viper, sometimes a horse, or other animals. It follows, therefore, that they must also say that the devil, who is called a lion in the Scriptures, occupies the body of a lion, or the flesh of a dragon, when he is named a dragon. Thus it will be that, according to them, this migration of souls even reaches into the nature of demons, so that there could be at some time a soul possessing a lion or a dragon, even the devil.
PAMPHILUS. And a little later: ORIGEN. But all these inventions are superfluous. For it is manifest that one punishment for demons as well as for the human race has been predetermined by the Lord, that which the Lord himself designated by his own sentence, saying: *Go into the eternal fire,* which God has prepared for the devil and his angels; showing that the same species of punishment is prepared for sinful men, and for the devil, and for his angels, although in the same punishment the quantity of the penalty differs. For one is tormented more severely and more vehemently according to the magnitude of his sins, another more mildly, whose sins are lighter and more excusable.
RUFINUS’ EPILOGUE TO THE APOLOGETIC OF SAINT PAMPHILUS THE MARTYR ADDRESSED TO MACARIUS, OR THE BOOK ON THE ADULTERATION OF THE BOOKS OF ORIGEN
In those things which, in the preceding book according to the Apologetic of the holy martyr Pamphilus, which he published in the Greek tongue for Origen, we have set forth in the Latin tongue as well as we could, or as the matter demanded, this is what I wish you, O man of desire, Macarius, to be admonished of: that you should know that this rule of faith, which we have set forth above concerning his books, is that which is both to be embraced and held. For in all these it is evidently proven that a catholic sense is contained. Yet it is found in his books that some things are not only diverse from these, but sometimes even contrary, and things which the rule of truth does not admit, recognize that we also neither receive nor approve them. But whence this happened, I do not wish to be hidden from you, or from those who desire to know what is true, if indeed there are any who, hearing that which is true and that which reason itself indicates, might acquiesce, and not out of a desire for detraction prefer whatever they wish over that which destroys the material for their detraction. I do not think it can be doubted that in no way could it happen that a man so learned, so prudent, and certainly (which even his accusers can grant) a man who was neither foolish nor insane, would write things contrary and repugnant to his own opinions for himself. Or even if we should grant in any way that this could have happened—for perhaps someone says that because of the things he wrote in his youth, it could be that he forgot in his mature age, and put forward something else than what he once thought—what shall we do about the fact that sometimes in the same places, and, so to speak, in the almost subsequent chapter, a sentence of contrary sense is found inserted?
A If he said it well above and badly afterwards, writing that the Holy Spirit and the Son are of the substance of God the Father, and immediately in the subsequent passages asserted that they were creatures—do you not know that I possess everything of Origen, and have read very much? "To the rabble, the trappings: I know you inside and out" (Pers., Sat. 3, v. 30). The most learned man, Eusebius—I said "most learned," not "catholic," lest you make a calumny against me on this count, as is your custom—does nothing in his six volumes but try to show that Origen is of his own faith, that is, of Arian perfidy; he sets forth many examples and constantly proves this. In what dream for you, then, shut away in your Alexandrian prison, has it been revealed that you should forge as falsified the things which he openly professes as true? But perhaps he, as an Arian, pulled these things in here for the opportunity of his own error, lest he be thought to have held a bad opinion against the Church all alone. What will you answer for Didymus, who is certainly catholic in the Trinity? We have even translated his book on the Holy Spirit into the Latin tongue. Certainly, he could not have consented to those things that were added to Origen's works by heretics; and in the very books B *Περì ἀρχῶν*, which you translated, he wrote brief commentaries in which he did not deny that what is written was written by Origen, but attempts to persuade us that we simple men are unable to understand what is being said, and in what sense they should be taken positively. This he does only regarding the Son and the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, in other dogmas, both Eusebius and Didymus most openly concede the tenets of Origen, and defend as having been said catholically and piously what all the Churches reprove. Jerome said above, in the same Book I, arguing against Rufinus' Preface to the books *Περì ἀρχῶν*: "Let him answer where his suspicion arose that these things were added by heretics. Because, he says, 'I had read in other places in the same author that the same things were said catholically....' I prove that among Origen's many evils, these are especially heretical: the Son of God is a creature; the Holy Spirit is a minister; there are innumerable worlds succeeding each other in eternal ages; angels turned into the souls of men; the soul of the Savior existed before C it was born of Mary, and this is the one which, when it was in the form of God, did not think it robbery to be equal to