Yet he was even then the mediator of God and of men: whence also the law is said to have been given through the angels, not without the hands of the mediator himself, so that the law might be holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good [Rom. VII, 12], and all these things might be sanctified by Christ. PAMPHILUS. I think these three testimonies are sufficient to refute the calumny regarding this matter. If indeed anyone is offended because he said the Saviour also assumed a soul: I think nothing further need be answered regarding this, except that Origen is not the author of this opinion, but holy Scripture itself testifies to it, with the Lord and Saviour himself saying: "No one shall take my soul from me [Joan. X, 18]"; and: "My soul is sorrowful even unto death [Matth. XXVI, 38]"; and: "Now my soul is troubled [Joan. XII, 27]." And you will find many things like these in the holy Scriptures. It remains to answer that accusation by which he is slandered as turning all Scripture into allegory. From the very books which his detractors find most fault with, that is, from the fourth book *De Principiis* ^C, we shall bring forward proofs that he does not deny those things which are recounted in the Scriptures, even according to the letter, as having been done.

CHAPTER VI. RESPONSE TO THE SIXTH ACCUSATION.

of Judea, in which the temple of God was built by Solomon; and countless other things. For the things that are historically true are ^A far more numerous than the naked spiritual meanings woven into them. Again, who would not say that the commandment which says, *Honor thy father and thy mother, that it may be well with thee*, is useful and to be kept even without any allegorical interpretation, especially since the apostle Paul, repeating it in the same words, confirmed the commandment itself? What indeed must one say of what is said: *Thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness*, and other things of this kind? And as for those things in the Gospel, there can be no doubt that they are to be observed according to the letter, as when it says: *But I say to you, swear not at all*; and when it says: *Whoever looks at a woman to lust after her, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart*; and what is commanded by the apostle Paul: *Warn the unruly, comfort the faint-hearted, support the weak, be patient toward all men*; and many other things.

NEW INTERPRETATION

^C ORIGEN [(25)] *But also concerning each of the saints who are recorded in the Holy Scripture, and whom the Scripture testifies to be righteous and chosen of God, there must be faith on the part of those who desire to be saved. For faith in God cannot be complete unless one also has this faith, by which it is believed that the saints are saints. And what we say is such as this. Whoever has believed in God, and has accepted that his dogmas are true, believes also regarding Adam, that he was the first man formed; ^D and believes also regarding Eve, that God, taking one of Adam's ribs, fashioned her to be his wife; and believes that Enos truly hoped to call upon the name of the Lord God; and that Enoch, because he pleased God for two hundred years, was after he begat Mathusalam translated; and concerning Noe, that he received responses that an ark should be fashioned, and that he alone was saved from the flood, with only those...*

APOLOGY FOR ORIGEN

(26) who had entered the ark with him. Likewise, regarding Abraham, how he merited the testimony of God, and how he received into his hospitality, when he was under the oak of Mamre, three men, of whom one was the Lord. He believes also regarding Isaac, as to how he was born, or how he was offered by his father, or how he merited to hear the responses of God: but also regarding Jacob, that after his name was changed, he was named Israel by God: regarding Moses, that he served God through signs and wonders. He believes also that Jesus Nave was heard by God, and made the sun stand still over Gibeon, and the moon over the valley of Ajalon. But what must be said regarding the faithful judges, and those things which are reported to have been done through them; or in the books of Kings regarding Samuel, that at the time of the harvest he besought rain from God, and received it; and regarding David, whom the Lord took (27) from the sheepfolds, that he might rule Jacob His servant, and Israel His inheritance? And regarding Nathan, that he prophesied; as also Gad; but also regarding Solomon, that the Lord appeared to him in a vision; and regarding Elijah, that he was assumed by an ascension into heaven, all those things which were written having been effected by signs and wonders: but also regarding Elisha, since he not only revived the son of the Shunammite, but also the dead man who was thrown onto his bones. Therefore, it behooves every one of the faithful to believe also all the things which are written regarding Hezekiah, that in his days the shadow of the sun turned backward. Therefore, our faith ^B is first of all in our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently also in all the holy patriarchs, or prophets, or apostles of Christ, in the order which we mentioned above.

PAMPHILUS. These things may suffice for the proof of his Catholic faith, and as to what he thought regarding the history of the Scriptures themselves.

And since among the other accusations (28) which they bring against him, they also posit this as the greatest, that he denies the future resurrection of the dead, which is certainly proclaimed as something future in the Churches, it follows that we must also show from his own words that these calumnies are false, and evidently refute those who were not spared even from publishing writings against him on this matter. Therefore, both from the very books which he wrote, and ^C from other volumes, we shall prove also in this part how Catholic were his sentiments.

FIRST RESPONSE TO THE SEVENTH ACCUSATION. CHAPTER VII. How He Felt Regarding the Resurrection.

ORIGEN. (29) ‹For how does it not seem absurd that this body, which for Christ's sake bore scars, and alike with the soul (30) endured the cruel torments of persecutions, and also bore the tortures of prisons and chains and stripes, and was even tortured by fire, was struck with the sword, and, moreover, suffered the bloody bites of beasts, the crosses, and various kinds of punishments, should be defrauded of the rewards of such great contests? Indeed, if the soul alone, which did not strive alone (31), is crowned, and the vessel of its body which served it with great labor attains no rewards of the contest and victory, how does it not seem contrary to all reason that, when the flesh resists natural vices and inborn lust for Christ's sake, and obtains virginity with great labor—which labor of continence is at least greater for the body (32) than for the soul, or at any rate equal for both—at the time of the rewards the one should be rejected as unworthy, while the other comes to the crown? Which thing, without doubt, accuses God either of some injustice or of impossibility.›

PAMPHILUS. Beginning to use these assertions regarding the resurrection of the dead, he used the most evident proofs throughout the series of his volume. In his second book, however, on the same subject, when he had prefaced (35) that he was speaking as if to Gentiles, he declared his sentiment in this way.

ORIGEN. (34) ‹We, however, say that after the corruption of the world, these very same persons will be humans, though not in the same state, nor in the same passions. For they will not be again from the union of man and woman, but, for example, that structure which contains the substance of Paul (and I speak now of the bodily substance of Paul) remains safe, and when God shall will, according to those things which have been said, to make it so that the dead rise through the mystery of the trumpets at the last trumpet, [it happens] through that very (35) substantial structure…›

which remains safe, and they are raised from the dust of the earth from all the places in which that reason for the bodily substance remained in those very bodies, which, having fallen to the earth, are raised up again by the will of God. And I believe that the Apostle wished to assert this when he said in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, ^A after his assertion of the resurrection of the dead. For when he had set before himself those things which could be objected by others concerning the resurrection of the dead, he says: *But some man will say: How do the dead rise again? or with what manner of body shall they come? Thou foolish man, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die first: and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not the body that shall be, but bare grain, as of wheat, or of some of the rest. But God giveth it a body even as he will.* For when he had manifestly shown that the dead ^B rise again, and it was certain that our Saviour rose again with the very body which He had taken from Mary, but it was not sufficiently clear how the others were to rise again, or what kind of body they were to have: he compares the resurrection to seeds which are sown in the earth, such as a grain of wheat, which, when it has fallen into the earth, is corrupted: but the power of that reason which is implanted in its inner pith, this very power of reason, having taken up the earth adjacent to it, or the moisture of water, but also the surrounding temperature of the air, and also receiving fuel sufficient for heat, ^C rises up by divine power into the body of the stalk or the ear; and this is what he says: *Thou that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die first: and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not the body that shall be.* Therefore, this which falls into the earth as seed is our body, compared to a grain of wheat.

PAMPHILUS. And having asserted these things through a consequence of this kind, after a few words he adds these also.

ORIGENES. That all that promise of the resurrection of the dead concerns this body which is left dead is shown by many ^D passages of holy Scripture. But that the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ also declares this, who is called the firstborn from the dead.

PAMPHILUS. After these things, after having disputed more broadly through some intermediate points, he also added these:

ORIGENES. For just as every rational soul possesses more than those things which are said to exhibit the office merely of growing, or of being nourished, or of moving: so that reason which is in the human body possesses much more than that which is in other bodies, from the fact that even when the human body has been corrupted, it can subsist again through the power of God, preserved and kept until the time of its resurrection. And that it is restored wherever it may be—that is, from every place in which it has lain—so says John in his Revelation: *And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and hell gave up their dead that were in them.* For perhaps, as I think, the sea is here called by the name of the whole moist element; and hell instead of the air; and death instead of the earth. For since these have a certain kinship among themselves, Scripture calls our body the dust of death, or earth, or the body of death. Indeed, according to whatever preparation each one has had in this life, such also will be his resurrection. He who has lived more blessedly here, his body will shine in the resurrection with a more divine splendor, and a fitting dwelling-place in the blessed regions will be allotted to him. But to him who has consumed in malice the time of the present life granted to him, such a body will be given as can merely suffice and endure in punishments. And I believe that the Apostle Paul, wishing to show this difference, says: *One flesh of animals, another of birds, another of fishes,* and other things which the Apostle has enumerated. But just as one should not imagine that the sinner is about to receive the body of animals, or of birds, or of fishes; so also it is not to be hoped that those who rise in glory are to receive the body of the sun, or of the moon, or of the stars: but these things were said by the Apostle for the sake of an example.