God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant (Phil. 2:6,7); there will be a resurrection of our bodies such that they do not possess the same limbs, because when the functions of the limbs cease, the limbs are rendered superfluous; and the bodies themselves, tenuous and spiritual, gradually fade away and are dissipated into thin air and nothingness; that in the restoration of all things, when the primary indulgence comes, cherubim and seraphim, thrones, principalities, dominions, virtues, powers, archangels, angels, the devil, demons, and the souls of all men, as well Christians as Jews and Gentiles, will be of one condition and measure; and when they have reached the form and balance of equity, and D the rational creatures, having laid aside all the dregs of bodies, a new host of the returning people will show forth from the exile of the world, then again from another principle another world is made, and other bodies with which the souls slipping from heaven are clothed, so that we must fear lest those of us who are men now should later be born as women, and she who today is a virgin may perhaps be a prostitute. These are the heretical things I teach are in Origen's books; you show in which of his works you read the contrary. Do not say: 'I read that the same things were said catholically in other places by the same author.' Do not send me to his six thousand books, which you say the blessed Pope Epiphanius read—it is not sufficient for me if you do not produce those same statements word for word. Origen is not a fool, and I know he cannot speak things contrary to himself. Therefore, from this calculation, the conclusion arises that those things you excised are not the heretics', but Origen's; A whose evils you interpreted as good because you thought them good; both his good and bad things are to be imputed to you, whose works you approved in the Prologue (of the books *Περὶ ἀρχῶν*). Add to this that the same holy doctor, in Epistle 41 (otherwise 65) to Pammachius and Oceanus, says: 'That point, indeed, which they assert—that his books were violated by certain heretics and malicious men—how absurd it is can be proved from this. Who can be found more prudent, more learned, more eloquent than Eusebius and Didymus, the defenders of Origen? Of whom the one in six volumes of his *Apology* confirms that he felt as he did; the other tries to excuse his errors in such a way that he nevertheless admits they are his; not denying the writing, but expounding the sense of the writer. It is one thing if Didymus should defend as well-spoken things that were added by heretics. Origen alone, forsooth, has been found B whose writings were falsified throughout the whole world, and, as if to Mithridates' letters, all truth was erased from his volumes in one day (Cicero, *Pro lege Manilia*; Florus, Lib. III, cap. 5). If one book was violated, could all his works, which he published at different times and places, be corrupted simultaneously? Origen himself, in the letter which he writes to Fabian, Bishop of the city of Rome, does penance for why he wrote such things, and refers the causes of his rashness to Ambrosius, because he brought forth secret things to the public. And why then do they still *εὑρεσιλογοῦσιν* (invent excuses) that the things which displease are not his?' Furthermore, it is worth observing what the old anonymous author of the *Apology for Origen* says in Photius, codex 117: 'That he did not err in his opinion about the Trinity; but that, opposing the heresy of Sabellius, which was then beginning to grow into a great evil, and struggling to C demonstrate the Trinity of persons as most manifest and differing in many ways from what was proper, he was carried away to the opposite: whence he seemed also to have been caught by the Arian malady.' He says that regarding the dogma of the Trinity, he erred in nothing; that he fought only against the heresy of Sabellius, whose impropriety was greatly exalting itself at that time; and that because he wished to demonstrate the Triad of persons as manifest and differing in many ways, he was carried away beyond what was fair to the opposite side: whence he seemed to labor under the Arian malady. Then Photius appends concerning this anonymous author: 'Regarding his other dogmas, however, for which it is possible neither to agree nor to have a pretext for daring, nor to provide the aforementioned cause, he introduces great effort to show that they were said for the sake of exercise, or were inserted into his writings by certain D heterodox persons; and he brings forward that man himself, crying out and contending for this, for he says that he discovered this manipulation against him even while he was still alive.' But for his other dogmas, which he does not dare to assent to with enough plausibility, nor does he think the aforementioned cause can be adapted, he exerts much effort to demonstrate that these were said by him simply for the sake of exercise, or certainly were inserted into his writings by heretics. He appeals to him as a witness of this fact, crying out and contending this very thing, and relates that he discovered such adulteration while he lived. From this it is clear that the author of this *Apology* is different from Rufinus. For those things which Origen seemed to speak impiously concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and which Roman ears could not bear, these, says Jerome in Book I *Against Rufinus*, were changed by the interpreter (Rufinus) into a better sense, as if they had been inserted by heretics; but the other dogmas...