^A It is to be understood that these things were said by the Apostle so that it might be indicated by them that some, according to their merits, will be more honorable and more clear, and also destined to obtain more blessed habitations; but the status of others, on account of the wickedness of their deeds, will be most unworthy and most abject, such as to be worthy of being compared even to dumb animals. PAMPHILUS. We have drawn these few things as testimony from the many and countless things which he expounded through an understanding of this kind in the very books which he wrote *On the Resurrection*. It does not seem absurd, however, for the sake of greater satisfaction, to adduce also a few consistent sentiments from his remaining books. Therefore, in the twenty-eighth book on the prophet Isaiah, writing concerning that chapter in which it is said: *The dead shall rise again, and those who are in the sepulchers shall arise*, he says as follows:

ORIGEN. It is better, therefore, to say that we shall all indeed rise again, so that the impious may also come into that place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, and the just shall receive each one in his own order according to the merit of his good deeds, when their body of humility shall be transformed so as to be conformed to the body of the glory of Christ; let us consider, however, on account of that saying of John, which he says in his Revelation: *Blessed is he who has part in the first resurrection; over this the second death has no power*, lest perhaps the whole plan of the resurrection could be divided into two parts: that is, into those who are the just who are to be saved, and also into those who are the sinners who are to be tortured: so that there may be one of the good, which is called the first; but that which is of the miserable may be called the second: and that the former is in all things pure, cheerful, and full of all joy; but that the other is entirely sad, entirely full of grief, and worthy of the deeds and life of those who in the present life have despised the commands of God, and, with the fear of His judgment neglected, have handed themselves over to the practice of all uncleanness and avarice, and have not endeavored to prepare themselves to resist ^B the powers opposed and hostile to the human race. And the sepulchers of the dead in this place, as in many others, are to be understood according to the surer sense of Scripture, not only as those which seem to have been constructed for the deposition of human bodies, or hewn out in rocks, or buried in the earth, but every place in which either the whole human body or even some part of it lies; even if it should happen that a single body is dispersed through many places, it will not be absurd for all those places in which some part of the body lies to be called the sepulchers of his body. For if we do not in this way understand that those who were never committed to burial, nor deposited in sepulchers, are to rise again from their sepulchers by divine power, but died in shipwrecks, or in some desert places, so that they could not be committed to burial, they will not seem to be numbered among those who are said to be resurrected from the sepulchers. Which, in any case, is very absurd. ^C

PAMPHILUS. Nevertheless, in that very book, with some things inserted, he says:

ORIGEN. Since, therefore, Paul writes that *as star differs from star in glory, so also will be the resurrection of the dead*, and what he says: *It is sown in corruption, it rises in incorruption*, and other things of this kind: he clearly writes these things about the body alone. For the soul is not sown in corruption, or in infirmity, or in ignominy. Finally, he evidently joins these to all of them, and says: *It is sown an animal body*; so that no one might think that it is the soul which is sown in corruption, or in ignominy, or in infirmity.

PAMPHILUS. These things, indeed, proceed from those books which he wrote on Isaiah. Nor shall we pass over that passage which he discussed concerning the first psalm, in which he also wrote thus about the resurrection:

ORIGEN. For just as the same species remains in us ^D from infancy even to old age, although the features may seem to undergo much change, so it is to be understood regarding us that the same species which now exists in us is to remain even unto the end; although the features may seem to have much difference, so also must it be understood concerning the present, that the form is the same for the future, with much of the transformation for the better being about to occur.

^A For it is necessary that the soul, while existing in corporeal places, should use bodies suitable to those places. And just as, if we had become aquatic creatures in the sea, we would necessarily have had to possess a constitution of body similar to that of fish; so too, those who are about to inherit the kingdom of heaven, and who are to exist in places that differ, must necessarily use spiritual bodies, without the previous form being abolished, even if its transformation toward a more glorious state occurs. For the form of Jesus, and of Moses and Elijah, was not another in the transfiguration than what it had been.

It remains the same even into the future, although there appears to be a vast diversity of particular forms and marks. Even so, in the matter of which we are now speaking, it must be understood that the present form of the body is the same as the future one; yet with this, that the transformation into a better state will be incredible. For it is necessary that the soul, adhering to corporeal places, should use bodies that are in harmony with it. And as, if we were transformed into the nature of aquatic creatures and had to spend our lives in the sea, it would be necessary for us to be endowed with a different bodily constitution and one similar to that of fish; so too must those who are about to enter upon the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven, and are to dwell in different abodes, have spiritual bodies; not that the prior form is extinguished, even though it is changed into something more illustrious and more glorious. Just as the form of Jesus, and of Moses and Elijah, did not exist as other than what it was in the beginning during the transformation.