A of the ruin of the angels, the fall of souls, the illusions of the resurrection, the world, or the intermundia of Epicurus, the restitution of all things to an equal state, and many things much worse which it would be tedious to recount, he either translated just as he found them in the Greek, or he set them down in even more exaggerated and firm terms from the commentaries of Didymus, who is an B extremely open champion of Origen. On the contrary, the anonymous author of the Apology for Origen contended that what he read in Origen’s writings concerning the Trinity were not things inserted by heretics, but could receive a Catholic sense; as for his other dogmas, where they could not be excused, he argued that they were either put forth for the sake of exercise, or certainly had been inserted by heretics. Rufinus is therefore refuted by this anonymous author—and both of them, in turn, are refuted by Pamphilus, Eusebius, Didymus, and Jerome, to whom this corruption of Origen’s books does not even come to mind. As for what the anonymous author of the Apology for Origen says, that Origen, while he lived, had detected such corruption of his books, this seems to refer to the letter of Origen to his Alexandrian friends which Rufinus produces a little further on. See what Jerome answers him on this place.
(17) Thus the editions; but Jerome in Book II *Against Rufinus*: "Let us see, however, with what arguments (Rufinus) tries to prove that Origen's writings were vitiated by heretics; Clement, he says, a disciple of the apostles, who was bishop of the Roman Church after the apostles and a martyr, published books which are called *Anagnōrismos*, that is, *Recognition*: in which, when the doctrine is set forth as if truly apostolic from the person of Peter the apostle C in many ways, in some places the dogma of Eunomius is so inserted that nothing else is believed to be argued than by Eunomius himself, asserting that the Son of God was created out of nothing. And after other things, which it is tedious to write: 'What, I ask,' he says, 'is to be thought about these? That an apostolic man wrote heretical things? Or is it rather to be believed that perverse men, for the assertion of their own dogmas, have inserted under the names of holy men those things which they are not to be believed to have either thought or written?' He also writes that Clement, a presbyter of the Alexandrian Church, a Catholic man, sometimes says in his books that the Son of God is a creature; and that Dionysius, bishop of the city of Alexandria, a most learned man, arguing against Sabellius in four volumes, falls into the Arian dogma. And under these examples, he aims to testify not that ecclesiastical and Catholic men thought wrongly, but that their writings were corrupted by heretics; and he concludes finally by saying: 'Of Origen also, in whom, similarly as in those whom we have mentioned above, a certain diversity is found, let it not suffice to think that which is felt or understood concerning men already judged to be Catholics, nor let a like excuse suffice for a like cause. If it is granted that whatever is found in the books D of all men has been corrupted by others, nothing will belong to the men under whose names they are circulated; but it will be attributed to those by whom it is said to have been vitiated. Although it will not belong to those either, whose names are uncertain: and so it will come to be that, while all things belong to all, nothing belongs to anyone. By this confusion of defense, neither Marcion, nor Manichæus, nor Arius, nor Eunomius can be accused; because whatever we shall object as having been impiously said by them, their disciples will answer that it was not set forth thus by their masters, but was violated by their enemies. In this way, this book of yours, too, will not be yours, but perhaps mine; and my book, in which I answer you having been accused, if you find anything to blame in it, will not be mine, but yours by whom it is blamed.' And while you refer all things to heretics, what do you leave to ecclesiastical tri
Abunes, to whom you leave nothing belonging to them? And how, you ask, are there some things vicious in their books? If I answer that I do not know the causes of the vices, I shall not immediately judge them to be heretics. For it is possible that they either simply erred, or wrote in another sense, or their writings were gradually corrupted by unskilled copyists; or indeed that, before Arius was born in Alexandria like a meridional demon, they spoke innocently and less cautiously on certain matters, and things which cannot avoid the calumny of perverse men. Criminal acts are brought against Origen, and you do not defend him; but you accuse others: you do not search for the crime, but for a crowd of criminals. If it were said to you: 'What associates does Origen have in heresy?' you would correctly bring forward those things. Now it is asked of you: are these things which are found written in Origen's books good or evil? You are silent, and instead of these you speak of others: 'Clement says this; Dionysius is caught in this error: Bishop Athanasius thus defends the error of Dionysius; the writings of the apostles were similarly depraved: how is it that now a charge of heresy is being cast upon you by others, and you are silent on your own behalf, and confess on mine?' etc. Moreover, I wish it to be observed that the books *On Recognitions* under the name of Clement still exist, interpreted into Latin by Rufinus; but they are adjudged away from Clement of Rome.