PAMPHILUS. But also in the fifteenth psalm, explaining that verse: *Moreover my flesh shall rest in hope* (Ps. XV, 9): he says this concerning the flesh of the Lord:

ORIGENES. ^B (55) <The Lord Jesus Christ says this, (56) whose flesh first rested in hope. For He was crucified, having been made the firstborn from the dead; and after the resurrection, having been taken up into heaven, He carried up with Him His earthly body, in such a way that the heavenly powers were terrified and astonished, seeing flesh (57) ascending into heaven. For it is written of Elijah that he was as though taken up into heaven: and of Enoch, that he was translated: yet it is not said that he ascended into heaven. Let him be offended who wishes by our speech: but I, with all confidence, assert that just as Christ is the firstborn from the dead, so He is the first to have carried flesh up to heaven. In short, by the very novelty of this, the heavenly powers are terrified, (58) because what they had never seen before, they now saw: that flesh had ascended into heaven: and therefore they say: *Who is this that comes from Edom*, that is, from the earthborn? *The redness of his garments is from Bosor* (Isa. LXIII, 1). For they were seeing in His body the traces of the wounds from Bosor, that is, in the flesh assumed.>

PAMPHILUS. And after a few words:

ORIGENES. <These things are because of what was said: *For my flesh shall rest in hope*. In what hope? Not only because it rises from the dead (for this is a small thing), but it rests in the hope that it was taken up into heaven.>

PAMPHILUS. What can be said more evidently and clearly by anyone concerning the resurrection of the flesh than what he has designated—that it is not only to rise from the dead, ^C but also to be taken up into the heavens, if indeed any merit it, being about to follow Him who, having been made the firstborn from the dead, first carried the nature of flesh into heaven? But let us hear what he meant in the eighteenth psalm, explaining that verse: *He hath set his tabernacle in the sun* (Ps. XVIII, 6).

ORIGENES. (59) <What is this that he said: *He hath set his tabernacle in the sun?* Some indeed were saying that our Savior, ascending from the earth into heaven and assuming His body, arrived as far as that circle which is named the solar zone, and there, they say, He set the tabernacle of His body: for it was not possible for Him to proceed further. But those people think these things because they do not wish to understand the allegory in the divine Scripture; and therefore, serving pure history, they compose such fables and figments. But we pray to the omnipotence of God, that He may deign to receive us—and therefore, serving pure history, they compose such fables and figments. But we pray to the omnipotence of God, that He may deign to ^D receive us—and therefore, serving pure history, they compose such fables and figments. But we pray to the omnipotence of God, that He may deign to

and he may deign to open to us the secrets of spiritual understanding. What is therefore felt by us in this place, that is, *In the sun he hath set his tabernacle* (Ps. XVIII, 6), I ask what is the tabernacle of Christ, and what is the dwelling in which the tabernacle of Christ is placed. The dwelling of the tabernacle of Christ is said to be the sun. Moreover, I understand the Church to be the tabernacle of Christ. But what other sun ought I to conceive, if not that true light which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world? (cf. John 1, 9). I see that sun, of which it is said: *But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise, and healing in his wings* (Mal. IV, 2). In the sun, therefore, he hath set his tabernacle; that is, in the Sun of righteousness he has placed his Church. For in that sun the Church is placed, which makes the eternal day, as it is said: *The Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory* (Isa. LX, 19). ^B

PAMPHILUS. Let them also blush who did not hesitate to concoct a fiction about Him, by which they would say that he asserts the body or flesh of Christ to have been carried up as far as the sun, and to be left there. For he refutes this as a thing said by others, not rightly said. But his detractors have shown that they were not able to understand even these things, which he refutes as said by others, and what are those things which he himself confirms. Then, furthermore, let them also restrain their impudence, who say that he confesses the body indeed to rise again, but denies the flesh. Let them cease at last from their slanders, seeing that he places the flesh of the Word of God with the Word of God himself in heaven, whither the Word ascended. ^C

To these he joins the matter of the punishments of sinners, which we also consequently join to those things said above, since in the order of the charges this had been the ordered sequence.

CAPUT VIII. ANOTHER RESPONSE TO THE SEVENTH CHARGE. Concerning the punishments of sinners. (From the second book *On First Principles*.)

ORIGEN. I consider that just as in the body, the abundance of food, and the quality, and the quantity of food contrary to it produces fevers, and fevers of varied kind or time, according to the measure in which the intemperance has gathered material and fuel for fevers—which quality of material, gathered from diverse intemperance, exists as the cause of either a more bitter or a more prolonged disease—so does the soul, when it has gathered into itself a multitude of evil works and an abundance of sins. In due time, all that gathering of evils is stirred up to punishment, ^D and is inflamed unto tortures: when the mind itself or conscience, through divine power, recalling the memory of those things of which it had expressed in itself certain signs and forms when it was sinning, and will see the history of its own sins laid out before its eyes, which it had committed either basely or shamefully, or even impiously. Then the conscience itself is also agitated and pricked by its own stings, and itself is made its own accuser and witness. And I think that the apostle Paul also felt this, when he says: *Their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ* (Rom. II, 15-16).

PAMPHILUS. But also in what follows, he writes again concerning the punishments of sinners in this way:

ORIGEN. There are, however, many things that lie hidden from us, which are known only to Him who is the physician of our souls. For if for the health of the body we have need at times of the care of a more austere and biting medicine, on account of those vices which we have gathered through meat and drink: and sometimes, if the quality of the vice demands it, we need the severity of the iron and the sharpness of surgery: and if the degree of the disease has even surpassed this, fire burns out the finally conceived vice: how much more must it be understood that our physician, God, desiring to dilute the vices of our souls which they had gathered from the diversity of sins and crimes, uses such penal cares as these, and furthermore even inflicts the punishment of fire upon those who have lost the health of the soul?

PAMPHILUS. Likewise, after a few words, he added also these:

ORIGEN. Since, however, that punishment which is said to be inflicted by fire is very necessary, Isaias, teaching, says as follows concerning Israel: *The Lord shall wash away the filth of the sons and daughters of Sion, and shall purge the blood from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment and by the spirit of burning* (Isa. IV, 4). And concerning the Chaldeans he says thus: *Thou hast coals of fire, thou shalt sit upon them: they shall be to thee for a help* (Isa. XLVII, 14). And in other places he says: *The Lord shall sanctify them in burning fire* (Isa. X, 17). And in the prophet Malachias he says: *The Lord sitting shall refine his people as gold and silver; he shall refine and purge them, and he shall pour out the purged sons of Juda* (Mal. III, 3).

PAMPHILUS. These, indeed, are from the books *On First Principles*. But innumerable testimonies of this assertion are scattered through all his books, which we omit for the sake of brevity, commemorating of these only those things which he discussed in the sixth psalm concerning this very kind of punishments.

ORIGEN. It is possible to consider from these pains, which we feel while placed in this body, which although they are great, are certainly short...

of time, because if they are a little too vigorous at the start, they immediately bring about a swift end to life. In fact, many, if the situation requires it, surrender their soul ^A for the confession of piety in the very midst of torments; but others, placed at the very approach of the crown, deny the faith which they had purposed to confess even unto death. And they do not suffer this because of a diminution of purpose, but because they are overcome by the excessive and ^B intolerable force of pain. If, therefore, in this present life the pains of punishment are so intolerable, what must one think will be the case when the soul no longer uses a coarser covering, but when it receives it made spiritual by the resurrection, and will feel the force of pain all the more vehemently, precisely because it is more subtle? For I think that there is as much difference in the present age between being beaten naked or clothed—to perceive the torture, that is, because the naked body feels lashes more vehemently than when clothed—as I think there will be a difference in the pain when the human body, having laid aside the covering of this density, begins to endure torments as though naked. ›

PAMPHILUS. I consider it sufficient, in order to repel the calumny of this accusation, to have brought forward these few testimonies from his books, which it is manifest are contained, scattered here and there, throughout his works. Now we will also respond on our own part to those things which they bring against him regarding the soul, namely, that he says it exists before the body. Knowing indeed that this tenet regarding the soul is not held openly or manifestly in ecclesiastical preaching, if ever a passage of Scripture suggested to him any occasion or rather suspicion for discussion, he would discuss and examine those things that occurred to his mind, and he set them forth for his readers to discern and to test, not as a manifest dogma ^C nor defining his own opinion with the authority of the Scriptures, frequently adding: "If, however, the argument which we have discussed regarding the soul seems to hold, or is proved to follow." In fact, in so many and such diverse books of his, one finds nowhere at all a book written by him properly *On the Soul*, as he has *On Martyrdom*, or *On Prayer*, or *On the Resurrection*. He never published a book written properly on the soul; but in different places, as we said above, he discussed opinions that occurred to him from the study of ^D Scripture: which rather

CHAPTER IX.

RESPONSE TO THE EIGHTH ACCUSATION.

On the soul.

ORIGEN. ‹ There are indeed some other tenets which are not held in the apostolic traditions, regarding which one should inquire if it is right to consider those who ^A feel or discuss anything whatsoever about them to be heretics; for instance, if I may say so for the sake of argument, if someone inquires about the nature of the human soul, since the Ecclesiastical Rule has handed down nothing concerning it—neither that it is derived from the transmission of seed, nor that it is more honorable and older than the structure of bodies. For this reason, many have not even been able to comprehend how one should think about the nature of the soul; but even those who have appeared to feel or discuss something about it are regarded by some with suspicion, as if they were introducing something new. ›

PAMPHILUS. Then after a few words he says: ORIGEN. ‹ But consider also with yourself, when you discuss this, whether it is right to judge as a heretic or as someone who acts rashly against the Church one who holds any opinion about these things, or whether it is not dangerous to make a pronouncement about him, since he might be perverse and sinning, and indeed cursed by his own self: ^B which is said of heretics, if anyone by chance, from those things which we have said above, appears to introduce any opinion whatsoever, even if it be new and very strange to most. ›