A *Recognitiones*, that is, Recognitions: in which, while the doctrine is set forth in the person of the apostle Peter as if it were truly apostolic, in some places the dogma of Eunomius is so inserted that Eunomius himself is believed to be arguing nothing else, asserting that the Son of God is a creature made from non-existent things. Then, afterwards, that sort of adultery is also inserted, that the nature of the devil and of the other demons was produced not by the malice of their own will and purpose, but by a quality of the creature, taken and separated, who indeed in other respects certainly taught that every reasonable creature is endowed with the faculty of free will. There are also some other things inserted into his books which ecclesiastical rule does not accept at all. What, I ask, is to be thought of these? That an apostolic man, nay, almost an B Apostle (for he writes what the apostles say) to whom Paul the apostle gave testimony, saying: *With Clement, and my other fellow-laborers, whose names are in the book of life* [Phil. iv, 3], wrote this which is contrary to the books of life? Or is it rather to be believed, as we said above, that perverse men, for the assertion of their own dogmas, have interjected under the names of holy men, as being more easily believed, those things which it is to be believed they neither thought nor wrote?
And these things, indeed, we, led by the consequence of the matter itself, have thought concerning the most holy men and doctors of the Church, namely, that we do not think that those saints who established the right and ecclesiastical faith in most things have thought things contrary to themselves in some. But concerning Origen, in whom likewise, as in those whom we mentioned above, some C diversity is found, let it not suffice to think that which is already felt or understood concerning the aforementioned Catholic men; nor let a similar excuse suffice, unless this also is his—that he says the Son of God is a creature and made, and not by nature his own, but alien to the Father in substance, just as a farmer is toward a vine, or a shipbuilder toward a vessel; for indeed, as a thing made, he did not exist before he was made. D Are these things to be credited of such a great man, so entirely Catholic, so learned, that he either thought things contrary to himself, or left behind writings—I will not say to believe, but even to hear—concerning God, which are impious?
Dionysius also, Bishop of Alexandria, a most learned defender of the ecclesiastical faith, while in very many matters he defends the unity and equality of the Trinity to such an extent that to some of the more ignorant he appears to have thought even according to Sabellius; yet in these books of his which he wrote against the heresy of Sabellius, such things are found inserted, that frequently the Arians attempt to defend themselves by his authority. On account of which the holy bishop Athanasius was also compelled to write an *Apology* for his books, because he was certain that he could not have thought differently, and written things contrary to himself, but knew that these things had been inserted by the malevolent. And the rest of the discourse, in which he laments and deplores these writings and utterances.
On the Adulteration or Corruption of His Books, from the Fourth Book of Origen’s Letters.
A (Letters written to certain of his dear ones in Alexandria.)
ORIGEN. B "Some of those who gladly have an urge to slander their neighbors attribute to us and our teaching the crime of blasphemy, which they never heard from us—concerning which let them see to it themselves, since they do not wish to observe that commandment which says that 'abusers shall not inherit the kingdom of God' (I Cor. vi, 10). They say that I claim that the father of malice and destruction and of those who are cast out of the kingdom of God, that is, the devil, is to be saved: a thing that not even a man beside himself, and clearly insane, could say."