PAMPHILUS. These things indeed he writes in the book which we mentioned above. We for our part add to these things which fairness itself seems to demand from us. If the Church were clearly to hand down or preach the contrary to what he thought, he would without a doubt deservedly be blamed as contrary and resisting the ecclesiastical statutes. But now, since there is diversity among all those ^C in the Church, and some think one thing about the soul and others another,

how is this ^A man more than the rest to be blamed, especially since the views affirmed by those others appear to be much more absurd and contrary to themselves? For some are of the opinion that souls are created only at the moment when bodies have already been prepared and deformed in the womb of women, and are then inserted into the already deformed body. Those who think this, besides the fact that they are unable to bring forward manifest proofs from the Holy Scriptures, also accuse the Creator of a kind of injustice, in that He does not bestow ^B everything equally—that is, that He does not grant equal habits of life to all. For immediately upon the soul being created, when it has as yet committed no offense, it is inserted—if it should happen so—into a blind body, or one otherwise weak, while others are placed into healthy and stronger bodies. And to some, a long period of life is granted, while to others it is very brief, so that sometimes they are cast out from the body as soon as they are born. Some are directed toward a wild and barbarous mode of life, and—what is above all else—where the impiety of paternal superstition prevails; while others are directed toward honest, sober, and humane men, where the observance of human laws flourishes; sometimes even to religious parents, where a noble and honest education, and even rational learning, are transmitted. How, then, can the adherents of these views assign to the divine Providence, which rightly dispenses and moderates all things with an ^C equal balance, the character of a good and just God? Furthermore, those who affirm that souls come by transmission—that is, that they are sown along with the bodily seed—if, indeed (as some of them are accustomed to claim), they say the soul is nothing other than an insufflation of the Spirit of God, namely that which at the beginning of the creation of the world God is said to have breathed into Adam, 66 professing that it is of the very substance of God: how will they not also seem to be asserting things beyond the rule of Scripture and the reason of piety, because the substance of God is what sins, if the soul which is of the substance of God is that which is to be subjected to punishment ^D for sin? But they do not see that they incur another point, which is utterly absurd: that the soul must necessarily die and be mortal along with the body, if it was indeed sown, or formed, or born along with the body. Then, furthermore, those who say that the soul was not made by God from nothing, but is that which was first made in Adam, and that from it the souls of all men now exist, and that this happens in accordance with bodily succession—what else do they show, if not that souls are mortal? For if we form our opinion about men just as we do about other living creatures, which originate from seed alone—namely, that the soul is diffused simultaneously with the body in the same seed—what shall we say of those who are as yet imperfect and are aborted from the womb, and who sometimes even perish before they have been received into the receptacles of the natural vessels? In these cases, without doubt, it will be found that even those souls which were naturally inserted into the seeds have been extinguished and corrupted together. Whether, therefore, they are from the insufflation of God, or from that one which was first created, they must necessarily perish along with the bodies, if they derive the same origin as the bodies according to their own reasoning. For either the thing which has already perished in the womb participated not at all in a rational and immortal soul; and that reasoning which affirms that it was sown along with the bodies in the transmission of the seed is refuted; or, if it does participate, the necessity looms of confessing that the soul is mortal—a position which our faith certainly does not accept. Nevertheless, what is it that we wish to show from all these points? Certainly this: that just as one does not rightly call those people heretics who think one or another of the opinions we have set forth above to be true—on the pretext that nothing certain about these matters seems to have been stated manifestly from the divine Scriptures, nor to be contained in the ecclesiastical Preaching—so too is it not just to blame this man for discussing what seemed right to him.

especially since he maintained what must be observed in the Church in every way regarding the confession of the soul: namely, that he should not assert that there are diverse natures of souls; on the contrary, he refutes those who say this and convicts them with vehement assertion. He himself confesses that all souls are of one substance, and are immortal and rational, of free choice and will; and that they must be judged for those things which they have performed in this life: yet they were created by God, who created and fashioned all things. But when they were created— whether long ago all at once, or now as individual souls are born—what danger is there in opining either of the two? But it is possible to respond differently, so that the path of censure is entirely excluded. For just as individuals, even those who are in the Churches, ^B think differently about the luminaries of heaven, with some opining that they are living, rational beings, while others think that they are irrational, or indeed that they lack not only a soul but also are entirely devoid of any sense and are mere bodies without spirit or sense—yet no one would justly call either of those who think so differently a heretic, because nothing has been clearly handed down on these matters in the apostolic preaching: so too it is not right to pronounce those who doubt about the human soul and opine differently regarding its beginning or origin to be heretics, especially since they maintain what is correct and catholic in the other rules of ecclesiastical doctrine.