And whoever imputes the falsity of Origen’s writings to heretics begins himself with a falsehood; he does not translate as it stands in the Greek, nor does he convey in his Latin what he himself professes in his own letters. And although that entire letter lacerates Demetrius, the bishop of the city of Alexandria, and rages against the bishops and clergy of the whole world, and though he says that he was excommunicated from the churches in vain, and that he does not wish to retaliate with curses, lest the man who is so inclined toward cursing that he does not even dare to curse the devil should seem to be a curser—whence he gave Candidus, a follower of the Valentinian dogma, an opportunity to slander him because he said that the devil was a nature to be saved—here he conceals the subject of the letter and invents for Origen what he does not say. Whence he translated a small part of the letter itself from the passages above, and joined to these things which were translated by him in a piece-meal and deceitful manner, so that the reader might recognize for what purpose he suppressed the earlier parts. Therefore, arguing generally against the priests of the Church by whom he had been judged unworthy of communion, he added these things: "What need is there to speak of the words of the prophets, by which they most often threaten the shepherds and the elders and the priests and the rulers of the people, and rebuke them? Which things you can elicit from the Holy Scriptures without us, and clearly perceive that perhaps this is the time of which it is said: 'Do not trust in friends, nor hope in princes' (Mich. vii, 5); and that now the prophecy is fulfilled: 'The leaders of my people have not known me; they are foolish children and not wise. They are wise to do evil, but they do not know how to do good' (Jer. iv, 22); whom we ought rather to pity than to hate, and to pray for them rather than to curse them. For we were created to bless and not to curse. Whence also 'Michael, when disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring against him the judgment of blasphemy, but said: The Lord rebuke thee' (Jud. 9). To which we read something similar also in Zechariah: 'The Lord rebuke thee, O devil: and the Lord who chose Jerusalem rebuke in thee' (Zachar. iii, 2). D Therefore we also desire to be rebuked by the Lord, those who do not wish to be rebuked with humility by their neighbors. But while Michael says: 'The Lord rebuke thee, O devil;' and Zechariah similarly: whether God rebukes the devil or does not rebuke him, let Him see to it. And if He rebukes, let Him know how He rebukes." And after many things, which it would be too long to write, he adds: "We think this, that they shall be cast out of the kingdom of heaven, not only those who have committed great sins—for example, fornicators and adulterers and those who lie with males and thieves—but also those who have done lesser wrongs, from that which is written: 'Neither drunkards, nor abusers shall inherit the kingdom of God' (I Cor. vi, 10); and that there is a measure of the goodness and the severity of God. Whence we strive to do all things with counsel, even in the drinking of wine and in the moderation of speech, so that we dare to curse no one. Therefore, when for the fear of God we refrain from casting curses upon anyone, remembering that saying: 'There was not...'
' anyone who is indeed moved in his mind and manifestly insane who can say this. But it seems no wonder to me if my doctrine is adulterated by my enemies, and is corrupted by such adultery as the Epistle of the Apostle Paul was corrupted. For certain men, under the name of Paul, wrote a false epistle, so that they might disturb the Thessalonians, as if the day of the Lord were at hand, and might seduce them. Because of this therefore, in the second Epistle which he writes to the Thessalonians, he said this: "We beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto him, that you be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of the Lord is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means." A Such are the kinds of things I see happening to us as well. For a certain author of heresy, when a disputation had been held among us in the presence of many, and had been written down, taking the codex from those who had recorded it, added what he wished, and took away what he wished, and changed what seemed good to him, carrying it about as if in our name, mocking and showing these things which he himself had written. Because of which the brethren who are in Palestine, being indignant, sent to me at Athens a man who might receive from me the very authentic copy, which had not even been read or reviewed by me before, but lay neglected in such a way that it could hardly have been found. Yet I sent it, and I speak with God as my witness, since when I had encountered that very man who had adulterated the book, reproaching him as to why he had done this, he replied as if offering satisfaction to me: "Because I wished to embellish that disputation more, and to purge it." See with what kind of purge he purged our disputation. Truly such a purge as Marcion used to purge the Gospels, or the Apostle; or as his successor after him, Appelles, did. For just as they subverted the truth of the Scriptures: so also did this man, having removed what was truly said, insert what was false for the sake of our defamation. But although the men who have dared to do these things are heretical and impious, yet they will have a judge in God, who grant credence to such slanders against us. Others have done this also B wishing to disturb the Churches. Finally, in Ephesus, when a certain heretic had seen me, and would not join battle, nor had opened his mouth at all in my presence, but for some reason or other had avoided doing so, afterwards he wrote from my name and his own such a disputation as he wished, and sent it to his disciples, in such a way that I myself learned that it had reached those who were in Rome: but I do not doubt that it reached others as well who are in various places. Moreover, he mocked me even at Antioch, before I came there: so that the very disputation which he carried reached very many of our people. But when I was present, I argued against him in the presence of many. And when he now persisted without any shame, recklessly asserting a falsehood, I demanded that the book be brought into the middle, and that my style be recognized by the brethren, who certainly know what I am accustomed to dispute, or what kind of doctrine I am accustomed to use. When he dared not produce the book, he was convicted C by all and confounded of falsehood: and thus it was persuaded to the brethren not to lend an ear to slanders. If, therefore, anyone wishes to believe me, speaking in the sight of God, let him believe also regarding those things which were concocted and inserted into my epistle. But if anyone does not believe, but wishes to speak evil of me, it confers no harm to me; but he himself will be a false witness before God, either speaking false testimony against his neighbor, or believing those who do.
RUFINUS. He himself, while still living, complains of these things, which, clearly, he was able to detect by himself to have been adulterated and falsified in his own books. We recall, indeed, that we have read a similar complaint of the falsification of his books in another of his epistles: a copy of which epistle he did not have at hand, so that I might also add his own testimony to these things for the sake of the faith of the truth. But I think it is enough to provide satisfaction to those who hear what is said, not with a spirit of contention and detraction, but with a love of the truth. For what is shown and proved by argument alone from the consistency of matters D and from the tenor of a correct assumption in the ancient holy and pre-eminent catholic men, whom we mentioned above, namely that if anything is found in their books against the ecclesiastical faith, it is inserted by heretics rather than written by them...
this, regarding Origen, I do not consider absurd to believe, not only by relying on a similar argument as in those other cases, but by bringing forward the testimony of his own complaints from his own writings, lest he seem, like some fool or madman, to have written things contrary to himself.
As for the rashness A of heretics, because this crime can easily be believed, that fact provides the greatest example of credulity, namely that they could not even keep their impious hands away from the most holy words of the Gospel. If anyone wishes to know more fully how they corrupted, how they gnawed away at, and how they stained in every way the Acts or the Epistles of the Apostles, whether by adding impious things or by taking away what is pious, he will recognize it most fully from those books of Tertullian which he wrote against Marcion. What therefore will it be any longer a great matter if they have acted rashly with the writings of Origen, they who dared to act rashly with the words of our God and Savior? Nor should the diversity of dogmas deny faith to anyone in our assertion, because those who corrupted the Gospels belonged to one heresy, while those things which we speak of as inserted into the books of Origen look toward a different heresy. Let him who doubts these things know that just as in all the saints there is the Spirit of God, as the Apostle also says, because "the spirit of the prophets is subject to the prophets" (I Cor. xiv, 32), and who says again that "we have all been made to drink of one spirit" (I Cor. xii, 13)—so also in the heretics there is one spirit of the devil, who teaches them the same and similar malice.
But lest those examples which we have brought forth from the books of Greek writers perchance seem to anyone less suitable for belief—although the Greek writer for whose sake we seem to be rendering satisfaction is indeed sufficient B—nevertheless, since the discourse has in a way devolved into the Latin language, and it will not be displeasing to demonstrate to Latin writers that also for them similar things have happened, and that immense slanders have been stirred up against holy and most approved men from the adulteration of their books. And so that nothing may be lacking to open credulity, I will unfold things that are still within our memory, so that the truth of the testimony may be hidden from no one.
C (38) Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, was a confessor of the Catholic faith. When he had written a book of most complete instruction for the correction of those who had subscribed to the perfidy of Ariminum, and when that book itself had come into the hands of enemies and malevolent persons—whether by a corrupted notary, as some said, or as others narrated on another occasion, what does it matter?—nevertheless, when it had come into the hands of enemies without his knowledge, it was so corrupted by them, with that holy man entirely unaware, that later, when enemies had begun to argue that he was a heretic at a council of bishops, according to those things which they knew they had corrupted in his book, and he himself demanded the authenticity of his book for his own defense, the book brought forth from his house was found to be such that he did not recognize it; he was nevertheless made to leave the meeting of the council as one excommunicated. But because the thing, however wicked and unheard of, had occurred while he was living and still D situated in the body, the faction of the craft was seized, the contrived machine of crimes was discovered and could be amended. For a cure was applied through assertions, satisfactions, and all those things which the living can do for themselves. For the dead, when they suffer, refute nothing.
(41) It is the custom for the entire body of the epistles of the holy martyr Cyprian to be written in one codex. Into this body certain heretics, who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, inserting Tertullian's book *De Trinitate*, written reprehensibly (insofar as it pertains to the truth of our faith), and having misled very many...
A in those regions into believing that the holy martyr Cyprian had held this same faith which Tertullian actually wrote incorrectly.