The latest accusation is ^C μετενσωματώσεως, that is, of the transmutation of souls. To this, just as we did in the other matters, we shall respond in the words of him who is being accused, first of all noting it as strictly necessary that his accusers, not understanding how he treated this question, or how the method of a disputation is such ^D that the things which are said do not always appear to be pronounced solely from his own person, but sometimes also those things which can be said from the contrary side, are to be debated: and not understanding that he is arguing against this dogma, as if he himself held the things he discoursed upon from the persona of his adversary. Finally, he showed that the reason he said these things was for the sake of discussion and not confirmation, through those things he added after the treatment of the matter itself, saying:

ORIGENES. 88 « But these things, as far as we are concerned, should not be dogmas; but let them be said for the sake of discussion and let them be rejected. For they were said only for this reason, that a question having been raised, it might not appear to be left undiscussed. »

PAMPHILUS. But he said these things in that place where he was inquiring about the souls of animals, not about the transmutation of souls. Concerning the transmutation of souls, however, he writes thus in the seventh book of the Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew:

CHAPTER X.

RESPONSE TO THE NINTH ACCUSATION.

Concerning the transmutation of souls.

ORIGENES. 90 Some indeed 91 opined from that which was said : *He is Elias who is to come* (Matth. xi, 14), that the soul of Elias was the same as that of John. For they thought that what he said, *He is Elias*, should be referred not to anything else, but to the soul, and from this almost single saying they introduced the dogma of μετενσωματώσεως, that is, of the transmutation of souls, as if even Jesus himself confirmed this. But it should have been seen that, if this were true, something similar ought to exist in many of the writings of the prophets or the Gospels. Then, moreover, that discourse which is joined to this shows that a certain more secret and arcane sense is to be sought in these things which were said, more 92 than those things which they received according to the understanding of the letter alone, when he says: *He who has ears to hear, let him hear* (ibid. 15). But it must also be added that, if a transmutation of souls occurred for the sake of sins, according to what they themselves think, then because of

what sins did the soul of Elijah pass into John, who was announced as about to be born by an angel himself, and that he was Jesus our Savior? How, therefore, is this not a most evident lie: that he who was so perfect that he did not even taste this common death should come to a transmutation of soul, which, according to their assertion, cannot happen except from sins? ^A And he says: "I am not" (John i, 21). But in order that it may be shown how this also applies to the word which the Lord said: "If you are willing to receive it, he himself is Elijah who is to come" (Matt. xi, 14): what he said, "he himself is Elijah," must be referred to the spirit and power of Elijah himself. For John proceeded in the spirit and power of Elijah to convert the hearts of the fathers to the children (Luc. i, 17).

PAMPHILUS. Regarding the same subject, from the eleventh book of the Commentary on the Gospel according to Matthew.

93 ORIGEN. 94 Let those who are strangers to the ecclesiastical word suppose that souls pass from the bodies of humans ^B into the bodies of dogs, according to the difference of their sins. 95 We, however, finding this nowhere in divine Scripture, say that a nature more endowed with reason changes into one more lacking in reason, suffering such a thing because of great sloth and negligence. And likewise, a choice that has become more irrational because of having neglected the reason, sometimes turns back to being rational, even as a little puppy that loves to eat from the crumbs ^C falling from its masters’ table comes to the condition of a child. For virtue contributes greatly toward making one a child of God, while vice, and the madness found in abusive words, and shamelessness, contribute toward making someone be called, according to the word of Scripture, a dog. And you will understand the same thing regarding the remaining names, those referring to irrational animals. Nevertheless, he who is reproved as a dog, and is not angry at being judged unworthy ^D of the bread of children, and with all patience speaks the word of that Canaanite woman—the one who said: "Yes, Lord, for the dogs also eat of the crumbs which fall from the table of their masters" (Matt. xv, 27)—will obtain the most gentle response from Jesus saying to him: "Great is your faith," when he has taken up such great faith, and saying: "Let it be to you as you wish," so that he himself may be healed, and if he has brought forth any fruit needing healing, that too may be healed.

INTERPRETATION OF HUETIUS

Let others, therefore, who are strangers to ecclesiastical discourse, think that souls pass from human bodies into canine bodies because of various iniquities: but we, finding this in no way in divine Scripture, pronounce that a nature more powerful in reason is changed into one more lacking in reason, suffering this, to be sure, from great sloth and neglect; and likewise that a will destitute of reason, because of neglected reason, may sometimes be so converted that it becomes endowed with reason, to such an extent that he who had once been a little dog, loving to eat from the crumbs falling from the table of its masters, obtains the status of a son. For virtue contributes greatly to one becoming a child of God; but wickedness, and the madness and impudence in insulting words, cause one to be called a dog, according to the authority of Scripture. You will likewise understand this regarding the other names that are assigned to rational-less animals. Yet he who is reproved as a dog, and does not take it ill that he is judged unworthy of the bread of children, and with all patience adopts the speech of that Canaanite woman, saying: "Yes, Lord, for the dogs also eat of the crumbs that fall from the table of their masters," will obtain a most mild response from Jesus saying to him: "Great is your faith" (ibid. 28), after he has adopted such great faith, and saying: "Let it be to you as you wish," so that he himself is healed, and if he has brought forth any fruit needing healing, that also is healed.