I will add one more example of such an act, which is of more recent memory (though the wickedness committed is old enough, and exceeds all the fables of the ancients). B
(45) When the deliberation was being held regarding the reception of the Apollinarians, and his friend, a certain very eloquent presbyter who was accustomed to handling his business, was ordered to write down an edition of the ecclesiastical faith [(46)] to which those same people, if they wished to be joined to the Church, would have to subscribe, it seemed necessary to the one dictating that in that very edition the term "Dominic man" should be used regarding the Incarnation of the Lord. The Apollinarians were offended by this terminology; they began to accuse the novelty of the language. He who had dictated it began to be present, and by his own authority [(47)] to refute those who were attacking it. It was decided that it should be shown to one of those who were complaining about the novelty of the language [(48)] in a little book of Bishop Athanasius, that the discourse about which the question was being raised had been written there. It was as if the man, once convinced, had asked for the book to be given to him, so that he might satisfy others who were ignorant and contradicting him. Having received the book, he devised an unheard-of kind of adulteration. He erased the very place in which that discourse was written, [(49)] and rewrote the same discourse that he had erased. The book was returned and simply accepted. The question is moved again concerning the same discourse: the book is produced as proof; the discourse which was in question is found to have been placed there by an erasure in the book; the credibility of the one producing such a book is diminished, because that erasure seemed to be a sign of corruption and falsity. But since (and I will say this again) these deeds were done while he was still alive, [(50)] he acted immediately, in every way, so that the fraud of the committed crime might be exposed, and the stain of wickedness might not cling to an innocent man who had done no such thing, but might redound upon the author of the act and to his greater infamy.
If, therefore, Origen himself in his own voice complains in his letter that he suffered such things from heretics and malevolent people, and the same things happened to many other Catholic men, both living and dead, and similar frauds are proven to have been inflicted upon the writings [(51)] of certain people, what kind of obstinacy of mind is it, in an equal cause, not to use equal indulgence, but to direct the reverence of excuse toward some, and the infamy of accusation toward others? [(52)] Why, rather, ought not the *Exposition of the Faith* of that same Father be opened, which exists in Vol. I, Part 1 of his works, where on pages 100 and 101, the human nature of Christ is frequently called a "Dominic man"; whether this is indeed another, greater work, from which Theodoret cites some fragments in *Dialog. 3*, where Christ and man is likewise called *Kyriakos anthropos*, cannot be certainly affirmed.
A Truth lies hidden in this place. For it is not possible for any man to use an iniquitous judgment, so that he does not feel equally about an equal cause. But since the authors of his detractors are those who are wont to dispute at greater length in the Church, or even to write books, and who either speak or write wholly about Origen, surely if they were not ungrateful toward their teacher, they would by no meams appear criminal, nor would they deter the simpler sort from reading him.
(54) Finally, one of their number—who deems he has the necessity of evangelizing among all nations and in all tongues—confessed, while a very great multitude of brothers was listening, that he had read six thousand of Origen’s books. If, indeed, as he is wont to say himself, he was reading them for the sake of recognizing his errors, ten books would have sufficed him for recognizing them, or at most twenty, or at the very most thirty. B But to read six thousand books is no longer to wish to recognize them, but to have given one’s whole life to his disciplines and studies. How, therefore, does this man deserve to be hearkened to, when he blames those who, for the sake of their own instruction, have read a very few of Origen’s books?
(56) This is sufficient to show how one ought to think regarding Origen’s books. And I think that everyone who pursues not contention, but the study of truth, will easily acquiesce to these manifest assertions. But if anyone remains in his contention, we do not have [our] own custom. For it has been defined among us, whenever we read him, to follow the Apostle’s admonition to hold fast to that which is good (1 Thess. v, 21). But if anything is found in these books that does not conform to the Catholic faith, I suspect this has been inserted by heretics, and I consider it alien as much to his meaning as to our faith. In this, even if we are deceived, there is, as I imagine, no danger involved in an error of this kind (57). For we ourselves, by God’s help, remain unharmed by avoiding those things we hold to be suspect; and we disprove them, and we shall not be found as accusers of our brothers before God, because it is said that this work of accusing the brothers is peculiar to the devil: whence also (58) the devil received his name from slandering (Apoc. XII, 10): at the same time, we decline the judgment of the slanderers, which separates from the kingdom of God those who are such (1 Cor. VI, 10).