PAMPHILUS. CONCERNING THE SAME, FROM THE THIRTEENTH BOOK ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW.

^A ORIGEN. In this passage, it does not seem to me that Elijah refers to the soul of Elijah, lest we fall into a dogma regarding the transmutation of souls that is foreign to the Church of God, and which is neither delivered by the apostles nor found anywhere in the Scriptures. For it is contrary to what is said by the Apostle: "For the things which are seen are temporal" [II Cor. iv, 18]. And where, then, is that which all the Scriptures confirm, that the present age is to be ended? Neither can that statement stand which is said: "Heaven and earth shall pass away" [Matt. xxiv, 35]; nor that which the Apostle says: "For the fashion of this world passeth away" [I Cor. vii, 31]; and that: "The heavens shall perish" [Ps. ci, 27], with those things that follow it. For if, let us suppose, it is possible for the same soul to be twice in a body within the state of the world from the beginning until the consummation, for what reason would it happen? Or if, having become twice in a body on account of sin, why will it not also be there a third time, and more often, since the punishments for this life and the sins committed in it are repaid in this very way, through transcorporation? ^B If this is granted as a consequence, there will perhaps never be a time when a soul will not be transcorporated. For it will always be visiting a body on account of previous sins, and thus the movement of the world, according to which "heaven and earth shall pass away," will have no place. But if, according to this hypothesis, it be granted that a person who is entirely sinless will no longer come into a body formed by birth—through how many ages do you think one will find a soul that is entirely pure and not in need of transcorporation? Yet even so, with one soul after another being removed from the set number of souls and no longer coming into a body, generation will at some point cease, as if through some infinite ages, once the world has reached one, or two, or a few more who have been perfected, after whom the world itself will be destroyed, with those who come into a body failing; which does not please the Scripture. For it knows of a multitude of sinners at the time of the world's destruction; which is evident from considering this: "But when the Son of Man..."

INTERPRETATION OF HUETIUS.

In this passage, it does not seem to me that soul is indicated by Elijah, lest by chance I fall into an opinion regarding migration from body to body that is foreign to the Church of God, and which is neither delivered by the apostles nor brought forward anywhere in the Scriptures. For it is contrary to this that is written: that those things which are seen are fallible, and that this age is to be completed; and even to the end of them: "Heaven and earth shall pass away"; and: "The fashion of this world passeth away"; and: "The heavens shall perish," together with the things that follow them. ^C For if, to posit this, the same soul can enter a body twice in that state of things which will obtain from the beginning of the world until its consummation, for what reason will it enter? If it enters a body twice on account of sin, why not three times, and more often, since by migration alone from body to body, and in no other way, is this life and the crimes committed in it punished? But if this be granted from the consequences, perhaps a soul will never fail to migrate from body to body. For it will always be conversing in a body on account of prior crimes, and thus that movement of the world, by which "heaven and earth shall pass away," will have no place. But that it may be granted, according to this position, that he who is guilty of no sin will no longer return into a body by birth; do you think that in the whole course of times a soul can be found that is pure of every stain and not in need of migration into another body? ^D Nevertheless, even so, with some always exceeding the fixed number of souls and no longer returning into a body, birth will at some time, after an immense time, cease, when the world has been reduced to one, or another, or a few more, who have now attained perfection, upon which the world will perish, as those who go into a body will be wanting; which is by no means consistent with the Scriptures; for it knows of a multitude of sinners that will exist at the time the world will perish: which is evident from those things having been attentively considered. Nevertheless, the Son of Man coming, do you think...

He will find faith upon the earth?” just as we found it stated by Matthew: “As the days of Noah were, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be.”

^A There shall be for those then present an exaction of sins, not by a transmigration of souls; for there will no longer be a place for sinning; but there will be other kinds of punishment. For the transmutation of bodies will not create sinners, so that no punishments would be thought to be brought upon them from the outside; but rather there is a mode of punishment for sinners, that is, that for those things ^B which they have committed in this world, they may receive the punishment of their transgressions. It is manifest, however, that these individual reasons are, for those who can diligently observe the consequence of the matter, contrary to this dogma by which the souls are said to be transmuted. But if the authors of the Gentiles, who have pursued this opinion from the consequence of their own principles, ^C wish to follow it, saying that when these things happen, without doubt this world can never end, it is consequent that those who hold these views do not believe our Scripture, which most manifestly proclaims that the end of the world will come, and that they do not seek in the Scriptures themselves for the expositions, or rather the inept and inconsequent assertions, by which it can in no way be shown that, according to our Scriptures, the end of the world is never to come.

INTERPRETATION OF HUETIUS

PAMPHILUS. On the same matter, from the book on the Proverbs of Solomon.

ORIGEN.